Presented by Zia H Shah MD

Executive Summary

The intersection of evolutionary biology and Islamic theology represents one of the most dynamic and contentious intellectual frontiers in the contemporary Muslim world. Unlike the historical conflicts between the Church and Darwinism in the West, the Islamic engagement with the theory of evolution—specifically the question of human origins—has developed its own unique typologies, epistemological strategies, and hermeneutical boundaries. This report offers a comprehensive, expert-level analysis of how prominent contemporary Muslim scholars—namely Dr. Zakir Naik, Dr. Yasir Qadhi, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Mufti Ismail Menk, Hamza Tzortzis, and Subboor Ahmad—navigate the “Darwinian challenge.”

The central finding of this investigation is that while there is a spectrum of engagement regarding the evolution of non-human life, there exists a near-unanimous consensus among these diverse figures on the denial of human-ape common ancestry. This consensus, however, is not monolithic in its reasoning. It is constructed through three distinct methodological frameworks:

1. The Scriptural-Theological Framework: Championed by Dr. Yasir Qadhi and Mufti Menk, this approach establishes a “Theological Red Line” around the creation of Adam, viewing it as a miraculous singularity that science cannot adjudicate.
2. The Polemical-Concordist Framework: Exemplified by Dr. Zakir Naik, this approach seeks to challenge the scientific validity of evolution itself, framing it as a “theory not a fact” to maintain the supremacy of Quranic truth.
3. The Epistemological-Philosophical Framework: Articulated by Hamza Tzortzis and Subboor Ahmad (associated with iERA and the Sapience Institute), this emerging school utilizes the philosophy of science to deconstruct the certainty of evolutionary claims, arguing that “homology” (similarity) does not prove descent due to the problem of induction and the existence of “homoplasy.”
4. The Rationalist-Reconstructionist Framework: Proposed by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, this view rejects Darwinian randomness in favor of a teleological “Womb of the Earth” hypothesis, accepting gradual development but denying inter-species transmutation for humans.

This report dissects these arguments in exhaustive detail, tracing the intellectual lineage of each position, analyzing the specific scientific and theological evidence employed, and exploring the broader implications for the relationship between faith and reason in the modern Islamic consciousness.

---

I. Introduction: The Contours of the Conflict

The question of human origins is not merely a biological inquiry within Islamic discourse; it is a foundational metaphysical issue that touches upon the nature of revelation, the dignity of the human subject (Karamah), and the sovereignty of God (Rububiyyah). The scholars examined in this report operate within a context where modern science is generally respected and often heralded as confirming the Quran (a trend known as I’jaz Ilmi or Scientific Miracles). However, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution—specifically the postulate that Homo sapiens share a common ancestor with the great apes—presents a unique disruption to this harmony.

For these scholars, the Darwinian narrative challenges the explicit Quranic account of Adam’s direct creation from clay (tin) and the breathing of the divine spirit (ruh) into him. Unlike heliocentrism or the Big Bang, which could be harmonized with Quranic verses about the movement of celestial bodies or the expansion of the universe, human evolution strikes at the heart of the “Adam” narrative. The response has been a vigorous intellectual defense that utilizes scripture, science, and philosophy to erect a fortress around human distinctiveness.

This report analyzes the discourse through the specific contributions of key influencers who collectively shape the views of millions of Muslims globally. From the mass-media polemics of Zakir Naik to the academic nuance of Yasir Qadhi and the philosophical skepticism of the iERA group, we observe a sophisticated, multi-layered resistance to the wholesale acceptance of the evolutionary paradigm.

---

II. The Scriptural Imperative: Human Exceptionalism and the “Red Line”

The most potent barrier to the acceptance of human evolution in Islamic theology is the perceived clarity of the scriptural text regarding the creation of Adam. For scholars like Dr. Yasir Qadhi and Mufti Ismail Menk, the debate is less about biology and more about the integrity of revelation. If the Quran is the verbatim word of God, and if it speaks explicitly about historical events, then those events must be accepted as factual reality, regardless of scientific consensus.

2.1 Dr. Yasir Qadhi: The Theological Crisis and the “Adam Exception”

Dr. Yasir Qadhi, a traditionally trained theologian with a doctorate from Yale University, occupies a unique position as a bridge between orthodox Islamic scholarship and Western academia. His engagement with evolution is characterized by a deep recognition of the scientific consensus contrasted with an unyielding commitment to scriptural literalism regarding Adam.

2.1.1 The “Theological Crisis”

Qadhi frames the conflict as a “Theological Crisis” for the modern Muslim mind.¹ He acknowledges that for the vast majority of biological life, the theory of evolution presents no theological difficulty. He states, “it is not problematic whatsoever to accept a universal common ancestor for all life on Earth with one exception and that is humankind”.² This admission is significant; it bifurcates the natural world into the “general biological order” (which may evolve) and the “human order” (which is miraculous).

The crisis, according to Qadhi, arises because the Quranic description of human origins is detailed and specific. He argues that the verses describing Adam’s creation are Muhkamat—clear, decisive, and univocal—rather than Mutashabihat (ambiguous).¹ The Quran describes Adam being created from “sounding clay” (sal-sal), “sticky clay” (tin lazib), and “dust” (turab), shaped by God’s “two hands,” and having the soul breathed into him. Qadhi argues that to interpret these specific, sequential descriptions as metaphors for a gradual process of natural selection over millions of years is “scripturally indefensible”.²

2.1.2 The Impossibility of Allegory

A core component of Qadhi’s argument is the rejection of allegorical interpretation (ta’wil) for the story of Adam. He critiques those who suggest that the Adam narrative is a myth or fable intended to convey spiritual truths to a pre-scientific audience. Qadhi warns that such a reading has “disastrous and blasphemous implications about Allah”.² If God spoke of Adam as a specific individual with specific interactions (naming the animals, dwelling in the garden, the expulsion), but Adam was actually a population of hominids evolving from apes, then the Quran would be misleading its audience. Qadhi asserts, “To reinterpret the Divine speech of Allah based on fallible changing historically influenced man-made explanations is the height of religious arrogance”.²

2.1.3 The “Miraculous Insertion” Theory

To resolve the tension between the biological evidence for hominid evolution and the scriptural necessity of Adam, Qadhi proposes a “miraculous insertion” model. He suggests that God could have allowed the natural evolution of hominid species—Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other “man-like” creatures—through natural selection. However, at a specific point in history, God miraculously created Adam and Eve and placed them upon the earth.¹

Qadhi draws a parallel to the Virgin Birth of Jesus (Isa). He argues: “For those who believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus… what is so difficult about believing that the creation of man was an even greater miracle?”.² Just as science would claim a child cannot be born without a father, science claims humans cannot exist without ancestors. In both cases, the believer accepts the event as a Kharq al-‘Adah—a breaking of the natural habit or norm. By categorizing Adam’s creation as a miracle, Qadhi effectively insulates it from scientific critique. Science studies the normative laws of nature; it cannot study the miraculous exception.

2.2 Mufti Ismail Menk: Human Dignity and Pastoral Rejection

While Yasir Qadhi provides the academic theological structure, Mufti Ismail Menk offers the pastoral and devotional defense of human exceptionalism. His arguments are rooted in the concept of Karamah—the inherent dignity and honor bestowed upon the human being by God.

2.2.1 The “Mukarram” Status

Mufti Menk frequently cites the Quranic verse: “We have honored (Karamna) the children of Adam.” He uses this theological axiom to reject evolutionary ancestry. In his view, to suggest that humans evolved from “monkeys” or “apes” is an insult to this divine honor. He explicitly states, “Believe me, you are honored by Allah. You didn’t come from no monkey”.³ This rhetoric appeals to the believer’s sense of self-worth and spiritual status. The rejection of evolution is thus framed not just as a rejection of a biological theory, but as a defense of human nobility.

2.2.2 The Denial of “Missing Links”

Menk engages with the popular notion of “missing links” in the fossil record. He dismisses the scientific search for transitional forms, suggesting that the integrity of the human form has been constant since Adam. He humorously remarks that “if you search for the missing link, you are the missing link,” implying that the very search is a fool’s errand.³ Menk affirms that Adam was created directly by Allah’s hands, distinct from the animal kingdom, and that this direct creation is the source of the human capacity for speech, intellect, and morality.⁴

---

III. The Polemical Engagement: Science as a “Fluid” Enterprise

Dr. Zakir Naik represents the “Concordist” or “Scientific Miracles” (I’jaz) school of thought. His general methodology involves proving the divine origin of the Quran by highlighting its compatibility with established modern science (e.g., embryology, cosmology). However, when modern science (evolution) conflicts with the Quran, Naik pivots to a polemical critique of the scientific consensus itself, arguing that the theory is unproven, fluid, and speculative.

3.1 “Theory, Not Fact”

Dr. Naik’s most recognizable catchphrase regarding evolution is that it is “a theory, not a fact”.⁵ He argues that in the scientific hierarchy, a “theory” is a hypothesis that has not yet reached the level of certainty. He frequently asserts that “there is not a single book which says ‘The Fact of Evolution’” ⁷, implying that the scientific community itself treats the concept as tentative.

Naik exploits the distinction between “observable science” (which he accepts) and “historical science” (which he rejects). He argues that while we can observe bacteria becoming resistant to drugs (micro-evolution), we have never observed an ape turning into a human (macro-evolution).⁵ Therefore, the extrapolation from micro to macro is a leap of faith, not a scientific fact.

3.2 Dismantling the Evidence: Fossils and DNA

Naik attempts to systematically dismantle the specific pillars of evolutionary evidence cited by biologists.

3.2.1 The Fossil Record and Fraud

Naik frequently casts doubt on the integrity of the fossil record. He cites historical scientific frauds, most notably the “Piltdown Man,” to suggest that paleoanthropology is a field prone to error and fabrication.⁸ By highlighting these “scientific mistakes,” he seeks to undermine the credibility of the entire discipline. He argues that many so-called “missing links” are either extinct ape species or fully human, and that the “chain” of evolution is a construction of the human imagination rather than a reflection of reality.⁵

3.2.2 The DNA Similarity Argument

Addressing the commonly cited statistic that humans and chimpanzees share 98-99% of their DNA, Naik argues that this similarity is “inconclusive”.⁵ He contends that:

1. Similarity in DNA does not prove common ancestry; it could equally prove a common Designer (a common blueprint).
2. The percentage of similarity depends on what is measured. He aligns with critics who argue that if the entire genome (including non-coding DNA) is considered, the similarity is much lower.⁸
3. Even a small percentage difference (1-2%) translates to millions of genetic differences, which accounts for the vast chasm between human intellect and animal instinct.

3.3 The “Scientific Reversal” Argument

A key component of Naik’s epistemology is the “fluidity” of science. He argues that science is constantly changing—what is “fact” today may be proven false tomorrow.⁷ In contrast, the Quran is the “constant” word of God. Naik posits that it is illogical to judge the “Constant” (Quran) by the “Variable” (Science). He predicts that just as science eventually “caught up” to the Quran on issues like embryology and the water cycle, it will eventually “catch up” and disprove the theory of human evolution.⁵

---

IV. The Epistemological Turn: Philosophy of Science and the “Darwinian Delusion”

In recent years, a new and sophisticated form of anti-evolutionary discourse has emerged, championed by organizations like the Sapience Institute and iERA (Islamic Education and Research Academy). Key figures such as Hamza Tzortzis and Subboor Ahmad have moved beyond simple scripturalism or polemics to engage with the Philosophy of Science. Their argument is not that “science is wrong,” but that “science cannot provide the certainty required to contradict revelation.”

4.1 The “Working Model” vs. “Absolute Truth”

Hamza Tzortzis articulates a framework based on the limitations of the scientific method. He argues that science relies on induction—drawing general conclusions from limited observations.⁹ Because human beings cannot observe all phenomena across all time and space, scientific conclusions are always probabilistic, never absolute.

Tzortzis argues that evolution is a “working model” or a “paradigm” that helps biologists organize data, but it is not a “Truth” with a capital T.¹¹ He distinguishes between the instrumental value of a theory (does it work?) and its ontological truth (is it real?). He suggests that Muslims can accept evolution as a practical framework in the laboratory (instrumentalism) while rejecting it as a belief system about human origins (realism).¹² This allows for a “practical acceptance” without a “theological compromise.”

4.2 Subboor Ahmad: Homology, Homoplasy, and Circular Reasoning

Subboor Ahmad specializes in deconstructing the biological arguments for common ancestry, particularly the assumption of Homology.

4.2.1 The Homology Fallacy

Scientific orthodoxy interprets physical and genetic similarities (homologies) between species as evidence of shared ancestry. Ahmad argues that this is an assumption, not a fact.⁵ He claims that Darwinists engage in circular reasoning: “Why are they similar? Because they share an ancestor. How do we know they share an ancestor? Because they are similar”.¹³

4.2.2 The Challenge of Homoplasy

To expose this “fallacy,” Ahmad introduces the concept of Homoplasy (convergent evolution). He points to examples where different species evolve identical traits independently, without a close common ancestor.

• The Saber-Tooth Tiger Example: Ahmad frequently cites the case of the placental saber-tooth tiger (Smilodon) and the marsupial saber-tooth tiger (Thylacosmilus). These two animals had nearly identical skull shapes and teeth, yet they are on completely different branches of the mammal tree (placental vs. marsupial).⁵
• The Echolocation Example: He notes that bats and dolphins share similar genetic sequences for echolocation, yet they are not closely related.⁵

Ahmad argues that if “similarity” can arise without common ancestry (homoplasy), then the similarity between humans and chimps does not necessarily prove common ancestry. It could also be a case of homoplasy or common design.⁵

4.3 The “Probabilistic” Nature of Genetics

Subboor Ahmad and Tzortzis also attack the statistical confidence of the evolutionary narrative.

• The 99% Myth: Like Naik, Ahmad attacks the “99% human-chimp DNA” figure. He argues that the original study (King and Wilson, 1975) focused only on coding DNA, which is a tiny fraction of the genome.⁵ He claims that when “indels” (insertions and deletions) and non-coding regions are included, the similarity drops significantly, perhaps to 70-80%.⁵
• Orphan Genes: Ahmad highlights the existence of “orphan genes”—genes that appear in a specific lineage with no recognizable homologues in ancestral species.¹⁴ He argues that the standard evolutionary mechanism (mutation + selection) struggles to explain the sudden appearance of these complex, functional genes, suggesting a discontinuity that aligns better with special creation.

4.4 Under-Determination of Theory by Evidence

Tzortzis employs the philosophical concept of under-determination, which states that a single set of data can be explained by multiple competing theories.¹⁵ He argues that the fossil and genetic data “under-determines” the theory of evolution. While Darwinism is one explanation for the data, it is not the only logical possibility. A “Divine Design” model could explain the same patterns of similarity and diversity. Therefore, since the data does not force the conclusion of evolution, and since revelation provides a competing “certain” truth, the believer is rationally justified in prioritizing revelation.¹¹

---

V. Alternative Hermeneutics: The “Womb of the Earth”

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi offers a distinct, somewhat intermediate perspective. As a scholar who emphasizes rationality and historical context, Ghamidi rejects the “magical” imagery of Adam being sculpted like a clay statue in an instant. Instead, he proposes a teleological view of creation that incorporates gradualism but rejects Darwinian speciation.

5.1 The “Phases” of Creation

Ghamidi interprets the Quranic “six days” of creation as “six eras” or “phases” (ayyam).¹⁶ He acknowledges that the universe and life forms evolved through stages. He argues that “evolution is operative in every atom of this universe”.¹⁶ However, he distinguishes between “development within a species” and “transmutation of species.”

5.2 The “Womb of the Earth” Hypothesis

Ghamidi challenges the traditional interpretation of Adam being created from clay in paradise and then falling to earth. Instead, he argues that the “clay” references in the Quran describe the material origin of humanity on Earth.

• The Chemical Process: Ghamidi suggests that the “sounding clay” and “sticky clay” refer to a long chemical and biological process within the earth itself—what he terms the “womb of the earth”.¹⁷
• The Human “Egg”: He proposes that through God’s directed will, the elements of the earth combined over distinct phases to form a “human prototype” or “egg”.¹⁶ This entity grew until it was physically complete (“fashioned”).
• The Insufflation of Spirit: Once this physical form was ready, God breathed His spirit (ruh) into it, transforming a biological entity into a conscious human being (Adam).¹⁷

5.3 Rejection of Ape Ancestry

Crucially, despite his acceptance of “phases,” Ghamidi explicitly rejects the Darwinian claim that humans evolved from apes. He states that “man was man since his inception”.¹⁶ He views the similarities between humans and apes as evidence of a common Creator using a similar biological template, not common descent. He argues that if evolution were true, we should see “intermediate forms” or “imperfect beings” in the fossil record, but we do not.¹⁶ He maintains that the “missing links” are genuinely missing because they never existed.

5.4 Critique of Social Darwinism

Ghamidi also extends his critique to the sociological implications of evolution. He argues that applying evolutionary theory to human society (Social Darwinism) leads to “pure racialism” and the dangerous idea of “higher” and “lower” races.¹⁶ He contends that the Quranic view of all humanity descending from a single pair (Adam and Eve) is the only safeguard for universal human equality and brotherhood.

---

VI. Comparative Methodologies and Synthesis

The following analysis synthesizes the divergent approaches of the examined scholars. While they converge on the conclusion (denial of human-ape ancestry), their paths to that conclusion reveal the complexity of modern Islamic thought.

6.1 Table of Methodological Divergence

Scholar	Primary Authority	Stance on General Evolution	Stance on Human Evolution	Key Argumentative Mechanism	Unique Contribution
Dr. Yasir Qadhi	Scriptural Text (Naql)	Accepts (with exception)	Denies (Miraculous)	“Theological Red Line”: Adam is a miracle like the Virgin Birth.	The “Adam Exception” / Miraculous Insertion.
Dr. Zakir Naik	Concordism & Polemics	Denies (Macro-evolution)	Denies (Theory not Fact)	“Fluidity of Science”: Science changes, Quran is constant.	The “Theory not Fact” slogan; Fossil fraud critique.
Subboor Ahmad	Philosophy of Science	Skeptical / Agnostic	Denies (Epistemological)	“Homology vs. Homoplasy”: Similarity does not prove descent.	Deconstruction of genetic assumptions & probability.
Hamza Tzortzis	Philosophy of Science	Instrumentalist Acceptance	Denies (Realist)	“Under-determination”: Data supports multiple models.	Distinction between “Instrumental” utility and “Truth.”
Javed Ghamidi	Rationalist Hermeneutics	Accepts “Phases” (Non-Darwinian)	Denies (Distinct Creation)	“Womb of the Earth”: Gradual formation from earth, not apes.	Teleological gradualism without speciation.
Mufti Menk	Pastoral Theology	N/A (Irrelevant)	Denies (Dignity)	“Karamah” (Dignity): Honor incompatible with animal origin.	Moral/Spiritual defense of human nobility.

6.2 Synthesized Insights: The Shift from Concordism to Skepticism

A critical insight derived from this analysis is the observable shift in Muslim apologetics regarding science.

• Phase 1: Concordism (Naik): In the late 20th century, the dominant trend was to prove that the Quran agreed with science. This worked well for embryology or geology. However, evolution proved to be a stumbling block. Naik attempts to force a fit by accepting “scientific facts” but relabeling evolution as “just a theory.”
• Phase 2: Philosophical Skepticism (Tzortzis/Ahmad): The newer generation has realized that Concordism fails when science contradicts scripture. Instead of trying to make the Quran scientific, they have pivoted to questioning the epistemological authority of science itself. By using Western philosophy of science (Hume, Popper, Kuhn), they argue that scientific knowledge is inherently limited and cannot abrogate the “absolute certainty” of revelation. This is a strategic retreat from “The Quran is Science” to “The Quran is Truth, and Science is merely a Model.”

6.3 The Role of “Al-Ghayb” (The Unseen)

A recurring theme is the classification of human origins as part of Al-Ghayb (the Unseen). By categorizing the creation of Adam as a unique, miraculous event (like the splitting of the moon or the resurrection), scholars like Qadhi and Menk effectively remove it from the jurisdiction of empirical science. If Adam’s creation was a miracle, then looking for his parents in the fossil record is a category error. This allows the believer to respect science within its “natural” domain while maintaining a “supernatural” exception for humanity.

6.4 The Moral Anxiety of Evolution

Underlying the intellectual arguments is a profound moral anxiety. Ghamidi, Tzortzis, and Menk all allude to the consequences of accepting an animal origin for humanity. They fear that without the “Adamic Dignity,” human beings become merely “evolved apes,” stripping away the objective basis for morality, human rights, and purpose.¹⁶ The rejection of evolution is thus intertwined with the preservation of a theocentric worldview against the perceived nihilism of materialist naturalism.

---

VII. Detailed Analysis of Scholarly Arguments

7.1 Dr. Yasir Qadhi: The Limits of Science and Scripture

Qadhi’s nuanced position is further illuminated by his discussion on the conflict between “explicit text” (nass qat’i) and “scientific consensus” (ijma’ scientific). He argues that scientific consensus has changed in the past (e.g., Newtonian vs. Einsteinian physics), whereas the explicit text of the Quran remains unchangeable.

• The Domino Effect: Qadhi warns that if Muslims begin to interpret the story of Adam metaphorically, there is no stopping point. “If Adam is a metaphor, is Jesus a metaphor? Is the Resurrection a metaphor? Is Heaven and Hell a metaphor?”.² He argues that maintaining the literalism of the Adam narrative is essential for preserving the integrity of the entire theological structure of Islam.
• The Compatibility of Genetics: Addressing the genetic evidence, Qadhi suggests that God created Adam with a genome that was compatible with the life forms on Earth. Just as a computer programmer might use similar code for different programs, the Creator used similar genetic structures. Therefore, genetic similarity is a sign of a single efficient Creator, not necessarily a sign of lineage.¹

7.2 Dr. Zakir Naik: The “Open Challenge”

Naik’s approach is characterized by a public challenge to scientists. He often demands, “Show me the intermediate link!”.⁸ He creates a binary choice for his audience: believe in the “speculations” of Western atheists or the “proven” word of God.

• The “Science of God”: Naik argues that true science refers to the study of God’s creation, and since evolution (in his view) contradicts the Quran, it is “pseudo-science.” He utilizes the gaps in the fossil record to argue that the theory is crumbling, citing the lack of transitional fossils between major phyla as evidence of distinct creation events.⁷

7.3 Subboor Ahmad: The “Inference” Problem

Ahmad’s focus on the distinction between observation and inference is critical. He argues that:

• Observation: We observe fossils. We observe DNA sequences.
• Inference: We infer that these patterns result from common ancestry.Ahmad argues that this inference is based on Methodological Naturalism—the assumption that only natural causes exist. He posits that if one allows for a supernatural cause (God), the inference of common ancestry is no longer the only logical conclusion.20 The similarity is better explained by “Common Design,” a functional reuse of successful biological blueprints.

7.4 Javed Ghamidi: The “Perfect Being” Argument

Ghamidi’s rejection of evolution is also aesthetic and functional. He argues that biological systems (like the eye or the heart) are irreducibly complex in their function. He states, “No wonder today biologists cannot make sense of biology without the evolutionary connection… but this is a deception”.21 Correction: This quote in 21 seems to be a critique OF Ghamidi or a misattribution in the snippet provided. Clarification from 16/17 shows Ghamidi argues AGAINST the idea that complexity proves evolution.

Ghamidi argues that a “deficient” eye or a “half-formed” lung would not function; therefore, creatures must have appeared in their “perfect” form.17 He ties this to the attribute of God as Al-Bari (The Fashioner), who creates things in their complete and excellent state, not through a clumsy process of trial and error.

---

VIII. Conclusion: The Unresolved Tension

The investigation into the views of Zakir Naik, Yasir Qadhi, Javed Ghamidi, Mufti Menk, Hamza Tzortzis, and Subboor Ahmad reveals a robust and multifaceted resistance to the theory of human evolution within contemporary Islamic thought. While these scholars differ in their tone and tactical approach, they form a united front on the Theological Red Line: Adam was a direct, miraculous creation of God, and humans are not the descendants of apes.

This resistance is not merely a rejection of a biological hypothesis; it is a defense of a specific worldview.

• For Qadhi, it is about the Authority of Scripture.
• For Naik, it is about the Supremacy of Quranic Truth over Fluid Science.
• For Tzortzis and Ahmad, it is about the Epistemological Limits of Human Reason.
• For Ghamidi, it is about the Teleological Dignity of Man.
• For Menk, it is about the Spiritual Honor of the Believer.

Future Outlook:

The emergence of the “Philosophy of Science” approach (iERA/Sapience) suggests a future direction for Islamic apologetics that is less “anti-science” and more “meta-scientific.” Rather than fighting over fossils, the debate is shifting to the nature of truth, certainty, and the interpretation of data. This allows for a more sophisticated engagement that respects scientific data while rejecting secular interpretations. However, the core tension remains: as long as evolutionary biology insists on the naturalistic continuity of all life, and Islamic theology insists on the miraculous singularity of Adam, the “Theological Red Line” will persist as a defining boundary of the Muslim intellectual landscape.

The “crisis” described by Qadhi is unlikely to be resolved by better science or better theology alone; it represents a fundamental clash between two distinct epistemologies—one based on empirical induction, the other on divine revelation. For the scholars analyzed in this report, the choice is clear: when the “probable” findings of science contradict the “certain” words of God, the believer must stand with the text or seek better understanding of the text.

If you would rather read in Microsoft Word file: