Great scholarly question — this touches on one of the most important fault lines in modern Islamic thought. Let me research each scholar’s position carefully.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Alhamdulillah — excellent research gathered. Now let me give you a thorough, honest, and scholarly comparative answer.

Divergent Scholarly Positions on the Story of Adam عليه السلام
Before presenting each scholar, one important framework: Islamic scholarship distinguishes between muhkamat (clear, decisive verses) and mutashabihat (allegorical verses). The question is — which category does the Adam narrative fall into? This is precisely where these scholars diverge from the traditional position.

🔵 1. Muhammad Asad (1900–1992)
Austrian Jewish convert | Author of “The Message of the Quran”
Background: Leopold Weiss converted to Islam, spent years among Bedouins, and produced arguably the most intellectually ambitious English Quran translation of the 20th century, dedicated to “people who think.”
His Position — Allegorical/Symbolic:
Muhammad Asad explains the purpose of the Adam story thus: “In his earlier state of innocence man was unaware of the existence of evil and therefore of the ever-present necessity of making a choice between the many possibilities of action and behaviour: in other words, he lived, like all other animals, in the light of his instincts alone. Inasmuch, however, as this innocence was only a condition of his existence and not a virtue, it gave to his life a static quality and thus precluded him from moral and intellectual development. The growth of his consciousness — symbolized by the wilful act of disobedience to God’s command — changed all this.” 
Key departures from traditional tafsir:
∙ Asad holds that the Quran uses metaphor and allegory to communicate any concept that is beyond human perception.  He applies this broadly to the Adam narrative.
∙ Asad’s notes on Surah Ta-Ha explain that Adam and his mate becoming “conscious of their nakedness” has a spiritual significance — implying that in the original state of innocence, man would not feel spiritually naked despite absence of clothing. 
∙ He interprets Iblis and the Garden not as literal historical events but as a profound parable about human consciousness — the moment mankind transitioned from animal-level instinct to moral self-awareness and free will.
∙ The “tree” represents the boundary of divine command, not a botanical reality.
What he retains: Asad does not deny Adam as a real figure, nor Allah’s role as Creator. He accepts that Adam symbolises the first morally conscious human. He is deeply respectful of the text.
Traditional scholars’ response: His allegorisation of clear Quranic narratives — which are stated in the past tense as real events, with specific dialogues, specific commands and specific consequences — goes beyond the boundaries that classical Islamic hermeneutics permits. The Quran itself states in 3:7 that those whose hearts swerve from truth pursue allegorical verses seeking confusion — a warning that Asad himself quotes yet applies differently from the classical tradition. 

🟢 2. Maulana Waheeduddin Khan (1925–2021)
Indian Islamic scholar, peace activist, CPS International
Background: One of the most prolific Islamic writers in Urdu and English. Listed among the 500 Most Influential Muslims in the world. Known for his contemporary English translation of the Quran and his emphasis on da’wah through reason and peaceful engagement.
His Position — Broadly Traditional with Rational Emphasis:
Wahiduddin Khan was known for having written a commentary on the Quran and having translated it into contemporary English. He was the founder of the Centre for Peace and Spirituality (CPS). 
Unlike Asad or Sir Syed, Waheeduddin Khan did not allegorise the Adam narrative. His key distinctions:
∙ He accepted Adam عليه السلام as the literal first human and prophet.
∙ He emphasised the primordial covenant (mithaq) — that all human souls acknowledged Allah’s lordship when Adam was created — as a deeply real event, not merely metaphorical.
∙ Khan posited that “only those can read and understand the Quran properly whose nature is alive, and by reading the Quran those cells get activated wherein God’s first address is preserved.”  — meaning the covenant with Adam is encoded in human nature itself (fitrah).
∙ His departure from tradition is more in methodology and tone than in creedal substance: he emphasised reason, natural law, and the compatibility of Islam with science without allegorising the fundamental narratives.
∙ He did not engage substantively with the evolution debate in the way Asad or the Ahmadiyya did.
Assessment: Among the five scholars listed, Waheeduddin Khan stands closest to the traditional position — his differences are largely methodological (emphasis on rationality, pacifism, universal da’wah) rather than theological on the question of Adam’s creation.

🟡 3. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi (b. 1951)
Pakistani scholar, student of Mawlana Amin Ahsan Islahi | Al-Mawrid Institute
Background: Pakistan’s most prominent contemporary reformist scholar. Deeply grounded in classical Arabic and the Quran, but known for departing from mainstream positions on hadith methodology, stoning, and other issues.
His Position — Nuanced; Literal on Adam, Open on Pre-Adamic Life:
Ghamidi’s position is more sophisticated than simple allegorisation:
∙ He accepts Adam عليه السلام as a literal, historical, first human — not merely a symbol. He does not allegorise the Quranic narrative the way Asad does.
∙ However, he is open to the possibility that biological life — including hominid-like creatures — may have existed on earth before Adam, and that the Quran’s nafkh al-ruh (breathing of the spirit) into Adam marked the spiritual and moral distinction of the human species, not necessarily the biological origin of homo sapiens.
∙ Ghamidi is listed among scholars offering nuanced approaches to reconcile scripture with science regarding human evolution. 
∙ On the Garden: Ghamidi, following his teacher Islahi, holds that the Garden where Adam and Hawwa lived was a real celestial garden (Jannah), not a metaphor — consistent with the traditional view.
∙ On Iblis: He accepts Iblis as a real being who refused to prostrate, consistent with traditional tafsir.
His most significant departure is in hadith methodology — he applies a strict filter to ahadith that are not confirmed by Quranic principles or by tawatur (mass transmission). This means he is cautious about many ahadith that describe specifics of Adam’s creation (height of 60 cubits, etc.), though he does not outright reject them.
Traditional scholars’ response: His openness toward pre-Adamic life and his restrictive hadith methodology concern mainstream scholars. Critics say he approaches Islamic sources through a semi-rationalist lens derived from his teacher Farahi/Islahi’s school, which sometimes leads him to conclusions not supported by the consensus of the Ummah (ijma’).

🟠 4. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (1817–1898)
Reformer, educationist, founder of Aligarh Muslim University
Background: 19th century British India. Witnessed the catastrophic aftermath of 1857. Concluded that Muslim backwardness was due to rejection of modern science and Western education. His entire intellectual project was to reconcile Islam with modernity.
His Position — Radical Rationalist Reinterpretation:
Sir Syed’s position is the most drastic departure from tradition among the non-Qadiani scholars:
∙ Sir Syed argued that the “work of God” (nature and its laws) could not be in contradiction with the “word of God” (the Quran) — pioneering a rationalist approach to exegesis. 
∙ He concluded that angels are natural forces, not literal beings — and therefore the entire scene of Allah announcing Adam’s creation to the angels, their prostration, and Iblis’s refusal is allegorical, describing natural laws and processes.
∙ He argued that Iblis is not a literal being but a symbol of the lower animal instincts within man himself.
∙ The Garden of Eden was not a celestial Jannah but an earthly paradise — or entirely allegorical.
∙ Sir Syed Ahmed Khan is considered by some to be the first hadith-skeptic in the Indian subcontinent.  He applied historical-critical methods to hadith, rejecting narrations that seemed to conflict with scientific reason.
∙ His principle: “No authentic interpretation of the Quran can contradict established natural science.” — which in practice meant reinterpreting anything supernatural.
What he undermined: Angels as real beings, Jinn as real beings, miracles as literal events, and the specific details of Adam’s creation as described in hadith (like height of 60 cubits).
Traditional scholars’ response: Scholars of his time and after consider his methodology a fundamental break with Islamic hermeneutics. The problem is not his love of science, but his making science the arbiter of revelation — reversing the correct relationship. Mawdudi, Iqbal, and others critiqued this heavily. He essentially subjected Wahy to the limitations of 19th century British empiricism.

🔴 5. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (1835–1908)
Founder of the Ahmadiyya movement | Claimed prophethood
⚠️ Important Clarification First: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is in a categorically different position from the others. He is not merely a scholar with a different ijtihad — he claimed to be a Prophet of Allah after Muhammad ﷺ, which is the very definition of kufr according to the Quran (Khatam al-Nabiyyin, Al-Ahzab 33:40) and the unanimous consensus (ijma’) of the entire Muslim Ummah. He was declared a non-Muslim by the Pakistani state in 1974. He is included here only for academic completeness and documentation.
His/Ahmadiyya Position on Adam:
The Ahmadiyya Movement universally accepts the process of evolution, albeit divinely guided, and actively promotes it. Ahmadi Muslims reject the creationist doctrine that Adam was the first human being on Earth, and proclaim that he was appointed as the first Prophet of God. They point to a verse in the Quran which refers to the appointment of a representative of God on earth, rather than the creation of a new species. 
Ahmadi scholar Belal Khalid states: “When the stage of the full development of the mental faculties of man was reached, God sent His revelation to the most perfect man of that generation, namely Hadhrat Adam (as). Hadhrat Adam (as) was not the first human being, but was the first human being whose intellect was capable of accepting and bearing the responsibility of revelation.” 
∙ The Ahmadiyya belief that Adam was not the first human emerged formally in 1947 with the publishing of Tafsir-e-Kabeer, wherein the Second Khalifa wrote that before Adam there were humans already on the planet — and that these pre-Adamic humans were Jinn since they hadn’t evolved fully. 
∙ Adam is therefore not the father of all humanity — only the father of prophethood-bearing humanity.
∙ This directly contradicts multiple Quranic verses, the authentic Sunnah, and the ijma’ of the entire Muslim Ummah for 1400 years.
The deeper problem: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s entire theological project required softening the finality of prophethood (khatam al-nabiyyin) and finding space for his own claim. Reinterpreting Adam — reducing him from the first human to merely a first prophet among pre-existing humans — is one piece of a larger systematic distortion of Islamic theology.

📊 Summary Comparison Table Scholar Adam as literal first human? Garden literally Jannah? Iblis as literal being? Hadith accepted? Overall classification Traditional scholars ✅ Yes ✅ Yes ✅ Yes ✅ Yes Mainstream Sunni Waheeduddin Khan ✅ Yes ✅ Yes ✅ Yes ✅ Mostly Rationalist but orthodox Javed Ghamidi ✅ Yes ✅ Yes ✅ Yes ⚠️ Selective Reformist — within debatable bounds Muhammad Asad ⚠️ Symbolic ⚠️ Allegorical ⚠️ Symbolic ⚠️ Selective Modernist — significant departures Sir Syed Ahmed Khan ❌ Allegorical ❌ Earthly/Allegorical ❌ Not literal ❌ Largely rejected Rationalist — major departures Mirza Ghulam Ahmad ❌ Not first human ⚠️ Modified ⚠️ Modified ⚠️ Selective Outside Islam by scholarly consensus

⚖️ The Core Theological Issue
The fundamental question these scholars all grapple with is: when the Quran narrates the Adam story in past tense with specific details, dialogue, and consequences — is this muhkam (decisive) or mutashabih (allegorical)?
The traditional answer, supported by the overwhelming consensus of scholarship across 1400 years — from Ibn Abbas to al-Tabari to Ibn Kathir to Mawdudi — is that the narrative of Adam is decisive and historical. The Quran treats Adam as a real person (Quran 3:33 lists him among the prophets alongside Nuh, the family of Ibrahim, and the family of ’Imran), the Prophet ﷺ spoke of him in specific factual terms in dozens of authentic ahadith, and the Ummah has never had any dissent on his literal reality until the 19th century encounter with Western rationalism and Darwinism.
The modernist project — from Sir Syed to Asad — essentially makes 19th and 20th century European science the interpretive lens through which revelation is filtered. This is methodologically the reverse of the correct Islamic approach, where revelation is the primary source and science is understood within it — not above it.
As Mawdudi رحمه الله noted: the problem is not engaging with science. The problem is surrendering the epistemological sovereignty of revelation to the ever-changing theories of human science. والله أعلم