The hadith in question here is sahih muslim 2841, however the same narration can be found in sahih bukhari 3326 and 6227 as well.

https://imgur.com/a/8eKTQfV

A plain reading of the text implies that adam was created 60 cubits tall in heaven, and then he was sent to earth, after which the heights of his children continued to gradually become lower from that initial 60 cubits

A point is raised that the height of adam mentioned here is only in heaven, and he became shorter (i.e. average height) when he got to the earth. However, this interpretation is untenable in light of the final line: creation has continued to diminish in size up to this day.

NOTE: While the meaning of the line is correct, it should be pointed out that a more literal translation would be "creation has not ceased to decrease until today" or "creation has been decreasing until today". As the only possible thing this "decreasing" could be about is the height (as thats the only characteristic thats been pointed out repeatedly), the interpretation of the creations height continuously decreasing is correct.

A plain sense reading of the hadith will tell us that first we are told that adams height was 60 cubits, then we are told that creation has been decreasing (in size) up to today. A conclusion can be drawn that this decreasing in size is from that intiial 60 cubits, and since its a continous decrease in the creation, it then neccesitates that adams height also be 60 cubits on earth as that is the only way height can continuously decrease generation by generation. Both this interpretation of adam being 60 cubits on earth, and the gradual decrease in humanities height is the opinion of classical exagetes as well (which i will mention later.)

Firstly, i need to prove some of the claims i made since someone can bring up alternate translations (and some people have, more on that later as well.). The full phrase here is فَلَمْ يَزَلِ الْخَلْقُ يَنْقُصُ بَعْدُ حَتَّى الآنَ, which is translated as "the creation has been decreasing until now".

My claims are:

1. "falam yazal" (فَلَمْ يَزَلِ) is referring to a continuos action
2. "yanqusu" (يَنْقُصُ ) is referring to a "decrease"

Which would make the proper translation "has been decreasing"

---

1) "falam yazal" (فَلَمْ يَزَلِ)

The فَ here is just a conjuction meaning "then".

The لَمْ is a negation particle, meaning "did not" here.

yazal (يَزَلِ) is from the verb زالَ, which has the meanings of "to cease, to stop, to go way, to depart".

https://imgur.com/a/h6zraVg

From the context of the hadith, its obvious that يَزَلِ cannot hold meanings of "going away" or "passing away" etc, since its paired with both the negation particle لَمْ as well as the word yanqusu (decrease).

• He did not pass away decrease ❌
• He did not depart decrease ❌
• He did not cease to decrease ✅

But im not just making an inference based on the context of the hadith here; the phrase of لَمْ يَزَلْ + verb is an idiom which denotes a continuous action. lam is the negation particle, yazal here means cease, and the full combination looks like "did not cease to (verb)". For example, "he did not cease to jump" or "he did not cease to pray". And if a time limit is given as well (like in the hadith) it becomes clearer "he did not cease to pray until this moment". This has the same meaning as "he continued to pray until this moment" (since the man didnt cease praying i.e. he was praying continuosly).

The thus phrase لَمْ يَزَلْ gains the meaning of "continued to".... and similar meanings. This can easily be seen from several ahadith, where لَمْ يَزَلْ always retains a meaning of a continuos action.

It always has a meaning of a continuos action. "remains", "kept on", "continues", "are still doing". all of these are different ways of saying the negative phrase of "did not cease to do x" in a positive form, but retain the meaning of a continuous action

- Ahadith:

https://imgur.com/a/BTKwOjV

Thus we can be certain that لَمْ يَزَلْ has the meaning of a continuos action, and paired with بَعْدُ حَتَّى الآنَ (until now), it means a continuous action which has been happening until the present moment

2) "yanqusu" (يَنْقُصُ )

The word يَنْقُصُ is from the root ن - ق - ص. In this form especially, it has the meanings of "decreasing", "becoming less" etc. I will be giving both dictionaries to support my point, and then also supporting it with how this verb is used in ahadith

- Dictionaries:

Lisan al arab:

> Al-Nuqṣān (deficiency) can be used as a verbal noun (maṣdar) or to denote the amount of the thing that has been lost from what is diminished. > > Naqaṣa al-shayʾa – The thing diminished, > Yanquṣu naqṣan wa nuqṣānan wa naqīṣatan –__ It decreases, with the verbal nouns being “naqṣ,” “nuqṣān,” and “naqīṣa__.” > > Naqaṣahu – He __reduced __it, (can be transitive or intransitive); > > **Anqaṣahu **is a variant in language; > > Intaqaṣahu and tanaqqaṣahu – He took from it little by little, following the common pattern of such verb forms. > > **Intaqaṣa al-shayʾ **– The thing decreased, > > **Intaqaṣtuhu anā **– I __reduced __it, > (intransitive and transitive); > > Qad intaqaṣahu ḥaqqahu – He diminished his right. > > Abū ʿUbayd, in the chapter on verbs with both intransitive and transitive usage, said: > **Naqaṣa al-shayʾ wa naqaṣtuhu anā **– The thing decreased, and I diminished it. > > He said: And this is also what al-Layth said, and he said: > The intransitive and transitive forms are equal in usage. > > Istanaqṣa al-mushtarī al-thaman – The buyer sought a reduction in the price, > i.e., he bargained it down. > > You say: > Nuqṣānuhu kadhā wa kadhā – Its deficiency is such and such, > i.e., this is the amount that is gone.

Al zamakhshiri:

> "He diminished his right by deficiency, and he reduced it." > > "He himself diminished it by a decrease." > > "He bargained for the price and sought a reduction in it."

Al-Rāghib al-Isfahānī, al-Mufradāt fī Gharīb al-Qurʾān:

> Naqṣ (نقص): Loss in fortune. > Nuqṣān (النقصان): The verbal noun (maṣdar). > > Naqaṣtuhu (نقصته): "I __diminished __it," and thus he is manqūṣ (منقوص) — diminished. > > Allah the Exalted said: > "And (We will test you) with a __loss __in wealth and lives…" > (Surah al-Baqarah 2:155) > > And He said: > "And indeed, We will give them their share in full, without any reduction." > (Surah Hūd 11:109) > > And: > "Then they did not reduce you in anything." > (Surah al-Tawbah 9:4)

Ismāʿīl bin Ḥammād al-Jawharī, Tāj al-Lugha wa Ṣiḥāḥ al-ʿArabīya:

> [نقص] > > نقص الشيء نقصًا ونقصانًا، ونقصته أنا، يتعدى ولا يتعدى. > The thing __decreased __(or became deficient) — naqṣan and nuqṣānan. And I diminished it. It is both transitive and intransitive. > > وانتقص الشيء، أي نقص. وانتقصته أنا. > And the thing was __decreased __by way of "intaqaṣa" — meaning it decreased. And I __decreased __it. > > واستنقص المشتري الثمن، أي استحطّ. > And the buyer sought a reduction in the price — meaning: he asked for a discount. > > والمَنْقَصَةُ: النقصُ. > Al-manqaṣah: the deficiency. > > والنقيصة: العيب. > Al-naqīṣah: the defect.

Habib Anthony Salmone, An Advanced Learner's Arabic-English Dictionary:

نقص

> نَقَصَ(n. ac. نَقْص > نَقِيْصَة > نُقْصَــاْن > تَنْقَاْص) > a. Lessened, diminished, decreased; wasted, waned; became > deficient. > > b. Cut off from. > a. Lessened, diminished, reduce > curtailed; infringed > encroached upon.

Almaany.com

> نَقَص ( فعل ) :- أَنقَصَ > - decrease > > > نَقَص ( فعل ) :- قَلّ، اِنخَفَضَ > - be decreased; be diminished; be reduced; become less; diminish; drop off; fall; grow less; lessen;... > > المزيد > > نَقَص ( فعل ) :- نَقَصَ هُ كَذا: اِفتَقَرَ إليه، عازَ > - be deficient in; be in need of; be in want of; be short in; be short of; be wanting; fall short of...

Lanes lexicon

https://imgur.com/a/GsWxNEg

Hans wehr dictionary, third edition, pg 991.

https://imgur.com/a/lyyeQfp

As we can see, all dictionaries give it a primary meaning of "decreasing", "reducing" "losing" etc.

The same meaning can also be seen in how the word in this form is used in ahadith:

- Ahadith:

https://imgur.com/a/UZRkCd1

As we can see from these ahadith, the meaning of "yanqusu" is always "decreasing" or "detracting".

The only hadith that needs to be mentioned is the one i have joined in img 1 of this message (abi daud 2323). Here, the word yanquṣāni is translated as "defective". However, if we look at the sharh we can see its talking about how the good deeds done in the month of ramadan etc. are not decreased because of the less days, or that the days of both month do not decrease to 29 togethor in the same year, thus it retains this meaning of "decreasing". i also want to point out that sahih bukhari 1912 (img 2) retains the translation of "decrease".

Fath-Al-Bari 4/125

> The scholars have differed regarding the meaning of this hadith. Some took it literally and said: ‘Ramadan and Dhu al-Hijjah are never less than thirty days.’ This view is rejected and contradicts observed reality. It is enough to refute it by the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: ‘Fast upon sighting [the new moon] and break the fast upon sighting it; and if it is obscured from you, then complete the count,’ for if Ramadan were always thirty days, there would be no need for such an instruction. > > Others interpreted it in a way more fitting. Abu al-Hasan said: ‘Ishaq ibn Rahawayh used to say: “They do not decrease in virtue, whether they are twenty-nine or thirty [days].”’ It was also said: ‘They do not both decrease together; if one is twenty-nine, the other will be thirty—without fail.’ And it was also said: ‘They do not decrease in the reward of deeds performed in them.’ These last two interpretations are well known among the Salaf, and both are transmitted in most of the narrations in al-Bukhari, though they were omitted from the narration of Abu Dharr and from that of al-Nasafi and others right after the chapter heading and before the hadith text.

https://imgur.com/a/Lc61Xqr

Thus we can be certain that the word yanqusu almost certainly has the meaning of "decrease" in this hadith, as that is how this word is used and it fits the context of the hadith as well

So the full phrase has to be translated as "creation has not ceased to decrease" or "creation has been decreasing"

Besides, this is not just my own interpretation; this is the interpretation held by all classical exagetes on this hadith, with ibn hajar implying there is no other valid interpretation.

---

Sharh:

- Al Qastallani:

Al Qastallani wrote in his sharh Kitāb Irshād al-Sārī li-Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī – Ṭabʿ Būlāq 9/131

> (فلم يزل الخلق ينقص) من طوله وجماله (بعد) أي بعد آدم > (حتى الآن) فإذا دخلوا الجنة عادوا إلى ما كان عليه أبوهم من الحسن والجمال وطول القامة. > > > “So mankind continued to decrease” – > From his height and beauty – > “after that”, i.e., after Ādam – > “until now.” > > When they enter Paradise, they will return to the state of their father in beauty and height.

- Imam Nawawi:

Imam nawawi wrote in Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 17/178

> هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ سَبَقَ شَرْحُهُ وَبَيَانُ تَأْوِيلِهِ وَهَذِهِ الرِوَايَةُ ظَاهِرَةٌ فِي أَنَّ الضَّمِيرَ فِي صورته عائد إلى آدم وأن المرادأنه خُلِقَ فِي أَوَّلِ نَشْأَتِهِ عَلَى صُورَتِهِ الَّتِي كَانَ عَلَيْهَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَتُوُفِّيَ عَلَيْهَا وَهيَ طُولُهُ ستونَ ذِرَاعًا وَلَمْ يَنْتَقِلْ أَطْوَارًا كَذُرّيَتِهِ وَكَانَتْ صُورَتُهُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ هِي صُورَتُهُ فِي الْأَرْضِ لَمْ تَتَغَيَّرْ > > This hadith has already been explained and its interpretation clarified. And this narration is explicit in that the pronoun in "his image" refers back to Adam, and that what is meant is that he was created in the beginning of his origination upon the image which he had upon the earth, and upon which he died—namely, his height being sixty cubits. > > And he did not pass through developmental stages as his offspring do. And his image in Paradise was the same as his image on earth—it did not change.

If adams height was 60 cubits on earth, then that solves all the interpretive issues here; the height getting smaller would obviously be from that initial 60 cubits. The only argument presented against a continuous decrease in height is a massive drop from 60 cubits to 6 feet when adam came to earth. If that is removed, then yanqusu can only refer to a continuous decrease, and it would have to be from that initial 60 cubits as adam and hawwa (as 90 feet tall giants) obviously did not give birth to 5 foot tall humans.

- Zakariyya al-Ansari:

Shaykh al-Islām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī wrote in Tuḥfat al-Bārī bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 6/404

> فلم يزل الخلق ينقص) أي: من طوله أراد أن كل قرن يكون طوله أقصر من القرن الذي قبله، فانتهى تناقص الطول إلى هذه الأمة، واستقر الأمر على ذلك > وهو معنى قوله حتى الآن أي إلى الآن فحتى بمعنى: إل > > "And the creation continued to diminish"** means that with each generation, the height became shorter than the previous one. The diminishing of height continued until it reached this nation, and this is where the matter settled.** > > This is the meaning of the phrase “until now,” meaning "until the present." So, “until” here means "up to."

- Abu al Hasan al Maliki:

Shaykh Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Manūfī al-Mālikī wrote in his sharh Maʿūnat al-Qārī li Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī Pg 5236 (of the link)

> The pronoun 'his' refers back to Adam himself, because the Creator — Exalted is He — is far above having a form or being likened to anything. > So if it is asked: What is the meaning of this then? It is said: > > Allah created Adam’s descendants in stages, as He said: > “From dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clinging clot” [Surah al-Hajj 22:5]. > > But He created Adam in his complete form, sixty cubits tall — not transitioning from one state to another. > So the meaning is: He created him in his image — that is, in his final form from the beginning, just as he would remain at the end. > He was not created as a child who then grew older. > > This interpretation is supported by the statement following it: > > “His height was sixty cubits.” > > This is the most correct and preferable explanation

- Imam Qurtubi

Imam Qurtubi wrote in his sharh of muslim, Al-Mufhim li mā Ashkala min Talkhīṣ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 5/183

> The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: > “Allah created Adam in his image. His height was sixty cubits.” > —(That is) in the standard measure known to us. Then the creation of his offspring and their height continued to diminish, as is mentioned in another narration. > > And his saying: “Allah created Adam in his image”—the pronoun refers to the nearest mentioned, which is Adam, and this is the general rule regarding pronoun reference. > Its meaning is: Allah, the Exalted, brought him into being in the form in which He created him—he did not transition through different stages in development, nor did he pass through stages in the wombs. He was not created small and then grew, nor weak and then became strong. Rather, He created him as a complete, sound, and strong man—unlike the way Allah decreed for his descendants. > > It is also valid to interpret the meaning as reporting that Allah created him on the day He created him in the form he would have on earth, and that he was not in Paradise in another form, and his attributes and appearance did not change, unlike the forms of the angels, which vary.

- Qadi Iyad Al Yahsubi

Qāḍī Abu ’l-Fadhl ʿIyād al-Yaḥṣubī wrote in his commentary of muslim called Ikmāl al-Muʿlim bi Fawāʾid Muslim, 8/374:

> وقوله هنا: «طوله ستون ذراعًا» يبين الإشكال، ويزيح التشابه، ويوضح أنّ الضمير راجع إلى آدم نفسه، وأنّ المراد على هيئته التى خلقه عليها، لم ينتقل فى النشأة أحوالًا ولا تردد فى الأرحام أطوارًا. وقد مرّ من هذا، ويكون معناه: على الصورة التى كان بها فى الأرض وأنه لم يكن فى الجنة على صورة أخرى، ولا اختلفت صفاته وتصوراته اختلاف تصورات الملائكة فى أصول صورهم. وفى الصور التى يتراءون فيها [غالبًا] (١) للخل > > And his statement here: ‘His height was sixty cubits’ clarifies the ambiguity, removes the resemblance [that may lead to confusion], and makes clear that the pronoun returns to Adam himself — and that what is meant is the form upon which Allah created him: he did not transition through phases of development, nor did he pass through various stages in the wombs. > This has already been discussed. And its meaning is: upon the form he had while on earth — and that he was not in Paradise upon a different form, nor did his attributes and appearances vary in the way that the angels’ forms vary in the essence of their appearances and in the forms in which they most often appear to creation.”

- Allama Ayni

Allama Badr al-Dīn al-Ayni wrote in Umdat al Qari 15/288

> His saying: ‘and the creation keeps decreasing.’ Meaning: from his (Adam’s) tall stature; and each generation that exists is shorter than the previous one, until the reduction in height reached this ummah and the matter settled upon it — and this is what is meant by his saying: ‘up to now.’”

- Imam Jalal ud din al Suyuti:

Jalal ud din al Suyuti wrote in "At-Tawshīḥ Sharḥ al-Jāmiʿ aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ" (5/2138):

> (فلم يزل الخلق ينقص حتى الآن) أي: أن كل قرن تكون نشأته في الطول أقصر من القرن الذي قبله، فانتهى تناقص الطول إلى هذه الأمة. > > > "And the creation has continued to decrease until now," meaning that each generation's height has been shorter than the previous one, and this decrease in height has continued until the present generation

Al suyuti also mentions in his sharh of muslim, Ad-Dībāj ʿalā Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim ibn al-Ḥajāj 6/187 that adams height in heaven is the same as his height on earth.

> هذه الرواية ظاهرة في أن الضمير لآدم ، وأن المراد أنه خلق في أول نشأته على صورته التي كان عليها في الأرض وتوفي عليها ، وهي : طوله ستون ذرائها ، ولم ينتقل أطوارًا كذريته، وكانت صورته في الجنة هي صورته في الأرض لم > يتغير .

> This narration clearly indicates that the pronoun refers to Adam, and it means that he was created in his original form, the same form he had on earth when he passed away, which was: his height was sixty cubits, and he did not undergo stages like his descendants. His image in Paradise was the same as his image on Earth, and it did not change.

- Imam al Kurani:

Imām Aḥmad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Kūrānī wrote in Al-Kawthar al-Jārī ilā Riyāḍ Aḥādīth al-Bukhāri 6/230

> فلم يزل الخلق ينقص حتى الآن) فيه دلالة على أن النقصان لم يكن في هذه الأمة. > (The creation has continued to decrease until now) – this indicates that the diminution (in size) did not occur in this ummah.

He too supports a continuous decrease, as he is saying the dimunition did not happen in muhammads ummah. If the "decrease" referred to adam going from 60 cubits to normal height and then humans staying at that height, then the "dimunition not happening in muhammads ummah" should mean the ummah is 60 cubits tall. It evidently wasnt, which means he thinks a continuous decrease happened which stopped with the ummah.

What all these tafsirs agree on is that adam was 60 cubits on earth, since this is how they interpret the term "Allah created adam in his image". Abu al Hasan al maliki explains it most succintly:

> So the meaning is: He created him in his image — that is, in his final form from the beginning, just as he would remain at the end.

If Adam was 60 feet on earth, then it follows that the most logical interpretation of the final phrase is that the decrease was from that initial 60 cubits height, and zakariyya al Ansari and Allama Ayni do clarify this view.

However, most curious is the sharh of ibn hajar

- Ibn Hajar al asqallani:

He writes in Fath al bari 6/367

> His statement, 'The creation has continued to decrease until now' means that each generation has been shorter than the previous one. This reduction in height reached this Ummah, and the matter has remained as such.

> Ibn al-Tin said about this: 'The phrase "the creation continued to decrease" refers to the gradual decrease, just as a person may grow a little at a time, and the change is not noticeable in short intervals like hours or days, but after many days, the change becomes clear. __This is similar to the gradual reduction in height. __ > > The challenge to this is found in the remains of past nations, such as the dwellings of Thamud, where the remains suggest that their heights were not excessively tall, contrary to what the previous arrangement would suggest. However, it is clear that their time was ancient, and the period between them and Adam was shorter than the time between them and the beginning of this Ummah. No solution to this issue has yet appeared to me.'

If this problem of people slowly getting shorter generation by generation could easily be solved by just interpreting the words in the hadith differently, then ibn hajar would do so as he has always done. However, he says that he does not know of a solution. Meaning that linguistically, he does not see any other way to interpret this hadith other than "humans have slowly gotten shorter than that initial 60 cubits height generation by generation", because this is what the hadith implies.

I am inclined to accept the opinion of ibn hajar over modern scholars trying to reinterpret ahadith in light of science. Even though he saw a practical observation which conflicted with the hadith, he did not appeal to weird explanations which dont make contextual sense, rather he accepted there was no solution as of yet.

Thus from both a contextual and linguistic analyses of this hadith, as well as seeing how this hadith has historically ben understood, we can reach a conclusion that the most probable unbiased explanation is:

> "Adam was 60 cubits tall in heaven, then he was sent to earth where he had the same height. After adam, generations of humans have slowly gotten shorter generation by generation."

Ibn hajar expands on the last point, saying he does not know of any other interpretation (if he did know of another interpretation, he wouldve mentioned it. But instead he says there is no solution to this issue as of yet)

Additionally, modern fatwa sites like this, this and this also follow these interpretations

---

Possible refutations to the interpretation:

The following two "refutations" are from Waqar Akbar Cheema's (founder of ICRAA) old website "Letmeturntables.com"

https://imgur.com/a/aoNA0lv

He says that adams height was only so in heaven, because other reports from sahih bukhari clarify so. Firstly, we can see from the several commentaries i cited that no scholar (classical ones atleast) thought there was any contradiction between adam being 60 cubits tall on earth, and the presented hadith. But lets see what the hadith even says.

The important line is the following:

> All of them will look alike and will resemble their father Adam (in statute), sixty cubits tall in the heavens.

What this line, and the whole hadith is talking about, isnt adams height in the heavens. Its talking about the heights the MUSLIMS will have in the heavens. "in the heavens" isnt referring to adam, its referring to the jannah dwellers. From the context of this hadith, its obvious that its mentioning the things muslims will get once **they **get to heaven. We also know that muslims WILL get a 60 cubit height in heaven from the hadith this thread is based on as well

For example, allama ayni clarifies that its the people who will be in the form of adam, and "in the heavens" is referring to them. Umdar al Qari 15/288

> His statement "upon the form of one man" and "upon the image of their father Adam" — in another narration it says "upon the image of the moon." > > The reconciliation between them is to say: "They are all on the form of Adam in height and structure, and some of them — in beauty — are like the image of the moon, in radiance and brilliance." > > His statement "in the heavens" means in elevation and height, for everything above is called 'heaven'.

Zakarriya al Ansari said in Tuḥfat al-Bārī bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6/406

> and it has been said: on the image of the moon — and there is no contradiction, > because they enter Paradise on the form of Adam in height and physical form, > and on the form of the moon in light and radiance.

These same scholars interpreted adams height to be 60 cubits on earth as well, meaning they saw nothing in this hadith which implies adam was only that tall in heaven.

Additionally, he also says that imam qurtubi said adams height was 60 cubits only in heaven. This is false as i have shown in earlier.

https://imgur.com/a/vfRDCI7

1. Both mufti taqi usmani and anwar shah kashmiri are post 20th century scholars trying to reconcile this hadith with science

2. I have shown that the classical scholars did not hold a view remotely similar to this, with ibn hajar implying there was no other interpretation other than a generation by generation loss of height.

3. I have shown through the usage of the word yanqusu that it is almost always used in a meaning of "decrease" as a verb in ahadith, and not in the usage of "deficient" or "being deficient"

I have also asked several arabic speakers, and they agree that this interpretation sounds weird when looked at the hadith, and the original classical explanation makes more sense

Have humans been gradually decreasing from a 60 cubit height?

Evidently not.

https://imgur.com/a/WhB6ZiX

While this graph, on its surface, might look like it supports the hadith, it doesn't as according to it humans as far back as 15000Bc only had an average height of 6 feet. Humans generally got shorter slowly, but theres another spike in height from 4000 Bc, and from then height has been increasing. Meaning by the time of muhammad, humans had been INCREASING in height for several millenia

The only reason pre 10000 humans had larger heights is because they were hunter gatherers and not farmers, thus they had a higher protein intake. Meaning this slightly taller height of theirs cant be used to make an argument that perhaps humans several million years ago used to be much taller, since a better diet has limits on how tall it can make you.

Additionally, we have fossils. The further back we go, humans look less and less like modern homo sapiens, but their height remains similar to ours.

The oldest evidence of any fossil belonging to the homo genus is Uraha 501, a jaw belonging to homo rudolfensis. Aside from the fact that homo rudoflensis are very dissimilar to modern humans in looks, the jaw is roughly the same size as a modern human.

If we want to look at the oldest HOMO SAPIEN fossils, then we can go to morroco 300,000 years ago. These fossils include a skull and other parts. However, the skull size is, again, roughly the same as humans today.

We have other fossils belonging to the homo genus as well, around the same time period, and they are all roughly the same size as modern humans.

https://imgur.com/a/9dlW7pE

Additionally, if we look at biblical sources as well as islamic (albeit based on these biblical ones) scholarly sources, they put adam around 6-8 thousand years ago.

Adam is thought to be intelligent, could fluently speak etc., and adam could only be on earth after humans had settled and started farming and sheep domestication, as i showed in "Every Prophet Herded" that every prophet herded sheep. This happened roughly 10-12000 years ago

But every fossil we have around this time period is roughly the same size as modern humans, with slight changes only

(Its possible muhammad thought all animals were larger back then too. It doesnt make much sense for a 90 foot tall human to have to survive on 50-100 pound animals).

Thus muhammad was clearly wrong when he said that humans had been decreasing from adams 60 cubit height until his time.

Conclusion:

As i have shown through a linguistic, contextual and scholarly analysis of this hadith, the only logical interpretation of this hadith is that adam was 60 cubits tall on heaven and earth, and that humans have been decreasing in height from that 60 cubits gradually. (the ten or so sharh i quoted have the same interpretations to this, and ibn hajar implies there is no other valid interpretation)

However, humans have NOT been decreasing from a 60 cubits height. Human height has remained roughly the same, with slight changes only. Our oldest human fossils (dated to around 2 million years for the genus homo and 300,000 years for the homo sapiens) are the same size as us.

And if we consider a dating for adam after humans had become settled and started farming, as well as using biblical dating, then we have alot of fossils after that time which show humans having roughly the same height as us.

Thus muhammads statement is clearly false.

According to a hadith from bukhari, muhammad tells us that there has been no prophet sent by Allah, except that he herded sheep.

> Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Allah did not send any prophet but shepherded sheep." His companions asked him, "Did you do the same?" The Prophet (ﷺ) replied, "Yes, I used to shepherd the sheep of the people of Mecca for some Qirats."

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2262

NOTE:: There seems to be a translation error here as it says "did not send any prophet but shepherded sheep". It should say "did not send any prophet but he shepherded sheep"

This narration is also found in sunan ibn majah 2149 and al bayqahi 11641. One of the narrators in the ibn majah hadith adds that muhammad got one qirat for every sheep

In this hadith, the word translated as "shepherded" is رَعَى, which means "herding" or "shepherding" something in this context, mostly cattle.

https://imgur.com/a/t17uYqa

The word translated as sheep is الْغَنَمَ, which means sheep according to lanes lexicon and lisan al arab

https://imgur.com/a/FpyXhTB

Lisan al arab says:

> غنم: الــغَنَم: الشاء لا واحد له من لفظه، وقد ثَنَّوْه فقالوا غنَمــانِ؛ > > "Ghanam (sheep): Al-Ghanam refers to sheep (ash-shā’); it has no singular form from its own word structure. However, they have dualized it and said ghanamān (two sheep)."

https://imgur.com/a/20TYTYs

According to almaany.com:

> غَنَم ( اسم ) :- ضَأن (وماعِز) > - sheep (and goats); sheep; grass-eating animal > - a male sheep; lamb

According to Al mujam al Wasit: > > (الغَنم): القطيع من المعز والضأن (لا واحد له من لفظه) (ج) أغنام وغنوم > "(Al-ghanam): the flock of goats and sheep. It has no singular form from its wording. (Plurals): aghnām and ghunūm."

According to Al-Qāmūs al-Muḥīṭ

> "الغَنَمُ، مُحرَّكةً: الشاءُ، لا واحِدَ لها من لَفْظِها، الواحِدَةُ: شاةٌ، وهو اسْمٌ > > "Al-Ghanam (the sheep), when in motion: refers to the sheep; it has no singular form in its pronunciation. The singular form is: Sha'ah (a sheep), and it is a noun."

While the meanings of these words are obvious, i have added the definitions so no one can say "it means something else"

---

Onto the interpretation of the hadith:

The prophet says that Allah has not sent any prophet but he herded sheep. Someone can say that the prophet is talking about the spiritual role of anbiya as shepherds, in the same way that jesus says in John 10;11:

> "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

However, the very next sentence makes this interpretation invalid. The companions ask him whether the prophet also did the same. The prophet replies that yes, he used to shepherd the sheeps of the people of Mecca for some QIrats. Meaning the "shepherding of sheep" is the literal herding of actual sheep, not a metaphorical one. This is obvious from the fact that Muhammad actually shepherded the sheeps of the meccans and got money for it. And the question of the sahabas "did u do the same" makes it clear that this is the same shepherding all the other prophets also did.

This meaning is held by scholars as well.

- Ibn Hajar al Asqallani:

Ibn hajr understood this to be a literal reference to actual sheep herding in his sharh of this hadith (fath al bari 4/441):

> The wisdom in inspiring the prophets to herd sheep before prophethood is that they would thereby practice what they would be charged with in managing the affairs of their nations. > And because in associating with the sheep is what cultivates for them forbearance and compassion: > For if they are patient with herding them and gathering them after they scatter in the pasture, and transferring them from one pasture to another, and warding off enemies from them like beasts and others like thieves, and learning their differing natures and how scattered they become despite their weakness and their need for constant attention — they become accustomed to patience with the Ummah

Meaning the shepherding of the sheep is literal, and that they herded actual sheep.

> And sheep were especially singled out for this because they are weaker than other animals, and because their scattering is greater than that of camels and cattle, since camels and cattle can be restrained with ropes, whereas sheep generally cannot.

Meaning its actually sheep and not other animals like camels, cattle etc.

- Allama Ayni:

Allama ayni said in umdat al qari 12/80:

> If you ask: When did this herding occur in the Prophet’s ﷺ life? > (I say:) It is known from the examination of the words of Ibn Isḥāq and al-Wāqidī that it was when he and his uncle were around twenty years old. > ..... > If you ask: What is the reason for specifying sheep? > (I say:) Because they are weaker than other animals, more quickly responsive, and are from the animals of Paradise. > ...... > It also includes following his brethren among the Prophets who also herded sheep. > In a ḥadīth narrated by al-Nasāʾī, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: > Mūsā was sent while he was a shepherd of sheep, and Dāwūd was sent while he was a shepherd of sheep. > Upon both of them and upon him be Allah’s constant prayers and peace — forever and always.

As he compares the herding with the actual sheep herding from muhammads life, and also mentions the physical sheep herding of actual prophets, it means allama ayni also thinks this hadith is talking about physical sheep herding and its not a metaphor.

- Al Suyuti:

Imam Jalal ad din al Suyuti wrote in At-Tawshīḥ Sharḥ al-Jāmiʿ aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ 4/1601:

> “Allah did not send any prophet except that he herded sheep.” > The wisdom in that is: So that they gain practice through herding them for what they will later be tasked with — taking charge of their own communities (flocks).

Meaning he thinks the prophet did actually shepherd animals. The "them" here can only refer back to the "ghanam" of the part he is quoting, meaning prophets shepherded sheep/goats.

- Al Qastallani:

Al qastallani says the same in his sharh:

> And the wisdom in inspiring them — may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon them —__ to tend sheep before prophethood__, is so that they gain practice through it for what they will be tasked with in leading their nations.

Same as above, the prophets actually physically tended to sheep.

> And because in mixing with them (sheep) there is an increase in forbearance and compassion, since they (the shepherds) are patient over the hardship of herding, and protect them from fierce beasts and thieving hands, > > and they learn the differing temperaments of the sheep and the variance of their minds, and recognize their weakness and need to be moved from pasture to pasture, and from grazing ground to shelter, > > so they show kindness to the weak among them and take good care of them — it is thus a preparation for introducing them to the governance of their peoples. And sheep were specified because they are weaker than other animals.

Again, he is clear that its actually sheep and not any other animal

> And in the Prophet ﷺ mentioning this — after it is known that he is the noblest of Allah’s creation — is an example of humility and an open acknowledgment of Allah’s favor upon him.

- Zakarriya al Ansari:

Shaykh al-Islām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī mentions in his sharh called Tuḥfat al-Bārī bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (vol 6/ pg 9):

> (And you?) – This is without the interrogative Hamza, meaning "And you, did you also herd the sheep?" (He said: "Yes, I used to herd them on Qarārīṭ," where Qirāṭ here is a part of a Dinar or Dirham, or it is said to be a name of a place in Makkah (my note: this latter opinion was declared weak by ibn hajr as there is no place in makkah called qararit). The wisdom behind their herding of sheep before prophethood was to practice herding, which involved the difficulty of managing it, to prepare them for the tasks they would be entrusted with in guiding their nations.

Meaning the herding is literal.

> Sheep are specifically mentioned because they are weaker than other animals. And in mentioning this, despite his knowledge that he is the most honored of creation, it is an expression of humility and a statement of the favor of Allah upon him.

Meaning the herding is of sheep in specific. It might include other animals as well, but not without sheep.

Thus from this we can conclude that according to muhammad, all prophets were actual shepherds and actually herded sheep.

---

So whats the problem here? The problem lies in several quranic verses which tell us that every nation and people got a messenger.

A prophet is sent to all nations:

> Surah An Nahl (16:36) > وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَّسُولًا أن ٱعْبُدُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَٱجْتَنِبُوا۟ ٱلطَّاغُوتَ ۖ > > "And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger [proclaiming], 'Worship Allah and avoid Taghut (false gods).'"

Surah Fatir (35:24) > ...وَإِن مِّنْ أُمَّةٍ إِلَّا خَلَا فِيهَا نَذِيرٌۭ > > "...And there was never a nation but that a warner had passed among them."

Surah Nahl (10:47)

> وَلِكُلِّ أُمَّةٍۢ رَّسُولٌۭ ۖ فَإِذَا جَآء رسولهم قُضِىَ بَيْنَهُم بِٱلْقِسْطِ وَهُمْ لَا يُظلَمُونَ > And for every community there is a messenger. After their messenger has come, judgment is passed on them in all fairness, and they are not wronged.

The word used in these verses is "ummah" (أمة). It doesnt mean a nation like a fully formed monarchy etc., rather it means a "community" of people with the same purpose.

Lanes lexicon gives the following definition:

> A nation; a people; a race; a tribe, distinct body, or family; (Lth, T, M, Ḳ;) of mankind; (Lth, T;) or of any living beings; as alsoأُمٌّ↓: (M, Ḳ:) a collective body [of men or other living beings]; (T, Ṣ;) a sing. word with a pl. meaning: (Akh, Ṣ:) a kind, genus, or generical class, (T, Ṣ, M, Ḳ,) by itself, (T,) of any animals, or living beings, (T, Ṣ, M, TA,) others than the sons of Adam, (T,) as of dogs, (T, Ṣ, M,) and of other beasts, and of birds; (T, M,* TA;) as alsoأُمٌّ↓; (M, Ḳ;) pl. of the former أُمَمٌ; (Ṣ, M;) which occurs in a trad. as relating to dogs; (Ṣ;) and in the Ḳur vi. 38, as relating to beasts and birds. (T, M,* TA.)

Al-Tahānawī writes in Kashshāf Iṣṭilāḥāt al-Funūn wa-l-ʿUlūm

> "Al-Ummah (الأمّة): > [In English] Nation, community > [In French] Nation, communauté > > With ḍammah (the 'u' vowel): it means a group of any species. > For this reason, they said: al-ummah refers to a group united by a common factor — whether religion, time, place, or something else.

The same is for almaany.com as well.

We can see from other verses and ahadith that ummah simply means community, such as 6:38 which says all living creatures are ummahs, and sunan ibn majah 3205 that calls dogs one of the "ummahs".

Regarding these verses (16:36, 35:24), ibn kathir says:

> To every nation - that is, to every generation, to every community of people - He sent a Messenger. All of the Messengers called their people to worship Allah (Alone) as well as forbidding them from worshipping anything or anybody except for Him.

According to tafsir as sadi

> Allah informs us that His proof has been established upon all nations, and that there has never been any nation, whether preceding or following, except that Allah has sent a messenger to them. All of them were in agreement on one call and one religion: the worship of Allah alone, without any partners.

Tafsir al Tabari says:

> "and there is no nation but that there has passed within it a warner" — meaning, there has never been a nation from the nations that followed a particular religion, except that there was a warner among them before you, warning them of Allah's punishment for their disbelief. > > As narrated by Bishr, he said: Yazid narrated to us, he said: Sa'id narrated to us from Qatadah: > "And there is no nation but that there has passed within it a warner" — every nation had a prophet.

Tafsir al Qurtubi says:

> And there is no nation but that there has passed within it a warner" — meaning, there has never been a nation except that a prophet was sent to warn them before you. > > Regarding Ibn Jureij's statement: > He said: "Except for the Arabs."

As arabs are pointed out as the only exception here, it means every other nation got a prophet according to al Qurtubi.

Thus every nation and people (the chinese, indians, anglo-saxans, native americans, aboriginals, mayans etc.) got a prophet. And all of these prophets herded sheep

Here comes the main problem: Sheeps are not native to many parts of the world. Many parts of the world like australia, never had sheeps before the colonizers brought them in the 1700s.

In the americas while some sheep were present (in alaska and along the west coast down to the north of mexico. Sheep werent present in the middle parts of mexico or the rest of south america), they were never domesticated. For someone to herd sheeps, it requires that sheeps be domesticated first.

Beginning of sheep domestication:

Sheeps were first domesticated near the fertile crescent, thousands of miles away from the americas or australia

Ensminger writes about the origin of domestic sheep:

> It is certain that domestic sheep came from the wild sheep of Europe and Asia. Although there are considerable differences in appearance between domestic sheep and their wild ancestors, such as tail length, coat color and type, and horn shape, most of these changes occurred very early in the domestication process............ > > Domestic sheep are thought to descend mainly from the mouflons, Ovis musimon and Ovis orientalis. The Asiatic urial (Ovis vignei) may possibly be an ancestor of domestic sheep, but the difference in chromosome number makes any direct ancestry questionable.............................. > > There are two wild stocks of the mouflon: (1) the Asiatic mouflon (O. orientalis), a wild sheep still found in Asia Minor and southern Iran; and (2) the European mouflon (O. musimon), which is native to Europe and still found in Sardinia and Corsica.

https://imgur.com/a/KL8qhzN

Sue weaver talks about the origin of domestic sheep in her book "Sheep", Pg 12:

> "Sheep were already out in the world. Domestic sheep had reached parts of Europe by 5000 BC, having been carried west by intrepid Neolithic farmers. (Sheep remains have been recovered from a Swiss New Stone Age dig circa 2000 BC.) Swedish farmers began raising northern short-tailed sheep between 4000 and 3000 BC. Between 1000 BC and AD 1, Persians, Greeks, and Romans labored to develop new and better sheep. > > When Columbus embarked on his second voyage, in 1493, he packed along Spanish Churra sheep. He left some in Cuba and more in Santo Domingo. Their descendants trailed Cortez and his conquistadors as they pillaged their way across the New World."

A paper from nature says:

> Before becoming established worldwide, sheep and goats were domesticated in the fertile crescent 10,500 years before present (YBP) where their wild relatives remain.

A paper published in "Molecular biology and evolution" says:

> Sheep was one of the first domesticated animals in Neolithic West Eurasia. The zooarchaeological record suggests that domestication first took place in Southwest Asia....... > > Sheep, among the first such herded livestock species, were domesticated in southwest Asia c. 10,000 to 8,000 Before the Common Era (BCE) (Zeder 2008; Vigne 2011). Domestic sheep were eventually transported across the globe by humans, some becoming feral as in the case of the European Mouflon

https://imgur.com/a/3L9dI76

Thus its evident that the start of sheep domestication began around the near east roughly 10-12000 years ago. However, humans have been living in these areas for thousands of years before, with estimates at around 80,000 Bc for the oldest evidence of homo sapiens. (see here, here and here ). Meaning there would have been several tens of thousands of years where there were no domesticated sheep present, and thus any prophet send during this time would not have been a shephard.

Additionally, nations like australia are completely isolated from eurasia, and thus there is no feasable way for these domesticated sheep to get to australia without semi modern sea faring techniques.

We can learn from several sources that sheep (along with several other animals) only first entered australia after western contact in the 1780s.

A australian government educational site puts the history of sheep in australia as follows:

> The first sheep arrived in Australia with the First Fleet in 1788. They were fat-tailed sheep used for their meat. But they were not well suited to the Australian environment and did not produce good-quality wool. > > In 1797 Captain Henry Waterhouse and Lieutenant William Kent__ brought the first flock of 26 merino sheep to Australia.__

The national museum of Australia, another .gov site, says:

> The first sheep in Australia arrived with the First Fleet in 1788. There were 29 fat-tailed sheep listed on the fleet’s manifest, collected from the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa. Intended as a source of meat, they were not well suited to the Australian environment and, like the Indian sheep that were later imported, did not produce good quality wool.

according to wildlife tourism australia:

> Australia’s mammalian wildlife is very different from the rest of the world. There are no native hoofed animals, monkeys, cats or bears (and no truly native dogs, although the dingo has apparently been here for at least 3000 years), half of our mammals are marsupials, and we are t]he only continent with all three of the sub-classes of mammals.

National Archives of Australia, another government website says:

> Sheep are not native to Australia—they were brought to Australia in 1788 by the First Fleet to provide food for the new colony

Although not the most reputable source, wikipedia says:

> Since human settlement, many placental mammals have been introduced to Australia and are now feral. The first was the dingo; fossil evidence suggests that people from the north brought the dingo to Australia about 5000 years ago.[10] When Europeans settled Australia they intentionally released many species into the wild, including the red fox, brown hare, and the European rabbit. Other domestic species have escaped and over time have produced wild populations, including the cat, fallow deer, rusa deer, chital, domestic horse, donkey, pig, domestic goat, water buffalo, and dromedary. Only three species of Australia's non-indigenous placental mammals were not deliberately introduced: the house mouse, black rat and brown rat.

Michael Pearson writes in his book "Pastoral Australia: Fortunes, Failures and Hard Yakka", pg 3:

> __The first sheep to arrive on Australian soil with the First Fleet in 1788 __were not the Merinos we know today, but ‘Cape’ sheep acquired at the Cape of Good Hope. About 70 of these odd-looking fat-tailed sheep were landed in Sydney, but few survived.

An article from science says this about the current breeds of sheep in australia:

> From the founding flock onwards, sheep have played a key role in the development of colonial Australia > ......................... > Initially, livestock imported to Australia were viewed as a meat supply, and by the early 1800 s there were several different sheep breeds in Australia intended for the primary production of mutton > These included the hairy Ronderib Afrikaner or fat-tailed Cape sheep (imported 1788 from Cape of Good Hope), the Bengal (1793 from Bangladesh), as well as British shortwool and longwool breeds; the Southdown and Teeswater (imported 1790 s), respectively. > Throughout the 1800–1840 s, more British sheep breeds were imported into the initial mutton flocks, however these were known more for their wool quality, including the English Leicester (imported 1838) and the Lincoln (imported to Tasmania 1830 s and mainland 1860 s) > The most well-known wool breed in Australia however is the Merino, being first imported to Australia in 1797 from South Africa

P.J Jarman, A.K Lee and L.S. Hall write in "fauna of australia":

> "Almost all of the domestic stock brought to Australia established feral populations, with the exception of sheep."

Meaning sheeps were part of the domestic stock which got introduced to australia, and which was not present beforehand, like rabbits, buffalos, goats etc. The link to the article is here

https://imgur.com/a/mg2r1oL

Ian parsonson writes in his book "The Australian Ark: A history of domesticated animals in Australia" that the first sheep to be brought to australia were brought in 1787.

> The First Fleet sailed from Portsmouth, England, on 13 May 1787, and made a relatively uneventful voyage to Rio de Janeiro and thence to the Cape of Good Hope. During the stopover at the Cape final preparations for the voyage to Botany Bay were made, including the last collections of plant cuttings, seeds, and finally purchases animals. **In this manner the first exotic ruminants, horses, swine, birds, rabbits and other species to reach the colony of New Holland were chosen. ** > At the Cape of Good Hope on 12 November 1787 the loading of animals was completed. According to David Collins,6 referring to the official purchases “1 bull, 1 bull-calf, 7 cows, 1 stallion, 3 mares and 3 colts together with as great a number of rams, ewes, goats, boars and breeding sows as room could be provided for loaded”.

https://imgur.com/a/iYm7NdX

From these several government and academic sources, we can see that there were no sheep present in australia before 1787. The australians only domesticated a few animals like the dingo.

This means that any prophet who were send to the aboriginals literally could not have herded sheep, as they werent even present in australia. The aboriginals themselves entered australia atleast 50-65000 years ago (according to this, this and this )far before the domestication of sheep.

Sheeps in the americas?

While the americas are different from australia in the way that there were sheep present, they are still a problem for this hadith. The sheep in the americas were never domesticated; native americans only had a few animals like llamas and alpacas which they had domesticated. Additonally, while sheep were present in north america, south america did not have sheep. The furthest extent was down towards the northernmost parts of mexico, the rest of south america did not have sheep.

Evidence for Pre-Columbian Animal Domestication in the New World -D.L. Johnson ,B.K. Swartz, Jr., Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana

> There were seven domesticated animals kept in the New World before European discovery....[The dog, "llama", guinea pig, turkey, Muscovy duck, stingless bee, and the cochineal insect comprise the list of known Pre Columbian, New World animal domesticates.]

The goat and the sheep are suspiciously absent....

Animal Domestication in South America -Peter W. Stahl

> Native Americans domesticated comparatively few indigenous animals, in contrast to the many animals that were genetically and behaviorally modified from their wild ancestors through captive controlled breeding in the Old World. New World animal domesticates included only two large birds (the turkey in North America and muscovy duck, Cairina moschata, from Mexico south into South America), a medium-sized rodent (guinea pig, Cavia porcellus), and two camelids (llama, Lama glama, and alpaca, Vicugna pacos).

Again, the sheep is not part of the few domesticated animals.

The colombian exchange

-J.R McNeill, Jared Dease

> The Columbian Exchange also brought horses, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and other species to the Americas. Before Columbus, American Indian societies in the Andes Mountains had domesticated llamas and alpacas, but no other animals weighing more than 45 kg (100 lbs). None of the other twenty-three large mammal species present in the Americas before the arrival of Columbus were suitable for domestication. In contrast, Eurasia had seventy-two large animal species, of which thirteen were suitable for domestication. The main domesticated animals of the pre-Colombian Americas, aside from llamas and alpacas, were dogs, turkeys, and guinea pigs.

Christopher Carr explains why sheep werent domesticated in his lengthy paper "Why Didn't the American Indians Domesticate Sheep?"

> One of the striking differences between the Neolithic Revolutions in the Old and New Worlds is in the degree to which animal domestication occurred. While in western Eurasia, sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, and horses all played important roles in the change to Neolithic ways of life,** in North and Middle America, the domesticated animals were apparently limited to the dog and turkey, both of which were secondary in importance to plant domestication in this life change.**

> The distribution of wild sheep does not now reach and never has reached the Mexican centers of plant domestication and early sedentism. Ovis canadensis, the American bighorn sheep. ranges south only into central Sonora, Chihuahua. and Coahuila, the northernmost of the states of Mexico

> Why didn't prehistoric man domesticate sheep in North America as he did in the Near East? In part, the answer may be found in the different ecological habits and biological processes of the Asiatic moufton and the American bighorn. In part, it may be found in the different geographical distributions of sheep in relationship to the areas of origins of agriculture and sedentism. In part, it may be found in the relative ease with which a shift to management of wild resources, as opposed to other options, could have been made in times of economic pressure.

He also explains how the wild sheep never went past the northernmost states of mexico

From this we can conclude that sheep were never domesticated by the native americans. They did use to hunt sheep (see here and here ), but sheep were never domesticated. However, for someone to herd sheep, it is required that sheeps first get domesticated and bred. This was not the case in northern america, and certainly not in southern america below mexico. Thus no prophet sent here could have been a shepherd

Beginning of Goat domestication:

A criticism might be levied that thus far i have only focused on sheep, whereas the definition of ghanam also includes goats. What if australia and the americas had goats? To which i will say that the definition of ghanam is "sheep and goats [and both togethor]". It doesnt refer to just one, but both togethor. Thus if sheep were not present, ghanam could not have been present as sheep are included in it.

Either way, lets grant that perhaps the prophet was talking about goats. That does not change anything, as goats too face the same problems as sheep i.e. their domestication started tens of thousands of years after the beginning of our species, and their absence and lack of domestication in australia and the americas.

We can learn from several sources that goat domestication began roughly around the time as sheep domestication.

A research from GSE says:

> Goats are among the “big five” livestock species (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and chickens) recognized by the FAO [1] and are considered as the first to have been domesticated. Domestication occurred around 10,000 years ago (YBP year before present) in Southwest Asia, with at least four distinct domestication events [2], which all involved the bezoar (Capra aegagrus) as wild ancestor.

A paper from nature says:

> Goat domestication occurred in the Fertile Cresent from 9,900 to 10,500 YBP. The Bezoar ibex (Capra aegagrus) is thought to be the only living wild progenitor of the goat

A research published by PNAS says:

> The archaeological evidence traces goat domestication as far back as ca. 10,500 calibrated Before Present (cal. B.P.) in the high Euphrates valleys, in Southeastern Anatolia ) and 9900 to 9500 cal. B.P. in the Zagros mountains

A paper at Science says:

> Initial goat domestication is documented in the highlands of western Iran at 10,000 calibrated calendar years ago

David R. Harris says in his book "The Origins And Spread Of Agriculture And Pastoralism In Eurasia", pg 208 that:

> The earliest strong evidence for goat management in Southwest Asia comes from levels dated to 7000 BC at Ganj Dareh in western Iran (cf. Legge and Hole in Chs 13 and 14 in this volume).

Thus we once again fall into the same problem as before; if goats were only first domesticated 10,000 years agp (7-8k BC), and humans have been here for much longer, the prophets sent to these pre-goat humans could not have herded them.

Goats in Australia?

A peer reviewed paper from veterinary parasitology says:

> Goats are not native to Australia; they first arrived with European settlers first in 1788 to provide a source of milk and meat. Numerous other introductions occurred thereafter and before long feral goat populations became established (Rolls, 1969)

According to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania, a .gov site;

> Goats first arrived in the Australian landscape with the first fleet in 1788. They were small and easy to transport, hardy and ate a range of plants - as well as providing milk and meat for the early years of a growing colony.

Agriculture victoria, a government site related to asutralian agriculture, says:

> Feral goats have been present in Australia since early European settlement. Wild populations have become established because of accidental escape or deliberate release of various breeds of domestic goats. Early populations were initially concentrated near settlement areas, but they have since spread across 35% of Australia and occur on many offshore islands. > > Goats were introduced to many areas by early settlers, miners and railway construction gangs for meat and milk. > > Cashmere and Angora goats were also introduced to Australia in the mid-1800s for the fibre industry

A paper on the history of feral goats by the DSEWPC, Govt. of Australia says:

> Goats arrived in Australia with the First Fleet in 1788. As they were small and hardy, ate a range of plants and provided milk and meat, they were convenient livestock for early European settlers. During the 19th century, sailors released goats onto islands and some areas of the mainland for emergency food

A paper written by C.P. Groves for The fauna of Australia says:

> The present feral populations are all descended from 19th Century escapees from domestic stock........... > > Sheep (Ovis aries) (Merino breed) were brought to Sydney district in 1779 from the Cape of Good Hope......... > > The Goat (Capra hircus) was introduced early in the 19th Century and herds supplemented in the mid-19th Century by Angora and Cashmere stock introduced by acclimatisation societies.

The paper further says: > "There is, of course, no fossil record of Bovidae in Australia."

While previously clarifying that goats and cattle are part of the famoly bovidae (which includes all "cloven-hoofed, ruminant mammals that includes cattle, bison, buffalo, antelopes, sheep and goats" according to wiki

One can also look at the above cited page from The australian ark, which mentions that goats and other cattle were only first brought to australia with western ships.

Thus there is no doubt about the fact that goats were not native to australia.

Goats in the americas?

Several of the sources which related to sheep, also relate to goats. Which point out that goats were not part of the domesticated animals in the new world. Some also says that goat domestication, with sheep domestication, only began with the colombian exchange.

A research from the GSE says:

> Goats reached the Americas and Oceania approximately during the 15th and 18th century of the common era (CE), respectively, along with European migrations

A paper published in nature says:

> Western hemisphere goats have European, African and Central Asian origins........ > ....... > Goat domestication occurred in the Fertile Cresent4 from 9,900 to 10,500 YBP. The Bezoar ibex (Capra aegagrus) is thought to be the only living wild progenitor of the goat5. Upon domestication, goats accompanied human migration and trade, thereby developing subpopulations and breeds differentiated by various selection factors and genetic drift6. > > During the colonization of the western hemisphere, settlers brought goats potentially from the Iberian Peninsula and west Africa, These populations have become well adapted to low input agricultural environments typically found in northeastern Brazil, west Texas, and southern Argentina (Patagonia)8,9, creating locally adapted breeds.

as for south america, we can turn to Andre Gunder Frank in his books "Mexican agriculture", pg 20 where he says:

> Another commercial commodity produced by the Spanish, particularly in Yucatan and Guatemala, was indigo. The Spaniards also introduced livestock into New Spain — first pigs, and then successively sheep and cattle.

As we can see, the conditions of goats pre-columbus is the same as sheep; they were either not present in the areas or not domesticated

---

Conclusion:

Although islamic sources tell us that all prophets herded sheep/goats, and that prophets were sent to all nations, this would be impossible for nations which simply did not have sheep/goats present (like the australians and southern americans) or which never domesticated them (like the north americans).

P1: All prophets herded sheeps and goats.

P2: A prophet was sent to every nation.

P3: There exists at least one nation that had no sheep/goats (Australia)

C1: Therefore, the prophet sent to that nation could not have herded them (from P2 and P3)

C2: Therefore, not all prophets herded sheeps and goats.

C3: Therefore, P1 is false.

C4: Therefore, Muhammad's claim that all prophets herded sheep/goats and that prophets were sent to all nations is logically inconsistent in light of P3

Additonally, the history of homo sapiens extends several tens of thousands of years back, whereas sheep domestication only began in the fertile crescent around 10-12000 years ago. Thus making it impossible for any prophet sent before that time to be a shephard and herd sheep.

What has happened here is that muhammad saw how important sheep were to both him and people around him, and thought that sheep must have been this important to everyone. What he didnt know was that sheep domestication started far later then the birth of our species, and that sheep never got to many nations by the time of muhammad.

https://youtu.be/KFZl-hwrAEg?is=EcpEZMJMF4aAi-2I

I recently made a video reacting to viral “deconstructing Islam” clips and discussions around Muslim women, TikTok Islam, and modern interpretations of the religion.

The video talks about:
• Allah’s mercy and justice
• Quranism vs following hadith
• music in Islam debates
• hijab and modern MuslimTok discourse
• decentering men in religious discussions
• social media’s influence on faith
• returning to authentic Islamic understanding

I’m genuinely curious to hear different perspectives respectfully.

website with the greatest problems in Islam, citing the Quran and authentic hadiths:

https://islamsproblems.com/contents/

First things first, and I'm sorry if my points don't seem fully fleshed out, I feel like I've spoken about these points so many times my brain has been fried haha. I am constantly just thinking about religions and feel 'burnt out' so if my exhaustion comes through please forgive it.

Regarding 4:34:

"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

I have grown up with the explanation that this is merely a tap with the miswak. This is the explanation also provided by Sheikh Assim Al-Hakeem. I was also informed that the Prophet himself has never beat women, however, coming across multiple haadiths, it seems that this 'tapping' explanation does not actually hold up.

First, according to this haadith, Reference : Sunan an-Nasa'i 3964 In-book reference : Book 36, Hadith 26, indicates that the Prophet did indeed strike Aisha.

"Shall I not tell you about the Prophet and I?" We said: "Yes." She said: "When it was my night when he" -meaning the Prophet- "was with me, he came in, placed his shoes by his feet, lay down his Rida' (upper garment), and spread the edge of his Izar (lower garment) on his bed. As soon as he thought that I had gone to sleep, he put his shoes on slowly, and picked up his Rida' slowly. Then he opened the door slowly, went out and shut it slowly. I put my garment over my head, covered myself and put on my Izar (lower garment), and I set out after him until he came to Al-Baqi', raised his hands three times and stood there for a long time. Then he left and I left, he hurried and I hurried, he ran and I ran, and I got there before him and entered (the house). I had only just laid down when he came in and said: 'O 'Aishah, why are you out of breath?' She said: 'No.' He said: 'Either you tell me or Allah, the All-Aware, All-Knowing, will tell me.' I said: 'O Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be sacrificed for you;' and I told him the story. He said: 'You were the black shape I saw in front of me?' I said: 'Yes.'" She said: "He gave me a shove in the chest that hurt me and said: 'You thought that Allah and His Messenger would be unfair to you.' She said: 'Whatever people conceal, Allah knows it.' He said: 'Yes.' He said: 'Jibril came to me when you saw (me leave) but he did not enter upon you because you have taken off your garments. So he called me but he concealed himself from you, and I answered him, but I concealed it from you. I thought that you had gone to sleep and I did not want to wake you, and I was afraid that you would feel lonely. He told me to go to Al-Baqi' and pray for forgiveness for them.'" 'Asim reported it from 'Abdullah bin 'Amir, from 'Aishah, with a wording different from this."

When speaking to my Sheikh regarding this and asking for an explanation, I apologize for saying this, but he lied to me, claiming it is a mistranslation and that the correct translation is that the Prophet 'merely placed his hand on her chest and she felt it'. However, prior to my meeting with the Sheikh, I put the Haadith in a translator and and the translation is more jarring than what is actually presented on Sunnah.com which is "Then he struck me on the chest, a blow that hurt me, and then he said, 'Did you think that God and His Messenger would wrong you?". Hence, this made me reevaluate and realize that you are indeed allowed to beat your wife, perhaps until no visible wounds appear, but you are most definitely allowed for it to hurt her. I was up recently at 2 am, it sounds so silly, trying to slap my own arm to see how much pressure do I have to put before a wound appears. Despite restraining myself, because naturally your own body does not allow you to cause physical harm to yourself, I was not able to see redness appear but the pain was definitely felt.

As Muslims, we are taught that Prophet is the 'walking Quran', thus, coming across specific Haadiths has forced me to reevaluate what I have been taught regarding the standard narrative of the treatment of women in Islam. Please note, I attended an Islamic school from Grade 5-12 (1-2 year I did not attend due to personal reasons) and took Islamic history classes in University. My book collections contain a few Seerahs of the Prophet, and plenty of the various Muslim empires, and I spent 90% of my time devouring Islamic content online, so while I am definitely not the most knowledgeable, I have been described by others to know quite a bit.

Another Haadith that needs to be brought in question:

Narrated `Abdullah bin Zam`a:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."

Reference	: Sahih al-Bukhari 5204
In-book reference	: Book 67, Hadith 138

Similarly, in this Haadith:

"The Prophet (ﷺ) then mentioned about the women (in his sermon). "It is not wise for anyone of you to lash his wife like a slave, for he might sleep with her the same evening." "

Reference	: Sahih al-Bukhari 4942
In-book reference	: Book 65, Hadith 463

I did not get a response from my Sheikh when I inquired why the Haadith did not end at 'none of you should flog your wife'. The haadith states do not lash your wife as you lash your slave. Moreover, why is the justification for not flogging your wife tied to physical intimacy? Why can't it be because she is your wife, because you love her, and care for her?

The Quran states that men are the protectors and providers of women - but how can God ordain man to protect women but also allow them to beat women?

I also want to clarify, a lot of the Haadiths and my points I bring in front of you are not recent discoveries, I knew almost majority of them of them growing up, and had flashes of doubts but would simply repress my thoughts as 'waswas', however, I cannot ignore them anymore.

Umar

There is also this haadith where Umar himself asked the Prophet for permission to beat their wives as they have become 'bold' as follows:

It was narrated that Iyas bin 'Abdullah bin Abu Dhubab said:

"The Prophet said: 'Do not beat the female slaves of Allah.' Then 'Umar came to the Prophet and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, the woman have become bold towards their husbands? So order the beating of them,' and they were beaten. Then many women went around to the family of Muhammad,. The next day he said: 'Last night seventy women came to the family of Muhammad, each woman complaining about her husband. You will not find that those are the best of you.' "

Reference	: Sunan Ibn Majah 1985
In-book reference	: Book 9, Hadith 141

I asked my Sheikh, why did the Prophet ALLOW for the beating of women when Umar, the Second Caliph of Islam, asked for it. I was told in response 'but he said at the end those were not the best of men'. I then followed-up with why did he allow women to get beat in the first place? To which my Sheikh informed that some aspects were cultural norms, he then provided an example of how when he was younger, received beatings from his teacher. To which I responded that I was taught the Prophet came to teach us what is right and wrong, and that he is a role model for all times and places. I informed that there were many things that were part of the culture at that time, however, they were made haram - such as music and adoption. The response I got to this was the Sheikh's opinion on music.

I don't understand why certain things are justified using 'cultural norms' at that time when we clearly see that the Prophet did change elements of the culture that was ingrained into that society.

There is another Haadith:

Narrated `Ikrima:

Rifa`a divorced his wife whereupon `AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. `Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came, `Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When `AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, `Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa`a." Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa`a unless `Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet (ﷺ) saw two boys with `Abdur- Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that `AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,"

Reference	: Sahih al-Bukhari 5825
In-book reference	: Book 77, Hadith 42

In this haadith, there is MUCH to breakdown, but focusing on the beating element. There is a woman who had come to show Aisha her wounds caused by beating from her husband that Aisha described as it being more green than her clothing. Again, this took place at the time of the Prophet himself. Why was I told that that disciplining was merely a 'miswak tap' and it cannot cause wounds? Moreover, what does the statement of Aisha imply, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women." especially when we look the fact that she saw it after the woman's wounds. Also note how this haadith also states 'it was the habit of ladies to support each other' after stating the woman came to show Aisha her wounds, does this then imply that women often got beaten and sought each others emotional support as you often see in Pakistan?

Upon seeing it, the Prophet did not make any comments to the husband regarding the wounds he inflicted on her. Again, if the standard narrative of the 'miswak tap - no wounds no broken bones' that we have been taught is the way to go about disciplining your wife, why did the Prophet not reprimand the husband for causing such a heavy wound that evoked this type of response from Aisha?

I can speak more and more on this, but what does it also say, that Umar asked for the beating of wives and then arguably carried the action out (also there are other instances where he hit slave women for donning the veil - a discussion of its own) and we are informed that he is one of the 10 Promised Jannah? What does it tell Muslim women? Are women not the creations of God Almighty?

My intention with this post is not to cause fitnah. I have taken my questions and searched online and took them to a respectable Sheikh and yet, my questions have not been answered. How many times can women be told 'it is out of context' knowing very well when there are aspects in other religions, Muslims do not give the grace of 'out of context'.