Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the

Creation of Man - Part 7: Fitrah, Aql, Naql, Science and

the Origin of the Universe and Man
Thursday, January 27 2011 - by Abu.Iyaad

Read more articles at Aqidah.Com

Introduction

In the preceding articles in this series we addressed Usamah Hasan's claim that neo-Darwinism is the
route through which Allah created man (Aadam), and that Aadam was born of "nearly-humans" (a
diplomatic way of saying "apes"). We proved that there is nothing but contradiction and opposition
between the revealed texts and the account of the origin of man given in Darwinism. We also cited the
verdicts of the Scholars of the Sunnah that claiming Aadam descended from apes is takdheeb
(rejection) of Allaah and His Messenger [takdheeb meaning that what Allaah and His Messenger have
stated on this matter (creation of Aadam) is a lie] and as such, this is pure kufr and that the one who
knowingly holds this belief is a kaafir (see those verdicts in this article)

There have been a number of fallouts after the occurrences of the last three weeks and there are
numerous side issues which have arisen as a result. From the most significant of them in our view is:

We are being informed (through email and otherwise) of what can be characterized as
unintelligable expressions from self-confessed ape-descended intellects that have decided
to "come out of the jungle" and into "cyberspace" onto the various blogs, forums and
websites to express their inner feelings and beliefs which are like those of Usamah Hasan,
if not at least sympathetic to Usamah Hasan. This shows that it is not just Usamah Hasan,
and the effect is a little wider than one might think. It is clear that Usamah is just a
representative example, and that materialistic theories, beliefs and philosophies of science
have polluted the fitrah of many a Muslim who has had a stretch of time in the secular
institutions of learning. Hence, we have the prospect of not just one but possibly scores or
hundreds of Usamah Hasans. Whilst we merely joked about the possiblity of a "battle for
the planet of the apes" at the very end of Part 2, it's getting a little serious now and is
looking more like a potential "conquest of the planet of the apes." The whole world seems
to be in a revolutionary mode as of right now, and as such, chimps with secular ijaazahs
(like Usamah Hasan and Dr. Cornelius) should never, ever be underestimated. They may
have recruited hundreds if not thousands into the cause.

For this reason there are certain issues which have to be addressed so as to protect and buffer Muslims
from getting drawn into "ape takeover" revolutionary movements, and from being poisoned in a) fitrah,
b) aql, c) aqidah and d) deen. It is clear that many Muslims are deceived and hoodwinked by that fake
appearance of "objective scientific enquiry" which is amongst the greatest of the contemporary taaghoots
of the Malaahidah used to fight fitrah, aql and naql. So in this article we want to explore this subject a
little inshaa'Allaah so Muslims have a clear idea of where they stand. First we will develop two themes
required at this point.

1.1 The Fitrah

The fitrah is the innate, intuitive disposition of each soul:

It is an inherent capacity through which truth can be realized, recognized and it is simply the
soul having been programmed upon certain fundamental universal truths, from which are
that whatever is muhdath (originated) must have a muhdith (originator) and the anticipation
or expectation of justice (when wronged) and other innate dispositions and feelings. When
Allaah took all the souls of all of Banee Aadam from the back of Aadam (alayhis salaam),
he made them testify concerning that He is their Lord, (see 7:172). This is an inherent
acknowledgement within the soul which does not need anything beyond itself to recognize
this fact. It does not even need signs (aayaat), rather, it is an inherent, innate, intrinsic
quality. This is the fitrah that Allaah mentions (‫يل‬َ ‫ع َليْهَا َ) تَب ِْد‬ َ 0‫ل ِتي فَطَ َر الن‬0 ‫ِ ا‬09‫ِفطْ َرةَ ا‬
َ ‫اس‬
َ ِ‫)ل‬, "the fitrah of Allaah upon which He created mankind, no change let there be
ِ09‫خ ْلقِ ا‬
in Allah's creation" (30:30) and this is referring to the souls knowledge that all the
makhlooqaat (created things) testify to and are in need of their creator (for their existence).

We want to use a variety of statements from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah at this point to help us to lay
out a framework upon which to build the rest of our discussion. You need to pay careful attention to what
is being said. He says in Majmu' al-Fataawaa (1/47):

And the intent here is that: The need of the created things upon the creator, their
indication to [His existence] and testification to [His existence] is an innate affair which
Allaah has created His servants upon, just as He created them [with an innate
disposition] towards affirrmation of His [existence] without (requiring) these signs
(aayaat)... and what is verified and ascertained is that the knowledge that the originated
(muhdath) necessarily requires an originator (muhdith) is innate, necessary knowledge
(ilm fitriyy dhurooriyy) with respect to the particular entities (al-mu'ayyanaat al-
juz'iyyah)...

And another statement here as occurs in al-Jawab al-Sahih (3/202):

That the knowledge that the muhdath (originated) must have a muhdith (originator)
is innate, necessary knowledge (ilm fitriyy dhurooriyy), and for this reason Allaah, the
Exalted said, "ere they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?"
(52:35)... And it is know by the fitrah upon which Allaah created His servants, [through]
sound reason, that what is haadith (originated) does not occur except with an originator
that brought it about.

He also says in Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah (1/179 - two volume edition):

 ... so this evidence comprises [the fact] that what is originated (muhdath) must
have an originator (muhdith) and that whatever contains wisdom (hikmah) must have a
qaasid, hakeem (one who desired that wisdom, and is wise).

And he says in Dar' al-Ta'aarud (4/241):

... That the actual knowledge that the originated (muhdath) must have an originator
(muhdith) is more plain (abyan) and strong (aqwaa) and apparent (adhhar) in reason
(aql)...

In this statement (and the one below) Ibn Taymiyyah is comparing the clarity and apparentness of this
realization compared to others, such as the argument that what is possible (mumkin) needs what is
necessary (waajib), which was being used by the Philosophers (like Ibn Sina), as an alternative to that of
the Mutakallimeen.

And later (4/251):

...And this is because the knowledge that the originated (muhdath) must have an
originator (muhdith) is more intuitive (matter of fact) to reason (aql) and more firmly-
rooted in the heart and more apparent to the special and general folk...

There are many other statements of Shaykh al-Islam on this in most of his works dealing with the
Philosophers and the Mutakallimeen, what has been presented is a sample, and we want to remain
concise and make the core points to be extracted from them as part of a framework to build upon, even if
there are many other statements. So we establish here that the entities all around us indicate the
necessity of a muhdith (originator) and this is firmly established knowledge in the fitrah. It is ingrained
within the fitrah, and it is proven by the collective day to day experience in all fields of human activity.

The point we are establishing here then is that as Muslims we include [uncorrupted] fitrah
amongst those things that provide certain (sure) knowledge or certain (sure) truths,
and this fitrah is the basis upon which the Messengers made their call, they actually
ِ ‫السمَ ا َو‬
appealed to fitrah, primarily and fundamentally, (‫ات‬ ( ِ َ‫ك ف‬
‫اط ِر‬ َ 12‫س ُل ُه ْم أ َ ِفي ا‬
. ‫ش‬ ُ ‫َقا َلتْ ُر‬
‫ض‬ِ ‫) َوا? َ ْر‬, "Their Messengers said: Is there any doubt concerning the originator of
the heavens and earth?" (14:10). So they appealed to the fitrah and this is what is said
by the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah. And where fitrah has become corrupt, then rational proofs
come into play which appeal to reason (aql) and we see that there are succint
expressions of rational proofs in the Qur'an such as what occurs at the end of Surah al-
Tur (53:35).

However, this fitrah goes beyond the mere recognition that whatever is originated must have an
originator, it actually feeds into the acknowledgement that none has the right to be worshipped except
Allaah alone, which is the desired intent. Hence, there are certain states and feelings, that are necessary
from the fitrah and which arise from it, (‫عبُ ُد ا (ل ِذي فَطَ َر ِني‬
ْ َ ‫َ أ‬G ‫) َومَا لِي‬, "And why should I not worship
:
Him (alone) Who has created me (fataranee)..." (36:22), and these are the likes of inqiyaad
(compliance), dhull (humility, lowering), tasleem (submission), mahabbah (love) and so on.

Thus, when a person of sound fitrah looks at the mu'ayyanaat (entities) [through what we
can loosely call "scientific enquiry" for now (we will touch upon this next)], then it brings
about a certain world-view, upon the innately recognized truth "whatever is muhdath must
have a muhdith". This is very different to the kaafir who, by definition, conceals and buries
what the fitrah necessitates, and this concealment is through the speech of the heart
(takdheeb, juhood) or the action of the heart (kibr, kurh, inaad) of the heart. Upon this,
whatever "objective scientific enquiry" the kaafir claims to be operating up, then fitrah has
already been made inadmissible to and annulled from it, and thus the conclusions from
what are observed of the entities (mu'ayyanaat) in the universe through research and
introspection (what they define as "science") are fed from the kufr of the heart that has
already buried and concealed the fitrah. This is a very important point to understand here, a
crucial one in fact, when we delve into the fight between atheist scientists who champion
naturalism (natural causes explain all life) - [a complete violation of the fitrah] and those who
argue for design (created entities point to design), and there are many non-Muslims whose
fitrah in this regard is intact, even if they nevertheless remain upon kufr. At the same time,
these "ape-intellects" we mentioned earlier who have come out of the jungle and into
cyberspace, their fitrah in this regard has been corrupted and this is clearly seen and
observed from their speech.

Where we are leading to here then is the battle over the fitrah, because that is what the
whole issue revolves around, it is this very matter. It leads into the discussion of the
way these people define what is "science" with a rigged definition, one that aims to
challenge, fight and annull the fitrah - and unfortunately we see many Muslims going all
"ape-intellect" and parroting statements like "science cannot prove nor disprove God" and
"science is the domain of what is natural and observable" and "science is whatever is
built upon falsfiability", "science can only prove what is observable" and so on. These
people seriously need a few slaps across the face with banana-skins, in fact more than a
few slaps because these are not your average Abdullah and Zayd, but self-esteemed
university educated people thinking they've come out with an education, whereas in
reality they've come out with something of their fitrah warped and corrupted.

This is why Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan has stated often in many of his fatwas that anyone who
wishes to study any field, even things like engineering (which appear to be neutral) and so
on in the secular institutions, that he must be very thoroughly grounded in aqidah and
Eemaan. And we understand the wisdom of this advice when we consider that it is not
because of the actual subject content in and of itself (which in many instances is not
problematic), but the underlying philosophy of science and materialist world-view upon
which secular sciences have developed, are taught and understood.

1.2 A Quick Illustration of The Line of Scientific Inquiry Ordered in the Qur'an

We can give an illustration here of what is manifest in the Qur'an in abundance, namely Allaah's call to
observe and introspect in oneself and the universe, and a large part of the Qur'an is like this, appealing
to fitrah and aql through the command to observe and reflect. Here is one example.
:
 ‫ت‬ ِ ُ‫ف ن‬
ْ َ‫صب‬ َ ‫ال َك ْي‬ ْ ‫ف ُر ِف َع‬
ِ َ‫ت َو إِ َلى ا ْلجِب‬ َ ‫الس َماء َك ْي‬ ْ ‫خلِ َق‬
9 ‫ت َو إِ َلى‬ ُ ‫ف‬ ِ ْ ‫ َينظُ ُرو َن إِ َلى‬Fَ َ‫أَف‬
َ ‫ا@ ِب ِل َك ْي‬
‫ت‬
ْ ‫ط َح‬ ِ ‫س‬ُ ‫ف‬ َ ْ‫ض َكي‬ ْ ‫َو إِ َلى‬
ِ ‫ َ ْر‬L‫ا‬

Do they not look at the camels, how they are created? And at the heaven, how it
is raised? And at the mountains, how they are rooted and fixed firm? And at the
earth, how it is spread out?

We mentioned previously that the maf'oolaat (entities, handiwork) give indication to what is maf'ool (that
which has been done), which gives indication to the fi'l (the act), which in turn gives indication to the
faa'il (the doer). And this is what we find in the Qur'an, and in the example above, we see the call to look
at, observe and reflect over four things. The creation of the camel, the raising of the sky, the fixing of the
mountains, and the spreading out of the earth. First of all note that these are not obscure things that only
tefal-heads are able to theorize about in labs, rather they are in plain sight and vision of most of mankind,
indicating that "scientific" observations and truths are not the exclusive right of an elitist group. Of course,
the degree of introspection varies based upon the variation of each person's ability and means. The call
here is to observe and reflect upon these affairs, and upon sound uncorrupted fitrah and aql, arrive at the
conclusion of an originator, a masterful creator having utmost precision, wisdom, and unmeasurable
creative power.

This conclusion is through sound reasoning, that whatever is muhdath (originated), and
has purpose, wisdom, design in its entity, can only have come from an agent with ilm
(knowledge), iraadah (wish), qudrah (power) and fi'l (action). This is a universal truth
embedded in the psyche, the heart, the soul, the reason, of every human, whether
he lived in the Amazon jungle 5000 years ago, or whether he lives in New York today, or
17th century Japan, or 9th century "Australian" outback. To exclude this from being
"scientific reasoning" or a "scientific line of enquiry" is pure mukaabarah (arrogance), and
this is the very line of enquiry used in forensic science, historical archaeology, and
likewise in insurance fraud claims - where what is merely accidental is distinguished from
what amounts to nothing but calculated intent and design. So this line of enquiry (inferring
the best possible explanation out of competing explanations) is indeed found in what is
otherwise labelled as "science". In fact, this is the very methodology Darwin uses in
Origin of the Species (inference to best out of competing explanations). Today, there is a
rightful challenge to the core premise of Darwinism that takes the form of "Natural
selection upon random mutations cannot explain the complexity and diversity of life."
Unfortunately, we have many people deceived and not able to see and recognize inherent
truths (concording to fitrah and aql) found with certain factions of people and dismiss
them merely on account of the propaganda coming from atheist militancy. It really shows
the strength of "peer pressure" that affects many a self-acclaimed "intellectual" Muslim
whose had a stretch in academia, thinking he'll be one of those "clever Muslims" hoping
to get a following. Such people never got "an education". Theey got a brainwashing and
their fitrah (and aql) got boxed senseless.

2.1 'Science' And The Routes to Objective, Certain Truth

This brings us then to "science." But before we do that, we want to make absolutely sure about the
:
significance of what we have just discussed.

To a sound fitrah, the entire universe, all of its entities (mu'ayyanaat) and all observation
(nadhr) and deduction (istidlaal) and whatever would be referred to as "scientific enquiry"
into living things, "nature" and the universe - then all of that constitutes the most direct and
most powerful of dalaalaat (indications), aayaat (signs) to uncorrupted fitrah of the necessity
of an originator. And we see that in the entirety of human experience, this same deduction is
rooted in the psyche of all people, in that they operate and conduct their entire lives upon
what is rooted in the fitrah, that every muhdath requires by necessity a muhdith. Their food
never came on the table thanks to the mere wind. And nor did they win a job promotion
through evolutionary forces. And nor did they become scholarly through random undirected
processes. Within the field of all human activity, every muhdath (originated thing or entity)
must have an originator (originating agent with intent, purpose), and this is a firmly
established and rooted assumption and belief that all of humanity operate their daily lives
upon.

This reality was never rejected or challenged until the emergence of naturalist and materialist
philosophies starting with Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin and others in the early 19th
century (1800s) where naturalistic and materialistic philosophies attempted to explain life, the universe
and so on, and this was the beginning of a large-scale assault upon fitrah, aql and naql (in the name of
aql). To a large degree, this was due to fundamentalist biblical Christians pushing their version of
creationism onto others (upon a corrupted naql amongst other things).

2.2 Defining What is "Science" and What is "Scientific"

Darwin proposed a particular methodology that became the foundation for those after him in laying down
rules to separate what they claimed was "science" from "non-science", and it was here that "science"
was redefined much more narrowly than it had previously been. Darwin did have the fundamentalist
Christian creationists in mind, and that bunch would pretty much annoy anyone. After Darwin came the
"logical positivists" who claimed that the only statements which are true and meaningful are those that
can be verified by sensory experience, and that anything that cannot be verified by sensory experience
cannot be affirmed. And here came "verifiability" and "falsifiability" and references to natural laws for all
explanations.

By definition then, that which is rooted in the fitrah, that which is most abyan (clear), aqwaa (strong),
adhhar (plain, manifest) and firmly-rooted in the heart: the principle that every muhdath must have a
muhdith, is effectively declared "non-science" through a rigged, exclusivist, definition of "science" and
"science" now becomes an exclusivist domain through the mere right of assumption and definition.
What this means is that to reason that the very intricate and complex mechanisms found in cells, for
example, are indicative of "design" and indicate a "designer" is non-science, despite the fact that this is
a firmly established, undisputed principle in fitrah, aql and in the collective human experience of all of
mankind in all of their activity. Is the theory that an Audi Q7, by virtue of its improbability, complexity,
and implied information content must have intelligent agency and design behind it a "non-scientific
theory." What makes this non-scientific and why is it not in the realm of "science" and certain truth?
And is this theory invalidated and made inadmissible for serious consideration through nothing but
definitions of what "science" is and is not, or is there something of actual substance for disallowing it?

What is going on here is pretty much like the Philosophers and Mutakallimeen who said that
:
 only their conceptual tools (kalaam, falsafah, logic) are the only routes to knowing universal
and objective truths. It is just like the Mutakallimeen said: It is only our proof, the proof of
huduth al-ajsaam (origination of bodies), which can be used to prove the existence of a
creator. So they limited the field of enquiry and the routes through which knowledge of a
creator can be attained to certain areas. Ahl al-Sunnah do not restrict the proof of Allaah's
existence to just one method (which is what the Jahmiyyah, the Mu'tazilah, the Later
Ash'aris did). There are many proofs (for Allah's existence and His Tawhid), the proof
through the emergence of entities (a'yaan), the proof through transformation (e.g.
development of the embryo, or the living into the dead and the dead into the living, or
development and deterioration of things), the proof through fitrah (natural disposition) [i.e.
demonstrating that every originated thing (Muhdath) must have an originator (muhdith)
which is ingrained in the fitrah], the proof through miracles of the Prophet, the proof through
the character of the Prophet, the proof through the rulings of Islaam, the proof through
ijmaa' (consensus), the proof through idtiraar (compelling necessity) and so on. But this
exclusivist approach of the Mutakallimeen led them to deny many truths that are known
independently of their kalaam, whether that be through pure reason, or pure revelation. And
this is the point we are making here about "science" which has been defined in a certain
way, not for any truly "scientific" reason in and of itself, but in order to escape having to
make certain uncomfortable conclusions which are supported forcefully by pure sound
reason, after their acknowledgement that everything does in fact "give the appearance of
design", to use the words of Dawkins, and we see in this short remark of Dawkin's the fitrah
being oppressively drowned by the kufr of arrogance.

If we fast foward to today we find that philosophers of science now affirm that there isn't any
specific set of criteria that can define what is "scientific practice" and what can and cannot
be said to have "scientific status" and this is after their realization that many of the claimed
demarcation criteria that are used to separate "science" from "non-science" would actually
invalidate the scientific status of many theories and ideas which have been accepted for a
long time, including Darwinism itself! Also, the logical positivism that we referred to earlier
(to accept only what sensory perception captures, observational evidence) received a death
blow when it was shown that the theory itself cannot satisfy its very own criteria. It died a
death and atheists and Materialists were then seen walking the alleys, idling about, hands in
their pockets, kicking stones and soft drink cans, playing with dogs and cats, until Antony
Flew came along in the 1950s and gave them a revival through his paper "Theology and
Falsification" which gave them a breath of air and a new cycle of puffed-up arrogance,
these cycles tend to occur in bouts of around fifty years when the current paradigm in which
they placed all hope [for an answer besides the one necessitated by fitrah and aql] changes
form and starts attracting flies that want their meal out of it before it decomposes.
Additionally, the idea of "falsifiability" is not what it is made out to be. There are games
being played in that the core elements of most theories are not really testable or falsifiable,
and so additional hypotheses are added (to the core theory) and it is the additional
hypotheses which are tested (through prediction and falsifiability) and not the actual core
theory which has always remained unfalsifiable and untestable. Be assured, there is a lot of
"blind faith" in science labs and scientific instutions. Its simply hidden in all the fancy and
technical language. But, the situation is reached today where Philosophers of science at the
higher levels are coming to the conclusion that the real question is not whether a theory is
"scientific" or "not scientific" (because defining exactly what that is, is very difficult and
problematic) but that the issue is whether a theory is true on account of the evidence
:
 presented along with it whatever form that evidence might take, and whether that
evidence provides "certain knowledge" in that matter. In other words the definition of
"science" is not really the issue and arguing over what is and what is not "science" is not a
useful exercise, because the sum total of what is accepted to be "certain knowledge" in all
fields of knowledge has not come exclusively through any one methodological procedure
that can be labelled as "science". At best, broad criteria can be applied, but they can never
be absolute, because arriving at "certain knowledge" can be through many different routes
and certain knowledge has been arrived at in many fields, disciplines and "sciences"
through what would never meet the criteria for being "science."

3. Demarcation Criteria

There is a field of research called "Demarcation" in which criteria were presented to

separate what is scientific from what is not scientific but this field of knowledge essentially
collapsed (for the reason just outlined), because demarcation (between "science" and "non-
science") is something that cannot be achieved except by rejecting a large number of
already established and accepted "scientific theories." You have to remember that there is
"philosophical science", the philosophy of science, and the science that is carried out as
part of "scientific enquiry." Philosophers of science discuss and debate what is science, its
reality and nature, and they will come to certain conclusions, such as the one we have just
outlined. However your average run of the mill scientists will continue upon the delusion that
science is a restricted, exclusivist methodological set of criteria, and that it is only they and
their theories which have the privilege of "scientific status" and access to sure truth. The
majority of scientists today are doing "science" by choice, design and intent because their
fitrah has told them that food has never ever come on the table through natural law alone,
and thus to make sure food does end up on the table, they have to toe the materialist,
naturalist bandwagon and operate upon that same definition of science to keep with that
rigged set of possible outcomes and conclusions. Scientists are generally paid either by
private corporations or governments that toe the same materialistic, naturalistic world-view
(at least in the West). If you want to read more on this topic of "demarcation" refer to the
paper by Larry Laudan called, "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem."

Some of the main demarcation criteria used to separate "science" from "non-science"
include:

Must explain by reference to natural law (i.e. a theory or phenomenon must be

explained through natural law). But note that natural laws cannot explain anything
since what are deemed to be natural laws are only [mathematical] descriptions of
what are observed, not an explanation of what is observed. For example the law of
gravity only describes what happens, it describes gravity in action, it does not actually
explain gravity. Describing and explaining are different things.
Must only involve what is observable
Must be testable
Must make predictions
Must be falsifiable
Must provide a mechanism

Now, as we said, if you apply these criteria you are forced to expel many accepted theories
and laws from being scientific! All laws of physics are mere mathematical descriptions (of
:
 what is observed), they do not constitute explanations. Further, laws are not the same as
causes. Also there are many fields of science (like historical sciences) that don't need
explanation through natural laws. Darwinism would also be ruled out as a "scientific theory"
because "common descent" is not an "explanation" through natural laws. It is nothing but a
hypothetical pattern that gives a historical account of certain data. In other words, "common
descent," a past (hypothetical) historical event is doing the actual explanation (of the
observed data), not any natural law. Mutational events are not observable as they are too
slow to be observed out in the field. Also no mechanism is provided for actual
transformation of a species to another. And the proposed mechanisms are not testable
either. And that's aside the fact that Darwin's "warm little pond, the soup of life" is absent, so
it can't be observed or subject to testable predictions. Also, most theoretical physics would
have to be expelled from "science" because they are working with entities that can't be
observed and many sciences have to infer the invisible from the visible, and they are always
inventing new (and yet unobserved) particles, forces and fields as "theoretical explanations"
(and these are not "natural law" but hypotheticals).

What we find in reality then is that there is some circular reason at work here, which
involves a certain definition to ensure a favoured theory remains "scientific" when in reality,
even by the criteria laid down for demarcation between what is "science" and "non-science",
it fails. Basically, this is what they are saying: Listen up Schmuck! This is science
because we've defined it to be so, so whatever does not fit into our definition is not
science, now scram!. So in other words knowledge and truth which is "certain" is only
what fits into this definition of science and everything else is speculation, not because it is
speculation in and of itself, but because this particular definition of "science" has made it so,
and this to anyone with sound reason, is pure baatil (falsehood). To show you the hypocrisy,
when faced with the prospect that life is possible on earth because of dozens of physical or
cosmological parameters are precisely calibrated, one example of which is the force of
gravity which must be fine-tuned to 1 part in 1040 (according to them), and you have equally
small values for the other parameters, how do arrogant atheists account for this? Easy, the
multiverse theory, atheists can pull out multiple universes from their posteriors as quickly as
you can blink, and next thing you know, with trillions and trillions of other universes besides
ours, the probability of life somewhere (as in here) has magically been increased and it
does not seem far-fetched after all. So there are an almost infinite number of universes, but
ours just happened to be the one where all these parameters happened (by chance) to be
at the values where life became possible. And this is treated as a "scientific theory." This, by
their own standards is not "scientific", its actually a metaphysical belief that does not meet
the demarcation criteria listed earlier. Are those universes observable? Testable? This is no
different to saying, "God is behind this universe and all life in it." So what makes one
scientific and the other a fairy-tale?

What we are pointing out then, is that science has been defined in a rigged way to automatically give
"scientific status" to certain favoured theories over others and then to give the illusion that "science" has
absolutely proven them and that there is "consensus" on these theories and so on. Of course there will
be consensus where the boundaries have already been set upon a rigged definition. Unfortunately, many
Muslims are conned by this, and after a three to seven year stretch in academia, they come out like
Usamah, claiming "science cannot prove God" and "science is only what is falsifiable" and so on, so
these people have been had for sure, they've had their minds toyed with, and both their fitrah and aql
has been sand-papered (in some cases, to oblivion).
:
4.1 atheists and Believers

It is pertinent here to give a couple of illustrations so that we can apply the concepts we have laid down
in whatever has preceded. We will use two: the origins of the universe and of course, the theory of
evolution. These are chosen as they are directly connected to the saying of Allaah, "The creation of the
heavens and the earth is indeed greater than the creation of mankind, yet most of mankind know
not." (40:57, see also 79:27), and we discuss them in the same order as occurs in the verse, for a
particular reason.

4.2 The Origins of the Universe

There is a conclusion reached by scientists that the universe had a beginning, and
cosmologists and physicists generally agree upon that. Its point of origin is commonly
referred to as "the Big Bang". This theory states that the matter of the universe was a
single, dense, extremely hot mass which exploded and from this resulted the universe (and
stars and planetary bodies) through expansion and cooling. This theory is not the only one
though and it does have flaws.

What proceeds below does not assume the complete correctness of the big bang
theory, but only serves as an illustration to show how scientists behave (in light of
their own theorization). Further, it is not necessary to accept the big bang theory in
order to assert that the universe had a beginning, especially considering that the
big bang model is tentative and involves a lot of speculation and imaginary matter
and forces to patch up its contradictiosn with observed and empirical data.

Now, that this theory that it indicates the universe had a beginning is problematic. Why?
Because if the universe had a beginning, that it had an originating cause naturally
follows, because it is impossible for something to come out of nothing and for something to
bring itself into existence from pure non-existence. Alarm bells ring. The connection
between something having a beginning, being originated (muhdath) and what brought it
about (muhdith) is intuitive and innate to the soul and to reason and it is corroborated
through the collective human experience, in the sum of all human activity, that effects can't
be their own causes. Universes don't bring themselves into existence from non-being and
nor does dog poo mysteriously appear in parks all across the world through self-creation or
non-cause. Add this to the issue of fine-tuning and you have a huge problem.

From this point on we can see how cosmologists, physicists, philosophers and their
likes tried to treat this problem of the universe being finite (having a limit) in time. A
lot of them, like Einstein, were operating on the assumption that the "blueprint for the
cosmos" they were seeking would indicate the universe is eternal. That's why it is said that
Einstein did not like an expanding universe (it implied that the universe was not eternal).
These scientists were trying to find an "ultimate blueprint" for the universe which could be
expressed in mathematical terms, to reduce it all into a single equation essentially. The "Big
Bang theory" made that difficult and these physicists made attempts to get rid of the
unwelcome implications. The atheist is in fact a faithful believer. The atheist has
psychological reasons to believe in his theories, not rational ones, because the most
obvious and plain theory (what is originated must have an originator) is the one he is trying
to fight all the way through. It's constantly forcing him into a sweat. He's always having to
change his underwear, and he's not getting too much sleep either.
:
 We can also introduce the Philosophers here who try to tackle the problem (of a universe)
from another angle by asking philosophical questions, they key one being "Why" does the
universe exist. Philosophers and scientists generally do not get on, but they do help each
other out where philosophers give scientists philosophical reasons to get out of sticky
situations and to maintain their doubts. This is because they are both dealing with two
different issues that ultimately relate back to an originator. How did the universe come
about? Why did it come about? Atheist scientists tackle the first. Atheist philosophers
tackle the second. All of these people have an article of faith. The belief that there is an
answer out there [besides the one that is rooted in fitrah and aql] that explains how
everything came from nothing. That is the deity. The worship is the pursuit of the answer
through through science and philosophy. It's cloaked religion.

From here, we can look at the way these people tried to tackle the awkward and huge
problem staring them in the face. In fact, they are trying to deal with two major problems
The first is getting around the problem of the universe having a beginning. We can't have
that, it's only good for the "religious nutters". The second is to deal with the problem of the
universe coming from what they refer to as a "singular mass." So where they want to lead to
is to speak of the universe being eternal (solves the first one) and to try to get the universe
to come out of nothing, and by nothing (solves the second one). So the belief and
psychology comes first (kufr concealing the fitrah), then science is layered on top of
it, not the other way around. Enter the likes of Stephen Hawkins and richard dawkins and
all the other "sagacious believers" amongst the physicists, cosmologisits and so on. From
what they brought in order to conceal, drown and fight the fitrah, aql and authentic naql
includes:

The universe was "self-creating" (tell a nine-year old child that the fridge in the
kitchen self-created and check his or her response).
There was a "sea of infinite potentiality" from which the universe came to be, just
another way of saying "it came from nothing" with "infinite potentiality" being a way of
fleeing from saying "it came from an originator." It's like saying the glass of water on
the table came from of "sea of infinite potentiality" to avoid acknowledging that
someone may just have put it there.
"Parallel universes" [multiple realities] (Shrodinger's Cat!), meaning there are many
worlds, which is a way to explain the problems they encountered in quantum
mechanics, which is a field of science underlying quantum cosmology which is the
"science" trying to explain where the universe came from and how it runs.
Finding a "wave function" that runs through the entire cosmos to prove it came from
nothing. It's just speculation, and this so called "wave function" can't be seen,
measured, tested. This is "religion" disguised as "science."
Our universe emerged from a much smaller universe called a "de Sitter" universe
(which itself is eternal, or one of many universes)
Aliens from another universe evolved (through a type of Darwinian evolution) to such
an advance state they learned how to create universes, and after many attempts
found a way to create one in which life became possible. These aliens then went
around seeding life on planets. We are not taking the Michael here, some of these
"religious nutters" do propose this as a plausible explanation. Many thanks obviously
go to Hollywood for taking this mainstream and giving those atheists a helping hand.
Fiction can be turned into fact through entertainment more easily than torturous
:
 papers in academic journals.

This is only a selection, and we are only limited by the rate at which these sagacious atheist
believers are able to pull out theories from their posteriors in order to fight fitrah and aql.

Now, along comes Hawkins (the real smart dude in the wheelchair he wasn't always in), he
is another sagacious believer who believes that the answer is "out there" and even if Spock
never found it, someone eventually will. Here's Hawkins' deal, as in his method of trying to
get rid of the universe having a beginning (and the very awkward implication that goes with
it): As you move away from the "big bang", you speak of things taking place "after" one
another. As you move towards it (i.e. go backwards in time) you speak of things taking place
"before" one another. All of this leads back, according to the theory, to a single mass and a
universe having a beginning in time (as per what is already known). There are mathematical
schemes that are able to describe all of this (as in the physics of the universe as it goes
backwards). Behind it all are clear mathematical equations that characterize these things
and they are firmly determined and can't be altered, and they are based upon a fixed
scheme of mathematics in which there is order. You can't change 1,2,3,4,5,6,7... into
5,3,7,2,1,4,6... because that is how things are. So Hawkins comes along and says that
there was a point when we move back towards the "big bang" where the mathematical
scheme of things changed into something else (from what we currenly know and have), into
some imaginary (that means "fairy-tale") scheme of mathematics where things are not
sequential and where we don't have a "before" and "after" (as we do in the mathematics
and physics based upon real numbers). Bang! Pow! Whapp! Zappo! Holy Atomic Pile
Batman! We've just got rid of the universe having a beginning. Now, there is no before,
before a before. We're just swimming in an endless ocean of space and time [having
physical mathematics different to ours where there is no "order" and "sense" and no
"before" or "after"]. Next we can say this version of space-time has always been there, but
at some point just happened to give way to a new scheme of physical mathematics that
allows the universe (as it is now) to come to be.

This is a case of "believe first then seek evidence". But then again, what else would you
expect from "religious nutters?"

Now that we've got rid of the "big bang" problem, as in "a beginning", the next part is to
demote this universe and not make it so special at all. So it becomes just one grain of the
billions of grains of sand in a beach, what's so special about that?! And that is the next part
of the sagacious atheist believer's "science." When we add all of this together, the following
is the atheists credo of quantum cosmology which by their particular definition of "science"
has "scientific status":

Our universe emerged from a smaller circular mini-universe having space-time,

its called a de Sitter universe and it existed in a place where there was no
space and no time (as we know it). Ok, we know this is hard to understand and
hard to believe, but that's just how it is, and you've got to believe it, because
science is telling you so. This mini-universe did not come from anywhere, and
you may find this hard to believe as well, but please, just have faith in it. And to
reassure you, our "wave function" which helps to explain the cosmos says that
this de Sitter universe was "probable, possible" (i.e. mumkin), so if it was
"probable, possible" we can assume (with a bit of faith) that "it actually was."
:
 Now that we have given you solid proof (as in what has just preceded) that a
de Sitter universe actually existed, what happened is that this de Sitter
universe evolved into ours through inflation for no particular reason. These
things happen.

The way all of this is arrived at is through circular reasoning, where you assume that a
certain type of universe existed, and lo! your mathematical calculations show that the very
type of universe you were looking for is actually there because it has been shown by your
calculations to be "probable" and then you leap from "probable" and assume that it was
"actual." You can understand now why Stephen Hawkings is a much liked figure amongst
atheist philosophers, scientists and Darwinists. But as you can see, this is religion disguised
as "science." It represents a more deeper issue of the battle against fitrah in the name of
"science." What it really is, is kibr (arrogance, pride) juhood (rejection), inaad (stubborn
denial) trying its best to conceal, cover and drown that fitrah and the aql sareeh (sound,
uncorrupted reason) flowing from it, which are both in complete conformity with naql saheeh
(sound authentic text).

These verses are extremely appropriate to our discussion.

The creation of the heavens and the earth is indeed greater than the
creation of mankind, yet most of mankind know not. (40:57) Were they
created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they
create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no firm belief
(conviction). (52:35-36). And they say: "There is nothing but our life of
this world, we die and we live and nothing destroys us except time."
And they have no knowledge of it, they only conjecture. (45:24)

There is also another approach we can speak of here which is that we mentioned earlier
how scientists have determined around 30 or 40 odd cosmological constants or parameters
which indicate an absolutely unfathomable degree of "fine tuning" in the universe, one that
allows life to arise and exist. From them are the gravitational constant, the nuclear forces,
the electromagnetic force, the speed of light, and even ratios between these forces like the
ratio of electromagentic force to gravitational force and so on, and they are fine-tuned to a
flabbergasting degree of precision. This is also a big problem for the sagacious atheist
believer because of the inevitable question: Who ordered all of this? And why O why do
these laws follow such strict obedience? This is why we also see the race to find a
single universal constant, to essentialy reduce the universe and make it as simple as
possible and definable in a single universal equation or constant or wave function or
whatever. The aim behind all of this activity is to disguise what fitrah and aql clearly
recognize to be design and intelligent agency. Their "science" is all about making what is
incredibly improbable, complex, to be not so special and not so improbable after all. So as
we said before, this is the psychology of kufr, giving rise to a rigged type of "science", the
aim of which is a ferocious war against fitrah, aql sareeh and naql saheeh. Behind it is
money and politics and a world-view built upon this psychology permeates academia, giving
an air of "consensus" in "scientific" matters. You only progress in the church of science by
demonstrating your devotion to its credo.

We could go on and on, and start discussing string theories (again just another attempt to
:
 continue that "pursuit" of finding an answer besides the obvious) which require 10
dimensions, or 20, or 40, or even infinite dimensions (instead of three or four), until we
come to a stage when these people started saying that there is something wrong with the
universe, because our string theory is telling us so. In other words, because string theory
does not fit the universe, the universe must be botched, because our theory can't be wrong.
Hence, there must be multi-verses out there (i.e. gazillions of universes) and string theory
accounts for all of them as a whole. And as for the laws of this universe (which don't fit with
string theory), they are one miniscule aspect of gazillions of physical, mathematical
possibilities that our string theory accounts for. If you noticed, we just entered the world
of Peter Pan. So just like man was created through Darwinian Evolution, then likewise our
universe (in which there is life) also came about through a type of "Darwinian Evolution."
There's more and more - we don't want to put you through the expense of buying pop-corn -
but you must have got the idea by now as to where the movie is going.

Ultimately, scientists are faced with only two explanations. Its either God (originator) or its
nothing. Some also invoke "natural law" but that is a swindle that can be discussed
elsewhere. Here, you can understand the profoundness of the verse in Surah al-Tur,
"Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they
create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no firm belief (conviction)"
(52:35-36). Science (as it relates to an atheist's point of view) is all about finding an
alternative to what is plain and obvious. Then it is defined so that only certain theories
(favourable to their psychological constitution) are given "scientific status" which leads to
a contrived "consensus."

Finally, "quantum cosmology" (i.e. the "science" that deals with the problem of the
universe) is not an observational science and relies upon the creative invention of
lots of unseen particles and forces and includes a lot of mathematical metaphysics.

Please note the difference between hard physics that deals in real things and between the "quantum
cosmology" and its creative speculative theories that could well be used for a modern edition of the
Brother's Grimm Galactic Fairy Tales.

4.3 The Origins of Man

If you are perceptive enough, you will be able to extend the observations about the origins
of the universe and the way scientists and philosophers have tried to tackle it, to the issue
of the origins of man and the way Darwinism has been used for the same purpose. You
should get the idea now of how the psychology of kufr is operating against fitrah and aql,
under the guise of "science." Darwinism is playing the same role for man as the roles that
all those theories and explanations [that emerge from the posteriors of atheists] play for the
universe - all in order to escape from the conclusions demanded by fitrah and aql, by what
the collective human experience necessitates, in all of its day to day activity (the muhdath
requires by necessity a muhdith). But there is a difference. In Darwinism, things are a bit
more concrete and there isn't the luxury of the magical act of producing new theories.
They're pretty much stuck with "natural selection" working on "random mutations". Hence,
the field of "scientific" activity of the sagacious Darwinian believer is restricted to only two
things. The fossil record and genetics, which feed into the ideas of speciation and
transitions. Biological Darwinians must envy the physicists. Physicists have long been able
to pull theories from nowhere and make them believable [through complex language to
:
 make them appear all scientific of course]. The Darwinists are not so lucky. They are stuck
with natural selection upon random mutations. That's why its all or nothing. It simply
must work. It is also why the idea is defended with a vengeance, despite the fact that it is
nonsensical, has little evidence and consists of empty assumptions with irrelevant evidence
and the purported evidence is never forthcoming. The fossil record flatly contradicts
Darwinian Evolution, that's why you see little mention of the "Cambrian explosion" in the
textbooks. These days there are biological "big bang" theories where diverse species
suddenly show up at advanced levels of complexity, in stark contradiction to Darwin's
"transitions", the claimed tree-pattern (of Darwin) can't be reconciled with the actual facts on
the ground. The use of "intermediate forms" is just word play. You can create any theory by
invoking imaginary "intermediate forms." Random mutations have not produced much in
millions of fruit of flies which always remain as fruit-flies. Six thousand years of breeding
(artifical selection) within domestic and farm animals and they appear to be the same, and
no bacterial species has changed into another. Has "natural selection" been measured,
tested, observed? What exactly is it? Computer simulations trying to demonstrate natural
selection through random mutations are rigged, they require intelligent intervention for them
to be considered successful. Darwinism is a theory lacking facts, facts that are promised to
appear soon, but never turn up and in reality it is just "a creation myth" which tries to explain
the origin of life by saying "nature created it". Essentially, the qualities which have always
been given to God, were just given to "nature." Hence, we see evangelical religious nutters
like richard dawkins on a life-long mission to promote the astounding creative ability of
"natural selection", yes, these religious atheist fanatics believe in a god, they just call in
"natural selection", except that their god does not have any will (iraadah), nor knowledge
(ilm)... and so on.

The question that must be answered with "scientific standards" of proof is whether natural
selection is able, completely on its own, to explain all of the features in genetics and cell-
biology which are vital in the emergence of complex organisms. That's where there is no
"scientific" proof. And they say themselves, when forced to explain how lower organisms
evolve into higher ones, and what are the underlying mechanisms, as in the facts, the
nitty-gritty, they say, "we don't actually have any, and we don't really know" It is here
that the fraud of the claimed "certainty" is exposed, (‫ن‬ ِ ‫ ي‬G( ‫" )بَل‬Nay, they have no
َ ‫ُوقنُو‬
certainty" (52:36).

Now we don't want to make this any longer than is necessary. We can simply explain how
fitrah and aql would interpret the fossil record, genetics and the diversity in species, broadly
speaking:

The fossil record, molecular cell biology and knowledge of genetics, DNA etc. all collectively
indicate - [through extrapolation from the collective experience of the entirety of humanity in
terms of the basic principles upon which all their activitites are based, that whatever is
originated must have an originating agent, and that detection of the past activity of an
intelligent agent is easily deduced from the presence of artifacts and remnants; and through
the same standards of evidence used in disciplines such as all forensic and historical
sciences] - that by necessity there is an originator for all living things, and that both the
diversity and homology (resemblance) in things, indicate a sole originator. That this
originator is also known to be one by virtue of the fact that we see a uniform design in all
living things (DNA), and that this uniformity indicates a masterful creator with far-reaching
:
 wisdom because each living thing or species is made to be of benefit to another in terms of
sustenance (or otherwise), and thus its biological structure, mechanisms, must allow its
desired purpose in that (other entity) for which it is of benefit (and serves as sustenance) to
be realized. Thus we see that small cell organisms are sustenance for higher level
organisms, and we can continue all the way up the heirarchy of beings until we come to
man. All have similar underlying code and biological constitution and mechanisms because
there is an interdependence, we see each and every thing has its sustenance, "There is no
creature except [that the provision] of its sustenance is upon Allaah" (11:6). We see
similarity in genetic information and the expression of proteins, enzymes, and other
molecules etc. between species because there is an interdependence of sustenance
between them all, with humans being at the top of the heirarchy, and all things are
subjected to his use. We see resemblance, in large or small amounts, between species,
and this is because species resemble each other in the habitat, environment, food that they
share. Hence, similarity in the DNA and genetic code. Further, all creatures exist in nations
and communities, just like we do, and hence, the similarity in the underlying code that
provides the propensity, adaptability, dynamicity that living, survivng and propagating in
such contexts and environments requires. It is sounder in reason to assert that all of this
came from a single, masterful, originator, because of the sheer complexity, ingenuity, skill
and mastery that one cannot fail to notice, than to assert it came through undirected natural
processes labelled as "natural selection" acting upon "random mutations."

Now, we could make a much larger meal out of this one, like we did above with the origin of
the universe, but if you have got your head screwed on right, by now you should be able to
extrapolate and understand what is going on. Basically, we have a religion which is founded
on aversion to fitrah (and aql). It is founded upon a psychological state, then given
legitimacy through rigged definitions of "science", the tool of inquiry used to feed into that
psychological state chosen by that "sinful lying forelock". "Science doesn't do God" it's
proclaimed, "And when their Messengers brought them clear proofs, they exulted in
the knowledge they possessed" (40:83). It is not because science can't do God, it's
because science is rigged so as to remove it from the domain of what is necessitated by
uncorrupted fitrah and sound, uncorrupted reason.

So the con continues and Darwinians, like their physicist and philosophical counterparts
from the hosts of Iblees are chasing that elusive universal theory, that equation (that can do
away with the "beginning" of the universe). Likewise, that missing link, that transitional form,
and trying to get around the fact that most mutations are neutral or detrimental and couldn't
possibly explain the origin and diversity of life and so on, to all the other questions which
increase by the day as we learn more and more that we know less and less. All of this is
hardcore religion. It is faith in the existence of an answer, this answer is their deity in truth,
and it is what they are pursuing and living for. Now again, we could have said a lot more
here and really put the boot in good and proper in the issue of Evolution and make a
mockery of it all, but this article's length is limited by the database field so it can't get much
longer. Perhaps we can deal with Darwinism in detail in a separate article. Our point here
has been to simply highlight what is really going on at a much higher level. Sometimes it's
hard to see things for what they are because things are in your nose and you can't see the
whole complete picture, unless you stand back a mile or go up a mile.

Closing Comments
:
 The aim in this article was to show that there is not really an issue of "science" and "non-
science" that is just word-play, a matter of definition, it is a side issue, a diversion, smoke
and mirrors. The real issue, as in what is really going on, is the desperate attempt to flee
from the obvious conclusion as necessitated in fitrah and aql upon the sum total of human
observation into the horizons (of the universe) and into the human self, "We will show
them Our Signs in the universe, and in their ownselves, until it becomes manifest to
them that this (the Qur'an) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that
He is a Witness over all things?" (41:53). All scientific inquiry into the origins of the
univers and the origins of man is founded upon the psychological need to find answers
other than the ones which are obvious and necessitated by the same logic, inference and
reason used in the sum of all human activity. Scientific atheism is a religion which has
carved out its own tools and is constantly on the quest for that elusive answer which is
never forthcoming. Unfortunately, many Muslims, after having been through secular
institutions, have had their thoughts and perceptions polluted and they don't realize what
the bigger picture is. For this reason, we sincerely advise all Muslims to be cautious and not
to be deceived by the great amount of arrogance and deception at play, and the so called
claims of consensus, and advise them to give serious study to the Islamic aqidah, to gain a
thorough firm grounding in it before they embark upon studies in secular institutions, where
there is an incessant war against fitrah and aql in the arena of the two most biting
questions, the origin of the universe and the origin of man.

Related Articles:

Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 7: Fitrah, Aql,
Naql, Science and the Origin of the Universe and Man
https://www.aqidah.com/creed/?bmymh
Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 6: Usamah's
Lecture 'Islam and the Theory of Evolution'
https://www.aqidah.com/creed/?mbwbu
Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 5: Takdheeb of
Allah and His Messenger Can be Excused Through the Angle of Ta'weel and Ijtihaad?
https://www.aqidah.com/creed/?bhqrf
Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 4: Scholars
Verdicts on Belief in Darwinism
https://www.aqidah.com/creed/?tuzqe
Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 3: Looking at
Usamah's Citations of Evidence
https://www.aqidah.com/creed/?mklcc
Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 2: Analyzing the
Merger Between Darwinism and the Qur'an
https://www.aqidah.com/creed/?kgmbv
Usamah Hasan, Darwinism, Evolutionary Forces and the Creation of Man - Part 1: General
Observations
https://www.aqidah.com/creed/?eyiig
: