← Back to Videos
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Scientific American is an American magazine that claims to simplify science for the general public. A few weeks ago, this magazine published an article by a Jordanian doctor, Dr. Rana Dajani, titled "Nothing by Chance: A Book Breaking the Silence on the Theory of Evolution." It is beneficial for us to stand with the magazine, the writer, and the article to see whether such magazines publish science with neutrality or if there is a bias to promote an ideological system under the guise of science?
Also, dear respected audience, a category of people has recently emerged who claim to be Arab Muslim scientists advocating for the theory of evolution in every forum, demanding that Muslims reinterpret the Quran based on it. We claim that all of this is done in an unscientific and non-methodological manner that undermines the fundamentals of religion and adds to the bitter harvest we have reaped with others like Shahrur and Adnan Ibrahim. These individuals refer to each other and support one another, and they are given media platforms, making it seem to Muslim youth that they represent the opinion of Arab scientists, especially with the silence of the vast majority of genuine scholars, even the religious ones, unfortunately, and their lack of contribution to the intellectual struggle facing Muslim youth.
At the same time, educational curricula in Muslim countries are continuously being polluted to distort the perception of generations and insert false science theories as an alternative to the existence of Allah the Almighty. Some of those who promote false science theories like the theory of evolution do not deny the Creator but claim they are trying to reconcile faith and science. However, the mischief done under this pretext in dealing with revelation and science together achieves this agenda, whether they realize it or not. When there is an expansion in striking the fundamentals of faith and tampering with the meanings of the Quran based on false science theories, it will be said that Dr. So-and-So and Dr. So-and-So, the veiled one, have agreed to these modifications in the curricula.
I contacted some of these individuals to discuss the matter calmly, including the doctor who wrote the article we are examining. She avoided the discussion and postponed it. We are not inclined to criticize people publicly, but we see it as our duty to clarify to the youth the nature and danger of what is happening so that we do not reap more doubt and ruin. Let us examine a model of this approach today. Are they truly scientists? Do they receive support from Western magazines and institutions because they are scientists, or merely because they support the theory of evolution? Have they been consistent with themselves and succeeded in reconciling natural sciences with the Quran to convince themselves, let alone teach others this reconciliation? Are the fundamentals of faith clear to them?
Dr. Dajani has received several awards from the United Nations and others, and magazines like Nature and Scientific American have published her literary articles without scientific content, meaning without experiments or scientific observations, but rather in praise of the theory of evolution. Dr. Rana is a promoter of Ahmed Khair Al-Omri's book "Nothing by Chance," which we have previously discussed. It will be easy for you to evaluate the objectivity of her words about the book. She stated in her article that Al-Omri's book helps the public avoid falling prey to the incorrect arguments presented by opponents of the theory of evolution, meaning people like me. It is our right to clarify which of the two parties presents incorrect arguments, with the emphasis that I do not address Dr. Dajani's competence in her scientific field, away from false science theories. I ask Allah for guidance for us and her to what He loves and approves.
The response to the episodes of the Journey of Certainty by the poor servant, and we have explained how Al-Omri's responses in his book are nothing but lies, distortion of translation, and ignorance of the simplest basics of biology, and laughing at the readers with misleading formulations. We have clarified this sufficiently so that anyone related to biology should save themselves from referring to such a book except for the sake of mockery and humor, and those who are not convinced can go and watch the episode before being surprised by the high confidence in our words.
First, what does Dr. Dajani say about Al-Omri's book? Despite all this, she says that he tries to establish the scientific methodology and says, "It is worth noting that Al-Omri has documented all the scientific references he wrote," and says, "As he devoted the last chapter of the book to discussing individuals who reject the theory of evolution by responding to them in a critical and logical manner that clarifies the incorrectness of the arguments they use, which is an important method that helps the public avoid falling prey to incorrect arguments." The one who followed our episode will surely open his mouth in amazement as he hears all this.
Dr. Rana's article did not present any scientific information of any kind. The first observation is that Scientific American publishes such an article merely because it praises Al-Omri's book and confirms the validity of the theory of evolution, and Scientific American does not scrutinize Al-Omri's book to see if Dr. Dajani's description of it is accurate. The important thing is that the article praises a book that defends the myth of evolution and that's it, even if the book contains ridiculous biological fallacies.
Dr. Rana Dajani states in this article that removing the theory of evolution leads to the collapse of the entire field of biology, which we have completely refuted in the episode "Is the Theory of Evolution Really Beneficial to Humanity?" and we have shown that it has no benefit of any kind in biology. So, stop claiming that you publish science, Scientific American. You have an ideological agenda that you publish what supports it, even if it is devoid of any science, even if it distorts facts and describes ignorance and deception as science and enlightenment, which we have repeatedly shown in the episodes of the Journey of Certainty about many Western magazines and books that the infatuated youth look at as scientific and neutral, and they go convinced to watch just one episode like the "Sleep Walking" episode.
Incidentally, the well-known evolutionary Nature magazine had published an article by Dr. Rana Dajani titled "Why Do I Teach the Theory of Evolution to Muslim Students?" And I remind you that this Nature is the one that considers referring to God's creation of creatures as false science (pseudo-science), and it is the one that opened an investigation into the magazine in a terrorist manner when the magazine published a research paper about the beauty of the design of the hand mentioning the word Creator. I clarified that in the episode "Will They Give Me the Nobel Prize?" And yet, Nature magazine publishes Dr. Rana's literary article devoid of any scientific content, but rather the confirmation that the theory of evolution does not contradict Islam.
Peace be upon you
Secondly, has Dr. Rana Dajani actually succeeded in achieving a harmonious vision of reconciling natural sciences and Islam to present this role to Muslims? Is her vision clear? Dr. Rana states in her article in Scientific American: "Our master Adam," while in an interview with her at the American University of Sharjah, she says: "Adam is a symbol of humanity in general and not a specific independent real being." She was asked again and she confirmed. Therefore, Dr. Rana sees that Adam is a metaphor, a group of humans, and not a specific independent real being, and yet she calls him in this article "Our master Adam." So is he our master the metaphor, our master the allegory, or our master the group of humans?
Of course, we have explained in detail that the claim that Adam is a symbol or a group of humans is in stark contrast to dozens of verses, in addition to the fact that we have explained in detail the scientific invalidity of the alleged evidence of the emergence of humans from other creatures. So when you hear from Dr. Rana and those who follow her direction "reinterpret the Quran based on what they call science," this is what reinterpreting means: to deny dozens of verses that speak about the father of humanity, Adam, and what happened to him under the title of reconciliation with science. However, it seems that she herself has not yet decided whether Adam is a symbol, a group, or our master Adam.
Is Dr. Rana actually a model of reconciling natural sciences and Islam? She is the one who sometimes quotes verses and hadiths, and sometimes publishes an article by another writer on her page titled "I Call Them to Their Mothers." The article, as shown by its title, is an objection to the saying of Allah the Almighty: {Call them by their fathers; that is more just with Allah} [Al-Ahzab: 5], and considering that religions, including Islam, are man-made to dominate women. It's unbelievable, this is certainly not what is meant. The writer is veiled, and the one who publishes her article is also veiled. Yes, I am as surprised as you and do not find an explanation for this contradiction.
The article represents feminist filth when it reaches the point of attacking religion and attacking the story of the creation of Adam and Eve, to the extent that the writer says at the end: "We can say that what happened is mythical in short." Then she proposes scenarios of the emergence of religions and their view of women until she says: "While in the second chapter, the creation of Eve by the Lord from Adam's rib and her ending up as a helper to Adam, the man who never ceases to try to prove the inferiority of Eve, which was automatically transferred to all women after her, to work as a justification for sexual hierarchical practices in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam." That is, the creation of Eve from Adam's rib is a myth from the Bible, and note that she does not mention the Quran and the Sunnah here, although they mention the creation of Eve from Adam. And she says that this myth led to a demeaning view of women and unjust practices in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Then the writer concludes her article by saying: "Here we can go back and ask the question that Freud asked before."
Therefore, this article rejects Islam along with other religions and considers it not from God but myths made by man to dominate women. An article written by a veiled woman and published by Dr. Rana Dajani, who is also veiled. Some commentators commented on Dr. Rana with disapproval, and she did not respond. I personally made sure to draw Dr. Rana's attention to this article. Is this the reconciliation between natural sciences and religion? That religion is considered man-made and the story of the creation of Adam and Eve is considered a myth to dominate women, making the alternative in the theory of evolution?
And we can ask: Why does Dr. Rana quote verses from the Quran and hadiths if religion is all man-made in the first place? Does Dr. Rana have something to lead her followers to gradually? Or is she herself undecided? Is she not sure if Adam is a symbol or a group of humans? Or is he our master Adam as in the Scientific American article? Or is his whole story originally a myth? Is she not sure if the Quran and the Sunnah are true or if they are man-made to dominate women? And if Dr. Rana is not sure and lives in confusion and hesitation, is she qualified to educate people in these fields?
Thirdly, Dr. Rana says about Al-Amri's book: "He used the language of the world of animal behavior and evolutionary biology, Clinton Richard Dawkins, and his evidence to prove the truth of the theory of evolution." Of course, Richard Dawkins is the biggest promoter of pseudoscience and the most famous for using pseudoscience to excommunicate people and spread atheism, and he is the author of the book "The God Delusion." We have shown models of his deception in episodes of the Journey of Certainty. So Dr. Rana is impressed that Al-Amri uses Dawkins' language and evidence to prove the truth of the theory of evolution.
Fourthly, suppose I, as a Muslim, believe that the Quran is from God and creation is God's creation. The verses of God mentioned in the Quran are in perfect harmony with His visible verses in the universe and in the soul, and there is no contradiction, so I try to find middle solutions between natural science and the Quran. Is this the logic of Dr. Rana?
In the Scientific American article, Dr. Rana, while celebrating Al-Amri's words about the creation of Adam, says: "But because of the sensitivity of the subject of our master Adam, he tried to find a middle solution when he talked about Adam, and although the theory of evolution is a comprehensive theory and we cannot take some of it without the other, but it is possible to say that the writer used this method so as not to lose the reader completely." As if she is saying that this novelist found a beautiful story that his mind came up with to explain the dilemma of the creation of our master Adam, he came from the world of stories and novels and cooked us a sweet dish without losing the readers, and to save our religion from collapsing in front of the fact of evolution, while the original is that we take the theory of evolution in a comprehensive way, not taking some of it without the other. And this is similar to Dr. Rana's words in the interview in which she talks about Prophet Adam as just a symbol.
Therefore, according to her words, we as Muslims should re-interpret the verses and hadiths according to the fact of evolution if this makes us feel better so that we do not lose our religion. While we have explained in the episodes of the Journey of Certainty that the matter is not about beautifying falsehood, but we believe in the unseen mentioned in the Quran and the authentic Sunnah, because we have believed in our religion based on the natural, rational, and scientific evidence, so we do not need to distort them for the sake of the false and decaying myths of pseudoscience.
This is an example of the way this doctor praises Al-Amri and his writings, and Al-Amri praises her, and each publishes for the other. And you can imagine after all this how the situation will be if the method of dealing with the texts of the Quran and the Sunnah by the people of this trend is adopted in the educational curricula and they are exported as role models for the Muslim youth. May Allah help us, and peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.