> Help How to refute incest for the first humans? "Adam sons and daughters"

[Aayah]

Asalam Alykom

How we can refute those who clamied that incest is not a sin or an immoral act since the first humans on earth had to marry their siblings in order to have the whole population?


In other way, how we can distinguish to them the difference between the two cases?


They can argue that God could creat a group of people at first instead of one where they can marry from each other.

[Qatada]

asalaam alaikum


Wouldn't the children of Adam die of inbreeding due to incest?


useful?

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum,
I think what the sister was asking for is more a response to the ethicalness/morality of it, rather then the scientific part of the issue.

[Aayah]

Walaykom Asalam

True brother Abdul-Fattah

I already read that thread before starting this one, but its not what I am looking for, I dont want to go in scientific part of the issue

[Qatada]

asalaam alaikum


first of all, we believe in God, and our belief in Adam and his children performing incest is something we require faith in.


The above point tells atheists and theists alike that its an issue of our own personal faith, so whatever they say doesn't matter in this.


Second, if they ask if its a sin. Then it wasn't a sin in the laws revealed to Adam from Allah, otherwise Allah wouldn't permit it. It can only be a sin if Allah forbade it and it was done by the people.


Third, we derive our morals from Allah's rules. If Allah allowed something at one time, and never allowed it in another time - then that was because He knew what was the greater good. So like bro Abdul Fattah said in that thread i linked to;

as muslims we don't believe in the existence of chance, everything follows a cause and effect. And you build on the premise that indeed an omnipotent [all powerful] and omniscient [all knowing] God created them, then it seems perfectly plausible that God didn't "cause" any [harmful] mutations to occur in the first few generations, untill there was a large enough population to intermingle.

Whereas in later generations, like in this ummah - Allah may have allowed harmful mutations to occur (for a greater wisdom), so He forbade incest in later generations.



Allahu a'lam.

[Aayah]

^ Wa Alykom asalam
So it can be explained as the changes in God's laws?

May be we can mention too that in each birth Eve did gave birth to a twin a girl and a boy where they cant marry each other, but they have to marry from the twin that come from a different birth. Will that serve the reply? or?

I think if we did, they might ask then what is the wisdom behind such policy in marriage? since they are all siblings why every one marry his/her twin?

[Qatada]

asalaam alaikum


i think its irrelevant to mention the twin thing, since that still is their brother/sister.


so your main point should be that Allah who is All Knowing and All Powerful chose this idea, maybe so that mankind could be united through one original mother and father, which will allow mankind to feel they are all united through the same parents [this makes people more at peace with each other] in later generations. when there were enough generations of different people, He may have stopped the rule of incest relations since it wasn't required anymore.

so yes, God can do anything, but He chose this idea so that mankind could feel they all belong to one set of parents (instead of many which would cause people to disunite in later generations).

[al-boriqee]

from the scientific aspect, I think Abdul-Fatteh obliterated their arguments barakallahu feekum. that was execellent

from the "ethical" aspect of this issue, this is a refutation against them and their whole ideology of kufr. The essence of ethics as the people of prophetic methodology incline to is that Allah is the soul and determining factor of what exactly IS or is not ethical. And once He decides something is ethical or not, it descends to the fitrah of humans.

from a logical or pragmatic standpoint

Adam and Eve were the ONLY humans and their children were the ONLY humans to exist. In this situation mankind has to choices to make
1. either face extinction by not having spousal relations with the few individuals in existence
or
2. face extinction in order to be "moral" (under western inclinations)

In such a circumstance, the issue transcends one of ethics to one of survival.

from an ethical standpoint

Since we, the people of the prophetic methodology operate on this paradigm, we understand that revealed law is revealed in accordance to each prophet. During Adams era till the time of Noah, this shariah (law) was in place and its abolishment came in the time of Noah with the risaalah which he came with.

the reason why this issue refutes the people of philosophical methodologies is because their perception of ethics is based on human rationality upon which the determination of what is right and wrong stems from their own reasoning. This is not how ethics is determined and we can see the fallacy of this methodology in how they currently are purporting the fraud that there is nothing wrong with fagots (homosexuality).

If Allah did not define the era of adam as being unethical, then likewise we don't. we follow views of our Creator and not the views of those whom He created that happen to disagree with the Creator.

[Sampharo]

At the time before Jesus -Alaihi Assalam-, the jews and israelites were forbidden from working Saturdays and from eating shellfish. When the prophet Mohammad -Salla Allahu Alaihi Wasallam- came, as foretold the good became allowed and the bad was forbidden.

During the time of the prophet -s.a.a.w.- adoption was allowed, and he took Zaid as his adopted son. Afterwards it became forbidden and all had to be called to their parents, and there was a natural transition.

I do not see any hassle or ethical implication in simply accepting God's ordanance without going to complications: Adam children were permissible to marry each other, but not between a twin. After that generation brother and sister were no longer to be married. End of story. There was never an "ethical" implication on brothers and sisters, it is just the oldest and most set ruling of God.

Was there a specifically "evil" thing in the Egyptians when in the pharonic dynasties they used to marry the king to his sisters? Also, if anyone goes there, they might as well start explaining their own ethical explanation to why they as athiests see a problem with brother and sister, but no problem with multiple men on women, same sex fornication, and other abominations that they promote as "progress" these days.