Ibn Khaldūn

The following paragraph from Ibn Khaldūn's famous Muqaddimah is oft‐quoted:

One should then look at the world of creation. It started out from the mineral and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish which have only the power of touch. The word “connection” with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group. The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in a gradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and reflect. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking. At this stage we come to the first stage of man. This is as far as our (physical) observation extends. ([1377] 2005, 75)

One can easily surmise from this quote that Ibn Khaldūn is very likely talking about evolution. Two points indicate this. First, the initial sentences discuss a linear biological process from simpler entities to more complex ones that falls in line with contemporary evolution. Of particular interest is the specific point on the relationship between humans and monkeys toward the end. Second, in the very last part of the paragraph, a specific point is made with regard to the extent of physical observation. This is important because it seems to indicate an empirical account, a point also in line with modern‐day evolution. Malik et al. quote this very paragraph to make the case for their evolution‐friendly reading of him: “It is fascinating to see … Ibn Khaldūn most clearly professed his belief that humans themselves evolved specifically from an ape/monkey ancestor—a concept that a majority of both Muslims and people of other religions, including Christian creationists, find particularly difficult to accept” (2017, 12).

However, probing further into the text reveals otherwise. The first indicator of an alternative reading is the title of the section under which this quote is situated: The Real Meaning of Prophecy. If this clue is not obvious, at the very least, it should instigate the reader to think about the possible connection between the title and the previous quote. The second and much more explicit evidence that he is not speaking about evolution is provided by the following paragraphs that immediately follow the previous quote:

In the world of creation there are certain influences of the motions of growth and perception. All this is evidence of the fact that there is something that exercises an influence and is different from the bodily substances. This is something spiritual. … The soul … must be prepared to exchange humanity for angelicality, in order actually to become part of the angelic species at certain times in the flash of a moment. … The soul is connected with the stage next to it, as are all the order of the existentia, as we have mentioned before. It is connected both upward and downward. Downward it is connected with the body, thus acquiring the sense perceptions by which it is prepared for actual intellection. Upward, it is connected with the stage of the angels. There, it acquires scientific and supernatural perceptions, for knowledge of things to that come into being exists timelessly in the intellections of the angels. (Ibn Khaldūn [1377] , 75)

In the first few sentences of this paragraph, Ibn Khaldūn seems to be discussing an influence in creation that is “different from bodily substances,” which he refers to as the soul, and it is this entity that connects the realm of man with angels. So, it seems that there is a continuation of being after the realm of man. The previous paragraph ends with humanity as a final stage and thus seems to be very evolution‐friendly. However, when we situate these two paragraphs together, we see a different picture. Three points need highlighting. First, if this is truly a reading of evolution, then its advocates would have to demonstrate what relevance souls and angels have to do in this account, given that these are immaterial entities as traditionally understood by Muslims, and thus also by Ibn Khaldūn. Second, recall the point made earlier regarding the comment on “the extent of observation.” If that statement is read and evaluated only within the context of the first paragraph, it would give the false impression that it is meant to be an empirical account of reality. However, continuing with the second paragraph, it seems that Ibn Khaldūn is still developing that point to prepare the link between man and angels through the soul, which is unobservable and thus contrary to all the entities mentioned in the first paragraph, for example, minerals, plants, animals, and humans. This is a subtlety that is lost and the text renders a polar opposite (i.e., evolutionary) reading when the first paragraph is truncated from the second. Now the question is why this link between man and angels is being established. This can be answered through the following paragraph:

They [prophets] thus move towards the angelic, sloughing off humanity at will, by virtue of their natural constitution, and not with the help of any acquired faculty or craft. The prophets move in that direction … and once among the highest group of angels, learn all that may there be learned. They then bring what they have learned back down to the level of powers of human perception, as this is the way in which it can be transmitted to human beings. (Ibn Khaldūn [1377] , 78)

Recall that angels occupy a higher tier than humanity in the GCB. Furthermore, within each tier, there are subranks. The highest rank within humanity is none other than the prophets in Islam because they can “transcend” their human status in the spiritual sense (Netton , 36). Finally, I want to point out again that the title of this section is The Real Meaning of Prophecy. Keeping these three points in mind, the purpose of establishing the link between man and angels is to demonstrate how prophets, who occupy the highest ranks among humans, can transcend the rank of man into the realm of angels so as to learn spiritual truths (revelation), and then come back down to the realm of humans to share that knowledge with the rest of humanity. Thus, what becomes clear is that Ibn Khaldūn was not discussing evolution. Rather, he was discussing the gradation of beings in the GCB with particular focus on what discriminates prophets from ordinary men and how prophecy itself operates, hence the importance of the title and the discussion of the soul that is responsible for the possible transformation from “humanity to angelicality.”

Thus, it can be conclusively said that Ibn Khaldūn is not talking about evolution in this paragraph and it would be an interpretative fallacy to state that he is. As pointed out earlier, to maintain an evolutionary reading of Ibn Khaldūn, one would have to answer how the points of the soul and angels would fit in that narrative, which is not possible under a materialistic outlook like evolution. More importantly, one would have to entertain serious thematic gymnastics of the first quoted paragraph to make a case for evolution. Neither of these options seems to be tenable.

Jalāl ad‐Dīn Rūmī

A similar mistake is projected onto several couplets taken from Rūmī’s infamous Mathnawi. Take the following as an example:

I died to the inorganic state and became endowed with growth, and (then) I died to (vegetable) growth and attained to the animal.

I died from animality and became Adam (man): why, then, should I fear? When have I become less by dying? (Rūmī [1930] , 218)

Up to this point it may seem like a perfectly acceptable account of evolution with the progressive sequence of the inorganic state to the vegetable state, from there to the animal state and finally to humans as mentioned in these two couplets. However, the immediate subsequent couplets indicate something else:

At the next remove I shall die to man, that I may soar and lift up my head amongst the angels;

And I must escape even from (the state of) the angel: everything is perishing except His Face [God]. (Rūmī [1930] , 219)

In continuing with the phase‐changing storyline, the next phase seems to be from man to angel with a final pointer to the imperishable God. Since angels do not take part in evolution, or in any modern understanding of evolution as a matter of fact, this clearly refers to a nonevolutionary account. However, before we can convincingly dismiss this as an evolutionary reading, we need some context to understand what is being implied here to make an alternative reading plausible. To begin with, it must be pointed out that Rūmī was one of the most noteworthy mystics in Islamic history. Keeping this very important point in mind, let us view William Chittick's—one of the most respected, contemporary scholars on Islamic spirituality (and by extension Rūmī)—remarks on the contextual background of Rūmī’s passages on “evolution” as follows:

When Rumi and others talk about what has been labelled as “evolution.” They are talking about the manner in which human beings go back to God. … The idea of a “return” is meaningless unless we begin by acknowledging that creation has come from God in the first place. In other words, every “evolution” demands a prior “devolution” … The basic principle in all Islamic discussions of “evolution” is that the human soul needs to undergo a synthetic and unifying growth by which it can go back in happiness and wholeness to the unitary realm from which it arose. (2013, 84)

The idea here is that there has been a separation, disintegration, and dispersion of the human soul and the creator. So, there is a longing and a process to unite with God. Thus, “the goal is to awaken the intelligent and the intelligible light of God that the Quran calls the ‘spirit’” (Chittick , 84) or what is known as “origin and return” (mabdaʾ wa maʿād) in Sufi literature. Accordingly, “the return to God is a gradual ascent on a ladder whose steps mark the increasing unification and intensification of the spiritual and intellectual light. This can only happen because human beings came into this world by successive degrees of darkening and obscuration. The integrative movement of the return to God is the reversal of the dispersive movement of creation” (Chittick , 86, emphasis my own).

Thus, what seem to be physical stages of evolutionary development are actually just spiritual states expressed in Sufi/mystical and metaphorical expressions. As explained by Chittick, “It is because people have descended from God in stages … that they are then able to ascend from the mineral and plant stages (in the womb), to the animal stage (in infancy and childhood), to the human level (as adults observing the necessities of human goodness), and then to even higher levels, following Mohammad in his Night Journey” (2017, emphasis my own).

So, similar to the erroneous reading of Ibn Khaldūn, the quoted couplet seems to be a truncated and selective reading of Rūmī. Another oft‐quoted stanza is the following:

Man first appeared at the level of inanimate matter,

Then it moved to the level of plants,

And lived years and years a plant among the plants,

Not remembering a thing from its earlier inanimate life.

And when it moved from plant to animal,

It did not remember anything from its plant life,

Except the longing it felt for plants,

Especially when spring comes and beautiful flowers bloom,

Like the longing of children for their mothers,

They don't know the reason for longing for their breasts,

The Creator pulled Man – as you know – from its animal state,

To this human state,

And so Man moved from one natural state,

To another natural state,

Until he became wise, knowledgeable, and strong as he is now,

But he does not remember anything from his earlier states,

And he will change again from his current state. (quoted in Guessoum , 308)

Again, this quotation seems to very plausibly imply that Rūmī is discussing evolution. However, this specific quotation is from Guessoum, who translated these verses himself from Arabic. The problem here is that the Mathnawi was originally written in Persian (Farsi), so this is the product of a double translation. Reynold Nicholson, who was a leading expert on Rūmī, translates the same couplet from Farsi as follows:

First he came into the clime (world) of inorganic things, and from the state of organic things he passed into the vegetable state.

(Many) years he lived in the vegetable state and did not remember the inorganic state because of the opposition (between them);

And when he passed from the vegetable into the animal state, the vegetable state was not remembered by him at all,

Save only for the inclination which he has towards that (state), especially in the season of spring and sweet herbs —

Like the inclination of babes towards their mothers: it (the babe) does not know the secret of its desire for being suckled;

(Or) like the excessive inclination of every novice towards the noble spiritual Elder, whose fortune is young (and flourishing).

The particular intelligence of this (disciple) is derived from the Universal intelligence: the motion of this shadow is derived from that Rose‐bough.

His (the disciple's) shadow disappears at last in him (the Master); then he knows the secret of his inclination and search seeking.

How should the shadow of the other's (the disciple's) bough move, O fortunate one, if this Tree move not?

Again, the Creator, whom thou knowest, was leading him (Man) from the animal (state) towards humanity.

Thus did he advance from clime to clime (from one world of being to another), till he has now become intelligent and wise and mighty.

He hath no remembrance of his former intelligences (souls); from this (human) intelligence also there is a migration to be made by him. (Rūmī [1930] , 472)

Two things need to be pointed out. First, the translation by Nicholson does not seem to be as mechanical as Guessoum's. For example, Nicholson is careful to add that the intelligence mentioned in the second‐last couplet is referring to a spiritual state and not necessarily intelligence in the cognitive sense, which aligns with Chittick's remarks mentioned earlier. Also, the point of forgetting former intelligences (i.e., from plant to animals and then to humans) is an analogy of the stages of human development in which the previous stages are not remembered by the latter, and not in the sense of physical transformations as is understood in evolution: “This is … a spiritual climb, like that of an embryo to intelligence” (Chittick ). Second, and more important, Guessoum's translation is missing four couplets as emphasized in the quotation. This could be because his source material for this translation is an Arabic PhD dissertation on this topic rather than the original work. It is plausible that the author of the dissertation happened to have missed these couplets. Alternatively, it may be countered that Nicholson's translation which I have relied on might be in error. This is definitely not the case, as these missing couplets can be easily found in the original text. Furthermore, Jawid Mojaddedi (, 216), a contemporary expert on Sufism who has also translated Rūmī’s Mathnawi, includes these four couplets and also offers a very similar translation of this stanza in his translation. So, it seems that the real error stems from the Arabic translation in the dissertation which Guessoum has relied on.

Having cleared the problem of translation and selective readings, the use of terms like “universal intelligence,” which is one of the immaterial tiers in the Neoplatonic framework as pointed out earlier, found in the complete stanza is a clear indicator that it is premised on the GCB. But Rūmī also utilizes explicit terms like “spiritual Elder” and implicit ones like “disciple” and “master” that are common terms and ideas used in mystical writings. This should not be surprising because, as indicated earlier, Rūmī was well known for being one of Islam's most vivid and impactful mystics. In fact, Rūmī premised his entire worldview on the notion of love. It is the single principle that drives the entirety of creation, be it cosmic, geographical, material, mental, or spiritual interactions. Ultimately, every entity is trying to reach a state whereby one is united with the Ultimate, which is God. In mystical terms, since a lover (creation) yearns for the beloved (God), it does anything it can to assimilate and ascend toward that unity in the higher realms from its multiplicity in the lower realms to the unity “above” (Nasr [1964] , 53). Thus, as has been highlighted and stressed earlier, he is discussing, or rather alluding to, a spiritual account of nature within the GCB that has no resemblance to the mechanical forces of natural selection as outlined in the theory of evolution. The differences between the two accounts have also been pointed out by others (Hakim , 32–42; Ghafouri‐Fard and Akrami , 26; Kartenegara , 80). Thus, it is fair to conclude that Rūmī’s work “has only superficial resemblance to evolution in any modern sense” (Chittick , 87).

al‐Jāhiz

Al‐Jāhiz's Kitāb al‐Hayawān is an encyclopedic seven‐volume tome that discusses various aspects of the natural world. The problem with it is that it entangles theological, philosophical, and empirical perspectives into one matrix that makes it a challenge to interpret (Montgomery ). Furthermore, al‐Jāhiz utilizes poetry, religious scripture, and accounts from local and distant cultures, in addition to his empirical observations. This sometimes makes it unclear what the overall objective or motivation in his work is. Nevertheless, it unquestionably contains a lot of empirical content “including the influences of various climates and diets on men, animals and even plants of different geographical regions; as well as discussions of animal mimicry, intelligence, and social organization” (Elshakry , 268). Al‐Jāhiz is also known to have compared humans with various other animals as noted by Sa'īd Mansūr in his detailed and masterful study of Kitāb al‐Hayawān:

Al‐Jāhiz notices the similarities seen in physical structure; for example, the face, the eye, the hand, the fingers, and the way they are raised, moved, and used to supply the mouth with food. In other respects also there is resemblance between monkeys and men as for insurance in marriage, jealousy, the way of laughing and imitating. … Even the cat in the general view of al‐Jāhiz is thought to resemble man in her sneezing, yawning and cleaning herself. (Mansūr 1977, 279)

Or consider the following observation made by Mehmet Bayrakdar: “He [al‐Jāhiz] says, ‘People said different things about the existence of al‐miskh’ (= original form of quadrupeds). Some accepted its evolution and said that it gave existence to dog, wolf, fox, and their similar. The members of this family came from this form (al‐miskh)” (1983, 311).

From such evidence, some have gone on to contend that this is the first zoological account which discusses biological evolution in the Muslim world (Bayrakdar ; Shah , 142). Two points need to be addressed here. First, it has been argued that the treatise itself is not strictly a biological account of nature even though it contains empirical observations. Consider Elshakry (, 269) who believes that al‐Jāhiz's book “is not so much a zoological treatise as … its emphasis was on philosophical and religious edification,” and points out how some thinkers have read al‐Jāhiz's work selectively while ignoring his other points such as “the transformation by God of sinful nations or peoples into pigs, apes, and other ‘lower creatures’.” Similarly, but much more potently, Mansūr astutely highlights that al‐Jāhiz discussed the broader ontological interconnectedness between metaphysical entities such as God, angels, and demons with the animal kingdom (while, of course, also acknowledging their differences), clearly indicating a broader purpose rather than a simple treatise on zoology (1977, 299–301). Frank Egerton also remains unconvinced of a zoological reading, but he points out that al‐Jāhiz does deserve the credit for mentioning the ideas of food chains (even though they were incorrect on some occasions) when he writes:

The mosquitoes go out to look for their food as they know instinctively that blood is the thing which makes them live. As soon as they see the elephant, hippopotamus or any other animal, they know that the skin has been fashioned to serve them as food; and falling on it, they pierce it with their proboscises, certain that their thrusts are piercing deep enough and are capable of reaching down to draw the blood. Flies in their turn, although they feed on many and various things, principally hunt the mosquito … All animals, in short, cannot exist without food, neither can the hunting animal escape being hunted in his turn. (Egerton 2002, 143)

Second, Bayrakdar's claim that al‐Jāhiz believed in evolution based on the quote he provides does not provide real proof. Careful attention to Bayrakdar's quotation reveals that it is not actually al‐Jāhiz's opinion. Rather al‐Jāhiz is relaying an account of what others believed. More importantly, when the primary text is read it becomes apparent that Bayrakdar actually mistranslated and selectively quoted sentences from a wider paragraph. The full paragraph reads as follows:

The people said different things about the miskh. Some of them said that the miskh doesn't reproduce or doesn't remain (or survive) except as a lesson to mankind, and they [the people] were sure about that evidence. And some of them said that the miskh does remain and reproduces until it has been made into the lizard (dabba), the eels (jirreeya), the rabbit (araanib), dogs (kalaab) and others from the descendants of those that were metamorphosed into that form [miskh]. And the same is of their opinion regarding the snakes. (al‐Jāhiz , Vol. 4, 68)

Having quoted the original text, it is noteworthy to clarify three things. First, Bayrakdar translates miskh as “quadrupeds”; that is incorrect. Miskh actually translates into the transformation or the metamorphosis of an entity into an animal (Cowan [1961] , 1065). It is derived from a well‐known account in the Quran in which a certain group of people were transformed into apes and pigs by God as divine punishment (Quran 5:60; 2:65; 7:166). Bayrakdar's translation of it as quadruped seems to be an idiosyncratic translation. Second, in light of the correction of miskh, the discussion of animals evolving is strictly within the subject domain of the miskh and not a general discussion applicable to all creatures. Third, it should be evident that in this paragraph, al‐Jāhiz compares two perspectives and does not mention his own stance. So, to characterize al‐Jāhiz as a pro‐evolutionary thinker based on this paragraph is highly erroneous.

By contrast, al‐Jāhiz rejected any kind of transformation:

[I]n spite of a certain resemblance … with man the monkey does not pass beyond the limitations of the monkeys to enter the boundaries of man. This means also that the monkey is confined to its own species. The similarity between man and animal … does not go beyond the limit of resemblance in al‐Jāhiz's outlook. It may happen that a thing possesses an element similar to something else, but this does not mean at all that either of the two things will depart from the rules and limits of its own nature. Nothing that resembles man is ever able actually to cross the boundary of human nature and become man. What is true of animals holds also of man; man does not forsake his nature to take on theirs. It is clear … that al‐Jāhiz completely rejected the possibility of the transformation of one species to another. Furthermore, he rejected the gradual development in animal life. (Mansūr , 280–81)

Interestingly, Mansūr (, 282) takes al‐Jāhiz's rejection as an indication that some proto‐evolutionary ideas were probably present and discussed at the time.

In summary, even though al‐Jāhiz may have described various observations of the animal and plant kingdom in terms of food chains, environmental factors, and physical similarities, it does not follow that he believed in the changing of species (Stott , 55). His empirical observations may be similar to what we believe and know today, but he does not provide any grand narrative that parallels any kind of explanation where species evolve from one to the other. On the contrary, he believed in the fixation of species that is an immediate indication that he developed or adopted a version of the GCB. This is further substantiated with his inclusive mention and discussion of metaphysical entities as highlighted earlier. Restricting al‐Jāhiz's work to selective empirical observations or evolution‐friendly quotations insulates the reader from his wider framework that makes it impossible to draw an alternative reading, and this is where the confusion arises. Nonetheless, it can be concluded that al‐Jāhiz, like the thinkers discussed before, did not adopt an evolutionary framework.

Brethren of Purity

The Brethren of Purity are by far one of the more interesting cases. They have been quoted with similar paragraphs as discussed by Ibn Khaldūn and Rūmī (Shanavas , 118; Guessoum , 271, 307), so we need not repeat the criticism here. It is well known that the Brethren of Purity were Neoplatonists and their worldview was saturated with all sorts of hierarchal structures and relationships (Netton , 36; El‐Bizri [2008] ). So such quotations are undoubtedly about the GCB. However, the most interesting feature of the Brethren of Purity is that, in addition to the ontological hierarchy, there seems to be a temporal aspect to their worldview unlike the previous thinkers we have looked at:

[A]ccording to the Brethren, there is in addition a certain chronological order which they follow, amounting almost to an anticipation of Darwinian evolution. Thus plants precede animals in the order of their appearance in the world, since they are to them what matter is to form. Similarly the lower animals “have preceded the more perfect, at the beginning of creation, in so far as they take a shorter time to develop, compared with the more perfect, which take a longer time … Moreover, sea animals have preceded land animals by a long stretch, because water came before earth, and the sear before dry land, at the beginning of creation.” The appearance of animals generally upon the globe must therefore have come after plants, and prepared the ground for the appearance of man, for whose sake not only the animal kingdom but everything else beneath it were created. (Fakhry [1970] , 177–78)

It is this particular feature that makes interpreting them tractable to evolutionary readings. For example, Malik et al. () mention the following paraphrase from the Brethren of Purity as evidence that they are evolutionists:

Plants come before (taqaddama) animals in the series of beings and serve them as material for the forms of animals and food for the nutrition of their bodies. From this point of view, plants would be like a mother who eats raw food, digests it, assimilates it and transforms it into pure milk which is absorbed very gently by those who drink it. The plants subsequently present this to the animals considered as their sons. … Plants occupy an intermediate position—necessary and salutary—between the four elements and the animals. All the parts of the vegetables which the animals consume such as seeds, leaves, fruit, and so on, come from the four elements digested and transformed by the plants. (2017, 7)

However, in order to fully appreciate such attributions to the Brethren of Purity, we need to carefully unpack their worldview before we can decisively render any evolution‐friendly interpretations. As Neoplatonists, they believed in an ontological hierarchy with man in the center, the midpoint between the material and immaterial world. Within the material world, there are three kingdoms: minerals, plants, and animals. Each of these tiers acted as sustenance for the rank above it, so minerals fed plants, which, in turn, fed animals, and so on. The culmination of these ranks and sustenance end with humans, beyond which there will be no further gradation of physical forms. Once humans reach a state of spirituality that allows them to enter that reunion with God, the “process” ends. Thus, Seyyed Hossein Nasr states,

Man's “evolution” is therefore inward; God does not create something after man as he created man after the animals, because man, by virtue of being able to return to his origin, fulfills the purpose of the whole of creation. All the other orders of beings were created in order that this final stage of reunion might take place. Once the reunion has occurred, there is no metaphysical necessity for another form to be created. Man is the link between the three kingdoms and the heavens and therefore the channel of grace for the terrestrial environment; the three kingdoms depend upon him, and man in turn has the right to make use of them. ([1964] , 73)

It can be gathered from this that the Brethren of Purity were speaking largely in spiritual and teleological terms that aligned with the GCB. So, the previous quote by Malik et al. () has to be situated within a broader metaphysical scheme rather than being taken as a simple material observation. Up to this point, it can be argued that this can perfectly align with evolution. It can; however, the Brethren of Purity do not stop there. As Neoplatonists, they believed in the fixation of species or natural kinds in the world of “ideas” that manifest into particulars in this shadow‐like world. This is explicitly mentioned in their own words (quoted in Nasr [1964] , 73): “The species and genus are definite and preserved. Their forms are in matter. But the individuals are in perpetual flow; they are neither definite nor preserved. The reason for the conservation of forms, genus and species, in matter is the fixity of their celestial cause because their efficient cause is the Universal Soul of the spheres instead of the change and continuous flux of individuals which is due to the variability of their cause.”

In other words, there is fluidity in particulars but not essences. It follows from this that the Brethren of Purity occupied no conception of biological derivation of later species from earlier ones since every species is fixed; each one is an ontological and immutable designation defined by God who has set the spatial, temporal, and adaptive boundaries of each kind (Goodman and McGregor , 31). Each species is elected (rather than naturally selected) to manifest a certain function in the grand scheme of things in coordination with the heavenly spheres:

Every creature's tenure is no more than God has allotted. Animals, humans, jinn—every kind has its domain and its moment. Each species has its habitat and mode of life, the implements and skills it needs to carry on—to reproduce, in the case of higher animals; or to be reborn, for those that seem to arise by spontaneous generation. Ants and bees industriously stow their stores and guard their young. But even the careless grasshopper and negligent ostrich are looked after. So their kinds persist—but not forever. Each kind endures or flourishes for just the era God has allotted, marked out by the revolutions of the planets and the spheres. (Goodman and McGregor , 30)

Accordingly, there is no temporal sequence in the biological sense but instead a temporal divine prescription of ontological slots in alignment with the GCB that happen to have temporal implications. Even ideas such as “adaptation” need to be carefully understood as divine settings rather than material correlations:

“Adaptation to the environment” is not the result of struggles for life or “survival of the fittest,” but comes from the wisdom of the Creator, Who has given to each creature what corresponds to its need. In the deepest sense, what separates all these ideas of the Ikhwān from their modern counterparts is that for the Ikhwān the hands of God were not cut off from creation after the beginning of the world—as is the case with the deists. On the contrary, every event here “below” is performed from “above” by the Universal Soul, which is God's agent. (Nasr [1964] , 74)

This makes the terrestrial similarities, for example, plants coming before animals, observed between the worldview of the Brethren of Purity and evolution accidental and not correlative in any substantial sense. It is indeed very surprising that, even as early as 1903, a philosopher by the name of Tjitze de Boer noted the problem of mischaracterizing the Brethren of Purity as evolutionists and attempted to rectify this reading:

They [Brethren of Purity] have been represented as the Darwinists of the tenth century, but nothing could be more inappropriate. The various realms of nature, it is true, yield according to the Encyclopedia an ascending and connected series; but the relation is not bodily structure, but by the inner form of substance. The form wanders in mystic fashion from the lower to the higher and vice versa, not in accordance with inner laws of formation, or modified to suit external conditions, but in accordance with the influences of the stars, and, in the case of man at least, in accordance with practical and theoretical behavior. To give a history of evolution in the modern sense of the term was very far from the thought of the Brethren. For example, they expressly insist that the horse and the elephant resemble man more than the ape does, although the bodily likeness is greater than the last‐named. In fact in their system the body is a matter of quite secondary consideration: the death of the body is called the birth of the soul. The soul alone is an efficient existence, which procures the body for itself. (de Boer 1903, 91–92)

Nonetheless, it can be concluded that, with the constant imbuement of God or His agents (e.g., Universal Soul) as proximate causes, the terminology and the frame of reference for the Brethren of Purity are largely teleological and spiritual in nature rather than a mechanical one (Shah 2010, 148–49; Hameed ). More importantly, they denied any transformations of species, which is a marked difference with evolution. So, there is no literal change of species over time as advocated in the latter even though a temporal chronology can be found in their works. Relying simply on their broad terrestrial chronology renders an evolution‐friendly reading that is acontextual, ahistorical, and anachronistic. At best, the similarities that are observed between evolution and the worldview of the Brethren of Purity are nothing but superficial.