![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In this article, I respond to my interlocutors, who have raised various points while engaging my book, Islam and Evolution: Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm. In addressing their arguments and points of engagement, I have ordered this article into four parts: (1) methodological issues, (2) scientific issues, (3) metaphysical issues, and (4) hermeneutic issues.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank the contributors for taking part in this special, as they have been nothing short of excellent interlocutors. I would also like to show my appreciation to the editorial board of Theology and Science, especially Alan Weissenbacher and Ted Peters, for being so welcoming and accommodating to this special issue in the journal.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Fern Elsdon-Baker, Selfish Genius: How Richard Dawkins Rewrote Darwin's Legacy (London: Icon Books, 2009); Fern Elsdon-Baker, “The Compatibility of Science and Religion?” in Religion and Atheism: Beyond the Divide, eds. Anthony Carroll and Richard Norman Religion and Atheism: Beyond the Divide (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017), 82–92.
2 Leif Stenberg, The Islamization of Science: Four Muslim Positions Developing an Islamic Modernity (Lund: Novapress, 1996); Harun Yahya, The Dark Spell of Darwinism: How Darwinists Twist the Truth to Turn People Away From God (Istanbul: Global Publishing, 2006).
3 Ronald Numbers, The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2006); Salman Hameed, “Bracing for Islamic Creationism,” Science 322 (2008), 1637–1638; Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer, Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America's Classrooms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Salman Hameed, “Evolution and Creationism in the Islamic World,” in Science and Religion New Historical Perspectives, eds. Thomas Dixon, Geoffrey Cantor, and Stephen Pumfrey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 133–154; Salman Hameed, “Making Sense of Islamic Creationism in Europe,” Public Understanding of Science 24:4 (2015), 388–399; Saouma BouJaoude, “Evolution Education in the Arab States: Context, History, Stakeholders' Positions and Future Prospects,” in Evolution Education Around the Globe, eds. Hasan Deniz and Lisa A. Borgerding (Cham: Springer, 2018), 297–314; Adam Laats and Harvey Siegel, Teaching Evolution in a Creation Nation (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2016); Adam Laats, Creationism USA: Bridging the Impasse on Teaching Evolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020).
4 Shoaib A. Malik, Islam and Evolution Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm (Abingdon: Routledge, 2021).
5 Shoaib A. Malik, Islam and Evolusi: Imam al-Ghazali dan Paradigma Evolusi Modern. trans. Kardono Setyorakhmadi (Jakarta: Rene Islam, 2023).
6 This will come out with Dār al-Adab Publishers and Distribution.
7 This will come out with Ahmadu Bello University Press Limited.
8 This will come out with Albaraka Türk Publishers.
9 This will come out with Afkar Foundation.
10 Projects, “ISSR Annual Book Prize,” International Society for Science and Religion, issr.org.uk/projects/issr-annual-book-prize/ (accessed on the 19 July, 2023).
11 Ian Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (New York: SCM Press, 1998).
12 Mikael Stenmark, How to Relate Science and Religion: A Multidimensional Model (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2004).
13 Ted Peters, “Science and Religion: Ten Models of War, Truce, and Partnership,” Theology and Science 16:1 (2017), 11–53.
14 Neil Messer, Science in Theology: Encounters between Science and the Christian Tradition (London: T&T Clark, 2020)
15 Niels Henrik Gregersen and Jacobus Wentzel Van Huyssteen, eds., Rethinking Theology and Science: Six Models for the Current Dialogue (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998).
16 Jeffry R. Halverson, Theology and Creed in Sunnī Islam: The Muslim Brotherhood, Ashʿarism, and Political Sunnīsm (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 1–2, 53.
17 Sachiko Murata and William C. Chittick, The Vision of Islam (New York: Paragon House, 1994); Asad Tarsin, Being Muslim: A Practical Guide (Berkley: Sandala Books, 2015)
18 Timothy Winter, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2008); Sabine Schmidtke, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
19 Sherman Jackson, Islam and the Problem of Black Suffering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); Halverson, Theology and Creed in Sunnī Islam.
20 Montgomery Watt, Muslim Intellectual: A Study of al-Ghazali (Edinburgh: The Edinburgh University Press, 1963); Ebrahim Moosa, Ghazālī and the Poetics of Imagination (North Caroline: The University of North Carolina Press, 2005); Frank Griffel, Al-Ghazali's Philosophical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
21 Adi Setia, “Reviving Kalām Jadīd in the Modern Age: The Perpetual Relevance of al-Ghazālī and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī,” TAFHIM: IKIM Journal of Islam and the Contemporary World 4: 107–157; Transcendent God, Rational World: A Maturidi Theology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2023).
22 Ayman Shihadeh and Jan Thiele, eds., Philosophical Theology in Islam Later Ashʿarism East and West (Cham: Brill. 2020); Laura Hassan, Ashʿarism Encounters Avicennism: Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī on Creation (New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2020); Frank Griffel, The Formation of Post-Classical Philosophy in Islam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021); Walead Mohammed Mosaad, Islam Before Modernity: Aḥmad al-Dardīr and the Preservation of Traditional Knowledge (New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2022).
23 An example is Khalil Andani, “Evolving Creation: An Ismaili Muslim Interpretation of Evolution,” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 57:2 (2022), 443–466. Another example is an upcoming edited volume. Shoaib Ahmed Malik and David Solomon Jalajel, eds., New Frontiers in Islam and Evolution: Hermeneutics, People, and Places (Abingdon: Routledge, forthcoming). Note that the title of this edited volume is tentative.
24 Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “On the Question of Biological Origins,” Islam and Science 4:2 (2006), 181–197.
25 Q. 4:157.
26 Malik, Islam and Evolution, 8–10.
27 Frank Griffel, “al-Ghazali,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/al-ghazali/ (accessed 21 August, 2023).
28 Shoaib A. Malik, “Al-Ghazālī,” In The Cambridge History of Atheism, eds. Stephen Bullivant and Michael Ruse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 291–307.
29 Malik, Islam and Evolution, 10.
30 Timothy J. Gianotti, Al-Ghazālī's Unspeakable Doctrine of the Soul: Unveiling the Esoteric Psychology and Eschatology of the Iḥyāʾ (Leiden: Brill, 2001). Also see Ali Issa Othman, The Concept of Man in Islam: In the Writings of al-Ghazali (Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1960); Ayman Shihadeh, “Al-Ghazālī and Kalām: The Conundrum of His Body-Soul Dualism,” In Islam and Rationality: The Impact of al-Ghazālī. Papers collected on his 900th Anniversary. Vol. 2, ed. Frank Griffel (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 113–141.
31 Malik, Islam and Evolution, 9, 267–295.
32 Marwa Elshakry. Reading Darwin in Arabic, 1860-1950 (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2013).
33 Uriya Shavit, “The Evolution of Darwin to a ‘Unique Christian Species’ in Modernist-Apologetic Arab-Islamic Thought,” Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 26 (2015), 17–32.
34 See the footnotes in David Solomon Jalajel, Islam and Biological Evolution: Exploring Classical Sources and Methodologies (Western Cape: University of the Western Cape, 2009), 162–163.
35 Stephen J. Shoemaker, Creating the Qur'an: A Historical-Critical Study (California: University of California Press, 2022).
36 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 50th Anniversary Edition (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2012.)
37 We can also borrow from the difference between applied and theoretical mathematics. Theoretical mathematics centres its focus on abstract and theoretical mathematical concepts, endeavouring to validate theorems and explore novel mathematical domains. Theoretical maths courses predominantly revolve around proofs and delve into the theoretical potentials of mathematical principles. Conversely, applied mathematics is oriented towards the practical applications of mathematics, aiming to harness mathematical tools for tangible uses. I see my project as applied theology as opposed to theoretical theology.
38 Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, Fayṣal al-Tafriqa Bayna al-Islām wa-l-Zandaqa. ed. Sulaymān Dunyā (Cairo: Dār Ihyā al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyya, 1961); Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam. trans. Sherman Jackson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, Al-Iqtiṣād fi al-ʿItiqād (Beirut: Dār Qutayba, 2003); Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, Moderation in Belief. trans. Aladdin M. Yaqub (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013).
39 S. Joshua Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry (New York: IVP Academic, 2019); Kenneth D. Keathley, “Antipodes and the Scandal of Particularity,” Peaceful Science, https://peacefulscience.org/prints/ets-keathley-gae/ (accessed 21 August, 2023).
40 The following are excellent references for the history of evolution related to the points that I will be making in this section: Michael Ruse, The Darwinian Revolution Science Red in Tooth and Claw (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1999); Edward J. Larson, Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (New York: Modern Library, 2006); Peter J. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (California: University of California Press, 2009).
41 Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, “Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink? Yes, Urgently,” Nature 514 (2014), 161–164; Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra, Douglas J. Futuyma, Richard E. Lenski, Trudy F. C. Mackay, Dolph Schluter, and Joan E. Strassmann, “Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink? No, All Is Well,” Nature 514 (2014), 161–164.
42 This is largely thanks to the works of Richard Dawkins, creationists, and the intelligent design community, Neo-Darwinism and evolution are understood as one and the same thing in the popular mindset as well as the extended literature.
43 See, for example, Janett R. Richards, Human Nature After Darwin: A Philosophical Introduction (London: Routledge, 2000).
44 See, for example, Merriam Webster Dictionary, “Exceptionalism,” Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exceptionalism (accessed 21 August, 2023).
45 Malik, Islam and Evolution, 106–154.
46 The last term literally means the children of Adam.
47 To be sure, there are some thinkers who think humans should not even be called ‘Homo.' See Fiqih Risallah and Tatiana Denisova “Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas on Human Origin,” Tsaqafah: Jurnal Peradaban Islam 15:2 (2019), 345–262; Naquib al-Attas, On Justice and the Nature of Man: A Commentary on Sūrah Al-Nisāʾ (4):58 and Sūrah Al-Muʾminūn (23):12–14 (Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Banking and Finance Institute Malaysia), 31–57.
48 Kenneth Kemp discusses this from the Christian context. Kenneth Kemp, “Science, Theology, and Monogenesis,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 85 (2011), 217–236.
49 William Lane Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2021).
50 Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve.
51 David Solomon Jalajel, “Tawaqquf and Acceptance of Human Evolution,” Yaqeen Institute, https://yaqeeninstit ute.org/read/paper/tawaqquf-and-acceptance-of-human-evolution#.%20Xgw_HxczbPA (accessed 1 January, 2020).
52 Malik, Islam and Evolution, 341–343.
53 Shoaib A. Malik, “Adam, Eve, and Human Evolution: Is There a Conflict?” In Islamic Philosophy of Religion Essays from Analytic Perspectives, ed. Mohammad Saleh Zarepour (Abingdon: Routledge, 2023), 261–281.
54 Safaruk Chowdhury, Islamic Theology and the Problem of Evil (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2021).
55 Yujin Nagasawa, “The Problem of Evil for Atheists,” In The Problem of Evil: Eight Views in Dialogue, ed. Nick N Trakakis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 151–175.
56 Malik, Islam and Evolution, 44.
57 Safaruk Zaman Chowdhury, “Explaining Evil in the Bio-Sphere: Assessing Some Evolutionary Theodicies for Muslim Theists,” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 57:2 (2022), 393–417; Trent Dougherty, ed., The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy For All Creatures Great And Small (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan); Bethany N. Sollereder, God, Evolution, and Animal Suffering Theodicy without a Fall (Abingdon: Routledge, 2019).
58 Shoaib A. Malik, “Al-Ghazālī's Divine Command Theory: Biting the Bullet,” Journal of Religious Ethics 49:3 (2021), 546–576.
59 Q. 21:23.
60 Q. 113:1–2.
61 Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, Al-Maqṣad al-Asnā fī Sharḥ Maʾānī Asmāʾ Allāh al-Ḥusnā, ed. Bassām ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Jābī (Cyprus: Al-Jaffān wa-l-Jābī, 2003); Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, The Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God. trans. David Burrell and Nazih Daher (Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 2015).
62 For interesting literature on this topic, see Fadlou Shehadi, Ghazali's Unique Unknowable God: A Philosophical Critical Analysis of Some of the Problems Raised by Ghazali's View of God as Utterly Unique and Unknowable (Leiden: Brill, 1964); David B. Burrell, “The Unknowability of God in Al-Ghazali,” Religious Studies 23:2 (1987), 171–182; Aydogan Kars, Unsaying God: Negative Theology in Medieval Islam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).
63 Shoaib A. Malik, “Introduction to the Special Issue on Philosophy of Science and Islamic Thought,” Theology and Science 21:3 (2023), 354-358.
64 Shoaib Ahmed Malik and Nazif Muhtaroglu, “How Much Should or Can Science Impact Theological Formulations? An Ashʿārī Perspective on Theology of Nature,” European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 18:2 (2022), 5–36.
65 Ibid; Malik, Islam and Evolution, 191–193.
66 As occasionalists, Ashʿarīs would deny such distinctions. Miracles are not a separate form of providence since there are no ‘interventions' in occasionalism. In Ashʿarī theology they are understood as deliberate manifestations of anomalous patterns by the will of God. They make no difference to worldly outcomes since God could achieve the very same end results while adhering to His normal patterns. They are merely a form of expression God chooses to employ. See Malik, Islam and Evolution, 179–211. I have an upcoming article that tackles the nature of miracles in Ashʿarī theology. See Shoaib A. Malik and Karim Kocsenda, “The Understanding of Miracles from an Ashʿarī Perspective,” Journal of Islamic Philosophy (forthcoming). Also see Niels Henrik Gregersen, “Special Action and the Quilt of Laws: Why the Distinction Between Special and Divine Action Cannot Be Maintained,” In Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action: Twenty Years of Challenge and Progress, eds. Russel, Robert John, Nancey Murphy, and William R. Stoeger S. J. (Indiana: Vatican Observatory and the Centre for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2008), 179–200.
67 Malik, Islam and Evolution, 187.
68 Wesley J. Wildman, “The Divine Action Project, 1988-2003,” In Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action: Twenty Years of Challenge and Progress, eds. Russel, Robert John, Nancey Murphy, and William R. Stoeger S. J. (Indiana: Vatican Observatory and the Centre for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2008), 133–178.
69 William J. Abraham, Divine Agency and Divine Action: Exploring and Evaluating the Debate – Volume 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 146–164.
70 Malik, Islam and Evolution, 184–186.
71 Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve, 79–80.
72 Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 69–71.
73 Alistair E. McGrath, “Hesitations About Special Divine Action: Reflections on Some Scientific, Cultural and Theological Concerns,” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7:4 (2015), 3–22; Abraham, Divine Agency and Divine Action; David Fergusson, The Providence of God: A Polyphonic Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018); Simon Maria, Reframing Providence: New Perspectives from Aquinas on the Divine Action Debate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023), 19–96; Ignacio Silva, Provide and Science in a World of Contingency: Thomas Aquinas’ Metaphysics of Divine Action (Abingdon: Routledge, 2022), 32–57; Sarah Lane Ritchie, Divine Action and the Human Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 3–80; Michael J. Dodds, O.P., Unlocking Divine Action: Contemporary Science and Thomas Aquinas (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 2012).
74 I would not classify chaos theory as an example of weak ontological chance. Chaos theory is chaotic, but it is not indeterministic, and thus would be more an example of epistemic chance. For a critical review of this point in the work of Polkinghorne, see Taede A. Smedes, Chaos, Complexity, and God: Divine Action and Scientism (Leuven: Peeters, 2004).
75 Malik and Muhtaroglu, “How Much Should or Can Science Impact Theological Formulations?” 13–16.
76 Ibid.
77 There is a difference between those attributes that can be known through reason that is confirmed by revelation and those that are solely revelational. See al-Ghazālī, Al-Maqṣad al-Asnā; al-Ghazālī, The Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God.
78 Shoaib A. Malik, Hamza Karamali, and Moamer Yahia Ali Khalayleh, “Does Criticizing Intelligent Design (ID) Undermine Design Discourse in the Qurʾān?” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 57:2 (2022), 490–513.
79 Some might contend that the possibility of contingent creations that are without design, complexity, or purpose is a contradiction. If God willed such creations that means they are designed. Here I think we should distinguish between volition and design. God's volition is not being negated if He chose to create such worlds. But if He chose to create worlds with no order that are totally chaotic, then it would be wrong to say that they are designed.
80 Due to the name and the way that IDA is perceived, it is assumed that critiquing the IDA entails that (1) there is no design in creation, (2) no design inferences can be made about God, or (3) that there is no mention of design, complexity, and purposes in the Qurʿān are being rejected. However, I have made it clear that none of these claims is true. IDAs are specific kinds of arguments in which a designer is posited as a better competing explanation in opposition to scientific explanations. In a contingency-based framework, it could be the case that God intervened at a point in time or God could have manifested the complex entity through a natural law. Either is possible. Thus, this should be best understood as a philosophical or scientific debate, not a theological one. See Malik, Karamali, and Khalayleh, “Does Criticizing Intelligent Design (ID) Undermine Design Discourse in the Qurʾān?” I have also articulated this in a YouTube video. Blogging Theology, “Intelligent Design and Qurʾānic Design with Professor Shoaib A Malik,” Blogging Theology, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDe7NulYVtw (accessed 21 August, 2023).
81 Tyler Hildebrand and Thomas Metcalf, “The Nomological Argument for the Existence of God,” Noûs 56:2 (2021), 443–472.
82 Jason Waller, Cosmological Fine-Tuning Arguments: What (If Anything) Should We Infer from the Fine-Tuning of Our Universe for Life? (Abingdon: Routledge, 2020).
83 William A. Dembski, Being as Communion: A Metaphysics of Information (Abingdon: Routledge, 2014); Michael J. Behe, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution (California: HarperOne, 2019); Stephen C. Meyers, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe (New York: HarperOne, 2021). You can find more references on intelligent design in the bibliography of Chapter Seven of my monograph.
84 Del Ratzsch and Jeffrey Koperski, “Teleological Arguments for God's Existence,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/teleological-arguments/ (accessed 21 August, 2023).
85 Malik, Islam and Evolution, 228–230.
86 Malik, Karamali, and Khalayleh, “Does Criticizing Intelligent Design (ID) Undermine Design Discourse in the Qurʾān?” 2–5.
87 Ibid.
88 Charles Darwin (d. 1882), by contrast, struggled with seeing design given the theory of evolution. The reasons are multifaceted, but it's clear that the problem of evil and the trustworthiness of cognition were two key concerns. See Erkki V. R. Kojonen, The Compatibility of Evolution and Design (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022); Philip Kitcher, Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); Janet Browne, “Asa Gray and Charles Darwin: Corresponding Naturalists,” Harvard Papers in Botany 15:2 (2010), 209–220. Also see my video on Charles Darwin: Blogging Theology, “Was Charles Darwin An Atheist? With Dr. Shoaib Ahmed Malik,” Blogging Theology, https://youtu.be/6J8YguY0ybY (accessed 27 August, 2023).
89 Harun Yahya, The Evolution Deceit: The Scientific Collapse of Darwinism and Its Ideological Background (Istanbul: Kültür Publishing, 2001); Harun Yahya, The Dark Spell of Darwinism: How Darwinists Twist the Truth to Turn People Away from God (Istanbul: Global Publishing, 2006).
90 The emphasis on the radical contingency of creation is also stressed in the religious term āya, which is the term used for all signs in existence as well as the verses of the Qurʿān.
91 Also see Malik and Muhtaroglu, “How Much Should or Can Science Impact Theological Formulations?”
92 Ratzsch and Koperski, “Teleological Arguments for God's Existence;” James D. Madden, “Giving the Devil His Due: Teleological Arguments After Hume,” In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-Humean Assessment, eds. James F. Sennett and Douglas Groothuis (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 150–174; Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies, 193–264.
93 Laura Hassan, Ashʿarism Encounters Avicennism; Bruce Reichenbach, “Cosmological Argument,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/cosmological-argument/ (accessed 21 August, 2023); Herbert A. Davidson, Proofs for Eternity, Creation, and the Existence of God in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987); Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Maʿālim Uṣūl al-Dīn (Amman: Dār al-Fatḥ li-l-Dirāsāt wa-l-Nashr, 2010), 191–202; Saʿīd ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Fawda, Al-ʾAdilla al-ʿAqliyya ʿala Wujūd Allāh bayna al-Mutakallamīn wa-l-Falāsifa (Amman: Al-Aṣlayn li-l-Dirāsāt wa-l-Nashr, 2016); Jacobus Erasmus, The Kalām Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment (Cham: Springer, 2018); Mohammad Saleh Zarepour, “Avicenna on Mathematical Infinity,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 102:3 (2020), 379–425.
94 Alexander R. Pruss and Joshua L. Rasmussen, Necessary Existence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).
95 For these reasons, some of Kojonen's arguments are misplaced. For example, he claims that the Qurʾān's inimitability falls into the same problems that I highlight for IDAs. I will not engage this particular point in this article as it is far removed from the focus of this special issue. Unfortunately, the philosophical research on miracles in Islamic thought is still underdeveloped, which sometimes leads to a misunderstanding of the function of miracles in Islamic perspectives. For instance, in Ashʿarī theology, miracles are proofs for prophethood, not Godhood. I have an upcoming article that tackles the nature of miracles in Ashʿarī theology. See Shoaib A. Malik and Karim Kocsenda, “The Understanding of Miracles from an Ashʿarī Perspective,”
96 For an excellent breakdown of this division in relation to evolution, see David Solomon Jalajel, “Tawaqquf and Acceptance of Human Evolution,”
97 David Solomon Jalajel, Shoaib Ahmed Malik, Marzuqa Karima, Nadda Khan, “Adam and Eve's Garden in Sunnī Islamic Thought: Heaven or Earth?” In New Frontiers in Islam and Evolution: Hermeneutics, People, and Places, eds. Shoaib Ahmed Malik and David Solomon Jalajel (Abingdon: Routledge, forthcoming).
98 David Jalajel Solomon. “Extraterrestrials and Moral Accountability Non-human Moral Personhood Through the Lens of Classical Sunnī Theology and Law.” In Shoaib Ahmed Malik and Jörg Matthias Determann, eds. Islamic Theology and Extraterrestrial Life New Frontiers in Science and Religion (London: Bloomsbury, 2024), 87–113.
99 Abū Zayd Al-Dābūsī, Taqwīm al-Adilla, ed. Khalīl Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Mīs (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2001), 173; Muḥammad Ḥasan Hītū, Al-Wajīz fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh (Beirut: Mu'assasat al-Risāla, 2006), 304–306.
100 Bernard G. Weiss, The Spirit of Islamic Law (Atlanta: The University of Georgia Press, 1998), 112; Wael B. Hallaq, A History of Islamic Legal Theories: An Introduction to Sunnī Usul Al-Fiqh (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 118-120.
101 John Cooper, “Translator's Introduction,” In The Commentary on the Qurʾān by Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, trans. and ed. John Cooper (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), xii-xiv.
102 Malik, Islam and Evolution, 265–295. This multimodality is clearly visible in his corpus. In the primary literature, see al-Ghazālī, Fayṣal al-Tafriqa; al-Ghazālī, On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam; al-Ghazālī, Al-Iqtiṣād fi al-ʿItiqād; al-Ghazālī, Moderation in Belief; Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, “Iljām al-ʿAwām ʿan ʿIlm al-Kalām,” In Majmūʿa Rasāʾil al-Imām al-Ghazālī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2017), 41–83; Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, A Return to Purity in Creed, trans. ʿAbdullāh bin Ḥamīd ʿAlī (Philadelphia: Lamp Post Productions, 2008); Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, Al-Mustaṣfā min ʿIlm al-Uṣūl, ed. and ann. Ibrāhīm Muḥammad Ramaḍān (Beirut: Dār al-Arkām, n.d.); Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, Jawāhir al-Qurʿān, ed. Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā al-Qabbānī (Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-ʿUlūm, 1986); Abū Ḥāmid Al-Ghazālī Abū Ḥāmid Al-Ghazālī, The Jewels of the Qurʾān: Al-Ghazali’s Theory. trans. Muhammad Abul Quasem (Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust, 2013). In the secondary literature, see Ebrahim Moosa, Ghazālī and the Poetics of Imagination (North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2005); Ebrahim Moosa, “The Legal Philosophy of al-Ghazālī: Law, Language and Theology in al-Mustaṣfā” (PhD diss., University of Cape Town, 1995); Frank Griffel, Al-Ghazālī's Philosophical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); Mustafa Abu Sway, Al-Ghazzāliyy: A Study in Islamic Epistemology (Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1996); Martin Whittingham, Al-Ghazali and the Qurʾān: One Book, Many Meanings (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007); Kenneth Garden, The First Islamic Reviver: Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī and his Revival of the Religious Sciences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014); Eric Ormsby, Ghazali: The Revival of Islam (London: Oneworld Publications, 2017).
103 Kojonen makes specific claims about the ḥadīth on creation's chronology, something which I also discuss in my work. See Malik, Islam and Evolution, 89–91. For an excellent discussion on the methodology as to why this ḥadīth is unproblematic, see Muntasir Zaman, The Height of Prophet Adam: At the Crossroads of Science and Scripture (Manchester: Beacon Books, 2022).
104 Malik, Islam and Evolution, 94–99.
105 Ibid., 267–295.
106 Al-Ghazālī, Fayṣal al-Tafriqa; al-Ghazālī, On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam.
107 Behnam Sadeghi, “The Chronology of the Qurʾān: A Stylometric Research Program,” Arabica 58 (2011), 210–299; Angelika Neuwirth, “Structure and the Emergence of Community,” In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to the Qurʾān, eds. Andrew Rippin and Jawid Mojaddedi (Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016), 151-170.
108 Shoaib A. Malik, “Challenges and Opportunities in Teaching Interdisciplinary Courses on Islam and Evolution: A Theology-Centric Perspective,” Religions MDPI 14:95 (2023), 1–21.
109 For an excellent treatment on why Sunnī Muslims believe that Adam is a miraculous creation, see Tahseen N. Khan, The Provenance of Man: A Sunni Apologetic of the Original Creation of Ādam (Chicago: Philasufical Publications, 2023).
110 Q. 4:1.
111 For a more thorough diagram that shows both male and female lineages, see Figure 1. in S. Joshua Swamidass, “A Genealogical Adam and Eve in Evolution,” Henry Center for Theological Understanding, https://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/06/a-genealogical-adam-and-eve-in-evolution/?fbclid=IwAR3f8eqooDOixOK7DSIt5Z2za8vS1HEu-Qh7Gc7Nqwk19Q1TZY1jR_U8F8c (accessed 28 August, 2023).
112 There will be forthcoming research that makes this case more thoroughly. In the meantime, the following references provide good reviews of this subject matter: Ṣalāh al-Ṣāwī, “Zawāj al-Jinn min al-Ins,” Fatāwa al-Ṣāwī, https://fatawaalsawy.com/%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%81%d9%82%d9%87/%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%85%d8%b9%d8%a7%d9%85%d9%84%d8%a7%d8%aa/%d8%a7%d8%ad%d9%83%d8%a7%d9%85-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%86%d9%83%d8%a7%d8%ad/%d8%b2%d9%88%d8%a7%d8%ac-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ac%d9%86-%d9%85%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a5%d9%86%d8%b3-2/ (accessed 21 August, 2023); Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdulla al-Shiblī Badr al-Dīn Abū ʿAbdulla, Ākām al-Marjān fī Gharāʾib al-Akhbār wa Aḥkām al-Jān. ed. Aḥmad ʿAbd Salām (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2014), 64–73.
113 This distinction holds significance beyond the specific case of intermarriage. It underscores the fundamental principle that what is permissible or impermissible from a jurisprudential perspective does not inherently dictate the scope of metaphysical possibilities that might exist in reality.The limitations of jurisprudence should not be mistaken for circumscriptions of metaphysical potential. Just as the debate about intermarriage demonstrates that the metaphysical potential of such unions is not nullified by jurisprudential positions, broader theological discussions should also consider the broader landscape of possibilities that transcend jurisprudential frameworks. As a case in point, adultery is clearly prohibited (a jurisprudential modality), but some people still carry out this action (a metaphysical modality). Related to this point is the fact that Ashʿarī theology aligns with Divine Command Theory. According to this theory, actions are morally right or wrong solely because they are either commanded or prohibited by God. In other words, the moral status of an action is determined by whether it aligns with the decrees of God. This perspective implies that morality is intimately tied to religious beliefs and divine revelation, and what is considered morally right or wrong is determined by the religious teachings and scriptures associated with the relevant faith. Accordingly, God could have commanded a different set of ethical rules to Adam than what was commanded to Prophet Muḥammad and his followers. See Malik, Islam and Evolution, 237–263; Shoaib A. Malik, “Al-Ghazālī's Divine Command Theory: Biting the Bullet,” Journal of Religious Ethics 49;3 (2021), 546–576.
114 I also made this point in the monograph. See Malik, Islam and Evolution, 3-6. For an excellent study that shows how cosmological findings were appropriated by theologians, see Omar Anchassi, “Against Ptolemy? Cosmography in Early Kalām,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 142:4: 851–881.
115 As I noted in my monograph, Q. 2:30 could suggest otherwise. See Malik, Islam and Evolution, 100.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Shoaib Ahmed Malik
Shoaib Ahmed Malik currently serves as a Visiting Researcher at St. Mary's University, Twickenham (UK), bringing his dual expertise in Science and Religion to the forefront. With a PhD in Chemical Engineering from the University of Nottingham (UK) and another in Theology from the University of St Mary's, Twickenham (UK), Shoaib stands at the crossroads of these two vital disciplines. His monograph work, Islam and Evolution: Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm (Routledge), was acclaimed as the foremost academic contribution to the field of science and religion, receiving recognition from the International Society for Science (ISSR) and Religion in 2022. Presently, Shoaib is immersed in the creation of an educational textbook and a micrograph, both exploring the intricate relationship between Islam and evolution under the auspices of Routledge. He is also curating numerous edited volumes and special issues. Notably, Shoaib assumes the role of Chief Editor for Palgrave's newly launched Islam and Science book series and encyclopedia, further enriching scholarly discourse at this interdisciplinary crossroads. Additionally, he holds the position of Trustee at the ISSR and serves on the editorial board of Theology and Science.