I do not differentiate between learning psychology and learning tafsir, Qur’anic interpretation, in the way people sometimes expect. The subjects are different, but I am still the same person trying to understand. I ask questions, look at the relevant sources, consider alternatives and check whether a conclusion follows. That is why I can question a psychology professor and a tafsir teacher without feeling that I have changed sides.
In a religious class, a teacher spoke about human beings before Adam. That brought me to questions about evolution and how Muslim teachers were trying to connect it with the Qur’an. I was not agreeing or disagreeing with evolution. My discomfort was with the method: were we examining an interpretation, or trying to make it fit something that now carried scientific authority?
If an interpretation has changed, I want to understand why. What does the text support? What did earlier interpreters understand? What new evidence or argument makes another reading reasonable? I do not want a newer reconciliation presented as though it had always been the obvious meaning, but I also cannot assume that every new reading is merely giving in to pressure. That requires study.
I began watching material about genetics and human origins, trying to understand how the accounts connected. There were other kinds of humans to learn about, and questions about what genetics could tell us. I had only begun. Could our religious understanding be mapped onto what was being described? Would that be justified, or would I be forcing the pieces together?
Then there was the question of the first cell. My thoughts moved between the development of living things, the beginning of life and the existence of a Creator. If a process could be explained, would that settle why it existed? Could creation happen through a process, rather than mean something appearing without one? These were questions I wanted to pursue. I had not worked through the science, and I could not treat my objections as answers.