Mathematical patterns in the Qur’an according to the scholars

 Ibn Abbas (ra) is authentically reported to have discussed mathematical patterns in the Qur'an with Umar bin al-Khattab (ra). Major Ahlus Sunnah scholars have also discussed them. Here are some of the scholars:

1)     Ibn Kathir authenticated Ibn Abbas’ narration where he used numerical patterns of 7 in the Qur’an to argue for Laylat ul-Qadr being on the 27^th. Tafsir al-Mawardi also reports Ibn Abbas as noting 30 words in Surah al-Qadr and the 27^th word referring to Laylat ul-Qadr. Ibn Abbas was the expert mufassir amongst the Sahaba and the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) did du’a for him to be given a deep understanding of the religion and ta’wil. Umar also praised his deep understanding of the Qur’an. 

The following are the major scholars (they need no introduction) that mentioned numerical/mathematical patterns in the Qur’an based on the above Ibn Abbas narrations or quoted it:

a)      Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, the famous Maliki muhaddith: https://al-maktaba.org/book/33977/763

b)     Ibn Yunus, the famous Maliki scholar: https://al-maktaba.org/book/33207/1229

c)      Al-Sarakhsi, the famous Hanafi scholar: https://al-maktaba.org/book/33240/594

d)     Al-Sakhawi, the famous Qur’an specialist: https://al-maktaba.org/book/32372/152

e)     al-Mawardi, the famous mufassir and Shafi’i scholar: https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=12&tSoraNo=97&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

f)       Yahya Ibn Abi Khayr Umrani, a major Shafi’I scholar: https://al-maktaba.org/book/21721/1682  

g)      Ibn Qudama, the famous Hanbali scholar: https://al-maktaba.org/book/33211/3715

h)     Ibn Rajab, the famous Hanbali scholar: https://al-maktaba.org/book/11363/203

i)       Ibn Kathir, the famous mufassir (he declared its isnad qawi, jayyid): https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=97&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&Page=8&Size=1&LanguageId=1

j)       Ibn Rushd al-Jadd, the famous Maliki scholar: https://al-maktaba.org/book/33228/259

k)      Ibn Atiyya, the famous mufassir: https://al-maktaba.org/book/23632/2754

l)       al-Biqa’I, the famous mufassir: https://al-maktaba.org/book/9098/11478

m)    Ibn Jawzi, the famous muhaddith: https://al-maktaba.org/book/23619/2235

n)     Al-Buhuti, the famous Hanbali scholar: https://al-maktaba.org/book/33245/338

o)     Al-Safarrini, the famous Hanbali scholar: https://al-maktaba.org/book/32944/1930

p)     al-Qarafi, the famous Maliki scholar: https://al-maktaba.org/book/1717/933

q)     al-Baji, the famous Maliki scholar: https://al-maktaba.org/book/6684/451

r)      Ibn Mulaqqin, the famous Shafi’i scholar and Muhaddith: https://al-maktaba.org/book/32862/8078

s)      Isma’il Haqqi, the famous Ottoman mufassir: https://al-maktaba.org/book/23612/5040

t)      Ibn Ajiba, the famous mufassir: https://al-maktaba.org/book/10273/3374 

u)     Wahbah al-Zuhayli, the famous modern scholar: https://al-maktaba.org/book/33954/1612

2)     The famous early Mufassir from the Salaf, Muqatil bin Sulayman, who wrote one of the earliest tafsirs in the early 2^nd century, held the Huruf Muqatta’at (الحروف المقطعات) to refer to a numerical system. See Tafsir Muqatil in https://al-maktaba.org/book/23614/2363#p1

3)     The founder of the Maturidi school, Imam al-Maturidi, also considered it possible that the Huruf Muqatta’at (الحروف المقطعات) refer to a numerical system and are part of the Qur’an’s miracle (in terms of its brevity). See Tafsir of al-Maturidi in https://al-maktaba.org/book/32658/371

4)     The famous Sufi Abu Bakr al-Warraq counted words to represent the number of nights as mentioned by al-Tha’labi in https://al-maktaba.org/book/23578/3288

5)     The famous Mufassir Ibn Barrajan (450-536 AH) who used the Qur'an to famously predict the conquest of Jerusalem (583 CE). This was reported by Abu Shama al-Maqdisi, Majd al-Din al-Halabi, Qadi Muhyi al-Din al-Zaki, Ibn Khallikan, Ibn Arabi and al-Zarkashi. See Ibn Barrajan’s tafsir for the details as translated in “Bellver, José, “Ibn Barraǧān and Ibn ʿArabī on the prediction of the capture of Jerusalem in 583/1187 by Saladin,” Arabica, 61/3–4 (2014), pp. 252–286”.

6)     The famous Sufi and Hanbali master, sheikh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, who mentioned patterns of 7 and the number of words in https://al-maktaba.org/book/33369/357

7)     The famous Sufi Ibn Arabi utilised mathematical patterns on the Qur'an through Abjad on the Huruf Muqatta'at. See al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya, Cairo, Dār al-kitāb al-ʿarabiyya l-kubrā, volume 1, pages 59-60, as translated in “Bellver, José, “Ibn Barraǧān and Ibn ʿArabī on the prediction of the capture of Jerusalem in 583/1187 by Saladin,” Arabica, 61/3–4 (2014), pp. 252–286”.

8)     The famous Muhaddith, Hafiz Abdullah Sirajuddin mentioned the mathematical pattern of months in the Qur'an in his book "Sayyiduna Muhammad Rasulullah (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam)”.

9)     The famous Muhaddith Muhammad al-Ya'qoubi mentioned that the date of death of the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) was extracted from the Qur'an in 5:3. Al-Suyuti, in his Itqan , gives an example of a verse from surah 63 predicting the age of death of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) whilst Al-Zarkashi in his Burhan also mentioned that the age of Prophet Isa/Jesus (as) was extracted from 33 words in the Qur’an. Both al-Suyuti and al-Zarkashi are famous authorities and reference points in Ulum ul-Qur’an. See Al-Suyuti’s Itqan https://al-maktaba.org/book/11728/1188   and Al-Zarkashi’s Burhan https://al-maktaba.org/book/11436/692#p1

10)  Emir Muhammad Kwassau wrote work on the Qur'an called "Ma'unat al-Tullab fi marifat...", which had statistics of the Qur'an, such as the count of individual letters.

A triangular method can be used to test such patterns for deliberate intent (i.e. remove the chances of randomness) and reduce bias. This means that a mathematical/numerical procedure should be established in various parts of the Surah (or the Qur’an) or through various mathematical procedures leading to patterns within the same verse or group of verses. The mathematical patterns are expected to be applicable within a Surah because each Surah is separated from the others and the order of the Surahs does not impact the meanings of each Surah (so are “independent” and “stand-alone” in that sense). However, it can also be that a mathematical pattern is replicated in multiple Surahs, especially if they are connected.

To put it in another way, when one numerical pattern is identified, it is tested to see whether it occurs elsewhere in the Surah (or the Qur’an). If it does, then it increases the assurance that it was not random. I don't expect the same numerical pattern to be found in every verse or Surah, just like I don't expect each verse or Surah to have the same rhetorical devices or wujuh of i'jaz. For example, Ta-Sin's (طس from the the Huruf Muqatta’at) numerical pattern was supported through a triangular approach:

1)     Surah an-Naml (27) starts with the Huruf Muqatta’at (sometimes translated as the “Disjointed letters”) as طس

2)     If you count the number of ط  appearing in the Surah, it is 27

3)     If you count the number of س  appearing in the Surah, it is 93

4)     The above gives 27:93, in the same order and number as the Surah number and total number of Ayats (verses) in the Surah i.e. Surah an-Naml is position 27^th in the whole Qur’an and has 93 Ayats.

5)     If the above wasn’t enough, then if you total 27+93, you get 120, which is the Abjad number of Naml (the key story in Surah al-Naml and not mentioned in any other Surah).

6)     Sticking to the letter ط   from the Huruf Muqatta’at, it first occurs in them at 20:1 and is exactly mid-way between the total number of times ط  occurs in the Qur’an (i.e. total is 1273 and there are 636 ط before it and 636 after it).

Various other mathematical/numerical patterns have been confirmed for other Huruf Muqatta’at. In sha Allah the above is sufficient to dispel the myth that searching for mathematical/numerical patterns in the Qur’an is a modern invention. Instead, it is clearly established from the Sahaba and the generations since them, amongst major Imams.

For general mathematical/numerical patterns in the Qur’an see Ustadh Marwan Ghannam’s video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xix7QDXJN0 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ4sh-FQnaY

Are “Scientific miracles” open to various interpretations? Part of the "Scientific miracles in Islam" series

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الصلاة والسلام على رسول الله

This brief article continues the discussion around "scientific miracles in the Qur'an" from an intellectual perspective. This article critically analyses the frequent claim that "scientific miracles are not possible because there can be various interpretations ". This claim has been considered as a "major argument" against "scientific miracles".

As is well known to any Muslim scholar who looks at prophecies in the Qur'an and Hadiths, they are often (not always) open to various interpretations, such as the famous prophecy in Surah Rum. Despite this fact, scholars normally claimed that these are miracles and proofs of Islam being from Allah Most High. This is especially the case where the correct interpretation has become clear once the prophecy has come true or a sound exegetical methodology is applied. Furthermore, not every interpretation is correct or plausible. Thus, the possibility of multiple valid and sound interpretations of a text doesn't negate it being a miracle.

It is a famous principle in tafsir (a principle expounded by the Sahaba and various other mufassirs like al-Mawardi and al-Shawkani), that multiple meanings and interpretations can be intended by a Qur’anic verse.(1) There can also be one primary meaning and multiple secondary meanings intended by a verse. Part of the miracle of the Qur'an is that it contains the most eloquent wordings that suit various contexts. This includes choosing words that have various suitable meanings that cater for different audiences, times, and places. Thus, a verse about nature can give a meaning understood to a bedouin in the 7th century, and a different meaning to a scientist in the 21st century with new scientific discoveries. If the wrong wording was chosen, and a scientific discovery disproved the previous understanding of nature, then the Qur'an would be falsified. However, the Qur'an chose the best words to accommodate different meanings according to the needs of people that Allah Most High deemed relevant. The fact that there are so many instances of these eloquent wordings that encompass modern scientific facts shows that such wordings were deliberately chosen by Allah Most High to include such facts within its meanings. Let me provide an example outside of scientific meanings: if multiple prophecies come true, it increases the epistemic assurance that the person is receiving knowledge from a supernatural source, until we achieve certainty of it.

An example of a scientific meaning is seen in the Qur'anic discussions on the embryo, including the word "Alaq" (علق) and its various linguistic possibilities that accommodate new scientific discoveries. The Qur'an could have just used the various terms in vogue according to Greek and Arab medical knowledge (including the various terms by Aristotle) and which turned out to be wrong about embryology, yet the Qur'an did not make that error but used precise and eloquent wordings as part of its balagha. Considering that “Alaq” is mentioned in the first set of verses revealed to the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), and a chapter is named after it, the importance of scientific tafsir in understanding the Qur’an is clearly shown. The fact that modern Muslims understand “Alaq” to refer to something that “clings”, looks like a “leech” and like a “chewed substance” and is not a meaning invented in modern times nor is from Greek medicine is the fact that Niketas of Byzantium (using a 9th century Greek translation) understood it to mean a leech and condemned it (he didn’t know that it looked like a leech).(2)

Furthermore, sometimes various interpretations may be offered by scholars of a verse about natural phenomena based on their ijtihad and the sciences of their time, but because the science was limited, they may have not encompassed all suitable meanings. Despite the literal meaning being the default meaning according the standard tafsir methodology (unless other evidence, like Allah's dissimilarity requires a metaphorical meaning), scholars sometimes adopted a metaphorical meaning because they couldn't conceive how it could be literal. Due to new scientific discoveries, a meaning that fits the verse better can appear. It would be a grave injustice to the Qur'an to refuse to consider new scientific knowledge on matters discussed in the Qur'an. An example is the meaning of the term "al-Tariq" (الطارق) in the Qur'an where the mufassirs had different opinions over which celestial object it referred to, whether it was for the genus or individual star etc. Now that we know a lot more about different planets and stars etc, we can understand another meaning that is more suitable. An investigation should be carried out to see how the linguistic descriptions fit with black holes or neutron stars. (3)

As for the cases where someone can clearly show that the primary meaning of particular words in the Qur'an refers to phenomena identified by modern science (i.e. no other meaning can be taken as the primary meaning, especially when the literal is preferred over the metaphorical), these obviously don’t fall under the objectors claim of negating "scientific miracles". Of course, we can make similar points when the definition of science is non-Eurocentric and includes sciences like theology and Hadiths.  Therefore, claims about "all scientific miracles having multiple interpretations " are gross generalisations because has the claimant analysed each claim and claimed to encompass the knowledge of Allah Most High? Indeed, Allah Most High commands us in the Qur'an to reflect on the signs, be they of the Qur'an itself or of the world and the scholars of the past used the theories at their disposal for interpreting the Qur'an. Imam al-Ghazali has a chapter on scientific knowledge in the Qur’an and examples of verses which can’t be understood unless one has certain scientific knowledge. In summary, he mentioned “in the Qur’an lies the confluence [merging] of the sciences of the ancients and the moderns."(4)

Footnotes:

1)     For further details, see “The Lights of Revelation and the Secrets of Interpretation: Hizb One of the Commentary on the Qurʾan by al-Baydawi” by Dr Gibril Fouad Haddad

2)     See http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/did-the-prophet-muhammad-plagiarise-hellenic-embryology/

3)     The claims in the following video should be investigated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx94yXhpEak

4)     See Imam al-Ghazali’s “Kitab Jawahir al-Qur'an”

Is the Qur'an a book of science? Part of the "Scientific miracles in Islam" series

 

بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

The phrase “the Qur’an is not a book of science but is a book of guidance” is often used to argue against understanding certain Qur’anic verses as including scientific miracles. This statement should be critically analysed as part of the discussion about “scientific miracles in the Qur’an”.

Whilst the statement is true, it can be argued that “the Qur’an is not a book of law” because it rarely gives detailed legal rulings (e.g. it doesn’t mention 5 prayers or the amount of raka’ats or the details of the Azan etc), and therefore the legal scholars (fuqaha) have been incorrect in deducing fiqh (through simple and complex interpretations) per such an proponent. According to some scholars, the Qur’an only has around 500 verses that include legal matters, which is less than the 700+ verses that include matters of nature (i.e. science). I have never come across anyone who has been consistent in the implications of this claim and this shows how irrational and emotional the discussion about “scientific miracles in the Qur’an” has become. For example, one academic even condemned a tafsir scholar for simply mentioning that there are 700+ verses relating to nature!

The Qur’an is a book of guidance but is a miracle and from the Lord of the worlds, Allah Most High. He can mention whatever He wants in His Books. It is natural to expect that He would describe His creation in order for people to ponder over them, realise that the Qur’an is miraculous and from Allah Most High, and to accept Islam (i.e. be guided). One also expects that since He created and sustains the universe, then the universe would not contradict the Qur’an i.e. the “Work of Allah Most High” and the “Words of Allah Most High” agree with each other. None of the major mufassirs (tafsir scholars) argued that Allah Most High cannot or does not talk about the natural world. It is a modern bid’a (innovation) to argue that He cannot or does not and amounts to trespassing over the limits of Allah Most High by arrogating oneself to judge over what Allah Most High “can or cannot do”. In fact, there are numerous clear verses in the Qur’an that talk about nature (hence science).

New evidences- arrangement of Surahs history

بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ 

When discussing aspects of the history of the Qur’an, it is important that a scholar incorporates not just the previous discussions on the topic but also any new, relevant evidences that have come to light. This brief article aims to bring additional new evidence to support the Tawqifi view of the arrangement of the surahs. But first, a brief overview follows.

As is well known, the words of the Qur’an are split into Ayats (often translated as “verses”) various Surahs (often translated as “chapters”). The various Surahs were revealed at different points of the life of the Prophet (ﷺ) and the order of revelation of the Surahs is different to the order of the Surahs found in current Mushafs (which agrees to the order in the Mushafs of the Caliph Uthman bin Affan (1)). Each Surah is, in a sense, standalone and doesn’t depend in meaning upon a particular order of Surahs in the Qur’an, unlike what is common in chapters in Western books. Thus, the Surah order doesn’t affect the preservation of the Qur’an or its message, although you can find extra “ benefits” from the current arrangement according to the “coherence” school.

To summarise the above, there are two ways to look at the orders/arrangement:

1)     Order/arrangement of the descent of revelation;

2)     Order/arrangement in which the Caliph Uthman compiled the Qur’an and which the Mushafs after him followed until now. The term “Uthmanic Mushafs” refers to the Mushafs compiled by the Caliph Uthman.

Before the Uthmanic Mushafs, some of the Sahaba had personal Mushafs with a different order of Surahs and that can be due to them:

1)     Basing the order/arrangement on the order/arrangement of the descent of revelation;

2)     Basing the order on the order in which they learnt the Surahs;

3)     Basing the order on their needs for teaching or learning

4)     Not knowing the order dictated by the Prophet (ﷺ) after the Qur’an was finalised in the final presentation with the Archangel Jibril (as);

5)     Not compiling all the Surahs but only some of them for their own personal needs of learning;

6)     Some other reason.

There are three broad views of Muslim scholars in terms of the order of the Surahs found in the Uthmanic Mushafs:

1)     The order/arrangement of the Surahs was dictated (verbally or through practice) by the Prophet (ﷺ), especially after the Qur’an was finalised in the final presentation with the Archangel Jibril (as). This view is called “Tawqifi” here and is the dominant/majority view currently amongst the scholars;

2)     The order of the Surahs was mostly dictated by the Prophet (ﷺ) but the order of some was based on the ijtihad of the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet (ﷺ)). This view is called “semi-ijtihadi” here;

3)     The order of the Surahs was the ijtihad of the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet (ﷺ)). This view is called “ijtihadi” here.

 

Each group claims historical reports to support itself, whilst the “coherence” school has claimed that the miraculous structure of the Qur’an proves that the order is Tawqifi. There is no need to go through the classical evidences of the various sides here as that is discussed by Dr Nur al-Din al-‘Itr in his “Ulum ul-Qur’an”, Zarqani’s “Manahil al-‘Irfan” and al-Suyuti in his “Itqan”.

The strongest evidence of the semi-ijtihadi and ijtihadi groups is the narration about Surah al-Tawba/Bara’a and Uthman i.e. they argue that the placement of that Surah was based on ijtihad during the Uthmanic compilation project. However, this evidence is weak in isnad (see al-Itr’s discussion) and is decisively refuted by the findings of the San’a lower-text. This lower-text is from before the Uthmanic Mushafs and is a window into the views of some people before the Uthmanic Mushafs.

The San’a lower-text has Surah al-Tawba/Bara’a in the same order as found in the Uthmanic Mushafs and conclusively refutes the evidence of the semi-ijtihadi and ijtihadi groups (2).

Furthermore, contrary to the orientalist false claim that only one person (Khuzayma) knew the last two verses of Surah al-Tawba/Bara’a and that it was added by the Caliph Uthman, the San’a lower-text contains those verses (no Companion Mushaf missed them), hence disproving the orientalist belief.

However, the strongest evidence to settle the debate on Surah numbering and verse numbers is the clear logic of the below:

Allah Most High takes an oath by the “even” and the “odd” in 89:3. The words “even” and “odd” have been kept general in the Qur’an and can refer to many things (see the tafsir al-Bahr al-Madid of Ibn ‘Ajiba for more). In mathematics, the following can be seen in a logical manner:

1)     List all the Surah/chapter numbers of the Qur'an.             

2)     Sum the 1st step. You get 6555.

3)     List the number of Ayats/verses for each corresponding Surah/chapter.  

4)     Sum the 3rd step. You get 6236.

5)     Add each Surah/chapter number with the corresponding number of Ayats/verses to get the term “SA”.          

6)     Put the even results of 5th step in one column and the odd in another. They are 57 each.    

7)     Sum each column of 6th. You get 6236 and 6555, which equals steps 2 and 4.

For the visual folk or for those unclear about how simple and logical the calculations are, it is shown in the last 5 minutes of Ustadh Marwan Ghannam’s video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ4sh-FQnaY

I think the above proof is sufficient for anyone trained as an auditor or accountant but there are various other Surah-order related mathematical patterns in the Qur’an. Another simple one is the following:

1)     Surah an-Naml (27) starts with the Huruf Muqatta’at (sometimes translated as the “Disjointed letters”) as طس

2)     If you count the number of ط  appearing in the Surah, it is 27

3)     If you count the number of س  appearing in the Surah, it is 93

4)     The above gives 27:93, in the same order and number as the Surah number and total number of Ayats in the Surah i.e. Surah an-Naml is position 27^th in the whole Qur’an and has 93 Ayats. The chance that this is at random is 0.0025.

5)     If the above wasn’t enough, then if you total 27+93, you get 120, which is the Abjad number of Naml. You can see it for yourself at https://www.abjadcalc.com/

6)     Sticking to the letter ط   from the Huruf Muqatta’at, it first occurs in them at 20:1 and is exactly mid-way between the total number of times ط  occurs in the Qur’an (i.e. total is 1273 and there are 636 ط before it and 636 after it).

 

The chance of the above being due to chance is very very very slim. I can provide other examples but I don’t think there is a need. The above provide additional evidence for the Tawqifi view.

In conclusion, Islam encourages the following of clear evidence, regardless of which time it has arisen. One can find all sorts of opinions held amongst scholars from the past but it does not mean that every single opinion remains correct or followable in all times. Where new evidence arises, one or a group of opinions can change in strength, allowing a preponderation of one or a group of opinions. The semi-ijtihadi and ijtihadi groups not only need to explain away all the Hadiths and manuscripts supporting the Tawqifi view, but they have to refute the views about the miraculous coherent structure of the Qur’an and the clear mathematical patterns. That is a large mountain for them to climb. Unfortunately, some people are not numerically skilled and do not have the expertise of a financial auditor so they do not understand the qat'i (definitive) nature of such numerical evidences. The traditional method is to defer to the experts of the field.  

Allah Most High knows best.

Footnotes:

1)     The Caliph Uthman was not the first compiler of the Qur’an. Qur’anic Mushafs existed before his time. I recommend Mustafa A’zami’s work “History of the Qur’anic Text” for more details.

2)     Someone may counter that the order of some other surahs differs in the San’a lower text. However, that is not relevant because the San’a manuscript is not a complete Mushaf and wasn’t intending to follow the final order of the Prophet (ﷺ) but may have arranged it according to other criteria that I mentioned earlier. Thus, this manuscript cannot falsify the Tawqifi view but can only confirm it.

Does science change? Part of the "Scientific miracles in Islam" series

بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

Unfortunately the discourse around “scientific miracles in the Qur’an” lacks intellectual rigour. In sha Allah, I will critically analyse various arguments on the topic in different short articles. During discussions on the topic, one often hears the phrase “science changes”, a phrase betraying a Eurocentric, high-school understanding of science. It is so broad that it is like saying “philosophy or history changes” to discount the use of reason or history in religion. How many philosophical ideas and historical “facts” have changed as a result of new perspectives and new evidences? One only needs to ask a few simple questions and the “science changes” phrase breaks down:

1)     What is science?

2)     Is all science the same?

3)     Does all science change?

Science has many different definitions and they differ according to its history (e.g. pre-modern vs modern), the philosophy adopted (e.g. Popperian vs Kuhnian views), practitioners (e.g. ID theorists vs materialists), location (e.g. Europe vs China), its fields (e.g. physics vs economics), and theory vs practice. Often the practitioners of the “hard sciences” have very mythical definitions of science. A short course in the history and philosophy of science can clarify this matter. The debates over whether certain social sciences are “science” show how there are different definitions of science. Therefore, whose definition is adopted impacts the discussion in terms of “Islam and science” and “scientific miracles”. For example, one definition would include Hadith science within the definition of science but does that mean that Hadiths cannot be used in tafsir because it is science? (1)

Furthermore, science is not a monolithic group but there are many fields within it and not all knowledge is the same within science. There is some scientific knowledge that is epistemically certain, and there are others that have lower epistemic values. Also, scientific knowledge obtained through one type of science can be of a different epistemic value compared to another.

The above implies that there is some scientific knowledge that will not change, thus refuting the myth that “science changes”. For example, the scientific knowledge that the “earth is not flat”, or that “at least some tectonic plates can move”, or that “humans have DNA” will not change and is epistemically certain. In fact, there are many scientific facts that have not changed over the centuries, and will not change. For example, the scientific knowledge that “blood circulates around the body” has not changed for many centuries and will not change. On the other hand, scientific ideas about “multiverse universes” are low in epistemic value, can change, and are arguably unfalsifiable.

The myth of “science changing” may have arisen because its holders have confused the process of science with the results of science. The process of science allows its results to theoretically change, even if it will practically not change. For example, if we get observations about the earth being flat, then our scientific knowledge of that will change. However, we will not actually get any observations that show that the earth is flat because we have epistemic certainty on the matter. The myth is also propagated by those who devalue scientific knowledge in order to advance illogical beliefs.

An additional point of history (which is well known) is that, in tafsir, many Muslim scholars have used reports from the Isra’iliyyat and other nations in order to provide explanations for natural phenomena or historical events in the Qur’an, and often such scholars deemed those to be the true interpretations, not caveating their interpretations with phrases like “this is one possible interpretation”. Many of these reports have turned out to be false but no one argues that the “Qur’an is disproven”. Thus, the use of fields that may change is not unknown in tafsir and Islamic history. Even if scientific knowledge that can change is used in tafsir, it is not something without precedence in scholarship and amongst the Sahaba. In fact, many major tafsirs, such as those of al-Baydawi and al-Razi, have famously used the sciences of their times to explain the Qur’an.

Whilst explaining certain Qur’anic verses through science is not the same as claiming “scientific miracles”, precautions should be taken in tafsir in general because the reader can take any tafsir (such as relating to science or history etc) as the “one true view” and have their faith shaken if that interpretation is refuted by someone else or other knowledge. How many times have tafsirs included weak historical reports (such as gross anthropomorphism) and not distinguished them from the sound, causing people to doubt Islam!

I have seen the myth of “science changing” propagated from normally clever Muslims who have PhDs in order to tirade against the notion of “scientific miracles”. I have not found a single one of such people apply their principles consistently e.g. to criticise the use of history in tafsir. If someone insists on the myth that “science changes” and “something that changes cannot be applied to the Qur’an”, then that person should abandon using science in explaining any natural phenomena mentioned in the Qur’an (even if they are not “scientific miracles”) or using historical reports. I hope that this short article will stop Muslims from repeating the essentialising myth that “science changes”. I may go into more details in the future if there is a need.

Footnotes:

1)     See the series “The Cambridge History of Science” for more about the changing definitions of science.