Defending Islam - Answers to objections about the Qur'an and Science

(Note: Objections about other primary Islamic texts will be placed in other articles as the need arises).

We received a number of objections from non-Muslims concerning what they see as inconsistencies between the Qur’an and science, highlighted in a way to show that what the famous Islamic preacher Dr. Zakir Naik says with respect to such “scientific miracles” is palpably false.[1] To begin we need to write an introduction to this matter since “Quran and science” articles are now very popular among the general public; after this we can handle the Quranic Verses presented to us in a more appropriate environment.

Now, with respect to “Quran and science” issues, the correct approach is not to take an overly agrresive approach with respect to such matters and try to “prove” the Qur’an through modern scientific knowledge. Indeed, we Muslims do believe for a fact that the Qur’an does correspond to actual truth and such is the view of all the scholars of Islam, since the Qur’an is the Speech of Allah and it is impossible for Allah to be attributed with a lie.

But the Muslims endowed with proper knowledge will also say that empirical observations and the scientific method as a whole do not provide us with the absolute truth of a certain phenomena. While the Muslim view is contrary to what many people in the past and present believe[2] about science, it is easily verified by the fact that any given scientific theory is subject to modifications and even outright abandonment if the interpretations for the results of experiments lead to a better explanation than what is currently available.

In fact, the attempts to show that the Qur’an contained scientific discoveries not known to man until recent times is not something that sprung up only with Dr. Naik, or even with others before him such as Dr. Bucaille. Rather, this phenomenon came about when certain well-meaning Muslims who did not posess the proper qualifications in Quranic exegesis saw the apparent conformation of the text of the Qur’an by the pronouncements coming out of scientific circles.

However, many of the traditional scholars did not take this approach, since they considered it to be an unauthorized over-extension of the true purpose of the Quranic text. The Indian scholar Maulana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanvi discussed this craze in his book “al-Intibahat al-Mufidah ‘an al-Ishhtibahat al-Jadidah”[3], were he mentions:

The second error [concerning the Qur’an] is the attempt to show that the Qur’an contains themes of science as one comes across nowadays in many journals and reviews. As soon as some people hear or see any new finding of science by the Europeans, they try in one way or the other to posit such finding as a connotation of some verse of the Qur’an. They reckon this as a great service to Islam, a cause of pride for the Qur’an, and a sign of their own ingenuity. Many an educated person is found involved in this error.

One aspect of their error is that they think that it was a proof of Qur’an’s perfection to contain themes of science. The source of this error is that their attention was diverted from the real subject-matter of the Qur’an… Since the Qur’an essentially contains a spiritual healing, its being free from these themes does not divest this Book of its inherent value. Rather than that, this fact proves its perfectness in a way.

… however, if by the demands of this spiritual treatment, a part of these themes finds mention in the Qur’an, then this is also meant to fulfil the real purpose of this Book. However, going by the principle: ‘the necessary is measurable by the degree of the necessity’, this part will not be mentioned beyond the limits of necessity. …For instance to establish tawhid, which is the greatest source of the guidance of spirits, the easiest and nearest means is the analogy of creatures. Occasional mention, therefore, is to be found of the creation of the skies, earth, man and animal. Since this did not warrant any detail, it was not mentioned.

… in short, the themes of science are not among the aims of the Qur’an per se. However, by the necessity of supporting the aim, whatever is mentioned here in the form of a manifest and clear connotation is certainly and evidently true. It would be wrong to believe otherwise by some other reasoning. If any argument is against it, then that will be assailable after investigation or would give rise to a conflict. Nevertheless, it is possible that the connotation of the verse is not explicit and manifest and there is some other valid argument which is admissible against it, then the text of the Qur’an could be interpreted in such a way that its direct connotation is abandoned in favour of the other interpretation supported by a valid argument.

The second error, as indicated above, is that such issues are not the objects per se of the Qur’an, but these are merely auxiliaries for the object and it is obvious that the argument should contain premises acceptable to the listener or these should be self-evident or could be proved to him by reasoning

…when this much is evident, then it should not escape the mind that if these modern discoveries are contented to be the connotations of the Qur’an, then certainly the Arab people who were the first addresses of the Qur’an, were not aware of these discoveries. This leads, as a corollary, to the conclusion that the whole argument is founded on unacceptable, unobvious and unknown premises. Hence, the argument becomes void on this very basis. And this kind of reasoning would seriously injure the mode of Qur’anic argument.

The third error is that these findings [of science] are also proven wrong at times. Therefore, if these were designated as connotations of the Qur’an, and these findings were disproved at some later period, and the acceptance of the followers of Islam was already registered in favour of this particular purport of the Qur’an, then any ordinary atheist would easily be able to falsify the Qur’an and show that this particular content of the Qur’an was untrue. And the falsity of a part would lead to the falsity of the whole. How difficult then would be our position!

If someone suggests, as contended by some people, that the greatness of the Qur’an lies in the ability of its words to be applicable to the themes of every age,

(We say), then this would mean that no connotation of the Qur’an is reliable for its words would always contain the possibility of an opposite connotation.

The fourth flaw in this approach is that it is against the dignity of the Muslims that the scholars of Europe should claim that the Qur’an which was revealed long time ago, yet its contents were not comprehended even by the Prophet (peace be on him) himself, and you owe it to us that you have understood its tafsir because of us, then what is going to be our answer?

So from the above discussion we know that there is a lot of skepticism and of many of the claims brought forth by those people (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) who try to compare the Quranic text with whatever scientific theories are in circulation at a particular time. The knowledgeable Muslim then, knows that the most important purpose of the Quranic Verse is to provide guidance to people, and that the mention of humans, animals, the skies, clouds, etc, is definitely mentioned in the Quran, but it is mentioned only in a general sense without many details being provided, since there was no need for such particulars to be incorporated into the text of the Quran. We also need to mention that while some well-meaning Muslims with improper knowledge may get carried away with the correlations between science and Islam, our opponents from the non-Muslim side may also overreach in their ambitious desire to “prove the Qur’an wrong” through modern science. So this point has to be considered as well whenever we look at discussions concerning the Quranic Verses in general.

Having mentioned the quote from Maulana Thanvi, it is still possible that some of the Verses in question do mention scientific data only discovered very recently by modern scientists. However, the elucidations for this should be brought forth from the Islamic scholars of Tafsir (Quranic exegesis) and the scholars of Islam in general, since they have the knowledge required to know if a certain Quranic phrase lends itself to an explanation in harmony with current scientific explanations. Thus, our explanation concerning the objections brought up concerning certain Verses of the Qur’an will be based on what the contemporary traditional scholars of Islam say concerning such passages, and whether they see the possibility of them having such scientific connotations, as various aspects have to be considered before making a claim that a certain Verse contains “miraculous” information that was not known until today.[4] As mentioned above, if such information is not mentioned it is not a blemish on the Qur’an but rather a confirmation that its message is primarily for man to recognize who his Lord is and how he should submit to the Lord of the Worlds, and that the scientific details are only mentioned as necessary.[5]

Also, it should be noted that we ourselves are not saying that a certain interpretation is definitely the correct one for a given Verse, but we are merely presenting what past and current scholars have said about these Verses so that the readers may gain a general idea of what the Verse may mean. In order to have more certain knowledge of what a Verse truly means, the correct methodology is to study the sciences of Tafsir under a proper teacher

So now we can now take a look at the different objections raised in this respect:

Answer: We were not able to find references to the movement of the sun and moon around their own axis as a possible explanation for this Verse among the contemporary traditional scholars, so it could be true that Dr. Naik’s interpretation may be an overextension of the intended meaning. The traditional scholars mention that the Verse refers to the orbits of the sun and the moon. For example, in Maariful Quran we read:

The word (falak) is used for circle or anything round. For this reason the word (falak) is also used sometimes for sky. In this verse it means the orbits of the sun and the moon in which they revolve. The Qur'anic words do not specify the location of the orbits in the space but space research has now established that these orbits are located in the space much below the sky. This verse apparently indicates that the Sun also moves around an orbit. The scientists previously did not believe in the rotation of the Sun, but the most modern research has now accepted it.[6]

Other contemporary interpretations place the emphasis on the type of movement that is being described in this Verse. For example, Shaykh Mutawali ash-Shi’rawi mentions that the movement being described in here is that of a continuous motion like that of a fish in gentle waters (hence the mention of the word “yashabun”, as opposed to motion is spurts. This of course is something clearly visible and does not correlate directly to scientific discoveries.[7] The late Shaykh of Al-Azhar, Ali at-Tantawi says that the movement being attributed to the sun and the moon is the same is the movement of thinking beings, and is of the same category as when Allah the Exalted mentions the story of Prophet Yusuf (Alayhi Salaam) where he mentions seeing the Sun and Moon prostating before him in a dream[8]. Again this is different from what Dr. Naik mentions in his work, as Dr. Naik makes a distinction between when the word “yashabun” is used for humans and when it is used for celestial bodies.

Having said this, the comment from the non-Muslim that this refers specifically to the sun and moon rotating around the Earth is not something mentioned by any of the contemporary Tafsirs. While it is true that many of the classical exegesists had taken such a meaning from the Verse in question, the only thing that this Verse mentions is the motion of the Sun and the Moon itself without mentioning the specific orbits- something which can be seen above in the interpretation of Mufti Shafi Usmani (RA).

Even if we were to take the meaning as being that the Sun and Earth rotate around a fixed Earth this still would not be a problematic issue, since (a) the Qur’an generally describes things as seen by common people, and (b) motion of bodies can only be described if we have a stationary point from which to make such observations, since it is an issue of different bodies moving relative to a stationary point of reference. Even though there are reasons why scientists may choose to place bodies other than the Earth as the point of reference when explaining any given model, the choice of which body is moving and which one is relative depends on the situation and the model that is being presented, and there is no such thing as an “absolute stationary point of reference” in the Universe.

For this Verse we would say that the key phrase does not linguistically directly relate to the Universe, so it cannot be said that this Ayah is explicitly mentioning either the vastness or the expansion of the Universe. The Verse is question is:

وَالسَّمَاءَ بَنَيْنَاهَا بِأَيْدٍ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ

In this Verse the key word is “مُوسِعُونَ”. According to many of the interpretations, this refers to the ability of Allah in expanding His Creation. This is attested to by the translation made by Mufti Taqi Usmani, who renders the translation as: “And the sky was built by Us with might, and indeed, We are the One who expands.”[9]

Likewise, Shaykh at-Tantawi mentioned that this phrase refers to the power of Allah to expand it (“it” means the skies, or the provisions of the people on Earth).[10] While it may be noted that there are different sayings as to whether the expansion is of the skies or of the provisions of the people on Earth[11], the position forwarded by Dr. Zakir Naik is one of the possibilities that is encompassed in this Verse. Indeed, the fact that the Quran mentions the skies in conjunction with saying that Allah is the One who expands or is able to expand is perhaps a pointer alluding to the “expanding Universe”.

From our side, we will not pursue this angle too aggressively since it is only a possible meaning among other probable meanings that can be inferred from this Verse, in addition to the fact that the science surrouding such a theory is not absolute and we as Muslims cannot say that the meaning of a certain Verse of the Qur’an is definitely tied to a scientific theory which could (at least in principle) be overturned, or explained in very different terms years down the line.

So we only say that the Universe itself is not the direct subject of this Verse, and the theory of the “expanding Universe” may or may not be alluded to in this Ayah.

In the non-Muslim’s objection to this Verse we also see a problem in how the interpretation is made. The Verse in question says:

While this Verse does not warant a bold declaration of an amazing scientific declaration, yet it is incorrect to say the only correct exegesis for this Ayah is its description of the return of the sun, moon, and starts every 24 hours. Rather, the interpretation from a number of the traditional scholars is that it refers to the quality of rain to come down and then return. Thus, in Maariful Quran we read:

وَالسَّمَاءِ ذَاتِ الرَّجْعِ (I swear by the sky that rains...86:11). The word raj' refers to 'the rain that comes down repeatedly'. In other words, the rain that comes down and stops and then returns.[12]

It is of note that even among the older interpretations there were some interesting comments made about this Verse. For example, in the interpretation of this Verse in the Tafsir of Imam ar-Razi (d. 606 AH), he gives a number of reasons why the raj’ in here refers to the rain as opposed to other possibilities (such as the celestial bodies or the angels mentioned in some places). Among them he says that the Arabs of the Prophet’s (Salla Allahu Alayhi wa Sallam) time thought that the clouds carry the water from the seas of the Earth with them, then return it back to the Earth as rain.[13]

This is an important point for our discussion, for it would show that one cannot discount the possibility that some mention of evaporation is being made in here, even as we see that this may have been already known to the Arabs at the time of the Prophet (Salla Allahu Wa Sallam). If such is the intended meaning of the Verse and the modern explanations concerning th water cycle are indeed true, we would state that the Qur’an is correct on this matter even as we say that it is not an amazing scientific declaration ages ahead of its time.

Answer: We are not sure which “pagan mythology” is being referred to in here, but we can deduce a lot from the explanation given in Maariful Quran, which says[14]:

Different exegesists have explained differently the sense of the words "closing" and "opening", but the meanings which the companions of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the majority of the exegesists have adopted are that closing of sky and earth means shutting off rainfall from the sky and vegetation from the earth, and opening means the opening of these two i.e. the rainfall and vegetation.

Further in this interpretation, there is one note from Mufti Taqi Usmani which says the following:

But the miraculous style of the Holy Qur’an is that the words used by it may have different possibilities for interpretation. The words ratq and fatq used here have another meaning which is 'being compact' and 'being separated'. If these words are taken in this sense, the verse may also be translated as, "The heavens and the earth were compact, then We separated them." In this case the verse will refer to an event of the early creation, meaning thereby that the heavens and the earth were originally a single body. Thereafter Allah separated the earth from the heavens. The contemporary research about the Big Bang is close to this description. But it should always be kept in mind that the Qur'anic descriptions are independent of any scientific theory and the Qur'an should not be made subject to ever-changing theories.

Here the statement from a contemporary scholar of a high caliber is made that there is a possibility for this Verse to refer to the contemporary scientific theories concerning the beginning of the Universe. As noted previously though, not a great deal is made out of this possibility, since there is no absolute certainty that this Ayah refers to the Big Bang, or even that the theory of the Big Bang is so well-entrenched that it is impossible for new research to force future scientists to modify this theory, either slightly or considerably.

Answer: In our estimation this is not a real objection, since the passage that is being referred to from Dr. Naik’s book says:

“And made his progeny from a quintessence Of the nature of A fluid despised.” [Al-Qur’aan 32:8]

The Arabic word sulâlah means quintessence or the best part of a whole.[15]

So the word “sulalah” (whether it is translated as the “best part of a whole”, or merely as an “extract”) is from the same Ayah which contains the phrase saying that humans are made from a “despised fluid”.

Thus, we see that the argument is about what “sulalah” means, not that there is a real contradiction in the Qur’an. This would be the case even if “sulalah” were to be taken as the “best part of a whole”. In that case we would say that the best part of the “despised fluid” is the material from which the human being is created. This is not a problem of course, since the two intended meanings can be reconciled and they do not clash irrevocably.

Answer: The Ayah that is being presented by Dr. Naik and which is the subject of the non-Muslim’s objection says:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِآيَاتِنَا سَوْفَ نُصْلِيهِمْ نَارًا كُلَّمَا نَضِجَتْ جُلُودُهُمْ بَدَّلْنَاهُمْ جُلُودًا غَيْرَهَا لِيَذُوقُوا الْعَذَابَ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَزِيزًا حَكِيمًا

Those who have disbelieved in Our verses, We shall certainly make them enter a fire. Whenever their skins are burnt out, We shall give them other skins in their place, so that they may taste the punishment. Surely, Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise. (Quran 4:56)

This Verse is not a direct declaration that there are pain sensors in the skin, but as Dr. Naik mentioned, it is only an indicator to this phenomenon. It could be that the skin being talked about in here is the outer skin rather than the inner skins where the pain receptors are located, or it could be that the physiology of the human being will be changed in the Hereafter so that the disbelievers will feel pain in their inner skins rather than the superficial pain felt at the outer skin in this world whenever we get burned.

In our view there is no reason to try to find fault with this Verse from a scientific viewpoint, since it is merely describing what the punishment of the disbeliever will be materialized in the Hellfire.

Answer: Before we say anything about this matter, we have to stress the proper way for a discussion is not to say outright that the founder of our religion is a liar and that he has copied from some or the other source. After all, similarity between the things said in one religion and a later one does not necessarily mean that the founder of the latter religion has copied from previous documents. Whenever we ourselves see a problem in some non-Islamic religion, we try to bring up the point in that religion which we deem to be wrong and discuss that point in details as needed, without making any personal accusations. If anyone wishes to discuss what they believe to be plagiarism in the Qur’an, we will enter into such a discussion, but there is no need to bring up this matter- effectively as a side note- in order to force a reply from us.

Now, coming to the matter of the mention in both the Bible and the Qur’an that the world was created in six days and whether this refers to days like our days or long periods of time, if the Christian wishes to think of the six days as general “epochs” or “long periods of time”, this is not something we will argue about, since this is not a major point of discussion between Muslims and Christians with respect to which religion is correct. Rather, the major points of contention surround our disagreements about the nature of the Divine Being and what He is attributed with or cannot be attributed with. All other discussions pale in comparison and should be avoided as much as possible.

From our side though, we will mention a few of the scholars have mention about these six days. For example, Shaykh at-Tantawi says:

…the intended meaning of days in here is a time whose length is not known except by Allah the Exalted.

That is: He- Exalted be He- is the one who brought into existence the Heavems and the Earth and what is in between them, without any similar precedent to them, in six days of His Days- Exalted be He- whose length is not know except by Allah Himself.[16]

Similarly, in Maariful Quran we read the following segment, in answer to the question as to how a day or a night could be known if there was no sun and moon to determine the length of days:

May be, before the birth of the universe, Allah Ta'ala had other signs determined for the day and night - as it would be in Paradise where the day and night will not depend on the movement of the sun.

This also tells us that it is not necessary that the six days during which the earth and the heavens were created, be equal to our six days. Instead, it is possible that they may be longer than these - as the Qur'an says about the day of 'Akhirah which will be equal to one thousand years.

Abu 'Abdullah Razi has said that the movement of the far firmament is so fast as compared to the movements of our earth that the raised step of a man running here has still to come down to touch the ground when the far firmament moves a distance of three thousand miles. (Al-Bahr Al-Muhit)[17]

There are a number of other similar statements from the different interpretations done by past and present scholars, but it can easily be seen that the possibility of the six days referring to something other than a literal six days is clearly mentioned whenever the appropriate Verses are encountered.

[1] The objections first given to us where probably answers from his book “Quran and Modern Science: Compatible or Incompatible?”. But as other similar objections were presented they were also included in the main body of this work.

[2] For a small example, of this, one may refer to the paper “Galileo: Science and Religion: Galileo and the Inquisition I” where it is mentioned that the viewpoint of Aquinas, Aristotle, and Galileo was that science deals with the truth of things, of “knowledge of what is necessarily so, that is, cannot be otherwise”

[3] “al-Intibahat al-Mufidah ‘an al-Ishhtibahat al-Jadidah”, pp. 124-126, translation from the article “Maurice Bucaille (1920 – )” availble at http://www.cis-ca.org/voices/b/bucaille-mn.htm#bionote

[4] If the objection is raised that why do we not look into the writings of the past schoalrs in order to know whether such scientifically accurate things had been predicted many centuries ago, we say that this is not our intention, since we agree with our opponent that the main purpose of the Qur’an is to guide the human being towards the Islamic religion, and that such a purpose is achieved even if there is not a single contemporary scientific finding in the Qur’an. Even so, we have placed a few of the interpretations of the past classical scholars to advance our argument whenever it is called for.

[5] With respect to Dr. Zakir Naik, it should be noted that in Islam there are specializations in the various fields of knwoledge, be it Quranic exegesis, jurisprudence, Hadith classification, Hadith explanation, Quran recitation, and so forth. Dr. Naik is a scholar of comparative religion and has extensive knwoledge about the writings of other religions, which is a positive point. However, when it comes to Quranic exegesis he is not recognized as a formal Islamic scholar in this field. Whie his lack of mastery in this topic does not pose problems most of the time, since questions from non-Muslims come from so many different angles, it is possible for him to make errors when discussing issues which are beyond his capability.

[6] http://classicalislamgroup.co.uk/index.php?view=tafseer/s21-v30to33, Ma'ariful Qur'an - Mufti Shafi Usmani RA

[7] Tafsir Khawatir (The speeches of Muhammad Mutawali ash-Sha’rawi), http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=7&tTafsirNo=76&tSoraNo=21&tAyahNo=33&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

[8] Tafsir al-Wasit fi Tafsir al-Quran al-Kareem, http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=7&tTafsirNo=57&tSoraNo=51&tAyahNo=47&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

[9] http://classicalislamgroup.co.uk/index.php?view=tafseer/s51-v47to55

[10] http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=7&tTafsirNo=57&tSoraNo=51&tAyahNo=47&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

[11] These different sayings are not really contradictory but are complementary to one another, as –for example- the fact that Allah expands the bounties of certain people by giving them riches, does not rule out the possibility that such people may also experience an expansion in their bounties through rain, children, etc. So these sayings should be seen as complementary to each other rather than in opposition to one another.

[12] http://classicalislamgroup.co.uk/index.php?view=tafseer/s86-v1to17

[13] http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=4&tSoraNo=86&tAyahNo=11&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

[14] http://classicalislamgroup.co.uk/index.php?view=tafseer/s21-v30to33

[15] The Qur’aan and Modern Science: Compatible or Incompatible?, p.39

[16] http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=7&tTafsirNo=57&tSoraNo=11&tAyahNo=6&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=1

[17] http://classicalislamgroup.co.uk/index.php?view=tafseer/s7-v54-3