Chapter Five: The Attributes of an Effect Indicate the Attributes of its Cause in Humans

Chapter Five

The Attributes of an Effect Indicate the Attributes of its Cause

in Humans

The Superior Intelligence Machine: The Human Brain

The brain as an intelligence machine is irrefutable evidence that evolution is purposeful, as I have explained previously. The gene that builds the intelligence machine is the best gene, because it is the best survival machine in the competition for survival. Whenever a gene for building an intelligence machine is found in life, evolution will refine it to move toward greater intelligence. This proves that evolution is purposeful, and this is enough to prove the existence of a god behind the purpose.

Many theories have been proposed to explain the rapid and continuous brain growth in the ancestors of humans over the last few million years, until the brain of Homo sapiens was reached. All of these theories can be summarized with one statement: the brain is the best survival machine, so whenever suitable conditions are available, and when mutation provides genes for its improvement, whether in size or in quality, it will inevitably move quickly toward improvement.

The brain is an ideal survival machine for the organism, but the economic cost to the body is high, because it requires a large amount of energy to function compared to other body parts. A more developed brain means the body as a whole will require larger quantities of food. Accordingly, there is an equation that states that whenever the improvement of this machine through genetic mutation is able to help the body gather greater amounts of food in order to achieve sufficiency and the ability to reproduce, or provide an additional opportunity to survive danger, or prepare it for a greater capacity for social communication, then it is certain that natural selection will firmly establish a mutant gene like this as quickly as possible. The brain will grow in this way as long as genetic mutations toward improvement are available. The brain is the ideal survival machine, which is why it is normal for natural selection to continue evolving the intelligence machine of the organism, until every improvement provided by genetic mutation is exhausted.

Perhaps the most important thing that has set the human ancestors of Africa apart in the last few million years is their social life. They would hunt and combine their strength, so they were able to survive more effectively in groups. Optimal communication between individuals is central to building a successful group that will survive. In order to achieve optimal communication, they require a language that evolves more and more, developing to fulfil their communication needs. Therefore, every new generation may find themselves encountering more words and more information that must be memorized when compared to the previous generation. With time, the words and information increase in complexity, and may also evolve and multiply. So in the beginning, language may have consisted of sign language and a few sounds, which, in time, multiply and become more complex, increasing the need to improve the memorization machine-the brain. Whenever genetic mutation provides this improvement, it inevitably becomes selected and firmly established by natural selection because individuals who carry this improvement gene become better able to survive, reproduce, and pass their genes to subsequent generations. The genes for brain improvement, whether in size or quality, continue to increase and become established in the gene pool that exists in nature. Brain size will gradually increase in this way.

The only accurate explanation that biologists have for the abundant availability of brain improvement mutations-just in the ancestors of humans perhaps-especially in the last few million years (specifically the last two million) is the known fact provided by the fossil record: there is a recurring pattern in evolution, which is that the speed in evolution is inconsistent in general. There are pauses or semi-pauses, and conversely, there is a relatively high speed by evolutionary standards alongside these pauses. This evolutionary pattern cannot explain how genetic mutation made consecutive improvement mutations available at certain time periods and at great speed relative to the generally slow history of evolution, because when we are talking about the speed of evolution, or its speed toward improvement in particular, it is as if we are saying that there is rapid genetic mutation geared toward improvement. These two issues go hand in hand, as there is no evolution without genetic mutation. The fact that genetic mutation makes a remarkable number of improvement mutations available for the body part of a specific species, and at a particular time period, cannot be accounted for by those who say that genetic mutation is completely, and one hundred percent, random.

We can say that the matter is purposeful and intentional because genetic mutation provided improvement mutations both in size and in quantity specifically for the human brain in the most recent time period in particular, so it is unreasonable to attribute it to pure chance alone.

Why did genetic mutation provide so many improvement mutations in size and quality for the human brain in the most recent time period in particular (approximately two million years)?!

Why were improvement mutations of the brain not provided for other organisms, such as the chimpanzee?!

An evolutionary biologist could respond by hypothesizing that the mutations were also provided for the chimpanzee and others, but they were economically costly as the brain requires a great deal of energy in order to work. Therefore, any improvement of the brain does not just mean a better ability to obtain food, escape enemies, and survive, but it also increases the need for additional energy and food, thus placing the animal in additional danger. Since the chimpanzee is not bipedal, it could not enjoy the ideal benefit of these mutations in order for them to be selected, which is why these genes were not established in the chimpanzee gene pool. However, since humans were bipedal, the benefit of these mutations outweighed the cost and hence they were selected and established in the human gene pool.

However, this response still means that evolution is purposeful and planned in order to reach a specific purpose, since based on this answer, the steps of evolution are built in a way that resembles the arrangement of a puzzle. The steady improvement of the brain, whether in size or in quality, towards the production of a superior brain, is a step that has only ever been achieved by humans, because it is built upon the previous step of bipedalism. The superior brain was achieved only after bipedalism was achieved, so the matter is organized and not random. Evolution of the brain in both size and quality in the most recent time period (about two million years) required preliminary steps that had to be built before it. Without them it would never have occurred, even if suitable improvement mutations were available. In short, this means that no matter how the process of evolution proceeded, it would have produced the human being or the bipedal, intellectual being with a superior brain, because mutation and selection must eventually provide a bipedal animal sooner or later. If this animal were to become available, its brain would have to evolve substantially, both in size and quality, to produce for us the animal with the superior brain, or the human being. Since mutation and selection must do this sooner or later, we must reach this result, the modern humans, or Homo Sapiens.

If a person does not want to accept this result as a whole, they have no escape from accepting what I have shown with decisive evidence: that no matter what path it takes, evolved life must produce intelligence in some way, as long as sufficient time is available.

What is inseparable from the opinion of Carl Sagan and other scientists regarding intelligence-whether he admitted this result or not-is that life and evolution have a purpose, because that is the only meaning of the statement that the intelligence machine is a purpose that evolving life must reach, no matter where it exists in the universe we live in.

The number of advanced civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy today depends on many factors, ranging from the number of planets per star to the likelihood of the origin of life. But once life has started in a relatively benign environment and billions of years of evolutionary time are available, the expectation of many of us is that intelligent beings would develop (Sagan 1978, 240).

However, there are those who do not accept that the intelligence machine is an inevitable product of the existence of life, and they object to it. Stephen Hawking says:*

So how does one account for our lack of extraterrestrial visitors? It could be that there is an advanced race out there which is aware of our existence but is leaving us to stew in our own primitive juices. However, it is doubtful it would be so considerate to a lower life-form: do most of us worry how many insects and earthworms we squash underfoot? A more reasonable explanation is that there is a very low probability either of life developing on other planets or of that life developing intelligence. Because we claim to be intelligent, though perhaps without much ground, we tend to see intelligence as an inevitable consequence of evolution. However, one can question that. It is not clear that intelligence has much survival value. Bacteria do very well without intelligence and will survive us if our so-called intelligence causes us to wipe ourselves out in a nuclear war. So as we explore the galaxy we may find primitive life, but we are not likely to find beings like us (Hawking 2001, 171).

In truth, the objection of Hawking and many others cannot be used against what we sought to prove previously, because we do not wish to prove that the intelligence machine is the best machine for enabling bodies to survive under all conditions, including extreme ones. Rather, all we wish to prove is that the intelligence machine is the best survival machine when competing with peers for food and survival in the journey of the evolution of life, so evolution must reach and evolve the intelligence machine if sufficient time is available.

In order for the discussion to be scientific and accurate, it must be restricted to the effect that the intelligence machine has on organisms throughout the journey of evolution, and to comparing it to other survival machines in the competition for food and survival. In that case, we would inevitably and inescapably conclude that the intelligence machine is the ideal survival machine.

The discussion here, though fictional, will be about bacteria or single-celled eukaryotic organisms. If the intelligence machine appeared in some of these organisms due to mutation, they would have a survival advantage, because it would give them an advantage over other survival machines such as speed or biological weapons when it comes to acquiring food and escaping enemies. Therefore, evolution selects the intelligence machine and evolves it, and so on. Thus, the issue is settled and there is no escape for Hawking, Dawkins and others, except by assuming the presence of frozen life in living bacterial fossils. This is an imaginary assumption that cannot be achieved in reality, as long as there is mutation of improvement and sufficient time to establish it.

The truth is, even at the level of the fallacy presented by Hawking and others, we can say that whenever bacteria enter a competitive race for survival with organisms intelligent enough, intelligence undoubtedly wins. The best evidence for this is what is happening now in the medical field: does Hawking doubt that our intelligence enables us to win over the bacteria that attack our bodies, and to eliminate many types of harmful bacteria in any particular location we choose, such as the operating room? It is not improbable to imagine that humans will one day be capable of eliminating any type of bacteria or eukaryotic microscopic organism on the earth as a whole.

I believe it has now been settled that as long as there is evolution, it is purposeful and its purpose is to produce the intelligence machine. Moreover, as long as there is purpose, there must be a purposeful lawmaker behind it who wants to achieve that purpose. Even if we do not see him with our eyes, here we have seen him with our intellect and with the intelligence machines produced by the message he had sent, which brought us into existence as intellectual biological bodies.

It is certainly beneficial that human beings used the intelligence machine to reach the theory of quantum mechanics, the equivalence principle, and later the production of nuclear energy. The intelligence machine has not erred so far. If we used the intelligence machine, it would not tell us to make nuclear weapons and set them off on the earth. If there is a nuclear war, it is certainly not a product of the intelligence machine. Rather, a nuclear war does not occur at all unless the human intelligence machine is frozen. The intelligence machine had no involvement in the senseless decision made by the United States government to strike Japan with nuclear weapons.

I believe it is unfair for the intelligence machine to be held responsible for behavior based on when it has been frozen.

Thought

Animals share our ability to think and respond. There are many examples in the animal kingdom, and perhaps the clearest known example is that of the great apes and their ability to use tools made of stone and tree branches to acquire food. Chimpanzees can learn sign language and can handle language intelligently. They accurately recognize their enemies, or whoever disturbs or harms them, and even try to offend them when given the chance. Chimpanzees have shown in some experiments that they have the ability to think, identify a problem, and find a solution. The orangutan has the ability to imitate and learn.

Alfred Russel Wallace, who co-discovered the theory of evolution, said that the orangutan baby’s behavior was “very like that of a baby in certain circumstances” (Wallace 1869, 66).*†

The intelligence of the orangutan (man of the woods) is wellknown by those who interact with it.

But in thinking over these experiments, two psychologists, Beatrice and Robert Gardner, at the University of Nevada realized that the pharynx and larynx of the chimp are not suited for human speech (Sagan 1978, 115).

The Gardners hit upon a brilliant idea: Teach a chimpanzee American sign language, known by its acronym Ameslan, and sometimes as “American deaf and dumb language” (the “dumb” refers, of course, to the inability to speak and not to any failure of intelligence). It is ideally suited to the immense manual dexterity of the chimpanzee. It also may have all the crucial design features of verbal languages (Sagan 1978, 115-16).

On seeing for the first time a duck land quacking in a pond, Washoe gestured “waterbird,” which is the same phrase used in English and other languages, but which Washoe invented for the occasion. Having never seen a spherical fruit other than an apple, but knowing the signs for the principal colors, Lana, upon spying a technician eating an orange, signed “orange apple.” After tasting a watermelon, Lucy described it as “candy drink” or “drink fruit,” which is essentially the same word form as the English “water melon.” But after she had burned her mouth on her first radish, Lucy forever after described them as “cry hurt food.” A small doll placed unexpectedly in Washoe’s cup elicited the response “Baby in my drink.” When Washoe soiled, particularly clothing or furniture, she was taught the sign “dirty”, which she then extrapolated as a general term of abuse. A rhesus monkey that evoked her displeasure was repeatedly signed at: “Dirty monkey, dirty monkey, dirty monkey.” Occasionally Washoe would say things like “Dirty Jack, gimme drink.” Lana, in a moment of creative annoyance, called her trainer “You green shit” (Sagan 1978, 117-18).

Alfred Wallace (1823-1913) was a British naturalist. He is considered to have discovered, along with Darwin, the theory of evolution by natural selection. He discovered it independently and sent his writings on the subject to Darwin.

Lucy was eventually able to distinguish clearly the meanings of the phrases “Roger tickle Lucy” and “Lucy tickle Roger,” both of which activities she enjoyed with gusto (Sagan 1978, 118).

At the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, they are learning a specific computer language called (by the humans, not the chimps) “Yerkish”…

Lana monitors her sentences on a computer display, and erases those with grammatical errors. Once, in the midst of Lana’s construction of an elaborate sentence, her trainer mischievously and repeatedly interposed, from his separate computer console, a word that made nonsense of Lana’s sentence. She gazed at her computer display, spied her trainer at his console, and composed a new sentence: “Please, Tim, leave room” (Sagan 1978, 119-20).

I would expect a significant development and elaboration of language in only a few generations if all the chimps unable to communicate were to die or fail to reproduce. Basic English corresponds to about 1,000 words. Chimpanzees are already accomplished in vocabularies exceeding 10 percent of that number. Although a few years ago it would have seemed the most implausible science fiction, it does not appear to me out of the question that, after a few generations in such a verbal chimpanzee community, there might emerge the memoirs of the natural history and mental life of a chimpanzee, published in English or Japanese (with perhaps an “as told to” after the by-line).

If chimpanzees have consciousness, if they are capable of abstractions, do they not have what until now has been described as “human rights”? How smart does a chimpanzee have to be before killing him constitutes murder? What further properties must he show before religious missionaries must consider him worthy of attempts at conversion?

I recently was escorted through a large primate research laboratory by its director. We approached a long corridor lined, to the vanishing point as in a perspective drawing, with caged chimpanzees. They were one, two or three to a cage, and I am sure the accommodations were exemplary as far as such institutions (or for that matter traditional zoos) go. As we approached the nearest cage, its two inmates bared their teeth and with incredible accuracy let fly great sweeping arcs of spittle, fairly drenching the lightweight suit of the facility’s director. They then uttered a staccato of short shrieks, which echoed down the corridor to be repeated and amplified by other caged chimps, who had certainly not seen us, until the corridor fairly shook with the screeching and banging and rattling of bars. The director informed me that not only spit is apt to fly in such a situation; and at his urging we retreated.

I was powerfully reminded of those American motion pictures of the 1930s and 40s, set in some vast and dehumanized state or federal penitentiary, in which the prisoners banged their eating utensils against the bars at the appearance of the tyrannical warden. These chimps are healthy and well-fed. If they are “only” animals, if they are beasts which abstract not, then my comparison is a piece of sentimental foolishness. But chimpanzees can abstract. Like other mammals, they are capable of strong emotions…

The cognitive abilities of chimpanzees force us, I think, to raise searching questions about the boundaries of the community of beings to which special ethical considerations are due, and can, I hope, help to extend our ethical perspectives downward through the taxa on Earth and upwards to extraterrestrial organisms, if they exist (Sagan

1978, 126-28).

All of the above-if the details are correct-does not in any way mean that the human is just an animal body that evolved from the bodies that preceded it. The idea that animals and us have thinking and abstraction in common, at lower levels, is an issue acknowledged by religion-or at least Islam. It is stated in the Quran:

﴾Until, when they came upon the valley of the ants, an ant said, "O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not." • And he took attendance of the birds and said, "Why do I not see the hoopoe-or is he among the absent? • But the hoopoe did not stay long and said, "I have encompassed that which you have not encompassed, and I have come to you from Sheba with certain news.”﴿ Quran Chapter “The Cattle” 6:18,20,22.

﴾And there is no creature on the earth or a bird that flies with its wings except that they are nations like yourselves. We have not neglected anything in the Book. Then unto their Lord they will be gathered.﴿ Quran Chapter “The Cattle” 6:38.

If we believe in evolution, then we certainly believe that the human being’s ability to think has also evolved over time along with the evolution of the human brain in terms of size and quality. However, it is a very unique ability when compared to the rest of the animals. I have previously shown that the evolution of the intelligence machine is evidence for an inevitable purpose for evolution on the earth. Then, we clarified how the relative speed of evolution of the human brain over the last two million years and its transformation into a superior brain is evidence that our brains in particular are a purpose of evolution. Wherever we were able to prove that evolution is purposeful, we proved the existence of a god behind it.

We would now like to move from the intelligence machine to its product, and see what distinguishes us culturally from the rest of the animals, with unequivocal clarity.

We now want to prove the existence of God to be through the unique culture specifically, rather than through the distinct ability of humans to socialize and communicate, and through the development of an accompanying linguistic method. There are many animals that live an organized social life to varying degrees, such as ants, bees, hyenas, lions, chimpanzees, and orangutans. They have linguistic means of communication for understanding one another, including the sign language used by bees, organisms far lower than chimpanzees.

Therefore, our research on human culture and its indication of the existence of God will not be about having a brain or an intelligence machine, or the ability to think and abstract. Instead, it will be about the unique human culture that suddenly appeared a few thousand years ago, and how this culture indicates the existence of God. This culture represents a developed, moral system of life. We can identify this culture clearly by what entered human life at a specific time: giving others their rights, establishing laws relevant to this, and a genuine altruism that is not built on genetic selfishness or the expectation of benefit, as well as setting down the foundations of knowledge and advanced life such as laws of punishments, reading, writing, systems of calculations, and so on. We want to demonstrate that they came through external teachings and radical change that happened to human life.

The following is a clear and obvious admission by Dawkins that these issues come through teaching, and they completely oppose the animal biology that controls our animal bodies:

I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all too numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true. This book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to (Dawkins 1989, 3).

We need to learn altruism, and this is what I will discuss in the following section. Together we will try to discover who taught us or where we learned genuine altruism, which is completely against our selfish biological composition that directs us with genetic selfishness.

Two Comments:

Animal Rights:

The issue of animal rights and respecting animals mentioned by Dr. Sagan-and even their ability to perceive religion to some extent which subsequently qualifies them for religious guidance at their level-is acknowledged by Islam and the Quran, or at least the creed of the progeny of Muhammad pbut. In the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet and the Imams pbut, it is mentioned that animals are nations like us and they must be respected.

﴾And there is no creature on the earth or a bird that flies with its wings except that they are nations like yourselves. We have not neglected anything in the Book. Then unto their Lord they will be gathered.﴿ Quran Chapter “The Cattle” 6:38.

The progeny of Muhammad pbut mentioned that it is detestable for a person who raises a sheep and treats it with kindness to slaughter it, because this sheep has become accustomed to receiving kindness from them. This is evidence that the true Islam relayed by Ahl al-Bayt considers the sheep to have feelings and emotions that must be respected.

It was said to Abu AlHasan pbuh: “I had a sheep, that I fattened so I could sacrifice it, and when I took it and laid it down [to slaughter it], it looked at me, invoking my mercy and compassion, but then I slaughtered it.” Abu AlHassan pbuh said, “I wouldn’t have liked for you to do that. Don’t raise one of them and then slaughter it (Al-Hurr Al-Amili 1983, vol 24, 92).

Certainly, many animals heard the call to religious guidance at the level of the prophets pbut and the successors. In the Quran we have stories of animals that heard about the calls of the prophets, such as the hoopoe and the ant in the story of Solomon pbuh.

Ali, Fatimah and Their Young Upset the Design of the Selfish Gene, so is there Anyone to Contemplate?

Dawkins said:

Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to (Dawkins 1989, 3).

The truth is, a fair person must say that we as a human species have indeed ruined the selfishness of genes. The high morals, or the genuine altruism that was spread by the prophets and messengers of God and that was brought by the Abrahamic religions, has destroyed this selfishness. The selfish gene says, “My son is better than my nephew; my brother is better than my cousin; my cousin is better than the stranger; the son of my city is better than the son of the other city; the son of my country is better than the son of the other country; the son of my nationality is better than the son of the other’s nationality; and my country is better than the neighboring country.”

Prophets and religions brought kindness and altruism to the stranger above one’s self and children, and these altruistic morals spread among the people. I will mention just one story related to this-a historical story from the Quran that is famous in Islam. It is the story of the people of the message of Islam themselves, the progeny of Muhammad pbuhap, the prophet of Islam, in which Ali and Fatimah, daughter of Muhammad pbuhap, and their young children endured hunger after giving their food to the poor:

﴾And they feed food to the needy, the orphan, and the captive, in spite of their love for it, • [Saying], “We feed you only for the face of God. We do not desire any reward or thanks from you.”﴿ Quran Chapter “The Human” 76:7-8.

The Chapter “The Human” (Surah Al-Insan) tells the story of the true human who triumphed over his animalism, and who came to rescue others from their selfish genetic animalism. They were not looking for repute with this altruism, because it was discrete. They originally hid it and did not announce it or request reciprocal benefit for it. They gave, and took nothing, and giving was not easy for Ali and Fatimah pbut, because it was a risk to the lives of their children.

Thanks to these people, and similar individuals from the prophets and messengers of God, today we have individuals, groups and even countries that favor strangers over themselves, even if they give only a small amount that does not affect them. Perhaps sometimes, there are purposes behind the giving, but generally it is a step in the right direction that we reached thanks to these great individuals. They are the highest altruistic examples that mankind learned from.

Today, we have true victories over genetic selfishness, but they all depend on the efforts of the great prophets and messengers of God who gave the highest example of genuine altruism in order to save humanity from its animalism.

I believe the evolutionary biologist or the atheist sociobiologist should be prompted to at least review his calculations by the actions of Ali and Fatimah pbut, seeing that they diagnosed the disease of genetic selfishness and prescribed the cure for it over a thousand years before an evolutionary biologist even diagnosed it.

Ibn Abbas said: “Regarding the words of God Almighty: ﴾They fulfilled the vows and fear a day in which evil is widespread. • And they feed food to the needy, the orphan, and the captive, in spite of their love for it.﴿ [Quran Chapter “The Human” 76:7-8.] Al-Hasan and Al-Hussein became ill, so they were visited by their grandfather, the Messenger of God pbuhap, and the rest of the Arabs, and they said, ‘O father of Al-Hasan, why do you not make a vow for your children?’ So Ali said, ‘If they recover from their illness, I will fast three days in gratitude to God Almighty.’ Fatimah said the same, while a maid by the name of Fitha Nubaya said, ‘If my masters recover, I will fast in gratitude to God Almighty.’ The two boys recovered, and the progeny of Muhammad did not have too little or too much. Ali then went to Simon Al-Khaybari and borrowed three measures of barley. Fatima took one measure, ground it and baked it into bread.

After Ali prayed with the Messenger of God pbuhap, he came home. The food was set down in front of them, Suddenly, a person in need came, stood at the door and said, ‘Peace be upon you, family of Muhammad. I am a needy Muslim son, feed me, may God Almighty feed you from the tables of heaven.’ Ali heard him and ordered them to give him the food, so they did, and they spent their day and night tasting nothing but water. On the second day, Fatima ground and baked another measure and Ali prayed with the prophet pbuhap. When the food was set down in front of them an orphan came, stood at the door and said, ‘Peace be upon you, family of Muhammad. I am an orphan, a child of immigrants. My parents were martyred, so will you feed me?’ They gave him the food and remained for two days tasting nothing but water. On the third day, Fatimah ground and baked the remaining measure, while Ali prayed with the prophet pbuhap. When the food was served to him, a captive came, stood at the door and said, ‘Peace be upon you, people of the house of prophethood. You capture and confine us, yet you do not feed us. Feed me, for I am a captive.’ They gave him food and remained for three days and nights tasting nothing but water. The Messenger of God pbuhap came to them and saw the hunger they were suffering from, so God Almighty sent down the verses from: ﴾Has there come upon man a period of time when he was not a thing even mentioned?﴿ up to ﴾’‘We do not desire any reward or thanks from you.﴿” Quran Chapter “The Human” 76:1-76:9 (Ibn Al-Athir n.d., vol 5, 530-1. Arabic source, translated).*

What Altruism are we Talking About?!

Animal individuals, including humans, usually behave selfishly. In nature, no one gives food to others or looks after others without a price.

At the level of the individual, animals do not feed or look after each other. Acts of apparent altruism, in comparison to selfish, individual behavior, are rare in nature. A male might provide food and build a nest for a female because he wants to pass his genes to subsequent generations by fertilizing the female’s eggs, as the female usually invests the food for the fetus in these eggs, and parents may provide food and protection for their children, but is this genuine altruism? And if it is not, then what altruism are we talking about when we want to prove the unique quality of humans-beings who possess morals-the foundational basis of which is altruism?

In religion, we talk about altruism to some extent when we discuss battling the “I” at the level of the society and the environment we live in. That is why it is necessary to clearly and unequivocally define the kind of altruism we are talking about, so that we don’t allow illintentioned people to achieve their goal of making people ignorant by passing off their deceiving, unified law. It is a law they all use, whether they are clerics, atheists, or those who have taken a path between the two, this law or fallacy that says, “Look, there is a walnut in my hand and it is round,” and then they show you something round in the other hand and say, “Look, it is round, therefore it is a walnut.”

We all generally know what altruism is and that it opposes selfishness. We can define it as favoring others over one’s self, or favoring others over someone closer to one’s self through specific behavior.

If we look around, we find that animals sometimes show altruistic behavior. We can, for example, identify the behavior of mothers and fathers toward their children, and the behavior of the worker bees toward the queen, other workers, and the hive as a whole. However, is this genuine altruistic behavior, or does it just have the appearance of altruistic behavior? In reality, it is selfish genetic behavior since it is based on genetic selfishness and nature’s favoritism and preference for the survival of bodies carrying the genes that cause this altruistic behavior; namely, parents caring for their children and providing them with food, and worker bees sacrificing themselves to protect the hive, the queen and her sisters. So these genes carried the successful trait of allowing for their passage, continuation, and survival. The biological truth is that the father and mother care for their children because there is a gene in their genetic makeup that drives them to do that (by influencing the formation of the nervous system, the brain, or the glands and hormones, for example). One of the reasons why their genetic makeup succeeds in spreading and surviving is the existence of the gene that drives them toward this altruistic behavior.

The explanation for how the genetic makeup of the parents benefits from the survival of the children is rather simple, since the children carry a percentage of the genes from each parent. For example, a human child carries half of the father’s genes and half of the mother’s genes.

Therefore, parents whose genetic makeup contains the gene of altruism toward children, providing them with what is required in order to reach the age of adolescence and reproduction, will achieve the continuation and survival of their genes into subsequent generations. Therefore, this kind of altruism, of parents toward children, has a selfish genetic origin, meaning it is built on gene selfishness, and it is not genuine altruism. The parents who do not look after their children well, or whose genetic makeup lacks genes that sufficiently drive them toward altruism in order to provide their children with what is necessary (for example, a nest, food, and protection), will not be able to pass their genes to subsequent generations. This is because, in brief, they will not succeed in raising children that reach the age of adolescence and reproduction and pass their genetic makeup to subsequent generations. This is how these parents are punished, or how this genetic makeup or genetic plan is penalized; the genes that are specific to them do not continue in this life, and they leave the race.

Thus, the issue of parents looking after their children is completely accounted for genetically.

If the genes find a different successful strategy other than direct parental care of their children, they can use that strategy, as in the case of the cuckoo. This bird lays its eggs in the host nest and the host raises its offspring. The cuckoo does not care for its own offspring, and it has no affection for them. The relationship of the cuckoo with its offspring ends as soon as it provides them with what is necessary, by placing them in the nest of the host who will have no choice but to raise them on the cuckoo’s behalf. This is clear evidence that the genes are in control of this matter within the body.

The same is true for the worker bee. These bees are extremely close to their sisters, even closer than they are to their mothers, because they all carry identical copies of their father’s genes. So, there is a logical reason why they strive to sacrifice themselves, racing to attack the enemy, even though the worker that stings dies. This altruistic gene succeeded in reproduction and survival because, to put it simply, it was the most capable of protecting the hive as a whole. So its death is apparently of greater benefit to its genes than its life, because by racing to its death in place of its sisters and in defense of its mother, the queen bee, it contributes to the survival of the numerous copies of its genes within the bodies of all of its worker bee sisters. It also contributes to the survival of its genes in the eggs and sperm in its mother’s body (the queen bee). Certainly, a genetic makeup such as this is more capable of survival and continuation than the one that does not race toward sacrificing itself. Nature will select the brave one that races toward sacrifice, or in other words, the one that is fit, able to survive and resists the natural circumstances surrounding it.

In general, gene selfishness can explain the altruistic traits of one organism toward another when sacrifice is more beneficial to its genes than life, regardless of their relationship.

The altruism of parents toward their children can be genetically accounted for. The genes carrying out this function will be more favored and more capable of survival than genes that do not allow for or encourage altruism of parents toward their children. In the same way, we can account for the altruistic behavior of an older brother toward his younger brother, or children toward their parents. We can also account for why some animals clean each other, or even why vampire bats feed their neighbors: they expect future benefit, even if unconsciously.

However, the selfish gene theory cannot explain the sacrifice a person is willing to make in order to save a stranger, nor can it explain when someone gives the food or water they need to others, because in such cases, if it results in the demise of the altruist-or at the very least, the inability to multiply his own genes, or it diminishes his chances-then the genetic loss is greater than the gain regarding the genes he shares with one he rescued or fed, or favored, in general, over himself. To explain this further using numbers: my life is equivalent to a one hundred percent transfer and survival of my functioning genes, whereas the life of a stranger is equivalent to the transfer of a portion of my functioning genes, the genes we have in common, which is about five percent, so losing my life clearly means a greater loss of survival of my genes. Therefore the selfish gene theory is not able to explain these types of altruism in which genes of the altruist lose in a significant way. The explanation for this type of altruistic behavior cannot be based on gene selfishness.

In addition, reciprocal altruism is not genuine altruism. Since it is a favored evolutionary strategy, it is expected to become prevalent when there is a need for it, as is the case with some animals that groom each other, or vampire bats regurgitating food for their neighbors, because the gene pool that carries its genes will be favored by selection and will inevitably prevail. The gene pool that does not carry this type of reciprocal altruism will leave the competitive race because the fate of the members of its species will be extinction. For example, vampire bats cannot survive more than two days without food, and reciprocal altruism is a lifeline for the numerous individuals who do not find food on a given night. Because of this, reciprocal altruism is a lifeline for the species as a whole, so it is certainly favored by natural selection. Generally, reciprocal altruism is well accounted for by science.

There is also altruism for the sake of repute. In reality, we can say that this is also a type of reciprocal altruism, especially if the purpose of sacrificing food for others is bragging and reputation, and thus to obtain greater gain, such as attracting the attention of more females and consequently marrying more females. This means that the individual’s genes will be successfully transferred to subsequent generations in a more widespread manner. Therefore, these types of altruism, which will be examined further, are genetically accounted for.

Certainly, these types of non-genuine altruism are based on gene selfishness. They are not of interest to us, because we are looking for moral altruism that is not related to the interest and benefit of the genes.

We are not talking about the altruism of relatives or reciprocal altruism, which can both be accounted for genetically. And we are not talking about altruism for the sake of repute, which may occasionally be genetically accounted for as well. These types of altruism can benefit the bodies that practice them because they provide them with a better chance of survival.

Furthermore, we are not talking about altruism, whose basis is individual selfishness, that transfers among individuals and groups as a cultural unit, such as showing off or anything similar, meaning that the motive for it is a psychological need or desire of the altruist.

If this is the case, then what altruism are we talking about and considering as evidence that the human being is special and morally unique with respect to the rest of the animals?

We are talking about altruism that cannot be accounted for biologically by tracing it back to the selfishness of the gene, which uses the bodies and body parts as an ideal machine for the survival and transmission of genes. We are talking about an altruism that cannot be accounted for by saying that the purpose of culture is to achieve some psychological benefit, even if in the long run.

We are talking about altruistic behavior that does not benefit the genes and that cannot be accounted for by the selfishness of genes, or considered to be merely a superficial, non-genuine altruism, as it is not based on a selfish biological origin. We are talking about altruism in which the altruist does not expect future benefit in return, or praise, or even a word of gratitude from others.

This poses pressing questions: what drives us toward this genuine altruism? What caused it to originate in us specifically?

The truth is, it must have started with both a method and individuals. If we research the history of the issue-as history is the only way to settle it-we find that the method filled with this genuine, elevated altruistic behavior is the religious method, and the knights of altruism are the prophets and saints. The oldest writings that we have found in artifacts regarding altruism are the religious texts and the calls that were issued by religious individuals. This is an issue that was established in the oldest of civilizations, such as Sumer and Akkad, with individuals like Noah pbuh and Abraham pbuh, who are considered an origin to which the heavenly religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) trace back. These religions have adhered to the same Sumerian-Akkadian moral system.

The call for altruism has always been a religious one, and the knights of this realm are the prophets, the messengers, and the bearers of the divine messages. ﴾And they feed food to the needy, the orphan, and the captive, in spite of their love for it.﴿

The Culture of the Homo sapiens

There are two human-like groups that branched out from the African Homo erectus and succeeded in passing through the last few hundreds of thousands of years. The two groups are the European Neanderthal and a small group of Homo sapiens, some of whom migrated through Bab-el-Mandeb and then filled the world. Although the Neanderthals had a larger average brain size than Homo sapiens, they did not develop a culture or civilization like that of the Homo sapiens group that migrated out of Africa. The social bond among Homo sapiens did not exist among the Neanderthal groups. About thirty-five thousand years ago in Europe, Homo sapiens were making statues and artwork that expressed themselves, whereas the Neanderthals were not able to keep up with them. So what factor entered the equation of that small group that migrated through Bab-el-Mandeb? What happened to that select group to produce a generation that could fill the earth?

It is possible for anyone to propose any hypothesis that allows him to answer this question. But in fact, there is no sufficient, true scientific explanation at all for what happened to the mind of the Homo sapiens that migrated from Africa. The Neanderthal lived for hundreds of thousands of years in Europe but they were unable to produce any development of culture or civilization not even with regard to social life, language, or drawings. All they did was make simple stone tools, and there is speculation about whether or not they were the original inventors, since they might have learned this from the Homo sapiens when they migrated to Europe. At the same time, we find that in less than sixty thousand years, the migrant Homo sapiens reached the stage of recording moral laws on clay tablets that have reached us through the Sumerians. Is it possible to ignore the fact that a change suddenly occurred in the equation of this earthly being that made him behave in an organized way, and not an animalistic way as in the past, such that he began planting, producing, raising animals, manufacturing, organizing his social life, speaking, and finally, writing? What happened to make this human develop so significantly, whereas the one in Europe did not develop, even though he had a bigger brain?

There is a secret which caused this obvious qualitative leap of Homo sapiens, and it cannot be attributed to brain size alone, or to simply just reaching or surpassing the critical mass of the brain. Some scientists explain the difference between humans and the rest of the animals as being linked to the brain to body size ratio. However, if the issue depended on large brain size, the Neanderthal would have developed, as its average brain size was as large as the that of the modern human (Homo sapiens) and perhaps at times larger, by about ten percent. Nevertheless, compared to what modern humans have accomplished, the Neanderthal did not do anything. The modern human recorded his culture and social life in Europe, whereas the Neanderthal recorded nothing valuable. In fact, even their social life was simple, and they were not bonded like the modern humans, who had a greater tendency toward social life. Therefore, there is no escape from admitting that something new entered the equation, causing this intellectual and cultural progress, as well a progress of civilization, that made the modern human (Homo sapiens) take an obvious leap of culture and civilization, of which the most prominent recorded features are the highest moral ideals, such as altruism and justice.

The Theories or Theses Made to Explain the Cultural Leap of Humans

It is not our concern here to present a theory to account for the increase in brain size, or the possible use of the brain for thinking, making tools for hunting, and so on. This is an issue that has been discussed previously. However, we will clarify theories that some people imagine can explain the appearance and spread of human culture in an acceptable way. They are supposed to explain the appearance and spreading of culture, without stopping at an explanation of the imitation and transmission of cultural units. Rather, they are supposed to be able to explain the initial appearance of the unique human culture and its most significant elements that are based on that culture, including the highest moral standards, such as genuine altruism (not based on genetic selfishness) and justice, to the point of reaching the organization and building of civilization. Otherwise, if a thesis cannot explain the appearance of a unique culture in humans such as altruism, then it will undoubtedly fail to explain the unique human culture itself.

The Theory of Biological Evolution Itself Attempts to Explain this Issue

This explanation is based on the same law of evolution. It is hypothesized that natural selection refined everything in us so that only selfish genes influence human behavior. In general, according to them, there are biological reasons for human behavior, so the brain sufficiently explains the characteristics of human behavior.

In fact, this thesis is grotesque when considered from a moral perspective because it is a deterministic thesis. If we wish to apply it in reality, then it would justify the views of extremism, deviation and criminalism, so the criminal commits his crime because there are biological reasons driving him to do so, and the benefactor gives to charity because there are biological reasons driving him to do so. This thesis fails to explain human behavior at times when humans rein in their biological need and what their genes dictate because of societal views or a certain ideology, and it fails to explain true, genuine morals (it does not believe that they exist in the first place).

For example, natural selection refined altruism within us by favoring the traits of altruism that serve the survival of the genes, such as altruism of parents toward their children, or reciprocal altruism. But this issue can only explain altruism that involves genetic benefit, meaning the genes are the ones that built it into the organisms throughout the evolutionary path, because it is a better path for transferring genes to subsequent generations. This is the case with altruism of parents toward their children, and relatives toward one another, since they all generally have a significant number of shared genes.

In addition, this can also explain altruism of future reciprocity, such as the process of vampire bats regurgitating some blood and donating it to a hungry fellow bat that could not find prey to suck blood from on a given night in the hope that it will be treated likewise when it faces the same difficulty.

However, this thesis, which is adopted by many biologists, cannot explain genuine altruism that is not based on genetic selfishness or reciprocity. It also cannot explain the unique moral culture that suddenly appeared in recent human history (meaning the last few thousands of years).

The Meme Theory

The meme theory is a thesis developed by Richard Dawkins, based on the original idea of George Christopher Williams. We can say that both Dawkins and Williams have been compelled to use the meme theory as an attempt to resolve the inability of the selfish gene theory to explain many cultural human behaviors, such as genuine altruism, something that cannot be attributed to gene selfishness or reciprocal altruism. Therefore, it is an attempt to explain and discuss how we were able to invent genuine altruism. It is also an attempt to resolve the moral dilemma of determinism that even makes crimes biologically accounted for, as everything about human behavior goes back to the genes. Dawkins found that the solution lies within the meme thesis, or the selfish meme, which he proposes will work for topics that the selfish gene theory and selection fail to explain.*

In contrast to the above thesis of genetic determinism, Dawkins’ meme thesis appears to say that we now have the freedom and the ability to rein in genetic selfishness. In other words, we are now independent enough to prevent the genes from completely controlling us as mortal survival machines used by the genes to survive. It is best if I allow Dawkins himself to speak about this issue:

‘Brains, for reductionists, are determinate biological objects whose properties produce the behaviors we observe and the states of thought or intention we infer from that behavior… Such a position is, or ought to be, completely in accord with the principles of sociobiology offered by Wilson and Dawkins. However, to adopt it would involve them in the dilemma of first arguing the innateness of much human behavior that, being liberal men, they clearly find unattractive (spite, indoctrination, etc.) and then to become entangled in liberal ethical concerns about responsibility for criminal acts, if these, like all other acts, are biologically determined. To avoid this problem, Wilson and Dawkins invoke a free will that enables us to go against the dictates of our genes if we so wish…This is essentially a return to unabashed Cartesianism, a dualistic deus ex machina.’

I think that Rose and his colleagues are accusing us of eating our cake and having it. Either we must be ‘genetic determinists’ or we believe in ‘free will’; we cannot have it both ways. But-and here I presume to speak for Professor Wilson as well as for myself-it is only in the eyes of Rose and his colleagues that we are ‘genetic determinists’. What they do not understand (apparently, though it is hard to credit) is that it is perfectly possible to hold that genes exert a statistical influence on human behaviour while at the same time believing that this influence can be modified, overridden or reversed by other influences. Genes must exert a statistical influence on any behaviour pattern that evolves by natural selection. Presumably Rose and his colleagues agree that human sexual desire has evolved by natural selection, in the same sense as anything ever evolves by natural selection. They therefore must agree that there have been genes influencing sexual desire-in the same sense as genes ever influence anything. Yet they presumably have no trouble with curbing their sexual desires when it is socially necessary to do so. What is dualist about that? Obviously nothing. And no more is it dualist for me to advocate rebelling ‘against the tyranny of the selfish replicators’. We, that is our brains, are separate and independent enough from our genes to rebel against them. As already noted, we do so in a small way every time we use contraception. There is no reason why we should not rebel in a large way, too (Dawkins 1989, 331-32).

The meme in culture is like the gene in biology. If the gene is inheritable information transmitted in the chromosomes, the meme is a certain culture transferred among living beings where groups and individuals learn from one another, one generation after another. The brain is the machine of preservation and transfer, which in the meme thesis plays the role of primordial soup container (and perhaps the soup as well), in which the first replicators were formed, and later evolved into DNA.

Therefore, the memes are a certain culture (verbal or nonverbal, linguistic vocabulary, clothes, behavior, and so on) replicated among individuals of animal or human society. The meme thesis was made to explain the cultural development of humans in particular by the favored meme being transferred among individuals. In addition, some biologists consider memes-such as linguistic or cultural vocabulary- to be one of the reasons why humans acquired the superior brain which enables them to replicate the memes better in terms of quantity and quality, which in turn depends on the size and quality of the brain.

In general, the meme thesis can be considered an attempt to explain the leap of culture and civilization in human history that genes and biological evolution alone could not completely explain.

I have a lot of sympathy with this attitude, and I do not doubt that there are genetic advantages in our having brains of the kind that we have. But nevertheless I think that these colleagues, if they look carefully at the fundamentals of their own assumptions, will find that they are begging just as many questions as I am. Fundamentally, the reason why it is good policy for us to try to explain biological phenomena in terms of gene advantage is that genes are replicators. As soon as the primeval soup provided conditions in which molecules could make copies of themselves, the replicators themselves took over. For more than three thousand million years, DNA has been the only replicator worth talking about in the world. But it does not necessarily hold these monopoly rights for all time. Whenever conditions arise in which a new kind of replicator can make copies of itself, the new replicators will tend to take over, and start a new kind of evolution of their own. Once this new evolution begins, it will in no necessary sense be subservient to the old. The old gene-selected evolution, by making brains, provided the ‘soup’ in which the first memes arose. Once selfcopying memes had arisen, their own, much faster, kind of evolution took off. We biologists have assimilated the idea of genetic evolution so deeply that we tend to forget that it is only one of many possible kinds of evolution. Imitation, in the broad sense, is how memes can replicate (Dawkins 1989, 193-94).

Furthermore, in an attempt to explain the short time period in which the human experienced cultural development, and to justify any leap in culture and civilization, Dawkins assumed that the memes can have a very rapid effect, unlike the slow effect of genes.

I think that a new kind of replicator has recently emerged on this very planet. It is staring us in the face. It is still in its infancy, still drifting clumsily about in its primeval soup, but already it is achieving evolutionary change at a rate that leaves the old gene panting far behind (Dawkins 1989, 192).

The propagation and establishment of memes depends on the concept of imitation and replication. Their emergence sometimes depends on their invention when needed or when errors occur during imitation leading to the emergence of a new meme. This is how memes vary and transfer between individual animals or humans.

Memes are the replicable, cultural material, while animals and people are replication machines that replicate them, preserve them, work with them, and transfer them to others. These machines evolve-when genetic mutation toward improvement is available-according to the memes and their expansion, multiplication and accumulation. They can be one of the reasons for establishing the genes of improvement. This can explain the size and quality of our brains, so it can be said that the expansion of culture had an influence on the increase in brain size and the evolution of its quality, as it is a factor pushing in that direction.

Differences in group behavior-something that it is very tempting to call cultural differences-have been reported among chimpanzees, baboons, macaques and manyother primates. For example, one group of monkeys may know how to eat bird’s eggs, while an adjacent band of precisely the same species may not. Such primates have a few dozen sounds or cries, which are used for intra-group communication, with such meanings as “Flee; here is a predator.” But the sound of the cries differs somewhat from group to group: there are regional accents.

An even more striking experiment was performed accidentally by Japanese primatologists attempting to relieve an overpopulation and hunger problem in a community of macaques on an island in south Japan. The anthropologists threw grains of wheat on a sandy beach. Now it is very difficult to separate wheat grains one by one from sand grains; such an effort might even expend more energy than eating the collected wheat would provide. But one brilliant macaque, Imo, perhaps by accident or out of pique, threw handfuls of the mixture into the water. Wheat floats; sand sinks, a fact that Imo clearly noted. Through the sifting process she was able to eat well (on a diet of soggy wheat, to be sure). While older macaques, set in their ways, ignored her, the younger monkeys appeared to grasp the importance of her discovery, and imitated it. In the next generation, the practice was more widespread; today all macaques on the island are competent at water sifting, an example of a cultural tradition among the monkeys.

Earlier studies on Takasakiyama, a mountain in northeast Kyushu inhabited by macaques, show a similar pattern in cultural evolution. Visitors to Takasakiyama threw caramels wrapped in paper to the monkeys-a common practice in Japanese zoos, but one the Takasakiyama macaques had never before encountered. In the course of play, some young monkeys discovered how to unwrap the caramels and eat them. The habit was passed on successively to their playmates, their mothers, the dominant males (who among the macaques act as babysitters for the very young) and finally to the subadult males, who were at the furthest social remove from the monkey children. The process of acculturation took more than three years (Sagan 1978, 125-26).

Generally,Generally, the issue of memes and the fact that they are invented or copied from others when needed is not unique to humans. However, the thesis or theory of memes-which can explain the transfer of a particular culture-cannot explain the invention of a particular original culture if there is no individual need for that culture. This issue becomes dire when this culture is harmful to the individual and to his individual genes.

We are concerned with the question: can the meme theory or thesis explain the most important thing about human culture, namely its attributes, such as genuine altruism, which the selfish gene theory cannot explain?

In truth, the meme theory is equally unable to explain genuine altruism, not only because there is no benefit achieved by the altruist such that his altruism would be an invention created by his need for it, but also because genuine altruism is a bad trait for individual genes. It is a trait that cannot be favored by nature because it is a trait that works against the interest of the individual genes.

The genes cannot explain the trait of genuine altruism because it is an opposing trait and a mortal enemy of individual genes. The memes also cannot explain the existence of this trait because as a cultural meme it cannot come into existence, let alone succeed and persist, because it is an opposing trait and an enemy of the selfish structure firmly established within us by gene selfishness, which built us to be selfish entities to guarantee their survival. There is no exception to the selfishness of the entities (i.e. our bodies), except those altruistic cases that are built on genetic selfishness itself, or reciprocal altruism, which we have explained previously: the altruism of parents toward their children, and the vampire bat feeding its neighbor in the cave based on the principle, “scratch my back today, and I will scratch yours tomorrow”. This type of altruism has nothing to do with intentional, genuine altruism.

In his book The Selfish Gene (particularly in the chapter about memes), Dawkins did not discuss this issue, despite the fact that it is the most important issue regarding this subject. What is required of the atheist is to prove the validity of his belief-not to create a theory explaining the invention of cultural units when needed, or when they produce benefit, which are then replicated and transferred-and he must explain the appearance of a culture that is unique to humans, such as altruism, and the reason for its appearance and the principle behind it.

It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine, disinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or the other, nor to speculate over its possible memic evolution (Dawkins 1989, 200).

Can we consider this statement an admission from Dawkins that he is unable to provide a logical explanation for genuine altruism that agrees with his atheistic theory? Is it reasonable to think, for example, that he has an explanation for the most important issue negating his atheistic doctrine, yet he elects to omit it? I leave the reader to answer these questions.

Dawkins continues, saying:

The point I am making now is that, even if we look on the dark side and assume that individual man is fundamentally selfish, our conscious foresight-our capacity to simulate the future in imagination- could save us from the worst selfish excesses of the blind replicators. We have at least the mental equipment to foster our long-term selfish interests rather than merely our short-term selfish interests. We can see the long-term benefits of participating in a ‘conspiracy of doves’, and we can sit down together to discuss ways of making the conspiracy work (Dawkins 1989, 200).

In all the situations in which we defend our selfish interests, whether the basis of our defense is cultural and memic, or genetic, and whether the selfish interests are long-term or short-term, we are behaving selfishly and not altruistically. Momentary altruism for the sake of longterm selfishness does not change the fact that the behavior is still selfish and intends to achieve an interest, even if long-term, as in the case of altruism for reputation. Consequently, this type of behavior cannot be a valid explanation of genuine, disinterested, true altruism.

Dawkins continues, saying:

We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism-something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators (Dawkins 1989, 200-01).

However, a trait that opposes the survival of the individual genes cannot exist and grow within us. It is not possible for it to grow and become established in nature because it is a trait that opposes our selfishness as survival machines built by the genes. It is a trait that works against the interest of the individual genes. This is an issue that atheists will not be able to respond to scientifically.

A powerful current that swept away all the other pieces of wood except a boat-or all organisms except humans-could not be overcome without rowing, and there can be no rowing without a rower.

Given the scientific proof, we should accept and admit that there is a rower. The existence of its strongly apparent influence has been proven to us by our movement against the powerful current and by our rebellion against the tyranny of our genes.

By saying the rower, we do not mean God. In fact, let the rower be the soul or the spirit. Certainly, proving its existence is a way of proving the world of spirituality and consequently proving the existence of God.

The reason we do not see the soul with our eyes is simple: it is in a world unlike the material physical world in which we live. As for how it can physically affect us, this can be scientifically explained, at least by trans-universal forces. This will be explained in Chapter 6. It is possible for one universe to influence another universe, as well as for entities in a universe to influence entities in another universe, even without direct, material, and perceptible contact occurring between them. In the same way, we can understand the influence of the world of the souls on this material universe in which we live.

Dawkins’ Attempt to Explain Morality

In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to explain morality. He does not explicitly mention the genuine altruism that I have discussed previously, and which, as I have shown, cannot be explained by the meme theory, the selfish gene theory, or reciprocal altruism.

However, he attempts to explain a type of altruistic transaction that we have grown accustomed to in our social life by saying that it emerges when a Darwinian law misfires, and afterwards it may spread as a cultural meme. Perhaps he is trying to delude the reader into thinking that what he has presented is sufficient to explain all types of altruism, whereas in truth it is not sufficient to explain any type of genuine altruism, or altruism without a price. This will be explained when we discuss Dawkins’ arguments.

So far we have learned about two distinct types of altruism: the altruism of relatives and reciprocal altruism. We can also add altruism for the sake of reputation, and for demonstrating power and boldness in order to reap the benefits of authority.

Reputation:

I have mentioned kinship and reciprocation as the twin pillars of altruism in a Darwinian world, but there are secondary structures which rest atop those main pillars. Especially in human society, with language and gossip, reputation is important. One individual may have a reputation for kindness and generosity. Another individual may have a reputation for unreliability, for cheating and reneging on deals. Another may have a reputation for generosity when trust has been built up, but for ruthless punishment of cheating. The unadorned theory of reciprocal altruism expects animals of any species to base their behaviour upon unconscious responsiveness to such traits in their fellows. In human societies we add the power of language to spread reputations, usually in the form of gossip. You do not need to have suffered personally from X’s failure to buy his round at the pub. You hear ‘on the grapevine’ that X is a tightwad, or-to add an ironic complication to the example-that Y is a terrible gossip. Reputation is important, and biologists can acknowledge a Darwinian survival value in not just being a good reciprocator but fostering a reputation as a good reciprocator too (Dawkins 2006, 218).

Demonstrating Power, Boldness and Superiority:

The Norwegian economist Thorstein Veblen and, in a rather different way, the Israeli zoologist Amotz Zahavi have added a further fascinating idea. Altruistic giving may be an advertisement of dominance or superiority. Anthropologists know it as the Potlatch Effect, named after the custom whereby rival chieftains of Pacific north-west tribes vie with each other in duels of ruinously generous feasts. In extreme cases, bouts of retaliatory entertaining continue until one side is reduced to penury, leaving the winner not much better off. Veblen’s concept of ‘conspicuous consumption’ strikes a chord with many observers of the modern scene. Zahavi’s contribution, unregarded by biologists for many years until vindicated by brilliant mathematical models from the theorist Alan Grafen, has been to provide an evolutionary version of the potlatch idea. Zahavi studies Arabian babblers, little brown birds who live in social groups and breed cooperatively. Like many small birds, babblers give warning cries, and they also donate food to each other. A standard Darwinian investigation of such altruistic acts would look, first, for reciprocation and kinship relationships among the birds. When a babbler feeds a companion, is it in the expectation of being fed at a later date? Or is the recipient of the favour a close genetic relative? Zahavi’s interpretation is radically unexpected. Dominant babblers assert their dominance by feeding subordinates. To use the sort of anthropomorphic language Zahavi delights in, the dominant bird is saying the equivalent of, ‘Look how superior I am to you, I can afford to give you food.’ Or ‘Look how superior I am, I can afford to make myself vulnerable to hawks by sitting on a high branch, acting as a sentinel to warn the rest of the flock feeding on the ground.’ The observations of Zahavi and his colleagues suggest that babblers actively compete for the dangerous role of sentinel. And when a subordinate babbler attempts to offer food to a dominant individual, the apparent generosity is violently rebuffed. The essence of Zahavi’s idea is that advertisements of superiority are authenticated by their cost. Only a genuinely superior individual can afford to advertise the fact by means of a costly gift. Individuals buy success, for example in attracting mates, through costly demonstrations of superiority, including ostentatious generosity and publicspirited risk-taking (Dawkins 2006, 218-19).

Dawkins’ Summary of the Four Reasons for Altruism

We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or ‘moral’ towards each other. First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in ‘anticipation’ of payback. Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth, if Zahavi is right, there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising (Dawkins 2006, 219-20).

None of the above are genuine altruism. As we have learned previously, the first and the second are centered on genetic selfishness and reciprocal altruism. The third and fourth can be combined into reciprocal altruism, because they have the same idea of “give today and reap the benefit tomorrow”, so they are acts of altruism to achieve future benefit, and none of these are types of genuine altruism. Therefore, the existence of these types of altruism does not explain intentional, genuine altruism.

Dawkins’ Attempt to Explain Ethics and Genuine Altruism Continues

Through most of our prehistory, humans lived under conditions that would have strongly favoured the evolution of all four kinds of altruism. We lived in villages, or earlier in discrete roving bands like baboons, partially isolated from neighbouring bands or villages. Most of your fellow band members would have been kin, more closely related to you than members of other bands-plenty of opportunities for kin altruism to evolve. And, whether kin or not, you would tend to meet the same individuals again and again throughout your life-ideal conditions for the evolution of reciprocal altruism. Those are also the ideal conditions for building a reputation for altruism, and the very same ideal conditions for advertising conspicuous generosity. By any or all of the four routes, genetic tendencies towards altruism would have been favoured in early humans. It is easy to see why our prehistoric ancestors would have been good to their own in-group but bad-to the point of xenophobia -towards other groups. But why―now that most of us live in big cities where we are no longer surrounded by kin, and where every day we meet individuals whom we are never going to meet again-why are we still so good to each other, even sometimes to others who might be thought to belong to an out-group?

It is important not to mis-state the reach of natural selection. Selection does not favour the evolution of a cognitive awareness of what is good for your genes. That awareness had to wait for the twentieth century to reach a cognitive level, and even now full understanding is confined to a minority of scientific specialists. What natural selection favours is rules of thumb, which work in practice to promote the genes that built them. Rules of thumb, by their nature, sometimes misfire. In a bird’s brain, the rule ‘Look after small squawking things in your nest, and drop food into their red gapes’ typically has the effect of preserving the genes that built the rule, because the squawking, gaping objects in an adult bird’s nest are normally its own offspring. The rule misfires if another baby bird somehow gets into the nest, a circumstance that is positively engineered by cuckoos. Could it be that our Good Samaritan urges are misfirings, analogous to the misfiring of a reed warbler’s parental instincts when it works itself to the bone for a young cuckoo? An even closer analogy is the human urge to adopt a child. I must rush to add that ‘misfiring’ is intended only in a strictly Darwinian sense. It carries no suggestion of the pejorative. The ‘mistake’ or ‘by-product’ idea, which I am espousing, works like this. Natural selection, in ancestral times when we lived in small and stable bands like baboons, programmed into our brains altruistic urges, alongside sexual urges, hunger urges, xenophobic urges and so on. An intelligent couple can read their Darwin and know that the ultimate reason for their sexual urges is procreation. They know that the woman cannot conceive because she is on the pill. Yet they find that their sexual desire is in no way diminished by the knowledge. Sexual desire is sexual desire and its force, in an individual’s psychology, is independent of the ultimate Darwinian pressure that drove it. It is a strong urge which exists independently of its ultimate rationale.

I am suggesting that the same is true of the urge to kindness-to altruism, to generosity, to empathy, to pity. In ancestral times, we had the opportunity to be altruistic only towards close kin and potential reciprocators. Nowadays that restriction is no longer there, but the rule of thumb persists. Why would it not? It is just like sexual desire. We can no more help ourselves feeling pity when we see a weeping unfortunate (who is unrelated and unable to reciprocate) than we can help ourselves feeling lust for a member of the opposite sex (who may be infertile or otherwise unable to reproduce). Both are misfirings, Darwinian mistakes: blessed, precious mistakes (Dawkins 2006, 220-21).

In summary, Dawkins is saying that the traits of the type “altruism with a price” turned into traits of “altruism without a price” due to a mistake in implementing the law, as he says: “Rules of thumb, by their nature, sometimes misfire” because of changing circumstances: “Nowadays that restriction is no longer there”-however, the rule persists.

Discussion of Dawkins’ Arguments

The Victims of the Cuckoo

The cuckoo is a parasitic bird that does not nest its eggs or feed its young. Instead, it puts its eggs into the nests of other birds, which is a strategy for spreading its genes. Thus, it can spread its genes by continuously putting its eggs in the nests of other birds without wasting time raising the young. Since the birds that fall victim to it are prone to extinction, any genetic mutation that enables them to recognize and toss a cuckoo’s eggs from their nest will be established in the gene pool. The birds carrying this gene will be able to reproduce and pass their genes to the next generation, unlike other birds that don’t have the gene. The cuckoos respond by evolving their eggs in a similar way, and with time, the eggs and offspring of the cuckoo evolve, the eggs resembling the color and pattern of the victim bird’s eggs so the host will not recognize them and toss them from the nest. Moreover, the eggs usually hatch in a short period of time compared to the host eggs, and the cuckoo chicks have a pit in their back, so as soon as the cuckoo chick hatches-perhaps even before its eyes open-it puts whatever is in the nest, whether eggs or chicks, into this pit, and ejects it from the nest. Then it can have the food brought by the victim bird, its host, all to itself.

What the cuckoo bird is doing is an operation of deception built by the genes. The altruism of the victim bird toward the cuckoo chick is simply the result of falling for a fraudulent, deceptive act, carried out by the cuckoo by changing the shape and size of the eggs and putting them in the victim’s nest. The victim bird then feeds the chicks in its nest as its own offspring. By feeding the chicks of others, it is a deceived victim, not a donor such that someone might say, for instance, that this is an altruistic act. This will never change with respect to this bird based on this incident, such that we would expect to begin seeing this victim bird searching for the nests of other birds and feeding their chicks.

With respect to it being a law built by the genes that misfired, it must be noted that there is a continuous process of revision and correction by the victim. The genetic battle between the cuckoo and its victims is ongoing and has not been settled yet. How can Dawkins see that the law misfired once-because of the deception and craftiness of the cuckoo-and not see that there are corrective steps taken by the victim bird, meaning that the genes are vigorously fighting this misfiring?

Furthermore, even the issue of the law misfiring is relative. In the the cuckoo chick example, the victim has a way to identify eggs since they have certain characteristics, and it identifies the chicks it feeds as its own due to the fact that they are in its nest and are perhaps also behaving in the same way as its offspring behave. Some victim birds identified the cuckoo chicks, and that is why, over time, the genes have evolved movements and sounds resembling those of the victim’s chicks.

As a result, the law built by the genes in the victim bird to identify its offspring and care for them has allowed the cuckoo to deceive the victim bird in this way. If the genes build a means of identification that is difficult to breach, or if what is happening is unlikely to be a process of breaking the law, then we cannot explain it as a law that misfired. This is also the case with respect to disinterested, genuine altruism in humans. We recognize our relatives, not because they are close to us in location, but because we distinguish them through their form and precise characteristics, allowing us to identify them from among millions of other people. This makes the idea presented by Dawkins (that the law misfired when strangers were near us rather than our relatives, so the traits of altruism were directed toward the strangers, since in nature relatives were close to us) an unacceptable, illogical idea that the intellect rejects.

Child Adoption

Love of children is something that the genes built into us for their own interest so that parents would look after children and their genes would transfer from one generation to another.

If someone adopts a child to fill his own emotional void, the law has missed its goal, from having a biological child who carries the genes of his parents, to instead having the adopted son who does not carry the genes of the parents.

Intentional, genuine adoption occurs with us humans, and the issue at hand is to prove the origin of morals in humans. Therefore, isn’t it incorrect for their morals to be used as an example to prove the appearance of morals in them?

Certainly, it can be said that a mistake occurs with the adoption of an unrelated child or even with the adoption of an unrelated child by an individual of a species as a result of genetic mutation. This would be the beginning of the emergence of a new cultural meme, meaning that this idea spreads as a culture throughout society.

We need to discuss two issues here: 1. Is this adoption genuine altruism? 2. How much can this type of meme (adopting an unrelated child) succeed in nature? If only those who cannot have children adopt children, then we cannot call it genuine altruism because it is a culture of filling the void of fatherhood or motherhood, and it is not altruistic adoption, and I do not believe we need to discuss this further.

However, if the parents can have children, as is the normal case, then such a culture cannot spread among them in nature because it goes against the spreading of their genes. If such a culture wanted to spread among them, the genes would fight it with the emergence of genes that prevent it, and they would be successful genes that would sweep the gene pools that did not contain this type of gene. Dawkins and other biologists traced the initial emergence of moral human culture back to time periods where humans were groups that lived in nature and were subject to natural selection like the rest of the animals.

Altruism of Relatives

The individual who is altruistic toward his relatives identifies them as relatives to varying degrees, and there is a motive built within him to look after them according to their varying degrees of closeness, as they carry varying percentages of his individual genes. The higher the percentage, the more he looks after them, and vice versa. This makes it necessary for him to have the ability to identify them by their faces. That is why he looks after his son more than his nephew and his brother more than his cousin, so the issue is not related to spatial closeness. For this reason, the closeness of strangers did not cause the instinct of altruism of relatives to misfire and be directed toward them when they became close-after settling in early agricultural villages, for example.

Indeed, it could be imagined that a mutation sometimes occurs that directs this trait, namely altruism of relatives, toward strangers as well, but a mutation such as this would eventually be doomed to extinction sooner or later because such a gene pool cannot compete with one that has the trait of altruism of relatives only, because those who are altruistic toward their relatives will succeed in transferring their genes in a greater way, and since the competition between the individuals of a single species is fiercer, the group with the mutant gene will eventually exit the race, and only altruism of relatives will remain.

Reciprocal Altruism

The reciprocal altruist has the trait of “give me and I give you” built by the genes, which cannot become “I give you without a price”, no matter how many mistakes occur in applying the law due to cheating or anything similar because the issue is biological. However, if we say it is not biological, then researching reciprocal altruism as a genetic Darwinian case in the first place becomes meaningless.

Furthermore, in the presence of the cheat who takes without giving, natural selection usually leads to the extinction of the sucker who gives again even if cheated. The issue of the extinction of the suckers in the presence of the cheat is a done deal even if the suckers are the majority. As a result, their fate will be extinction in the presence of the cheat, who will take advantage of them until the end.

Naturally, the cheat does not count as an altruist in the first place, because he takes and does not give. As such, the one who remains is the grudger, and he is the one who reciprocates based on the principle of “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours later, but I will remember your face, so if you cheat me, I will not scratch your back again.” This model of reciprocal altruism is the one that is prevalent in nature. It is a result of evolution, which must be taken into account when considering the issue of reciprocal altruism.

In fact, it is difficult to imagine how this reciprocal altruistic trait misfires and turns into the trait of genuine altruism. For example, if the vampire bat regurgitates his excess food for his hungry neighbor, he expects his neighbor to return the favor. If the neighbor does not return the favor, our grudger victim bat will not be cheated again, because he is a grudger, remembers faces, and does not give to a cheat twice. The fact that he gave to the cheat once does not mean that the law misfired, because the law built by the genes tells him, “Take the initiative and feed the hungry bat that is asking for blood, but remember his face. If he does not return the favor, do not give him again. If he does return the favor, continue with him in a reciprocal process of altruism whenever one of you gets in trouble one night and does not find an animal to suck blood from.”

Even if we say that a mistake occurred in the application of the genetic law and the grudger repeated his altruism toward a cheat two or three times, it does not mean that the grudger will become a sucker. This is because the matter depends on remembering faces and identifying the friend. If the grudger becomes a sucker, his fate is extinction in the presence of the cheat. Consequently, reciprocal altruism cannot produce genuine altruism as long as it depends on identifying individuals by their individual traits in the non-genuine, superficial, altruistic exchange.

Therefore, the grudger must prevail in evolution. In addition, the accurate identification of individuals is necessary in the exchange of reciprocal altruism, whether by memorizing faces or memorizing the place where the other party in the exchange lives and what identifies him as the other party in the exchange.

It is quite entertaining to watch a computer simulation that starts with a strong majority of suckers, a minority of grudgers that is just above the critical frequency, and about the same-sized minority of cheats. The first thing that happens is a dramatic crash in the population of suckers as the cheats ruthlessly exploit them. The cheats enjoy a soaring population explosion, reaching their peak just as the last sucker perishes. But the cheats still have the grudgers to reckon with. During the precipitous decline of the suckers, the grudgers have been slowly decreasing in numbers, taking a battering from the prospering cheats, but just managing to hold their own. After the last sucker has gone and the cheats can no longer get away with selfish exploitation so easily, the grudgers slowly begin to increase at the cheats’ expense. Steadily their population rise gathers momentum. It accelerates steeply, the cheat population crashes to near extinction, then levels out as they enjoy the privileges of rarity and the comparative freedom from grudges which this brings. However, slowly and inexorably the cheats are driven out of existence, and the grudgers are left in sole possession. Paradoxically, the presence of the suckers actually endangered the grudgers early on in the story because they were responsible for the temporary prosperity of the cheats.

By the way, my hypothetical example about the dangers of not being groomed is quite plausible. Mice kept in isolation tend to develop unpleasant sores on those parts of their heads that they cannot reach. In one study, mice kept in groups did not suffer in this way, because they licked each others’ heads. It would be interesting to test the theory of reciprocal altruism experimentally and it seems that mice might be suitable subjects for the work.

Trivers discusses the remarkable symbiosis of the cleaner-fish. Some fifty species, including small fish and shrimps, are known to make their living by picking parasites off the surface of larger fish of other species. The large fish obviously benefit from being cleaned, and the cleaners get a good supply of food. The relationship is symbiotic. In many cases the large fish open their mouths and allow cleaners right inside to pick their teeth, and then to swim out through the gills which they also clean. One might expect that a large fish would craftily wait until he had been thoroughly cleaned, and then gobble up the cleaner. Yet instead he usually lets the cleaner swim off unmolested. This is a considerable feat of apparent altruism because in many cases the cleaner is of the same size as the large fish’s normal prey.

Cleaner-fish have special stripy patterns and special dancing displays which label them as cleaners. Large fish tend to refrain from eating small fish who have the right kind of stripes, and who approach them with the right kind of dance. Instead they go into a trance-like state and allow the cleaner free access to their exterior and interior. Selfish genes being what they are, it is not surprising that ruthless, exploiting cheats have cashed in. There are species of small fish that look just like cleaners and dance in the same kind of way in order to secure safe conduct into the vicinity of large fish. When the large fish has gone into its expectant trance the cheat, instead of pulling off a parasite, bites a chunk out of the large fish’s fin and beats a hasty retreat. But in spite of the cheats, the relationship between fish cleaners and their clients is mainly amicable and stable. The profession of cleaner plays an important part in the daily life of the coral reef community. Each cleaner has his own territory, and large fish have been seen queuing up for attention like customers at a barber’s shop. It is probably this site-tenacity that makes possible the evolution of delayed reciprocal-altruism in this case. The benefit to a large fish of being able to return repeatedly to the same ‘barber’s shop’, rather than continually searching for a new one, must outweigh the cost of refraining from eating the cleaner. Since cleaners are small, this is not hard to believe. The presence of cheating cleaner-mimics probably indirectly endangers the bonafide cleaners by setting up a minor pressure on large fish to eat stripy dancers. Site-tenacity on the part of genuine cleaners enables customers to find them and to avoid cheats.

A long memory and a capacity for individual recognition are well developed in man. We might therefore expect reciprocal altruism to have played an important part in human evolution. Trivers goes so far as to suggest that many of our psychological characteristics -envy, guilt, gratitude, sympathy etc.-have been shaped by natural selection for improved ability to cheat, to detect cheats, and to avoid being thought to be a cheat. Of particular interest are ‘subtle cheats’ who appear to be reciprocating, but who consistently pay back slightly less than they receive. It is even possible that man’s swollen brain, and his predisposition to reason mathematically, evolved as a mechanism of ever more devious cheating, and ever more penetrating detection of cheating in others. Money is a formal token of delayed reciprocal altruism. There is no end to the fascinating speculation that the idea of reciprocal altruism engenders when we apply it to our own species. Tempting as it is, I am no better at such speculation than the next man, and I leave the reader to entertain himself (Dawkins 1989, 186-88).

If we look for the reciprocal altruistic trait that genes have built in humans during earlier periods of evolution, and that has not disappeared or turned into genuine altruism (as I have previously explained), we find it embodied before us in all of our work and transactions with each other. Working and providing services for pay are all exchanges of reciprocal altruism. The past transactions and the current sales are also exchanges of reciprocal altruism. Therefore, the trait of reciprocal altruism exists today in the form of exchanges of reciprocal altruism as it did in the past, and it has not transformed into a trait of deliberate, genuine altruism.

Therefore, is it correct to attribute the trait of true altruism in humans to an origin of reciprocal altruism without evidence, especially after this statement?!

Summary: Dawkins said:

I am suggesting that the same is true of the urge to kindness-to altruism, to generosity, to empathy, to pity. In ancestral times, we had the opportunity to be altruistic only towards close kin and potential reciprocators. Nowadays that restriction is no longer there, but the rule of thumb persists.

This suggestion of Dawkins, by which he tries to explain morals and altruism, has been shown to be worthless, as the restrictions have always existed. What genes built in our bodies is altruism toward our relatives because they are our relatives. We accurately identify them to be our relatives by their traits, not because they are close to us in proximity or because they are in direct contact with us, such that altruism of relatives would turn into altruism toward everyone who is close in proximity. Furthermore, the issue of reciprocal altruism is governed by the method of the grudger who gives and waits for a result from the counterpart, and if the counterpart does not reciprocate, he cuts him off. This is something the genes have built and it only changes genetically, not just because the lifestyle changes.

Conclusion: Gene Selfishness Precludes Genuine Altruism

Genes are selfish, but this does not mean that bodies behave with pure selfishness. The meaning of genes being selfish is that bodies cannot behave altruistically and oppose the selfishness of genes. Since genes are selfish, they are careful to build bodies that guarantee their survival and transfer across generations. For this reason, the law of the selfish genes does not allow the memes that oppose it-the memes of true altruism-that seek to destroy it, to pass through in nature. The existence of natural selection makes it impossible for them to pass through, as the fate of any individual or group having these memes is to perish and disappear. Consequently, this means the disappearance of these genuine altruistic traits and the impossibility of their existence in nature.

In addition, since survival is the basic goal of genes, it must have genes that oppose genuine altruism in case it appears in the species. Otherwise, they are not selfish, and they do not care about survival and transfer across generations as has been established. In fact, the selfishness of our bodies is clear and evident to us-they are built to fight genuine altruism. We do not have genuine altruism as a genuine trait that is firmly established within our bodies. Rather, the genuine trait that is firmly established within our bodies and brains is selfishness. For this reason, genuine altruism requires a genuine revolution against the body in order to have as significant a presence among us as it does today. Whether we, as individuals, practice genuine altruism or not, the vast majority of us agree that it is a noble goal and a desirable trait that we wish to have. This wish was not born today, but has actually been on record since the earliest age of human recording, meaning since the time of the Sumerians. This means that a genuine human revolution against the body and the selfishness of the body occurred thousands of years ago, and this revolution cannot be explained scientifically at the level of the body alone; it is actually impossible to do so as I have clarified. For this reason, at this stage, we have to bring the soul and spirit into the equation to solve this dilemma. Whoever wishes to reject the hypothesis of the spirit because he hates faith is still obligated to hypothesize something else. So let him hypothesize a totem or a meme of unknown origin, or whatever he wishes. However, in the end, it is a hypothesis that has nothing to do with the body or biology, actually not even with common sense at all.

The Ancient Astronaut Theory

This thesis was proposed by Zecharia Sitchin, author of The Twelfth Planet and The Lost Book of Enki, with support from other researchers. A similar idea was discussed by engineer Maurice Chatelain, author of Our Cosmic Ancestors.*†

Zecharia Sitchin proposed his thesis based on the data of archeological excavations that mentioned that the Sumerians knew about the solar system thousands of years ago. He also used evidence from Sumerian drawings of their kings and the Anunnaki gods that show a major difference in height when compared to average humans. In addition, clay tablets were translated by researchers, including Sitchin, and he interpreted them to mean that extraterrestrials came to the earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. They also derived that Sumerians, the leaders of human civilization, are the product of the fertilization between these astronaut beings and the Homo erectus, or the product of the manipulation of genes of the hominid. As a result, test-tube babies or something similar were produced, in order for the result to be rational humans who built human civilization, the beginning of which was in Mesopotamian Sumer (Iraq) followed by the Egyptian civilization.

However, no real, reliable data exists to say that this really happened. For example, the supporters of this thesis say that the electric battery invented by the Sumerians was possibly used in communications, and this statement requires evidence. What is more probable is that it was used for metal plating or something similar. In any case, there is nothing that says how the Sumerians used this battery.

The supporters of this thesis also use the Sumerians’ drawing of the entire solar system, including Pluto which was discovered in 1930, as evidence. According to them, this indicates that the Sumerians had advanced knowledge. But the truth is that it does not remotely indicate the existence of astronaut beings. The remaining evidence, such as the height of the bodies of the kings and Sumerian gods, is along these lines.

What concerns us about this thesis is the fact that some people rely on it to explain the Sumerian civilization. This is a real indicator and admission by a number of people that there was a leap of culture and civilization among the Sumerians, and this leap needs to be accounted for. For this reason, the thesis was made and accepted by some. Nevertheless, this thesis remains incapable of withstanding scientific criticism. There are arguments against Sitchin’s translation and interpretation of the Sumerian text, and there are scientific arguments against what Sitchin presented about cosmology, as well as the fact that it goes against evolutionary biology.

It seems that Aalim Subait al-Nili (may God have mercy upon him) was greatly influenced by the ideas of Sitchin. This is what we notice in his thesis about the Sumerian Gilgamesh and Thul Qarnain, and his interpretation of the journey of Gilgamesh as extra-terrestrial. In any case, this theory, in addition to its incapability of withstanding scientific criticism, also does not present proven scientific facts. Instead, it relies upon interpretation of texts, events, drawings, and archeological findings, which already have a better, more realistic, and more plausible interpretation.

The Prevalent Religious Thesis

The prevalent religious thesis is a human interpretation of the religious text. It states that the human was an earthly clay statue into which the spirit was breathed directly on the earth, so the statue became alive and of flesh and blood. This theory, which most clerics insist upon, completely conflicts with science, one hundred percent. The Catholic Church finally found itself without any choice but to abandon it because of this conflict. The issue of evolution is generally considered a precise scientific issue with no respectable scientific opposition, and the evolution of the human body from previous origins is a settled issue. Today, genetic analysis has, at the very least, proven that the modern human came from the intelligent African human, the Homo sapiens, who scientifically speaking, existed 200 thousand years ago. He was a primitive human who did not even bury his dead. As such, is it reasonable that Adam, the prophet whom God taught the names, is one of those primitive people of Africa who did not bury their dead, even though God taught Adam and his children to bury the dead?*

I believe this alone is enough to refute this traditional theory, regardless of the fact that the evolution of the modern human from a primitive animal millions of years ago is scientifically proven (although the fossil series now gives an almost complete reading to biologists, in addition to genetic evidence and what we mentioned above). Evolution is the only scientific theory taught in well-known academic universities to explain the appearance of life and man on this earth.

This traditional religious theory not only conflicts with science and scientific facts, but it is also incompatible with the literal meaning of conclusive religious texts, such as the Quranic text of the Muslims.

According to this theory, there is no reasonable, non-conflicting explanation for Adam’s paradise, because it is incapable of answering the following questions without falling into contradiction:

How is it that he does not become naked, hungry, or feel the heat of the sun in that paradise?

How did he become naked in it when he disobeyed? What is the connection between the disobedience and nakedness, or the appearance of private parts in particular in Adam’s paradise?

﴾And Adam and his wife ate from it, and their private parts became apparent to them, and they began to fasten over themselves from the leaves of paradise. And Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred.﴿ Quran Chapter “Ta Ha” 20:121.

﴾So he made them fall through deception. And when they tasted of the tree, their private parts became apparent to them, and they began to fasten together over themselves from the leaves of paradise. And their Lord called to them, “Did I not forbid you from the tree, and tell you that Satan is a clear enemy to you?”﴿ Quran Chapter “The Heights” 7:22.

What is the meaning of Adam’s fall from paradise to this earth to settle in it if according to the theory Adam had originally been on this earth from the beginning?

﴾But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from where they had been. And we said, “Go down as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for awhile.”﴿ Quran Chapter “The Cow” 2:36.

Another Religious Thesis

Another theory is that the spirit was breathed into a body that evolved on this earth. It explains that the creation of Adam was in two stages: the first stage is the creation of man from wet clay, meaning creating bodily “man” from the substance of this earth directly as a complete bipedal creature capable of evolving. They imagine that, with this, they are explaining the discovered fossil history of the ancestors of “Man”, a history that that extends for millions of years. However, they reject any evolutionary connection between this fossil history and the earthly animal life that preceded it, as well as what came before that.

They imagine that after the completion of the evolution process in “man” who was directly created from wet clay, the second stage occurred, which was the breathing of the spirit into this integral, bodily man that had linguistic and technological skills, making Adam pbuh the first “Man”.

This idea was presented by Dr Abdul Sabur Shahin in his book, Abi Adam - Qisa Al-Khaleefah Bayna Al-Astoora wa Al-Khalifa [My father Adam - The Story of Creation, Between Myth and Reality].

He believes that the ancestors of Man were independently created. This is also the case with respect to the remaining species according to his understanding. He acknowledges evolution only within the boundaries of a single species or single family, which is an unscientific opinion. Within the boundaries of a species or family, evolution eventually reaches speciation and the production of other species, no matter how long it takes, so speciation is an inevitable result of the process of evolution. Indeed, this creates a major flaw in what Abdul Sabur has presented. He says:

The idea of creator evolution has fallen. And we say it is an idea and not a theory. Even though people were fascinated by this theory for decades… it has fallen along with all the other ideas connected to it. The truth of the independent creation that religion decided has triumphed, and it has also been confirmed by science. Therefore, Man has been nothing but man, and he was not a monkey. The fish has been nothing but a fish in its aquatic world. And all of that was only according to the absolute divine will and a fulfilment of the divine ability (Shahin 1988, 46. Arabic source, translated).

These words are pitiful. Unfortunately, they are often repeated by some clerics quoting one person or another, although they are simply unscientific statements not based on any significant scientific research, and not adopted by any research center or well-established university. I do not know where the idea of evolution has scientifically fallen. Oh Lord, has it only happened in the imagination of the deluded dreamers?!

Evolution is a momentous scientific theory that is scientifically proven with a great deal of evidence. It is acknowledged by all wellknown scientific universities and significant research centers around the world. There is no noteworthy refutation of this theory. In fact, this theory became a settled matter after science reached the level of advanced genetic research at the end of the twentieth century. No one questions it anymore, except those who are ignorant of what genetics has accomplished.

To clarify his idea, Abdul Sabur says:

The Almighty’s saying, ﴾He has created you in stages﴿ [Quran Chapter “Noah” 71:14]: From a historical perspective, stages can mean the prolonged periods of time through which the man passed, and their travel through the stages of shaping and forming and the breathing of the Spirit of God [into them]: ﴾He gave you hearing, sight, and hearts.﴿ [Quran Chapter “The Prostration” 32:9]. From a material perspective, stages can mean what came directly after that, as is mentioned in the Quran about the fetus and its stages in the “firm lodging”, and that is the mother’s womb. The speech in the chapter “The Believers” is an answer to a question that arose from the mentioning of the stages in Chapter “Noah”…What are these stages??…The answer came in the seventy-fourth chapter “The Believers”, where the Almighty said, ﴾And certainly We created Man from an extract of wet clay﴿ [23:12]. The verse drives the mind away from the possibility of merging the two processes. Man was created from an extract taken from wet clay, so he was not created directly from wet clay. As for the direct son of wet clay, he is the father of man, and that was millions of years ago. This is the meaning expressed in the seventy-fifth chapter “The Prostration”, which is an important addition to answering the question raised about the meaning of “the stages” in the seventy-first chapter… God Almighty says ﴾[He] Who perfected everything He created, and began the creation of Man from wet clay. • Then He made his offspring out of the extract of a disdained liquid. • Then He proportioned him and breathed into him from His spirit…﴿ “The Prostration” [32:7-9] . The creation of Man began “from wet clay”, meaning the “man’s” beginning, then God extracted offspring from him ﴾out of the extract of a disdained liquid﴿, then there was the proportioning and the breathing of the Spirit, so Man was the fruit at the end… through the accumulation of the ancient, archaic, historical stages (Shahin 1998, 95-96. Arabic source, translated).

Unquestionable Truth: between man and Man, there is absolute generality and specificity. The word “man” is a general word for every bipedal creature that appeared on the surface of the earth, while “Man” is a specific term to every man assigned to know God and worship Him. Therefore, every Man is man but not every man is Man. What is of course intended is the first meaning for which the word “man” was used in the verse of the Quran; he is the one who appears or moves with beauty (Shahin 1998, 102, translated).

Along with anthropologists, we can conclude that the earth knew this creation that appeared on its surface millions of years ago. Scientific estimates differ, depending on the age of fossils and the results of scientific analyses. Scientists mistakenly or negligently named this creature a Man, so they said the Man of Peking, the Man of Java, or the Man of Kenya, and other names that represent the stages of the formation of man as they are called in the Quran. The use of the word “Man” was only used to describe them generally, just as the word “man” was used to indicate the meaning of Man generally as well. Otherwise, the precise term that should be used in naming these ancient creatures indicated by fossils, according to the language of the Quran, is “man”. Thus, they should be called the Peking man, Java man, Kenya man, and the Neanderthal man. As for the term “Man” according to the Quran, it is only used for the creature who is assigned to worship one God and no one else. That creature begins with the existence of Adam pbuh. By this, Adam is the father of Man and not the father of man, and there is no connection between Adam and man, who perished before him in order to pave the way for the appearance of that new Adamite offspring, except for a general or comemmorative connection, as he is one of their offspring (Shahin 1998, 104, translated).

The summary of his thesis is that there was a bipedal creature created directly from wet clay millions of years ago. This creature was “man”. This creature evolved in form and he possessed intellectual ability and primitive language. He then acquired a distinct spirit that was breathed into him. As such, he developed and became the first “Man”, who was Adam. Using this thesis, he tried to solve the problem of the prevalent traditional religious thesis, opposing science blatantly and repugnantly. Thus, there is no more room to argue about the scientifically established fact that the history of the ancestor of modern Man extends millions of years, that his origins are from Africa, and that he evolved at later stages.

Abdul Sabur tried to solve the problem by admitting that the history of the ancestor of recent Man, or the ancestors who walked on two feet in particular, spans millions of years. He also admitted evolution, yet within the limits of this span. He also rejected Man’s connection to an ancestor or an origin more distant than the ancestor who walked on two feet. He also rejected the existence of a single origin of all life forms on this earth, something that has been established in evolutionary biology and proven in genetic studies. In fact, Abdul Sabur hypothesized that Man was created as man several million years ago, and then evolved and formed to finally become the first Man, Adam pbuh, without any scientific evidence or discussion of this hypothesis which goes against evolutionary biology, and all of the scientific evidence that has proven that the common ancestor extends back and does not stop until it reaches the point that unifies all earthly life: the first chemical structure capable of self-replication that later evolved into RNA, DNA, and bacteria, then a eukaryotic cell, and then animal and plant organisms composed of many cells.

Although Abdul Sabur Shahin and his followers tried to solve the problem of the contradiction between the naive religious thesis of some religion clerics and what has been scientifically proven, their theses still have a major defect: they are often inconsistent with what the decisive religious text indicates. In addition, they sometimes conflict with established scientific principles, as explained by Abdul Sabur.

According to these theses there is no logical or reasonable interpretation for the verses and religious accounts that state that Adam-who was created from the wet clay and the spirit-was created in paradise. ﴾So we said, “O Adam, indeed this is an enemy to you and your wife. Do not let him remove you from paradise so you would suffer.”﴿ Quran Chapter “Ta Ha” 20:117.

They consider it to be an earthly garden, which conflicts with many verses and religious accounts.

There is no logical explanation for the fact that Adam was never hungry, naked or thirsty, and did not feel the heat of the sun, although according to this thesis, he had always been on the earth, since the beginning. ﴾Indeed, it is promised for you not to be hungry therein or be naked. • And indeed, you will not be thirsty therein or be hot from the sun.﴿ Quran Chapter “Ta Ha” 20:118-19.

There is no logical and reasonable explanation for the nakedness of Adam, and seeing his private parts, although according to this thesis he had always been earthly. ﴾And Adam and his wife ate of it, and their private parts became apparent to them, and they began to fasten over themselves from the leaves of paradise, and Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred.﴿ Quran Chapter “Ta Ha” 20:121.

There is no reasonable explanation for the fall of Adam and Eve from paradise. ﴾He said, “Go down from paradise, all of you, being enemies to one another. And if guidance should come to you from me, then whoever follows my guidance will neither go astray nor suffer.”﴿ Quran Chapter “Ta Ha” 20:123.

There is no reasonable explanation for the fall of Adam to the earth to settle and live therein after the disobedience. It is irrational for the departure, and the fall succeeding it, to be from the earth to the earth. ﴾But Satan caused them to slip out of it and remove them from that in which they had been. And we said, “Go down, all of you as enemies to one another, and you will have on the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time.”﴿ Quran Chapter “The Cow” 2:36.

﴾He said, “Go down being enemies to one another. And for you on the earth, there is a place of settlement and provision for a time.”﴿

Quran Chapter “The Heights” 7:24.

There is no interpretation for the accounts that say that Adam’s wet clay form was lying at the gate of paradise before the spirit was breathed into him.

The creators of this thesis completely abolished Adam’s existence and his previous creation from the wet clay in paradise. To them, Adam’s beginning was one hundred percent earthly although the Quranic texts clearly state that Adam’s beginning pbuh was heavenly, and it was in the temporal paradise of the first heaven specifically, regardless of the fact that they will definitely be forced to deny the world of al-Tharr mentioned in the Quran, because their thesis has absolutely no place for the world of al-Tharr, since to them Adam’s beginning pbuh was on the earth!

I do not know how they will be able to, for example, explain these verses, if they are requested to, by any acceptable means.

﴾And when your Lord took from the children of Adam-from their backs- their descendants, and made them testify of their souls, [saying to them], "Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes, we have testified.” Lest you should say on the day of resurrection, “Indeed, we were of this unaware.” • Or lest you say, “It was only that our fathers associated others with God before, and we were but descendants after them. Then would you destroy us for what the falsifiers have done?”﴿ Quran Chapter “The Heights” 7:172-73.

In his book Asl Al-Khalq wa Amr Al-Sujood [The Origin of Creation and the Command of Prostration], Aalim Subayt Al-Nili made a thesis similar to that of Abdul Sabur.

It is understood from Aalim Subayt’s words that he believes in the validity of the theory of evolution, and he did not place a restriction on it like that of Abdul Sabur. From the sayings of Aalim Subayt, it appears that he believes in evolution and natural selection as established in evolutionary biology, and he also believes that Adam is the product of breathing the spirit into the body that resulted from evolution on this earth. Aalim Subayt differentiated between Man and man just like Abdul Sabur did. However, what Abdul Sabur considered to be Quranic speech directed at Man assigned to worship God was considered by Aalim Subayt to censure him, thus reversing the issue. So Aalim Subayt made it as if Man evolved into man. Adam, who Abdul Sabur considered to be the first Man, is the first man according to Aalim Subayt:

Dry clay is the concentrated extract taken from mud, and it is a mass of matter put into a formed method and path, and it is capable of protecting itself. It also has the power to help it survive by division and reproduction. Therefore, the dry clay of formed mud is the first substance of life (Al-Nili 2004, 34. Arabic source, translated).

You will find that the previous hypothesis (that the dry clay of formed mud is the first matter infused with life, which developed to become a proper Man through epoch and eons) is a correct hypothesis from more than one aspect (Al-Nili 2004, 36, translated).

To resolve the conflict between his hypothesis and the religious accounts and verses that speak about Adam being created from wet clay, Aalim Subayt made a hypothesis that states that Adam was created from wet clay and not from dry clay, as the one who was created from dry clay is Man, who later developed into man. The man (Adam) is the one created from wet clay, and Adam, the man created from wet clay, is the product of divine intervention to hasten the process of evolution by forced selection.

In order to solve the conflict between the above words and the theory of evolution, genetics, and the saying of God Almighty, ﴾…a man whom You created out of the dry clay of formed mud﴿ Quran Chapter “The Rocky Tract” 15:33, he stated that the wet clay here is not the wet clay everyone is familiar with, rather it is a homogenous, firm substance that developed from dry clay. In order to solve the conflict between his hypotheses and the saying of God Almighty, ﴾[He] Who perfected everything He created, and began the creation of Man from wet clay﴿ Quran Chapter “The Prostration” 32:7, he said:

﴾…[He] began the creation of Man from wet clay﴿ 32:7 which apparently necessitates a type of contradiction, but this is where the Quranic miracles lie. In Chapter Sad, He also mentioned that he is from wet clay, so the difference lies in the remaining terms. His saying, ﴾I am going to create man from wet clay﴿ 38:71 is different than His saying, ﴾[He] began the creation of Man from wet clay.﴿ 32:7 Thus, the first saying is in the past, where He talks about something that will happen in the future, meaning, He will create man from dry clay or from wet clay. Thus, He mentioned the first origin to demonstrate the major difference between two conditions, showing the ability to infuse it with the power of development, whereas in the second saying, He is now speaking about an incident that happened before, so it is the exact opposite of the first one in the way of telling the incident. The first animalistic being had not reached the stage of the Man yet. Rather, he started becoming Man from the wet clay stage. With respect to the term “wet clay”, it is actually true for both cases. As for the degree of purity, it is understood from the other words included in the text (Al-Nili 2004, 74, Arabic source, translated).

Thus he continued with absurd assumptions to escape from one argument and fall into others, like the lumberjack of the night who does not know where his axe falls.

There is a repelling source in the wet clay stage, note the change in the description: ﴾except for Iblis. He refused and was arrogant and became of the disbelievers.﴿ [Quran Chapter “Sad” 38:74]. He has made him arrogant and a disbeliever because He created the model that hastens evolution from the same dust, if we take the idea of inserting a hastening element or model-which is the only idea that solves the problems in religious accounts quoted from the infallible pbuh about wet clay and the first origin of the creation, as you will see. All that happened is that this time, the dust was pure without impurities in it, just as it is stated in one of the religious accounts, and that the wet clay formed from it was pure with no impurities, in contrast to the first origin of the dry clay of formed mud. Do not think that what is meant by impurities here are the usual impurities nor that this is wet clay. Rather, the wet clay was called wet clay because its linguistic origin is the elements that are very cohesive and have a certain specialized function. Then, He described it to be a sticky clay because of the strong cohesiveness between its elements due to the absence of any impurities in this pureness. With this purity, the man is created directly without passing by the stage of Man. Therefore, please note, it is a holy wet clay. That is why the only place that is suitable for the creation of this man into the holy self is the singular form “I created…” (Al-Nili 2004, 56, translated).

The wet clay which we witness before us is Adam’s wet clay which is a proportional, consistent substance in its elements developed from dry clay, not from something else. However, the Divine Hand intervened in hastening its purification and development with special care. It involves the late appearance of this developed man naturally (Al-Nili 2004, 60, translated).

In any case, the idea or thesis that Adam is the product of a spirit breathed into a body that developed through evolution is a wrong and incorrect idea. In addition, it contradicts the verses pertaining to al-Tharr: ﴾And when your Lord took from the children of Adam-from their backs-their descendants, and made them testify of their souls, [saying to them], “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes, we have testified.” Lest you should say on the day of resurrection, “Indeed, we were of this unaware.”﴿ Quran Chapter “The Heights” 7:172, and the verse saying that He created you from one soul: ﴾O Mankind, fear your Lord who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear God through whom you ask one another, and the kinship. Indeed, God is ever an observer over you.﴿ Quran Chapter “The Women” 4:1. It also contradicts the accounts about the sperm drop that comes out during death, and other accounts and verses.

This thesis is incapable of providing a logical explanation about death, and what happens during death regarding the removal of the soul and the spirit. Therefore, what is this spirit or soul that is removed from the body when the Man dies? Is it the breathed spirit, hence a distinct one that not every Man possesses, but only the one who developed according to this thesis? Or is it something else? In truth, nothing else is connected to the earthly, developed body, according to this thesis. At the same time, the death of the body is nothing but a process of deactivating the chemical reactions that make the organs of the body function. Thus, the death of the body in and of itself does not include the removal of a true soul. Rather, it is just a cessation of reactions that leads to deactivating the organs and consequently the body as a whole.

Scientifically, the body that evolved on this earth is just a body composed of chemical substances. If we want to summarize it in scientific terms, we could say that the body of any living being, such as the human, is a colony of replicators (DNA, RNA, etc.) that possess the plan of a reactive chemical machine that is implemented in order for the replicators to survive and pass to later generations-nothing more.

This raises multiple, unsolvable arguments against the above theses: it is incorrect to obligate a body that does not possess a true soul qualified for duties. Scientifically speaking, the human body is a mere chemical structure, like any bat or octopus or chimpanzee. Therefore, how can it be assigned duties in the first place, and then be held accountable or punished afterwards? Who is being assigned duties and held accountable? Is it the body, composed of reactant chemical substances that make it perform certain functions?!

If the breathing of the soul is a virtue and a rise in rank, it is incorrect that the spirit would be breathed into one body but not into another in the first place, since bodies are merely chemical machines that are not qualified for assigned duties, and then hold one of them accountable and reward the other. This goes against the alleged justice of the Almighty and Just Creator.

However, we find Aalim Subayt saying,

From the time the clot was created up to the time of death, each one of them received a very different amount [of spirit]. Some of them die with no spirit, and some of them are born with a great spirit (Al-Nili 2004, 53, translated).

What is the criteria for the breathing of the spirit? Is it work and obedience? In reality, it cannot be obedience from a mere body composed of reactant chemical substances whose reaction produces lust, power, and life of the body in the form of the movement and function of organs. Scientifically, these are all material forces completely explained from a material standpoint, and these forces do not need to assume that anything else beyond matter exists. The religious accounts spoke of them as spirits of lust, power and movement, meaning the movement and function of the organs that all living beings have in common. These spirits are nothing other than the material components of this body and their products.

I believe what I have explained is sufficient to show that these theses are incorrect, so I will refrain from discussing them in further detail, even though any person reading this book may have much to say about them.

What I have set out in this book is correct, which is that every human is born with a soul created from the raised wet clay and the breathing of the spirit. This soul is connected to the body with complete interplay and management such that this soul feels the body’s pleasure, pain, life, and death. It has actual material impact on the body, like the work of an active driver within it.

Since this soul is created from the breathing, it is a clear and lucid image of the spirit and the total intellect. For this reason, it is correct that it is assigned duties, and it is the one assigned with the divine duty of obedience. And it is tested in this world by its connection to the body that has temporal, lustful demands.

From the above, it has also been clarified that everyone has souls qualified for being assigned duties, and everyone has the same capacity and ability. As such, no argument can be made against the justice of God Almighty. He made everyone equal and placed them in the temporal test. Muhammad, Ali, the prophets, the successors, and the righteous ones won due to what they brought forth, and God did not initially favor them over others, as this would go against His justice. Thus, the others who lost entered the test with the same opportunity as Muhammad pbuhap, Ali, the prophets, and successors pbut but they fell short, and did not work and obey, so they lost.

The Truth that is in this Book

The truth in this book is that the human soul was created from the raised wet clay and the breathing of the spirit that were connected to a material body that evolved on this earth. The first human soul was created in the first heaven and was composed of the wet clay that was raised to it, as well as the breathing of the spirit into it. Thus, the creation of Adam pbuh occurred in the first heaven. If non-believers cannot understand or rationalize the first heaven, we can assume that, according to the multiple universe theory, it i exists in a universe parallel to our universe that we now live in. From there, this soul was returned to this material universe we are in through its connection to a body- when it is in the womb -and it is a body like our current bodies. It is no different from us. Thus, the first Man, Adam pbuh, was formed on this earth. The case of Eve pbuh is similar to that of Adam. Mankind reproduced and populated the earth for the first time in a noteworthy, recorded, and preserved manner in Sumer.

If you cannot understand the connection of the soul that is in a parallel world to the body that is in this world, you can consider it to be like the hypothetical connection between parallel universes and the transfer of a particle or wave between universes.*

With respect to the soul of Eve, it was derived from the soul of Adam pbuh:

﴾O Mankind, fear your Lord who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear God through whom you ask one another, and the kinship. Indeed, God is ever an observer over you.﴿ Quran Chapter “The Women” 4:1.*

The Almighty also said, ﴾It is He who created you from one soul and created from it its mate, that he might live with her, and when he covers her, she carries a light burden and continues therein. And when it becomes heavy, they both invoke God their Lord, “If you should give us good, we will surely be among the grateful.”﴿ Quran Chapter “The Heights” 7:189.

Subsequently, the souls of the offspring were brought out of the souls of Adam and his offspring, and God tested them in that world: ﴾And when your Lord took from the children of Adam-from their backs- their descendants, and made them testify of their souls, [saying to them], “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes, we have testified.” Lest you should say on the day of resurrection, “Indeed, we were of this unaware.”﴿ Quran Chapter “The Heights” 7:172. All the souls of the children of Adam were composed of both the raised wet clay and a manifestation of the spirit of faith and the Holy Spirit, or say an image of the spirit of faith and the Holy Spirit. Thus, every human is created on the basis of reaching the highest ranks, and of being with the people of the seventh heaven, and knowing God. Moreover, he has the tool with which he rises, which is the image of the spirit of faith and the Holy Spirit. As such, through the image placed within him, he is supposed to know and reach his truth.

The reason that the soul of Adam, Eve, and the others created in the first heaven or the world of al-Tharr is connected to the bodies on this earth, is to repeat the test and give them another chance to be tested. (For further reading on this subject, you may refer to detailed explanations I have presented in other books.) This connection of these heavenly souls to the earthly bodies led to the appearance of culture and civilization, as will be clarified.

Abdullah Ibn al-Fathil al-Hashimi said to Abu Abdullah, “Why did God Almighty place the spirits in the bodies after they were in His higher kingdom at the highest rank? He pbuh said, God Almighty knew that if spirits were left in a state of nobility and elevation, the majority of them would incline toward claiming lordship in place of the Almighty, so by His power, He placed them in bodies that He initially destined for them, out of His concern for them and mercy toward them. He made one need the other; one attached to the other; one elevated over the other in this world and in the hereafter; and one sufficient for the other. He sent His messengers to them and established His proofs upon them as bearers of glad tidings and warners, who commanded toward worship and humility toward their God through the types of worship He commanded them with. He created immediate and delayed punishments for them, and immediate and delayed rewards to make them want to do good and refrain from evil, and to guide their seeking of sustenance and provision, so they would know that there is a Lord above them and that they are created worshippers, and so they would incline toward worshipping Him, hence deserving everlasting bliss and eternal Paradise, and being secure from resorting to that of which they have no right.”

Then he pbuh said, “O Ibn Fathel, God Almighty is more concerned about His servants than they are about themselves. Do not you see how they all love superiority over others until some of them incline toward claiming lordship, and some of them incline toward claiming prophethood without right, and some of them incline toward claiming to be imams without right, despite the imperfection, inability, weakness, humiliation, need, poverty, pain, and the alternating among these things that they see in themselves, and the death that overcomes and conquers them all? O Ibn Fathel, surely God Almighty only does what is best for His worshippers, and He does not at all oppress people. Rather, it is the people who oppress themselves” (Al-Sadooq 1966, vol 1, 16. Arabic source, translated).

Therefore, considering that the soul is created from wet clay, it has the capacity to encompass the physical, material spirits or forces, which are lust, power, and movement or life of the body. Since the soul is created from the breathing of the spirit, it is qualified to rise and to encompass the Holy Spirit and the spirit of faith.

For this reason, the wet clay was raised and the soul was created from it and from the breathing of the spirit, because as God knows, it will return to the wet clay or to the material world of the bodies or the earth in particular. Because it is created from it, it is qualified to interact with what is earthly, encompass it, and merge with it, meaning the body, as it represents a suitable test for it. At the same time, because it is from the breathing of the heavenly spirit, it is qualified to rise and to encompass what is heavenly, meaning the spirit of faith and the Holy Spirit.

We can imagine the soul to be a double-sided mirror. One side has an image and a place for the physical spirits or forces of the body (the spirits of lust, power, and life) and the other side has a place for the spirit of faith and the Holy Spirit. Thus, the soul is inclusive of the five spirits: the spirits or forces of the body, the spirit of faith, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is inclusive of forces and spirits from different worlds, because it is created from different worlds. Accordingly, the raised wet clay is from the physical world of the material, and the breathing of the spirit is from the higher heavens.

Abu Abdullah pbuh said: “O Jabir, God Almighty created the creatures in three categories, and it is in the saying of God Almighty: ﴾And you become three kinds • Then the people of the right-what are the people of the right? • And the companions of the left-what are the companions of the left? • And the forerunners, the forerunners-Those are the ones brought near.﴿ [Quran Chapter “The Inevitable” 56:7-11].

The forerunners are the messengers of God pbut and the elite of God from His creation. He has placed in them five spirits. He supported them with: the Holy Spirit, by which they recognized things; the spirit of faith, by which they feared God Almighty; the spirit of power, by which they had the ability to obey God; the spirit of lust, by which they desired obedience to God Almighty and despised disobedience to Him. He also placed within them the spirit of movement by which the people come and go.

He has placed these spirits within the believers and the people of the right: the spirit of faith, by which they feared God; the spirit of strength, by which they were able to obey God; the spirit of lust, by which they desired obedience to God; and the spirit of movement, by which the people come and go” (Al-Kulaini 1944, vol 1, 271. Arabic source, translated).

Abu Jafar pbuh was asked about the knowledge of the Knowledgeable One, so he said: “There are five spirits in the prophets and successors: The Holy Spirit, the spirit of faith, the spirit of life, the spirit of strength and the spirit of lust. Through the Holy Spirit, they knew of all that is under the Throne [down] to what is within the earth… These four spirits are all struck by impurities except the Holy Spirit, which does not trifle or play” (Al-Kulaini 1944, vol 1, 272, translated).

Abu Abdullah pbuh was asked about the knowledge of the Imam concerning what is in the ends of the earth while he is in his house secluded behind curtains, so he pbuh said: ”God Almighty has placed five spirits in the Prophet pbuhap: the spirit of life by which he moved and walked, the spirit of strength by which he stood and strove, the spirit of lust by which he ate, drank and coupled in permissible ways, the spirit of faith by which he believed and was just, and the Holy Spirit by which he bore prophethood. When the Prophet pbuh died, the Holy Spirit transferred and moved to the Imam. The Holy Spirit does not sleep, forget, trifle, nor boast. The other four spirits sleep, forget, boast and trifle. And he used to see through the Holy Spirit” (Al-Kulaini 1944, vol 1, 272, translated).

Human Culture

There is no doubt that the appearance of the being called the modern or intellectual human (Homo sapiens) represented an obvious leap the development of culture and civilization as previously clarified. However, if we examine the history of this same being, Homo sapiens, particularly the group that migrated out of Africa, we also find that archaeological data indicates a clear leap of culture in a specific time period. It may be scientifically difficult to accurately specify where it began, because nothing material has been attained that can be relied on to specify the beginning of the leap of civilization. The indicators of the beginning of agricultural villages more than ten thousand years ago in the Near East do not represent the beginning, but rather, they represent a spread and expansion in the beginning that made it archaeologically possible to identify due to the traces of it that remained.

However, by scientifically and objectively studying the most ancient findings that have been preserved and recorded, we can reach some of the truth if not the whole truth. The Sumerian-Akkadian civilization is the oldest civilization and culture to record its history, relayed through Sumerian writings that unquestionably represent the closest or one of the closest inheritors of the first migrating group that inherited the fertile valley (the current Gulf). Following the flood, this civilization moved to the north of the valley (the current gulf). Within the borders that are inhabitable, and on the borders of marshes and lakes, villages formed prior to the Sumerian (Akkadian) history in Mesopotamia (Iraq). The history of some of what has reached us from the Sumerians dates back thousands of years before Christ. However, since the civilization of those early people relied on reed-and especially since they lived in a valley filled with lakes-nothing of it has reached us. What has reached us is their later civilization, meaning around the fifth millennium B.C. What they recorded and wrote, after writing and recording began, indicates a leap of culture and civilization in every sense of the word. We can say that this leap manifested with both tools and a great number of people residing in Iraq, such that conditions could not erase it. Certainly, this number came from individuals that bequeathed this sophisticated cultural level of human behavior to their children. In other words, this is a leap of civilization that goes back to other millenniums that were perhaps erased by the flood and obliterated by the salt water that covered the current Gulf.

When the children of the Sumerian (Akkadian) civilization speak about their ancestors and the clay tablets, you find them saying that their ancestors were more culturally and morally sophisticated than they were. It is a culture and civilization completely different than what preceded it. Here, we are not speaking about mere tools. Rather, we are speaking about a social and political system and high morals. Therefore, there was a leap of culture and civilization that cannot be scientifically explained, and it was recorded in a certain historical time period and reached us through Shumer or Sumer or the land of Akkad and Sumer, the South of modern Iraq. This leap of culture led some researchers like Zachariah Sitchin to suggest that the Sumerians (Akkadians) had a celestial origin, and that they came from outer space.

We can assume that these people called Sumerians have descended from tribes who inhabited Iraq in prehistoric eras that preceded the Early Dynastic Period, and that they were known in historical times by a particular name-Sumerians-in reference to a particular part of Iraq where they were centered. This part is the southern region named Shumer or Sumer. Perhaps what most makes this assumption a realistic opinion is that the foundations of the civilization that we named Sumerian and that flourished during the Early Dynastic Period can be traced to the civilization periods which we named predynastic periods, forming a continuity of civilizations. This means that the origins of the Sumerian civilization began in Iraq, and we can trace its foundations and origins to the earliest times. We can, for example, call the people of the Ubaid period Sumerians, based on the emergence of the most prominent elements of Sumerian civilization therein, such as temples and villages, even though we do not know the language spoken by the Ubaidians (Baqir 2009, 89-90. Arabic source, translated).

Certainly, Egyptian civilization represents an excellent representation of this leap of culture and civilization. However, it came after the Sumerian civilization. In addition, some recent genetic research has proven that the origins of Egyptians and North Africans go back to the ancient Sumerian region that is Southern Iraq. For this reason, I will only discuss the Sumerian or Akkadian civilization-the civilization of the ancestors-to prove this leap of civilization using the Sumerian (Akkadian) example.

Literature in Sumer and Akkad

Indicators of a Leap in Consciousness and Intellect

Literature is a standard of measure of human culture and the human ability to think. As such, we are obliged to consider that Sumerian or Akkadian (Babylonian and Assyrian) literature-such as the Epic of Gilgamesh with its various texts-important evidence that man’s capability of consciousness and knowledge has not changed ever since the known beginning in Sumer and Akkad that was recorded and conveyed on clay tablets. Literature is an independent measure that doesn’t need other mechanisms that might disrupt the accuracy of its use as a standard of measure, as is the case with industrial civilization, building and construction. These are difficult for anyone to use as accurate measures because they rely on other methods beyond the humanness of man, such as accumulating inventions and manufacturing and constructing tools, which are interdependent. Nevertheless, they are still measures that perhaps require inference in order to reach the required result.

Some say that humanity has made great progress in the construction field. Today, we are able to build skyscrapers and bridges over the middle of the sea. Therefore, construction may also govern our advancement in intellect and consciousness over that of our Sumerian ancestors. However, if we look closely and compare the Ziggurat of Ur built by the Sumerians with the most complex grand constructions of today, we will conclude there is no difference in the level of intellect and consciousness between the engineers who designed and completed the Ziggurat of Ur, and their Chinese counterparts who designed and completed the longest sea bridge in the world, or those who, in a few days, completed the construction of a hotel of thirty or more stories. That is because Chinese engineers today have past experiential information and industrial techniques that improve construction, which have accumulated over time throughout the history of mankind. The Sumerians did not have that, because they represent the starting point. The difference between the Sumerian team of engineers thousands of years ago and the Chinese team of today is not a difference of intellect and consciousness, but a difference in what is available externally. It is like giving someone shovels and simple tools and information about construction, and asking him to construct a building such as the Ziggurat of Ur, while giving another person developed tools and a great deal of information accumulated from previous experiences, as well as computers and various software designs and analyses, and requesting that he build a bridge connecting China and Hong Kong. In my opinion, if both of them were to do as you request, I would not be able to determine the difference between them in terms of intellect or faculty of consciousness. I believe any rational person would make the same conclusion.

We may conclude that, from the perspective of building, construction, industry, and agriculture, the Sumerian civilization absolutely represents a leap of civilization in relation to the history preceding its existence. It indicates a leap in intellect and consciousness among the Sumerians, the beginning of which cannot be scientifically determined with accuracy. Nevertheless, it certainly started long before recorded history, perhaps by tens of thousands of years. It places them at the same level of our intellect and consciousness today. However, for urban civilization, for example, we need to investigate, give examples, and make comparisons in order to reach the required result.

With respect to literary texts, I believe that any person who reads the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, will see it as a work of literature worthy of being categorized at the height of human literature (for those who think it is a product of humans), and therefore conclude that mankind in Sumer and Akkad underwent a leap of culture and civilization within the historical span of the tens of thousands of years that are linked to Sumer and Akkad. It can be read using the tools of consciousness available to the average person. This clearly means that something new entered the equation of the Homo sapiens that changed him from a simple, primitive being controlled by the selfishness of survival, to an intellectual, conscious human who tried to be altruistic in this life and turn his desire for survival into a desire for immortality in a different, ideal world, free of evil and filled with good, agreeable morals.

Figure 16: Ziggurat of Ur

The Origin of the Sumerians

The Sumerian language differs from the Semitic languages that existed in Mesopotamia. This difference has posed a problem in determining the origin of the Sumerians, causing many researchers and specialists to suppose that Sumerians had a distant origin, such as India, East Asia or even Europe. Earlier specialists, such as Joseph Halévy, and later ones, such as Dr Nael Hanun, have come to different conclusions. Some considered the question regarding the Sumerian origins to be invalid. Hanun concluded that Sumerian writing was invented by Akkadians during the first attempts at writing and transcribing in the cuneiform language. Therefore, the Sumerians are the Akkadians (the Babylonians and Assyrians), and are not of a different nationality. This means that the Sumerian-Akkadians are Semites.*

The research of Thorkild Jacobsen proves the absence of any conflict between Sumerians and Akkadians on the basis of national differences. This is despite the inevitability of such conflict when disputing over sovereignty in an area of limited space and resources, such as ancient Mesopotamia, which lacked any natural barriers that would have separated its lands for the two nations to co-exist. We can summarize the most important results reached by Jacobsen in his research as follows:

1. The conflicts between the different human groups in ancient Mesopotamia were not due to national differences. Rather, they were due to political and territorial disagreements. 2. Cuneiform texts never mentioned a single case of conflict or war between Sumerians and Akkadians, even though they were regarded as two different nationalities. Rather, they were in separate cities, or separate civil-states, with a distinct sense of nationalist belonging felt by the residents of each of the two cities. 3. Any research concerning the differences between Sumerians and Akkadians can only pertain to the use of language, names of personalities, and religious beliefs. It cannot pertain to ethnic differences or natural anthropological elements-such as skin color, features, hair type and so on-since it is impossible to monitor such differences in the first place.

The most important conclusions made by Ignace Jay Gelb in his research can be summarized as follows: 1. The anthropological evidence confirms that the skeletons discovered since the oldest period in Babylon belong to the race known as the Eastern Branch of the Mediterranean Sea race. This means that they resemble skeletons of Bedouin tribes in the Arabian Peninsula and the desert of Sham. Moreover, no skeletons of the round head type specific to people of Central Asia were found, as it is assumed that Central Asia was the first home of the Sumerians. 2. Research confirms the significance of the evidence drawn from the names of ancient cities discovered by Landsberger and outlined above. The essence of this evidence is that the names of major ancient cities in Southern Iraq were not Sumerian. 3. Names of Akkadian personalities appear together with those of Sumerian personalities in cuneiform texts, even in cities that are apparently Sumerian during Sumerian periods. The names of the kings of the first dynasty that ruled after the flood were mostly Akkadian. This is based on how Sumerian kings are identified. Out of the 23 kings whose names were mentioned in this dynasty, there were no more than six Sumerian names. In cities such as Shuruppak and Ur, the names of Akkadians have appeared in texts since the ancient Early Dynastic period. 4. Most of our information about the kings of the Early Dynastic period, who are believed to be Sumerian, derives from texts of epics composed in the Sumerian language during the ancient Babylonian period, not during the supposed Sumerian periods. 5. In its first stages, the writing was not limited to the supposed Sumerian region of Southern Iraq. Rather, it spread to what is known as the Akkadian region-the northern part of Southern Iraq-during the period similar to the protoliterate period. 6. The Akkadian texts began to appear in the third Early Dynastic Period, which is considered one of the periods of Sumerian sovereignty before Sargon of Akkad established his state. During the period of this state, royal texts and names of years were bilingual. Religious and economics texts, on the other hand, were either in Sumerian or Akkadian. In the region of Diyala, which is far from what is believed to be the Sumerian region, the Sumerian language was used to transcribe agreements. In the ancient Babylonian period, the Babylonians used the Sumerian language-as well as the Akkadian language-for inscription. 7. The lexical study of the Sumerian language shows the existence of two groups of terms: the first includes Sumerian terms, while the second includes a large number of words borrowed from a non-Sumerian language. 8. A large number of cuneiform characters were found to have pho-

netic significance in the Sumerian language. Sumerian speakers used them, but these characters had no symbolic significance to indicate meaning associated with them. Researchers have given them the name “kakasiga”. The existence of these characters, or linguistic codes, indicates that they were derived from words belonging to a non-Sumerian language. 9. Sumerian symbolic syllables possessing the same meaning differed from one region to another throughout Southern Iraq, or E HUL. This is expressed differently in the northern regions of Southern Iraq, using the symbolic syllables SAG GIS RA. Some precedents and linguistic tools were used in certain regions, while they were neglected in others. 10. Akkadian writing influenced Sumerian writing in a manner no less noticeable than the oral linguistic influence. This indicates that Akkadians were involved with writing when it was invented. For example, syllables were found in Sumerian writing that were derived from Akkadian words like the syllable (id) derived from the Akkadian word (idu) meaning hand, the syllable (pu) derived from the Akkadian word pu meaning mouth, and the syllable (iz) derived from the Akkadian word (isu) meaning stick. There are also Sumerian words that were derived from Akkadian words and then morphed into symbolic syllables with the same meaning. Example of this are “sam” (price) and “hazi” (axe).

In the 1970s, Taha Baqir raised an important issue regarding the Sumerians. He rejected the tendency of certain researchers to attribute physical characteristics to Sumerians through statues and artwork. He explained that the visible features on the Adamite statues were influenced by artistic techniques and styles predominantly followed in sculpting. The appearances and shapes of these statues of individuals do not, in reality, represent ethnic differences or characteristics specific to the Sumerians and Akkadians. Rather, they represent attire appropriate for the status of the depicted person. Baqir’s view is corroborated by the fact that that these features and characteristics, which researchers attributed to statues of Sumerians, also appear on statues of people in regions distant from the hypothetical region of Sumerians like Mari (Tel al-Hariri in Syria). In addition, we find that the forms of the people in statues attributed to Sumerians from the Early Dynastic Era differ from the famous statues of Prince Judia (the Sumerian) who lived around 2200 B.C.

It is clear from the aforementioned that the hypothesis concerning the existence of a Sumerian people-which has been proved through the existence of Sumerian language and Sumerian names of people-raises more questions than it provides answers. It is also clear to us that language is the only proof of the existence of Sumerians as people who lived with or preceded Akkadians in Southern Mesopotamia. Even in terms of writing, it has become clear that solid scientific studies do not side with accepting the opinion that writing is the invention of Sumerians. From this point on, we incline toward believing that there were no people ethnically different than the ones called Akkadians. We have sufficient reasons for saying that Akkadians created the Sumerian language for the purpose of transcription, before they were able to invent a method to transcribe the Akkadian language itself. We see this when the Sumerian language was first formed and could not be used as speech, as we will explain in due course.

Nevertheless, the Sumerian language helped Akkadians reach syllables after the pictorial and symbolic stages. Syllables were the only way to transcribe the texts of the Akkadian language that was used in speech, and the pictorial and symbolic methods could not used for transcribing the language because they were filled with conjugations, derivatives and an abundant vocabulary. Thus, it was only possible using syllables. If the pictorial and symbolic methods were not invented to transcribe a language that was originally made for transcription, it would not have been possible to reach syllables.

What led us to this opinion was working to compile the Sumerian lexicon of the Akkadian, Sumerian and Arabic languages, the first volume of which was issued in Baghdad in 2001. After completing the first volume and beginning to work on later volumes that include the terms, it became clear to us that a great number of Sumerian terms and symbolic syllables were made for the first time between the middle of the second millenium and the middle of the first millennium. That is over five centuries after the hypothetical disappearance of Sumerians. This fact led us to conclude that these terms were made by the Akkadians themselves. If the Akkadians were the ones who made the Sumerian terms at that time, what prevents us from believing that they made the terms and syllables before then? What could cause us to think that they were incapable of creating rules of writing to control the formation of these terms in texts, such as the texts we now know as Sumerian?

In addition to the aforementioned, through research on this subject we have obtained vast evidence supporting the hypothesis we have made (Hanun 2007, 29-32. Arabic source, translated).

Sumerians or Akkadians have the world’s oldest recorded civilization and culture, as well as the oldest organized and known religion to date. If we consider religion to be only a cultural history, the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, would be mere carriers of the Sumerian Akkadian religion, and nothing more than reflections of it. The stories of the creation, the flood and Noah; the stories, examples, high moral values and exalted behavior of some individuals; the worship, prayer, and invocation of God-all of this exists in the Sumerian religion.

In addition, the origin of all three Abrahamic religions traces back to Abraham pbuh, who came from Sumer.

Since the Sumerians have the oldest earthly civilization and culture of known value, the ancient Sumerians, or the people from whom Sumerians descended, can be considered to represent the source from whom the children of Adam and their culture spread throughout the remainder of the earth. In the clay tablets, the Sumerians described their ancestors as the “blackheaded people”. This agrees with what has recently been proven scientifically, namely that the Homo sapiens currently spread throughout the earth are of African origin.

The first civilizations to emerge shortly after the Sumerians had surrounded the land of the Sumerians, with the Sumerians representing the center of these civilizations. This unequivocally means that they spread to surrounding countries and established cultures therein, or, at the very least, it means that their culture and civilization spread.

Therefore, the culture of the Sumerians (Akkadians) appeared suddenly-without preliminaries-and it was very sophisticated and distinct. This stark cultural and civilizational leap made by the Sumerians represents a clear indicator of something new entering the equation, causing man to not only build a material civilization, but to also move from selfish, animal, oppressive behavior to seeking moral, fair, altruistic, humane behavior.

The only reasonable explanation, supported by archeological findings, is that religion entered the equation. The religious explanation for this shift of civilization is the only one that is correct, factual, and supported by artifacts that confirm the introduction of these values through religion, or Adam and the prophets. When the soul of Adam pbuh connected to a material body of selfish biology, this soul entered the equation, and this benevolent soul transmitted moral values, such as altruism, from God. People then believed that these moral values were truths, due to indicators they sensed within themselves. They then started fighting their “I” with altruism, achieving a benevolent and blessed result, the beauty of which stunned even atheists. The atheists then began advocating altruism, which is all they could do, despite the fact that its forerunner and the one who introduced it is the worst of enemies to the atheists: divine religion.

If we combine the history of the Sumerians’ clay tablets and artifacts with their religious text, we will reach the conclusion that the Sumerians-or the inhabitants of Mesopotamia-are actually the inheritors of the civilization and culture of Adam pbuh and Noah pbuh (Utnapishtim), even if an extremely long time had passed before we obtained that history from artifacts and clay tablets.

Figure 17: A Map of Sumer, Akkad, and Elam

Figure 18: A Map of the Countries of Mesopotamia. Source: Wikimedia

Figure 19: A Map of Sumer and Akkad. Source: Ancient History Encyclopedia

The maps are arranged to also give an adequate picture of the process of water recession caused by the hydraulic jump of the flood that filled the valley with water. This flood formed the modern gulf and caused the migration of the early Sumerians (or whatever you wish to call them) from the valley to the regions of Southern Iraq and their settlement on the water edges between 8000-15000 B.C. Consequently, they built villages and cities, and then they and their civilization spread to the rest of the world, such as North Africa.

The Civilization and Culture of Sumerians or Akkadians

What distinguishes the behavior of Sumerians (Akkadians), as our chosen example, from animals and anthropoids such as the Homo erectus or the ancient Homo sapiens (before civilization) in terms of culture and civilization, are the following most significant attributes:

Moral Standards such as Justice

Laws were made to govern interactions between individuals and to achieve social justice. In fact, we find that Sumerian literature contains very high moral standards such as altruism and favoring others over one’s self.

The Sumerians, according to their own records, cherished goodness and truth, law and order, justice and freedom, righteousness and straightforwardness, mercy and compassion. And they abhorred evil and falsehood, lawlessness and disorder, injustice and oppression, sinfulness and perversity, cruelty and pitilessness. Kings and rulers constantly boasted of the fact that they had established law and order in the land; protected the weak from the strong, the poor from the rich; and wiped out evil and violence. In the unique document analyzed in Chapter 7, the Lagashite ruler Urukagina, who lived in the twenty fourth century B.C., proudly recorded that he restored justice and freedom to the long- suffering citizens, did away with ubiquitous and oppressive officials, put a stop to injustice and exploitation, and protected the widow and the orphan. Less than four centuries later, Ur-Nammu, founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur, promulgated his law code (see Chapter 8), which lists in its prologue some of his ethical achievements: he did away with a number of prevalent bureaucratic abuses, regulated weights and measures to ensure honesty in the market place, and saw to it that the widow, the orphan, and the poor were protected from ill-treatment and abuse. Some two centuries later, Lipit-Ishtar of Isin promulgated a new law code, in which he boasted that he was especially selected by the great gods An and Enlil for “the princeship of the land in order to establish justice in the lands, to banish complaints, to turn back enmity and rebellion by force of arms, and to bring well-being to the Sumerians and Akkadians.” The hymns of a number of Sumerian rulers abound in similar claims of high ethical and moral conduct (Kramer (1956) 1981, 101-02).

This is a text translated from Sumerian documents describing the goddess Nanshe:

Who knows the orphan, who knows the widow, Knows the oppression of man over man, is the orphan’s mother, Nanshe, who cares for the widow, Who seeks out (?) justice (?) for the poorest (?). The queen brings the refugee to her lap, Finds shelter for the weak (Kramer 1981, 104).

Organized Social Behavior:

Organized social behavior includes establishing the country and government; organizing agriculture; creating a farmer’s almanac; organizing medical treatment; creating a medical handbook; and creating administrative jobs, such as director of municipality, officer, ambassador, library manager, and so on.

On the Organization of Schools and Means of Education, Dr Kramer says:

The Sumerian school was the direct outgrowth of the invention and development of the cuneiform system of writing, Sumer’s most significant contribution to civilization.

The first written documents were found in a Sumerian city named Erech. They consist of more than a thousand small pictographic clay tablets inscribed primarily with bits of economic and administrative memoranda. But among them are several which contain word lists intended for study and practice. That is, as early as 3000 B.C., some scribes were already thinking in terms of teaching and learning. Progress was slow in the centuries that followed. But by the middle of the third millennium, there must have been a number of schools throughout Sumer where writing was taught formally. In ancient Shuruppak, the home city of the Sumerian “Noah,” there were excavated, in 1902–1903, a considerable number of school “textbooks” dating from about 2500 B.C.

However, it was in the last half of the third millennium that the Sumerian school system matured and flourished. From this period there have already been excavated tens of thousands of clay tablets, and there is little doubt that hundreds of thousands more lie buried in the ground, awaiting the future excavator. The vast majority are administrative in character; they cover every phase of Sumerian economic life. From them we learn that the number of scribes who practiced their craft throughout those years ran into the thousands. There were junior and “high” scribes, royal and temple scribes, scribes who were highly specialized for particular categories of administrative activities, and scribes who became leading officials in government. There is every reason to assume, therefore, that numerous scribal schools of considerable size and importance flourished throughout the land (Kramer 1981, 3-4).

In the third millennium B.C., these “textbooks” became increasingly more complete, and gradually grew to be more or less stereotyped and standard for all the schools of Sumer.

Among them we find long lists of names of trees and reeds; of all sorts of animals, including insects and birds; of countries, cities, and villages; of stones and minerals. These compilations reveal a considerable acquaintance with what might be termed botanical, zoological, geographical, and mineralogical lore-a fact that is only now beginning to be realized by historians of science (Kramer 1981, 6).

Literature

The literature in the Sumerian clay tablets expresses the highest levels of moral values in the best literary form, encoded with symbols that at times, for the writer, allow for dispensing with dozens of sentences. This literature also contains great wisdom and painful, sad events that touch the human heart and make the reader sympathize with these ideal, wise characters who possess high morals, such as Gilgamesh and Dumuzi, yet are harmed and killed for the fulfillment of noble purposes. It also depicts people wailing and crying because they did not help those personalities who represented just causes and were oppressed.

Although Sumerians portray them as gods, when you read the stories of these characters in the Sumerian clay tablets, it is clear that they are human. They eat, drink, sleep, marry, and have children. It is obviously a mere process of distorting the divine religion. These gods are nothing but an unseen group represented by the prophets, the righteous ones and the angels, as well as by the self and this world. Exaggeration and distortion of religion has been ongoing, ever since God created Adam. Perhaps sometimes what is meant by “god” is not the Absolute God. Rather, what is meant is everything that is deified.

In The Book of Monotheism, I explained the meaning of “divinity” and “lordship”, and that they are expressions that can originally apply to creation.*

This myth illustrates vividly the anthropomorphic character of the Sumerian gods. Even the most powerful and most knowing among them were regarded as human in form, thought, and deed. Like man, they planned and acted, ate and drank, married and raised families, supported large households, and were addicted to human passions and weaknesses. By and large, they preferred truth and justice to falsehood and oppression, but their motives are by no means clear, and man is often at a loss to understand them (Kramer 1981, 86-87).

When reading the Sumerian clay tablets, we find that, in their literature, the Sumerians were searching for the savior who saves mankind from its animalism. Some of these divine characters were depicted as the awaited savior and redeemer, and the symbol of human justice, whose appearance was awaited by the Sumerians. How can the sudden appearance of these intellectual literary epics be explained without saying that a massive leap of civilization occurred?! How can a rational person imagine that Homo sapiens attained this ideal, sophisticated, intellectual level that suddenly appeared in Mesopotamia, without the existence of something new entering into the equation and changing everything?!

The literary output in Mesopotamian civilization is particularly consequential in the history of human literature because to us, it represents the first attempt of a human to express life, its values, and its meaning using fiction and art. Although this was the first attempt in the history of human evolution, the most remarkable thing found by the examiner of Mesopotamian literature is that, although it is extremely ancient and preceded all world literature, it has the fundamental attributes that distinguish famous world literature. This is the case from the perspective of style and methods of expression, as well as from the perspective of content, imagination and artistic imagery.*

Sumerians considered themselves the inheritors of civilization, morals and high values that preceded them. In fact, they would reminisce about these days of the past, as is evident in the Epic of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta.

Scientific and Industrial Achievements

The most important characteristic distinguishing the Sumerians is the existence of an education system of schools, teachers, educational books, and a system of teaching. The Sumerians had a list of professions, demonstrating the magnitude of the leap of culture and civilization of this nation. They had teachers; doctors; writers; architects; bakers; butchers; cooks; reed workers; potters; stone carvers and engravers; carpenters; boat makers; and tailors. Also included was the use of complex geometrical tools, such as the slide rule, in astronomy; the manufacture of weighing equipment; working with metals such as bronze; leather crafting; crafting of the saw, chisel, hammer, bow, nail, safety pin, rings, the pick-axe, axe, knives, arrowheads, swords, shields, glue, bags, war chariots, shoes; wheel making; irrigation building; canal excavation; the asphalt industry; and the paving of streets. The street of Al-Mawkib in the ancient city of Babylon still exists. It was paved with Sumerian tar thousands of years ago, dating back to before Christ.

The Sumerians developed the subjects of algebra and geometry. They also devised certain numeral systems, the multiplication table and mathematical division problems. All of mankind today is in debt to the Sumerians because they invented the sexagesimal system. They also created a precise representation of the solar system, showing how the earth and other planets spin around the sun. In fact, they demonstrated the planets of the solar system, some of which were not discovered until recently using a telescope. There were many other inventions as well.

All of these Sumerian scientific and industrial achievements-and much more that I have not mentioned-is considered a clear indicator of a leap of culture and civilization that in turn led to the achievements themselves. This is especially true given that the artifacts and Sumerian writings we have do not demonstrate a logical, gradual process of progression to oppose the fact that everything from Sumerian culture-the oldest human culture-is due to a leap of civilization. In fact, Sumerians recorded the opposite, stating that their ancestors were superior to them. Can any rational person say that what happened is not a product of a leap of culture and civilization that took place at an earlier time in this part of the world? If the development of Sumerian culture and civilization from a primitive, backward culture is a mere hypotheses without evidence, then one who cites scientific research should accept the data provided by the Sumerians themselves. They state that their culture and civilization were inherited from a sophisticated culture and civilization that preceded them. The earlier ancestors of Sumerians were not more backward in terms of culture or civilization than the Sumerians. Certainly, perhaps their culture was not transmitted in their own handwriting, like the Sumerians, because they were few in number, especially in the cradle of Adamite humanity. There were many other reasons, including the flood and natural conditions, as well as the unavailability of material possibilities that were available to the Sumerians to transmit their culture and civilization through their own handwriting. The Sumerians were often just transmitting the culture and civilization of their predecessors. We find that they read the story of the flood and Noah pbuh in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and also praised the culture of their ancestors in the Epic of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta.

Religiousness and Concern with the Unseen World

The story of the religions of the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians in Mesopotamia is extremely significant, perhaps more so than any other religious story relayed by ancient history. It is also the oldest story in human history. It involves a multitude of gods, while the Sumerian religion includes the just figure who saves mankind from its animalism-a figure present in every religion.

Whoever believes that the Sumerian religion is backward due to its multitude of gods should reconsider and research more accurately, for the Sumerian religion is no different than the religions that came after it. Moreover, the succeeding human religions were built upon the foundation of the Sumerian religion. We find that the many “gods”, as the Sumerians sometimes called them, were described as humans or wise kings in the Sumerian stories, epics and clay tablets-they marry, have children, kill, commit injustice, and people cry over them-or they are just symbols. So it is not difficult for us to understand that the lady of the gods, Ishtar, is the temporal life itself, as we find her lamenting the ones who perished in the flood of Noah (Utnapishtim):

The goddess cried out like a woman in childbirth, Belet-ili walied, whose voice is so sweet:

‘“The olden times have turned to clay, because I spoke evil in the gods’ assembly. How could I speak evil in the gods’ assembly, and declare a war to destroy my people?

‘“It is I who give birth, these people are mine! And now, like fish, they fill the ocean!”’ (George 2003, 92).

One who examines the Sumerian story of religion will find himself reading it entirely in symbolic terms. He will find the story of the three religions and the savior, the redeemer, or the Mahdi. He will also find that the Sumerian gods are nothing but people and symbols of everything that can be deified in truth or in falsehood, such as the prophets and the righteous vicegerents of God from the children of Adam pbuh, or such as the temporal life, the “I”, and the group.

We now can say: no rational person would say that the advanced achievements that clearly appeared in history thousands of years ago came from nothing, or developed from a primitive, backward culture, given the fact that no trace of the chain of this alleged cultural development exists. This is especially true since the statements of the Sumerians themselves refute any statement based on delusion, without relying on evidence, which suggests that the the sophisticated culture, civilization, and behavior of Sumerians developed from primitive people.

We should now ask ourselves, do these achievements not indicate that the being who produced them has the attribute of organization and, therefore, that the cause of that being has the attribute of being a knowledgeable organizer, thus proving the existence of God? I believe any rational person not inclined toward stubbornness would say yes.

Finally, the following text shows that Sumerian-Babylonian culture is actually an inheritance from a human culture and civilization that is older and perhaps more sophisticated in morals and conduct than the Sumerian civilization we know about from its clay tablets. The Epic of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta mentions:

Once upon a time, the lands Shubur and Hamazi, Many (?)-tongued Sumer, the great land of princeships’

divine laws, Uri, the land having all that is appropriate, The land Martu, resting in security, The whole universe, the people in unison (?), To Enlil in one tongue gave praise.

(But) then, the father-lord, the father-prince, the father-king, Enki, the father-lord, the father-prince, the father-king, The irate (?) father-lord, the irate (?) father-prince, the

irate (?) father-king, . . . . abundance . . . . . . . . (5 lines destroyed) (Kramer 1981, 255).

This is not the only text demonstrating the Sumerian opinion regarding their culture, civilization and knowledge. Many researchers who have specialized in Sumer or the ancient history of Mesopotamia have noticed that these people, whom we consider to represent the oldest civilization on earth, consider themselves inheritors of a civilization. Moreover, they consider the origin of this culture, civilization and knowledge to be divine and heavenly.

Charles Virolleaud says:*

According to the opinion of Babylonians, humans did not achieve what distinguishes them from animals: plowing fields and building cities through research, excavations, experiences, and various efforts or interaction. Rather, they received knowledge all at once from the gods (Virolleaud 1949, 124. Translated from French to Arabic, then to English).

We received their writings, in their own handwriting, which tells us that their own culture, civilization and knowledge were actually inherited from their predecessors, who were more ethical and more knowledgeable. In addition to all this, they presented the entire story to us, and they closed the door on the atheistic fabrications, showing that the origin of this knowledge, culture and civilization is the heavens and the god. So how do atheists expect a reasonable person-who respects his intellect-to leave all of these scientific facts behind, and chase after a mirage that will not lead to any scientific truth? Instead, it will only lead to mere delusions based on desires, and stubbornly rejecting the established archaeological scientific facts that are unequivocal. This is because they are written by our ancestors in Sumer and Akkad, the cradle of Adamite humanity and civilization. If it is proven that this description of the human (in terms of intellect and consciousness) occurred suddenly in a certain time period, this indicates that there is a knowledgeable cause who produced it.

Selected Berths at the Harbors of Sumer and Akkad

What has been mentioned is enough to illustrate my point: a major transformation, leap, and transition of Homo sapiens occurred, perhaps tens of thousands of years ago. This is demonstrated by the evidence we have discovered from the lands of Sumer and Akkad. Nevertheless, there is no harm in going through some introductory concepts that confirm what I have clarified above, and also shed more light on the truths of Sumerian and Akkadian texts.

The Epics of Sumer, Akkad and Divine Religion:

Many researchers of the history of the ancient Near East or Middle East consider religion to be purely a human product. They say that it started with deifying the goddess Ishtar with her different names, the goddess whose statues they discovered in various sizes spread throughout the ancient civilizations of the Near East spanning over 9000 years B.C. They justified this religious beginning by saying that human society was dominated by the woman, in the form of the mother, around whom the children would gather. These children knew only that they belonged to her. Therefore, according to them, the woman (the great mother Ishtar) was sanctified, and statues were made for her. After a period of time, when agriculture was discovered, the human society became patriarchal. Society began to settle, and families and homes were built. This resulted in the introduction of male gods into the temples, and this is how the religion was formed. Religion later evolved into Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other religions as well.

However, those who built their theory based upon ancient female statues forget that it can be easily refuted by the assertion that these statues were only made for sexual enticement and do not represent something sacred. Thus, the existence of a sacred female for whom a statue was made in a certain era does not allow for the investigative researcher to conclude that every female statue that has been previously made represents her. This opinion, that ancient man built tools of sexual enticement does exist, and is proposed by some archaeologists.

Moreover, there are archaeological texts that describe the goddess Ishtar or Inanna known in Sumer and Akkad with the attributes of this world in which humans live. As such, in the texts, she is not the mother and not even a real female.

Rather, she is the temporal life to whom the king Tammuz refused to prostrate in the manner that other kings prostrated to her when he sat upon the throne. Accordingly, she handed Tammuz (the faithful son) to the demons to kill him:

Inanna [Ishtar] proceeds to the two Sumerian cities Umma and Badtibira whose two deities prostrate themselves before her and are thus saved from the clutches of the demons. She then arrives at the city of Kullab, whose tutelary deity is Dumuzi. The poem continues:

Dumuzi [Tammuz] put on a noble robe, he sat high on (his) seat The demons seized him by his thighs . . . . . The seven (demons) rush at him as at the side of a sick man The shepherds play not the flute and pipe before him.

She (Inanna) fastened the eye upon him, the eye of death, Spoke the word against him, the word of wrath, Uttered the cry against him, the cry of guilt: “As for him, carry him off.” (Kramer 1981, 164).

This is the worldly life to which Gilgamesh refused to submit when he sat on the throne and wore his crown:

[Gilgamesh] opened his mouth to speak, [saying] to the Lady Ishtar: ‘[And if indeed I] take you in marriage,

‘…… body and clothing, [whence would come] my food and my sustenance? [Would you feed me] bread that is fit for a god, [and pour me ale] that is fit for a king?’

‘[Who is there] would take you in marriage? [You, a frost that congeals no] ice, a louvre-door [that] stays [not] breeze nor draught, a palace that massacres . . . warriors,

‘an elephant which . . . its hoods, bitumen that [stains the hands] of its bearer, a waterskin that [cuts the hands] of its bearer, limestone that [weakens] a wall of ashlar,

‘a battering ram that destroys [the walls of] the enemy, a shoe that bites the foot of its owner! What bridegroom of yours did endure for ever? What brave warrior of yours went up [to the heavens?] (George 2003, 48-49).

On the whole, the theory that the origin of religion deifies the mother is a mere hypothesis that does not rely upon solid scientific proof. As such, I do not see a need for a detailed response.

Nevertheless, I do see it necessary to clarify the evidence supporting the divine origin of the Sumerian religion. This topic concerns proving that the Sumerian religion is a divine religion that had a prior existence and was distorted. Therefore, we are to explain that the Sumerians who knew of ablution with water and knew about prayer, fasting, supplication and invocation were a religious people, and their religion was divine. As such, the Sumerian epics and stories include events from the unseen that occurred thousands of years after the Sumerians spoke of them.

Indeed, perhaps their religion was distorted during some periods- but it is a divine religion. This is similar to how the people of Mecca were people of a distorted Abrahamic Hanafi religion and worshipped and sanctified idols, or how the Salafis or Wahhabis today worship an idol and are inheritors of the old idol worshippers in Mecca. They say they are Muslims, yet they worship a big idol that they believe exists in the sky rather than on the earth. This idol has two hands with fingers, two feet and two eyes. Certainly, the issue of distorting the divine religion has existed and continues to exist.

If we return to the advent of divine religion, we find that Adam came to the earth with the first divine religion, which contained stories of his faithful sons who came after him. Naturally, the people were supposed to memorize these stories, narrate them and pass them on. The stories and epics of the Sumerians, at times, are only narrations of these sacred and related stories. This can be seen in the detailed Sumerian narration of the story of the Flood, which existed long before the Torah:

A Flood The First “Noah”

That the Biblical deluge story is not original with the Hebrew redactors of the Bible has been known from the time of the discovery and deciphering of the eleventh tablet of the Babylonian “Epic of Gilgamesh” by the British Museum’s George Smith. The Babylonian deluge myth itself, however, is of Sumerian origin. In 1914 Arno Poebel published a fragment consisting of the lower third of a six-column Sumerian tablet in the Nippur collection of the University Museum, the contents of which are devoted in large part to the story of the flood. This fragment still remains unique and unduplicated … Badly broken as the text is, these passages are nevertheless of significance … They include a number of revealing statements concerning the creation of man, the origin of kingship, and the existence of at least five antediluvian cities (Kramer 1981, 148).

It is possible that these stories are occasionally distorted, especially from the perspective of other religions. This may be due to the the passage of time and the entrance into the equation of human nature muddled with temptation. However, can something that is distorted be completely devoid of the truth?!

Have we asked ourselves what became of the legacy of Adam and Noah?!

Where was this legacy at the time of the Sumerians or Akkadians?! Have we considered what happened to the legacy of divine religion that existed before the flood?! It does not stand to reason that Noah and those who accompanied him would be concerned with delivering goats and cows, yet would not deliver the divine religion from Adam pbuh before writing began. Mankind after Noah pbuh-represented by the Sumerians and Akkadians, followed by the Babylonians and Assyrians-must have conveyed the legacy of Adam, Noah, and the highest holy examples-though it was through distorted stories transmitted over generations-just as they conveyed the history of kings, farmers, and craftsmen. Therefore, the result is that that the Sumerian religion is the religion of Adam and Noah, perhaps distorted at times by the deification of anything that can be deified, such as the temporal life and the righteous people. An example of this distortion can be seen in an attempt that was made to distort the Epic of Gilgamesh. This was discovered in ancient artifacts. This demonstrates two points: First, that the Epic of Gilgamesh is a religious text, since no one would care to distort a literary text. Second, that the text of the Epic of Gilgamesh that we have with us today is definitely not free of distortion. Taha Baqir says:*

Perhaps the strangest thing found recently by archaeologists in the archaeological site known as Sultantepe in southern Turkey, near Harran, was sections of the epic and a strange letter forged by an old writer in the second century B.C. It was as if the letter was written by Gilgamesh and addressed to an ancient king. Gilgamesh requests him to send gemstones to make a talisman for his friend Enkidu. It was to weigh as much as thirty minas.

When comparing these original and various pieces with the text of Nineveh, they seemed to be valuable information, not only to bridge the gaps, but also showing unequivocally that the Poem [Epic] of Gilgamesh did not exist at the time of the Assyrians. This is proof that the legend evolved throughout generations. In other words, the writers did not copy the old text in a literal and honest manner. Rather, they added, omitted and distorted. This is what affirmed the spread of the (albeit wrong) idea that the East never was and never will be strong and stable (Baqir 2006, 85. Arabic source, translated).

Therefore, if there have been deliberate attempts to distort written texts, then what about texts narrated orally, before the era of writing? Certainly, they were subject to even more distortion. When they were written down in the first writing era, they were written in their distorted form. Therefore, we can conclude that the stories of the Flood, Dumuzi, and Gilgamesh, as well as other stories of Sumerian-Akkadian origins, certainly were not written in the form circulated by narrators before the writing era.

The Religion of Sumer and Akkad and the Three Religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism

The truth is that any person acquainted with the Torah, the Gospel and the Quran, as well as what is in the Sumerian clay tablets, would certainly reach one of two inevitable conclusions:

The first conclusion is that the origin of religion traces back to the writings of Sumerian men, and that the Torah, Gospel and Quran are only a rehashing of the Sumerian religion (the creation of the first man Adam, the story of Abel and Cain, the story of the Flood, sin, the afterlife, heaven, hell, and so on).

The second conclusion is that the Sumerian religion is the religion of Adam and Noah pbut itself but it was conveyed, and then written in a distorted form, and the Sumerians and Akkadians (Babylonians and Assyrians) believed in it, in that distorted form. This is what I wish to point out by showing that the Sumerian stories are only events from the unseen that Adam brought to the earth. They are the stories of the righteous ones from his children pbut, and what would happen to them, especially the ones representing important landmarks on the path of religion, such as Dumuzi (the faithful son) or Gilgamesh.

Dr. Samuel Kramer noted the great similarity between what is written in the Torah and the Sumerian tablets. He decided to include chapters in his books that clarified the similarity between the Sumerian clay tablets and the Torah, for example:

“Chapter 19, Paradise: The First Biblical Parallels” (Kramer 1981, 141).

“The Sacred Marriage and Solomon’s Song of Songs” (Kramer 1969, 85).

The Sumerians knew and practiced detailed matters in the divine religion, such as believing in visions and that visions are the words of God. They also believed in signs and that God can talk to a person in everything he experiences.

In the book Légendes de Babylone et de Canaan [The Legends of Babylon and Canaan], Charles Virolleaud says:

We now know that mankind was created to serve the gods, and that the gods punish them for the slightest mistakes. Therefore, they must obey the wishes of the heavens accurately and do as they say. How else would they preserve this harmony and avoid the wrath of the gods? If they saw dreams of the gods inspiring in them what they wished, how would they interpret them in a way that would satisfy the gods, that is, if there were dreams? What if there were no dreams?

The answer is that they would resort to omens and natural indicators, as these would guide them to the truth. Therefore, absolute attention must be given, not only to the changes of the moon, but to the shape of the clouds. Indeed, every movement of what crawls in the grass and even the planets in the galaxy give an indication of the wills of the gods, whether good or bad. It is here that art or science would stand out and distinguish whether the will was good or bad.

The magicians must intervene, either to hasten good luck or to push away the hostile force that threatened life. This does not mean the life of the individuals or the people, rather the life of the king who controlled the destiny of the entire nation.

This king, to whom the gods gave knowledge was, as previously mentioned, the seventh king of the antediluvian state. Therefore, according to the hereditary order, he matches Enoch [Idris] who occupies the seventh rank from the lineage of Adam, the chain of the patriarchs before the Flood. It is remarkable that their names have nothing in common though their acts are exactly the same. As a matter of fact, the Biblical text concerning the seventh patriarch (Enoch) is very brief:

Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him [Genesis 5:24].

Enoch became the hero of a chain of legends that made him the inventor of writing, the author of the first book and the creator of the science of planets and stars, astronomy and aeronomy. It seems as if he is Evedoranki. We can safely assume that this legend of the Jews is nothing but a development or expansion of the old Chaldean legend.

The rest of the kings and patriarchs, the six ancestors of Enoch, and their three vicegerents, have qualities in common. The only character concerning us is the tenth character that lived through the Flood (Virolleaud 1949, 28. Translated from French to Arabic, then to English).

The stories of the Sumerians speak clearly-as do the other divine religions-about the afterlife and that good and righteous people enter heaven, whereas evil ones enter hellfire.

Those people were certain that they would live after death, yet live in darkness and with no reward, unless they would take the good path in this world, meaning through righteousness. An example of this is what happened to Oum-Napishtim [Noah pbuh], or by applying the law to the people, as Hammourabi did (Virolleaud 1949, 38, translated).

Was the Story of Job, the Prophet of God, Narrated by the Sumerians Before it occurred?!

There are indications that the stories of the Sumerians, or the Akkadians, are only from the unseen and concern real stories that will occur after the time of the Sumerians, during the course of the divine religion.

Anyone who has read the Sumerian clay tablets will see that they mention prophets and messengers who came in an era after Sumerian civilization. An example of this is the tablet that mentions the story of the prophet Job pbuh before he was born. The story of Job pbuh is also written in the Torah and the Quran.

All the tablets and fragments on which our Sumerian essay is inscribed date back more than a thousand years before the compilation of the Book of Job (Kramer 1981, 112).

These are excerpts from the story of Job, as written in the Sumerian tablets long before Job was born:

“I, the wise, why am I bound to the ignorant youths? I, the discerning, why am I counted among the ignorant? Food is all about, yet my food is hunger, On the day shares were allotted to all, my allotted share was suffering.

“My god, (I would stand) before you, Would speak to you, . . . , my word is a groan, I would tell you about it, would bemoan the bitterness of my path, (Would bewail) the confusion of . . .

“Lo, let not my mother who bore me cease my lament before you. Let not my sister utter the happy song and chant. Let her utter tearfully my misfortunes before you, Let my wife voice mournfully my suffering. Let the expert singer bemoan my bitter fate…

“Tears, lament, anguish, and depression are lodged within me, Suffering overwhelms me like one chosen for nothing but tears,… Malignant sickness bathes my body. . .

“My god, you who are my father who begot me, lift up my face… How long will you neglect me, leave me unprotected?… How long will you leave me unguided?

“They say-valiant sages-a word righteous and straightforward: ‘Never has a sinless child been born to its mother, …. a sinless youth has not existed from of old….’”

The man-his god harkened to his bitter tears and weeping, The young man-his lamentation and wailing soothed the heart of his god… The encompassing sickness-demon, which had spread wide its wings, he swept away. The (disease) which had smitten him like a . . . , he dissipated,

The evil fate which had been decreed for him in accordance with his sentence, he turned aside,

He turned the man’s suffering into joy,…(Kramer 1981, 113-14).

Sumer and Akkad Cried over Dumuzi, and Now they cry over Al-Hussain pbuh?

The Sumerians or the Akkadians grieved and cried over Dumuzi (Sumerian: Dumu, “son” + Zi, “faithful”) for thousands of years. The grieving of the Mesopotamians over Dumuzi continued until the time of the prophet Ezekiel. The Torah mentions that the residents of Mesopotamia grieved over Tammuz (Dumuzi):

13 He said also to me, “You will see still greater abominations that they commit.” 14 Then he brought me to the entrance of the north gate of the house of the Lord, and behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. 15 Then he said to me, “Have you seen this, O son of man? You will see still greater abominations than these.” 16 And he brought me into the inner court of the house of the Lord. And behold, at the entrance of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men, with their backs to the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east, worshiping the Sun toward the east. Ezekiel 8:13-16.

It is this act of killing Tammuz (Dumuzi), described as an abomination, which caused these women to weep and the men prostrate at his altar.

The story of the killing of King Dumuzi starts with him paying the price for his refusal to prostrate to Ishtar-Inanna (the worldly life).

If Inanna [Ishtar] would ascend from the nether world, Let her give someone as her substitute.

Inanna ascends from the nether world, The small demons like shukur-reeds, The large demons like dubban-reeds, Held on to her side. Who was in front of her, though not a vizier, held a scepter in his hand,

Who was at her side, though not a knight, had a weapon fastened about the loin. They who accompanied her, They who accompanied Inanna [the goddess Ishtar or the temporal life] Were beings who know not food, who know not water, Eat not sprinkled flour, Drink not libated water, Take away the wife from the man’s lap, Take away the child from the nursemaid’s breast.

Inanna [Ishtar] proceeds to the two Sumerian cities Umma and Badtibira, whose two deities prostrate themselves before her [Ishtar or the worldly life] and are thus saved from the clutches of the demons. Then she arrives at the city Kullab, whose tutelary deity is Dumuzi. The poem continues:

Dumuzi [Tammuz] put on a noble robe, he sat high on (his) seat. The demons seized him by his thighs … , The seven (demons) rush at him as at the side of a sick man, The shepherds play not the flute and pipe before him.

She (Inanna) fastened the eye upon him, the eye of death, Spoke the word against him, the word of wrath, Uttered the cry against him, the cry of guilt: “As for him, carry him off.” The pure Inanna gave the shepherd Dumuzi into their hands.

They who accompanied him, They who accompanied Dumuzi [Tammuz], Were beings who know not food, know not water, Eat not sprinkled flour [food made from flour], Drink not libated water, [i.e., water submitted as an offering],… (Kramer 1981, 163-64).

Therefore, Ishtar-Inanna, the wife of king Dumuzi, handed him to the demons for him to be killed in a paradox that is difficult to understand by those who do not know the meaning of the supremacy of God or the divine appointing, or as the Sumerian-Akkadians call it, “the kingship that came down from the heavens.”

However, it is frequently mentioned in the divine religion that Ishtar, the temporal life, is often led by the kings whom God has not appointed, because they have prostrated to her and submitted to her, thus worshipping their temporal desires.

Ishtar, the temporal life, is rebellious against those appointed by God to rule in it, because they are actually rebellious against her. The share of Ali pbuh was five bitter years in which all the demons of the earth raged to fight him pbuh in al-Jamal, Siffin and Nahrawan. They did not stop until they killed him in al-Kufa. The share of al-Hussain pbuh, the king appointed to rule in this world, was a massacre in which not even the infant survived.

These are some of the texts from the Sumerian clay tablets that have reached us regarding the tragedy of Dumuzi and his sister. We will now see how close it is to the description of what happened to al-Hussain pbuh, although they are archaeological texts that circulated among the Sumerians-Akkadians thousands of years before the birth of al-Hussain pbuh:

His heart was filled with tears. The shepherd’s heart was filled with tears. Dumuzi’s heart was filled with tears. Dumuzi stumbled across the steppe, weeping:

“O steppe, set up a wail for me! O crabs in the river, mourn for me! O frogs in the river, call for me! O my mother, Sirtur, weep for me!”

If she does not find the five breads, If she does not find the ten breads, If she does not know the day I am dead, You, O steppe, tell her, tell my mother. On the steppe, my mother will shed tears for me. On the steppe, my little sister will mourn for me.”

He lay down to rest. The shepherd lay down to rest. Dumuzi lay down to rest

As he lay among the buds and rushes, He dreamed a dream. He awoke from his dream. He trembled from his vision. He rubbed his eyes, terrified.

Dumuzi called out: “Bring . . . bring her . . . bring my sister. Bring my Geshtinanna, my little sister, My tablet-knowing scribe, My singer who knows many songs, My sister who knows the meaning of words, My wise woman who knows the meaning of dreams. I must speak to her. I must tell her my dream.”

Dumuzi spoke to Geshtinanna, saying:

“A dream! My sister, listen to my dream: Rushes rise all about me; rushes grow thick about me. A single growing reed trembles for me. From a double-growing reed, first one, then the other, is removed. In a wooded grove, the terror of tall trees rises about me. No water is poured over my holy hearth. The bottom of my churn drops away. My drinking cup falls from its peg. My shepherd’s crook has disappeared. An eagle seizes a lamb from the sheepfold. A falcon catches a sparrow on the reed fence.

My sister, your goats drag their lapis beards in the dust. Your sheep scratch the earth with bent feet.

The churn lies silent; no milk is poured. The cup lies shattered; Dumuzi is no more. The sheepfold is given to the winds.”

Geshtinanna spoke:

“My brother, do not tell me your dream. Dumuzi, do not tell me such a dream.

The rushes which rise all about you, The rushes which grow thick about you, Are your demons, who will pursue and attack you.

The single growing reed which trembles for you

Is our mother; she will mourn for you.

The double-growing reed, from which one, then the other, is removed, Dumuzi, Is you and I; first one, then the other, will be taken away.

In the wooded grove, the terror of tall trees which rises about you Is the galla; they will descend on you in the sheepfold.

When the fire is put out on your holy hearth, The sheepfold will become a house of desolation.

When the bottom of your churn drops away, You will be held by the galla.

When your drinking cup falls from its peg, You will fall to the earth, onto your mother’s knees.

When your shepherd’s crook disappears, The galla will cause everything to wither.

The eagle who seizes a lamb in the sheepfold Is the galla who will scratch your cheeks.

The falcon who catches a sparrow in the reed fence Is the galla who will climb the fence to take you away.

Dumuzi, my goats drag their lapis beards in the dust.

My hair will swirl around in heaven for you. My sheep scratch the earth with bent feet. O Dumuzi, I will tear at my cheeks in grief for you.

The churn lies silent; no milk is poured. The cup lies shattered; Dumuzi is no more. The sheepfold is given to the winds-” (Wolkstein and Kramer 1983, 74- 77).

Dumuzi escaped from his demons. He fled to the sheepfold of his sister, Geshtinanna.

When Geshtinanna found Dumuzi in the sheepfold, she wept.

She brought her mouth close to heaven. She brought her mouth close to earth. Her grief covered the horizon like a garment.

She tore at her eyes. She tore at her mouth. She tore at her thighs.

The galla climbed the reed fence. The first galla struck Dumuzi on the cheek with a piercing nail, The second galla struck Dumuzi on the other cheek with the shepherd’s crook, The third galla smashed the bottom of the churn, The fourth galla threw the drinking cup down from its peg, The fifth galla shattered the churn, The sixth galla shattered the cup, The seventh galla cried:

“Rise, Dumuzi! Husband of Inanna, son of Sirtur, brother of Geshtinanna! Rise from your false sleep! Your ewes are seized! Your lambs are siezed! Your goats are seized! Your kids are seized! Take off your holy crown from your head! Take off your me-garment from your body! Let your royal sceptre fall to the ground! Take off your holy sandals from your feet! Naked, you go with us!”

The galla seized Dumuzi. They surrounded him. They bound his hands. They bound his neck.

The churn was silent. No milk was poured. The cup was shattered. Dumuzi was no more. The sheepfold was given to the winds (Wolkstein and Kramer 1983, 83-84).

Moreover, You read in the Babylonian calendars that grieving and crying about the god Dumuzi started on the second day of the month (Du uzi) meaning Tammuz [July], and commemorative processions would be held, in which torches were carried. This would be on the ninth, sixteenth and seventeenth day. In the final three days of this month, a ceremony, called Talkimtu in Akkadian, would be held, and there was a ritual demonstration and burial of a figure that represents the god Tammuz. Despite the impact caused by the ideology of the death of the god Dumuzi in the old society within and outside of Meopotamia, grieving for him never became one of the rituals of the temple. Rather, the ceremony continued to be held annually within the scope of popular practice … And we are informed of a number of lamentations written by the Sumerian and Babylonian poets that grieved the young god Dumuzi, that were read in commemorations in different cities (Ali 1999, 125-26, Arabic source, translated).

The Sumerians’ Lamentation of Tammuz or Dumuzi:

The cup lies; shattered. Dumuzi was no more. The sheepfold was given to the winds.

In another poem, a Sumerian poet laments Dumuzi, the faithful son, saying:

My heart went to the edin, weeping, weeping I am the lady of the temple, I am Inanna who destroys the lands of enemies. I am Ninsun, the mother of the great master. I am Geshtinanna, the mother of the sacred boy. My heart went to the edin, weeping, weeping It went to the place of the boy, It went to the place of Dumuzi, To the nether world, the home of the shepherd. My heart went to the edin, weeping, weeping To the place where the boy was chained To the place where Dumuzi was held My heart went to the edin, weeping, weeping (Ali 1999, 125-26. Arabic

source, translated).

The truth is that a great injustice has been done to the Sumerians who taught mankind writing, made laws and laid the foundation for sciences. They were also the first to invent the wheel and create systems of calculation, algebra and geometry. The injustice is that Dr. Kramer and other experts of Sumerian civilization portray them to be grieving over a myth, or a mythical story they wrote themselves. They portray it as though it is just an expression of fertility and infertility that alternate throughout the year, as if they were a people whose individuals were all on drugs that made them lose their senses, such that their successors, the Babylonians, grieved and established commemorations for thousands of years for a symbol in a story that they wrote themselves, from beginning to end.

For thousands of years, Mesopotamians, one generation after another, every year, depicted the body of Dumuzi. And every year, they cry over and recite lamentations of Dumuzi.

Is all of this nothing but delusions?!! Is it just a story that they wrote?!! For what reason would they write it?! To express fertility that comes in the spring and infertility following it in another season of the year?! There should be a reasonable explanation for the grief of the first civilization known to man, the grief for thousands of years over Dumuzi, the faithful son, or Tammuz.

With regard to religious legacy, the religious accounts from the Imams pbut tell us with complete clarity that the Sumerians grieved and cried over al-Hussain pbuh by relating the crying and grief of the Sumerian prophets, Noah pbuh and Abraham pbuh over al-Hussain pbuh,

Al-Ridha pbuh said, “When God Almighty commanded Abraham pbuh to slaughter the ram that He sent down to him instead of his son Ishmael, Abraham wished that he had slaughtered his son Ishmael with his own hands and that he was not commanded to slaughter the ram in his place. This is so that he would have what is given to the father who slaughters his most beloved son, the highest ranks of the ones patient over calamities. So God Almighty inspired him: ‘O Abraham, who is the most beloved to you from among My creation? He said, ‘O Lord, You have not created a creation more beloved to me than your beloved, Muhammad pbuhap.’ Thus, God Almighty inspired him, ‘Is he more beloved to you or are you more beloved to yourself?’ So he pbuh said, ‘He is more beloved to me than I am to myself.’ So He said, ‘Is his son more beloved to you, or is your son?’ He pbuh said, ‘His.’ He said, ‘So does this unjust slaughtering of his son at the hands of his enemies pain your heart more, or the slaughtering of your son by your hands in obedience to me?’ He said, ‘O Lord, the slaughtering of his son at the hands of his enemies with injustice pains my heart more.’

He said, ‘O Abraham, people claiming to be from the nation of Muhammad will kill his son, al-Hussain, with injustice and aggression, just as the ram is slaughtered. And with that, they will incur my wrath.’ So, with that, Abraham pbuh became sad, his heart ached, and he began crying. So God Almighty inspired him, ‘O Abraham, I ransomed your grief over your son Ishmael, were you to slaughter him with your hands, with your grief over al-Hussain and his killing. I have awarded you the highest ranks of the ones patient over calamities.’ That is the saying of the Almighty, ﴾And we ransomed him with a great sacrifice.﴿ Quran Chapter “Those Who Set The Ranks” 37:107. Two things mutually established, occurring, different-and both despised.” (Al-Sadooq 1982 58-59, and Al-Sadooq 1984 vol 2, 187. Arabic source, translated).

Regarding the illness of Abraham pbuh, Abu Abdullah pbuh said: “Concerning the saying of God Almighty: ﴾And he cast a look at the stars. And said, ‘Indeed, I am ill.’﴿ Quran Chapter “Those Who Set the Ranks” 37:88-89. He saw what was going to happen to al-Hussain pbuh, so he said, ‘I am ill because of what will happen to al-Hussain pbuh.’” (Al-Kulayni 1944, vol 1, 465. Arabic source, translated).

Al-Majlisi narrated in Al-Bihar Al-Anwar [The Seas of Light]: “When Adam descended to the earth, he did not see Eve, so he started roaming the earth in search of her. He passed by Karbala and he became dejected and sad for no reason. He tripped in the place in which al-Hussain was killed, causing his feet to bleed. Thus, he lifted his head toward the heavens and said, ‘My Lord, have I committed another sin and thus you are punishing me? As I have roamed the earth, no harm has touched me like it has on this land.’ So God inspired him, ‘You did not commit a sin, but on this land, your son, al-Hussain, will be killed with injustice, so your blood dripped in accordance with his.’ Adam said, ‘Will al-Hussain be a prophet?’ The Almighty said, ‘No, but he is the son of Prophet Muhammad.’ Adam asked, ‘And who is the killer?’ He said, ‘The killer is Yazid, the cursed one of the people of the earth and the heavens.’ So Adam said, ‘What can I do?’ He said, ‘Curse him, O Adam.’ So Adam cursed him four times and walked to Mount Arafat, and found Eve there.”

It was narrated that, when Noah embarked on the Ark it went all around the world. When it passed by Karbala, the earth seized it and Noah feared drowning. Thus, he prayed to his Lord and said, “My Lord, I have been around the world and have not felt fear as I do in this land.” So Gabriel descended and said, “O Noah, in this place, al-Hussain will be killed, the son of Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets, and the son of the Seal of the Successors.” He said, “And who is the killer, O Gabriel?” He said, “His killer is the cursed one of the people of the seven heavens and seven earths.” Thus, Noah cursed him four times and the ship moved until it reached al-Judi and settled therein.

It was also narrated that Abraham pbuh passed by the land of Karbala on a horse. The horse tripped and Abraham pbuh fell, causing his head to be slashed. He began asking for forgiveness from God, saying, “My Lord, what have I done?” So Gabriel pbuh descended and said, “O Abraham, you did not commit a sin but here is where the son of the Seal of the Prophets and the son of the Seal of the Successors will be killed. Thus, your blood dripped in accordance with his.” He pbuh said, “O Gabriel, who is his killer?” He said, “The cursed one of the people of the heavens and the earth. Without the permission of its Lord the pen wrote on the tablet that he is cursed, so God inspired the pen, ‘You deserve praise for this cursing.’’’ Thus, Abraham pbuh raised his hands and cursed Yazid, and his horse fluently said “Amen”. Abraham said to his horse, “What have you learned such that you said Amen to my prayer?” It said, “O Abraham, it honors me that you ride me, so when I tripped and you fell from my back I was greatly ashamed. Yazid, may Almighty God curse him, was the reason for my tripping.” (Al-Majlisi 1983, vol 44, 243).

What is mentioned above causes the contemplative reader to notice that the epics of Sumer and Akkad are religious accounts. Some of them are from the unseen and the future in relation to the time in which they were written. For us, it removes all doubt: religion is a great part of the content of the Sumerian-Akkadian epics and stories (Babylonian and Assyrian).

Since we have reached this point, it is appropriate for us to mention the Eternal Epic of Uruk or the Epic of Gilgamesh. Together, we will try to read it in another way, one that is perhaps unprecedented. We will try to read it as a story told by Adam to his sons, and Noah to his sons, and Abraham to his sons, a story that spread among the Sumerians and the people of the ancient world, particularly in the Near East. It became the favorite story of the Mesopotamians, and generations conveyed it until it reached us thousands of years later. However, it was perhaps distorted when people circulated it, as we have previously explained.

This is the story of Gilgamesh, who will come one day to fulfill justice and save mankind from its animalism. It says in ancient Egyptian artifacts:

A rising man, with all dignity, is holding two rising oxen: one on his right, and the other on his left. (Virolleaud 1949, 38, translated).

Mesopotamia (Sumer), or the south of Iraq, has been waiting thousands of years for Gilgamesh to appear there one day.

Gilgamesh, the Son of Ninsun the Crying Mother over Dumuzi

Dumuzi: “My heart went to the edin, weeping, weeping I am the lady of the temple, I am Inanna who destroys the lands of enemies. I am Ninsun, the mother of the great master. I am Geshtinanna, the mother of the sacred boy. My heart went to the edin, weeping, weeping It went to the place of the boy, It went to the place of Dumuzi, To the nether world, the home of the shepherd. My heart went to the edin, weeping, weeping To the place where the boy was chained to the place where Dumuzi was held My heart went to the edin, weeping, weeping.”

Gilgamesh:

Enkidu’s speech to Gilgamesh:

‘There is not another like you in the world. Ninsun… she was the mother who bore you, and now you are raised above all men, and Enlil has given you the kingship, for your strength surpasses the strength of men.’ (Sanders 1972, 64).

Through the Epic of Gilgamesh, we can read about the journey of mankind that is yet to come. It is not a journey of the past, as imagined and explained by some commentators. We can also read about the story of the person who saves mankind from its animalism, something that, unfortunately, is always strongly present, especially in major confrontations:

﴾like that of a donkey who carries volumes [of books]. Wretched is the example of the people…﴿ Quran Chapter “Friday” 62:5.

﴾like that of the dog: if you chase him, he pants, or if you leave him, he [still] pants. That is the example of the people … ﴿ Quran Chapter “The Heights” 7:176.

﴾And made of them apes and pigs and slaves of the tyrant. Those are worse in position … ﴿ Quran Chapter “The Table Spread” 5:60.

For thousands of years, and across continents, the savior has been wellknown. His tidings spread from Mesopotamia to North Africa and we find symbolic pictures of him in Egyptian artifacts:

A rising man, with all dignity, is holding two rising oxen: one on his right, and the other on his left. This is a sight we see in many Babylonian artifacts. It usually represents Gilgamesh and his struggle with wild animals (Virolleaud 1949).

In the Epic, Gilgamesh is two-thirds god. We find his story-and he is the man of the second deluge-connected to the story of his Sumerian father Ziusudra (Noah) and the Babylonian Utnapishtim (Noah), the man of the first deluge. Moreover, perhaps the most important of Gilgamesh’s travels in the Epic is his journey to meet his grandfather Noah, Utnapishtim, who is immortal among the gods. He asks him about the secret by which he can rid himself of his humane third, and thus be immortal with the gods like his grandfather Noah pbuh. In other words, he will deservingly have his name written in the record of eternal life and will be spiritually immortal. Thus, the issue is about his spirit, as he is two thirds god and he wanted to make his remaining third like that as well. It has nothing to do with physical immortality, as those who explain the Epic imagined.

We find Gilgamesh to clearly be a savior in some texts, as well as a symbol of justice for whom everyone is waiting for and speaks of his story:

…[the young men of Uruk] he harries without warrant. Gilgamesh lets no son go free to his father,

by day and night [his tyranny grows] harsher.

‘Yet he is the shepherd of Uruk-the-Sheepfold,

Gilgamesh, [the guide of the] teeming [people,] Though he is shepherd and their [protector,]

powerful, pre-eminent, expert [and mighty] Gilgamesh lets no girl go free to her bride[groom.]

The warrior’s daughter, the young man’s bride:… (George 2003, 4).

Some experts of Sumerian civilization understand that what is meant by this passage is that Gilgamesh is violating people’s honor or oppressing them.This does not stand to reason, as the Epic would be completely contradictory, since, at the beginning, Gilgamesh was described with the finest attributes of a just ruler. Also, in the same lines he is described as wise, so how does a wise king violate the honor of his subjects and oppress them?

Moreover, the next part of the Epic describes Gilgamesh with ideal attributes, such as altruism, bravery and loyalty. For this reason, such lines are either deliberate distortion added to the text or they are symbolic, and thus require interpretation and clarification.

If we contemplate the text, we find that it is referring to the Savior who saves mankind from its animalism-the Savior of Mankind whose story exists in every nation. This is because, if the nations of those who come before the time of his dispatch are not prepared to receive him, then at the very least, there will be individuals of these nations who can be saved by his story that they pass on. He is the person that connects them to God and opens the door of the heavens, so whoever wants to listen can listen to great inspiration that informs him of the truth in order for him to become strongly attached to it, the truth that made us appear from nothing. It is this truth that we were created to know. This is why he will occupy everyone with God and not with himself, because, if he preoccupies them with himself or allows them to become preoccupied with him without warning them, there will be no difference between him and any other oppressing tyrant who desires fame and repute.

Now, we can well understand why the young men of Uruk “he harries without warrant”, and why “Gilgamesh lets no son go free to his father… no girl go free to her bridegroom, the warrior’s daughter, the young man’s bride…” It is because they were all strongly attached to God Almighty. Gilgamesh the redeemer came and opened a source of great inspiration for those redeemed ones who will exist at a certain time. He taught them how to become attached to God, and how to love God and hear God in everything.

If you were to refer to the Sumerians, you would find them yearning for these matters.

He is Gilgamesh that means the frontline warrior and “the man who will be the seed of a new tree.” (Baqir 2006, 19. Arabic source, translated).*

Gilgamesh, the character who is holy to the Sumerians or Akkadians (Babylonian-Assyrians) and many of the people of the ancient world, is described accurately in the Epic of Gilgamesh as “two-thirds god and one-third human,” meaning that the light in his existence prevails over the dark side or the “I”. However, in the end, he searches for the secret of ultimate salvation from this darkness. Even the name, Gilgamesh, states his mission, as he is the frontline warrior. From the Epic:

He is the warrior who killed the demon Humbaba. He is the warrior who offended Ishtar (the worldly life). He is the warrior who crushed his “self”. He is also the person who will be the seed of a new human tree that is victorious over its animalism.

No one knows the exact meaning of the name of Gilgamesh. Some Akkadian texts mentioned that it means the frontline warrior and there is a possibility that his Sumerian name means “the man who will be the seed of a new tree, meaning a man who will become the originator of a family” (Baqir 2006, 19, translated).

Perhaps the worst distortion to which these epics were subjected is the identification of epic characters with erroneous evidence due to confusion-for example, identifying them as kings whose names were mentioned in the Sumerian King List. The epic character of Gilgamesh is identified as King Gilgamesh although the names of his fathers and lineage are different. This is the exact situation of someone who reads the epic story of al-Mahdi that Prophet Muhammad pbuhap mentioned in many religious accounts, and then says there was a king in the Abbasid state over a thousand years ago whose name was al-Mahdi, and believes that the one meant by the epic story of the Islamic Mahdi is that Abbasid king.

Unfortunately, this has happened frequently with Gilgamesh, although some experts of Sumerian artifacts have stated that it is incorrect to consider the Gilgamesh of the epic to be the same as the Gilgamesh of history, based on the similarity of the names alone.

Charles Virolleaud says:

Therefore, there are reasons that make us believe that at a very ancient time there was a king named Gilgamesh. This name is listed in the List of Kings of Uruk (recently discovered) but it is not at the top of the list (as expected), as the Gilgamesh of history did not found a country. Rather, he was included among a list of kings who we know nothing about historically, except their names … In any case, the Gilgamesh about whom history has written two lines, does not draw our attention. Rather, it is the Gilgamesh, whose poetic epic has reached us, who does (Virolleaud 1949, 39, translated).

It is worthwhile examining the Epic of Gilgamesh, which the kings of Sumer and Akkad, as well as Babylon and even Assyria had in their libraries and took care of and owned, as did the people, as if it was an incantation or a holy book:

Did it represent the story of the person who is yet to come, whom the Sumerians or Akkadians, Babylonians and Assyrians awaited as a savior and redeemer?

Taha Baqir says:

The name of the hero Gilgamesh himself moved to the majority of the works of literature of the ancient nations. His works were attributed to heroes of other nations, such as Hercules, Alexander, Dhul-Qarnayn and Odysseus of the Odyssey (Baqir 2006, 16, translated).

He also says:

Strange is the matter of Gilgamesh who became an example for the heroes of the other nations (Baqir 2006, 16-17, translated).

Dr. Charles Virolleaud says:

In the olden times, the Egyptians knew of the character we are talking about, as a knife was found in the valley of the Nile in Gebel-el-arak; its blade was made of flint and not of metal, and its handle was made of ivory. On one side it had the picture of a rising man who is holding two rising oxen with complete dignity, one to his right and the other to his left. This is a sight we see in many Babylonian artifacts. It usually represents Gilgamesh and his struggle with wild animals (Virolleaud 1949, 38).

Therefore, Gilgamesh is not only a just or righteous person. He is not only a king or someone who will one day be a king. Rather, Gilgamesh is an international character and an example that the heroes of nations emulate, just as the artifacts show us. This is the only thing that can explain the existence of versions of the epic in different countries and even in different languages than the original.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence of its great influence over the minds of the people of ancient civilizations is the broad spectrum of its spread in the ancient world. With respect to the early people of Iraq, it not only circulated among the inhabitants of the southern or middle part of Iraq, which is the part known as Sumer and Akkad, but it also infused the Northern part, Assyria. Therefore, many versions of it were found in the capitals of ancient Iraq, during the era of prosperity of the Babylonian civilization in the ancient Babylonian era (second millennium B.C.). As for Assyria, the last complete publication to reach us was found in the famous Library of Ashurbanipal, the Assyrian king. With respect to the centers of the ancient civilizations, we have already pointed out that some researchers found many versions of its parts in distant regions, such as Anatolia, the home of the Hittite civilization. Some of these texts were written in the ancient Babylonian language, and likewise, translations into Hittite and Hurrian languages were also found. Recently, there was an exciting discovery of a version of some of its chapters in Megiddo, one of the ancient cities of Palestine that is well known in the Torah. This small version dates back to the fourteenth century B.C. (Baqir 2006, 13-14. Arabic source, translated).

This is how the epic story describes Gilgamesh in the beginning. It summarizes everything about Gilgamesh in a few lines, and is an introduction to the character of Gilgamesh and his mission:

He who saw the Deep, the country’s foundation,

[who] knew …, was wise in all matters!

[Gilgamesh, who] saw the Deep, the country’s foundation,

[who] knew …, was wise in all matters!

[He] … everywhere … and [learnt] of everything, the sum

of wisdom. He saw what was secret, discovered what

was hidden, he brought back a tale before the Deluge.

He came a far road, was weary, found peace,

and set all his labours on a tablet of stone (George 2003, 1).

It is clear that the text is describing a knowledgeable person: “…who knew … was wise in all matters … who saw the country’s foundation … he saw what was secret, discovered what was hidden…” and an important teacher who comes with important knowledge. He will engrave it so that it remains among the people…”he set all his labours on a tablet of stone.”

If we refer to the religious text about al-Mahdi, we find Imam al-Sadiq pbuh saying:

Knowledge is twenty-seven letters. The prophets only brought two letters. To date, people know only these two letters. So when our Riser rises, he brings out the twenty-five letters and transmits them among the people. He adds the two letters to them, thus transmitting them as twenty-seven letters (Al-Majlisi vol 52, 336. Arabic source, translated).

Gilgamesh, a Religious Character

The Epic of Gilgamesh is filled with symbols. It contains symbolic visions and explains the meaning of some of the symbols. It also contains symbolic words and events. For example, in the heart of a battle between Gilgamesh and Enkidu, we find that everything calms suddenly, and Enkidu immediately stands and respectfully says to Gilgamesh:

‘There is not another like you in the world. Ninsun… she was the mother who bore you, and now you are raised above all men, and Enlil has given you the kingship, for your strength surpasses the strength of men.’ (Sanders 1972, 64).

The question here is, if Enkidu knew this from the start, why did he fight him?! It makes no sense that what is meant by “battle” is a physical battle between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Indeed, it is possible to say that an ideological battle led Enkidu to eventually admit that Gilgamesh is the son of Ninsun and of Enlil, who, by decree, willed for Gilgamesh to be king.

The fact that Enkidu said these words following the battle shows clearly that he sanctifies Ninsun and Enlil, yet did not acknowledge that Gilgamesh was from their lineage. Now he does:

‘There is not another like you in the world. Ninsun… she was the mother who bore you, and now you are raised above all men, and Enlil has given you the kingship, for your strength surpasses the strength of men.’ (Sanders 1972, 64).

For this reason, we must also give consideration to the symbolism within the texts, rather than considering the texts to be explicit and literal. As a matter of fact, this is almost always the case for religious texts in general, because they are from other worlds and contain wisdom. Sometimes the goal of these texts is to deliver a message to its people and perhaps there is a frequent need to protect it from imposters, by using symbols that only its people know. Therefore visions, for example, are undoubtedly religious texts, but who among us doubts that they are often symbolic?!

The first journey of Gilgamesh, to kill the Satan Humbaba and remove injustice and oppression and evil from the earth:

Gilgamesh opened his mouth . . . . . .ferocious Humbaba . . .[let us] slay him, [so his power] is no more! ‘In the Forest of Cedar, [where Humbaba] dwells, let us frighten him in his lair!’ (George 2003, 18). …[until we] we slay [ferocious Humbaba,] [and annihilate] from [the land the Evil Thing…] (George 2003, 28).

Prior to Gilgamesh seeing the satan, he sees many visions that bring him the good news of the success of his first mission:

‘My second dream sur[passes] the first. In my dream, my friend, a mountain . . . ,

it threw me down, it held me by my feet . . . The brightness grew more intense. A man [appeared],

the comeliest in the land, his beauty . . . [From] beneath the mountain he pulled me out and . . .

He gave me water to drink and my heart grew [calm.]…(George 2003, 32).

Anything that can be deified in the view of the Sumerians is a god, so the worldly life is a god, the “I” is a god, and the group is a god. The righteous and sacred ones are gods too, which is why we can replace the word god with the words prophets, righteous ones, the worldly life or the “I”. Let us contemplate the text and see the wisdom with which it is filled:

Gilgamesh opened his mouth, saying to Enkidu:

‘Who is there, my friend, can climb to the sky? Only the gods [the righteous ones] [dwell] forever in sunlight.

As for man, his days are numbered, whatever he may do, it is but wind (George 2003,109-10).

The Quran says,

﴾And We will regard what they have done of deeds and make them as dust dispersed.﴿ Quran Chapter “The Criterion” 25:23.

Gilgamesh, who is two-thirds god, eventually wanted to rid himself of his dark third, so he went to someone who did rid himself of the darkness and became immortal with the gods, his grandfather Utnapishtim, Noah. Thus, the journey of Gilgamesh to Noah was not a journey requesting physical immortality like some of its readers imagine it to be, but rather, it was a journey requesting spiritual immortality.

After all that has been said, is it fair that a person objects when we say that the Epic of Gilgamesh is deservedly religious and that Gilgamesh is a religious character?

Gilgamesh and Joseph pbuh

In his first journey, Gilgamesh achieved victory and killed the satan Humbaba. He then returned to Uruk and wore his crown for the second battle to begin, the one against the worldly life (the goddess Ishtar or Inanna):

Then did Gilgamesh put on his crown.

On the beauty of Gilgamesh Lady Ishtar looked with longing: ‘Come, Gilgamesh, be you my bridegroom!

Grant me your fruits, O grant me! Be you my husband and I your wife!

Let me harness you a chariot of lapis lazuli and gold, its wheels shall be gold and its horns shall be amber.

Driving lions in a team and mules of great size, enter your house amid the sweet scents of cedar!

‘As you enter our house doorway and footstool shall kiss your feet!

Kings, courtiers and nobles shall kneel before you…

[Gilgamesh] opened his mouth to speak, [saying] to the Lady Ishtar:

‘[And if indeed I] take you in marriage,

‘. . . . . .body and clothing, [whence would come] my food and my sustenance? [Would you feed me] bread that is fit for a god, [and pour me ale] that is fit for a king?

•••

‘[Who is there] would take you in marriage? [You, a frost that congeals no] ice

a louvre-door [that] stays [not] breeze nor draught, a palace that massacres . . . warriors,

‘an elephant which . . . its hoods, bitumen that [stains the hands] of its bearer,

a waterskin that [cuts the hands] of its bearer limestone that [weakens] a wall of ashlar,

‘a battering ram that destroys [the walls of] the enemy, a shoe that bites the foot of its owner!

What bridegroom of yours did endure for ever? What brave warrior of yours went up [to the heavens?]…

The goddess Ishtar [heard] these words, she [went up] to heaven in a furious rage.

[Weeping] she went to Anu, her father, before Antu, her mother, her tears did flow:

‘O father, again and again does Gilgamesh scorn me, telling a tale of foulest slander,

slander about me and insults too.’

Anu opened his mouth to speak, saying to the Lady Ishtar:

‘Ah, but was it not you who provoked King Gilgamesh, so he told a tale of foulest slander,

slander about you and insults too?

Ishtar opened her mouth to speak, saying to her father, Anu:

‘Father, give me, please, the Bull of Heaven, so in his dwelling I may slay Gilgamesh!

‘If you do not give me the Bull of Heaven, I shall smash [the gates of the Netherworld, right down] to its dwelling,

to the world below I shall grant [manumission,] I shall bring the dead to consume the living,

I shall make the dead outnumber the living.’

Anu opened his mouth to speak, saying to the Lady Ishtar:

‘If you want from me the bull of Heaven, let the widow of Uruk gather seven years’ chaff,

[and the farmer of Uruk] grow seven years’ hay.’

[Ishtar opened her mouth] to speak [saying to] her father, Anu:

‘ . . . . . . . . .already I stored,

. . . . . . . . .already I grew,

‘The widow [of Uruk has] gathered [seven] years’ chaff the farmer [of Uruk has grown seven years’] hay…’

(George 2003, 48-50).

The Quran says:

﴾And she, in whose house he was, sought to seduce him. She closed the doors and said, “Come, you.” He said, “I seek the refuge of God. Indeed, he is my master, who has made good my residence. Indeed, wrongdoers will not succeed.”﴿ Quran Chapter “Joseph” 12:23.

﴾[Joseph] said, “You will plant for seven years consecutively; and what you harvest leave in its spikes, except a little from which you will eat. *Then will come after that seven difficult [years] which will consume what you saved for them, except a little from which you will store. *Then will come after that a year in which the people will be given rain and in which they will press [olives and grapes].”﴿ Quran

Chapter “Joseph” 12:47-49.

Those Who Fall or Stumble on the Journey of Immortality

I have made clear that the journey of Gilgamesh talks about spiritual immortality and the eternal life in the hereafter, not physical immortality. If ignorant people know that physical life ends, then how would Gilgamesh not know, he who is described in the Epic as wise and knowledgeable of the truth of things?

Since the immortality and death mentioned in the story mean the immortality and death of the soul, the death of Enkidu is similar. Thus, Enkidu could not complete the journey of immortality without falling or stumbling on the path, committing forbidden acts and going against the commandments Gilgamesh gave him. The result was that he fell into the clutches of the nether world, while Gilgamesh tried to save him from this and help him rise after his stumble:

Gilgamesh says to Enkidu: “If now you will descend to the nether world, A word I speak to you, take my word, Instruction I offer you, take my instruction.

Do not put on clean clothes, Lest like an enemy the (nether world) stewards will come forth, Do not anoint yourself with the good oil of the bur-vessel, Lest at its smell they will crowd about you.

“Do not throw the throw-stick in the nether world, Lest they who were struck by the throw-stick will surround you, Do not carry a staff in your hand, Lest the shades will flutter all about you.

“Do not put sandals on your feet, In the nether world make no cry; Kiss not your beloved wife, Strike not your hated wife, Kiss not your beloved son, Strike not your hated son, Lest the outcry of Kur will seize you,…”(Kramer 1981, 196-97).

Enkidu did not heed the instructions of his master, but committed those very acts against which Gilgamesh had warned him. And so he was seized by Kur and was unable to ascend again to the earth.

“… In battle, the place of manliness, he has not fallen, Kur has seized him.”

… the story of the death of Enkidu and his burial is in all likelihood of Babylonian rather than Sumerian origin. According to the Sumerian poem “Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Nether World,” Enkidu did not die at all in the ordinary sense of the word but was seized and held fast by Kur, a dragon-like demon in charge of the nether world, after he had knowingly broken the taboos of the nether world. The incident of but the death of Enkidu was invented by the Babylonian authors of the “Epic of Gilgamesh” in order to motivate dramatically Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality, which climaxes the poem.

… In no case, however, did the Babylonian poets slavishly copy the Sumerian material. They so modified its content and molded its form, in accordance with their own temper and heritage, that only the bare nucleus of the Sumerian original remains recognizable (Kramer 1981, 183-84).

The Journey of Gilgamesh to his Grandfather Noah pbuh

Then began the journey of Gilgamesh to his grandfather Noah (Utnapishtim) in which he was seeking immortality-the immortality of the soul and not the body. From the beginning, Gilgamesh knew that there was no immortality for the body, for he said:

Gilgamesh opened his mouth, saying to Enkidu:

‘Who is there, my friend, can climb to the sky? Only the gods [the righteous ones] [dwell] forever in sunlight.

As for man, his days are numbered, whatever he may do, it is but wind (George 2003, 109-10).

His grandfather Noah had been dead for a long time and he knew this well. Therefore, it was a journey to the other world.

In this journey, Gilgamesh crushes his “self” and achieves the immortality that he traveled seeking. He achieves what he wished for on the same journey even before reaching his grandfather Noah (Utnapishtim):

After you are gone [my hair will be matted in mourning,] clad in the skin of [a lion I shall wander] the wild. (George 199, 66).

Gilgamesh enters the world of truth and sees things for what they really are on his journey to his grandfather Utnapishtim (Noah pbuh):

To Mashu’s twin mountains he came, which daily guard the rising [ sun,] whose tops [support] the fabric of heaven, whose base reaches down to the Netherworld.

There were scorpion-men guarding its gate, whose terror was dread, whose glance was death, whose radiance was fearful, overwhelming the mountains - at sunrise and sunset they guarded the sun.

Gilgamesh saw them, in fear and dread he covered his face, then he collected his wits, and drew nearer their presence. The scorpion-man called to his mate: ‘He who has come to us, flesh of the gods is his body.’

The scorpion-man’s mate answered him: ‘Two-thirds of him is god, and one third human.’ The scorpion-man called out, saying a word [to King Gilgamesh,] flesh of the gods:

‘[How did you come here,] such a far road? [How did you get here,] to be in my presence? [How did you cross the seas,] whose passage is perilous? …… let me learn of your [journey!]

‘ …… where your [face] is turned, …… let me learn [of your journey!]’

Gilgamesh replied:

‘[I am seeking] the [road] of my forefather, Uta-napishti [Noah pbuh], who attended the gods’ assembly, and [found life eternal:] of death and life [he shall tell me the secret.]’

The scorpion-man opened his mouth [ to speak,] saying to [Gilgamesh:]

‘Never [before], O Gilgamesh, was there [ one like you,] never did anyone [travel the path] of the mountain.

‘For twelve double-hours its interior [extends,] the darkness is dense, and [light is] there none.

For the rising of the sun ……… , for the setting of the sun …….. .

‘For the setting of the ……… , they sent forth …….. .

And you, how will you …… ? Will you go in ……… .

‘Through sorrow …….. . by frost and by sunshine [ my face is burnt.]

Through exhaustion …….. . now you …….. . ‘

The scorpion-man [ opened his mouth to speak,]

[saying a word] to King Gilgamesh, [flesh of the gods:] ‘Go, Gilgamesh! …….. .

May the mountains of Mashu [allow you to pass!]

‘[May] the mountains and hills [watch over your going!] Let [ them help you] in safety [to continue your journey!]

[May] the gate of the mountains [open before you!]’ (George 2003, 71-73).

The journey of Gilgamesh continues and he passes the tavern-keeper. It is as if she is a symbol of intoxication of the people with the love of the temporal life and the “I”. The tavern-keeper calls him to the worldly life and to caring about himself and abandoning this tiring journey of seeking immortality:

Said the tavern-keeper to him, to Gilgamesh: ‘O Gilgamesh, where are you wandering?

‘The life that you seek you never will find: when the gods created mankind,

death they dispensed to mankind, life they kept for themselves.

‘But you, Gilgamesh, let your belly be full, enjoy yourself always by day and by night!

Make merry each day, dance and play day and night!

‘Let your clothes be clean, let your head be washed, may you bathe in water!

Gaze on the child who holds your hand, let your wife enjoy your repeated embrace!

‘For such is the destiny [of mortal men,] that the one who lives ……… ‘ [Said] Gilgamesh to her, [to the ale-wife:]…

‘But you dwell, O tavern-keeper, on the shore [of the ocean,] you are familiar with all [the ways across it.]

Show me the way, [O show me!] If it may be done [I will cross] the ocean!’ (George 2003, 124).

Said Gilgamesh to her, to the tavern-keeper:

‘Now, O tavern-keeper, where is the road to Uta-napishti? What is the landmark? Tell me!

Give me its landmark! If it may be done, I will cross the ocean,

and if it may not be done, I will wander the wild!’ (George 2003, 78).

It is as if these last words of Gilgamesh were in the meaning quoted by Moses pbuh, so Moses pbuh says, ﴾to his lad, “I will not cease traveling until I reach the junction of the two seas or continue for a long period.”﴿ The Quran Chapter “The Cave” 18:60.

The Journey of Gilgamesh continues until he reaches his grandfather Utnapishtim (Noah pbuh), who tells him the story of the flood. Thus, Gilgamesh learns the secret of life from his grandfather:

Utnapishtim said, ‘There is no permanence. Do we build a house to stand for ever, do we seal a contract to hold for all time? Do brothers divide an inheritance to keep for ever, does the flood-time of rivers endure? It is only the nymph of the dragon-fly who sheds her larva and sees the sun in his glory. From the days of old there is no permanence. The sleeping and the dead, how alike they are, they are like a painted death. What is there between the master and the servant when both have fulfilled their doom? (Sanders 1972, 94-95).

The Sumerian epics, stories and poems prove that the story of divine religion existed where the Sumerians were located-before the existence of Judaism, Christianity and Islam-complete in all its details, characters and symbols. In the Sumerian clay tablets, we find the real, one God who dominates everything. We also find the ideologies, moral values, sacred laws, methods of worship, the ways of achieving victory over Satan and the worldly life, as well as the “I” and the self-love.

Thus, it was entirely about religion, from beginning to end, for the Sumerians.

Where did they get it from? Where did they get this complex system that suddenly appeared, in complete form, in the history of Mesopotamia?

The truth, which any reasonable person can see as clear as the sun, is that a leap of culture and civilization has been revealed to us by the Sumerian culture and civilization. Anyone wanting to deny it- after all that has been said-that is their business. In any case, many theories and theses have been made to explain this cultural leaps, as previously discussed. If it was not such a cultural leap, it would have reached the point where the ancient astronaut theory of organisms coming from space was proposed!

It’s very strange for someone to accept that the reason for human development was ancient astronauts in spaceships and their cosmic powers which we see no trace of on the earth, in order to justify this cultural leap, yet not accept that the soul of Adam was breathed into and connected to a body, and consequently developed, becoming more sophisticated among the creation in terms of organization and the ability to think and comprehend.

The Sumerians and the Supremacy of God

Regarding the government, Dr. Kramer says:

The Government, The First Bicameral Congress: Man’s social and spiritual development is often slow, devious, and

hard to trace. The full-grown tree may well be separated from its original seed by thousands of miles and years. Take, for example, the way of life known as democracy and its fundamental institution, the political assembly. On the surface it seems to be practically a monopoly of our Western civilization and an outgrowth of recent centuries. Who could imagine that there were political congresses thousands and thousands of years ago, and in parts of the world rarely associated with democratic institutions? But the patient archaeologist digs deep and wide, and he never knows what he will come up with. As a result of the efforts of the “pick and spade” brigade, we can now read the record of a political assembly that took place some five thousand years ago in - of all places - the Near East.

The first political “congress” in man’s recorded history met in solemn session about 3000 B.C. It consisted, not unlike our own congress, of two “houses”: a “senate,” or an assembly of elders; and a “lower house,” or an assembly of arms-bearing male citizens. It was a “war congress,” called together to take a stand on the momentous question of war and peace; it had to choose between what we would describe as “peace at any price” or war and independence. The “senate,” with its conservative elders, declared for peace at all cost, but its decision was “vetoed” by the king, who then brought the matter before the “lower house.” This body declared for war and freedom, and the king approved.

In what part of the world did the first “congress” known to man meet? Not, as you might surmise, somewhere in the West, on the continent of Europe (the political assemblies in “democratic” Greece and republican Rome came much later). Our hoary congress met, surprising as it may seem, in that part of Asia now generally designated as the Near East, the traditional home of tyrants and despots, a part of the world where political assemblies were thought to be practically unknown. It was in the land known in ancient days as Sumer, situated north of the Persian Gulf between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, that the oldest known political assembly was convened. And when did this “congress” meet? In the third millennium BC In those days, this Near Eastern land Sumer (it corresponds roughly to the lower half of modern Iraq) was inhabited by a people who developed what was probably the highest civilization in the then known world (Kramer 1981, 30-31).

The connection of the Sumerians to the supremacy of God is something that could not have been recognized by Kramer or most other archaeologists. This is because they either do not believe in the supremacy of God, or they are atheists who think that religion was invented by the Sumerians, and that the Torah and the Quran are just the result of copying (in their eyes) fictitious Sumerian stories, such as the story of the Deluge. That is why, when they discovered that the Sumerian king presented the issue of war to two councils, they concluded that the Sumerians were practicing democracy similar to today’s Western democracy. On the contrary, the Sumerians were not practicing Western democracy at all, and what they practiced had nothing in common with it, as there are many Sumerian texts that confirm that the ruler took his authority by divine appointment.

The Sumerian governing system is a system they inherited from Noah pbuh and the prophets just as they inherited the divine religion. Thus, they had a distorted divine governing system, just as they had a distorted divine religion. As such, the Sumerian governing system was neither a dictatorship nor a democracy in today’s Western democratic sense.

In the Sumerian governing system, a king was assigned by the gods, just as a king or ruler is assigned by God in the divine governing system. The mission of this ruler is to fulfil the will of God, apply the law of God, and be just toward the oppressed. Thus, there is a purpose behind the assignment of the divine ruler, which is not the rule itself. That is why the divine governing system can be achieved even in the case where the assigned ruler of God supervises the application, monitors the application, and intervenes in order to correct any movement toward error. It is not necessary that he himself rule in order for the purpose of his assignment to be fulfilled.

We find this or something similar in the Sumerian example mentioned by Dr. Samuel Kramer, as there was a dispute between Uruk and Kish about authority and the claim of divine appointment. The ruler of Uruk requested the people’s opinion on whether to choose war or peace, but it was not an opinion he was obligated to follow, as is clear from the above example.

The political situation that brought about the convening of the oldest “congress” recorded in history may be described as follows: Like Greece of a much later day, Sumer, in the third millennium B.C., consisted of a number of city-states vying for supremacy over the land as a whole. One of the most important of these was Kish, which, according to Sumerian legendary lore, had received the “kingship” from heaven immediately after the “flood.” But in time another citystate, Erech, which lay far to the south of Kish, kept gaining in power and influence until it seriously threatened Kish’s supremacy in Sumer. The king of Kish at last realized the danger and threatened the Erechites with war unless they recognized him as their overlord. It was at this crucial moment that Erech’s two assemblies were convened - the elders and the arms-bearing males - in order to decide which course to follow, whether to submit to Kish and enjoy peace or to take to arms and fight for independence (Kramer 1981, 31-32).

It is true that some of the kings of Sumer had only claimed to be divinely appointed. However, what matters to us is that the Sumerians in general believed in divine appointment. This is confirmed by what we see often in the clay tablets, namely that the kings were from the lineage of the gods and that the gods assign them. There is a story relayed by the Quran that represents a dispute that occurred in Sumer or Mesopotamia between a king claiming to have kingship and Abraham,

the Beloved of God pbuh, the king appointed by God:*

﴾Have you not considered the one who argued with Abraham

about his Lord because God had given him kingship? When Abraham

said, “My Lord is the one who gives life and causes death,” he said, “I

give life and cause death.” Abraham said, “Indeed, God brings up the

Sun from the east, so bring it up from the west.” So the disbeliever was

overwhelmed [by astonishment], and God does not guide the wrong-

doing people.﴿ Quran Chapter “The Cow” 2:258.

Generally speaking, one can refer to the Sumerian, Akkadian and

Babylonian texts to see that in many of the passages this matter is clear,

as is their belief that kingship is a divine appointment. It is just like

the true ideology of divine religion in the Torah, Gospel and Quran.

This clearly shows that the Sumerians inherited the old divine religion

and were committed to its teachings, most importantly the divine laws

and the one who implements them. However, as time passed, the thing

that always happens occurred in this case too: the distortion of divine

religion, the usurping of divine kingship and the persecution of the

king appointed by God. This was the case with Abraham pbuh, who

eventually had to leave the land of his fathers, until God wished for his children to later return. It is the return of his son Ali Ibn Abi Talib pbuh to the land of Sumer and Akkad or Semeru, Shinar or Mesopotamia (Iraq).

This is a text relayed by Dr. Kramer about the Sumerian tablets. It shows that the Sumerians believed in a divine religion and divine appointment of the king or ruler:

“O Sumer, great land, of the lands of the universe, Filled with steadfast light, dispensing from Sunrise to Sunset the divine laws to

(all) the people, Your divine laws are exalted laws, unreachable, Your heart is profound, unfathomable, The true learning which you bring . . . , like heaven is untouchable, The king to whom you give birth is adorned with the everlasting diadem, The lord to whom you give birth sets ever crown on head, Your lord is an honored lord; with An, the king, he sits on the heavenly dais, Your king is the great mountain,… (Kramer 1981, 93).

Research in the Flood of Noah

The flood of Noah is mentioned in religion, yet, because of its distorted presentation by some religious clerics-or its distorted form in some distorted divine books-divine religion came under attack, the basis being that religion is just a collection of myths. This is because a flood of that magnitude and in that time, as described in the distorted, religiously accepted form, cannot scientifically occur. There is no trace of its occurrence. In fact, the opposite is the case. It cannot occur without leaving numerous traces after the water recedes from the land. Present day science has not shown any sign that such traces exist.

Before we discuss and analyze the story of the flood, we will consider some scientific arguments against the religious story of the flood. Some of them are exploited by atheists to refute divine religion for being merely an inflated rumination of ancient myths, such as the Sumerian story of the flood. We will learn the rebuttals of these arguments by presenting the Quranic story of the flood with correct understanding, demonstrating that it does not conflict with scientific, historical, archaeological, or geological facts.

Scientific Arguments Against the Traditional Religious Story of the Flood

1. All of the water present within and on the earth is not enough to completely cover land up to the peak of the highest mountain, meaning to reach a few kilometers in height. In fact, it is not enough to cover land at a much lower level than that. 2. How did the animals of isolated islands and continents reach Noah? Moreover, how did they return to their isolated islands again, without leaving a trace on their way back? The simplest examples are the marsupials of Australia, and the fossa animal of Madagascar. They are endemic to their region, and no trace of their existence has been recorded anywhere else.

3. There are no traces of a flood that included every spot on the earth within the time frame of the traditional story of the flood.

Summary of Atheist Arguments Against the Traditional Religious Story of the Flood of Noah

This is a summary by the well-known author Christopher Hitchens of some of his refutations of the story of the flood as it appears in the Torah, or the Old Testament:*

Noah was asked to take into the ark a pair from every species (sura 11.36-41). Some zoologists estimate that there are perhaps ten million living species of insects; would they all fit into the ark? It is true they do not take up much room, so let us concentrate on the larger animals: reptiles, 5,000 species; birds, 9,000 species; and 4,500 species of class Mammalia (p. 239). In all, in the phylum Chordata, there are 45,000 species (p. 236). What sized ark would hold nearly 45,000 species of animals? A pair from each species makes nearly 90,000 individual animals, from snakes to elephants, from birds to horses, from hippopotamuses to rhinoceroses. How did Noah get them all together so quickly? How long did he wait for the sloth to make his slothful way from the Amazon? How did the kangaroo get out of Australia, which is an island? How did the polar bear know where to find Noah? As Robert Ingersoll asks, “Can absurdities go farther than this?” Either we conclude that this fantastic tale is not to be taken literally, or we have recourse to some rather feeble answer, such as, for God all is possible. Why, in that case, did God go through all this rather complicated, time-consuming (at least for Noah) procedure? Why not save Noah and other righteous people with a rapid miracle rather than a protracted one? (Hitchens 2007, 415).

The following is a summary of objections made by the biologist Dr. Dawkins to the traditional story of the flood of Noah and Noah’s ark:

“Think what the geographical distribution of animals should look like if they’d all dispersed from Noah’s Ark,” he said. “Shouldn’t there be some sort of law of decreasing species diversity as we move away from an epicentre-perhaps Mount Ararat? I don’t need to tell you that this is not what we see.”

Take Australia’s marsupials, for example. “Why would all those marsupials, but no placentals at all, have migrated en masse from Mount Ararat to Australia? Which route did they take? And why did not a single member of their straggling caravan pause on the way and settle-in India perhaps or China or some haven along the Great Silk Road?” (The Sydney Morning Herald 2010).

When a religious cleric, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, relates the traditional story of Noah-that marsupials, like other animals, came down from Noah’s ark after the flood in a region of Iraq or its surroundings-this causes biologists, and even people with an average education, to regard this story as a completely fabricated myth, and to regard whoever believes it in this form as extremely intellectually backward. Marsupials have been endemic only to Australia for millions of years, and not to the remaining continents of the world, the reason being that they evolved independently on this isolated island.

The Story of the Flood from the Sumerians and Babylonian, or the-Mesopotamian Nations

In the chapter “The First Noah”, Kramer says:

That the Biblical deluge story is not original with the Hebrew redactors of the Bible has been known from the time of the discovery and deciphering of the eleventh tablet of the Babylonian “Epic of Gilgamesh” by the British Museum’s George Smith. The Babylonian deluge myth itself, however, is of Sumerian origin. In 1914 Arno Poebel published a fragment consisting of the lower third of a six-column Sumerian tablet in the Nippur collection of the University Museum, the contents of which are devoted in large part to the story of the flood. This fragment still remains unique and unduplicated (Kramer (1956) 1981, 148).

Thus, the story of the flood has existed and was recorded before any of the three religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It dates back thousands of years before Christ, and was relayed by the Mesopotamian people as a narrative from the perspective of their ancestors.

In History Begins at Sumer Kramer recounts the Sumerian story of creation and the flood. However, it is incomplete due to breakage and damage incurred by the tablets. Here are some of its passages:

After An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursag Had fashioned the blackheaded people, Vegetation luxuriated from the earth, Animals, four-legged (creatures) of the plain, were brought artfully into existence.

There follows another break of about 37 lines, after which we learn that kingship was lowered from heaven and that five cities were founded:

After the . . . of kingship had been lowered from heaven, After the exalted tiara and the throne of kingship had been lowered from heaven, He perfected the rites and the exalted divine laws . . . . , Founded the five cities in . . . pure places, Called their names, apportioned them as cult centers… (Kramer 1981, 149).

.... Thus was treated . . . . . Then did Nintu weep like a . . . , The pure Inanna set up a lament for its people, Enki took counsel with himself, An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursag . . . . , The gods of heaven and earth uttered the name of An and Enlil.

Then did Ziusudra, the king, the pashishu of . . . . , Build a giant . . . . ; Humbly, obedient, reverently he . . . . , Attending daily, constantly he . . . . , Bringing forth all kinds of dreams, he . . . . , Uttering the name of heaven and earth, he . . . . . . . . . the gods a wall . . . . , Ziusudra, standing at its side, listened.

“Stand by the wall at my left side . . . . , By the wall I will say a word to you, take my word, Give ear to my instructions: By our . . a flood will sweep over the cult centers; To destroy the seed of mankind . . . . , Is the decision, the word of the assembly of the gods.

By the word commanded by An and Enlil . . . . . Its kingship, its rule (will be put to an end).”

The text must have continued with detailed instructions to Ziusudra to build a giant boat and thus save himself from destruction. But this is missing, since there is another break of about 40 lines at this point. When the text becomes intelligible once again, we find that the flood in all its violence had already come upon the “land” and raged there for seven days and nights. Then the sun-god Utu comes forth again, bringing his precious light everywhere, and Ziusudra prostrates himself before him and offers sacrifices. The lines read:

All the windstorms, exceedingly powerful, attacked as one, At the same time, the flood sweeps over the cult centers.

After, for seven days and seven nights, The flood had swept over the land, And the huge boat had been tossed about by the windstorms on the great waters, Utu came forth, who sheds light on heaven and earth, Ziusudra opened a window on the huge boat, The hero Utu brought his rays into the giant boat.

Ziusudra, the king, Prostrated himself before Utu, The king kills an ox, slaughters a sheep.

Here, again, there follows a break of about 39 lines. The last extant lines of our text describe the deification of Ziusudra. After he had prostrated himself before An and Enlil, he was given “life like a god” and breath eternal, and translated to Dilmun, “the place where the sun rises.” Thus:

An and Enlil uttered “breath of heaven,” “breath of earth,” by their . . it stretched itself, Vegetation, coming up out of the earth, rises up.

Ziusudra, the king, Prostrated himself before An and Enlil. An and Enlil cherished Ziusudra, Life like a god they give him: Breath eternal like a god they bring down for him.

Then, Ziusudra the king, The preserver of the name of vegetation and of the seed of mankind, In the land of crossing, the land of Dilmun, the place where the sun rises, they caused to dwell (Kramer 1981, 151-53).

To clarify, the beginning was at the time when the creation of the intellectual human being, or the Homo sapiens, was complete. His skin was black, and he came from Africa to the fertile valley. He represents the beginning of the story of Adam and the vicegerency, which, in turn, represents the origin to which the Sumerians trace back. Therefore, it is natural for the Sumerians to describe their ancestors as the “blackheaded people”:

After An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursag Had fashioned the blackheaded people,

This phrase, which was often repeated in Sumerian texts, was unclear to archeologists. It posed an unexplained mystery: why would Sumerians call their ancestors by the name “blackheaded people”? It has now been made clear that the reason is that the ancestors came from Africa, and the skin color of their heads was black.

The second stage in the Sumerian story of creation is the divine vicegerency of a human vicegerent on the earth:

After the . . . of kingship had been lowered from heaven, After the exalted tiara and the throne of kingship had been lowered from heaven, He perfected the rites and the exalted divine laws,…

It is clear from the Sumerian text that this represents the story of the vicegerency of Adam pbuh, or the first (human) vicegerent of God on the earth, which was mentioned in the Abrahamic religions. “Kingship had been lowered from heaven”, means that a vicegerent of God was appointed on the earth, so kingship originally belongs to God. The descent of kingship to the earth signifies the appointment of a human as a vicegerent of God on the earth. Once the vicegerent was appointed, jurisprudence and the sacred divine laws were sent down to him, meaning that God inspired Adam pbuh and informed him of the religion, the jurisprudence, and the sacred, divine laws.

Clearly, the above text has major gaps, especially concerning the story of the flood. However, we can summarize what is mentioned about the flood as follows:

The maker of the ark is a Sumerian whose name is Ziusudra. God inspired Ziusudra, and some of the divine inspiration reached him through visions. Ziusudra (or Noah) learned about the flood before it occurred, through divine inspiration. There is emphasis when mentioning that the flood swept over the cult centers:

A flood will sweep over the cult centers… At the same time, the flood sweeps over the cult centers.

This is an indication of the deviation of religion clerics and their distortion of religion at the time of Ziusudra (Noah).

There is emphasis on the flood being a divine punishment of people for their rebellion against the commands of God and destroying their rule, which opposed Ziusudra (Noah), who was appointed by God: “Its kingship, its rule (will be put to an end).”

Ziusudra’s task was to make an ark that would preserve a special lineage of people, plants, and animals. Perhaps there is a clear indication of this in the Sumerian text, namely the phrase: “The preserver of the name of vegetation.” Certainly, what is intended is special vegetation because, otherwise, no matter how great a flood on the earth is, plants do not require ark to transport and preserve them. At the very least their seeds remain and grow after a flood without any help. Therefore, it is clear that what is intended are agricultural plants that humans eat. Perhaps what is intended in particular is that Ziusudra transported sufficient amounts of their seeds to repeat the productive agricultural process, without the need to start from scratch when the wheat seeds and agricultural seeds used for crops were no longer available to humans (the son of Adam). Therefore, perhaps the text is clear in saying that the ones being transported on the ark are a group of people who believe in the words of Noah, as well as the seeds of economical, productive plants that are important to humans are being transported as well. Accordingly, we can also conclude that the animals being transported are the domesticated animals that benefit humans. In the end, Ziusudra, or Noah, succeeded and was rewarded, because he accepted the words of God and the inspiration of God. He also rose in the kingdom of heaven after being transported and saved on the ark. Ziusudra lived in the land of Dilmun, or the land of crossing, as the Sumerian text calls it:

Ziusudra, the king, Prostrated himself before An and Enlil. An and Enlil cherished Ziusudra, Life like a god they give him: Breath eternal like a god they bring down for him.

Then, Ziusudra the king, The preserver of the name of vegetation and of the seed of mankind, In the land of crossing, the land of Dilmun, the place where the sun rises, they caused to dwell.

Dilmun:

The description of Dilum by the Sumerians is:

In Dilmun the raven utters no cry, The ittidu-bird utters not the cry of the ittidu-bird, The lion kills not, The wolf snatches not the lamb,

Unknown is the kid-devouring wild dog, Unknown is the grain-devouring . . , Unknown is the widow, The bird on high . .s not his . . , The dove droops not the head, The sick-eyed says not “I am sick-eyed,” The sick-headed says not “I am sick-headed,” Its (Dilmun’s) old woman says not “I am an old woman,” Its old man says not ‘’I am an old man,” Unbathed is the maid, no sparkling water is poured in the city, Who crosses the river (of death?) utters no . . , The wailing priests walk not round about him, The singer utters no wail, By the side of the city he utters no lament (Kramer, 1981, 144-45).

To clarify, the description above cannot be considered realistic unless it concerns a certain land or country that Ziusudra, or Noah, lived in after the flood. Thus, it is clearly a symbolic description. Furthermore, for those readers who are informed of the religious accounts regarding Al-Mahdi, this description brings to mind the nation of Al-Mahdi as well as the description wherein the wolf does not eat the lamb. In fact, it can be said that what is intended is the ideal state, where injustice is lifted and the justice of the heavens is applied. As such, we can understand that Dilmun, or the place where Ziusudra lived after the flood, is the just nation of Al-Mahdi that has been anticipated since the time of Ziusudra (Noah), or perhaps even before that. Its capital and starting point is in Iraq, enabling us to say that Dilmun, in this Sumerian text, is Iraq.

The Story of Noah in the Epic of Gilgamesh

Chapter 4 The Story of the Flood

It was narrated by Utnapishtim the immortal to Gilgamesh:

Gilgamesh and Ur-shanabi crewed [the boat,] they launched the craft, and [crewed it] themselves.

In three days they made a journey of a month and a half, and Ur-shanabi came to the Waters of [Death.]

[Said] Ur-shanabi to him, [to Gilgamesh:] ‘Set to, O Gilgamesh! Take the first [punting-pole!]

Let your hand not touch the Waters of Death, lest you wither [it!]

‘Take a second punting-pole, Gilgamesh, a third and a fourth! Take a fifth punting-pole, Gilgamesh, a sixth and a seventh!

Take an eighth punting-pole, Gilgamesh, a ninth and a tenth! Take an eleventh punting-pole, Gilgamesh, and a twelfth!’

At one hundred and twenty double-furlongs Gilgamesh had used all the punting-poles,

so he, [Ur-shanabi,] undid his clothing, Gilgamesh stripped off [his] garment,

with arms held aloft he made a yard-arm.

Uta-napishti was watching Gilgamesh in the distance, talking to himself he [spoke] a word,

[taking counsel] in his own mind: ‘Why are the boat’s [Stone Ones] all broken, and aboard it one who is not its master? (George 2003, 82-83).

[Said] Gilgamesh to him, [to Uta-napishti:] ‘Why should my cheeks not be hollow, [my face not sunken,]

my mood not wretched, my visage not wasted?

‘Should not sorrow reside in my heart, and my [face] not resemble one come from afar?

[Should not] my features be [burnt] by frost and by sunshine, [and should I not] wander the wild in lion’s garb?

‘[My friend, a wild ass on the run,] [donkey of the uplands,] panther of the wild,

[my friend Enkidu, a wild ass on the run,] [donkey of the uplands, panther of the wild -]

‘[having joined forces we climbed] the mountains, [seized and] slew [the Bull] of Heaven,

[destroyed Humbaba, who] dwelt [in the] Forest of Cedar, killed lions [in the mountain passes –]

‘[my friend, whom I loved so dear,]

[who with me went through] every danger, [my friend Enkidu, whom I loved so dear,]

[who with me] went through every danger: [the doom of mortals overtook him.]

‘[Six days] I wept for him [and seven nights:] [I did not surrender his body for] burial

[until a maggot dropped from] his [nostril.] [Then I was afraid that I too would die,]

[I grew] fearful of death, [and so wander the] wild.

‘What became of [my friend was too much] to [bear,] so on a far road [I wander the] wild;

what became of my friend Enkidu [was too much to bear,] so on a far path [I wander the wild.]

‘How can I keep silent? How can I stay quiet? My friend, whom I loved, has turned to clay,

my friend Enkidu, [whom I loved, has turned to clay. [Shall] I not be like him and also lie down,

never to rise again, through all [eternity?]’

Said Gilgamesh to him, to Uta-napishti: ‘I thought, “I will find Uta-napishti the Distant, of whom men tell,”

and I wandered journeying through every land. Many times I passed through terrible mountains,

many times I crossed and recrossed all the oceans.

‘Of slumber sweet my face had too little, I scourged myself by going sleepless.

I have filled my sinews with sorrow, and what have I achieved by my toil?

‘I had yet to reach the tavern-keeper, my clothing was worn out. [I killed] bear, hyena, lion, panther, cheetah,

deer, ibex, the beasts and game of the wild: I ate their flesh, their pelts I flayed (George 2003, 84-85).

Death so savage, who hacks men down.

‘Ever do we build our households, ever do we make our nests, ever do brothers divide their inheritance,

ever do feuds arise in the land.

‘Ever the river has risen and brought us the flood, the mayfly floating on the water.

On the face of the Sun its countenance gazes, then all of a sudden nothing is there!

‘The abducted and the dead, how alike is their lot! But never was drawn the likeness of Death,

never in the land did the dead greet a man.

‘The Anunnaki, the great gods, held an assembly, Mammitum, maker of destiny, fixed fates with them:

both Death and Life they have established, but the day of Death they do not disclose.’ (George 2003, 86-87).

Said Gilgamesh to him, to Uta-napishti the Distant: ‘I look at you, Uta-napishti:

your form is no different, you are just like me, you are not any different, you are just like me.

‘I was fully intent on making you fight, but now in your presence my hand is stayed.

How was it you stood with the gods in assembly? How did you find the life eternal?’

Said Uta-napishti to him, to Gilgamesh: ‘Let me disclose, O Gilgamesh, a matter most secret,

to you I will tell a mystery of gods.

‘The town of Shuruppak, a city well known to you, which stands on the banks of the river Euphrates:

this city was old – the gods once were in it – when the great gods decided to send down the Deluge.

‘Their father Anu swore on oath, and their counsellor, the hero Enlil,

their chamberlain, the god Ninurta, and their sheriff, the god Ennugi.

‘Princely Ea swore with them also, repeating their words to a fence made of reed:

“O fence of reed! O wall of brick! Hear this, O fence! Pay heed, O wall!

‘ “O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu, demolish the house, and build a boat!

Abandon wealth, and seek survival! Spurn property, save life!

Take on board the boat all living things’ seed!

‘ “The boat you will build, her dimensions all shall be equal:

her length and breadth shall be the same, cover her with a roof, like the Ocean Below.”

‘I understood, and spoke to Ea, my master: “I obey, O master, what thus you told me.

I understood, and I shall do it, but how do I answer my city, the crowd and the elders?”

‘Ea opened his mouth to speak, saying to me, his servant:

“Also you will say to them this: ‘For sure the god Enlil feels for me hatred.

‘ “ ‘In your city I can live no longer, I can tread no more [on] Enlil’s ground.

[I must] go to the Ocean Below, to live with Ea, my master, and he will send you a rain of plenty:

‘ “ ‘[ an abundance] of birds, a profusion of fishes, [he will provide] a harvest of riches.

In the morning he will send you a shower of bread-cakes, and in the evening a torrent of wheat.’ “

‘At the very first glimmer of brightening dawn, at the gate of Atra-hasis assembled the land:

the carpenter carrying [his] hatchet, the reed-worker carrying [his] stone,

[the shipwright bearing his] heavyweight axe.

‘The young men were . . . . . . , the old men bearing ropes of palm-fibre;

the rich man was carrying the pitch, the poor man brought the . . . tackle.

‘By the fifth day I had set her hull in position, one acre was her area, ten rods the height of her sides.

At ten rods also, the sides of her roof were each the same length. I set in place her body, I drew up her design.

‘Six decks I gave her, dividing her thus into seven.

Into nine compartments I divided her interior, I struck the bilge plugs into her middle.

I saw to the punting-poles and put in the tackle.

‘Three myriad measures of pitch I poured in a furnace, three myriad of tar I . . . within,

three myriad of oil fetched the workforce of porters: aside from the myriad of oil consumed in libations,

there were two myriad of oil stowed away by the boatman.

‘For my workmen I butchered oxen, and lambs I slaughtered daily.

Beer and ale, oil and wine like water from a river [I gave my] workforce,

so they enjoyed a feast like the days of New Year.

‘At sun-[rise] I set my hand [to] the oiling, [before] the sun set the boat was complete .

. . . . . . . . . were very arduous: from back to front we moved poles for the slipway,

[until] two-thirds of [the boat had entered the water.]

‘[Everything I owned] I loaded aboard: all the silver I owned I loaded aboard,

all the gold I owned I loaded aboard, all the living creatures I had I loaded aboard.

I sent on board all my kith and kin, the beasts of the field, the creatures of the wild, and members of every skill and craft.

‘The time which the Sun God appointed - “In the morning he will send you a shower of bread-cakes,

and in the evening a torrent of wheat. Go into the boat and seal your hatch!” –

‘that time had now come: “In the morning he will send you a shower of bread-cakes,

and in the evening a torrent of wheat.” I examined the look of the weather.

‘The weather to look at was full of foreboding, I went into the boat and sealed my hatch.

To the one who sealed the boat, Puzur-Enlil the shipwright, I gave my palace with all its goods.

‘At the very first glimmer of brightening dawn, there rose on the horizon a dark cloud of black,

and bellowing within it was Adad the Storm God. The gods Shullat and Hanish were going before him,

bearing his throne over mountain and land.

‘The god Errakal was uprooting the mooring-poles, Ninurta, passing by, made the weirs overflow.

The Anunnaki gods carried torches of fire, scorching the country with brilliant flashes.

‘The stillness of the Storm God passed over the sky, and all that was bright then turned into darkness.

[He] charged the land like a bull [on the rampage,] he smashed [it] in pieces [like a vessel of clay.]… (George 2003, 88-92).

All day long the South Wind blew . . ., blowing fast, submerging the mountain in water,… (Kovacs 1989, 100).

Like a battle [the cataclysm] passed over the people. One man could not discern another,

nor could people be recognized amid the destruction.

‘Even the gods took fright at the Deluge, they left and went up to the Heaven of Anu, lying like dogs curled up in the open. The goddess cried out like a woman in childbirth,

Belet-ili wailed, whose voice is so sweet:

‘ “The olden times have turned to clay, because I spoke evil in the gods’ assembly.

How could I speak evil in the gods’ assembly, and declare a war to destroy my people?

‘ “It is I who give birth, these people are mine! And now, like fish, they fill the ocean!”

The Anunnaki gods were weeping with her, wet-faced with sorrow, they were weeping [with her,]

their lips were parched and stricken with fever.

‘For six days and [seven] nights, there blew the wind, the downpour,

the gale, the Deluge, it flattened the land.

‘But the seventh day when it came, the gale relented, the Deluge ended.

The ocean grew calm, that had thrashed like a woman in labour, the tempest grew still, the Deluge ended.

‘I looked at the weather, it was quiet and still, but all the people had turned to clay.

The flood plain was flat like the roof of a house. I opened a vent, on my cheeks fell the sunlight.

‘Down sat I, I knelt and I wept, down my cheeks the tears were coursing.

I scanned the horizons, the edge of the ocean, in fourteen places there rose an island.

‘On the mountain of Nimush the boat ran aground, Mount Nimush held the boat fast, allowed it no motion.

One day and a second, Mount Nimush held the boat fast, allowed it no motion,

a third day and a fourth, Mount Nimush held the boat fast, allowed it no motion,

a fifth day and a sixth, Mount Nimush held the boat fast, allowed it no motion.

‘The seventh day when it came, I brought out a dove, I let it loose:

off went the dove but then it returned, there was no place to land, so back it came to me.

‘I brought out a swallow, I let it loose: off went the swallow but then it returned,

there was no place to land, so back it came to me.

‘I brought out a raven, I let it loose: off went the raven, it saw the waters receding,

finding food, bowing and bobbing, it did not come back to me.

‘I brought out an offering, to the four winds made sacrifice, incense I placed on the peak of the mountain.

Seven flasks and seven I set in position, reed, cedar and myrtle I piled beneath them.

‘The gods did smell the savour, the gods did smell the savour sweet,

the gods gathered like flies around the man making sacrifice.

‘Then at once Belet-ili arrived, she lifted the flies of lapis lazuli that Anu had made for their courtship:

“O gods, let these great beads in this necklace of mine make me remember these days, and never forget them!

‘ “All the gods shall come to the incense, but to the incense let Enlil not come,

because he lacked counsel and brought on the Deluge, and delivered my people into destruction.”

‘Then at once Enlil arrived, he saw the boat, he was seized with anger,

filled with rage at the divine Igigi: “[From] where escaped this living being?

No man was meant to survive the destruction!”

‘Ninurta opened his mouth to speak, saying to the hero Enlil:

“Who, if not Ea, could cause such a thing? Ea alone knows how all things are done.”

‘Ea opened his mouth to speak, saying to the hero Enlil:

“You, the sage of the gods, the hero, how could you lack counsel and bring on the Deluge?

“On him who transgresses, inflict his crime! On him who does wrong, inflict his wrongdoing!

‘Slack off, lest it snap! Pull tight, lest it [slacken!]’

‘ “Instead of your causing the Deluge, a lion could have risen, and diminished the people!

Instead of your causing the Deluge, a wolf could have risen, and diminished the people!

“Instead of your causing the Deluge, a famine could have happened, and slaughtered the land!

Instead of your causing the Deluge, the Plague God could have risen, and slaughtered the land!

‘ “It was not I disclosed the great gods’ secret: Atra-hasis I let see a vision, and thus he learned our secret.

And now, decide what to do with him!”

‘Enlil came up inside the boat, he took hold of my hand and brought me on board.

He brought aboard my wife and made her kneel at my side, he touched our foreheads, standing between us to bless us:

‘ “In the past Uta-napishti was a mortal man, but now he and his wife shall become like us gods! Uta-napishti shall dwell far away, where the rivers flow

forth!” So far away they took me, and settled me where the rivers flow

forth (George 2003, 92-95).

The story of the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh is no different than the previously mentioned Sumerian text. Here, as well, the flood is caused by divine wrath, while an ark is built to save Utnapishtim (Noah) and the believers. However, there are other important aspects to this text:

There are clear indicators of the region in which Noah lived. It is a region close to the water or, more specifically, a region of reeds, as Utnapishtim’s house is clearly built from reeds. In fact, in a clear text that will be mentioned later, Noah’s ark was also built from reeds.

“O fence of reed! O wall of brick! Hear this, O fence! Pay heed, O wall!”

“Demolish the house, and build a boat!”

In addition, the Epic of Gilgamesh mentions that the flood was caused by the collapse of a dam or dams:

Ninurta, passing by, made the weirs [dams] overflow …

Moreover, the Epic of Gilgamesh mentions that the direction of the flood, or that of the flood’s waves, wind, and gusts, was from the south to the north. It also mentions that water covered the mountains, meaning that the region was surrounded by areas of elevation such that the water could cover these mountains.

All day long the South Wind blew . . ., blowing fast, submerging the mountain in water, (Kovacs 1989, 100).

If we want to now combine the above characteristics of the flood into one region that is in or around Iraq, the only region we would find is the fertile valley before water covered it, turning it into the present day Gulf.

With the collapse of the dam of the present day Strait of Hormuz, the direction of the flood’s gusts is from the sea to the valley, meaning they come from the south from the perspective of whoever is in the valley. Certainly, this is taking into consideration the fact that the region is low and contains elevated regions such as mountains. These regions represent its surroundings and islands, some of which are protruding from the gulf today, such as Bahrain.

Since the region before the flood was a valley filled with sweet water lakes, and the sweet water coming from the north used to pour into it, it is natural for it to have reeds. It is also natural for both the house of Noah and for his ark to be made from reeds, as is clearly mentioned in the text that will follow.

Figure 20: Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet 11: Story of the flood, known as the “Flood Tablet”, British Museum.

The Babylonian Text of Atrahasis on the Sumerian Story of the Flood

…….

The Third Segment:

The Lost Beginning

Atrahasis made ready to speak, and said to his lord: “Make me know the meaning of the dream.

……

‘Wall, listen to me! Reed wall, pay attention to all my words! Demolish the house, build an ark, Forsake possessions, and save your life, And the ark which you shall build.

At the stated time of which I will inform [thee], Enter [the ark] and close the door of the ark. Aboard her [bring] thy grain, thy possessions, thy goods, Thy wife, thy family, thy relations, and the craftsmen. Beasts of the field, creatures of the field, as many as eat herbs, I will send to thee and they shall guard thy doors.” (10) Atrahasis opened his mouth to speak, Saying to his lord: “I have never built an ark. Draw a design of it on the ground, So that I may see how it is built …on the ground… Then I will carry out all that thou hast commanded of me. (Remainder broken off).”Al-Sawah 2002, 172. Arabic source, translated).

This Same Text with a Different Translation:

And that night Atrahasis was sleeping on his back. In his dream the Lord spoke to him: “Beware, O Atrahasis! The water… The water will destroy everything. I warn ye of this, rescue mankind with your authority. Beware, beware!”

Atrahasis was alarmed. Atrahasis came out of his dream fearful and, the following day, went to the temple of the Lord. He asked about the previous day’s dream, And with a shining eye the Lord said: “I said what I must do and that you must pay heed To the news that I am to tell you; O wall!

Listen to the wall of the reeds, Pay heed, pay heed to my words,

Destroy homes and build an ark, Forsake money and save yourself, And carry on the ark the seed of all living creations.

Build a large ark, yet built it entirely from reeds, And make the ark a safe haven in the name of preserving life. Measure it precisely and make it appear equal along its length. Determine its closure like the closure of Al-Absu.”

“I have understood what you want, O Sir. What you have commanded I would be honored to achieve, Yet, O Sir, I have never before built an ark, So draw me a picture of it on the ground, In order for me to see its picture and build the ark.”

So God drew the picture on the ground And, after seven days of continuous work, Atrahasis was able to build the ark. The area of its base was one Ariku, And each of its walls reached a height of one hundred and twenty arms. As such, its dimensions and structure were determined.

Six sections we created inside it, and these were divided among seven stories. The base of the ark was then divided into seven stories and nine sections, Applied to which were nails and wood in order to prevent water penetrating. (AlMajidi 1998, 175. Arabic source, translated).

In the above text, it is clear that Atrahasis (Ziusudra - Utnapishtim - Noah) built his ark from reeds. Perhaps it was solid reed like bamboo, rather than regular, weak reed. Before being covered by water, the environment of the fertile valley (present day Gulf) was suitable for the growth of different types of reed and trees, as the fertile valley was a large region with rivers and lakes.

Build a large ark, yet built it entirely from reeds, And make the ark a safe haven in the name of preserving life.

The story of Utnapishtim, Ziusudra, or Atrahasis do not match all of the historical narratives coming from Iraq, the location where the inheritors, people, and in particular, where the survivors of Noah lived. However, the texts do agree that a flood occurred and the reason for the flood was a religious one, namely divine wrath.

Furthermore, the region where the flood occurred is Mesopotamia and its surroundings. It was entirely covered with vast amounts of water, such that no one survived except those who were aboard the ark with Noah. The ark was flowing, moving with the sea.

In addition, from the texts, we find that the ark was made from reeds, as well as that it was made over a short time period, perhaps days, Further, it was large in size, at least in relation to the time period in which it was made. The region had contained and was surrounded by areas of elevation. The flood itself was caused by the collapse of a dam, with the water coming from the south to the north.

If we want to combine all the above with the scientific and historical data, the region of the flood can be narrowed down to the present day Gulf, before water covered it when the last ice age ended, the snow melted, and the sea level rose.

The story of the Flood in the Torah:

Genesis 6:

1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the Earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the Earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the Earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the Heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.11 Now the Earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the Earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw the Earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the Earth. 13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the Earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the Earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits. 16 Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above, and set the door of the ark in its side. Make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the Earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under Heaven. Everything that is on the Earth shall die. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive. 21 Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up. It shall serve as food for you and for them.” 22 Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.

Genesis 7:

Then the Lord said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the Heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the Earth. 4 For in seven days I will send rain on the Earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.” 5 And Noah did all that the Lord had commanded him. 6 Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the Earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, 9 two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the Earth.11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the Heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell upon the Earth forty days and forty nights. 13 On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark, 14 they and every beast, according to its kind, and all the livestock according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the Earth, according to its kind, and every bird, according to its kind, every winged creature. 15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. 16 And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him. And the Lord shut him in. 17 The flood continued forty days on the Earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the Earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the Earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the Earth that all the high mountains under the whole Heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the Earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the Earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the Heavens. They were blotted out from the Earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed on the Earth 150 days.

Genesis 8:

But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the Earth, and the waters subsided. 2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of the Heavens were closed, the rain from the Heavens was restrained, 3 and the waters receded from the Earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated, 4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. 6 At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made 7 and sent forth a raven. It went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the Earth. 8 Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground. 9 But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole Earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him. 10 He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark. 11 And the dove came back to him in the evening, and behold, in her mouth was a freshly plucked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the Earth. 12 Then he waited another seven days and sent forth the dove, and she did not return to him anymore.13 In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the Earth. And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry.14 In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the Earth had dried out. 15 Then God said to Noah, 16 “Go out from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh-birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the Earth-that they may swarm on the Earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the Earth.” 18 So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. 19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the Earth, went out by families from the ark. 20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. 22 While the Earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.

Genesis 9:

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the Earth and upon every bird of the Heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered…

The Reason for the Flood of Noah in the Torah is Religious: Divine Wrath

There are aspects to the story in the Torah that are clearly false, because they conflict with established scientific facts. Some examples of this are as follows:

- The ark of Noah carried a pair from every animal living on the earth:

14 they and every beast, according to its kind, and all the livestock according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the Earth, according to its kind, and every bird, according to its kind, every winged creature. 15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. 16 And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him. And the Lord shut him in.

- The earth was entirely covered by water at a height fifteen yards above the highest mountain on the earth:

19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the Earth that all the high mountains under the whole Heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the Earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the Earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the Heavens. They were blotted out from the Earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

- For more than a year Noah remained on the ark with this tremendous number of animals and the food they required:

6 Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the Earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood…11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the Heavens were opened.

13 In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth. And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry. 14 In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the Earth had dried out. 15 Then God said to Noah, 16 “Go out from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you.”

The above claims are clearly false. There is no scientific explanation for the amounts of water that cover all mountains on Earth, as this amount of water is not available on Earth.

There is also no logical explanation for this tremendous number of animals staying alive on the ark for a time period of over a year. How did the ark carry them with amounts of food that are sufficient for them for a time period of over a year as the Biblical story says? From where did Noah bring enough meat for the beasts that he carried, according to the Biblical story, for over a year?

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the Heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell upon the Earth forty days and forty nights. 13 On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark. In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the Earth. And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry. 14 they and every beast, according to its kind, and all the livestock according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the Earth, according to its kind, and every bird, according to its kind, every winged creature. 15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. 16 And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him. And the Lord shut him in. 17 The flood continued forty days on the Earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the Earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the Earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the Earth that all the high mountains under the whole Heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

Moreover, where are the traces of these large amounts of water? In reality, the traces of earthly events are present. They can be read back for millions of years. So what about an event that occurred only a few thousand years ago; how did its traces vanish?!

Perhaps they will say they were concealed by a miracle! Yet then the story becomes fictional. Whenever it enters a dark tunnel, is shown to conflict with established scientific facts, and has no historical existence, it is justified with a miracle. However, when God brings about a miracle, it must be out of wisdom and for a wise reason, not out of frivolity or to misguide people and conceal facts and events such as the flood of Noah pbuh. It is clear that the story of the flood is a historical story. Therefore, everything related to it can be scientifically verified. Whatever is incorrect in this story can now be easily revealed through science. Accordingly, nothing remains except the correct story that does not conflict with the scientific data provided by historical geology and the results of precise scientific investigation. In fact, the story told in the Torah can by no means be patched over. It is clearly false. Even if they say that the flood was regional and that it occurred in a certain place on the earth, certain aspects of the Biblical story still do not in any way concur with science and fact. An example of this is the case of the animals and beasts remaining alive with Noah pbuh on an ark of the aforementioned size and for a time period of over a year. From where did Noah bring amounts of food and water sufficient for them, for this long period? If he did bring these large amounts, how did an ark of this size carry them? This truth, is conclusive evidence for one of two possibilities: Either the Torah is distorted and, consequently, the present day Judaism has deviated from the religion of God Almighty, as Christianity has, because it acknowledges the validity of what the Torah states. Or, alternatively, Judaism and Christianity are both false and manmade and the Torah is purely composed by man. In our view, we opt to say that the Torah is distorted, while Christianity, which acknowledged the validity of what is in it, is a distorted and false religion.

The Story of the Flood in the Quran

﴾36And it was revealed to Noah that, “No one will believe from your people except those who have already believed, so do not be distressed by what they have been doing. 37And construct the ark with Our eyes and Our inspiration and do not address Me concerning those who have wronged; indeed, they are to be drowned.” 38And he constructed the ark, and whenever an assembly of the eminent of his people passed by him, they ridiculed him. He said, “If you ridicule us, then we will ridicule you just as you ridicule. 39And you are going to know who will get a punishment that will disgrace him and upon whom will descend an enduring punishment .” 40So it was, until when Our command came and the oven overflowed, We said, “Load upon the ark of each [creature] two mates and your family, except those about whom the word has preceded, and [include] whoever has believed.” But none had believed with him, except a few. 41And [Noah] said, “Embark therein; in the name of God is its course and its anchorage. Indeed, my Lord is Forgiving and Merciful.” 42And it sailed with them through waves like mountains, and Noah called to his son who was apart, “O my son, come aboard with us and be not with the disbelievers.” 43He said, “I will take refuge on a mountain to protect me from the water.” [Noah] said, “There is no protector today from the matter of God , except for whom He gives mercy.” And the waves came between them, and he was among the drowned. 44And it was said, “O Earth, swallow your water, and O sky, withhold.” And the water subsided, and the matter was accomplished, and the ark came to rest on the [mountain of] Judiyy. And it was said, “Away with the wrongdoing people.” 45And Noah called to his Lord and said, “My Lord, indeed my son is of my family; and indeed, Your promise is true; and You are the wisest of judges!” 46He said, “O Noah, indeed he is not of your family; indeed, he is unrighteous work, so ask Me not for that about which you have no knowledge. Indeed, I advise you, lest you be among the ignorant.” 47[Noah] said, “My Lord, I seek refuge in You from asking that of which I have no knowledge. And unless You forgive me and have mercy upon me, I will be among the losers.” 48It was said, “O Noah, disembark in peace and blessings from Us upon you and upon nations from those with you. But other nations We will grant enjoyment; then a painful punishment from us will touch them..” 49That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you. You knew it not, neither you nor your people, before this. So be patient; indeed, the [best] outcome is for the righteous.﴿ Quran Chapter “Hud” 11:36-49.

The Quranic story concurs with the historical stories in so far as the flood was a divine punishment and that Noah was made aware of it through inspiration. In the historical Sumerian stories, the type of inspiration was specified to be visions or dreams seen by Noah pbuh.

The Quranic story specifies an important issue that was mentioned previously, namely that the flood occurred in a region with mountains:

﴾He said, “I will take refuge on a mountain to protect me from the water.” [Noah] said, There is no protector today from the matter of God, except for whom He gives mercy.” And the waves came between them, and he was among the drowned.﴿ This raises an important question:

How did the flood occur in the region of Southern Iraq, as confirmed through its historical mention by the Sumerians and Babylonians, given that that region is an alluvial plain? Where did the mountains in this flat region come from?!

Therefore, we must search for a region with mountains that is contiguous with the valley of the two rivers or, actually, that represents its extension. The only suitable place with this combination of characteristics is the fertile valley we mentioned earlier, before it was covered by water and became the present day Gulf. It is correct to consider this region to be southwards of Iraq.

In addition, another issue in the Quranic story is that it describes its waves to be like mountains. ﴾And it sailed with them through waves like mountains﴿ This description does not seem suitable for a flood that occurs due to rain, because a flood like this one, in an open plain region, will not create waves like mountains. However, the Quranic statement is suitable for a flood that occurs as a result of a massive tsunami, or the collapse of a natural dam separating a depression from an ocean with tremendous amounts of water that can fill the depression with great speed, causing the creation of a major hydraulic jump and, consequently, creating waves like mountains. This is perfectly suitable for the collapse of the dam of the present day Strait of Hormuz and the filling of the valley with water, forming the modern Gulf.

The Story of the Flood of Noah in the Religious Accounts

In fact, the story of the flood of Noah in some religious accounts differs greatly from scientific reality. We find that the accounts describe the amount of water in the same distorted manner as the biblical description, that the water covered all mountains by fifteen yards. This could not have happened because, as I clarified previously, this would leave traces that cannot be concealed within a few thousand years – and we do not find any historical trace of it in the geology of the earth.

The claim that, prior to the flood, Noah pbuh was living on the bank of the Euphrates, or one of the villages along the Euphrates, does not conflict with that village being in the fertile valley or the present day Gulf. This is because, before the flood, the Euphrates was longer, flowing into the lakes of the valley.

Further more, there is no problem with rainfall and a rise of the river level contributing to the flooding of the valley, alongside the collapse of the dam and a rise of the seawater level as a result of the last ice age ending.

There are some religious accounts that correctly describe the way in which the events of the flood of Noah occurred, and do not conflict with science. For example, what is meant by Noah boarding the animals on the ark is tamed animals from which the human eats. This can be found in the following narration:*

Imam Abu Abdullah pbuh said: “He made it in thirty years, and was commanded to board onto it from each pair the eight pairs that Adam pbuh brought from paradise. This was in order for them to be sustenance for the successors of Noah pbuh on Earth, just as the successors of Adam pbuh lived. The earth drowned with all that was in it, except for what was with him on the ark.” (Al-Rawandi 1989, 82. Arabic source, translated).

The Location of the Flood of Noah

In archaeological history, as well as religious history, Noah lived in the valley of the two tributaries (Mesopotamia), or to the south where the fertile valley (present day Gulf) was. His ark was built in or around this region, as confirmed by the clay tablets that relay the story of the flood, as well as the Torah. According to the Biblical narrative, the flood of Noah covered the entire earth, even its mountain peaks. In fact, it covered the mountain peaks by fifteen cubits of water:

19And the waters prevailed so mightily on the Earth that all the high mountains under the whole Heaven were covered. 20The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

This story found in the Torah does not withstand scientific criticism. There is not enough water within and on the Earth to cover the mountain peaks. Moreover, there has not been a major mass extinction of life forms throughout the entire earth for millions of years. The last time in which a major extinction of life throughout the entire Earth occurred was the late Cretaceous Period, about 65 million years ago. The modern human, the Homo sapiens, existed only 200 thousand years ago. In fact, he did not develop into his current state until about 100 thousand years ago, whereas, according to the same Biblical story, the time of the flood of Noah was not more than a few thousand years ago.

In addition, there is the argument of the animals on isolated islands.

Therefore, the biblical story, which has been adopted by most Muslim clerics, does not withstand scientific criticism, nor does it concur with science in any way. Thus, we either reject science and suffice with ignorance, or say that the flood of Noah was limited and involved a certain region on the earth.

We will now discuss the possibilities of this flood that agree with scientific and archeological data:

It is possible that the flood occurred in the South of Iraq due to rain and torrents. This hypothesis concurs completely with the position of the region. The region falls between two rivers, below mountainous regions to its North. Nevertheless, a flood such as this remains limited, as it is difficult to imagine the floods of rivers or rain causing the eradication of all life forms in a particular region. There is a chance that some of them would have escaped, at least the ones that live on its edges. Such floods occur gradually rather than in one fell swoop, such as in the case of a breaking dam or a tsunami. In addition, the Quranic text’s description that they are waves like mountains does not apply.

Perhaps it is assumed that one of the reasons for the flood is what is mentioned in some research, namely that the Black Sea was filled with water a few thousand years ago and, possibly, a hydraulic jump occurred due to it being filled, which caused the flow of large amounts of water on land. This then created a flood that could cause the extinction of life forms in the region it would pass through. However, the problem with this hypothesis is that there are no traces for such a flood on its path until reaching Mesopotamia (the valley of the two tributaries). In addition, there are many natural obstacles that might prevent large amounts of water from reaching Mesopotamia. Furthermore, it would push the ark of Noah toward the south and the Gulf, and not toward the springs of the rivers, as is mentioned in the Sumerian legend. It would be from the north, not from the south, as the Sumerian texts state.

It is also possible that the flood occurred in the valley located in Southern Iraq, which represents the modern Gulf before it was filled with water. This would have been the result of the rise in seawater level at the end of the last ice age and the collapse of the natural dam of the Strait of Hormuz. If we want to apply the Quranic text to the flood that occurred in this valley a few thousand years ago, we find it to concur completely. The amount of water that would enter the valley from the sea due to the collapse of the natural dam of the Strait of Hormuz would be extremely vast. We can say that it formed waves like mountains as the Quran mentions. In addition, the present-day islands in the modern Gulf are nothing but the peaks of mountains that stood tall in this fertile valley before the collapse of the dam and the valley being filled with saltwater. Therefore, the religious text that says that Noah’s son wanted to take refuge on a mountain to protect himself from the water is corroborated, because he believed that it was an ordinary floods that was approaching, resulting from a rise in the level of the rivers that poured into the valley, such as the Tigris and the Euphrates. The damage from such floods could be avoided by taking refuge in highlands, such as the mountains of the fertile valley. However, it did not cross their minds that it was different this time, and that the flood Noah–Utnapishtim–Ziusudra warned them about would be devastating, covering the mountains and filling the valley, whose area is equal to that of a country such as Iraq.

The Time Period of the Flood of Noah

The flood of Noah occurred nearly four thousand years before Christ, according to the Biblical date. This view has even been adopted by interpreters of the Quran. The fertile valley was filled with saltwater at the time, and the modern Gulf had already formed. This would mean that the location of the flood is Mesopotamia. Since the region was flat, the amount of water that could form a flood the size of the flood of Noah must have come from a large reservoir of water. This is why the Torah portrayed it as a flood that encompassed the entire planet Earth at a tremendous height. It has been explained that this hypothesis mentioned in the present-day Torah conflicts with scientific, historical and geological facts.

The other remaining possibility is that Noah and his people, whom we can call the ancestors of the Sumerians or the early Sumerians, used to live in the fertile valley, and that the flood occurred in the fertile valley (the modern Gulf). If this was the case, what determines the time of the flood would be the date when the valley was filled with water and the hydraulic jump of saltwater occurred that perhaps swept vast areas of modern Southern Iraq. The valley was completely filled with water sometime between 15,000-8,000 B.C.

Thus, what happened was the flooding of the valley, caused by the large amounts of water, which was made available by the melting of ice at the end of the ice age. This formed water springs pouring into the seas that, together with the water springs that also used to pour into the sea, led to a rise in seawater level until the natural dam collapsed and seawater entered the valley. It was possibly accompanied by rainwater and a rise of the river levels that used to pour into the valley from the other side. Therefore, the waters met in the valley and the flood and the hydraulic jump of water occurred, until they covered regions of Southern Iraq. Subsequently, the water receded toward the valley or the modern Gulf again, and the ark anchored in order for the first journey of mankind to begin, which we learned about as it was recorded and written down in Southern Iraq. ﴾Then we opened the doors of Heaven with rain pouring down • and caused the earth to burst with springs, and the waters met for a matter already ordained.﴿

Quran Chapter “The Moon” 54:11-12

The Location where Noah’s pbuh Ark Anchored (Dilmun-Mount Ararat -Mount Judi):

The location where Noah’s ark anchored has been determined by our knowledge that Noah, his people, and the generations that followed them inhabited Mesopotamia after the flood. Only a stubborn person would deny this. The story of the flood is of Sumerian origin, meaning the people of Mesopotamia transmitted it as the legacy of their fathers and ancestors. I believe that the attempt to shift the settlement location of Noah and his people after the flood to another area outside of Mesopotamia is a miserable attempt that is hindered by many insurmountable obstacles.

I have clarified that the Sumerian description of Dilmun is identical to the description of the state of al-Mahdi that will be established in Iraq, and whose capital will be Iraq.

The hypothesis that Noah’s ark anchored on one of the mountains of Turkey or Armenia has been shown to conflict with many established scientific facts. The origin of this belief is the Jewish interpretation of the Biblical text that mentions the name Mount Ararat.

We have stated previously that the Biblical text of the story of the flood of Noah, including the water covering all the mountains of the earth, conflicts with established scientific facts. That is why it is inconceivable that the ark of Noah anchored on a mountain several kilometers above sea level, and that what caused this was a water flood and rise in water levels. We have explained that the earth does not have this tremendous amount of water. Even if it was said to be a flood caused by the Black Sea being filled with water - although it is a hypothesis that does not withstand criticism, as shown - no hydraulic jump of water can occur that is several kilometers in height and that continues to move horizontally at the same height for thousands of kilometers until reaching the Mt Ararat between Turkey and Armenia. This hypothesis represents fiction, and is not scientifically possible.

Therefore, this interpretation of the Biblical text cannot be adopted, as it conflicts with science as well as the Sumerian text in several places.

Mount Judi, mentioned in the Quran, is the name of the place where the ark anchored. There is nothing about this name to indicate that it is anywhere other than Iraq. The interpreters of the Quran, who assumed it is a mountain in Turkey, are actually following the interpretation of the Jewish Rabbis of the Biblical text, without having studied or examined it.

386