Qur’ānic Design Arguments: A Critique of Shoaib Ahmed Malik

Introduction

Shoaib Ahmed Malik and co-authors, Hamza Karamali and Moamer Yahia Ali Khalayleh, have recently authored an article on “Qur’ānic design arguments”. [1]  The central thesis of the article is that Qur’ānic design arguments are different to and, in some ways, at odds with the influential idea of “intelligent design” (ID) as formulated by a group of anti-materialist US-based scientists and thinkers like Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells and Stephen Meyer. In their words, “there is a fundamental misalignment between the ID argument and the design discourse mentioned in the Qur’ān.” [2]

In making this case, they rely on a selective and reductionist reading of the classical theological and hermeneutic literature. They demonstrate some specific ways “design” was used in Islāmic theological discourse and assume this discounts other forms of design arguments. We hope to make this clear in the following brief critique and to show that ID arguments, far from being a “misalignment”, can very easily be accommodated within the classical natural theology developed by Muslim scholars.


What is Design?

The authors of the article contend that design in classical theological discourse is a second-order evidence, after already establishing the existence of God from arguments like the contingency (imkān) and temporality (ḥudūth) of the universe. Once it is already established that God exists, “design” arguments can be used in two ways:

1. Specification (takhṣīṣ): Events and objects within creation could have had a number of potential outcomes/properties, but only some specific ones were selected. This shows that the events and entities within the universe were not determined by prior nonvolitional causes (as claimed by Aristotelian philosophers), but came about from the activity of a free-acting agent. This argument demonstrates the agent’s knowledge, will and power. [3]

2. The absence of chaos (‘adam al-fasād) and the presence of regularities/laws. The fact that the universe operates non-chaotically and in a lawlike fashion shows there must be a singular regulating agent behind the universe. Multiple divine agents would result in chaos. [4]

The authors affirm these two modes of argument as Qur’ānic design arguments. These are both second-order evidences, after already establishing the existence of God. They are not intended to prove the existence of God, but rather to affirm certain characteristics of God (like will, power, agency, wisdom) after it is already established He exists.


The Argument from Niẓām/Itqān

The design argument can take another form, namely the idea that highly complex and purposeful arrangements of objects and events in the universe effectively rule out the sufficiency of accidental (unplanned) material/natural causes and are evidence of the activity of an intelligent & wise agent. It is this form of design argument that the article seeks to undermine.

The authors contend that this mode of design argument is not Qur’ānic and does not align with the classical Kalām tradition. Yet, the Qur’ān & the classical Kalām tradition do refer to an argument from “itqān” (masterful creation) and “niẓām” (organising design). Itqān and niẓām are not merely about there being no chaos in creation, but about the masterful construction of the universe and things within it for the Creator’s stated aims, e.g. a flourishing human community within a desirable and comfortable home (earth). This type of argument is one of the most intuitive and powerful arguments that theists use for the existence of a designing intelligence behind the universe.

Imām al-Bayhaqī, a well-known Ash‘arī theologian and muḥaddith, summarises this argument as follows:

“Allāh has commanded us in another verse to examine the heavens and the earth, hence he said to His Prophet: ‘Tell (them): examine what is in the heavens and the earth.’ (10:101) Meaning – and Allah knows best –: examine the evident signs and the clear evidences. When you contemplate the form of this universe with your eyes and you consider it with your mind, you find it to be like a (well)-constructed house in which is prepared all that the inhabitants require in terms of means and instruments. The sky is elevated like a roof, the earth is spread out like a carpet, the stars are arranged like lamps, stone gems are kept away like treasures, various types of crops are ready for eating, clothing and (other) uses, various types of animals are constrained for riding and employed for (other) uses. The human being is like the one given ownership over the house, endowed with all that is in it. In this is clear evidence that the world was created with planning, measurement and organising, and that it has a Wise Manufacturer, complete in power & far-reaching in wisdom. This is from what I read in the book of Abū Sulaymān al-Khaṭṭābī.” [5]

He further writes:

“Allāh has encouraged men to examine their own selves and to contemplate them. He said: ‘(There are signs) in your own selves. Do you then not observe?’ (51:21) This is based on their constitution indicating the effects of design: two hands to grip with, two feet to walk with, eyes to see with, ears to hear with, a tongue to talk with, molars that emerge when one gives up suckling and needs to eat by breaking down food, a stomach ready to digest food, a liver that selects the pure of it, vessels and passages that penetrate through them to the extremities, intestines in which the bad elements of food are drained out and emerge from the lower part of the body. Hence, an argument emerges from them (i.e. their own selves) that they have a Wise, Knowing and Powerful Creator.” [6]

These are some of the primary arguments Imām al-Bayhaqī uses to prove the existence of the Creator. Other Sunnī theologians have used the same form of argument (see below), not only to affirm the attributes of the Creator, but also to affirm His very existence.


The Earth as Home

The very first verse of the Qur’ān presenting an argument for God states: “The One Who made the earth a bed spread out for you and the sky an edifice and sent down from the sky water, bringing forth with it crops as provision for you.” (2:22) The earth is like a carpet, neither too rough nor too soft. The sky is like a canopy or roof, holding back harmful elements from the earth and its inhabitants.

This can be viewed as a typical design argument, like that found in the writings of Michael Denton, Guillermo Gonzalez (both prominent members of the ID movement), Hugh Ross and others.

Earth is suited and constrained for its hosts. The Qur’ān says: “It is He Who has made for you all that is on the earth.” (2:29) It further states: “The earth did He lay forth for the creatures. In it are fruits and palms with sheaves of unborn dates, and husked grains and scented herbs. So which of the favours of your Lord can you deny?” (55:10-13) It further states: “Have We not made the earth a well-smoothed bed, and the mountains firm-anchoring stakes, and created you in pairs, and made your sleep a rest and made the night a covering raiment and the day a livelihood and raised loftily above you seven strong-built firmaments and placed a radiantly brilliant lamp ever-flaming and have sent down from the clouds plenteous rainwater to bring forth thereby grain and herbage and lush groves with thick growths?” (78:6-16) Many other verses point to the same: the earth has been designed as a home for humanity.

Several science authors have argued that this is borne out by our contemporary knowledge. The universe needs to be as big as it is, the earth needs to be as old as it is, the biodiversity that exists on earth needs to exist, for human existence and flourishing. Water, the atmosphere, the oceans, the surface of the land, the light that comes from the sun etc. are all constrained to suit our survival and our needs. (For details, see works like: Nature’s Destiny, The Miracle of Man, The Improbable Planet, The Privileged Planet.)

The authors of the article may argue (as indeed they do) that these verses and others like them do not negate there being a material cause for these things. In fact, the first verse affirms water as a material cause for the growth of crops. But, this misses the argument. The design argument here is not necessarily about negating material causes, but negating accidental material causes, or what al-Ash‘arī, al-Ghazālī and others call “ittifāq” (see below).

Moreover, the crops here are not taken in isolation. Rather, it is taken as part of a whole: an interconnected system of multiple parts constructed to perfection, which is not explainable apart from design. [7]

Imām al-Ghazālī writes: “The entire universe is like a person, composed of (multiple) parts each aiding the other for the (overall) purpose desired from it. The parts (of the universe) are the heavens and the earths and the heavenly bodies, and everything between – water, air etc. Its parts are arranged in an optimised manner. If that arrangement had been altered, the organised structure would fall apart. What ought to be above was specified as being above and what ought to be below was specified as being below. A builder puts the stones below the walls and the wood above them, not by accident/coincidence (ittifāq) but wisdom and planning, for the purpose of strengthening (the structure). Had he switched that up and placed the stones above the walls and the wood beneath them, the structure would collapse and its form would not remain at all. So should the reason for the above-ness of the heavenly bodies and the below-ness of the earth and water and all forms of ordering in the major parts of the universe be understood.

“If we were to describe the parts of the universe and enumerate them, and then mention the wisdom in their ordering, the discussion would become lengthy. Whoever has more knowledge of these details will have more awareness of the meaning of Allāh’s name al-Muṣawwir (the creator of forms/designer). This arrangement and formation is found in all parts of the world, even the small, even in the ant and atom, in fact in each part of the ant. In fact, the discussion would become lengthy in explaining just the design of the eye, which is the smallest part of an animal. Whoever does not know the layers of the eye, its number, forms, shape, precise quantities, and its colours and the wisdom behind each will not understand its design nor recognise the Muṣawwir except vaguely. The same can be said of the design of every animal and plant, in fact of every part of every animal and plant.” [8]

As one can see, al-Ghazālī rules out accidental causes based on the evident design of things in nature. This is precisely the form that the ID argument takes. Imām al-Ghazālī also points to the fact that foresight is required for the construction of complex, interconnected systems. [9]


Material Causes vs Accidental Causes

The authors of the article contend that “the” Qur’ānic design argument does not rule out material causes, while ID does. ID is an argument against accidental or random (un-designed, unplanned) causes, not necessarily apparent material precedents.

There are some things in the universe which appear to happen by chance to us. For example, where the wind blows – we may not perceive any design to this: sometimes it goes one way and at other times another way, with no apparent purpose or design. There are other things which obviously did not occur by chance. For example, the words arranged in a book. We know the arrangement of words in the book was chosen by an intelligent mind. (Of course, nothing is “chance” or “random” to Allāh: He knows and creates everything in the manner He chooses. Everything has a wisdom behind it even if we cannot perceive it.)

Imām al-Ghazālī draws a direct analogy between words written in a book and the organised design and optimisation of the created world. He writes: “One knows only that the organised handwriting requires a living, knowing, capable, hearing and seeing writer, whose hand is unharmed and who knows the craft of writing, but he does not know the writer himself. In the same way, all people only know that this world, in its organised design and optimisation, requires a living, knowing and powerful creator that planned (it in advance).” [10]

The point of the ID form of design argument is that there are things that we, as humans, can infer or detect as being the result of non-random design, ruling out (by the weight of greater probability) randomness and coincidence as valid explanations. But this does not necessarily rule out prior material precedents, only that these are not a valid explanation that the nonbelieving materialist can bank on.

We know from ḥadīths, for example, that the foetus does not gain life by natural causes, but via the intervention of an angel that breathes the soul into it. [11]  There appears to be a seamless continuity between the different stages of embryonic development, but there is still miraculous intervention required for life to exist. Whether the intervention in this case is inferable or not can be debated. But the point of ID is that there is intelligent intervention in the emergence of different life forms that we can infer based on the empirical evidence. This does not necessarily rule out material continuity, but it does rule out coincidence as a valid explanation.

A further point to note here is that the article seeks to undermine ID as a “god of the gaps” argument, essentially that it is arguing for God based on our current ignorance of how things came about. But ID authors have consistently shown that it is not a “god of the gaps” argument, precisely because it is not based on our ignorance, but on our knowledge of how things come about. Meaningful written/spoken words, complex machinery, functional information and code, only come about by the act of an intelligent mind. These are all functionally coherent, interconnected systems. Features of the universe exhibit this same attribute and thus point to a cosmic intelligence. This is not arguing from ignorance, but from our knowledge of the cause-and-effect structure of the world. [12]


Classical Ash‘arī Kalām

We have already seen how Imām al-Bayhaqī and Imām al-Ghazālī employed the niẓām (organising design) argument. The eponymous founder of the Ash‘arī school, Imām al-Asharī, himself also employed the same argument in his Risālah ilā Ahl al-Thaghr. As shown earlier, there are essentially two elements to the argument:

1. The remarkable interconnectedness of different elements of creation for an overall, defined outcome or purpose.

2. The fact that it defies common-sense and reason to put this functional coherence down to an “accident” or “coincidence” (or even multiple accidents/coincidences).

Al-Ash‘arī writes: “The organised designed of (the human form) indicates a wise and powerful originator, given that could not have come about by accident (ittifāq) and reach maturity without an organising designer, nor one intending what is found in it…just as it is not possible that a house is precisely ordered for what is needed within it, in terms of construction, without a planner that distributes those things within it and intends to organise it.” [13]

We have seen the same form of argument articulated by Imām al-Ghazālī above.

One could argue the specific examples al-Ash‘arī or others use may need to be updated or even revised based on contemporary knowledge, but the form of the argument is identical to that formulated by the modern ID movement.

The niẓām argument has been elaborated by contemporary Ash‘arī theologians too: Sa‘īd Fūdah devotes an entire chapter to it in his al-Adillat al-‘Aqliyyah ‘alā Wujūdillāh bayn al-Mutakallimīn wa ‘l-Falāsifah. Ṣāliḥ al-Ghursi discusses it in his footnotes to Ibn al-Humām’s al-Musāyarah. [14]  In fact, he regards the niẓām argument to be a more powerful argument for common people than the argument from contingency or temporality.

Modern ID thought is merely an extension and modernisation of this type of classical argument. If the authors of the article believe certain, specific ID claims are not viable in light of empirical evidence, that is irrelevant to the issue of whether the form the argument takes aligns with Islāmic discourse or not.


The Example of Neo-Darwinian Evolution

The article describes Neo-Darwinian evolution as the standard explanation amongst biologists for the emergence of different life forms. Neo-Darwinism is premised on the notion of “random” genetic changes. That is, later life forms emerged from earlier ones by the addition and accumulation of random changes.

The contention of ID is that even if genetic changes (changes to the DNA structure of a living thing) did lead to one life form changing into a fundamentally new one, these were not “random”. In our experience, chance or accidental mutations never produce anything that is progressing towards the types of complex machinery and information-rich codes we find in living things. Hence, if mutations were involved in the origin of different life forms, they would have been directed by an intelligent being and would not have been random. This, in a nutshell, is the ID argument.

“Random” accidental changes do cause modifications to existing forms of life. For example, breeding dogs can transform one type of dog to another, but never in our experience does it lead to a different, more complex form of life, e.g. a dog becoming or moving towards becoming a bear or a horse.

ID proponents like Michael Behe do not rule out mutations or prior material events. They rule out only the notion that we cannot infer that some things were purposefully arranged by a designing intelligence. Michael Behe writes: “Those who worry about ‘interference’ should relax. The purposeful design of life to any degree is easily compatible with the idea that, after its initiation, the universe unfolded exclusively by the intended playing out of natural laws. The purposeful design of life is also fully compatible with the idea of universal common descent, one important facet of Darwin’s theory. What the purposeful design of life is not compatible with, however, is Darwin’s proposed mechanism of evolution – random variation and natural selection – which sought to explain the development of life explicitly without recourse to guidance or planning by anyone or anything at any point.” [15]

We all agree that the words written in a book were designed. Yet, there is an apparent material cause: the ink coming in contact with the paper. But the arrangement of letters and words is not explainable by this apparent material cause. For the materialist, everything can be explained by apparent material causes: design is not at all inferable or detectable in the natural world. ID is simply a pushback against this notion, and it agrees with the Qur’ānic argument from “itqān” and “niẓām”.


Kharq al-‘Ādāt (Miracles)

As mentioned earlier, even with miracles (where natural regularities are incapable of being an explanation), Allāh may use a process, which may include natural processes. For example, the miraculous conception of ‘Isā (‘alayhissalām) involved a process of development and birth from the womb of his mother. Similarly, ID does not necessarily rule out prior natural processes, but only that the natural regularities are incapable of being an explanation for the emergence of different life forms.

In fact, one can draw an analogy from the conception of ‘Isā (‘alayhissalām) and the Darwinian hypothesis. If we go back to the community that witnessed how ‘Isā (‘alayhissalām) was conceived, that is without a father, we could imagine two groups. One group (who follow common-sense) would say: natural, accidental causes are incapable of explaining how this happened, so it must be a miracle. Another group could claim that there is a “scientific” explanation, that by a sheer, remarkable coincidence, ‘Isā (‘alayhissalām) happened to be conceived without a father, without the need for any miraculous intervention. One cannot rule that out as scientifically “impossible”, but one can say that it defies basic common-sense and goes against our knowledge of the world. In the same way, different life forms emerged over time in biological history. Neo-Darwinists claim this all happened by accident or via the accumulation of accidental changes. But, ID contends, our intuition and the empirical evidence show otherwise.


Supernatural vs Natural?

In order to explain why mainstream scientists take issue with the claims of ID, the article asserts that Michael Behe’s “goal in criticizing the natural mechanics of Neo-Darwinism is to create space for a supernatural explanation for biological design.” [16] Michael Behe’s goal is in fact simply to show that the only plausible explanation for the design evident in living things is the activity of a designing intelligence, regardless of whether that intelligence is “supernatural” or otherwise.

Stephen Meyer explains: “The theory of intelligent design does not claim to detect a supernatural intelligence possessing unlimited powers. Though the designing agent responsible for life may well have been an omnipotent deity, the theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine that. Because the inference to design depends upon our uniform experience of cause and effect in the world, the theory cannot determine whether or not the designing intelligence putatively responsible for life has powers beyond those on display in our experience. Nor can the theory of intelligent design determine whether the intelligent agent responsible for information in life acted from the natural or the supernatural realm.” [17] He further says there is a need to differentiate the theory from its implications. The Big Bang also has theistic implications, yet it is mainstream science. ID too has obvious theistic implications, but that alone should not discount it from being “science”.


The Qur’ān Negating Accidental Causes

The Qur’ān too employs a negative form of the design argument. The Qur’ān states: “They will never create a fly even if they all unite to (create one).” (22:73) Ibn Juzayy writes: “It is known that if all creatures united to (attempt to) create something from amongst the smallest of creation, like an ant for example, they will not be able to do that. Since they are incapable of the smaller, they would be even more incapable of the greater. In this respect, Allāh says: ‘They will never create a fly even if they all unite (and combine their resources) to (create one)’.” [18]

Human beings, with all their ingenuity and resources, and despite decades of work in the field of the origins of life, have not been able to produce even the simplest form of life using only prebiotic materials (i.e. materials taken from non-living things). [19] This is a striking vindication of this Qur’ānic declaration. If intelligent human beings cannot do that, what does that say about dumb, blind material processes?


Resurrecting the Dead

The authors of the article write: “The Qur’ān does not deny the possibility of naturalistic explanations of the origins of life nor the origins of species. If evolutionary biologists have scientific explanations for both, it would not undermine the Qur’ān’s integrity.” [20] In other words, they believe there can be a viable, scientific explanation of how life first originated, or how different life forms emerged. Is this really a theologically or scripturally inert idea as they claim?

Allāh demonstrated to the Prophet Ibrāhīm (‘alayhissalām) how He brings the dead to life, as documented in the Qur’ān: dead birds came to life by the direct act of Allāh. (2:260) It appears the point in the demonstration was that the bringing to life of the dead is a direct, miraculous event, that does not have a material explanation.

Do the authors believe that the resurrection event of the next life could also have scientific, naturalistic explanations? I ask this question just to show how removed this notion is from what we instinctively know as believers and observers of the living world. Echoing this natural instinct, the Ottoman Shaykh al-Islām Muṣṭafā Ṣabrī (1869-1954) in his critique of Darwinian evolution writes: “The emergence of life and consciousness in something lifeless, and then its progressive movement via natural evolution towards perfection, without a planning agent creating them within it and deliberately directing them into it, is not at all rational.” [21]

According to a well-known ḥadīth, the person who makes a representation of something with a soul (i.e. animals), will be tasked in the next life with “giving life to what” he made. [22]  The reason is to demonstrate that human beings are incapable, of their own, to make life.

The Qur’ān and Ḥadīth thus demonstrate how human beings are incapable of creating life. Creating life is beyond the capacity of human beings. The story of Ibrāhīm (‘alayhissalām) suggests also that it is beyond the capacity of mere natural causes. Giving life is the sole, direct pejorative of the Giver-of-Life (al-Muḥyī): God Himself. The ḥadīths also tell us that there is supernatural intervention in the form of a soul being breathed into the developing foetus. In other words, the developing foetus cannot be “living” without direct intervention. And we know from scripture that the single human pair from which humankind originated was created directly by Allāh, extrapolating from which would suggest each individual type of living thing originated in a similar manner.


Islāmic Natural Theology

In short, the Qur’ān does not at all negate the design arguments of ID. Indeed, ID arguments can be integrated into an Islamic “natural theology”.

ID proponents state that the designer they speak of does not have to be God, or a supernatural agent. In stating this, they are only pointing out the limits of the enterprise they are engaging in (empirical observation and inferences). The argument of ID is not a complete argument for the existence or activity of God. It can be used as one part of a more complete, cumulative argument. Stephen Meyer and others use it in this way, and so too can Muslims.

The point of ID is only that there are features in the universe that exhibit evident design and purpose, which is measurable and detectable. These features are best explained by the intelligent activity of a designer, while accidental, material causes are weak and implausible explanations.

In short, by negating ID arguments or ID-like arguments, the authors of the article are undermining some of the most intuitive arguments for the presence of design in the universe. The design argument explained here only takes you so far: design exists. It doesn’t take you to God. But, again, the most intuitive explanation of design in the universe is God.

The coding in DNA and other molecules within living things is far more complex and information-rich than any book. Are we to believe accidental material causes are sufficient empirical explanations for their origin, without inference to design? Just as it would be illogical to claim the words on a book can be explained empirically by the ink touching the pages, it would be equally illogical to claim the information that undergirds life can be explained empirically by the accumulation of many accidents.


“Localising God”?

The article states: “(Shoaib Ahmed) Malik argues that if ID is being used as an argument for God’s existence, then resorting to complexity as if it is the only marker for theism is a very poor line of reasoning in the Ashʿarite paradigm.” [23] The question here would be, why would this be the only marker for theism? Very rarely do individual believers hinge their entire belief on one or two arguments.

If, for example, the specific argument (e.g. of Stephen Meyer in Signature in the Cell) that the origin of the information content in DNA is designed can be disproved by showing how random, accidental causes can create true, functional information in a molecule like DNA, this particular argument will indeed have been falsified. But those who make this argument would not necessarily therefore give up belief in God (or Islām, for that matter).

Belief in theism & Islām is based on more than just one argument for most people. It is also based on the prophecies of the advent of Muḥammad (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) in previous scriptures, the confirmed prophecies of the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) himself, the physical miracles documented from the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), the miraculous accomplishments of the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), the many miracles of the Qur’ān and so on. One argument being defeated will not necessarily shake an individual’s faith.

The concern that an argument may be vulnerable to future falsification is not a reason to discourage people from using the argument, especially if it aligns with our most basic intuitions as believers and observers of the natural world, and is supported by growing empirical data.

The article states, in attempting to problematise ID, “localizing God to the complex quarters of the world while ignoring everything else is an inconsistent picture.” As explained earlier, ID is about the design we can detect in the natural world, not about “localising God”. Based on other theological and metaphysical reasons, a Muslim can hold that God is the creator of everything, but at the same time point to specific aspects of creation where we can rule out the possibility of mere chance and coincidence as sufficient explanations and the need for purposeful design.


Concluding Remarks

The authors are right to point out that there are multiple Qur’ānic arguments, and a narrow focus on “intelligent design” may downplay the importance of other Qur’ānic arguments. In the story of the Prophet Ibrāhīm (‘alayhissalām) mentioned in Sūrah al-An‘ām (6:75-83), we learn the argument that dependent, contingent things cannot be the explanation of all things. Rather, the explanation of all things must be an Independent Being, from whom all else comes. In the verses negating a multiplicity of divine agents, we learn the argument that the absence of chaos in the universe indicates a singular creating agent – that is, One, Single God.

But these are not the only Qur’ānic arguments. Nor do Qur’ānic arguments have to only be interpreted in these specific forms. The argument from design that is employed by ID proponents can easily be integrated into an Islāmic natural theology. Undermining ID and ID-types of arguments limits the way Qur’ānic arguments can be used. The arguments of Michael Behe and Michael Denton can easily be integrated into Qur’ānic modes of argument.

The authors are correct in pointing out that critiquing ID does not necessarily equate to rejecting the verses of Qur’ān that allude to design, for the reason that these verses can be interpreted in multiple ways; and even if one agrees with the form that ID arguments take, it does not follow that in each and every example, one must agree that the argument is sound. But, even if the authors have shown that they are not undermining the Qur’ānic discourse on design by critiquing ID, they have not shown that there is a “fundamental misalignment between the ID argument and the design discourse mentioned in the Qur’ān.”

The purpose here is not to critique all points in the above article, nor the broader work of Shoaib Ahmed Malik on evolution (which we hope to review in a future article), but only the specific and central thesis of the article at hand.

---

[1] Does Criticizing Intelligent Design (ID) Undermine Design Discourse in the Qur’ān? A Kalāmic Response

[2] Does Criticizing Intelligent Design (ID) Undermine Design Discourse in the Qur’ān? A Kalāmic Response, p. 20

[3] The authors write: “QD argument builds on the argument from contingency to show that the necessary being is a volitional agent (fāʿil mukhtār) who is characterized by the three attributes of knowledge, will, and power. This is when design enters the (Qur’ānic) argument” (ibid. p. 11)

[4] The authors write: “A3 argues for the existence of one God because multiple rulers cannot create order and consistency. Using the analogy of kings and rulers, just as one empire or country cannot have more one ruler [sic], as it will lead to disarray, so too the creator of the ordered and the structured universe has to be one.” (ibid. p. 12)

[5] Al-I‘tiqād wa ‘l-Hidāyah ilā Sabīl al-Rashād, pp. 33-34

[6] Ibid. p. 35

[7] That is not to say that this is all that the verses points to. They also point to the power of Allāh and the fact that He alone must be taken as deity – as the article points out.

[8] al-Maqṣid al-Asnā, pp. 150-1

[9] Ibid. pp. 182-3

[10] Ibid. p. 98

[11] “Then the angel is sent to (the foetus) and breathes the soul into it, and is ordered to (write) four things…” (Al-Arba‘ūn al-Nawawiyyah, no. 4, citing al-Bukhārī and Muslim)

[12] Signature in the Cell, pp. 376-9

[13] Risālah ilā Ahl al-Thaghr, p. 146-151

[14] Badr al-Tamām, p. 109-11

[15] The Edge of Evolution, p. 235; emphasis in original

[16] Does Criticizing Intelligent Design (ID) Undermine Design Discourse in the Qur’ān? A Kalāmic Response, p. 17

[17] Signature in the Cell, pp. 428-9

[18] al-Nūr al-Mubīn, p. 33

[19] “We’re Still Clueless About the Origins of Life”, James Tour in The Mystery of Life’s Origin, pp. 323-357

[20] Does Criticizing Intelligent Design (ID) Undermine Design Discourse in the Qur’ān? A Kalāmic Response, p. 20

[21] Mawqif al-‘Aql, 2:284

[22] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 2113

[23] Does Criticizing Intelligent Design (ID) Undermine Design Discourse in the Qur’ān? A Kalāmic Response, p. 5; emphasis added