A Defense of David Solomon Jalajel's view of Adamic Exceptionalism on Theistic Evolution.
A Thread...π§΅
A Thread...π§΅
Before I start with my response to theory's critics, this is only one possible view. I have already made another thread on the scientific defense of Human Exceptionalism. Don't lash at me if you disagree with this. Write your objection in a respectful way.
γ1γ
"Adam is the father of all Humans"
That's true. However, what do we define as a human? I don't think unique anatomy, intelligence, and language are necessarily what define a human. For example, Hor Al-Ayn (maidens of paradise) are not daughters of Adam.
"Adam is the father of all Humans"
That's true. However, what do we define as a human? I don't think unique anatomy, intelligence, and language are necessarily what define a human. For example, Hor Al-Ayn (maidens of paradise) are not daughters of Adam.
They look like us and have the same intelligence, so I don't find it convincing that there can't be creations that look like us that are not human. If you think that these maidens are human, you'll have to reconcile that with the hadith that states Adam is humanity's father.
As much as we know from revelation, the definition of human (Ψ¨Ψ΄Ψ±) is the descendants of Adam, and this definition differs with the scientific one. Anything else that necessitates anatomical or mental uniqueness has no scripture evidence.
γ2γ
"Humans can't mate with non-humans"
Setting aside the scientific definition of human, a human from a theological angle is a descendant of Adam. That, however, doesn't mean we can't mate with non-human creations that look like us. For instance, humans will mate with Horris.
"Humans can't mate with non-humans"
Setting aside the scientific definition of human, a human from a theological angle is a descendant of Adam. That, however, doesn't mean we can't mate with non-human creations that look like us. For instance, humans will mate with Horris.
Nothing in the Quran & Sunnah excludes human/nonhuman mating. As to Quran 30:21, I feel the verse can't be used here. The verse says that one of God's gifts is the existence of human mates. However, the verse doesn't say mating with only humans is the only biological possiblity.
γ3γ
"The Quran says we all came from a single couple"
That is true. However, we have to go back to the theological definition of a human. If human means a descendant of Adam, all the offspring of a descendant of Adam is a human, even if one of the mates isn't one.
"The Quran says we all came from a single couple"
That is true. However, we have to go back to the theological definition of a human. If human means a descendant of Adam, all the offspring of a descendant of Adam is a human, even if one of the mates isn't one.
For example, a non-human being (Jinn) mates with a human. The child will have a lineage that goes back to Adam, so they would be human by theological definition. Now as to the child's appearance, it's not mentioned in the Quran & Sunnah what Adam's descendants should look like.
For example, the child could be somewhat different than normal people, like Gog and Magog. The child could also look exactly like us, like how an identical non-human mate exists with humans in paradise (Hooris).
γ4γ
"Isn't mating with non-humans haram"
That's true. However if we judge early humans based on our current shariah, then we wouldn't exist, because inbreeding would be forbidden to the first children of Adam. The moral commands of God change upon the time and context.
"Isn't mating with non-humans haram"
That's true. However if we judge early humans based on our current shariah, then we wouldn't exist, because inbreeding would be forbidden to the first children of Adam. The moral commands of God change upon the time and context.
Interspecies breeding could have been allowed for a necessity, just like inbreeding. Plus, why are we assuming that Adam or his first children did this. The descendants of Adam did wrong things all of the time, like how Cain killed his brother, so interbreeding isn't unique.
γ5γ
"The Quran says all children of Adam will be held morally responsible"
That's true. However, being held morally responsible doesn't theologically mean you can't biologically mate with other humans and your children are not morally responsible.
"The Quran says all children of Adam will be held morally responsible"
That's true. However, being held morally responsible doesn't theologically mean you can't biologically mate with other humans and your children are not morally responsible.
A creation being morally responsible doesn't mean other creations are not. For example, Jinn have free will and moral responsibility, although they are not human. Also, intelligent beings don't have to be bold responsible. Example: Angles are intelligent but don't have free will.
Finally, all of what I have said doesn't mean that this view is necessarily correct. In reality, Human Exceptionalism could be the correct view. My point is that this view, Adamic Exceptionalism, is consistent with scripture, Quran and Authentic Sunnah.
You don't have to agree with it, but don't call muslims that hold to it as heretics and Ahl-Biddah. Keep the expression of your objections to this view respectfully. So for my readers, what view do you hold to?
God knows best. Jazakumallahkheir
God knows best. Jazakumallahkheir
@TApureRS Tafsir is not Quran. We must have a clear reference from the Quran and Sunnah that excludes this view, but we don't have any as I have shown. The rest of the objections just comes down to what people thought the Quran meant (interpretation), rather than what it actually says.
Loading suggestions...