allah's forgotten creatures

8/3/2019 Allah's Forgotten Creatures

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/allahs-forgotten-creatures 1/13

Allah's Forgotten Creatures

A Qur'an and Science Issue

While working on the article about a contradiction between S. 15:27 and 21:30

(*), I found another a verse that is a close parallel to S. 21:30.

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of

one piece, then We parted them, and we made EVERY living thing of water?

Will they not then believe? 21:30 Pickthall

However, this related verse contains an additional problematic statement that

will be the topic of this article.

Allah has created EVERY moving (living) creature from water. Of them there

are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs, and somethat walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Verily! Allah is Able to do all

things. S. 24:45 Al-Hilali & Khan

And Allah has created from water EVERY living creature: so of them is that

which walks upon its belly, and of them is that which walks upon two feet,and of them is that which walks upon four; Allah creates what He pleases;

surely Allah has power over all things. S. 24:45 Shakir

Aren't there a lot of creatures missing in the "divine categorization" of living

creatures that is given in S. 24:45? The author starts with making acomprehensive, all-inclusive statement. He speaks about "every living

creature". First he refers to their common origin, i.e. that all of them were

created from water, and then he categorizes them according to what

distinguishes them, their characteristic property. He gives three categories in

which those creatures exist:

‘walking’ with no legs [e.g. snakes and snails]

walking with two legs [human beings (?), birds (?), jinn (?), see the

discussion in the appendix]

walking with four legs [e.g. most mammals (sheep, cows, dogs, horses,camels, etc.) and most reptiles (frogs, crocodiles, most lizards, etc.)]

However, as intuitive as these three categories may appear at first sight, the

author of S. 24:45 forgot a huge number of species when he made this

statement. Even the Qur'an mentions several creatures that are not covered by

this categorization: the gnat (2:26), the bee (16:68), the fly (22:73), and moths

http://www.pdfonline.com/easypdf/server/index.htm



(101:4) which are all insects and walk on six legs, the spider (29:41) that walks

on eight legs, and all kinds of fish (5:96, 18:61, 37:142) which have no legs and

are not walking (or creeping) at all.[1] Moreover, apart from those various

creatures mentioned in the Qur'an, there are the octopus ("eight foot", actually,

there are about 300 species of octopus,source) and other cephalopods, various

crabs that have ten legs (1, 2), caterpillars, centipedes and millipedes, all of which are not mentioned in the Qur'an.

In fact, for anyone concerned about the "scientific miracle of the Qur'an" the

omission of the six-legged insects must be devastating since science teaches

that there are vastly more insects than there are animals with no legs, two or

four legs taken together. The Wikipedia entry on Insects starts with these

words:

Insects (Class Insecta) are the biggest class of arthropods and the only ones

with wings. They are the most diverse group of animals on the planet. They aremost diverse at the equator and their diversity declines toward the poles. With

over a million described species — more than half of all known living

organisms[2][3] — with estimates of undescribed species as high as 30

million, thus potentially representing over 90% of the differing life forms on

the planet.[4] (Source, accessed on 25 March 2009; underline emphasis mine)

Add to that almost 40,000 living species of spiders (source), about 3,000

described species of centipedes (and an estimated number of 8,000

species, source), and around 10,000 species of millipeds (source), and 6,793

known species of crabs (source), and almost 28,000 known extant species of fish (source), it should be glaringly obvious that Allah forgot to mention the

vast majority of his creatures — and that in a verse talking explicitly about

"every living creature", and then categorizing these creatures. Again, Allah

forgot to include the vast majority of creatures existing on this planet in his

categorization of living creatures!

Moreover, for those Muslims who believe in the miraculous scientific accuracy

of the Qur'an we need to point out that these quranic categories sort the

creatures in wrong ways, grouping together those that do not belong together,

and separating those that should be grouped together. Just a few examples:

scientifically, mammals are one family, but the Qur'an separates two-legged

mammals (human beings and perhaps some kinds of apes) from the four-legged

mammals. It joins (most) mammals with (most) reptiles on the superficial

characteristic that they have four legs, but separates the reptiles, and even the

lizards from each other, since most lizards have four legs but the slowworm

(blindworm) is a lizard without legs (1, 2, 3).




But the list in S. 24:45 was not intended to be comprehensive!

Muslims who want to rescue the Qur'an from such an error, a statement

contrary to established scientific facts, have little choice but to argue that S.

24:45 only gives some examples of different kinds of creatures but that this

statement was not supposed to cover all creatures, appearance to the contrary.The statement should not be taken in a literal way, but it only illustrates the

power of Allah by alluding to several different kinds of animals.

Is there any solid evidence that would support such an interpretation? Anything

beyond mere assertion? In the following, I will present the reasons that appear

to support of a literal reading. [Furthermore, see my observations on the tafsir

of al-Qurtubi ( below) which also does not support the interpretation that this

verse only gives some examples.]

First, a mere statement that there exist animals that walk on four legs, othersthat walk on two legs and yet others that glide over the ground without any legs

is an utter triviality. That is an observation that can be made by a four-year old

child. We do not need divine revelation for that. But either it is an utter

triviality, or it is indeed intended as a categorization of every living being, but

then it is not only incomplete but wrong by all scientific standards.

How does the author of the Qur'an deal with numbers? Let's examine some

statements from the Qur'an involving numbers, specificially verses in which a

statement goes beyond a certain stated number (or amount):

Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the

equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than

two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then

the half. And to each of his parents a sixth of the inheritance, if he have a son;

and if he have no son and his parents are his heirs, then to his mother

appertaineth the third; and if he have brethren, then to his mother appertaineth

the sixth, after any legacy he may have bequeathed, or debt (hath been paid).

Your parents and your children: Ye know not which of them is nearer unto you

in usefulness. It is an injunction from Allah. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise. S.

4:11 Pickthall

And We sent him to a hundred thousand (folk) or more[2] S. 37:147 Pickthall

Hast thou not seen that Allah knoweth all that is in the heavens and all that is in

the earth? There is no secret conference of three but He is their fourth, nor of

five but He is their sixth, nor of less than that or more but He is with them




wheresoever they may be; and afterward, on the Day of Resurrection, He will

inform them of what they did. Lo! Allah is Knower of all things. S. 58:7

Pickthall

Surely Allah is not ashamed to set forth any parable -- (that of) a gnat or any

thing above that; ... S. 2:26 Shakir

It should be obvious that the Qur'an contains several statements using

expressions like "and/or more", or "more than ____", and whoever can say "and

anything above that", can also say "and any number above that". In these

statements, the author made it clear that he refers not only to the number(s) that

is/are stated but a higher number is also in view. If that would have been the

intention for S. 24:45 as well, then the author could easily have added one more

phrase to S. 24:45, saying, for example, "and some that walk on four legs or

more" or "and some whose legs are more than four", or "with legs more than

four", "and some that walk on four or a number above that ", or "walk onfour or even more", or some similar expression.[3] However, he did not, and that

needs to be taken seriously.

After all, who among our Muslim readers would dare to add "or more" in this

list:

And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such

women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you

will not do justice (between them), then (marry)only one or what your right

hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the rightcourse. S. 4:3 Shakir

Are the stated numbers not supposed to be definite? Does the Muslim want to

argue these numbers are mere suggestions or samples, an open-ended list

intended to include the permission to marry six or ten or twenty wives? And the

structure in S. 4:3 is very similar to the one found in S. 24:45. The three options

(or categories) are joined with "wa" (and).

I think, it is fair to say that in those cases when the Qur'an makes statements

that are not restricted to the numbers that are stated explicitly but only givessome examples and implies that there is more, then it adds a phrase like "or

more". But if that is not there, then the Qur'an means what it says. Anything

else is not taking the Qur'an seriously and opens the door to arbitrary

interpretation.




Muslims who insist that we should read the verse as if it contained the words

"or more" are saying that Allah cannot be trusted in regard to clearly expressing

what he wants to say and they need to "help Allah" out in order to make clear

what he should have said. It also means that Allah is inconsistent in his

formulations, and therefore it is up to the believer (or unbeliever) whether he

wants to add "or more" in this, that or the other statement. That is arbitrary, and basically says that Allah meant,but forgot , to add these words. Such an

approach replaces the problem of "Allah forgetting to mention certain

creatures" with "Allah forgetting to add a rather important phrase" in this verse

in order to clarify what he actually means.

Finally, some may say, the third part of S. 24:45 covers the rest of the

creatures. In other words, there are actually four categories:

walking with no legs

walking with two legs walking with four legs

"Allah creates what He wills. Verily! Allah is Able to do all things."

being an implicit references to all other creatures.

That does not seem to be a valid interpretation. The last part of the verse is not

an additional category but a conclusion (giving praise to God) presented as a

reflection on what was stated before. The three categories are joined with "wa"

(and): "those walking with no legs" AND "those walking with two legs" AND

"those walking with four legs". There is no third "wa" joining the text that

follows to the other three categories. This change in structure does not allow for understanding the concluding reflection as a fourth category.

I agree that giving a complete categorization of all creatures is not the main

thrust of this verse. Its main message is the power of Allah who created

everything and who is able to do all things. That is how this verse starts and

ends, "Allah has created every moving (living) creature ... Allah creates what

He wills. Verily! Allah is Able to do all things." Nevertheless, it is difficult to

avoid the conclusion that the author of the Qur'an was somewhat sloppy or

casual in the formulation of the middle part of this verse; he did not carefully

think about the statement that was intended to illustrate the vastness of Allah's

creative power.

Assuming the human origin of the Qur'an, these observations are easy to

understand. It should be obvious that Muhammad, as a man living in the

Arabian desert in the seventh century, could not imagine that God's creation

was actually vastly more diverse than what he was aware of. It is also




understandable that insects may simply have slipped his mind when he

composed that verse. This "slip of mind" explanation makes sense and is

acceptable for a human author, but it is difficult to accept when one wants to

believe that the Qur'an comes directly from the all-knowing and all-wise God.

Even more so, when one believes that Allah intended the "scientific miracle of

the Qur'an" to prove its divine authorship.

Which of the companions of Muhammad corrupted the text of the Qur'an?

Al-Qurtubi provides the following interesting commentary on S. 24:45.

“so of them is that which walks upon its belly, and of them is that which walks

upon two feet, and of them is that which walks upon four; Allah creates what

He pleases ...”

The walking on the belly is for snakes and fish and the likes of worms andothers. Upon two feet is for humans and birds when they walk. Upon four is for

all other animals.

In Ubayy’s (copy of the) Qur'an: “and of them who walks upon more”. Hence

in this addition he included all animals such as crab, however this is a copy of

the Qur'an which did not gain consensus. Al-Naqqash said: the verse used four

feet in lieu of more than that because all animals depend on four feet for

walking, and those animals who have more than four legs do not need these

additional legs ... (Arabic source, translation by Mutee'a al-Fadi)

We can see that this Muslim commentator is struggling to make sense of the

statement in the Qur'an, but his assertions are not really convincing.

To use the expression "walking on the belly" is already somewhat strange,

since "walking" presupposes legs, but to claim that this expression also

includes fish is more than a stretch. At least snakes are gliding over the ground;

they are indeed using their bellies to move forward (i.e. their body movement

with the friction of the belly on the ground etc.). However, fish are not usually

touching the ground with their bellies and do not use their bellies to move. Fish

use fins and tails to move forward. The belly of a fish is not contributing anymore to its movement than its back.

"Upon four is for all other animals" is a desperate claim. The number four is

not a representative for all numbers "four and higher" any more in this verse

than in S. 4:3. Moreover, not all animals depend on four feet for walking. On

one hand, besides human beings there are animals that can walk on only two




legs (birds, apes, kangaroos). On the other hand, millipeds would not be able to

walk on only four of their feet if the others were removed. Even crabs would be

severly handicapped if six of their ten feet were amputated. Does al-Naqqash

know better than their creator when he claims that "those animals who have

more than four legs do not need these additional legs"? Did God create what is

entirely superfluous?

However, the main reason for quoting this commentary is the reference to

Ubayy's codex of the Qur'an in which the text of this verse contains an extra

phrase that would solve at least the greater part of the problem discussed in this

article (but fish are still not covered). This early textual variant is testimony that

already (some of) the companions of Muhammad realized that there is a serious

problem with this verse.

A number of uncomfortable questions arise: Which of the companions did

corrupt the Qur'an? Did Ubayy ibn Ka'b improve on the text "revealed" toMuhammad? Or did Zaid ibn Thabit accidentally or deliberately omit this

phrase when he worked on his "revised standard version" (RSV[4]) of the

Qur'an? Or was Muhammad so confused that he recited it at times in one form

and at other times in the other form? How can any Muslim know for sure which

version is the authentic text? How does he deal with the fact that the version

that became the standard is scientifically wrong? How many more places are

there in the Qur'an where the "wrong variant" became standardized?

Moreover, as indicated above, al-Qurtubi confirms my argument in the last

section. He realizes that there are animals that do not naturally belong in any of the three given categories. Nevertheless, he does not therefore argue that this

verse only mentions these three categories as examples and that Allah's

statement is not trying to cover all living creatures. On the contrary, he tries to

fit all creatures into the given categories which is evidence that he understands

these given categories as being comprehensive. He even points out that there is

a different reading of the text that would solve the problem of animals with

more feet than four in a more elegant way. But since he does not dare to go

against the standard reading and the "consensus", he tries to gather support for

including all animals with more than four feet in the category of those with four

feet. Clearly, in the understanding of al-Qurtubi, the three given

categories should actually cover all creatures, and so he "(re)defines" what

creatures should be assigned to which category.

He does not even consider it an option that Allah's statement could be

incomplete regarding the categories given and that it was not intending to cover

all creatures.




A similar observation can be made in Ibn Kathir's commentary:

Allah mentions His complete and almighty power to create all the different

kinds of animalswith their various forms, colors and ways of moving and stopping, from

one kind of water.(Of them there are some that creep on their bellies,) like snakes and so on;

(and some that walk on two legs,) like humans and birds;

(and some that walk on four,) like cattle and all kinds of animals. Allah says:

(Allah creates what He wills.) meaning by His power, because what He wills

happens

and what He does not will does not happen. So he says:

(Verily, Allah is able to do all things.) (Source; bold emphasis mine)

Just like al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir also does not say that these are not all

categories, not that there are other animals that are not covered by thesecategories, and the given categories are only examples, but he also claims that

the category of those walking on four covers "all kinds of animals". In fact, in

his first statement he even speaks specifically of "all the different kinds of

animals" (as opposed to "all animals"), and the word kind is pointing to an

understanding that a categorization of all animals is in view in this verse.

Appendix: The second category and its questionable members

The second category given in S. 24:45 is actually problematic. What did the

author of the Qur'an really think of in regard to two-legged creatures? There are

not many animals that walk on two legs, particularly when we take the

following two verses from the Qur'an into consideration:

There is not a moving (living) creature (dabbatin) on earth, nor a bird that

flies with its two wings, but are communities like you. We have neglected

nothing in the Book, then unto their Lord they (all) shall be gathered. S. 6:38

Al-Hilali & Khan

And of men and AdDawab (moving living creatures, beasts, etc.), and cattle, in

like manner of various colours. It is only those who have knowledge among His

slaves that fear Allah. Verily, Allah is AllMighty, OftForgiving. S. 35:28 Al-

Hilali & Khan




S. 6:38 mentions the birds separately from the moving living creatures

(dabbatin, the same word as in S. 24:45), implying that birds are not to be

counted among those. The Qur'an recognizes that the distinguishing

characteristic of birds is not that (or how) they walk, but that they fly.

Characterizing the species of birds as "walking on two legs" sounds rather

misguided. Does that mean the birds are out?

S. 35:28 suggests that humans may not be part of the crawling creatures

either. Even though AdDawab in 35:28 is not identical to dabbatin in 24:45, the

two words seem to be synonyms, since Al-Hilali & Khan render both terms

with virtually the same translation. Mentioning men and "moving creatures"

separately may suggest that human beings are not understood to be part of these

creatures. On the other hand, cattle are also mentioned separately, but are

without doubt part of the moving living creatures. So this observation from

35:28 is not conclusive.

What about angels and jinn? Most commentators seem to explicitly exclude

them. Why? Islamic theology, based on Qur'an and hadith, teaches regarding

the creatures of the transcendent world that angels were created from light and

jinn were created from fire (15:27; 55:15), in contrast to the creatures of this

world that were created from water (21:30; 24:45). However, the Qur'an does

not exclude the jinn or angels from these verses, and particularly for S. 21:30 a

good case can be made that jinn have to be included among "the living things".

If we include the jinn (and angels) then 21:30 is merely another element in the

contradiction regarding the creation of jinn, discussed here. But if we exclude

them, this second category is nearly empty.[5]

In any case, we are somewhat hard-pressed to find species that are clearly

included in the second category of S. 24:45. What did the author of the Qur'an

really think of in regard to two-legged creatures?

Perhaps we can include a couple of birds which can't fly in the category of two-

legged walkers? The author of the Qur'an was perhaps aware of ostriches

(37:47 is a somewhat veiled reference where some translators add the word

ostrich in parentheses). Moreover, penguins are also birds that cannot fly but

only walk on two legs (apart from being excellent swimmers).

Still, the Qur'an mentions a category that has very few members and leaves out

the category of six-legged animals which are by far the largest group if we want

to categorize creatures according to their number of legs at all.




Footnotes

1. In fact, one of the verses mentioning fish contains a formulation that

becomes rather ironic in this context:

... then I forgot the fish – and it was Satan himself that made me forget it so that

I should not remember it ... S. 18:63 Arberry

Does that mean that S. 24:45 is actually another "Satanic verse" in the Qur'an,

since its actual shape was influenced by Satan?

[Attention! Red alert for those who have problems to detect humor: Yes, this

footnote is a joke! I could simply not resist including this rather funny

observation. That means there is no need to write a rebuttal to this footnote, cf.

Bassam Zawadi's catastrophic and misguided rebuttal (*) to a section of sarcasm and parody in another one of my articles.]

2. Actually, this verse is a statement of ignorance. Had it been "to more than

100,000" it could have been a statement by somebody who has certain

knowledge, who knows it was more than 100,000 but did not consider it

important to say how many more than 100,000. That number is good enough, it

is not necessary to be more specific. But adding "or more" after the number

betrays that the speaker is actually not so sure about the number. This

formulation reveals the ignorance of the speaker. See also the article, Is Allah

an All-Knowing God?

3. Or he could have broken the focus on the number of legs and said something

like "and other kinds of creatures".

4. Maybe we should call it the Caliph Uthman Version (CUV) just as we have

the KJV (King James Version) of the Bible in English?

5. However, we also read:

And among HIS signs is the creation of the Heavens and the earth, and of whatever living creatures (dabbatin) HE has spread forth in both. And HE has

the power to gather them together whenever HE pleases. S. 42:29 Al-Hilali &

Khan

Here the same word is used for the living creatures in the heavens and the earth

as is used in S. 24:45 for "every living creature" (kulla dabbatin). Since S.




42:29 obviously includes the angels and jinn (or, if not, what else would be the

creatures in the heavens?) one could perhaps argue that jinn and angels are also

included in S. 24:45. After all, they also walk around on earth, though not

exclusively.




Qur'an Difficulty:

Thinking located in the breasts?

Surely He knows well all the thoughts within the breasts.

-- Sura 11:5

Die in your rage; God knows the thoughts in the breasts.

-- Sura 3:119

The above is Arberry's translation. Yusuf Ali translates "heart" instead of

"breasts," but whether heart or breast, the question would be the same.

This wouldn't even be worth mentioning as a "problem" if Muslims were notstressing so much the scientific accuracy of the Qur'an. The Semitic people

thought the location of "thinking" to be in the chest/heart area [many Bible

verses show the same view]. I can easily accept it for both Bible and Qur'an

that these verses do not make any scientific claims nor do they give medical

descriptions of the seat of thinking, but that they just employ the commonly

used expressions to communicate the truth the author wants to express here,

namely that God knows our deepest secrets and thoughts. To this day we say

(in English) that God knows our "heart" and we don't mean the muscle in our

physical body but our motives and desires. And we speak that way due to

tradition even though we know those are to be located in the brain if one cangive it a location at all.

I don't want to parade this example as a difficulty or contradiction in the

Qur'an. It only shows that this was the common way of speaking about it in the

Middle East and even until today in our "scientific age."

But it is one passage which shows that the Qur'an uses the normal language to

communicate, and is indeed very unscientific by doing so. I believe that the

Qur'an is equally unscientific in many other verses where Muslims try to

extract scientific miracles and which are just lending themselves in their vageness better to be twisted into harmony with some modern science theories

even though nothing like that was intended in the text.

But if Muslims insist in a general scientific accuracy of the Qur'an and want to

make scientific accuracy of the Qur'an a proof for its divine inspiration, then




the above verses are indeed a clear mistake and Muslims who want to make a

case for the Qur'an on the basis of scientific accuracy will have to deal with it.


allah's forgotten creatures

Documents