-
Humans At Time Of Adam عليه السلام
Were the humans who had no ruh killed or just wiped out after Adam عليه السلام and his wife were given the ruh?
-
21 Replies
-
Humans At Time Of Adam عليه السلام
updated 3 years, 11 months ago
4 Members
·
21
Replies
-
Or could there have been more than just one pair with the ruh?
Al-Hijr – 15:29
Arabic
فَإِذَا سَوَّيۡتُهُۥ وَنَفَخۡتُ فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِى فَقَعُواْ لَهُۥ سَٰجِدِينَ
This ayah talks about mankind in general. Why does it have to be that only Adam عليه السلام had the ruh?
-
And is there any indication that eve had the ruh too?
-
Quran is very clear about two things:
First, The difference between an animal and a human being is this process of ‘Nafkh-e-ruh’:
وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنسَانَ مِنْ صَلْصَالٍ مِّنْ حَمَإٍ مَّسْنُونٍ. وَالْجَآنَّ خَلَقْنَاهُ مِنْ قَبْلُ مِنْ نَّارِ السَّمُومِ. وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلاَئِكَةِ إِنِّیْ خَالِقٌ بَشَرًا مِّنْ صَلْصَالٍ مِّنْ حَمَإٍ مَّسْنُونٍ. فَإِذَا سَوَّيْتُهُ وَنَفَخْتُ فِيْهِ مِنْ رُّوحِیْ فَقَعُوْا لَهُ سَاجِدِيْنَ.
[These are the people who have been lured by Iblis. Remind them that] We created human beings with a stinking mud that rings and before this created the jinn from the flame of fire. And remind them when your Lord said to the angels: “I am creating a human being from stinking mud that rings. So, when I complete it from every aspect and blow My spirit into Him, all of you prostrate before him. (15:26-29)
Secondly, Quran has also made it clear that male and female human beings both were created from one soul and the actual human race that we see today scattered from that single pair:
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ اتَّقُواْ رَبَّكُمُ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُم مِّن نَّفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا وَبَثَّ مِنْهُمَا رِجَالاً كَثِيرًا وَنِسَاء وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ الَّذِي تَسَاءلُونَ بِهِ وَالأَرْحَامَ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلَيْكُمْ رَقِيبًا
You people! Have fear of your Lord, who created you from a single soul and from its genre He created its spouse, and through these two scattered many men and women [in the earth]. Fear God, in whose name you plead with one another, and fear breaking blood relations. Indeed, God is ever-watching you. (4:1).
The population of this animalistic genus from whom Adam and Eve were chosen, could’ve lived on but died away along the years.
-
So about this animalistic population- could they perhaps be the fossils we find today- the ones that seem humanoid?
Also could nafsiwahidah refer to a single cell so there is universal ancestor?
-
Yes! fossils could be a representation of that Era.
Nafsiwahidah is talking about human beings, the same can be inferred for other species, each could’ve had its own separate beginning.
Nothing can be said conclusively scientifically, but seems close to the kind of expansion that we see in Cambrian Explosion which has a great gap in it being all arising from a single ancestor or a single cell.
-
So the universal ancestry doesn’t have a strong foundation?
-
The problem with Paleontological evidence is that the sample from which population is extrapolated is very narrow and there is no way of verifying the exhaustiveness of the fossils/sites. It is indeed an amazing science, but we should know its limits as well. Because of Neo-Darwinism and its strong association with atheism, it has become itself a creed for which arguments are presented under umbrella of Science to mitigate the apparent biasness.
I too find many problems with Common Ancestry. Despite the fossils related to evolution found so far, there are many missing links (which of course Neo-Darwinists are not ready to admit) and there is no way to determine exhaustiveness of those fossils to establish a fact based theory. The debate of Cambrian Explosion, The Molecular Clocks Anomaly, and the problems with population genetics along with improbability of multiple mutations happening simultaneously which is a prerequisite for Neo-Darwinian evolution to take place according to new researches.
The best way would be to read both sides of arguments (there are accomplished scientists on both sides of the aisle) and judge for yourself. A scientist is a human being after all and he/she is not free from bias and prejudice and other factors which revolve around a human being. Study for yourself and you’ll be easily able to find where something has been presented under influence of a particular creed and where it has been said with valid and logical arguments. Discussing these kind of issues with common people will always give you incomplete picture or a biased conclusion for that matter. The best way is to consult the expert and then use your faculty of reasoning to judge for yourself that whose arguments have more weightage, in a similar way we do with religion.
I would suggest you to read the Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins and Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen C. Meyer. This will give you a fair picture of each side’s arguments.
-
-
Is it plausible that apes and humans have a common ancestor that was the humanoids before the time of Adam عليه السلام (the blowing of the ruh)
-
There is definitely a distinction in species both before and after Nafkh-e-ruh, and both of them must’ve lived parallel to each other for quite some time. Also there was a time when the primitive animalistic specie of humans went through evolution (tasfiya) to eventually reach a point where they were perfect for the final blow of ruh. So in loose terms, you can say that the chain of species that happened between primitive animalistic specie of humans to their final form could be categorized as being offshoots of a common ancestor.
-
So the pre human humanoids were perhaps in a different environment (or God simply didn’t choose to evolve them) and some turned into apes and gorillas etc whereas humans started from Adam عليه السلام and eve عليها السلام
-
-
You said above that this animalistic population ‘could’ve died away’. Is there any chance that it didn’t and through many years of evolution it is now the apes and chimpanzees we see today?
Also just as a side point- why is nafs wahidah used for BOTH Adam عليه السلام and his wife عليها السلام?
-
Think about it like this:
For the sake of argument- say that tin refers to LUCA- since the Quran is not a book of science- obviosuly extreme detail will not be explained.
The start of humans (and all other life forms) was tin- LUCA
Then, after the process of reproducing asexualy through mitosis- they could reproduce the way we know today
Then, after speciation- the tasfiya took place- which was due to mutations in DNA and natural selection.
Then- a man and a woman were chosen and had nafkh e ruh.
Isn’t this plausble when it comes to 32:7
-
Teen doesn’t even have to be LUCA actually- rather we can say that it was LUCA that came from teen
-
Great discussion. I agree with Shoaib Ahmad’s conclusion. It seems logical.
-
إن شاء الله in the coming weeks I’ll try to propose this in front of sajid Hameed sahab and see what he says
-
Also I see one issue with this idea. Because 4:1 says ‘created its mate from it’. How would a cell producing asexually have a mate?
Unless it means ‘from the same species’
-
Because even it means same species why would it be called a spouse? How could an asexually reproducing cell have a spouse?
-
In my opinion we can’t question if it is possible or not. As everything is possible in this universe and everything is doable by Allah. We are just curious and trying to figure out how Allah did it.
-
Yes but would it be correct to use the word zawj for this?
-
-
Can “single soul” or nafs e wahida be the source of not only adam and eve but also other living creatures?
Can “single soul” or nafs e wahida mean the first living cel that started replication and reproduction that eventually evolved into homo sapiens and of which one couple was mutated to get the cognitive skill (meaning was selected by God to blow His ruh)
Can we say the “stinking mud that rings” is the LUCA if not a cell?
-
That’s what my theory is also- but then the word in 4:1 for the spouse of this single cell, is it appropriate?
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
