Mormon visits: Episode 3

---

This blog post has moved here

---

Read 2nd visit

My friends turned up today, we started with a really nice talk about how one of them used to love sailing a remote control boat when he was young, and how I had one of those water jet-pack experiences.

I asked them about a couple of things that had occurred to me while reading the Book of Mormon. One of them was that it says the plates (the brass ones, not the later golden ones given to Smith)....says the plates were a way of preserving the *language* and the words of the prophets. I put it to them that the words could easily be preserved by having the meaning translated into English by Joseph Smith, but obviously the language cannot also be preserved in the same way. They were adamant that this means the plates themselves should still exist without me even having to ask it.

The second point was also about the brass plates, a bit later the BoM says that the plates will never perish nor will the writing dim. This cemented the idea that we should still have the brass plates because it would be absolutely pointless to preserve them in such a way if nobody knows where they are. I pointed out that the preservation of the language would be fantastic for historians, because we have very ancient scripts about the book of Moses, we now understand Egyptian hieroglyphics, and what we should see a link from the BoM meaning exactly the same as the writing on the brass plates, which should be written in hieroglyphs, and in turn that text should reflect the ancient writings. I think that by the time they left they were 100% certain that when they asked where the brass plates are they will be told they are in a museum.

Their research from previous week
============================
In our previous visit I had asked why Joseph Smiths first account of his revelation says he was 16 and his third account of the same event says he was 14. They said they were told that the only account written by Joseph Smith himself was the first one and the rest were written by scribes. Allegedly one of these scribes later added in the text "in my sixteenth year" to the original account. He told me that he went and looked at the facsimile of the original document and thought that the handwriting looked different (I have just looked, the handwriting is the same). I wasn't interested in proving him right or wrong on this, I just pointed out how fantastic it was that we had a question, we got an answer, and then we looked at the evidence to decide if the answer was correct. I am trying to get them to see that checking the evidence is not arrogant or sinful but just common sense, and when what you believe is true then the evidence can only help to support your case.

I told them that since then I had read all three accounts of the first revelation. I pointed out that in the 1st account Smith says he "felt the spirit of god" and "saw the lord (Jesus)". In the 2nd account he saw Jesus and "a second personage", and finally in the third he says that he saw God and Jesus, and that God introduced Jesus as his son.

I got them to close their eyes and imagine experiencing this, we went through the whole story. I then asked them "When you got home and wrote about it, what would you write?" they replied "I would write that I saw God and Jesus". They pointed out that the account was written down about 7 years later, but they both agreed that this would make it more likely that the less important details would be forgotten and the meeting of God and Jesus would be more prevalent in one's head.

I told them that people who have psychotic delusions are likely to believe they have experienced something, and then over time their recalling of that incident adds more and more detail to it, making it progressively more extravagant. I said I am not accusing Smith of being psychotic, but it would be unfortunate if someone didn't believe his account because it built up in detail and incredibility over the years in the same way a psychotic delusion would. They agreed that it only makes sense that Smith would have mentioned God and Jesus first, and then over time the additional information would have been the less significant things for which he then had more time to explain. He wouldn't explain small details and then 6 years later mention the most important thing ever, meeting God. They also agreed that in the 2nd account describing the creator of everything merely as "a second personage" would be outright disrespectful.

The other thing from the previous week that they had promised to research was the details of what exactly the two translation devices looked like and how they worked. Smith was supposed to have used these to translate the gold plates into Ye Olde English. They told me that all they could find out was that it was two stones joined by a ribbon and some kind of chest plate. I told them I'd look into it further...I think it is something to do with Smith putting a hat on his face.

I had also asked them why Smith's wife had been made to sit at the opposite end of a table from Smith when transcribing for him with a blanket between them acting as a curtain to hide the plates from her. I thought this was odd because people who weren't his wife were allowed to see them but not his wife who knew him better than anyone? Today they had no answer other than that Smith only showed them to people he had been explicitly told to show them to, and he hadn't been told to show them to his wife. We agreed that this simply deferred the nonsense up to a higher level up the chain of command.

They told me that his wife (Emma) had kept her own journals. I put it to them that if we can find her mentioning God and Jesus in Smith's revelation it would help us to understand when that part of the story developed. If we find it is mentioned after Smith's 3rd account of revelation it would be consistent with a developing fake story, and if we find it is mentioned before Smith's 2nd (or even 1st) account then it would be consistent with an early origin for the story with the presence of God that had been told by Smith but not written down by him until his 3rd account. Albeit for an unknown (and still perculiar) reason.

Last week they asked me if I would be baptised if I became convinced their religion was true, I said of course I would. After all, if I had been convinced The Quran was true I'd have had my foreskin cut off; what's a quick dip in some water compared to that? This week they wanted to set a date for June 29th, the idea is that it is proof to their god that I am willing to accept his guidance and that I will not put things off etc. I told them that I felt this was arrogant because it is like giving god a deadline to convince me....what if I was convinced two days later, or 2 weeks earlier? I told them I would read the whole book and not make a final decision until I had read the very last word of it. They agreed that this made much more sense.

They told me I needed to pray. I explained to them how I used to pray about 10 years ago and at the time believed I was being told to be a Muslim. That I had a feeling of love and happiness every time my brain thought true things, and that I was given signs in a language I didn't know well enough yet (Arabic) to have concocted myself. I told them how at the point I was about to pick up the Quran and read it I was already 100% convinced that God had guided me to it and that it would contain instructions on how he wanted me to live my life. I then explained how I read the book and was utterly convinced it was man made. Therefore praying evidently is a completely inaccurate way to obtain truth. They were fascinated by this experience and kept asking me for more and more details. I think it was the first time they had heard of anyone with this much conviction putting in so much effort and getting an answer so completely different to the one they get. They agreed that feeling good during prayers can just as easily mean that you like the things you are thinking about when you pray.

So next week I hope they will have some answers about the brass plates. I am currently trying to convince them that they should not be prohibited from using the Internet for 2 years while they are over here on their mission, and that they should at least be able to use it as a tool to help them to find answers, even if it only means going on the LDS website.

As a side note, they seemed a bit different this week. During our previous meetings they were more open and willing to think for themselves. I am a little suspicious that as they have been returning to base with thought invoking questions they have perhaps been warned/armed/protected with advice from their elders so that they do not stray from the true path. Although I did get them to rationalise on a number of points this week, for the first time I experienced them outright refusing to think about things.

More BoM reading ahead of me. Really nice guys!

Read 4th visit

2nd visit with my Mormon friends

---

This blog post has moved here

---

Read 1st visit

Because I am back-posting these first two visits from memory they might be a bit short.

I call them my Mormon friends not to be facetious, but because I think we really did become friends very quickly during our first meeting. These guys are so nice, and we just chatter and giggle through our meetings.

From what I recall of our second meeting they asked if I would be willing to become a Mormon if I decided the Book of Mormon was true. I confirmed, in complete honesty, that I would. They asked if I would be baptised, and again I confirmed that if this book convinced me there was a God and the book told me what that God wanted then I would do it (unspoken caveats about sacrificing my children etc). They asked if I would join in a prayer with them at the beginning and I agreed. I have no objection to open prayer, for me it's just a way of people expressing what they wish to achieve.

During this meeting we discussed how some people took some brass plates with pre-Jesus written history on to America from the middle east. The plates were a history of words of prophets etc. New prophets kept adding to the writings until one day Moroni, the last of these prophets, rewrote the book onto gold plates and buried them (due to hostility I think).

I don't recall much of what we spoke about. I do recall I told them my previous experiences of praying + receiving signs/guidance from an external source and how I felt it had tried to lead me towards Islam, and that when I read the Quran I was absolutely convinced it was man made. They were very interested in this. It seemed it was the first time that they had met someone who had prayed so intently for guidance, felt that they had received guidance in the same way that they believe they feel their guidance, and yet told them something completely contradictory to what they believe is true.

Our conversation, as usual, was littered with lots of chatter about where they grew up, information about their families etc just to remind them that they are more than just proselytisers.

They read me the Joseph Smith account of when he was visited by God and Jesus and told he was a prophet, this is the version most expounded by their church and I think was written on the backs of their books. My 1830's edition had not yet arrived and I declined their offer of a more modern edition because I wanted to read as close to the original source as possible. That reminded me that I had seen facsimiles of Joseph Smith's handwriting on a website I had found - http://josephsmithpapers.org/

At first they seemed to recoil at the idea of seeing anything on the Internet, but when they saw the handwriting their opinions seemed to change. I started to talk about how wonderful it is to find historical documents.

I recall now that in our previous meeting I had told them the story I learned from In The Shadow Of The Sword about how history had been rewritten in order to form political alliances and only the later discovery of dateable documents revealed how that history had been altered and that Zoroaster had been born at a completely different time to when we had thought. This was an example of how myths form and grow into religions. I also told them the stories of the Cargo Cults.

But back to the facsimiles. I told them that the scan they were looking at was Smith's own handwriting explaining his first ever written account of his moment of revelation. They had only just read it out from the back of their books, so when I opened the document and it was the same subject it sparked some interest in them.

I asked why their account said that Smith was 14, and this account said "In my sixteenth year" and they couldn't answer. I then got them to check word for word what their revelation said compared with this one. I pointed out how odd it was that Smith had only mentioned seeing Jesus in his first account and not mentioned that he had also seen God. I wanted to encourage some critical thinking in them so I asked them if they could find out why that was.

They explained how Smith had translated the gold plates using some "translation devices" while someone else transcribed them. I asked what they were, how they combined with each other to work etc. Again they didn't know and said they would find out for me. We joked about how my homework would be to read the BoM and I would assign them homework after each meeting.

They told me that Smith had a number of scribes, and that they were known as "the (three?) witnesses" because they had actually seen the gold plates. I asked where the plates were now and they told me they had been taken up to heaven, but they couldn't think why.  They told me that Smith's wife, Emma, had been a scribe for a while so I asked if she was the third of the three witnesses, they told me she wasn't.

I remember the confusion on their faces as they answered that question. It was probably the first time they had realised that someone had helped to transcribe the translation but not been privileged to see the plates themselves. I asked how that was possible to transcribe without seeing them. They told me that Joseph and Emma sat on opposite ends of a table with a rope across and a curtain shielding the plates from view. Again I saw confused expressions on their faces. "Erm, why?" I asked. They laughed with embarrassment and told me that they didn't know.

I reasoned that not many people would believe someone who claimed to have met God and been assigned as a prophet, and so it made sense that God would not choose someone with a wife who would say "Don't believe him, he lies a lot". I also reasoned that out of all the people who knew him as a person it would be his wife who knew him the best and who would vouch for his honest character. Now if she simply hadn't been part of the transcription process that's fine, but why she be given that role and then not only not be permitted to see the plates but for Smith to have gone to extra effort to stop her from seeing them?

We concluded with a prayer. This time I asked if I could lead and they were happy to agree. I imitated their actions in calling upon a heavenly father in the name of Jesus. I expressed my genuine happiness for life and the health of my family, also my genuine appreciation that these guys had come around and had an interesting chat with me; and, although I don't think there was anyone there to hear it, I genuinely said "If you do exist then please let me know it, I crave nothing more than the truth".

They were elated, obviously because they think they have the truth and it will be revealed to me.  We left with my homework being to read the BoM when my edition turned up, and for them to get back to me to explain why

1. The age in Smith's account was different.
2. Why Smith didn't mention seeing God in his first account.
3. Why Smith's wife Emma had been sectioned off with a curtain and prevented from being one of the witnesses who saw the plates.

We weren't due to meet until the next Monday, but they popped in one of the days in the week just to say hello as they rode past to that day's place of work. We mostly avoided religion and just talked about science...mainly gravity and fusion. Was nice to discover one of them is crazy about science.

Read 3rd visit

The Mormons are coming!

---

This blog post has moved here

---

A few weeks ago I spotted a couple of young guys riding bikes. They were wearing cycling helmets, black trousers, and white shirts with ties. I knew instantly that they were Mormons.

I've little or no knowledge of Mormonism so I thought it might be a good opportunity to learn. I stopped the car and introduced myself. I told them in advance that it is very unlikely I will become a Mormon, and that I am just interested in what they believe plus why they believe it. I told them I am more interested in their brains than their religion. I gave them my address and we arranged a day/time to visit me.

This was two weeks ago. In our first meeting we just chatted about every day life, where they were born etc. At their age they are sent to a foreign country and expected to proselytize to people all day every day, I learned that they get to speak to family once a week via Skype, but other than that they are told not to use the Internet at all. They completely immerse themselves in what they are doing. I wanted to spend some time talking to personalities instead of the scripts they had been taught, in the hope it would give them a bit of "me time" back.

We discussed the story of how Jesus's disciples had all been killed except John, who had been interned on an Island to spend the rest of his natural life trapped. I was also told about how Joseph Smith had been shown where some gold plates were which he translated into English. Our already over-run meeting came to an end with the following

1. Next week we will discuss the history between John and Joseph Smith.
2. We will discuss what was on the plates, who said they were there, and how they were translated.

They claimed that the BoM was perfect and unaltered. I asked if this meant there was only one edition. They told me there were many, but they only contained printing changes (grammar/spelling/typefaces etc). They left agreeing that if *we* could see a potential misunderstanding in the text then an all knowing God would also be able to see them and would have written the text differently rather than having humans change it at a later date thus making it look like a man-made religion that evolves.

They closed with a prayer just as they had opened with one, and left. I refused their offer of a book of Mormon, I told them I would buy an 1830's edition reprint.

Read 2nd visit

Who and what exactly is Mo Ansar?

If you are reading this then you are probably already familiar with Mo Ansar. Having seen this Islamic supercelebrity on TV so often you might have the feeling you know him so well, but do you?  There is much more to Mo Ansar than his robes and scarf, just as there was more to Martin Luther King Jr than him being a man who was interested in African-American relations.

There is much we already know about Mo Ansar, he was born and bred in Watford as the grandson of a World War 2 veteran. He is a soft southerner who received a grammar education.  Mo Ansar's grandparents were all Indian, making him a British Pakistani.  Easily spotted at 6 feet tall and wearing a scarf and robes, this parent of six children is a Muslim who accepts Buddha, a cat person, and a PADI qualified scuba diver.

A life in politics

Mr Ansar, or as his friends like to call him "Mo" has appeared on TV and radio many times in his expert capacity as someone who happens to be both a Muslim and member of an ethnic minority; putting his neck on the line in a cut-throat world of being a social and political commentator.  He is a critical friend to the Liberal Democrat Party and is a moderate voice among already moderate Muslims.  He has been criticised (possibly only by himself) as being too moderate.

A man of diversity

Mo is a true champion of diversity.  As a diversity specialist he has been promoted to the position of Head of Diversity for an organisation in the South. A true visionary in diversity, he was further promoted to the position of diversity director.  His work in education with faith groups and non faith groups alike was bound to get his skills noticed by government officials and he soon found himself as the "New diversity practictioner" in parliament. A role most people probably didn't even know existed at the time, including parliament!

Mo the sceptical academic

Over the years Mo has proven himself time and time again to be not only an studious academic, but one with a sharp sceptical mind which he uses to think about things.  He is a lecturer in the subjects of

• Theology
• Islam
• Comparative religion
• Islamophobia (Alias: See Comparitive Religion)

and spends his time working with philosophy students.

Mo the activist

As a civil rights activist, Mo is obviously also a civil rights advocate but did you know that his work in the field of Islamophobia has caused the resignation of an undisclosed number of unnamed leaders of unnamed far right organisations? As far back as 1997 Mo had already started his 15 year preemptive fight against Islamophobia, 4 years before anyone had even heard the name Usama Bin Ladin, and back when most people thought a pilgrimage to Mecca was going to play bingo with a group of elderly female friends. 5 years before that Mo started his work as an anti discrimination diversity leader, a position he has held for 20 years at the time of writing.

Mo Ansar: The Martin Luther King Jr of our time.

Mo hasn't only been a prominent activist in areas which affect him personally. Mo, who isn't a woman, has been a women's rights activist for over 20 years, he has supported women's groups & refuges for 20 years, he works on Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Transexual rights and also works with a charity for trans-gender people.

The community leader

Mo is not only a public figure of sorts, but also a real-life public figure.  He is a school governor, a mediator, and a marriage counsellor and adviser.  He is an avid public sector worker, working with schools, parents and local government, and works with bishops and a number of local police constabularies.

The professional

Mo's versatility is astounding.  When looking through his life history it is difficult to find something he has not done.  He truly is a Polymath of professionalism.  Of course we all know Mo for his contribution to TV and radio broadcasts but few know that secretly he is also a broadcaster, but, as modest as he is, he has never credited himself on any of his broadcasts.

He has been a professional interfaither and friend to Muslims for many years.  Not only is he an advocate of legal things but he is also a jurist and a lawyer.  You might be forgiven for thinking he is just a lawyer with a bank account, but be clear on this, he is in fact a banking lawyer.

Mo has a diverse experience of work. In addition to advocating legal banking, Mo works with the Muslim Council of Britain and and most significant organisation in contemporary society - The Muslim Civil Rights Crisis.

He is very sparse with his details of his work as a communications specialist and we can only speculate as to why, perhaps because it crosses over with his work with the UK Central Prosecution Service?

For Mo though life is not all about how the law affects lesbians, homosexuals, bi-sexuals, transexuals and bankers, he also likes to share his awesome scope of knowledge with the world by spending time educating young children and adults alike.

Seeing the inherent problem of children in the UK having NO education he has taken it upon himself to educate children from key stage 1 through to key stage 5, that's a truly diverse age range of 5 through to 18 years of age.

Beyond this Mo is a university lecturer, a lecturer on Newtonian physics, a scientist who is well read on evolution, and a lecturer on pre-holocaust 1930's Germany.

He also works as a chaplain at a 6th form college and university, and is an ex-scout troop leader.

There are rumours that he might be moving from Newtonian physics into Quantum physics.  The following statement has been suggested by some (i.e. me) to indicate that he is trying to blend Quantum physics with law.

Being both a lawyer and not a lawyer at the same time is an impressive feat. Mo truly is the Schrödinger's cat of law!

A rare glimpse behind the veil

Despite his amazing work, Mo is a very private man who doesn't like to discuss himself.  In these few rare statements he has revealed a little about Mo the mere human.  He is a rationalist, a man of his word, and importantly a man who stands for transparency and FULL disclosure (his emphasis), which is how we know he isn't just making all this up.

And despite working for civil rights and equality for many years...

he is always prepared to give especially high equality to people who happen to be Muslim

Closing thought

There really is nothing that can be said to add to this or to summarise it so I shall leave the last words to the man himself.

Mohammed Ansar
This is your life!

More

• Is Mo Ansar an Islamophobicophiliac?
• My videos on Islam

Is the Quran incompatible with evolution?

---

This blog post has moved here

---

I recall the hostility received by Dr Usama Hasan when he suggested the Quran was compatible with evolution, and specifically with human evolution.  I never did read what he wrote on the subject, and was deeply disappointed and very frustrated when he appeared on The Jinn & Tonic Show back in January 2013 and I didn't get a good enough opportunity to discuss with him the details of his views on the subject.

As far as I am able to tell the abundant evidence we have points clearly to the fact that animals, over time, diverge into new species, and that all of the species we see around us today (including humans) came about through this natural evolutionary process.  When someone argues that evolution is impossible (often conflating it with cosmology or abiogenesis) it seems they are willing to dismiss a mountain of facts if they conflict with their mental model of what they wish to be reality.  If you have not read a case in favour of evolution please read the following books

1. The greatest show on Earth
2. Why evolution is true
3. The language of the genes

If you believe that animals evolved but not humans then you must ask yourself why Allah would do such a good job of making human ancestral history look like it evolved in exactly the same way.  Believing something in faith is one thing, but expecting one to believe something despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary is insane.  Would it be fair for you to be punished in an eternal afterlife for following the evidence?

On the other side of the coin I have seen many ex-Muslims tell their stories on forums about how looking into evolution led to their eventual apostasy.  No longer satisfied with listening only to arguments against human evolution (the closest many people come to actually learning about the subject), many have invested time into researching evolution for themselves and come to the conclusion that there is simply too much evidence for it to be false.  I really hope that this blog doesn't upset some of my ex-Muslim friends who feel grateful for becoming atheists or agnostic theists as a result of reading about evolution, but it might come as a surprise for people to read my opinion is that the Quran does not contradict evolution, not even human evolution.  I am writing my thoughts on this subject simply because I haven't seen them put forward in this exact manner by anyone else.  I also have no ultimate agenda, whether people change their minds or not is of no relevance to me, I only care that people form their opinions having been given all of the facts rather than being misled.

The Quran is compatible with evolution

I have seen this claim many times before, and whenever I have read into the substance of the argument I have always been very unimpressed.  The arguments I have read so far have always relied on reinterpreting the meaning of words, claiming verses are metaphorical, or even outright denying observed reality.  Here are a few examples of the kinds of arguments I am talking about

1. When the Quran says that mankind was made from clay it is talking about the very first origins of all life, which could have started in clay.
2. Humans are the only species that was specially created, all others evolved.

I have always felt that arguments in favour of compatibility came at the cost of having to "reunderstand" the meaning of the Quran, I also feel that denying where the evidence for evolution points is a very weak position.  So, for the purposes of this simplicity and integrity I am going to assume that the Quran means exactly what it says, and that evolution is exactly as people like Richard Dawkins claim it is.

Adam was a special creation sculpted out of clay

• A mortal was made out of clay. The angels were told to bow to it but Iblis refused
  [Verses 15.28-31] | [Word analysis] | [Tafsirs]
• It was Adam who Iblis refused to bow to
  * Therefore Adam was a mortal made out of clay
  [Verse 20.116] | [Word analysis] | [Tafsirs]
• An individual man was created out of clay, like pottery
  [Verse 55.14] | [Word analysis] | [Tafsirs]
• Adam was created by hand
  [Verse 38.75] | [Word analysis] | [Tafsirs]
• Allah said "Be" and Adam existed
  [Verse 3.59] | [Word analysis] | [Tafsirs]

Allah created a single soul, and his wife was made from him

• Allah created you all from a single soul, and from that soul created its wife
  [Verse 4.1] | [Word analysis] | [Tafsirs]

The "single soul" that Allah made was biologically advanced enough to sexually reproduce, so did not evolve.

• Allah made you all from a single soul and its wife
  [Verse 7.189] | [Word analysis] | [Tafsirs]
• Allah created you all from a male and a female
  [Verse 49.13] | [Word analysis] | [Tafsirs]

Mankind and descendants were made from a man made from clay

• Allah began the creation of mankind from clay, and then his progeny from (mucky wet stuff)
  [Verses 32.7-8] | [Word analysis] | [Tafsirs]
• Allah created mankind out of clay from black mud
  [Verse 15.26] | [Word analysis] | [Tafsirs]
• Allah created mankind from an essence of clay
  [Verse 23.12] | [Word analysis] | [Tafsirs]

Taking the Quran at face value it seems to say that Allah began mankind when it created Adam out of clay, then used part of Adam to create a sexual partner, then those two reproduced to create all of mankind.

Was there a first human?

At what point do we decide our ancestors are human?  Pinpoint a specific human evolutionary ancestor. Now considering its parents would have been far more genetically similar to that individual than we are today it would be difficult to explain why we today are humans when its parents were not.  This of course assumes that our definition of mankind/human is based on genetics.

I used to hear arguments that it was the use of tools that set humans apart from other apes, now that we see apes using tools I instead hear that to be human you must use tools which have been made from tools.  How long this new definition will last I don't know, but whatever this defining point is, it obviously makes sense that some kind of social advancement or specific event could at least be an important factor.

Can two people be the ancestors of all mankind?

When people say that human ancestors never experienced a population bottleneck of fewer than X thousand people it logically follows there is no way the group we evolved from has ever been as low as two, and thus humans could not possibly have started from just Adam and Eve.  This is where Muslims who subscribe to the idea of a non-evolved special-creation named Adam are usually criticized as being scientifically inaccurate, and possibly why they feel they need to reject the evidence for human evolution.

The Quran says that Allah created a single soul which, along with its female partner/wife, and these were the ancestors of mankind.  I was unable to find anywhere in the Quran which states that Adam was the first soul or had the first soul.  I can only find verses talking about how Allah created "A soul" (presumably Eve had a soul too), or it talks about the attributes of souls in general .

• Allah proportioned the soul (general "soul" not individual) and inspired it to know its wickedness from its righteousness
  [Verses 91.7-8] | [Word analysis] | [Tafsirs]

When asked to imagine Adam's family tree people mostly think of something that looks like this

with Adam and Eve taking the place of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, where they are at the top of a genetic pyramid with every human descending beneath them.  Instead try to think of it the other way around, imagine your own ancestors.

Your existence depends upon two people, in turn their existences each depend upon two more people, and so on.  Ruling out incest etc, going back four generations from yourself means that 16 people had to exist for you to eventually be born exactly as you were.  Upon reaching eight generations you'd need 256 people.

The formula is quite simple, you take the number 2 (how many parents are needed) and raise it to the power of how many generations you wish to calculate.  So to work out your 8th set of ancestors back you would calculate 2 to the power of 8, which equals 256.  The number required  for each generation is exponentially large because it doubles each time.  For 16 generations you require over 65,000 people to mate, and to go back 33 generations you'd need a whopping 8.5 billion people (8,589,934,592) to mate, more people than there are alive on Earth today.

How long would 33 generations take?  If we are over conservative and estimate that people wait until they are 30 years of age before having any children then 33 generations takes us back only as far as the year 1024CE (990 years ago).  Try taking this calculating 2,000 years using the 30 year generation factor and we find we have enough time for 66 generations.  For everyone to have unique ancestors that far back we'd need over 73 quintillion people, that's a 20 digit number!

The further back in time you calculate the higher the number of unique ancestors are required to mate.  The numbers quickly surpass the number of people alive at the time, which means that we must all share common ancestors, and that is how we can all descend from two people without there only being two people in existence.

Richard Dawkins said

Ug is any random man of 500,000 years ago. Ug is either the ancestor of everyone today, or none. You can prove it from within your armchair [Link]

He also wonders if genetic evidence might suggest we could all be the descendants of Genghis Khan [Link]

A shared Y-chromosome ubiquitous in Asia came from one prolific male ancestor. Date compatible with the brutal serial rapist Genghis Khan.

Play your cards right and you too could be a future genetic Adam

Far enough into the future, you will be ancestor of either everybody alive or nobody. Odd thought! I've explained it in my  books

More from the Quran

These are questions often asked in mockery of the story of Adam

• If Adam was the first human, who was Adam a prophet to?
• Who did Adam's children reproduce with?
• Did Allah have to make incest temporarily acceptable?
• Did Allah temporarily suspend the genetic consequences of incestuously conceived offspring?

It is clearly possible for us all to be descended from a single person without that ancestor having to be the only person alive at the time.  It can even be a person as recent as Genghis Khan, who certainly wasn't the only human around in the 13th century.

Verse 2.31 in the Quran describes Allah parading Adam to the angels so that he can show off that he has taught him the names of all things [Verse 2.31] [Word analysis].  As animals have names this might suggest that these names included the names of animals.  This is further supported in the previous verse [Verse 2.30] where Allah tells the angels that he is going to send Adam to Earth as a Khalifa (viceroy).  Adam must have had someone or something to act as Khalifa for.  This might suggest that, according to this narration, that at least some animals existed before Adam lived on Earth.

When Iblis refused to bow down to Adam, Allah accused him of being "One of the disgraced ones" [Verse 7.13] [Word analysis].  Elsewhere the Quran says that this act of defiance on the part of Iblis made him "one of the unbelievers" [Verse 38.74] [Word analysis].  Who were the ones already disgraced before Iblis, and which others were there in existence in order for there to be unbelievers?

Adam had at least two sons.  Mother/son reproduction is explicitly forbidden in the Quran [Verse 4.23].  If a special creation named Adam were created genetically compatible with evolved humans then the direct descendants of Adam would also be genetically compatible, they would have had plenty of mates to choose from.  There would be no need for Allah to temporarily suspend the natural behaviour of genes, nor to make incest temporarily permissible (which is an argument against Islamic claims of eternally unchanging morality).

Compatible or not?

I suspect it might be the case that Muslims who take the Quran at face value and feel they have to reject the evolutionary origins of humans have simply misunderstood the science, or it has been misrepresented to them by people like Harun Yahya (aka Adnan Oktar).

Suppose your descendant migrates to Mars, whose colony then loses contact with Earth. You could be ancestor of all on Mars, none on Earth. [Link]

One day there could be a human who finds themself the most recent common ancestor of some future evolved species on Mars.  When this new species looks through its history, at which point might they consider themselves "Martian" rather than human?  Perhaps they will choose a point in history when their ancestors' culture changed significantly in order to bring about their existence, the day they traveled to live on another planet.

Despite finding the film boring, I can't help thinking of 2001 A Space Odyssey - especially the scene where human ancestors experience something changes their future, perhaps I find it difficult to resist because ironically it was an experience with a black stone.  If I understood the story correctly this black stone had some kind of influence on these evolved animals which set them on a path to what is now mankind's reality.

If I consider the verses I am familiar with in the Quran related to this subject there is nothing in there which is explicitly in support of human evolution, however I also think there is nothing in conflict with the known facts of human evolution.  Obviously I reserve the right to change my mind upon presentation of new evidence.

Update:

There is nowhere in the Quran that says Adam was either the first or only human, it only says that he is the father of mankind.  People infer those other factors from having read the Torah, but the Quran's explanations for some things differ from what in the Gospels and Torah.  So, although I suspect the Quran's biogenesis is based on the inaccurate model of the Torah, I cannot say that there is something specific in the Quran which makes this position mandatory, and that is the point of my post.

The Quran and the big bang - addendum

---

This blog post has moved here

---

Back in 2011 I made this video about the claim that the expanding universe is mentioned in the Quran.

The Arabic word used for expanding is not a verb but an active participle.

So what does this mean?  It means it is identifying an individual that either has done an act (perfect verb) or is in the process of performing an act (imperfect verb).  Because 51.47 only has the expand/expanse word as an active participle and not a verb we cannot check if it is referring to a perfect verb or an imperfect verb.  Is there anywhere else in the Quran that might give us a clue? Yes.

It just so happens that in the very next verse the Quran continues with the description of the creation of the heavens and the Earth.

Pickthall: And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader

This is useful because the action "laid out" is a verb and can therefore be identified as a perfect or imperfect verb.  It is also followed by an active participle "the spreader".  In this case (51.48) the verb "laid out" is a perfect verb, it has been completed. Allah cannot logically be the one who IS doing an action that has finished, but Allah can logically be the one who IS the actor responsible an action that has finished.

I think this rests the case on the claim that the Quran 100% says the universe is in the process of expansion.  It could mean either that it is expanding, or that Allah once made it big.  When a statement is true no matter what reality is then it cannot be a miracle by any stretch of the imagination.

Conclusion: 51.47 is a verse that could have been written by a mere human.  Look up on a clear night, it looks really big, and the Quran says nothing more than that.

Islamic legal principles to be integrated into UK law for first time

I am not a legal amateur let alone a legal expert, but this news article is such alarmist bullshit that it is easy to see through.  I will keep this short because I don't want to write it, but I just cannot stand misinformation.

The news article in the Metro newspaper claims that Islamic law will be "effectively enshrined in British law for the first time".  The statement implies that Islamic law has been given a cherished/sacred/special place in British law (i.e. it is being given special privilege), and also by using the words "for the first time" gives the impression that this is something new.  The article cites another article in The Telegraph as its source, which claims "Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs".  This statement implies that Islamic LAW has been merged into British Law.

Now the problem I have is that I cannot see any references to any laws being removed, added, or modified within the British legal system.  So what exactly has changed?  The entirety of the story (or should I say "non-story") is summed up in the first half of sub-title of the article in The Telegraph

Solicitors told how to draw up Sharia-style wills

That's it!  But that's not enough of a story to print, so let's spice it up by attacking Shariah wills....

1. Males inherit double that of females!
2. Children born out of wedlock inherit nothing!
3. Non-Muslims inherit nothing!

But really, what does that have to do with the British legal system?  My money is my own to spend as I wish, this is true in death as in life (except for inheritance tax).  Under the current British legal system I have been able to do those things for a long time, and people have been doing so too.  Some people marrying for a 2nd (or more) time come into a relationship with their own assets which they wish to protect as inheritance for their children, and so draw up a prenuptial agreement to keep their assets separate so that the spouse has no control over their wealth when they die.  This enables them to will their money to their natural offspring instead of their widow/widower.  It enables them to will their money only to their natural children rather than having to share it with the step-children of their new spouse.  It even allows them to leave their spouse and natural children absolutely nothing while willing every penny to the future care of their pet cats.

Under British law I can create a will which says I want two thirds of my estate to be equally distributed between my sons and the rest between my wife and daughters.  I can write a will which leaves nothing to my ex-wives, or to my step children, or to any illegitimate sprogs I might have from sordid experiences in alleys next to chip shops.  I can stipulate conditions such that one of my children can claim their inheritance only if they pass a drug test showing they have not taken any Class A drugs in the past month.  I can even leave nothing to anyone and give it all to the local squirrel sanctuary.

Everything a Muslim feels obliged to do under their religious beliefs can already be accomplished by the secular laws of Great Britain.  The problem is that not everyone knows what Muslims require in their wills, including the person planning for their own demise, which is why they go to people who do know; and this is where this story comes in.

There are lots of solicitor firms in the UK that are not familiar with the wishes of clients who want to comply with what they believe is a divinely ordained law.  So, should Britain leave this market only to Muslims or should some legal body advise solicitors what this group of people require so that they too can have an equal opportunity to share in an existing and legal market?  If a Muslim does go to a non-Muslim solicitor wouldn't it be better that they left with the product they actually wanted?

It's all about Jargon.  Different people use the same word to mean different things.  What you mean by "manifest" can be completely different depending on if you are a cargo shipper or a ghost hunter.  If you leave money to "your children" then a British solicitor with no knowledge of Muslim culture might assume all natural offspring and legally adopted children, whereas the same term to the Muslim client might mean only their offspring created within marriage.  A solicitor might not know that their client understands the same word in a different context (jargon domain), and it might not occur to the client that the person they are talking to doesn't understand the word in the same way they are accustomed to, or indeed the client themself might not be aware that there is a difference.

The published stories give the impression that UK law has adopted Islamic laws in order to prevent gender equality.  The reality seems to be that someone has made a booklet describing how to ask a client who might use a different jargon domain what they actually want, and how to write a legally binding will that gives it to them.

As you can see above, John Bingham is under the misapprehension that this leaflet will ensure Sharia Law in the British law system.  He's wrong.  Read the practice notes for yourself.

1. Practice notes are not legal advice.
2. You are not required to follow them.
3. The British legal chiefs (whoever they are) have not adopted Sharia law on wills.
4. Sharia laws have not been "enshrined" or in any other way ensured.
5. No laws have been changed.

It's just a leaflet telling non-Mulsims what kind of wills some Muslims might instruct them to draw up on their behalf.

1. No Islamic laws have been "adopted".
2. There is no such thing as a "British legal chief" to adopt those laws, as has been claimed.
3. The Law Society who issued this guidance has no ability to change the law or any other legal powers to punish people who do not abide by their non-mandatory advice.
4. There is no new power to deprive women of inheritance.
5. It is not a step on the way to a parallel law system.
6. It does not and cannot override and British laws.

The article is deliberately feeding into anti-Muslim hysteria.  Whether or not the report should have existed or not is not my objection, my objection is that they are alienating Muslims by feeding the paranoia of others.