Verse 1

How old the Human Species Is: The First Man

7:188The Jewish history says that the present human species is not older than seven thousand years¹; and contemplation supports this view.

Let us suppose there is a pair of a man and a woman, and that they live an average span of life in average health and average environment so far as peace, food production, comfort and other factors affecting human life are concerned. They are married and produce children in average environment and condition. Then we repeat exactly the same cycle of events for the said children—males and females—all in an average way. We will find that in a hundred years the original population of two will increase to one thousand persons; in other words, one person will beget about five hundred souls in a hundred years.

Then we look at the adverse factors affecting a human life, the general calamities with which he is faced, example—heat and cold, flood and earthquake, draught and famine, plague and epidemics, landslide and avalanche, massacres and genocide, and other unusual general catastrophes. Let us suppose that these disasters take their full toll of the human population until nine hundred and ninety-nine are dead and only one out of the thousand offspring remains. It means that reproduction would increase the population at the rate of 50% in a hundred years—the original two with addition of one (1000-999) becomes three in a century.

If we compute the original two at this rate of seven thousand years (seventy centuries), we will arrive at a total of more than two and a half billion—and it is the total human population these days—as the world census indicates.²

7:189This contemplation supports the above-mentioned age of the human race. But the geologists say that the age of this species exceeds million of years. They have found human fossils, bodies and artifacts which are older than five hundred thousand years, as they have estimated. This is in short their proof. But they have not produced any satisfactory evidence to show that this present generation is continuously descended from those ancient groups and vanished races. Is it not possible that a certain race appeared on this earth, reproduced, increased and inhabited the land for a time and then vanished, became extinct? Then in the same way other races appeared and vanished? This cycle could have been repeated several times until this race of ours appeared after all the previous extinct ones.

As for the Holy Qur’an, it does not say clearly whether the appearance of this species is confined to this present cycle (which we are passing), or there were various cycles of which this one is the latest. Although it may be inferred from the verse 30 of Chapter 2 (And when your Lord said to the angels, ‘‘Verily l am going to make in the earth a vicegerent,’’ they said: ‘‘Wilt Thou place in it such as shall make mischief in it and shed blood …’’) that there had passed on the earth a cycle of humanity before this one of ours; and we had hinted to it in the Commentary of the said verse.

Of course, some traditions narrated from the Imāms of the Ahlu al-bayt show that there have passed many cycles of humanity before this cycle [which has begun with Adam]; and we shall quote them under ‘‘Traditions’’

The Present Human Race Begins with Adam and His Wife

It is sometimes said: Human beings are of different colors, the main ones being the white (example—the color of Europeans and Asians living in the Temperate zones), the black (example, the color of the people in the southern Africa), the yellow (like that of the Chinese and the Japanese), and the red (as that of the American Red Indians). This difference shows that the origin of each race is different from that of the others—people of each color have separate origin—because color difference emanates from difference in the nature and composition of their respective bloods. Accordingly there must have been at least four different and independent pairs of human beings from which the four color groups have originated.

7:190It is also argued that when the Western Hemisphere was discovered, it was already inhabited by human beings. There was such a great distance between them and the people living in the Eastern Hemisphere as to render any contact between the two groups impossible; and thus ruled out the possibility of both groups originating from the same father and the same mother.

Comment: But both these arguments are defective:

Let us look at the question of difference in blood because of color difference. Scientific discussions nowadays are based on the theory of the evolution of species. If so, then how can we be sure that the difference in blood—and consequently in color—is not caused by evolution or adaptation in a single species. They believe that there had been many changes in various animal species, example—horse, goat, sheep, elephant and many others. Research has unearthed many geological remains and fossils which throw light on it. Apart from that, scientists today do not give so much importance to this difference.¹

Coming to the question of human presence across the oceans, the scientists say that the human life has existed for millions of years; the transmitted history however does not go further back than six thousand years. In this background, could not some events have taken place in prehistoric days which would have separated the Western Hemisphere from other continents? There are many geological findings which show many basic changes that have appeared in the crust of the Earth extending to far distant eras. Oceans have turned into dry lands and vice versa; plains have become mountains and mountains, plains. Even the Poles are said to have turned upside down, and various zones to shift places. All this may be learnt from geology, astronomy and geography. Keeping all this in view, all that remains for these people to fall back upon is their feeling of improbability!

As far as the Qur’an is concerned, it says in an apparent, nay rather clear-cut, way that this present human race goes back to one male and one female, who were the father and the mother respectively of all the human individuals. The father is named by God in the Qur’an as Adam, but his wife is not named in His Book, although the traditions call her Ḥawwāʾ, as does the present Torah. God says:

7:191… and He began the creation of man from dust. Then He made his progeny of an extract, of water held in light estimation [32:7–8];

Surely the likeness of Jesus is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, ‘‘Be’’, and he was [3:59];

And when your Lord said to the angels, ‘‘Verily I am going to make in the earth a vicegerent;’’ they said: ‘‘Wilt Thou place in it such as shall make mischief in it and shed blood, while we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness?’’ He said: ‘‘Surely I know what you do not know.’’ And He taught Adam the names, all of them [2:30–31];

When your Lord said to the angels: ‘‘Surely I am going to create a man from dust: So when I have made him complete and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down making obeisance to him ’’ [38:71–72].

The verses, as you see, make it clear that the system made by God for continuation of this species is by means of sperm. But when He brought him into being for the first time, he was created from dust; Adam was created from dust and the people are his children. There is no doubt therefore that this species, going back, ends at Adam and his wife—although other interpretations could be advanced for these verses.

Also sometimes it is claimed that the word, Adam—in the verses of creation and prostration—signifies not an individual, but the species. According to them, man has been called Adam because his creation originates from the earth and because he is the means of procreation and impregnation. Sometimes support is sought for it from the verse: And certainly We created you, then We fashioned you, then We said to the angels: ‘‘Prostrate before Adam’’ [7:11]. The argument runs as follows: The verse indicates that the angels were ordered to prostrate before the same whom God had created and fashioned, and the beginning of the verse (And certainly We created you, then We fashioned you) shows that it refers to the whole mankind [as it uses plural pronouns], not to a particular human being. The same idea is inferred from the following verse: He said: ‘‘O Iblīs! what prevented thee that thou shouldst not obeisance to him whom I created with My two hands?. ’’ He said: ‘‘I am better than he; Thou hast created me of fire, and him Thou didst create of dust.’’ … He said: ‘‘Then by Thy Might, I will surely beguile them, all, except Thy servants among them, the purified one’’ [38:75–83]. It is pointed out that the same Adam who in the beginning is mentioned by singular pronouns, is then referred to with plural ones.

7:192But this view is totally untenable, as it goes against the obvious meanings of the verses quoted above. Moreover, God says in the Chapter Seven, after narrating the story of Adam, prostration of the angels and refusal of Iblīs: O children of Adam! let not the Satan cause you to fall into affliction as he got your parents out from the garden, pulling off from them both their clothing that he might expose to them both their shame [7:27]. The verse [by using dual pronouns] clearly establishes the individual identity of Adam, in a way that leaves no room for any doubt.

Then there are the verses 61–62 of the Chapter 17: And when We said to the angels: ‘‘Make obeisance to Adam;’’ they made obeisance, but Iblīs (did it not). He said: ‘‘Should I make obeisance to him whom Thou hast created of dust?’’ He said: ‘‘Tell me, is this he whom Thou hast honored above me? If Thou shouldst respite me to the Day of Resurrection, I will most certainly cause his progeny to perish except a few.’’ Likewise the verse under discussion makes it abundantly clear: O people! fear your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two, many men and women, as we have already explained.

These verses, as you see, refute the idea that man has been called Adam, in one respect, and ‘son of Adam’ in another. Likewise they refuse to ascribe the creation to the dust from one angle and to the sperm from the other. It applies even more particularly to the verse like 3:59: Surely the likeness of Jesus is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, ‘‘Be’’, and he was. Otherwise, the argument of the verse will not stand that Jesus’ creation was something exceptional, against the normal process.

Thus the view that ‘‘Adam’’ refers to the human species is inordinately extreme. The opposite extreme is the view that it is al-kufr (disbelief) to say that more than one Adam had been created. This extreme was held by the Sunnī scholar, Zayn al-ʿArab.

Mankind is an Independent Species not Evolved from any Other Species

The earlier quoted verses have already decided this question. They have made it clear that the present species, which is propagated through sperm, ends at Adam and his wife, and that they two were created of earth. The human species begins with them and they were not connected with any other analogous or resembling species. Theirs was an original creation.

7:193The theory prevalent today among the scientists is that the first man evolved [from a lower species] and developed into homo sapiens, that is, human being. Although the particular hypothesis is not definitely and unreservedly agreed upon, and is the target of many objections which may be seen in relevant books, yet the basic theory, that man is an animal that evolved into human being, is accepted by them and constitutes the basis of all research in human nature.

According to their theory, the earth, one of the planets in the solar system, was a part of the sun, which had separated from it; it was then a mass of burning molten liquid which gradually began to cool under the influence of cooling factors. Torrential rains poured on it, heavy floods inundated it, mass of water collected as oceans. Water and earth reacted to each other; algae appeared; aquatic plants continued to develop; its living cells evolved into fish and other aquatic animals; then came flying fish adapted for both water and land; it gradually evolved into land animals, which in their turn developed into homo sapiens. All this happened through evolution: the lower order of life developed into the next higher one, and so on. First there were simple cells, then came aquatic plants, then aquatic animals, then amphibious animals, then land animals and finally man.

This theory is based on observation: One finds systematic gradual perfection in creatures placed on evolutionary rungs, graduating from imperfection to perfection in ascending order. Also, they argue on the basis of experiments which have created partial changes.

This theory was invented to explain the new characteristics and faculties which appear more developed and advanced in each succeeding species. But no proof has been given to show that only this theory is correct and others were untenable. After all, these species could possibly have been created separate from each other, without any evolutionary connection between them. Also, the changes occurring in a species might be limited to its conditions and concomitants, not to its person; the experiments done in this field are all confined to the concomitants. Experiments have not found or produced a single individual in all these species that would have actually changed from one species to another, example—from ape into homo sapiens. All these experiments touch only some characteristics or concomitants.

Detailed discussion of this topic should be sought somewhere else. Our aim is only to show that it is just a hypothesis which was invented to answer some problems concerned, without there being any definite argument or clear-cut proof. The reality that the Qur’an points to—that man is a species separate from all other species—remains undisputed by an academic argument.

How Man’s Second Generation Procreated

7:194The first ‘‘generation’’ of man—Adam and his wife—procreated by marriage and begot sons and daughters who were brothers and sisters to one another. The question is: How did this second generation procreate? Did the brothers and sisters marry one another? Or was there any other way? As we have explained before, the verse, and spread from these two, many men and women, with its unreserved apparent meaning, shows that the present generation of man ends on Adam and his wife, and no other male or female had joined them in this process. The Qur’an has not attributed ‘‘the spreading’’ except to these two; if anyone else would have shared in it, the verse would have said: and spread from these two and from others than them; or would have used some other suitable words. And we know that the restriction of the origin of this race to Adam and his wife means that their sons had married their daughters.¹

Of course, such marriage is prohibited in Islam, and also reportedly in previous shariah. But it is a legislative order based [like all such rules] on benefits or harms, it is not a creative decree which does not admit any change; its rein is the hand of God, He does what He pleases and orders what He intends. It is possible that He should allow it one day because it was then necessary, and prohibit it thereafter because the need was fulfilled, and if that permission were allowed to remain, it would have created indecency in the society.

It is said that it is against the nature, and what God had given to His prophets was the natural religion. God says: Then set your face uprightly for religion in the natural devotion (for the truth), the nature made by God in which He has made men; there is no alteration in the creation of God; that is the right religion [30:30]. But this argument is wrong; when nature rejects it and exhorts against it, it does not do so because it thinks such sexual intercourse (between brother and sister) loathsome; it does so rather because it would lead to increase in indecency and reprehensible behavior, which in its turn would nullify the instinct of chastity and erase decency from human society. We know that today this type of relationship and sexual intercourse is considered debauchery and immoral throughout the world. But imagine a time when God’s creation consisted of only brothers and sisters, and divine will intended to increase and spread them; we cannot apply today’s norms on that society.

7:195The evidence, that nature does not eschew such relations because of any instinctive aversion, may be found in Zoroastrian society which, according to history, practised such marriages for a long time; and in Russia where it is reportedly legalized; also in the fact that in Europe incest is widespread.²

It is sometimes said that such relation is against natural laws—the laws which guided man before he established a good society to ensure his happiness; it is because familiarity and constant mingling within family circle negates the sexual inclination and desire between brothers and sisters—as has been said by some experts of law.³

This argument too is defective, because:

First, the premises are not correct, as we have explained just now; Second, its putative undesirability is confined to a situation where it is not essentially required; and

Third, it is restricted to a time when there are no legislated unnatural laws to safeguard the essential well-being of society, to ensure the happiness of its members. Otherwise, most of the laws and principles, that governs the lives and are prevalent today, are unnatural.

Examining Narrations

(1) al-Ṣādiq said in a hadith, inter alia; ‘‘Perhaps you think that God had not created any man other than you? Certainly, by God, God had created a million Adams; you are at the end of those human beings.’’ (al-Tawḥīd)

7:196Author’s comments: Ibn Maytham has quoted in his Sharḥ Nahju al-balāghah, a tradition to the same effect from al-Bāqir, and al-Ṣadūq has narrated it in al-Khiṣāl too.

(2) al-Ṣādiq has said: ‘‘Surely God has created twelve thousand worlds, each of those worlds is greater than the seven heavens and the seven earths. None of (those) worlds thinks that God has got any other world.’’ (al-Khiṣāl)

(3) Abū Jaʿfar has said: ‘‘Surely God had created in the earth—since He created it—seven worlds; they were not from the children of Adam; He created them from the surface of the earth, then He placed them in it one after another with its world. Then God, the Mighty, the Great, created Adam, the father of mankind, and created his progeny from him’’(ibid.)

(4) al-Sahybānī narrates from ʿAmr b. Abi al-Miqdām, from his father that he said: ‘‘I asked Abū Jaʿfar: ‘From what did God create Ḥawwāʾ?’ He said: ‘What do these people say?’ I said: ‘They say that God created her from one of the ribs of Adam.’ He said: ‘They have said a lie. Was God incapable of creating her from (something) other than his ribs?’ I said: ‘May I be made your ransom, from what did He create her?’ He said: ‘My father informed me through (the chain of) his fathers that the Messenger of God said: ‘‘Verily, God, Blessed and High is He, took a handful of dust and mixed it with His right hand—and both His hands are right—and created Adam from it; and there remained (some) residue from the dust, so He created Ḥawwāʾ from it.’’ ’ ’’ (Nahj al-bayān)

Author’s comments: A similar tradition has been narrated by al-Ṣaduq from ʿAmr. There are some other traditions to the effect that she was created from the shortest left rib of Adam. The same thing is said in Chapter 2, of the Genesis. Although this story is not impossible in itself, but as we have explained earlier, it is not proved by the Qur’anic verses.

(5) A tradition given in al-Iḥtijāj quotes a talk of al-Sajjād with a Qurayshite, in which the Imam is said to describe how Hābīl was married to Lawzā, sister of Qābīl, and Qābīl to Iqlīmā, sister of Hābīl. Then the tradition continues: ‘‘The Qurayshite asked him: ‘Did they beget from them?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ The Qurayshite said: ‘But this is what the Majūs do today?’ He said: ‘Surely the Majūs are doing it after God has prohibited (it).’ Then he explained: ‘Do not deny it. These were but divine laws which were enforced. Was it not that God created Adam’s wife from him, and then made her lawful to him? Thus it was a shariah from their commandments; then God sent down the prohibition after that …’ ’’ (al-Iḥtijāj) Author’s comments: What has been narrated in this tradition agrees with the apparent meaning of the Qur’an and with contemplation. There are other traditions which oppose this theme. They say that they had married with houri and jinn that had been sent to them. But you have seen what the truth is.

7:197(6) al-Bāqir said about the words of God: and fear God by Whom you demand one of another (your rights), and (be mindful of) relationship: ‘‘And be mindful of relationship lest you severe it.’’ (Majmaʿ al-bayān)

Author’s comments: This explanation is based on [the usual] recital, that is, with vowel point ‘‘a’’ on the last letter ‘‘m’’ of al-arḥāma.

(7) Another tradition: ‘‘It refers to people’s relationship; verily God, the Mighty, the Great, has ordered to join it and has shown its greatness. Don’t you see that He has placed it with Himself?’’ (al-Kāfī; al-Tafsīr, al-Ayyāshī)

Author’s comments: The Imām’s words (Don’t you see …?) explain how God has shown its greatness; ‘‘He has placed it with Himself ’’: These words refer to the joint mentioning in the verse; and fear God … and relationship.

(8) ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd has narrated from ʿIkrimah that Ibn ʿAbbās said about the verse, … by Whom you demand one of another (your rights) and (be mindful of) relationship: ‘‘The Messenger of God said: God, the High, says: ‘‘Join your relationship, because it is more preserving to you in this life and good for you in your hereafter.’’ ’ ’’ (al-Durr al-manthūr)

Author’s comments: The words, ‘‘it is more preserving to you’’, point to what has been said in nearly mutawātir traditions that joining the relationship, that is, behaving lovingly towards relatives, increases the life; while its opposite shortens it. Its reason may possibly be understood from the forthcoming Commentary of the verse, And let those fear who, should they leave behind them weakly offspring, would fear on their account … [4:9]

Possibly the statement, that joining the relationship is more preserving, means that it is its natural effect to preserve life longer. This good behavior strengthens the family ties and revitalizes the unity found in the clan; in this way man gets courage and strength to face the adverse conditions of life—the misfortunes, afflictions and enemies—which might otherwise poison the spring of life.

7:198(9) al-Aṣbagh b. Nubātah said: ‘‘I heard the Leader of the faithful (ʿAlī) saying: ‘Surely one of you becomes angry and (then) is not conciliated until he enters the fire. Therefore, whoever of you becomes angry with his relative, should get closer to him, because womb (relationship), when touched by womb (relationship), calms down; and it is suspended from the Throne; it rings (the Throne) as iron is rung [by striking at it], and cries out: ‘‘O God! join him who joins me and cut him off who cuts me off’’: And it is the words of God in His Book: and fear Allah by Whom you demand one of another (your rights) and (be mindful of) relationship, surely Allah is vigilant over you. And who over becomes angry while he is standing, should at once cling to the earth [that is, should sit down], as it removes the filth of the Satan.’ ’’ (al-Tafsīr, al-ʿAyyāshī)

Author’s comments: The ‘‘womb’’, as you have seen, refers to that unity which is found between individuals inasmuch as they share the same life substance originating from the same father and mother (or from one of them). The relationship is a real and factual aspect running through all the relatives; it has real effects—on character and appearance, on psyche and body. These effects are undeniable, although at times some contrary factors may weaken its force, they may even nullify those effects to almost extinction point—but they can never be erased altogether.

In any case, relationship is one of the most potent causes of natural harmony among family members; it has overpowering ability to effect [their psyche and behavior]. That is why a good done to a relative brings far better and firmer results than the one done to a stranger. Likewise, ill behavior of a relative hurts the feelings more grievously than it does in case of strangers.

The reason behind the order, ‘‘whoever of you becomes angry with his relative, should get closer to him …’’, may be understood from the above explanation. When one would go closer to a relative—in obedience to this order and to strengthen its effect—one would naturally be awakened to its cause [that is, relationship which binds them together], and its effect would be revived—the anger would change into kindness and love.

Also clear is the import of the last sentence: ‘‘And whoever becomes angry while he is standing, should at once sit down.’’ Anger is a product of the spirit’s rashness and fickleness. It comes to surface and flares up because of passion—as then the Satan makes it oblivious (of reality) and turns its attention to imaginary and trivial matters. If an angry man sits down, he turns his attention to a new position, focusing his mind to a new activity. It would divert him from the anger and rage, because human soul by nature is more inclined to mercy than to anger. That is why some traditions direct a man to change his position if he feels angry.

7:199(10) al-Ṣādiq narrated from his father that, talking about anger, he said: ‘‘Surely man becomes angry so much so that he is never conciliated, and because of it he enters the fire. Therefore, any man who feels anger while he is standing should sit down, as it would surely remove the Satan’s filth from him; and if he is sitting, he should stand up; and any man who becomes angry on a relative, should go to him, get near him and touch him—because when relationship touches relationship it quiets down.’’ (al-Majālis)

Author’s comments: Its effect is a phenomenon perceived and experienced. The words of the Imām, ‘‘and it is suspended from the Throne; it rings (the Throne) as iron is rung [by striking at it]’’ mean: it causes it to sound as a bell is rung by striking at it. al-Ṣiḥāḥ says: al-Inqāḍ (sounding like banging or striking).’’ We have hinted when speaking about the Chair (and more details will be given in the talk on the Throne) that the Throne is the level of the general [divine] knowledge which is related to the events; it is that stage of existence where various expediencies, different influences and creative causes converge. It alone moves the chains of various causes and influencing factors; it is the motive force that pervades the whole system and keeps it running, as the affairs of a kingdom—with its various aspects, forms and conditions—are attached to the king’s throne, and a single word spoken by him moves the chains of authority and effects the whole bureaucracy throughout the kingdom; its effects appear everywhere in appropriate forms and shapes.

The womb or relationship, as you have seen, is in fact a spirit pervading the personalities of all those who share a common lineage. As such, this too is attached to the Throne. When it is subjected to injustice and oppression, it seeks protection and help from the Throne to which it is attached. It is this reality which the Imām alludes to when he says: ‘‘It rings the Throne as iron is rung.’’ It is a very fine and original simile; it describes the effect of its cry for help on the Throne as the ringing of a bell; when a bell is rung, the vibration permeates its whole being and the sound comes out reverberating as it it were trembling.

7:200The reported prayer, ‘‘O God! join him who joins me and cut him off who cuts me off’’, is the interpretation of its mute expression—which it would have said had it had a tongue.

It has been emphasized in numerous traditions that joining the relationship prolongs the life, and severing it decreases it. We have already described in the second volume, when writing on the relation between actions and natural phenomena1 under the heading, ‘‘An essay on the rules governing actions’’, that the Administrator of this universe is driving it to an excellent goal and a good destination; He will not ignore or neglect its well being. If one or more parts of it go wrong, he rectifies the situation, either by repairing the parts or removing and discarding them. The man who cuts his relationship off, actually wages a war against God in His creation. If he refuses to mend his ways, God cuts his life short and destroys him.

The fact that man today does not perceive this or other similar realities, does not diminish its importance. Today, humanity’s body is so much affected by moral depravity and spiritual diseases that it has lost its sense, feeling and perception; the sickness has numbed and paralysed the whole system, and man is no more able or free to feel the pain or realize the chastisement.