I wish to commend Professor Rifaat
Hassan for her meticulous research on the subject of 'creation of man - woman'
according to the Qur'anic text versus established hadith
literature. Her technical research as presented, based on Arabic grammar and
linguistics, leads to a radical and awesome conclusion: that is, the
traditional Islamic view of the 'first man and woman' was and currently is
"backwards," in other words, the "first man Adam" was
really the "the first woman" (we will call her 'Adama');
and the alleged "first mate -- Hawwa/Eve"
(female in traditional thinking) was really "a male," (we will call
the first mate "Adam").
According to Islamic tradition, the first 'mate' (woman) was
brought forth from the "rib of Adam." The new view presented herein
by Dr. Hassan is that 'Adam' came from the “Eve’s rib” by force of logic. Obviously
this is an astounding conclusion, which will certainly give the traditional `ulama heartache
and indigestion, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
The professor also consumed a great deal of ink and paper (unnecessary
in my view) in connecting the canonical hadith text with the old Testament’s view of man - woman
creation; that is, Islams's traditional view of
"Adam and Eve" came essentially from Genesis, which is correct, but
such a view is nothing strange or new, since it is a well-known fact that
traditional hadith
literature is fully populated with Judeo-Christian traditions (isra`iliyyat). In
fact, there are other such "outside" traditions in the hadith texts, including
"the second coming of Jesus" and the traditions on eschatology -- Gog
and Magog and end of time scenarios, all fully
accepted within the Sunnite orthodoxy
as gospel.
Throughout the paper, the professor repeatedly lamented the
lay and scholarly Muslim acceptance of Genesis’s formulation of "man - woman
creation," a charge that is essentially unfair to all lay people in my
view, since these hadith
texts have been compiled and granted credence over a thousand years ago. Additionally,
her suggestion that any view that contradicts the Qur'anic
text should be rejected, while fully correct, is simply inapplicable and
inoperable since textual materials (however polluted) and fully embedded in the
hadith
texts, cannot be cured by simple rejection as cultural beliefs and practices
inevitably play a role in religion.
The professor also heaped much blame on recognized Muslim
and non-Muslim translators for failing to correctly translate the term
"Adam" as it appeared in the Qur'an ("Hawwa"
which did not appear in Qur'an, is also of Hebrew origin). In this context, the
professor accused these men-translators of being "scared," a charge I
completely endorse. These scholars essentially translated the Adam/Eve story to
comport with the stories listed in the hadith, rather than on the basis of grammar and language.
But I also fault the professor for promulgating the
"creationist" view of human evolution, rather than in accordance with
the latest 21st century scientific knowledge of human evolutionary development,
which has been fully documented and verified by modern science. Obviously not
presenting the most updated version of human creation raises a question of
scholastic integrity.
Moreover, this question of 'correctness' is important to
everyone (not only Muslims), for the simple reason that Allah and the Qur'an
represent nothing but Truth as truth and error do not go together. Merely
correcting mistranslations in standard texts is not enough.
The Professor, being a pioneer on this subject and also an
advocate of female natural rights (rights denied women by a patriarchal society
from time immemorial), must stand up for Truth. This means that she has an
incumbent burden and obligation to report the truth on this subject of human
creation; thus, she will have to revisit this topic and revise her analysis of
'man - woman creation' according to the latest scientific truths, which are
essentially Islamic truths, as decreed by the omniscient Creator in all matters
from the heavenly to the temporal.
In doing so, the professor will note that the chemical composition
of the human body mirrors that of the existing solar system; that means,
humanity (man - woman) and the planets share many common elements, a fact that
can no longer be hidden or overlooked by "scared" Muslim scholars,
theologians, and scientists. Other facts will show that various parts of the
human body were developed during different time periods, some millions of years
apart. This fact by itself suggests that "man - woman" could not have
been created in a single act, but developed over a very long period of time. This
clearly suggests that Muslim scholars have again failed to correctly explain
the Qur'anic concept of 'kun fayakun' -- Be and it is!
This is my view, which I admit may not be in consonance with
others. But what is the measure of man if he cannot attempt to narrate what he
believes is the Truth, even though he could be wrong or wholly mistaken! After
all, only Allah knows the Absolute Truth!
Sincerely,
Mohamad K. Yusuff
Posted October 11,
2009