Online Salafi reflections on the theory of evolution by
natural selection
Mémoire
Jean-François Létourneau
Maîtrise en science politique - avec mémoire
Maître ès arts (M.A.)
Online Salafi reflections on the theory of evolution by
natural selection
Mémoire
Jean-François Létourneau
Sous la direction de :
Francesco Cavatorta
Résumé
Ce mémoire explore la manière dont la communauté Salafiste en ligne perçoit la théorie de l’évolution par la sélection naturelle. Les sources consultées sont deux essais ainsi que de multiples courts textes et fatwas.
Abstract
This thesis explore how online Salafis perceive the theory of evolution by natural selection. The sources used include two essays as well as multiples short texts and fatwas.
Table of contents
(Résumé) ... ii Abstract ... iii Table of contents ... iv List of figures ... v epigraph……….vi (Remerciements) ... vii Introduction ... 1Chapter 1 - Saleh As-Saleh ... 20
Chapter 2 - Abu Iyaad and his response to Usama Hasan ... 42
Chapter 3 - fatwas and short texts………...77
Conclusion ... 83
Bibliography ... 86
List of figures
Fig 1. Letter (p. 72)“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in
a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.”
William Churchill, The River War
“The Western world realizes that Western civilization is unable to present any
healthy values for the guidance of mankind. It knows that it does not possess
anything which will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence.”
Sayyid Qutb, Milestones
Remerciements
Je remercie ma femme, Julie Grenier, pour son soutient durant la rédaction de mon mémoire. De plus, sans l’aide et la patience de mon directeur, Francesco Cavatorta, il m’aurait été presque impossible de produire ce document.
Introduction
Scientific discoveries are often benign in their effects on religion. Indeed, in some cases, models of scientific inquiry have been readily adopted or approved by religions. A notable example is that of Aristotelian thought, which Jewish, Islamic and Christian traditions adopted as an intellectual scaffold to understand and systemize the world. However, some scientific discoveries have conflicted with religions. A widely known example is the heliocentric model of the planetary system Copernicus developed in the 16th century.
Although mostly ignored by protestant and catholic authorities during his lifetime, Copernicus’ theory came to the attention of the Church when Galileo re-formulated it in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems published in 1632. The heliocentric model, in which the sun was in the center of the planetary system, was a break from the hitherto dominant geocentric model, in which the Earth was situated in the center. Eventually, the heliocentric model of the planetary system became mainstream science and today, only a small number of eccentric “flat Earth” organizations contest it.1
A far more controversial scientific discovery was that of Charles Darwin’s theory of biological evolution by natural selection, first published in his On the Origin of Species in 1859. In his theory, Darwin posited that species evolve under environmental pressures, and that those differences in hereditary traits that lead to an increased probability of procreation in a given environment provide a comparative edge to those individual beings bearing them. This theory also implies that all species, including Homo sapiens, have one common ancestor. For many individuals and institutions, especially religious ones, this theory was thought to be not only wrong, but dangerous, for if God (or some other conscious being) were not the creator of all things living, no values or sense to life, it was said, could be given any credence, and individuals could act without the restraints of the moral principles bequeathed
1 It must be mentioned that the prominent Saudi Salafi scholar Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz did defend the geocentric
model from 1966 until 1985, when Saudi prince Sultan bin Salman convinced him that the heliocentric model was correct.
to mankind by God. Opposition to Darwin’s theory2 would remain strong in the 20th century,
as the famous State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes trial (better known as the Scopes Monkey Trial) and the attempt to force the teaching of creationism and, later, intelligent design in the United States have demonstrated.3
Less known to the scholarly community is the reception of the theory of evolution in Muslim societies. Although there have been a few studies on the reception of evolution by Muslims –both Sunni and Shia- in various regions4, little attention has been paid to the
reception of evolution by Islamist groups. For this reason, there remains a significant vacuum in the study of the reception of the theory of evolution in Muslim societies. It is important to understand the underlying ideology, the basic beliefs, of a group to comprehend its motives, objectives, and potential policy preferences, including those concerning education. During the last two decades, scholars of Islamist movements have enriched the political science literature with a bountiful harvest of new data and interpretations concerning matters such as their participation in politics, terrorist networks, education curricula and social movements.5
The issue of their reception of the theory of evolution, however, has yet to be explored. This thesis is an attempt to understand the reception of the theory of evolution by a sub-group of Islamists, the religious creed, social movement, and in some cases, political ideology, of Salafis.
That the idea of evolution by natural selection is known in at least some Salafi circles is made quite clear in a stunning passage in the infamous Islamic State magazine Dabiq, in an article entitled “Why we hate you”:
We hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator. You witness the extraordinarily complex makeup of created beings, and the astonishing and inexplicably precise physical laws that govern the entire universe, but insist that they all came about through randomness and that one should be faulted, mocked, and ostracized for recognizing that the astonishing signs we witness day after day are the creation of the Wise, All-Knowing
2 It should be noted that Darwin’s theory has not remained static. As will be shown further, the theory has
been refined several times and has become a powerful explanatory factor in life sciences, from abiogenesis to zoology.
3 Forrest (2010), p. 171
4 Cf. Riexinger (2009), Bigliardi (2014) and Jalalel (2014)
Creator and not the result of accidental occurrence. “Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?”6
This research is important as an addition to the knowledge about Salafis. Indeed, the Salafi Weltanschauung demands that one see reality not in its current historical context, but rather through the eternal truths contained in God’s revelation (the Qur’an) and the examples set forth by the prophet (the hadith) as well as the customs of early Muslims.7 Salafis are
spread across the world, from Arab states to Western democracies. As the Salafi “movement” is so widespread and increasingly attractive to youths,8 it is vital that political scientists
enhance their comprehension of the Salafi ideology. We now know much about Salafi beliefs, but their confrontation with what is arguably one of the pillars of modern science, the theory of evolution, has yet to be explored. Indeed, understanding the manner in which Salafis treat the question of the theory of evolution, especially the rhetoric mobilized to discredit the theory, can shed more light on how they view the world, modernity, and more specifically, the West.
But this research can also be important for policy makers. The Bush Freedom Agenda, despite its stated intention of bringing to the Middle East prepackaged “governments-in-a-box” to replace authoritarian states with flourishing democracies, has been a political failure. Indeed, no Jeffersonian democracies have sprouted up in the Middle East because of the Freedom Agenda. One of the reasons behind this failure was that, in their neoconservative enthusiasm, policy makers forgot to examine and understand vital elements in the region, namely culture, religion, and history. A knowledge of religious tenets held by Salafis, for instance, could have translated into better policy choices. Indeed, had U.S. policy makers been more aware of these factors, the transition to democracy in Iraq might have been more feasible, or perhaps they would have realized that it was nearly impossible to impose western democratic standards on the country. Hence, this research could serve, as part of a much larger body of scientific research, to better understand the Muslim world and act accordingly. The following paragraphs constitute an introduction to the ideas which will be explored throughout this thesis: the first three will familiarize the reader with Salafism, the theory of evolution by natural selection, and the reactions to this theory up to this day. Furthermore,
6 Dabiq (2016), 15 7 Duderija (2007), p. 350
the reader will be introduced to the research question, as well as the methodology and sources used in this thesis.
What is Salafism?
As Meijer explains, “Salafism is difficult to define because of its ambiguity and fragmented nature, [moreover] it does have characteristics that can be identified, but it remains heterogeneous”. 9 Salafis claim that they represent the purest form of Islam and that
they alone understand and can spread this purified version of Islam because, among other things, they strive to emulate the prophet and the “pious ancestors” of the early Muslim communities. In order to correctly interpret the Qur’an, they scrutinize the Sunna, or the deeds and sayings of the prophet Muhammad as conserved in the literature known as the hadith. Indeed, for Salafis, everything in the Qur’an needs to be seen through the lens of the hadith in order to grasp the true meaning in the holy book. For instance, the Qur’an prescribes daily prayers to the faithful, but only by following the example of how the Prophet himself prayed can the true believer, in this case the Salafi, pray the correct way. Another example of the Salafi approach can be seen in their consideration of things not mentioned by the Qur’an. In these cases, the hadith provide the understanding necessary to act as a true (Salafi) Muslim.10
Salafi beliefs
There is a general sentiment in Sunni Islam that those individuals closest to the Prophet, both spatially and temporally, practiced a purer form of Islam.11 With their strong
emphasis on doing the actual work of directly interpreting the Qu’ran and the Hadith (ijtihad), Salafis are not like most Sunni Muslims, who rely on interpretations developed by numerous medieval schools of thought and scholars across the ages, and therefore have more flexible, ready to use interpretations of Islam (for example, the four Islamic schools of jurisprudence, or fiqh). Hence, Salafis do away with the scholastic nature of interpretations and claim to justify their beliefs and acts by going back to the original scripture, allowing them to claim furthermore that their understanding of Islam is the only correct one. Moreover,
9 Meijer (2013) 10 Rougier (2008) 11 Meijer (2013)
they believe that human reason, logic, or subjectivity can only serve to corrupt the original message of Islam.12 As Duderija states, “this attitude towards tradition (Turath) is solely
concerned with the ‘imitation of the original, the preservation of the original requirements and prohibition of going against the original”.13 For Salafis, belief and action go hand in
hand. Hence, one cannot claim to be a Muslim in belief, but to act in un-Islamic ways, nor can a true Muslim only act like one, but have doubts about his beliefs. Based on this interpretation, some Salafis are willing to resort to excommunication (Takfir) against those who they deem to be untrue Muslims.14 Indeed, “there is a constant tension in Salafism
between those who propose to spread true Islam by Dawa (proselytism) and those who cannot accept a political power that disregards Sharia.”15 Not only do the Salafis believe themselves
to be the only true practitioners of Islam, but they also believe, in accordance with one hadith, that they will be the only ones to be saved and therefore live in Paradise after death.
Salafis are first and foremost reformists centered on theology. It is from this source that emanates all of their individual, social, economic and political actions. Thus, Salafism is a “marker of a distinctive form of engagement with the world”16. Indeed, one can easily
identify a Salafi by the way he dresses, prays and talks. Moreover, the Arab language is of vital importance to Salafis, since only through the understanding of Arabic can they study the Qu’ran and the Hadith in their original form.17 The theology of Salafis can be boiled
down to a few major components: 1) the belief that it is necessary to emulate the creed, habits and actions of the so called “first three generations” of Muslims, a period which is generally understood to start with the first revelation given to the Prophet and end with the fiqh scholar Ibn Hanbal’s death (610-855); 2) the importance of understanding and accepting the “oneness” (tawhid) of God. This comprises three components, which, if accepted, are equated with belief: the oneness of godship, the oneness of God’s lordship, and the oneness of God’s names and attributes; 3) the necessity of fighting unbelief and corruptions of belief, the most important of which is the attribution of the powers of God to things or human beings (which is linked with the aforementioned ‘oneness’ of God); 4) the claim that the only sources of
12 Meijer (2013) 13 Duderija (2007), p. 351 14 Duderija (2007), p. 351 15 Duderija (2007), p. 351 16 Haykel (2009) 17 Meijer (2013)
authority in Islam are the Qur’an, the hadith and the consensus of the pious ancestors; 5) the necessity of expunging innovations of all kinds in the practice and beliefs of Muslims, such as the use of reason to interpret the Qur’an or the acceptance of allegorical messages in the Qur’an; and 6) the understanding that, to guide all Muslims, a strict literalist interpretation of the Qu’ran and the hadith is essential.18
Despite their common belief that subjective interpretations of the Qur’an and Sunna only serve to corrupt the true message of Islam, Salafis often hold different interpretations on how to act when it comes to the relationship between their beliefs and politics. This is what makes it often difficult to precisely define Salafism, as it can be heterogeneous. Since the publication of Wiktorowicz’s 2006 article, Salafis are habitually divided in three groups: 1) Purists prefer to focus on non-violent means of propagation, education and expunging innovations and wish to spread Salafism through a bottom-up reformation of society by preaching (Dawa); 2) Politicos prefer to emphasize their Salafi beliefs in the political arena, which they view as highly important because of its impact on society and the necessity of establishing sharia, by decrying the un-Islamic nature of “supposedly” Muslim states (such as Saudi Arabia); and 3) Jihadis consider that the current context calls for more violent means, including revolutions and terrorism, in order to bring about a new Caliphate.19
Despite talks about a “postmodern Islam”,20 the Salafi Weltanschauung is resolutely
pre-modern, or at the very least virulently anti-modernist. Indeed, modernism is associated with scientific explanations, the preponderant place of reason, and a decline of the importance of religion in society which, as previously noted, Salafis eschew in favor of a relatively monolithic religious outlook on reality based on the Qur’an and the Hadith.
Salafis on the Internet
Although Salafis eschew modernity proper, they have been quick to embrace modern technology to propagate their views. Indeed, since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by US and coalition forces, there have been an ever-growing number of Internet sites dedicated to propagating and teaching the Salafi creed. Members of an online Salafi forum will tend to cluster around a knowledgeable imam, who is proficient in his knowledge of the Sunna, to
18 Meijer (2013), p. 38-9
19 Wiktorowicz (2006), pp. 207-239 20 Ismail (2008)
ask him questions on both praxis and beliefs. This is important to Salafis as they strive to maintain what they believe is a pure form of Islam and to avoid any action or belief that would corrupt this purity. These active imams can issue fatwas to which their followers are expected to adhere. For instance, as a response to a Salafi seeking guidance because he is enrolled in a university course, which, he suspects, promotes atheist theories, an Imam can provide answers, such as to avoid such a course at all costs. Moreover, Salafi groups abroad (in Europe, for instance), can often benefit from the financial largess of Saudi Arabia, which promotes the quietist Salafi worldview across the globe, thus facilitating the growth and expansion of Salafi material on the Web.21 It is interesting to note that there appears to be a
manifest paucity of contemporary Salafi online literature concerning evolutionary theory. Thus, the subject is novel for Salafis themselves, although it might very well be because of “the lack of awareness among many ulama”22.
Of course, in order to understand what the Salafi discourse on evolutionary biology is, it will be necessary to examine the basics of evolutionary theory, that is to say, how it works and its implications for science and, possibly, epistemology.
The theory of evolution by natural selection
The contemporary theory of evolution is actually quite different from the ideas developed by Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. Indeed, it “would seem strange to
Darwin, because it is couched in terms of genetic information and how it is stored, transmitted and translated.”23 While it is not our purpose here to offer a thorough and in-depth
presentation of the biological theory of evolution, it will be necessary later for the reader to understand at least some basic notions of the theory so as to comprehend how it has been received in the Salafi community. Some if not all ideas and examples used to explain evolution are simplified. Before jumping to the next topic, it is important for the reader to understand the central role of evolution in biology. Indeed, the US National Academy of Sciences states that
Evolution pervades all biological phenomena. To ignore that it occurred or to classify it as a form of dogma is to deprive the student of the most
21 Thomas (2009). 22 Riexingler (2009).
fundamental organizational concept in the biological sciences. No other biological concept has been more extensively tested and more thoroughly corroborated than the evolutionary history of organisms.24
Basic outline of the theory of evolution by natural selection
The theory of evolution by natural selection has two core elements: evolution and natural selection. Evolution is the changing of species over time and the apparition, from ancestors, of new species (speciation). In other words, it is descent with modifications. A population of creatures is usually deemed a species when it will not or cannot reproduce with another close species. Hence, Canis familiaris, the dog, will not normally reproduce with Canis lupus, the wolf, even if they still are biologically capable of interbreeding. Evolution of species can be seen in three different manners: 1) by studying fossils, one will see species change in their form over long spans of time. Some ancestor species will give birth to two or more new species, whereas other species will die out, leaving no descendants; 2) by studying the genetic similarities between species, one will see to what extent species are related and be able to estimate the date of their last common ancestor; lastly, 3) by studying populations in the field for long spans of time, one may observe small systemic morphological changes in a population’s phenotype, which are manifestations of changes in its genotype.
Natural selection, on the other hand, is similar to an algorithm that tends to favor, in a given environment, some traits over others. Indeed, natural selection can be summed up in the phrase “differential reproductive success”. It acts like a filter to evolution whereby traits that give an individual an edge in reproductive success in a given environment are favored, as they are more likely to be transmitted to the offspring of parents bearing such traits. For example: a trait that allows a predator to more accurately pinpoint its prey will tend to be “selected” more often, as the trait will allow the predator to secure the resources needed for its offspring. It is important to understand that the environment is a critical factor in natural selection. A trait that gives a creature a comparative advantage in one environment may hinder it in another. For example, a trait bequeathing to a creature the capacity to camouflage itself in the rainforest will most likely be useless (or even worst, a drain on precious resources) in the steppes.
The theory of evolution by natural selection is anchored in a gene-centric viewpoint. That is to say, the units that are “selected” are, fundamentally, genes, not individuals nor groups. In most eukaryote-based creatures, such as animals, fungi and plants, there are two copies of one gene. These variants, called alleles are each a copy inherited from a different parent. For instance, a creature can inherit the gene C from its father, and the variant C1 from
its mother, and both copies will be present in its genome, or the sum of its genes. In a population of a given species, there are habitually many variants of one gene (alleles); moreover, gametes sometimes contain a newly mutated version of a gene, which are mostly neutral in their effect, but in some cases are deleterious and in even rarer cases are beneficial in a given environment. The combination of the preexisting variety of genes and the introduction of new variants by mutations translate into a diversity of genes in the population of a given species.
Now, the genotype of an individual is translated into the phenotype, or physical manifestation, of a living being. Therefore, the variety in genotypes manifests itself in the variety of phenotypes in a given population. Natural selection occurs when a gene, or a set of genes, translate into a phenotype that is more likely to have a higher rate of reproduction in a given environment. For instance, if a variant of a gene translates into a better camouflage for an individual phenotype in its environment and thus offers it better protection against its natural predator, this variant will be more likely to be passed on to a further generation and to the one after that and so on. Hence, in the long run, this variant will tend to be more present in the population.
Paleontology has only confirmed the theory of evolution. It is the study of fossilized remains of creatures trapped between various sedimentary levels. The result of more than 200 years of scientific study, paleontological records show that life has become more diversified, has colonized an increasing number of environments, and in doing so has become more specialized. The discovery of transitional forms, creatures that appeared to be morphologically somewhere between an older species and a newer one, only confirmed the theory of evolution. Paleontologists may disagree on minute details of the mechanisms of speciation, but all accept evolution by natural selection as the only unifying theory capable of explaining the patterns of change in fossils over time.
It is important to understand that there is no pre-ordained endpoint (or telos) or intention in evolution. Changes in genes (mutations leading to new variants), and therefore in individuals and populations, do not occur in anticipation of a certain problem in a given environment. Rather, evolution is a matter of randomness filtered by the process of natural selection. Only gene variants offering an immediate advantage to a creature, in a given environment, will tend to be selected.
The gene-centric viewpoint
In eukaryote-based creatures, almost each cell contains a copy of the genotype in the form of a long double helix molecule composed of nucleic acids. These molecules are known as deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA and are grouped in chromosomes. Genes of variable lengths are found on this long molecule of DNA. In the cell, an elaborate biochemical process “translates” genes into various proteins, which act as the building blocks of life, securing the internal structure of cells, building the lipid-based border surrounding cells, catalyzing chemical reactions and acting as chemical messengers and trigger points; on a macro-level, these proteins will translate themselves into the phenotype of a creature.
As mentioned earlier, most creatures contain two copies of each gene and these copies can be different. Each copy, called an allele, is inherited by one of the creature’s parents. There is a specific dynamic involving alleles, in the sense that each one can be either recessive or dominant. An allele that is dominant will overshadow a repressive allele to the point where only the effects of the dominant allele are visible in the phenotype. For instance, if, in a variant of Canis familiaris, or the dog, the dominant allele A’ translates into brown fur whereas the recessive allele A translates into white fur, an individual with alleles A’ and A or A’ and A’ will have brown fur whilst an individual with alleles A and A will have white fur.
In a given population, natural selection can favor a gene that is already in the gene pool. This will usually happen when there occurs a change in the environment. For instance, in a population of butterflies which has a an equal amount of genes A and genes A1, which
translate into respectively light brown and dark brown wings, gene A1 will tend to be selected
brown fungus, as this will give creatures who have this gene a better camouflage protection, and hence a higher rate of reproductive success.
Selection can also occur with the introduction of a new mutation in the gene pool. The following example shall illustrate this. In a species of predators whose hunting ground is in a jungle, if a mutated variant of a gene, C’, slightly raises visual acuity in the jungle. Creatures with this mutated gene may tend to be better at hunting their prey and hence better at having and providing for offspring. As the variant C’ confers an advantage to creatures that have it in their genome, C’ will tend to spread in the population and eventually largely replace the original variant C.
Evolution’s potential effects on epistemology
Both Western enlightenment thinkers and Salafis believed the first cause of the universe to be some form of a deity. More specifically, they took for granted that ‘thought’ was a prerequisite of matter and living beings. Hence, the theory of evolution by natural selection represents a serious threat to this understanding of the world, as it replaces this assumption with a theory explaining how matter could eventually lead to thought. As Daniel Dennett puts it:
Darwin’s idea had been born as an answer to questions in biology, but it threatened to leak out, offering answers –welcome or not- to questions in cosmology (going in one direction) and psychology (going in the other direction. […] Much of the controversy and anxiety that has enveloped Darwin’s idea […] can be understood as a series of failed campaigns in the struggle to contain Darwin’s idea within some acceptable “safe” and merely partial revolution.25
Dennett views the theory of evolution as some form of ‘universal acid’ because it can “eat through” every traditional concept, leaving behind something altogether different, new ideas which can easily lead to the conclusion that the very idea of a deity is unnecessary to explain the world.26 Indeed, it is easy to imagine how the fundamental building blocks of life began
by amino acids (which are present in nature) amalgamating and forming a rudimentary form of life separated from its immediate environment by a ‘lipidic bubble’ (the study of the origins of life is called abiogenesis). This putative formation of living creatures, coupled with
25 Daniel Dennett (1995) p. 63 26 Daniel Dennett (1995) p. 63
the astrophysical theory of the Big Bang, constitutes a solid intellectual foundation for atheism. The following paragraphs will explore the opposition to Darwin’s ideas since the publication of his On the Origin of Species in 1859.
The struggle to contain Darwin’s ideas
Opposition to Darwin’s theory and, later, to the modern synthesis of evolution used today, took on several forms. The following will explore the evolution of Darwin’s thought and its implications.
Before Darwin
Since the middle of the 17th century, it became increasingly apparent in the West that
scientific enquiry could and would peek into the hitherto sacred (i.e. biblical) areas of knowledge. All was not lost for religious beliefs – far from it – as naturalists mostly expected their observations and discoveries to strengthen the premise that God was the origin of all things. Indeed, more than often they presumed that through their rational study of the natural world they could come to a better understanding of God.27 Already, however, some
theologians began expressing fears that these explorations in materialism anchored in scientific methodologies could, in one way or another, harm the certainties surrounding the revealed knowledge in the sacred texts and, hence, God’s revelation.28
Darwin himself began his studies in this intellectual environment. At the time, the most successful synthesis of Christianity and natural sciences was exemplified in William Paley’s Natural Theology: or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearance of Nature, which held the strongest argument for the theory of divine creation of living beings. Paley argues that, just as a watch – a complex arrangement of interconnected parts all calibrated to fulfill its function – necessarily had to be designed by a watchmaker, so too living beings – highly complex organisms that could easily perish should a part of them by removed – were the result of divine design.29
Darwin and his critics in the 19th century
27 Thomson (2005), p. xi-xii 28 Thomson (2005), p. xi-xii 29 Thomson (2005), p. 10
What seemed to many as a major threat to Paley’s arguments took form in Darwin’s first published book regarding evolution and natural selection, his On the Origin of Species. Indeed, Darwin himself considered his book to be “one long argument against miraculous divine creation.”30 Although he did not wish to offend those who believed in God – and
stressed that the origins of life remained a mystery – there were many who were indeed offended by Darwin’s ideas or saw errors in his approach to the natural world. It is important to review these objections to Darwin’s theory as some of them will be salvaged by more sophisticated Salafis in order to criticize it.
Religious opposition
Darwin’s theory seemed to contradict the Christian notion that man had been tainted by the original sin. Indeed, according to this theory, one could believe that man had grown, not fallen. Furthermore, to many, the very idea that mankind had ape ancestors seemed to be an affront to human dignity, even more so to individuals who accepted the Bible as the literal truth.31 Indeed, Darwin’s theory, if correct, meant that human beings were no different from
animals, and if this was the case, would not humans begin to behave as amoral animals? Knowledge of the Christian God was thought to come from two distinct sources: revelation and natural reason. But Darwin’s central idea could easily be interpreted as a refutation of God by natural reason. For Charles Hodge, the author of What is Darwinism, “Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, through its emasculation of design, amounted to atheism”.32
Indeed, most of England’s clergy were offended by Darwin’s theory, as they claimed (with some justification) that evolution denied the biblical account of creation, and therefore threatened the moral authority of the church, and hence its political and spiritual force.33 The
pinnacle of the clergy’s angst and its position on Darwin’s theory was in a symbolic fashion demonstrated in the famous debate opposing the bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, and two of Darwin’s supporters, Joseph Hooker and Thomas Huxley. Throughout the debate, Wilberforce based his argumentation on appeals to emotions and the putative moral
30 Stefoff (1996), p. 88 31 Brooke (2003), p. 192 32 Brooke (2003), p. 195 33 Stefoff (1996), p. 91
consequences of Darwin’s theory whereas Huxley, having demonstrated that his opponent knew nothing of science, was therefore generally recognized as the victor.34
Opposition by natural philosophers
In mid-19th century Great Britain, hypotheses were often viewed with suspicion,
whereas the empirical-inductive method was generally considered to be the most virtuous path to scientific truths.35 However, scientists appeared to be gradually and cautiously
accepting the merits of the hypothetical model. For instance, in the field of optics, the strongly hypothetical undulatory theory was generally recognized as superior to the light particle theory as the former proved superior in its predictive potency.36
Although Darwin believed he had adhered to the methodological principles espoused by the polymath John Herschel, the latter strongly opposed Darwin’s theory of evolution, arguing that
We can no longer accept the principle of arbitrary and casual variation and natural selection as a sufficient account, per se, of the past and present organic world, than we can receive the Laputan method of composing books (pushed à l’outrance) as a sufficient one of Shakespeare and the Principia. Equally in either case, an intelligence, guided by a purpose, must be continually in action to bias the directions of change – to regulate their amount – to limit their divergence – and to continue them in a definite course.37
Indeed, Herschel was arguing that the idea of historical variations of species could not be explained by randomness, suggesting that the principle of natural selection was a poor attempt to explain such variation. Indeed, the very idea that there could be no intelligent guiding force behind the variation of species seemed impossible to him. Moreover, Herschel accused Darwin of speculating on the actions or intentions of God (which he did not do), arguing that such ratiocinations were not the domain of the natural philosopher.38 Another
critic of Darwin’s theory, Adam Sedgwick, his former geology teacher, found putative faults in his methodology:
34 Stefoff (1996), p. 92 35 Hull (2003), p. 175 36 Hull (2003), p. 171
37 Herschel, cited in Hull (2003), p. 182 38 Hull (2003), p. 182
Darwin’s theory is not inductive, - nor based on a series of acknowledged facts pointing to a general conclusion, - not a proposition evolved out of the facts, logically, and of course including them.39
Here Sedgwick’s criticism mirrors the general suspicion towards building knowledge of the natural world through hypotheses, a widespread suspicion in Victorian England. Interestingly, Sedgwick believed that the undulatory theory of optics – which was based on a hypothesis and not on inductive reasoning – was superior to the light particle theory, which suggests that there might have been another aspect of Darwin’s theory with which he disagreed.
The polymath William Whewell also saw faults in Darwin’s theory. Indeed, Whewell suggested that Darwin’s variations of species was akin to the Greek philosopher Democritus’ (putatively ridiculous) thesis that matter came into existence through the random encounters of atoms. For Whewell, “the mere possibility of imagining the transition of one organ into another”40 was ludicrous and, in any case, he argued, the amount of time necessary for such
morphological changes was insufficient. Whewell added that Darwin could not support his hypothesis with a single example of a species ‘turning’ into another one, since no one had actually seen such a process take place.41
As for John Stuart Mill, he did not object to the methodology used by Darwin, arguing that “he [had] opened a path of enquiry full of promise, the results of which none could foresee”.42 However, Mill later reconsidered his enthusiasm for Darwin’s theory, arguing that
the complexities of the human eye was a major stumbling block, as the eye was so complex that there was probably an ‘intelligent will’ behind its creation.43
Critics of Darwin in the late 20th and early 21th centuries in America
The institute for creation science (ICR) has been the main supporter of creationism since it was founded in 1972, as a reaction to the growing evolution content in high school textbooks. It presents itself as a research and educational institute. Creationism is the idea that all events described in the Bible have scientific foundations. The founders of the ICR
39 Hull (2003), p. 168 40 Hull (2003), p. 184 41 Hull (2003), p. 184
42 Mill, cited in in Hodge & Radick (2003), p. 186 43 Hull (2003), p.187
believed that presenting creation science to the scientific community could result in it being considered a bona fide science and that, therefore, creationism could be taught in schools. However, scientists either ignored creation science or simply dismissed it as non-scientific. The institute was and still is present in Anglophone countries, particularly the U.S. and offers workshops, lectures, radio programs and movies defending the idea of creationism.44
Recognizing the failure of its outreach to scientists, the ICR pivoted and began encouraging grassroots movements to demand that creation science be taught alongside evolution in schools, arguing that the teaching of evolution undermined Christian beliefs and was therefore not a “neutral subject”. In doing this, these movements sought to “balance” the teaching of the origin of species with a more Christian-friendly theory (with dubious scientific foundations). The ICR also proposed new legislation that would make creation science a mandatory subject in high schools.45 After several state laws mandating that
creationism should be taught alongside evolution were defeated in federal courts, the matter was taken up by the Supreme Court in 1987, which ruled that creationism was a religious doctrine and that to teach it in schools violated the Establishment clause of the 1st amendment
of the constitution.46
Following the demise of creation science, antievolutionists sought to present an alternative to evolution that was not so blatantly theological. This is how “intelligent design” (ID) came about. A few authors, notably the biologist Michael Behe, argued that life was “irreducibly complex” and that its emergence could only be explained by the actions of a higher intelligence. Once again, scientists either ignored the theory or criticized it as non-scientific. Attempts to introduce ID in high school textbooks were struck down by federal courts and ID is now generally recognized as creationism with a pseudo-scientific façade.
Islamic opposition to Darwin in the 19th and 20th centuries
Throughout the 19th century, Muslims were increasingly exposed to Western ideas
and thought. In the second half of the century, some Muslim scholars and intellectuals
44 Scott (2004), p. 101 45 Scott (2004), p. 106 46 Scott (2004), p. 109
became aware of the theory of evolution by natural selection, which “challenged the core of their religious belief”.47 Indeed, as Kamal has noted, for Muslims:
Darwin’s theory of evolution is not only antagonistic to the religious doctrine of creation, but the implications of the theory impact on an understanding of [their] place and the purpose of [their] existence in the world. It is loaded with scientific, theological as well as philosophical repercussions in determining the meaning and origin of life.48
It was no surprise then that the reaction to Darwin’s theory was mostly antagonistic. However, no Islamic intellectual or scientist has credibly sought to refute the theory of evolution on scientific grounds. The vast majority of these refutations were anchored in theology, supported by the injunctions of the Qur’an. There were, and still are, however, very few Muslim scholars who write on the matter of Islam and evolution.49 According to Kamal,
opponents of the theory of evolution were (and still are) divided into two camps. The first refuses to accept evolution, whereas the second is more accommodating. The first camp is itself separated into two groups. In the first camp, one group categorically refuses any attempt to understand reality that is not grounded in the Qur’an, which is close to the Salafi Weltanschauung, whilst the second group recognizes the value of science and reason, but abhors the materialistic viewpoint espoused by evolution (i.e. that God is unnecessary to explain the origins of life), a view which takes its origins in the Islamic modernism movement of Ahmed Khan and Jamal al-Din Afghani.50 The latter wrote a book refuting the theory of
evolution, arguing that accepting the theory led to denying the role of the creator, and thus to atheism.51
The other camp, more accommodating of Darwin’s idea, sought to reconcile evolution with the truths found in the Qur’an, arguing that some passages could be interpreted as metaphors describing the process of evolution. However, as this camp’s worldview would be deemed heretical by Salafis, it is of little importance in the context of this thesis. The following sections will briefly cover the research question, sources, and the methodology.
47 Kamal (2009), p. 68 48 Kamal (2009), p. 69 49 Guessoum (2016), p. 2 50 Kamal, (2009), p. 70-71
Research question and hypothesis
Since this thesis constitutes the first attempt, to the author’s knowledge, to understand the reception of the theory of evolution by Salafis, it would appear more prudent to try to map the relevant discourse. The answers sought in this thesis will therefore be those to the questions “what is being said?” and a tentative “why it is being said?” As noted before, there is a strong emphasis on the purity of praxis and thought in the Salafi movement, which can only lead to a conflict with the reality that “of all scientific theories, the theory of evolution arguably poses the greatest challenge to theistic religions because it threatens to undermine teleology and the central position of mankind in nature”52. This thesis will attempt to map
some of the reactions amongst Salafis concerning the theory of evolution in the hope that future scholars will find this area more accessible. It is easy to imagine a scholar using this study as a starting point to research the mobilization of arguments against the theory of evolution on Arabic Salafi website or even amongst Salafi communities in situ, both in the West, the Arab world or southeastern Asia, in order, for instance, to better comprehend the Salafi worldview.
Sources53
The sources used in this thesis are threefold. The author discovered all three by searching more than 50 open access anglophone Salafi websites. The first two sources are essays intended to refute the theory of evolution for a Salafi audience. The first, bearing the title The Purpose of Creation & The Return to the Creator, is shorter than the second. It is intended as a ‘guide’ to accept Islam in a world of “spiritual vacuum” (purportedly caused by, among other things, Darwinism). Its author is (the now deceased) Saleh As-Saleh, a Salafi scholar who had been the student of Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen, a prominent Salafi scholar himself. The second essay, Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man, is a polemic reaction to the comments made in the London Leyton Mosque by the aforementioned Hasan in which the latter claimed that the theory of evolution was
52 Riexinger (2009), p. 212
53 Note that all the texts examined in this thesis have been stored in an online archive in case one of them
disappears from the Web. The texts can be consulted here: https://mega.nz/#F!A0M03AYL!6KCE-lmfn3iyrDe8aqXQCA or https://tinyurl.com/10arch
compatible with the teachings of Islam.54 The author uses the penname ‘Abu Lyaad’ and
attempts to refute all of Hasan’s arguments. The third source consists of a series of comments and fatwas found in Salafi Web Forums, some from more or less independent Salafi Imams and others from ‘official’ sources, such as the collections of fatwas issued by recognized Salafi scholars in Saudi Arabia. Ideally, these sources will act as starting points to a greater comprehension of Salafi thought, especially concerning the manner in which it is situated resolutely outside the boundaries of modernity, that is “the belief in the freedom of human beings – natural and inalienable, as many philosophers presumed – and in the human capacity to reason, combined with the intelligibility of the world, that is, its amenability to human reason.”55 The paucity of online Salafi texts related to evolution suggests that this matter is
not often discussed in-length in online Salafi communities. Methodology
As this is a novel subject, the texts shall be examined so as to form a preliminary ‘map’ of Salafi thought concerning evolution, similar to the methodology used by Martin Riexinger in his study on Muslim reactions to the theory of evolution by natural selection in southern Asia.56 As such, the texts will be examined and annotated, allowing for a direct
identification of the concepts found therein. One must begin with detecting and grouping key concepts identified in the sources. Thereafter, one must examine the identified concepts and comment on them, attempting to weave a greater synthetic comprehension of the texts afterwards. Textual analysis of this sort is a very adequate methodology for processing the data in this thesis as it allows the researcher to build a panorama of the subject under scrutiny, an ideal technique for the limited data available.
54 BBC News
55 Wagner (2012), p. 4 56 Riexinger (2009), p. 212
Chapter 1 – Saleh As-Saleh
This first chapter is an analysis of a text57 written by Saleh As-Saleh58, a student of
the prominent Salafi scholar Shaykh Ibn ul-Uthaymeen. As-Saleh had apparently obtained a PhD in medical biochemistry59 and resided in Saudi Arabia, where he was very active in
Salafi communities online, especially on his own website (http://understand-islam.net), which is now maintained by his son. Despite residing in Saudi Arabia, As-Saleh published much of his material in English and even gave classes in English at Qaasim University.60
The text authored by As-Saleh is 39 pages61 long and is entitled ‘Man & Nature’ It
fits the category of anti-evolution pamphlets. Published on numerous Salafi websites, the essay appears to be intended for an audience of recent converts to Salafism, those Salafis who might be tempted to believe elements of the theory of evolution, and other Sunni Muslims seeking guidance on the issue of evolution. It is most likely not a text meant to convert non-Muslims as the author makes no implicit or explicit reference to this and the text is littered with quotes from the Qur’an which would, to a non-Muslim, appear quite esoteric and not very convincing. The text can be separated into three parts: 1) An introduction with an emotional appeal to the reader; 2) a corpus containing refutations of the theory of evolution based in both ‘common sense’ and quotations from the Qur’an; and 3) a conclusion reminding the reader of the events which occurred in the Garden of Eden.
“Man & Nature”: Introduction
As-Saleh begins his polemic essay by reminding his readers that they know little about themselves and take much for granted. He then sketches an image of the development of man, from his very beginning as a fertilized egg to the attainment of adulthood. Without first addressing the problem of evil in the world, such as Leibniz and Aquinas had done (perhaps because of the pamphlet style’s necessary brevity), As-Saleh asks, on ten occasions, who is
57 https://abdurrahman.org/2016/08/02/creation-versus-evolution-darwins-theory/
58 Saleh As-Saleh passed away in 2008. See
https://muslimmatters.org/2008/02/08/dr-saleh-as-saleh-passes-away/ [link active on 15/07/2019]
59 His knowledge of biochemistry appears to be very rudimentary in his texts on evolution. 60 See https://abdurrahman.org/audio/audio-saleh-as-saleh/ [link active on 15/07/2019] 61 39 pages long in the default font size of his text in html.
behind the delicate process which constitutes the development of a human being, with the implicit assumption that this process is perfect. For instance, his first question is
Who took care of me with utmost care and graciousness when I was a tiny seed settled on the wall of the uterine (sic) with three layers of darkness surrounding me?
The idea here is to mobilize scientific knowledge of embryology to show the “miraculous” nature of childbearing, implying that such a “miracle” could only have been authored by God. Here, As-Saleh is at the very beginning of his text divorcing his explanations from rational and evidence-based arguments. It indicates an unwillingness to engage evolutionary theory on its own terms (i.e. science) and a direct appeal to the Qur’an and Sunna as ultimate sources of truth. This, of course, is more than common in the Salafi Weltanschauung. Furthermore, he asks such questions as who “commanded the milk to flow”, who “put into your mouth the cutting and grinding ‘tools’ ” (teeth), and “who adorned the face of the growing man with the distinctive beauty of the beard”. To a biologist, all of these questions (with “who” being replaced by “what”) have scientific answers rooted in physiology, genetics and, ultimately, evolution, but for As-Saleh, these questions are meant to remind Salafis and other Sunni Muslims that only Allaah can create things and creatures in the world, and that those who pretend otherwise are liars. Indeed, by asking these questions, he seeks to guide his readers to reflect on their ultimate origins and the conditions that allowed them to exist as human beings. Thereafter, he slowly raises the specter of Darwin’s theory, which, he claims, denies the existence of God.62
As-Saleh presents the theory of Darwin with the layman’s definition of “theory”, that is to say, an assumption that has yet to (or cannot) be verified. A proper scientific theory is built slowly by accumulating evidence and by seeking to disprove its premises and conclusions, until it can be used a “system” that can explain natural phenomena. One must always remember that a scientific theory may always be changed or even rendered obsolete with the addition of new evidence. Moreover, As-Saleh appears to deliberately associate the entire theory of evolution with its pioneer, Charles Darwin. This is a common argument among anti-evolutionists, who seek to narrow down evolutionary theory to Darwin’s Victorian-era
62 Like all sciences, biology does not consider supernatural phenomena as causal explanations; however, the
theory of evolution can (and has) been mobilized by some to advance the idea that the very notion of a god is superfluous.
publications, so as to not address the ever-accumulating mountain of evidence in favor of evolutionary theory that continues to this day. Thus, As-Saleh omits mentioning that it is an established theory in modern biology and that, furthermore, it is a central theory that holds together all other biological theories.63 As As-Saleh claims to have a PhD in medical
biochemistry, and should in principle know what constitutes a scientific theory and the role of the theory of evolution in biology, it would appear that he is either willingly obfuscating his readers by omitting critically important information or (oddly) did not learn these notions during his studies.
Further in the text (but still in the introduction) As-Saleh attempts to ridicule a straw man version of evolution (again, this version of evolution may or may not be what As-Saleh truly believes it is) by degrading it further and calling it a mere “assumption” and that this “assumption” is believed by some to be sufficient to consider it “scientific evidence to support their arguments against creation”. This is once again a manifestation of his unwillingness to address evolutionary theory as “true” science. Here, As-Saleh identifies the existential threat the theory of evolution poses as he views it not merely as a faulty practice of science, but especially as a threat to the Qur’anic description of the creation of man and other living beings. An interesting hypothesis proposed by Tracy (2011) is that, especially for non-scientifically literate individuals “[evolutionary theory] may be a conceptual obstacle to a search for greater meaning in life, so rejecting or denying [evolutionary theory’s] veracity may be a means of regulating existential anxiety”64. This may be the psychological
mechanism behind As-Saleh’s immediate refusal of evolutionary theory’s epistemic basis, but also the same mechanism the author is expecting to reach in his readers. An interesting alternative here is whether As-Saleh is misguiding his readers by distorting his presentation of evolution. If this is correct, which his PhD in medical biochemistry might suggest, could it be that he (and presumably others) is attempting to act as a gatekeeper of dangerous ideas, by deforming evolutionary theory into easily refuted strawmen? It would be impossible to answer such a question in the scope of this thesis, but scholars ready to push further on this issue could presumably interview ex-Salafi intellectuals with a knowledge of evolutionary theory in order to get a better understanding of the situation.
63 Scott. (1997), p. 264 64 Tracy et al. (2011)
Using “common sense” to refute evolution, As-Saleh describes the theory as proposing that “the origin of life lies in a single small animal that was ‘developed’ on its own from water”.65 This, of course, is an oversimplification of abiogenesis, but does no concern
evolution per se. Moreover, As-Saleh claims that evolution states that animals were developed in accordance to the environment and in time produced more ‘advanced’ creatures until it begot the highest form: man. It seems as though, even in his criticism of evolutionary theory, As-Saleh does not deviate from the idea of a telos (i.e. the creation of man), but of course evolution has no direction: it is but an opportunistic algorithm operating in a sea of random changes. Thus, the story here woven by As-Saleh does not reflect the scientific theory of evolution. Near the end of his introduction, As-Saleh described the objectives of his essay, a segment that is worth repeating here:
a) Examine the basics of the theory and the evidence supporting them.
b) Provide the essential facts that disprove the validity of the theory’s assumption. c) Discuss the influence of the theory on the life of this world.
d) Relate man to his Creator and hence to the purpose of our creation.
These objectives are meant to guide men towards the proper worship of Allaah, once again demonstrating that As-Saleh’s essay does not primarily concern itself with refuting evolution per se (the path to truth is already known: by studying the Qur’an and the Sunna), but rather seeks to protect the believer from its corrupting effects.
As-Saleh’s description of the theory of evolution
This section is critical to As-Saleh’s essay, as he “explains” the theory of evolution that he later intends to refute which he does through a dual approach: 1) arguments rooted mostly in “common sense” (sprinkled with references to Allaah here and there) which gradually morph into 2) arguments rooted mostly in religion.
As stated in his objectives, As-Saleh begins by describing the theory of evolution itself in six points. Again, As-Saleh attempts to build a straw man version (willingly or not) of the theory that can easily be refuted later in his text. First, As-Saleh claims that the ‘archeological’ findings of Darwin’s lifetime are an important pillar of the theory and that
65 As noted before, the study of the apparition of life is called abiogenesis and is distinct from the theory of
these suggest that “old” layers in the ground contained fossils of “primitive” life forms, whereas “more recent” layers contain those of more “advanced” creatures. It is by observing this, he claims, that Darwin concluded that “advanced” creatures evolved from “primitive” ones. Second, As-Saleh claims (with some basis in reality) that, during Darwin’s lifetime, it was believed that all animal embryos looked very much alike, which made natural philosophers presume that “evolution on earth occurred in the same way it occurred inside the womb of living beings”. Although it is true that some representations of embryological development in the 19th century did sometimes portrait early embryos of various species as
almost identical (exaggeratedly so), they remain strikingly similar. Third, As-Saleh claims that evolution “cites the differences in the roles of the appendix in man in comparison to that in monkeys”. There is some truth to this, but the author’s lack of precise terminology appears to betray some ignorance on the matter: the theory of evolution has shown that Man’s appendix is an atrophied form of an organ that had an important physiological role in Man’s and modern Apes’ common ancestor. Again, this is a straw man argument that can be refuted with “common sense”. Fourth, the author writes that the “natural selection” element of the theory of evolution is a “process in which there are elimination factors that can abolish the weak while the strong ones are kept”. But these “elimination factors” are but the environment. As we have seen in the preceding section on evolution, natural selection favors those creatures that are the most adapted to having viable offspring in their current environment. The notion of the “elimination of the weak”, however, carries with it a moral idea which is understandably cruel and is often used by anti-evolutionists. As we shall see, As-Saleh will use this moral idea in an attempt to discredit evolution. Fifth, As-Saleh introduces the notion of sexual selection and describes it as a “process by which there is a tendency of the male and female to mate with the strong and best members of both sexes” in which the characteristics of the former will be passed on to their progeny, while the “weak” are eliminated because the former’s “lack of tendency and/or interest to mate (sic) the weak”. The notion of sexual selection is often misunderstood in evolution. It is not necessarily those who are fit that are in an advantageous position, but rather those who can convince their potential mate(s) that they are indeed the fittest. A common example is that of the peacock: all of the creature’s elaborate and beautiful feathers have no other function than to convince (some would say “deceive”) their potential mates that they are fit, for a considerable part of
the peacock’s food intake is necessary to grow and maintain the feathers, which act as “proof” that the bearer appears be fit since he has so much energy to spare. The reader can surely imagine such phenomena in humans where the extended phenotype is taken into consideration (e.g. wealth, possessions, songs, poems, knowledge). As-Saleh’s explanation of sexual selection is similar to his description of natural selection in that it appears cruel and immoral. Sixth, As-Saleh claims that “whenever a new characteristic is evolved it is inherited in the offspring”. Such a mistake in the fundamentals of biology puts into question the value of As-Saleh’s PhD or his willingness to be intellectually honest. As we have seen, in diploid (such as us humans) beings that reproduce sexually, there is only a probability that an allele will be inherited.
In sum, As-Saleh’s bullet-point description of evolution is seriously flawed, potentially misinformed and misleading. Notably, there are no references to the cellular mechanisms that read DNA and translate the resulting RNA into proteins, which is central to explain the variations which can lead to adaptation and speciation. This, however, does not appear to be of much importance, as the essay is clearly not meant for a scientifically literate reader. Rather, the essay builds a straw man version of evolution that can appear convincing to recently converted Salafis with little knowledge of biology, but who live in a world where evolution is considered a scientific theory just as valid as the heliocentric model of the solar system and are hence constantly bombarded with notions they feel inadequately prepared to refute, at least in their own minds.
It would be interesting to ponder the consequences of As-Saleh’s criticism of evolution if such ideas where once translated into educational policy. In a state dominated by Salafi ideology in which As-Saleh’s idea were used as prolegomena to biology, there could be no meaningful research in biology. How would professors explain to their students the evolution of bacteria in petri dishes or viable and manifest mutations in fruit flies bombarded with radiation, for instance? How could graduate students explore the epidemiology of viruses and other contagion vectors? And how could researchers and entrepreneurs employ induced evolution in the field of synthetic biological engineering? An As-Saleh-approved curriculum would render such a putative state incapable of harnessing the emerging fields of synthetic biology, genome-centered therapy, genetically modified organisms and more. Moreover, it would make such a state extremely vulnerable to bioterrorism and foreign
biological attacks. A hostile attitude towards biology could, moreover, leak into other fields and hamper even more research and development. Indeed, such a state would be a partially blind and weak laggard on the world scene.
As-Saleh’s refutation of evolution through (mostly) ‘common sense’
As-Saleh boldly titles this section of his essay “Reality vs. Theory”, highlighting his desire to prove that evolution is a mere erroneous assumption than can easily be refuted by facts and elements of the Qur’an. As the reader shall see, As-Saleh does not appear to master the facts and seems to pull (non-religious) “proof” out of thin air. Again, this does not mean his arguments cannot be persuasive to a Salafi with little knowledge of biology but haunted by questions about the science because of the society in which he lives.
First, As-Saleh addresses the question of ‘archeology’66, claiming, correctly so, that
its discoveries are far from complete. The idea of using “God as a stopgap for the incompleteness of our knowledge”67, commonly known as a “God of the gaps” argument,
has been identified as such at least since Friedrich Nietzsche’s publication of Thus Spoke Zarathustra (although the philosopher was mocking the idea)68 and is often used in Christian
creationist/intelligent design circles, taking the form of the following syllogism:
1. X is some (typically complex, functional) feature of the world.
2. There are only two possible explanations of X: natural (e.g. evolution) or transcendent (intelligent design[/creationism]).
3. Science has (in principle) no natural explanation of X.
4. Thus, a transcendent intelligent designer (God) designed/created X69
Although As-Saleh does not explicitly use this whole reasoning here, he strongly implies it by using some of its constituent points. Following this argument, As-Saleh suggests that perhaps the lower layers of “lower” creatures and the higher layers of “higher” creatures are “evidence for organized existence of these beings (in any form) at times when the environment is suitable for that (sic)”, apparently unaware that his reasoning appears to be a
66 Again, he is probably referring to the science of palaeontology. 67 D. Bonhoeffer, cited in R.H Bube (1971), p. 4
68 Speaking of priests, Nietzsche writes: “Verily, they themselves have never walked on the carpets of
knowledge. Of gaps was the spirit of these redeemers made up; but into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God.” in W. Kaufmann (1982), p. 204
crude support for evolution. Furthermore, As-Saleh claims that ‘archeology’ in Darwin’s time estimated Man’s appearance in circa 600 000 B.C., whereas today, the science estimates that Man appeared in circa 10 000 000 B.C. Although these estimates are not based in any actual science (contemporary or Victorian), As-Saleh’s intent is (presumably) to demonstrate that scientific knowledge is constantly in flux and cannot be relied upon to produce facts, whereas the Qur’an and Sunna are the repository of the truth. As-Saleh finishes his first point by claiming, falsely, that ‘archeology’70 has shown no transitional forms linking single-cell
organisms to multiple-cell ones and wonders why there are no transitory forms linking amphibians and birds (as we have seen, this is not how evolution works). Although mostly false and misleading, As-Saleh’s arguments may succeed, at least in the eyes of one who knows little of biology, in destroying the straw man version of the “archeological” evidence he put forth in the former section of his essay.
Second, As-Saleh addresses the issue of the likeness of various early-form embryos in different species. His statement is worth repeating here as it is partially correct:
[This was a wrong conclusion] because of the microscopy present at Darwin’s time. Today’s technology demonstrates that there are fine differences between the structure, build up and organization of animal embryos.
Comparative embryology is still today considered further proof that evolution is correct, but, as in the section on “archeology”, As-Saleh seeks to reduce the theory of evolution to Darwin’s thinking, therefore implying that it is old and that contemporary data can disprove it. This theme underlies As-Saleh’s essay and is also a common argumentative technique Christian creationists employ.71
Third, As-Saleh examines the issue of the appendix; more specifically, why it does not appear to have a physiological role (other than potentially pathological) in humans. It is interesting here that As-Saleh temporarily abandons ‘secular common sense’ in favor of an explanation found in the Qur’an. He states that “…its presence is inherited from the grand-man who depended upon vegetation as a source of food to help him digest it (sic)”. It is not clear from As-Saleh what exactly the appendix’ role was in the grand-man, but he is
70 Palaeontology
