The Context Shaping Qadhi's Views about Evolution

Given both the timing and content of Qadhi's presentations, it would appear that he was concerned with how negative Muslim responses to evolution might be perceived. In doing so, it is likely that he was responding to the coverage of U.S.‐based Christian creationism that he makes both direct and indirect references to. Indeed, until HYM captured global attention, organized evolution rejection was often seen as an American Evangelical Christian phenomenon. For many U.S.‐based Evangelical Protestant movements, biblical literalism is an important component of their religious worldview (Zigerell 2012; Guhin 2016). One implication of this worldview is the need to uphold a literal understanding of the creation story presented in the book of Genesis. Evolution is often seen as a threat to such literal understandings of scripture. Furthermore, many U.S.‐based evangelical Protestants have raised concerns about evolution due to concerns about the influence of science on moral issues in the public sphere (Evans 2011; Evans and Evans 2010)––a theme also found in the works of HYM (Solberg 2013). In particular, this has resulted in a number of high‐profile cases in which attempts have been made to have evolution banned in schools, or at least to teach creationist positions as an alternative (Long 2011). The high‐profile nature of organized creationist movements in this context has often resulted in assumptions about how other faith groups––including Muslims––see evolution.

Perhaps, the most high‐profile example of recent Christian creationism is Ken Ham, the founder of the U.S.‐based Young Earth Creationist organization Answers in Genesis who established the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter visitor attraction in Kentucky. For Ham, not only does the biblical account of creation leave little room for the acceptance of evolution, but that evolutionary thought has also resulted in a number of evils, including lawlessness, homosexuality, Nazism, racism, drug use, abortion, social Darwinism, and male chauvinism (Rosenhouse 2012, 37). Many of Ham's activities have caught the attention of the world media, including his establishment of the Creation Museum in 2006 (Wells 2006; Redfern 2007). However, public figures, including politicians, have also promoted creationist views. A recent example––as further discussed below––is Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and John McCain's running mate in the 2008 U.S. election. In 2008, the Los Angeles Times published an article in which it was suggested that Palin may have previously reported believing in a young earth and the belief that dinosaurs and humans had lived side by side (Braun 2008), a common trope in some recent strands of Christian creationism. While it appears as though there is some doubt as to the exact nature of Palin's views on evolution, the fact that this was reported by the media becomes important to the content of this article.

Having been born and raised in Texas and now basing himself in Memphis, Tennessee––both of which are located in the so‐called “Bible Belt,” arguably, the heartland of Christian Creationism––Qadhi is likely to be familiar with high‐profile incidents of American Christian creationism. For example, he shows familiarity with the aforementioned coverage of Sarah Palin's controversial views on evolution and the negative responses to them.

Now, Christian comes along, biblical fundamentalist Sarah Palin version Christian. Says “I don't believe in dinosaurs. I don't believe that people were here seven thousand years ago”. Now we come along as Muslims and say I don't believe in evolution, instantaneously, you become, excuse me, Sarah Palin. Do you understand brothers and sisters? When you deny evolution you might deny one element, which is that Adam's father was a monkey basically, I am being very simplistic here but I'm just being a bit crude here because actually the theory of evolution does not say Adam's father was a monkey. I'm just being, you know, purposely a little bit humorous here. But that's the one thing you're denying. And we don't have any problem affirming other creatures, other species, hominids, dinosaurs, we don't have any problem stretching the human chain to beyond 6,000 years. We don't believe in 6,000 years by the way, it's not an Islamic figure, it's a Christian figure. ⁹ (Qadhi 2013c)

While Qadhi's associating of Palin with a rejection of the existence of dinosaurs does not accurately represent the claims Palin is reported to have made, it does demonstrate a knowledge of controversial claims she has made about creation. Qadhi is keen to distance Muslims from this type of creationism, and is clearly concerned about how Muslims will be viewed if they do not. Given the timing of Qadhi's main online presentations about evolution, it is also possible that Qadhi was concerned about the specific negative coverage of Muslim perceptions of evolution following the high‐profile coverage of HYM in the preceding years. HYM appear to have been heavily influenced by American Christian creationists and they often share similar lines of argument (Solberg 2013), which may have resulted in some concern on Qadhi's part that Muslims might be influenced by the types of views he distances himself from in his video presentations. Qadhi was exposed to HYM first hand at the aforementioned Have Muslims Misunderstood Evolution? conference, Qadhi shared a platform with Dr Oktar Babuna––a representative of HYM. As noted by Hameed (2013), Babuna served as a form of comic relief during the conference and few were left impressed by his content. Indeed, other examples of negative Muslim receptions of HYM lectures have also been reported (Hameed 2015; Moran 2019). Having witnessed the predominantly Muslim audience's negative response to Babuna first hand, Qadhi may have become concerned of the way others might view Muslims should the likes of HYM be taken as representative of Muslim positions on evolution.

The Science Behind Evolution

The primary focus of Qadhi's presentations regarding evolution are theological in nature, with a particular focus on textual hermeneutics. Nonetheless, he also discusses evolution from a scientific perspective, although he concedes that he is less qualified to do so. Much of the content of his scientific discussions is aimed at re‐educating his mainly Muslim audience as to the soundness of evolutionary science. Despite the fact that evolution is accepted by way of scientific consensus, religious creationists––including Muslims––are often the leading opponents of evolution. Qadhi shows his awareness of this point by saying that the “primary opposition to this theory seems to come almost exclusively from religious circles, who view their scriptures as providing an alternative explanation of the origins of life” (Qadhi 2013a). Qadhi directly addresses two of the main arguments made by religious creationists within his presentations, namely that evolution is part of a conspiracy and that evolution is simply an unproven hypothesis. For the former, the evangelical Institute for Creation Research in the United States has even produced literature that claims that evolutionists have had to resort to “smoke screens” in order to hide the lack of evidence for evolution (Morris 1999). Similar antievolutionary conspiracy theories espoused by some high‐profile Muslims, including HYM (Riexinger 2002). For example, the Iranian‐American Muslim intellectual Sayyed Hossein Nasr––who claims authority in issues of science, having studied geology and geophysics at MIT before obtaining a PhD in the history of science from Harvard University (Nasr and Jahanbegloo 2010)––argues that even Western scientists have rejected evolutionary theory, but have faced heavy resistance in publishing their findings:

There are many biological critiques made of the theory of evolution by biologists who in the Anglo‐Saxon world would usually have been ostracized and marginalized. This is true of a person such as Douglas Dewer, who was a member of the Harvard faculty. As soon as he began to write about the criticism of Darwinian evolution he had to publish his book in Tennessee, rather than in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I am referring especially to The Transformist Illusion, his famous book, and since then, two generations have passed and little has changed as far as biology departments in this country are concerned. (Nasr 2006, 185)

Qadhi appears concerned that Muslim publics might espouse similar views and he directly addresses this point in his video presentations, saying that “this is not some global conspiracy that they're out to brainwash the Muslim world. This is their paradigm, their perspective” (Qadhi 2013c). Thus, we can further see the influences on the framing of Qadhi's presentations regarding evolution. He seeks to encourage Muslims to understand the scientific validity behind evolutionary science, discouraging them from rejecting evolution by using arguments drawn from Christian creationism and drawing on the types of antiscientific conspiracy theories promoted by the likes of Nasr.

Also prominent in many critical discussions of evolution is the argument that evolution is merely an unproven hypothesis that remains to be demonstrated empirically. While there is little way of ascertaining how wide spread such views are, empirical data are available that shows that such views are present in some Muslim contexts (Thomas 2012; Guhin 2016; Moran 2018). Such views are also promoted by a number of prominent Muslims, including the Indian televangelist Zakir Naik (Naik 2014), who is popular with English speaking Muslims (Gardner, Mayes, and Hameed 2018; Moran 2019). For example, in one video available on YouTube, Naik was confronted by somebody claiming to be an ex‐Muslim who challenged him regarding evolution. Naik responded by saying;

You are talking about “The Theory of Evolution”, brother—theory of Evolution. I am a medical doctor—I have not come across a single book in my life which says… ‘The Fact of Evolution’. It is “Theory of Evolution”. (Naik 2014)

Naik then added that “There is no book saying ‘the Fact of Evolution’—All the books say ‘Theory of Evolution.’” Misconceptions over the meaning of the word theory are common among publics––both Muslim and non‐Muslim. Discussing this point, Scott says that the use of the word theory does not indicate that evolution is simply a hypothesis. She observes that:

The word “theory” is perhaps the most misunderstood word in science. In everyday usage, the synonym of theory is “guess” or “hunch.” Yet according to the National Academy of Sciences, a theory is defined as “a well‐substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses” (National Academy of Sciences 1998: 7). To explain something scientifically requires an interconnected combination of laws, tested hypotheses, and other theories. This reliance upon inferential reasoning is the hallmark of theorizing. (Scott 2004, 11)

Qadhi appears to be familiar with such views and in his presentation at Hertford appealed to Muslims to abandon such arguments:

We as Muslims, we need to understand that the theory of evolution pretty much has been accepted as much of a fact as any scientific theory. We need to stop deluding ourselves and saying that ‘oh it is only a theory’. That's not a very academic way to phrase this. Rather, the theory of evolution is like the theory of gravity. Gravity is a theory by the way. The how it forms and what not, it is as much of a fact amongst the scientific community as most other theories. (Qadhi 2013c)

However, despite this, the latter wording of Qadhi's presentation is notably more cautious when presenting his own views in regards to evolutionary science, saying:

I say this as a believing Muslim and I'm gonna surprise you by saying this, but inshallah [God willing] stay with me, don't don't just walk out now, let me finish the whole talk. I say this as a committed Muslim, that the theory of evolution from a scientific standpoint, in my humble opinion with a background in science, with a degree in engineering, with a minor in chemistry and in math and I have a degree in chemical engineering, the theory of evolution from a purely scientific standpoint, in my humble opinion, makes a lot of sense. Don't misquote me. I said from a scientific standpoint it makes a lot of sense. (Qadhi 2013c)

Qadhi's choice of words is interesting and it suggests an assumption on his behalf that his predominantly Muslim audience would be more resistant to evolutionary ideas than he is. As a result, he caveats these comments by saying that he only says that evolution makes sense from the point of view of science. However, later, in the same presentation, he does say that there is supporting evidence for evolution:

There are certain facts that are undeniable. For example, human bones, for example bones of humanoid species, for example microevolution, i.e. an evolution of a species slightly modifying itself. These are observable facts. If you take certain species of flies put them in a jar and monitor them for weeks with different circumstances, you will find that the flies actually adapt to those circumstances and over the course of generations they might develop immunities, they might you know, develop different wings or whatnot. And this is something that is undeniable. (Qadhi 2013c)

What is noteworthy in the above comment is that he seems to be suggesting that the empirical evidence is restricted to so‐called microevolution––that species evolve but this does not lead to speciation, as opposed to macroevolution which does. Neither of these terms is used in this sense by evolutionary biologists, who do not recognize a conceptual distinction between the two, as both are part of a single coherent evolutionary process. Numbers suggest that U.S.‐based creationists started to promote the idea of microevolution, while rejecting macroevolution, as early as the 1940s (Numbers 1992, 129–33). Macroevolution, they argued, cannot be observed and thus cannot be proven, whereas microevolution can be empirically observed. This allows for an explanation as to why changes can be seen within a species while falling short of having to accept macroevolution. John D. Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research, refutes macroevolution by adding that no useful genetic mutation (macroevolution) has ever been observed:

Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed. The one most cited is the disease sickle‐cell anemia, which provides an enhanced resistance to malaria. How could the occasionally deadly disease of SSA ever produce big‐scale change? (Morris 1996)

Following their Christian counterparts, a number of Muslim creationists have also accepted microevolution, while rejecting macroevolution ¹⁰ (Guessoum 2009, 276–77). As a result, it is interesting that Qadhi has chosen to restrict his discussion of empirical observation to microevolution and would indicate further familiarity with and even direct influence from either Christian or Muslim creationist arguments. Qadhi's position is more nuanced than to simply accept microevolution and he raises no objections to most forms of macroevolution. Indeed, Qadhi concedes that macroevolution––including for humans––is supported by the scientific consensus (Qadhi 2013a, 2013c):

It is clear that the theory of evolution is considered to be a scientific fact amongst large segments of the world. Indeed some have argued that there is almost ijma' [consensus], consensus amongst the scientific community that all life as we know it, including human life, originated from a universal a common ancestor. (Qadhi 2013a)

As we shall see in the following section, Qadhi does not, however, accept human evolution to be a reality. In this sense, he differs from a number of other Muslim theologians and public figures, who when rejecting human evolution, often try to discredit its scientific merits. For example, the aforementioned Naik said in his video presentation that “I do know there are some people who speak about Darwin's theory—I am a medical doctor, I know about that—but do you know that there are hundreds of Scientists who speak against it. A few scientists … few scientists speak in favour, — but there are more who speak against it” (Naik 2014).

The Compatibility between Islamic Scripture and Evolution

Much of the literature about Islam/Muslims and evolution has often tended to portray Islam as a monolithic tradition and Muslims as a monolithic group (Carlisle, Hameed, and Elsdon‐Baker 2019, 146; Moran 2019). However, the Islamic tradition has been notably diverse since its early inception. Accordingly, responses to evolutionary thought have differed significantly. As Hameed (2010, 139) notes, “Just as there is no monolithic Islam, there is no unified Islamic position on evolution.” As a result, any theological position given regarding evolution can at best be considered the independent reasoning (ijtihad) of individual theologians. In doing so, the primary source they will draw from is the Qur'an, which is the common feature of all Muslim denominations and seen as the word of God. Despite the common acceptance of the Qur'an as the word of God and primary scripture of the Islamic tradition, significant differences exist on how it should be interpreted.

Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an is not written in a chronological narrative. Instead, it is presented in chapters (surat), which often refer back to specific events in order to illustrate wider points, often with less specific detail than the biblical account. As a result, creation is often referenced when making wider points––often about God's majesty––and lacks many details of creation of either the universe or human beings when compared to the book of Genesis (Hameed 2010, 134). Like the Bible, the Qur'an talks of a six day creation although the Arabic for day (yawm) can also mean period of time and the creation account found in the Qur'an was commonly interpreted as a period of time. As Hameed (2010, 136) notes, “The resulting ambiguity has two important consequences for the debate over biological origins. First, it leaves open the possibility of a very old earth. Indeed, young earth creationism is wholly absent from the Muslim world, and a universe billions of years old is commonly accepted.” Likewise, the account of biological creation is also ambiguous, indicating that the origin of life was in water and that man was created from clay (teen) (Hameed 2010, 136).

While the great Quranic commentaries––often main sources of reference for Muslim theologians––never questioned the special creation of man and by extension other species (Riexinger 2010, 484), some have more recently sought to re‐evaluate the Qur'anic accounts of creation. Hameed suggests that the ambiguous nature of these verses has allowed for some to argue for a reconciliation between Islamic scripture and evolution so long as the special status of humans is preserved (Hameed 2010, 135). The position taken by Qadhi closely mirrors this view as he accepts macroevolution of nonhuman species and says that this is acceptable from a theological perspective; however, very little time is given to discussing nonhuman evolution in his presentations. The disproportionate focus on human evolution is not exclusive to Qadhi and provides the main point of discussion in debates about Islam and evolution (Al‐Haddad 2012; Naik 2014). Indeed, even some Muslim creationists who reject all forms of evolution do so only by reference to human evolution. Qadhi says that:

…all animals are linked together in some great grand tree. But, we as Muslims have to say there was one exception to the rule. That's where we draw the line. We say there was one exception. And this exception of course was Adam and Benu Adam [the tribe of Adam, i.e. humanity]. (Qadhi 2013a)

For Qadhi, the Qur'an is explicit in its mention of the special creation of humans––a conclusion possibly arrived at due to the salafi literalistic approach to textual hermeneutics. He says that:

I firmly believe as Muslims across the world believe, that Islamic texts are clear on the origins of man. Both the Qur'an and the Sunnah inform us that humankind descended from Adam and Eve. And that they were the first humans created directly by Allah. (Qadhi 2013a)

It must be noted that while the arguments for human evolution often reference Quranic verses––undoubtedly, the primary source material for Islam––supplementary content can be found in the content of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (hadith). Riexinger (2010, 484) makes passing reference to the hadith collections being used to fill in the blanks of the Quranic creation story but does not provide a detailed analysis. In another piece, Riexinger notes that the hadith literature contains “information regarding the time‐spans between the prophets, which sum up to a similar time frame to that in the Bible (Riexinger 2013, 500). The creation of Adam figured prominently in popular religious literature, such as the legends of the prophets.” Qadhi agrees with Riexinger and argues repeatedly that the hadith literature “is even more explicit” in detailing the special creation of man (Qadhi 2012, 2013a).

There are, however, numerous examples of Muslims that do accept human evolution. For example, the London‐based Imam and scientist Dr Usama Hasan––who drew significant criticism from Qadhi when they debated human evolution at the Deen Institute conference––interprets the Quranic mention of dust, clay, and water as a reference to a mixture of water and minerals found on earth and in its soil (Hasan 2008). He says that “One problem is that many Muslims retain the simple picture that God created Adam from clay, much as a potter makes a statue, and then breathed into the lifeless statue and lo! it became a living human” (Hasan 2008). For Hasan, one of the main obstacles preventing Muslims from accepting evolution is what he calls the “children's madrasa‐level understanding” of the creation story. He adds that many object to the notion of human evolution from apes, believing that this would denigrate and insult all humans, including the prophets of God. He replies that:

[T]he theory doesn't insult anyone, but does remind us of the humble origins of our created form. This is nothing new or blasphemous, since numerous Qur'anic verses remind us that we are all created from "dust" via sexual discharges: "despised drops of water". Those verses clearly do not insult the prophets. Meanwhile, our spiritual form remains the most exalted, since it is from the spirit of God breathed into Adam: we exist for the most noble purpose of knowing and loving God, freely and after having been given a choice. (Hasan 2008)

Qadhi responds to such attempts to reconcile human evolution with Islamic scripture by saying that “I believe that any attempt to contradict or modify this Islamic argument [the special creation of Adam] is scripturally indefensible, historically flawed and methodologically shallow” (Qadhi 2013a). He is not the only theologian to be critical of those that have attempted to reconcile the two (Nasr and Iqbal 2009, 149; Al‐Haddad 2012). Qadhi believes that the acceptance of human evolution can only be achieved if one adopts a metaphoric interpretation of the Qur'an. His opposition to relying on metaphorical interpretations extends to issues other than science, saying “Because if we were to open this door and people have done this before, then we will say heaven and hell are also metaphorical and salah [prayer] is also metaphorical and zakah [alms] is also metaphorical and people have been there and done that. And the Qur'an was not revealed to be a metaphor” (Qadhi 2013a). Qadhi's refusal to accept a metaphorical interpretation of the Qur'an is part of a wider debate in Islamic theology and as we have seen, the Salafi tradition in which he was educated leans heavily toward literal interpretations. ¹¹

Nonetheless, Qadhi's theological stance results in a problem. Not only does he accept that there is scientific consensus for human evolution, he himself also accepts the existence of prehuman humanoids due to the presence of indisputable evidence (Qadhi 2013a). His solution to this perceived conflict between science and scripture is a type of human exclusionism––a position not unique to Qadhi (Everhart and Hameed 2013; Guhin 2016; Moran 2018; Carlisle, Hameed, and Elsdon‐Baker 2019)––whereby God intervened at a specific point in time. However, what is in many ways unique to Qadhi is his attempts to provide an explanation as to the different conclusions reached by theologians and scientists. Qadhi illustrates his solution to this question by use of an analogy involving dominoes:

And the max that can be said, now I am not saying this because I'm not a scientist but I'm saying the max that we can say, is to imagine if you like a series of dominoes tumbling and they're all going, as we all seen on YouTube clips and whatnot, all going in different directions having been caused by one beginning domino, right? And eventually if these dominoes continue, one line of these dominoes will lead to that domino, which is a final domino known as man. Because we know for a fact that nothing has been evolved from us. We are the final Domino. (Qadhi 2013c)

Qadhi's analogy is that if one domino were to fall, it would topple the following dominoes, resulting in a causal chain of dominos falling sequentially. A person viewing the toppled dominos would rightly conclude that each domino fell as a result of the previous domino. However, if somebody placed another domino at the end of the chain in a fallen position, an observer would likewise conclude that this domino was also part of the chain of sequential falling dominos. Qadhi's proposal is that human beings were created separately to the evolutionary process in a similar vain to the insertion of the last domino. This would allow for the evolution of prehuman humanoids until the point of the special creation of man, as well as providing an explanation as to why it would appear that humans have also evolved from these earlier forms. Qadhi says that this would lead to a situation whereby a “neutral observer who doesn't believe in Allah, ‘kafir’ [unbeliever] observer would automatically say obviously this Domino comes from the one before it. And he has every right to make that claim” (Qadhi 2013c).

Despite often promoting this position, it is interesting that Qadhi himself does not commit to it, merely saying that it is the furthest a believing Muslim can go in accepting evolution. Although Qadhi's domino analogy has been discussed elsewhere (Hameed 2013; Fouad 2018), the implications of the latter point are important and have often been missed. Although stopping short issuing a binding legal ruling (fatwa), in saying that the domino analogy is the furthest a believing Muslim can go toward accepting evolution, Qadhi is implicitly laying the boundaries for what is acceptable belief. The natural consequence of this is that those who go further in their acceptance of evolution could feasibly be considered to be non‐Muslims.