Imam Eyup fought to keep his congregation away from every kind of danger and harmful idea. On one hand, he tried to satisfy their minds with truth and clarity; on the other, he worked to ensure that their bodies too gained discipline and experience.

In other words, he labored for mental decisions to turn into action—into righteous deeds. In time, a person would shift into something like an automatic pilot in performing goodness, sincere intention, and righteous action.

Thought and decision-making located in the frontal lobe, along with everything beneficial to humanity and devotion to God, would eventually be transferred to the cerebellum, which is often considered the body’s automatic pilot. In that case, a person—empowered by a positive outlook on life—would secrete hormones such as serotonin, leading to peace, happiness, and sound choices.

If cortisol—the hormone responsible for the fight-or-flight response—were secreted unnecessarily in every situation, it would drive a person into stress for no reason. Therefore, only individuals who believed that they would not be treated as monsters by society, that they would not be ridiculed for their faith, race, or ideas, and that poverty or lack of a respectable job would not be seen as pitiful, could be free of stress.

Because his time was limited, Imam Eyup summarized all these truths in just a few sentences.

“Those who truly know Allah are content even among ruins. Those who do not know Him are miserable even in palaces. With every hardship they encounter, they sink deeper into what is called psychological disorder. In other words, for the one who truly knows the Creator, everything in the universe becomes a friend. But for those who do not truly know Him—whether they are labeled Muslim, Christian, Jew, cleric, scientist, or businessman—the universe becomes a tunnel of fear and anxiety.”

As always, after giving his formula for a stress-free life, Imam Eyup moved on to the themes he had chosen.

“When we read divine revelation, we can derive two essential principles.

The first is that the Creator grants blessings to His servants through intermediaries: the earth brings forth vegetables and fruits, clouds bring water, animals bring milk and eggs, and scientists bring knowledge and technology.

The second principle—related to today’s topic—is that the Creator sometimes alludes to blessings that cannot be grasped by the people of a particular era, or that lie beyond the scientific reality of their time.

For example, Surah An-Nur, the verse that speaks of something ‘that gives light even without fire touching it’ points, centuries later, to electricity. Similarly, the verses describing the transportation of Bilqis’s throne hint at the possibility of transmitting sound and image, perhaps even teleportation.

Of course, if the people of ancient times had been told explicitly that sound and image could be transmitted over distance, they would have reacted with, ‘Are you insane?’ and stoned the speaker. Moreover, prophets would have been seen not as guides who elevate their people towards truth, but as inventors.

We can find many examples of such scientific hints. Physicians, physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists, and astronomers can discover allusions relevant to their fields. But these allusions must always be considered within the framework of tawhid: divine revelation and the sayings whose prophetic origin is beyond doubt must serve as the lens—without forcing every subtle implication into a scientific claim merely to prove a point.”

Some verses make scientific allusions so clearly and explicitly that one does not need to be an expert in the field to recognize them. Yet there are other verses said to imply scientific references that are far more ambiguous, truly open to interpretation. In such cases, there is no need for clergy to intervene. It is better for specialists in those fields to debate and clarify them.

But that is not what I want to emphasize. What I truly wish to highlight are the claims being circulated today, as if they belonged to our faith, to our monotheistic creed, even though we have never encountered such notions in our theology or sacred traditions.

Let me speak plainly. Recently, some have proposed the idea of "divinely programmed evolution." According to this view, yes, the human being evolved from a primitive hominid — but not through accident or randomness; rather, under God’s deliberate will.

I should state my conclusion before anything else: Those who advocate this view may be sincere, well-intentioned individuals. Even if they are mistaken, such people should not be labeled with malicious terms. At worst, we can describe them as "those standing at the edge of a cliff," misguided themselves and leading others toward error.

In all my life, I have never seen a single divine revelation or prophetic statement that points to evolution. There is absolutely no expression from which evolution can be inferred.

“Allah created him (Adam) from earth, then said to him ‘Be,’ and he was (3-59).”
“O mankind, He created you from a single soul (Adam)…”
“Indeed, We created man from dried clay, from molded mud (15-26).”

Many other verses likewise state that the first human was created from earth, and that all later generations descended from Adam and Eve.

One might ask:
Was it too difficult to explain to ancient people that the first human emerged through a transformation from a primitive creature?
Therefore, did the divine book refrain entirely from mentioning evolution?

One must answer them as follows:
Which is more difficult to explain to a human being? That a person was created from lifeless earth, or that he emerged by transforming from an already existing creature? Clearly, explaining a transformation from an existing life-form would have been far more acceptable to the mind of that era.

What I am trying to say is this:
The reason divine revelation does not describe human evolution is not because ancient people were incapable of understanding it, but because, at no stage in human origin, was there a transformation from another living being into a human, as evolutionists today claim.

Revelation simply states that the first human, Adam, was created from earth, and modern biochemical analyses have shown that this is not merely a metaphorical expression. It has been established that elements found in soil—such as gold, silver, copper, zinc, and iron—are also present in the human body.

For example, if iron, which must exist within a certain reference range, is deficient, the body cannot produce hemoglobin, which is responsible for transporting oxygen in the blood, and anemia occurs. Yes, many biological structures—cells and organs—of humans and animals resemble one another. But this biological resemblance does not provide any allusion to evolutionary theory in the divine text.

Nevertheless, those who advocate evolution guided by divine will often cite the following verses:

“He created you, passing you from one stage to another (71-14).”
“And God caused you to grow from the earth like a plant (71-17).”

These individuals claim that the phrase “from one stage to another” refers to the transformation from a primitive organism into a human.

In response, we say:
In Surah al-Hajj, 5, and in similar verses, the stages through which a human being is formed are described. The fluid containing male sperm or the fertilized ovum (zygote) is called nutfa. When it attaches to the womb, it becomes alaqa, and when it resembles chewed flesh, it is referred to as a fetus. After these stages, flesh and bone form separately and the human body takes shape.

Therefore, starting from the union of sperm and ovum, leading to a baby composed of countless cells, the gradual changes that occur are expressed in the verse “We created you, passing you from one stage to another.”

For this reason, interpreting this statement as an allusion to evolution is not accurate.

The other verse they cite does not state that man originated from plants. It says, “He caused you to grow as a plant.” Since human beings do not literally sprout like vegetation, the verse clearly contains a metaphorical meaning. Considering the verses that describe man being created from earth, we understand that what is meant is this: just as a plant emerges from the soil, so too was man brought forth from it.

I emphasize again: there is no explicit verse that describes the human being as having evolved from unicellular primitive organisms, plants, or animals; nor is there any verse or prophetic statement that alludes to such a transformation.

We understand that divine revelation places great importance on the subject of creation. By reason alone, we can say that if evolution were truly intended as part of the divine narrative, such a central matter would explicitly be mentioned. From fossils and various accounts, we learn that ancient humans were much taller, and that, in order to survive harsh environmental conditions, they were darker-skinned, more muscular, and more athletic. Over time, due to geography, climate, the invention of new tools, and various discoveries, their physical appearance and intellectual world underwent changes—something upon which almost everyone agrees. But we cannot describe these changes as a transformation into a different species.

I have explained the theological aspect of the matter. I have no doubt that our Christian brothers and sisters think in a similar way. You are aware that scientific research into species, races, and fossils supports the reality of creation.

Citing the limitation of time, Imam Eyüp moved on to what he considered the second important subject. As always, he began by reciting the related verses:

“If you truly fear treachery from a people, then publicly declare to them that you are annulling the treaty with them, giving them equal notice that the pact is void. Surely, Allah does not love the treacherous (8,57-58).”

“…do not let your hatred for a people who barred you from the Sacred Mosque lead you to transgress. Cooperate in righteousness and piety; but do not cooperate in sin and hostility (5,2).”

Imam Eyüp first explained the reason for the revelation of the first verse:

“This verse concerns the Banu Qurayza Jews. When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) migrated to Medina, he made a pact with them that they would not act against the Muslims. But they broke their promise by supplying weapons to the enemies of the Muslims during the Battle of Badr. They admitted their mistake and apologized, yet during the Battle of the Trench they again aided the enemies.”

After the Battle of the Trench, upon the command conveyed by Gabriel to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), action was taken against this Jewish group, and they received the punishment for their repeated acts of treachery. The captives and the seized goods were distributed among the Muslims.

The verse commands us to honor our treaties with non-Muslims under all circumstances. It is therefore correct to regard the constitution and laws of the country we live in as articles of such a treaty. According to the law, as Muslims, we possess the same rights as Christians or Jews.

We are free to perform our worship and to live according to our beliefs. We encounter no obstacles in fulfilling the religious duty of enjoining good and forbidding evil. Every citizen here is free to choose his or her religion, or to change it later if they wish. You may say that our mosques and homes have at times been set on fire. My response is this: the security forces sincerely strive to identify and apprehend racists and extremists. Besides, even in Muslim countries, mosques are burned simply because they belong to a different sect.

In some countries, a person is imprisoned or exiled just for belonging to the opposition party; unreasonable restrictions are placed upon religious practices. What I am saying is that everywhere in the world —whether Muslim or Christian— people can be exposed to the attacks, injustices, and insults of extremists on account of their identity. But let us be fair: because of extremist groups, many of us could not live our religion freely in our own homelands, while here we are able to practice our faith, our beliefs, and our values with ease.

It is an undeniable fact that we —Afghans, Arabs, and Middle Easterners alike— fled poverty, injustice, and brutality, and that in this country we have found not only prosperity, but also the freedom to live our faith.

In light of the message this verse gives us, if there is someone here who does not wish to abide by the constitution and laws of this country—who refuses to see its citizens as People of the Book who love Jesus, and instead views them as “disbelievers” or “polytheists” who prevent Muslims from living according to their faith—then let that person speak honestly, say, “I do not accept this constitutional agreement,” and leave this land.

We, the Muslims who remain here, regard the native people of this country as the Christians of Abyssinia who first welcomed the early Muslim migrants with open arms. We are bound by the agreement we have made with them. Moreover, if we consider that in the verse the first betrayal may be forgiven but the second betrayal is not—and that the treacherous are severely punished—then we may say that those who betray the laws of this country and harm innocent people deserve, according to our religion as well, a severe punishment.

From the message of the second verse, we can say this:
We Muslims do not support someone simply because he belongs to the same religion as we do. Such a person may pursue evil in any form—murder, adultery, theft, slander, partisan injustice, fraud, or any other wrongdoing imaginable.

Perhaps without realizing it, we overlook an important distinction: in our divine Scripture, the terms ‘People of the Book’ and ‘disbeliever’ (infidel) are not used interchangeably, but for entirely different kinds of individuals.

Those who seek to destroy Islam, who are arrogant, self-serving, unreflective, blindly ideological, and hostile are ‘disbelievers.’
But those who are respectful toward other religions and toward Islam, who are humble, who strive to act with justice, who hold themselves accountable, who are peaceful—these are the ‘People of the Book.’

I have heard some Muslims say:
‘I would always choose the worst Muslim over a disbeliever.’

We cannot support someone who oppresses people, who acts unjustly, who lies, who deceives, simply because he is Muslim. By supporting him, we become complicit in his sins. Would this not be a violation of the second verse I just read?

Do not the recent events in the Middle East prove this truth?
Were not the rulers who caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and forced millions into exile, all to preserve their corrupt kingdoms, themselves ‘Muslims?’

We must remember that willfully ignoring a divine command can lead a believer toward dark and ruinous depths.

This is why it is more truthful to say: I would rather stand with a People of the Book who do not share my faith, than with a Muslim who carries no trace of the virtues our Holy Book commands and instead pursues irresponsibility and injustice.”

Raşit listened to Imam Eyüp’s message of love and brotherhood with his usual simmering hatred. He managed, barely, to hold back the volcano inside him. At that moment, the mosque echoed with a sudden voice.

“How can you tell us to prefer a disbeliever over a Muslim? When there are verses warning us not to befriend unbelievers, how can you think this way?”

Imam Eyüp replied calmly.

“As I said earlier, those who embody malicious qualities are called disbelievers. People of the Book also have faults, of course, but they are not as combative, arrogant, and predatory as the unbelievers referred to in those verses. Moreover, ‘Argue with the People of the Book only in the best manner’ (29:46), and many other verses encourage engagement. The Prophet, peace be upon him, met with delegations of the People of the Book numerous times.”

For a moment, Raşit thought he was the one arguing with the imam—his tongue escaping his control. But when he saw the tall, pale-skinned young man, he immediately believed he had found the ticking bomb he’d been searching for.

The young man, who introduced himself as Yasmin, shouted one last time before storming out.

“I will take nothing from a Christian-licker like you.”

Raşit rushed out to catch up with him. He had barely slipped his shoes on and taken a few steps when a gunshot cracked through the street. He raised his head and saw Yasmin lying on the other side of the road, bleeding.

In a heartbeat, he leapt over, shouting for help with all his strength. Hearing the gunshot and the commotion, the congregation poured out of the mosque, running toward Yasmin.

Fortunately, the bullet had only grazed his leg. Still, he was rushed to the hospital, his wound cleaned and sutured.

When Imam Eyüp and several members of the community, including Raşit, visited later, the imam could not predict how Yasmin would react. Just hours earlier, the young man had hurled insults at him; he might very well throw him out. But he didn’t.

The imam exhaled quietly in relief—only for the tension to return when the police entered the room. The officer turned to Yasmin and said:

“We found the man who attacked you with the gun. He confessed to everything.”

Everyone in the room stared at the officer with curiosity, but what he asked next only deepened their confusion.

“Have you ever been to the city church?”

Yasmin shook his head and then added:

“I wrote that the church only values its own, that it treats members of other faiths as if they’re not even human, and that it incites people against them. I criticized them for being selective about war victims, ignoring millions of Muslim refugees while opening their doors wide for Christian refugees. And then I ended with: ‘For this reason, I would never prefer a non-Muslim over a Muslim.’ Since I have a lot of followers, the post caused a stir. I think the church administration may have sent someone after me.”

The officer noted Yasmin’s statement and left. Imam Eyüp held back the thoughts forming on his tongue.

“My child, let’s admit it—culturally and religiously, we Muslims are not like Europeans. There are profound differences between us. Letting millions of Muslims enter a country means importing a thousand problems. It’s like forcing someone to swallow a huge amount of honey at once—the stomach simply won’t handle it. That’s why, naturally, they admit Muslims in groups, in numbers they can integrate.”

He would have continued:

“And they are not indifferent to refugees. They spend millions to try and keep them alive before they reach these shores. They don’t just say ‘Go die somewhere else.’ Yes, there are those who ignore the compassionate teachings of Jesus and treat refugees brutally, even pushing them toward death. Much of this cruelty is the result of individual decisions, but there are officials who tolerate it, even quietly support it. May God unite the righteous beneath the banner of divine oneness and cleanse the earth with a tidal wave of love and brotherhood.”

But before he could say any of this, Yasmin cut him off.

“I don’t want an imam who praises infidels standing next to me. Leave immediately.”

Seeing the angry stares of others in the room, the imam lowered his head and walked out. By evening, everyone had left the hospital. That was when a light switched on in Raşit’s mind. He remembered a sentence from the briefing he had once received on the ship:

“Keep a Muslim close who is not one of us but can be made to serve us. One day, he will do what we cannot.”

Everyone else was gone. Only Raşit returned, stepped in front of Yasmin and said:

“From now on, you’re my brother.”

Raşit approached Yasmin from every angle—right, left, above, below. In his mind, he was taking a mental MRI of the young man. First, he presented himself as a moderate Muslim. Then he offered warm messages of love. But when Yasmin showed no sign of softening and continued to seethe with hatred toward Europeans, whom he called “infidels,” Raşit thought to himself:

“Turns out, I wasn’t the real volcano—he was right beside me,” he thought.

He leaned toward Yasmin and whispered like a demon:

“I don’t know when or how, but very soon, we’re going to make them taste the greatest pain of their lives.”