Watakila ya kamata a bambance tsakanin nau'o'in hujjoji guda biyu da sababbin masu adawa da addini (New Atheists) ke gabatarwa. Mun tattauna yadda sababbin masu adawa da addini ke ɗaukar "hasashen Allah" (God hypothesis) a matsayin wanda aka karyata kuma ba shi da tushe a fuskar bayanan Darwin na zamani. Sabanin haka, mun kuma lura da yadda wasu masana falsafa ke ƙin wannan zato, suna bambance tsakanin tsarin juyin halitta (evolution) da kuma ikon da ake danganta wa Allah na jagorantar wannan tsari.

Perhaps distinction should be drawn between two kinds of arguments presented by New Atheists. We have discussed the New Atheist treatment of the ‘God hypothesis’ as disproved and ‘untenable’ in the face of new Darwinian explanations. Contrastingly, we have also witnessed philosophical rejection of this postulation by those who rightly differentiate between the evolution mechanism and the supposed agency of a deity who is guiding it.

Haka kuma, mun lura da bambanci mai dabara amma muhimmi tsakanin naturalism na hanya (methodological naturalism) da naturalism na metaphysics. Gabaɗaya wannan yana tayar da tambaya: shin za a iya yin amfani da waɗannan binciken ga addini gabaɗaya, ko kuma an riga an karyata addini kansa a cikin hasken wannan sabon shaidar kimiyya?

Moreover, we also noted the subtle but important difference between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. Overall this begs the question; can these findings be generalised to religion in general or has religion itself been disproven in light of this new scientific evidence?

Christopher Hitchens ya rubuta:

Christopher Hitchens writes:

Addinin ya ƙare da hujjojinsa. Godiya ga na'urar hangen nesa da ta ƙananan abubuwa, ba ya ƙara bayar da wani bayani mai muhimmanci a kan kome ba. A da, ta hanyar cikakken iko da yake da shi a kan fahimtar duniya, yana iya hana fitowar abokan hamayya, amma yanzu abin da zai iya yi shi ne hana ko jinkirta—ko ƙoƙarin juyar da baya—ci gaban da muka samu wanda ake iya aunawa (Hitchens, 2019, p.282).

Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retard—or try to turn back—the measurable advances that we have made (Hitchens, 2019, p.282).

On this point, Dawkins claims 'as a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise' (Dawkins, 2006, p.284). Grayling furthers this from 'fundamentalist' religion to all religion by suggesting '…Darwinism is not compatible with religion; the evidences of biological science are evidences against the presence of supernatural agency in the universe' (Grayling, 2014, p.113). Grayling also states that intelligent design is 'creationism in disguise' (Grayling, 2014, p.109). Clearly, two separate arguments are defined here. Firstly, an argument against the 'God hypothesis', as previously discussed. The second argument concerns religion. To what extent, though, has religious and scientific discourse been entangled according to individuals who take such discourses seriously? This of course is a big question to which there is no simple answer. In what follows I will outline the main approaches that both Muslim and Christian scholars have taken when answering these questions.

On this point, Dawkins claims ‘as a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise’ (Dawkins, 2006, p.284). Grayling furthers this from ‘fundamentalist’ religion to all religion by suggesting ‘…Darwinism is not compatible with religion; the evidences of biological science are evidences against the presence of supernatural agency in the universe’ (Grayling, 2014, p.113). Grayling also states that intelligent design is ‘creationism in disguise’ (Grayling, 2014, p.109). Clearly, two separate arguments are defined here. Firstly, an argument against the ‘God hypothesis’, as previously discussed. The second argument concerns religion. To what extent, though, has religious and scientific discourse been entangled according to individuals who take such discourses seriously? This of course is a big question to which there is no simple answer. In what follows I will outline the main approaches that both Muslim and Christian scholars have taken when answering these questions.

In both Christian and Muslim traditions, religious scriptures have been interpreted in a variety of ways. While discussing ancient Jewish philosophy, David Shatz differentiates between modest and bold concordism. The former allows scriptural reconciliation with science, whereas the latter assumes a 'positive teaching' of science in a scripture. Though one cannot generalise approaches to Biblical exegesis, three approaches to the Bible stand out. The first is a modest concordist allegorising approach which emphasises the allegorical nature of the Genesis account. Since the verses are allegorical, it may be argued, theology cannot expand on evolution or Big Bang cosmology. Though this approach has exegetical precedent from the patristic period (most notably from the Alexandrian school), it is often met with challenges. Such challenges, which are beyond the scope of this paper, relate to deciding which verses may or may not be allegorised.

In both Christian and Muslim traditions, religious scriptures have been interpreted in a variety of ways. While discussing ancient Jewish philosophy, David Shatz differentiates between modest and bold concordism. The former allows scriptural reconciliation with science, whereas, the latter assumes ‘positive teaching’ of science in a scripture. Though one cannot generalise approaches to Biblical exegesis, three approaches to the Bible stand out. The first is a modest concordist allegorising approach which emphasises the allegorical nature of the Genesis account. Since the verses are allegorical, it may be argued, theology cannot expand on evolution or Big Bang cosmology. Though this approach has exegetical precedent from the patristic period (most notably from the Alexandrian school), it is often met with challenges. Such challenges, which are beyond the scope of this paper, relate to deciding which verses may or may not be allegorised.

Ọ̀nà kejì ita ce ọ̀nà literalist na non-concordist, wanda, idan aka yi amfani da shi ga Littafi Mai Tsarki, ba ya bukatar haifar da tunanin halittar duniya ta matasa (young-age creationist), domin ko wasu Iyayen Coci na farko kamar Augustine (wanda ba ya yawan yin allegorisation) bazai ɗauki kwanakin da ke cikin labarin Farawa a matsayin na zahiri ba (Brooke, 2012, p.8). Duk da haka, tsarin zahiri ga Farawa yana da nasa ƙalubalen "kimiyya" da na tarihi, ciki har da fassarori waɗanda suna da tushe a zamanin Iyayen Coci da na Tsakiya, kuma waɗanda ke nuna cewa shekarun duniya dubu shida ne. Wannan tsarin ba non-concordist bane daga mahangarsa, domin yana ayyana "kimiyya" da hanyoyinta ta hanyoyin da suka bambanta da tsofaffin hanyoyin falsafar kimiyya. Ken Ham, wani mai koyar da halittar duniya ta matasa, ya raba kimiyya zuwa nau'ikan "na lura" (observational) da "na tarihi" (historical), inda na ƙarshen ya fi dogara ga fassarar ɗan adam, kuma idan rikici ya taso, dole ne karatun zahiri na nassi ya fi muhimmanci (Ham, 2013, p.45-55). Masu goyon bayan wannan ra'ayi suna komawa ga tsarin asali (genealogical) na Farawa 5.

The second approach is the literalist non-concordist approach which, when applied to the Bible, does not need to produce a young-age creationist conception as even some patristic Church Fathers like Augustine (who is infrequent in his allegorisation) may not have considered the days in the Genesis account to be literal (Brooke, 2012, p.8). Nevertheless, a literal approach to Genesis has its own set of ‘scientific’ and historical challenges including interpretations, which have patristic and medieval precedent, and which indicate the universe’s age as six thousand years old. This approach is not non-concordist from its own perspective, as it defines ‘science’ and its processes in ways that differ from classical approaches of philosophy of science. Ken Ham, a Young Age Creationist, divides science into ‘observational’ and ‘historical’ types, the latter of which is highly subject to human interpretation, and where conflict exists, the plain reading of the text must take precedence (Ham, 2013, p.45-55). Proponents of this view refer to a genealogical approach to Genesis 5

wanda ke ƙara shekarun daga tsara zuwa tsara, don haka ya kai ga ƙarshen cewa duniya tana da kusan shekara dubu shida; duba The Chronology of the Old Testament na Floyd Nolen Jones. Ana iya rarraba wannan ra'ayi a matsayin na ƙi, saboda yana ƙin kimiyyar da aka fi yarda da ita.

which adds up the years from one generation to another, thereby concluding the universe is approximately six thousand years old; see Floyd Nolen Jones’s The Chronology of the Old Testament. One can categorise this perspective as rejectionist, on account of its rejecting popularly accepted science.

Wata hanya ta uku, wadda Dr. Hugh Ross ya shahara da ita kwanan nan, ita ce hanyar "bold concordist" ta zahiri, wadda manufarta ita ce tabbatar da yadda abubuwan kimiyya, kamar Babban Fashewa (Big Bang), ake koyarwa a cikin Nassi. Saboda haka, wannan hanya a zahiri hanya ce ta halittawa ta tsohon zamani ta zahiri (literalist Old Age creationist), amma wadda ke tsayawa a matakin juyin halittar mutum. (Ross et al., 2001, p.11)

A third approach, popularised recently by the likes of Dr. Hugh Ross, is a ‘bold concordist’ literalist approach which aims to establish how scientific phenomenon, like the Big Bang, is taught in scripture. Accordingly, such an approach is essentially a literalist Old Age creationist approach but one which crucially stops at the point of human evolution (Ross et al., 2001, p.11).

Kamar yadda malaman zamanin Kiristanci na farko, irin su Origen da Augustine da aka ambata a sama, malaman Musulunci na farko ma wani lokaci sun nuna ra'ayin daidaita nassin addini da binciken kimiyya a fili, wani lokaci cikin tawali'u, wani lokaci kuma da karfin hali.

Much like scholars in the patristic period, like Origen and Augustine mentioned above, early Islamic scholars were also occasionally noticeably concordist, both modestly and boldly.

Duk da haka, wakilan manyan makarantun akida, kamar Ibn Taymiyyah (ga Hanbalawa) da Al-Ghazali (ga Ash'arawa), sun kan fassara ayoyin da ke magana kan duniyar zahiri a zahirin ma'anarsu (Qadhi da Khan, 2018). Falasifa, ko 'masana falsafa', wadanda Ibn Sina ya fi fitowa fili a cikinsu (kamar Origen na Alexandria, ko da yake shi ba shi da tsananin hakan), sun fi son yin fassara ta alama ga ayoyin da ba su dace da ilimin sararin samaniya na zamaninsu ba, kamar yadda ya yi da ka'idar sammai goma na falaki (Qadhi da Khan, 2018).

Nevertheless, representatives of major creedal schools of thought, like Ibn Taymiyyah (for the Hanbalis) and AlGhazali (for the Asharis), would interpret verses which reference the physical world in a literal manner (Qadhi and Khan, 2018). The falasifa or ‘the philosophers’ most prominently represented by Ibn Sina (like Origen of Alexandria – though perhaps less flagrantly) would prefer allegorising verses which appeared to not correspond with the cosmologies of the day as he did with the theory of ten celestial spheres (Qadhi and Khan, 2018).

Duk da cewa ayyukan Ibn Sina da na falasifa sun tsira har zuwa zamani, hanyoyin tafsirinsu sun zama kusan an yi watsi da su, musamman bayan munanan sukar Al-Ghazali a cikin shahararren littafinsa Tahafut al-Falasifa (Rushewar Falasifa), da kuma Ibn Taymiyyah bayan littafinsa Ar-Radd ala al-Mantiqiyyin al-Yunaniyyin (Amsa ga Masana Dabarun Hikimar Girka). A cikin waɗannan ayyuka, an fitar da Ibn Sina daga Musulunci, kuma duk da cewa Ibn Rushd (Averroes) ya kare wasu bangarorin wannan hukunci a cikin littafinsa Tahafut at-Tahafut (Rushewar Rushewar), al'ummar Musulmi ta Sunna ta riga ta yanke shawara a kan lamarin.

Though Ibn Sina and the falasifa’s work has survived to the modern day, their exegetical preferences have become practically disregarded particularly after the scathing attacks of both Al-Ghazali in his famous work The Incoherence of the Philosophers and Ibn Taymiyyah following A Response to the Greek Logicians. In such works, Ibn Sina was ex-communicated from Islam and though Ibn Rushd (Averroes) refuted aspects of this in his The Incoherence of the Incoherence, the Sunni-Muslim world appeared to have already decided on the matter.

Sakamakon wannan ci gaban tarihi shi ne cewa yin tawili na labaran tarihi ko ayoyin da ke da ma'ana ta dabi'a an takaita su ne ga al'amuran akida na ambaton 'kujerar mulki' (Arshi) na Allah da sunayensa da siffofinsa, wanda hakan ya kasance abin cece-kuce sosai a tsakanin Ash'arawa, Hanbaliyya, Maturidiyya, Mu'tazilawa, Shi'a Itna 'Ashariyya da sauran mazhabobi da ba a san su sosai ba. Malaman tafsirin Alkur'ani daga kusan dukkan wadannan mazhabobin akida suna karbar cewa ayoyin dabi'a suna dacewa da 'duniyar gaske' a zahiri. Musamman ma, sun hada da malaman tafsiri na mazhabobi irin su Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (Ash'ari), Ibn Kathir (Hanbali na akida), Al-Zamakhshari (Mu'tazili) da Abu Ja'far al-Tusi (Shi'a). Ko da yake irin wadannan malamai sun tattauna ma'anar alama ta ayoyin, kusan babu wanda daga cikinsu ya cim ma abin da Ibn Sina ko Origen suka yi shirin yi; wato rage ayoyin zuwa wani nau'i na bayanin asali (aetiology), suna cire musu ma'anarsu ta zahiri.

The net result of this historical development was that allegorising historical narratives or verses of naturalistic significance were limited to creedal aspects of referencing Allah’s ‘throne’ (Arsh) and his names and attributes which is notably controversial among Ashari’s, Hanbalis, Maturidis, Mutazili’s, Shia Twelvers and other less well known schools. Quranic exegetes from virtually all of these creedal schools accept the literal correspondence of naturalistic verses with the ‘real world’. Perhaps most notably including exegetes of schools such as Fakhr al Deen al Razi (an Ashari), Ibn Kathir (creedal Hanbali), Al-Zamakhshari (A Mutazli) and Abu Jafar al Tusi (A Shia). Though such exegetes discussed the verses’ symbolic value, virtually none of them achieved what Ibn Sina or Origen were willing to do; namely reduce the verses to a form of aetiology, stripping it of its literal value.

Tare da hana tafsirin ma'anoni na alegori na falasifa bisa ga akida, hanyoyin tafsiri da aka fi sani a Musulunci game da ayoyin halitta (na zahiri) za a iya rarraba su cikin nau'i uku cikin sauki: daidaita kimiyya gaba-gaba, daidaita kimiyya a hankali, da kin kimiyyar zamani. Kamar yadda yake a ilimin Kiristanci da kare-akida, wadannan rarrabuwa ba su tsaya kan doka ɗaya ba, domin malami ko mai kare akida na iya ƙin kimiyya a wani yanayi, amma kuma ba ya ƙin ta a wani yanayi.

With the creedal exclusion of the falasifa’s allegorical exegesis, popular Islamic exegetical approaches to naturalistic verses can be easily divided into three types: bold concordism, modest concordism and modern science rejection. As with Christian scholarship and apologetics, these categories are not fixed as a scholar or apologist may be rejectionist in one context and not in another.

Dr. Zakir Naik shi ne wakili mafi shahara na tsarin Bold concordist literalist a duniya mai magana da Turanci. A cikin wani bincike na 2017, an gano bidiyo na kan layi 1006 a YouTube da kalmomin ‘Islam’ da ‘science’ tare, kuma mai magana da ya fi yawan bidiyo shi ne Zakir Naik (Gardner et al., 2018, p.358). Kamar Dr. Hugh Ross, Naik ya nuna cewa Alkur'ani ya koyar da cewa Babban Fashewa ta faru, kuma kamar Ross, Naik bai yarda da juyin halittar ɗan adam ba saboda sabanin sa da ma'anar zahiri ta nassi (Gardner et al., 2018, p.385). Hujjojin kimiyya na Naik kusan iri ɗaya ne da na Dr. Maurice Bucaille, wanda ya rubuta littafin muhawara mai suna The Bible, Quran and Science, yana jayayya cewa Littafi Mai Tsarki bai dace da kimiyya ba a batutuwan da suka shafi ilimin sararin samaniya, ilimin ƙasa da ambaliyar Nuhu, yayin da Alkur'ani ya dace da irin waɗannan batutuwa (Bucaille and Fahim, 1977, p.96-143; Bucaille and Fahim, 1977, 152-157). Wannan sabuwar hanyar wa'azi/kare addini ta Musulunci (wadda ake kira hanyar Ijaaz Ilmi a Larabci) har ta sa malaman Salafiyya a Saudiyya su kafa kwamiti kan Mu'ujizozin Kimiyya na Alkur'ani da Sunnah (Dallal, 2010, p.171).

Dr. Zakir Naik is the most popular representative of the Bold concordist literalist approach in the English-speaking world. In a 2017 study, 1006 online videos were identified with the terms ‘Islam’ and ‘science’ together on YouTube, and the speaker with the highest output was Zakir Naik (Gardner et al., 2018, p.358). Like Dr. Hugh Ross, Naik indicates that the Quran teaches that the Big Bang occurred, and also like Ross, Naik doesn’t accept human evolution because of its contradiction with the plain reading of the text (Gardner et al., 2018, p.385). Naik’s scientific arguments are almost identical to those of Dr. Maurice Bucaille who wrote a polemic book titled The Bible, Quran and Science effectively arguing that the Bible is incongruent to science on matters related to cosmology, geology and Noah’s flood whereas the Quran is in line with such matters (Bucaille and Fahim, 1977, p.96-143; Bucaille and Fahim, 1977, 152-157). This novel evangelising/apologetic Islamic approach (termed the Ijaaz Ilmi approach in Arabic) even prompted Salafist clergy members in Saudi Arabia to start a committee on the Scientific Miracles of the Quran and Sunnah (Dallal, 2010, p.171).

Duk da haka, an soki wannan hanya saboda amfani da eisegesis da kimiyyar karya, musamman dangane da batutuwan da suka shafi Darwinism da juyin halitta (Gardner et al., 2018, p.385).

However, this approach was criticised for employing eisegesis and pseudo-science, especially regarding issues relating to Darwinism and evolution (Gardner et al., 2018, p.385).

Dallal ya soki wannan hanya, yana cewa:

Criticising this approach, Ahmed Dallal states:

Lokacin da Musulmi suka kasance manyan masu samar da ilimin kimiyya a duniya, ba su yi kira da a haɗa kimiyya da addini ba. Yanzu kuma, abin mamaki, a lokacin da gudunmawar Musulmi ga samar da al'adar kimiyya ta duniya ke raguwa, sai su ke kira da a haɗa su biyun (Dallal, 2010, p.170).

When Muslims were the main producers of science in the world, they did not advocate wedding science and religion. Now, ironically, when Muslim participation in the production of the universal culture of science is dwindling, they call for bringing the two together (Dallal, 2010, p.170).

Hanyar ƙin yarda ta biyu ba ta adawa da dukkan abubuwan kimiyya ba, sai dai waɗanda ake ganin sun saɓa wa abin da malaman tafsiri suka riƙa a baya ko kuma nassi bayyananne. Misalin wannan shi ne ka'idar juyin halittar ɗan adam, wadda ake ganin ta saɓa wa ma'anonin Alƙur'ani na zahiri (Qadhi da Khan, 2018). Abin takaici, mafi yawan abin da ya ɓace daga tattaunawar (daga masu ƙin Allah na zamani da malaman tauhidi da ke ƙoƙarin mayar musu da martani) shi ne rashin tunkarar falsafar kimiyya yadda ya kamata. Misali, a ka'ida, idan aka bambanta tsakanin ɗabi'ancin hanya (methodological naturalism) da ɗabi'ancin akida (metaphysical naturalism), za a iya cewa Musulmai da Kiristoci waɗanda suke riƙe da ra'ayoyin da za su iya saɓa wa juyin halittar ɗan adam (ko dukkan tsarin Darwin) suna yin hakan ne ta hanyar ra'ayin amfani (instrumentalism) maimakon ra'ayin hakikanin gaskiya (realism). Tunda ra'ayin amfani ba ya tilasta yin imani da gaskiyar zahirin ka'idar kimiyya, Musulmai da Kiristoci za su iya karɓar ingancin tsarin Darwin (har ma da ci gaban da ake samu a cikinsa a cikin wuraren nasu).

The second rejectionist approach does not oppose all scientific phenomena, only those deemed contrary to exegetical precedent or clear text. This is best exemplified by the theory of human evolution which is considered incompatible with literal Quranic meanings (Qadhi and Khan, 2018). Unfortunately, much of what has been missing from the discourse (from New Atheists and theologians who attempt to counter them) is a meaningful engagement with scientific philosophy. For example, theoretically, and when differentiating between methodological and metaphysical naturalisms, it may be suggested that Muslims and Christians who adopt views which may contradict human evolution (or the entire Darwinian enterprise) adopt an instrumental view rather than a realist view. Since instrumentalism does not necessitate believing the literal truth of scientific theory, Muslims and Christians can accept the validity of the Darwinian model (even allowing advances in it within their spaces)

ba tare da bukatar yin imani da cewa homo-sapiens (misali) ya samo asali daga sauran hominids ba.

without needing to believe in the evolution of homo-sapiens (for example) from other hominids.

Saboda haka, juyin halittar Darwin zai iya zama hanya mai amfani ta fahimta, kamar taswirar jirgin karkashin kasa na London; ko da yake yana da matukar amfani, ba a yi shi daidai da ma'auni ba. Sakamakon haka, za a iya rage cikas ga ci gaban kimiyya. Akwai sharuɗɗa biyu da ya kamata a yi a nan. Na farko, idan aka karɓi wannan hanya, dole ne a sassauta da'awar da Ross da Naik suka yi, misali, cewa Alkur'ani ko Littafi Mai Tsarki a fili suke koyar da ka'idar Babban Fashewa, zuwa aƙalla matsayin dacewa mai sauƙi.

Accordingly, Darwinian evolution can act as a useful heuristic, like a London Underground map; though highly useful is not properly to scale. Consequently, inhibitions to scientific progress can be mitigated. Two caveats must be made here. Firstly, if this approach is adopted, claims (made by Ross and Naik for example) that the Big Bang theory is explicitly taught by the Quran or Bible must be softened at least to a modest concordist position.

Na biyu, zai iya zama da wuya a yi jayayya (a kan dalilai na kayan aiki) cewa shekarun duniya na biliyan goma sha huɗu ‘samfuri’ ne, domin da’awa ce ta tarihi maimakon samfuri.

Secondly, it may be difficult to argue (on instrumental grounds) that the age of the universe being fourteen billion years is a ‘model’, as it is a historical claim rather than a model.