The issue of “scientific miracles” in the Qur'an is considered one of the contemporary scientific phenomena of this era. This article sheds light on this issue and answers the question of the relationship between the Qur'an and empirical science, while also addressing a number of methodological issues related to the term and its applications.
The questioner asks:
What is your opinion about what is now called the “scientific miracles” of the Qur'an, and does it fall under the sciences of the Qur'an?
Answer by Dr. Musaa’id ibn Sulayman at-Tayyaar:
This issue is one of the scientific matters that has arisen in our time, and it is a matter too vast to be fully addressed in such a brief response. However, I will seek assistance from Allah and share whatever insights He grants me.
1. This topic falls under tafseer on the basis of individual understanding (التفسير بالرأي). If the mufassir is qualified and knowledgeable, then their tafseer is commendable. However, if they are not from the people of knowledge, then their tafseer is blameworthy, even if they may occasionally arrive at some truth.
2. “The scientific miracles” (الإعجاز العلمي) falls under what is called the “unseen miracles” (الإعجاز الغيبي), a branch of it, as it involves informing people of something that was hidden from them for a period of time, and later discovered by contemporaries (e.g., by scientists).
If this is established, then it should be known that this type of miracle is not exclusive to the Qur'an alone; rather, it exists in all of Allah's previous books, because the revelation of universal realities in these books cannot differ in any way.
The absence of what matches the knowledge in the Qur'an in their current scriptures is due to their distortion of those books, so one should be cautious of this.
To clarify this particular issue: it can be said that Allah's previous books agree with the Qur'an in all matters related to the aspects of miracles mentioned, except for what pertains to the challenge, as there is no explicit text indicating that the peoples to whom those books were revealed were challenged, as is the case with the Qur'an.
3. The bottom line in the matter of “scientific miracles” is that the universal reality created by Allah aligns with the Quranic reality Spoken by Allah, and this is the foundation. The speaker of the universal reality being reported is its Creator, so they can never differ in any way.
The matter is simply that this universal reality was unknown in its details to those who came before, but Allah granted those who came after knowledge of these details. They uncovered them and proved the truth of what the Qur’an had stated, revealing the accuracy with which it described these matters, which only became clear in this era—an era in which the field of empirical science flourished, predominantly in the hands of kuffaar. Thus, whenever they discovered something new, those focused on “scientific miracles” would rush to prove its existence in the texts of the Qu’ran.
4. Many of those who have written about “scientific miracles” are not individuals with a background in Shar’i knowledge, let alone in the science of tafseer. One of the dangers of this is that research in empirical sciences has been made a foundation by which the Qur’an is judged, and its Ayat are interpreted to align with these theories and hypotheses.
Anyone who enters into tafseer with a foundational belief will be influenced by that foundation, and this will lead them to distortion, just as distortion occurred among the Mu'tazilah who made abstract reason a principle to which they referred, and as it happened with other deviated sects.
What indicates the deviation in this direction is the excessive insistence on proving the Qur'an's statements about many issues discussed by empirical researchers.
5. The Book of Allah is higher and more honorable than to be subjected to the influence of minds that have not been grounded in the science of tafseer. Where are those who heed the advice of Masrooq, who said: “Beware of tafseer, for it is narrating about Allah.”
6. There is a significant flaw in attributing miraculousness or tafseer to the term "scientific," and it is one of the effects of intellectual Westernization. This designation stems from the division of sciences into literary and scientific, as was the case in secondary schools in the past and continues in universities to this day. In this, the empirical sciences are elevated above other theoretical sciences, which include the sciences of Shari'ah.
If this is called “scientific miracles”, then what do we call “linguistic miracles”? Is it not also “miraculous science”? Is not language a science? The same could be said for other forms of miraculousness that are narrated.
There is no doubt that they are sciences, but they are not the type of science that worldly Westerners, who have influenced people's lives today, want, and whose dominance has prevailed. It is regrettable that some virtuous Muslims follow them in this terminology without being aware of the underlying danger and error.
7. One of the observations about proponents of “scientific miracles” is their disregard for the terminology of the Arabic language and Shari'ah, and their attempt to impose contemporary empirical research findings onto what is mentioned in the Qur'an. For example, the Qur'an mentions the ‘Arsh, the Kursi, the Moon, the Sun, planets, stars, and seven heavens, similar to the Earth... etc. Contemporary empirical science has introduced additional terms and definitions that are not known in the language of the Qur’an or the Arabs. They applied what came in the Qur’an to these concepts, and some of them went astray by interpreting the Qur'anic Ayat in a way that did not align with what contemporary empirical researchers believe.
For instance, some have made the seven heavens refer to the seven wandering planets, the Kursi to be the galaxies beyond our solar system, and the ‘Arsh to represent the entire universe.
Others have taken the stars mentioned in the Qur’an, which Allah swore by and mentioned as objects of worship, and have interpreted them as the positions of stars, ignoring the fact that the stars may have already died long ago.
These are just some of the strange interpretations that sometimes come under the name of “scientific miracles” and other times under the name of “scientific interpretation,” or similar labels.
All this effort is aimed at reconciling what they call “science” with what is stated in the Qur’an.
This issue has precedents, such as the philosophers who lived under the Islamic civilization when they tried to reconcile what was in the Qur’an with what was in philosophy, which they called reality.
8. Some of those who theorized about “scientific miracles” have set a principle, which is that the Qur'an should only be interpreted based on scientific facts that are irrefutable, to avoid any doubt about the Qur'an if a hypothesis used to explain an Ayah is proven false. This restriction is outside the scope of tafseer and does not align with the principles of tafseer. It is a restriction adhered to by its proponents—even though many who have researched this topic have not actually followed it—and it does not bind the mufassir. Tafseer is broader than just the miracles.
Strangely, some of them insist on this principle and place the challenge to the kuffaar in the context of miracles, saying: "... The Qur'an, which was revealed over 1,400 years ago to the illiterate Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in a nation where the vast majority were illiterate, contains realities about this universe that scientists have only been able to comprehend in the last few decades. This precedence requires employing these facts, and theories and hypotheses should not be employed except in one case, which is the issue of creation and annihilation... because these matters cannot be directly perceived by humans. From here, empirical science can only theorize, and the Muslim remains illuminated by the Book of his Lord or by the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), helping him elevate one of those theories to the level of reality. In doing so, we have upheld science through al-Qur'an al-Kareem or the noble prophetic hadith, not the other way around." Thus ends his statement.
You may notice how this speaker contradicts his own principle within the same statement, as someone else could use this criterion, which he himself violated when discussing creation and annihilation, just as he did. Therefore, there is no specific rule for “scientific miracles” in this manner. Many hypotheses from empirical science may not be subject to human perception, and then we could validate them by finding evidence for them in the Qur'an, through ijtihaad to assert that this Ayah supports that theory.
Here, there is an important issue: who determines that a theory has become a fact rather than just a hypothesis?
In other words, who is the authority on this? Is it enough for a specialist to speak about it? Is a research study sufficient? Does it require consensus among specialists?
This issue is one of the foremost matters that should concern those who wish to interpret the Qur'an based on the realities established by contemporary empirical research.
In my view, this is the first thing researchers must establish and verify through empirical research. Once this is confirmed, those wishing to speak about the so-called "scientific miracles" should move to the second phase, which is learning the tafseer and its principles, so that they do not deviate in their interpretations or distort the meanings of texts to fit their desires.
9. As for the mufassir, he cannot deny what is established as facts by empirical science, because he does not possess the tools by which he can confirm or deny them. These tools are fully integrated among empirical researchers, and if he uses them, it is only by trusting in them, nothing more.
The task of the mufassir here is to assess the validity of applying that issue to what is mentioned in the Qur'an from the perspective of language, context, and other factors. In other words, his work is purely interpretative, and he possesses the necessary tools, unlike many of those who write about the so-called “scientific miracles,” who do not have those tools and end up making random assumptions. Just as those who support the so-called “scientific miracles” are dissatisfied with the mufassireen’s tafseer of every phenomenon of the universe that contemporary empirical research has proven to be incorrect, the mufassireen are also not satisfied with any empirical researchers attempting to reconcile empirical research with what is stated in the Qur'an. However, I believe that the mufassir is more capable of making this connection than the empirical researcher.
10. The connection between what is discovered in contemporary empirical research and what appears in the Qur'an should be made by the mufassir, whoever they may be. Their task in this regard is to explain the meanings of the Qur'an. If the mufassir’s task is to explain the meanings, they may use a range of information, some of which might be weak, such as certain weak narrations. For example, if a mufassir were to rely on a theory that was later proven false, this would mean that the tafseer is weak and incorrect. However, this does not mean that the error lies in the Qur'an itself; the mistake is in the tafseer, not the Qur'an.
This is similar to interpreting an Ayah with an obscure or rare meaning: would this mean the error is in the Qur'an? Of course not. However, the situation is different with those who speak about what is termed "scientific miracles," as they want to impose what they have concluded as indisputable scientific fact onto the Qur'an, arguing that the Qur'an is true because it pre-empted these discoveries long before people knew the details. They have made the Qur'an a "test" for contemporary research, which has led them into difficult and problematic positions. As a result, they insist on interpreting the Qur'an in light of scientific "facts" even when such interpretations are speculative.
11. The topic of the so-called “scientific tafseer” is very lengthy, and I am not one to reject it entirely, but I call for correcting its course and placing it in its proper context without exaggeration or inflation, as is happening today. Some even consider it the only way to do da’wah to the kuffaar, but how can that be so?
Many have embraced Islam in this era—not because of any scientific fact they found in the Qur'an that matched empirical research—but because they found the teachings of Islam align with their fitrah (natural disposition).
Yes, it has had an impact on the conversion of some kuffaar, but they are far fewer than those who accept Islam based on its inherent truth and harmony with the fitrah of mankind. This issue is one that belongs to specialists in the field of da’wah and deserves their full attention.
12. Any interpretation that comes after the interpretation of the Salaf is only accepted under specific conditions. These conditions are as follows:
First: It must not contradict (i.e., invalidate) what was stated by the Salaf (meaning the Sahaabah, the Taabi‘een, and the Taabi‘ at-Taabi‘een).
Note: To the proponents of “scientific miracles,” the term “Salaf” refers to all previous mufassiroon, not just the three aforementioned generations.
This is because the understanding of the Salaf is a decisive authority that must be respected, and it cannot be contradicted at all. Therefore, any tafseer that comes after them, whether derived from language or scientific research, is not accepted if it contradicts their statements.
If you say: There are differences in the tafseer of the Ayah among the Salaf, what should be done?
The answer: The differences reported from them are mostly differences of variety, and there is hardly any contradiction between them except in a few cases.
The rule regarding differences of variety:
1. To accept the statements reported from them as variety, as long as accepting them all does not prevent it.
2. To prefer one of their statements as the first and most plausible, without completely rejecting or abandoning the others, because it might still be useful in another context.
The principle regarding contradictory differences among them is that one should be preferred specifically, not as variety, because it is impossible to accept both at the same time. Therefore, preference is required, which here means affirming one statement and discarding the other.
To completely disregard what has been reported from them in these two types of differences means to contradict their statements and disregard them. This is a common occurrence among many who have engaged in tafseer and made contemporary empirical research their source. Second: The interpreted meaning must be correct.
This correctness has two aspects:
1. The meaning must be from the perspective of language. This must be established in the language. Any interpretation that introduces a meaning not established in the language is rejected, such as interpreting the word (ذرة) in the Qur'an as the modern concept of the "physical atom," which is a newly coined term that is not supported by the language.
2. The meaning may be general, not linguistic. This applies to interpretations that assign a new meaning to something that was never intended by the original text, such as interpreting the creation of "phases" (الأطوار) as referring to Darwinian stages of evolution.
This interpretation contradicts what the Shari'ah teaches and is incorrect in itself. Therefore, it is not valid to interpret the Ayah based on such reasoning, nor should interpretations following this approach be accepted.
Third: It must be consistent with the context of the Ayah and be supported by the Ayah.
This is an important condition, and there is room for difference of opinion, but one should not force others to adhere to it. Many interpretations based on what empirical research has reached fall within this criterion, as the meaning may not contradict what the Salaf have said, and it is a valid meaning. However, the reason for rejecting it may be that the Ayah does not accommodate it. The judgment of whether the Ayah can accommodate it or not is a matter of ijtihaad. If the ijtihaad regarding its possibility or impossibility is based on knowledge, then there is no blame on either party; there is flexibility in this matter, just as there is in the ijtihaad practiced by the scholars of the Ummah of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
I will give an example to clarify this matter, drawn from the tafseer of the Ayah:
فَمَنْ يُرِدِ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَهْدِيَهُ يَشْرَحْ صَدْرَهُ لِلْإِسْلامِ وَمَنْ يُرِدْ أَنْ يُضِلَّهُ يَجْعَلْ صَدْرَهُ ضَيِّقاً حَرَجاً كَأَنَّمَا يَصَّعَّدُ فِي السَّمَاءِ كَذَلِكَ يَجْعَلُ اللَّهُ الرِّجْسَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ
Reflect on the context in which this Ayah was revealed, and kindly look at what comes before it. Allah says:
أَوَمَنْ كَانَ مَيْتًا فَأَحْيَيْنَاهُ وَجَعَلْنَا لَهُ نُورًا يَمْشِي بِهِ فِي النَّاسِ كَمَنْ مَثَلُهُ فِي الظُّلُمَاتِ لَيْسَ بِخَارِجٍ مِنْهَا كَذَلِكَ زُيِّنَ لِلْكَافِرِينَ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ * وَكَذَلِكَ جَعَلْنَا فِي كُلِّ قَرْيَةٍ أَكَابِرَ مُجْرِمِيهَا لِيَمْكُرُوا فِيهَا وَمَا يَمْكُرُونَ إِلَّا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ * وَإِذَا جَاءَتْهُمْ آيَةٌ قَالُوا لَنْ نُؤْمِنَ حَتَّى نُؤْتَى مِثْلَ مَا أُوتِيَ رُسُلُ اللَّهِ اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ حَيْثُ يَجْعَلُ رِسَالَتَهُ سَيُصِيبُ الَّذِينَ أَجْرَمُوا صَغَارٌ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَعَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌ بِمَا كَانُوا يَمْكُرُونَ *فَمَنْ يُرِدِ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَهْدِيَهُ يَشْرَحْ صَدْرَهُ لِلْإِسْلَامِ وَمَنْ يُرِدْ أَنْ يُضِلَّهُ يَجْعَلْ صَدْرَهُ ضَيِّقًا حَرَجًا كَأَنَّمَا يَصَّعَّدُ فِي السَّمَاءِ كَذَلِكَ يَجْعَلُ اللَّهُ الرِّجْسَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ * وَهَذَا صِرَاطُ رَبِّكَ مُسْتَقِيمًا قَدْ فَصَّلْنَا الْآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَذَّكَّرُونَ
"Is one who was dead, and We gave him life, and made for him a light by which he walks among the people, like one who is in darkness from which he can never emerge? Thus it is made pleasing to the disbelievers what they were doing. And thus We have made in every town its most prominent criminals to conspire therein, but they conspire not except against themselves, but they perceive it not. And when a sign comes to them, they say, 'We will never believe until we are given the like of that which was given to the messengers of Allah.' Allah is most knowing of where He places His message. He will afflict those who commit crimes with humiliation before Him and a severe punishment because of what they used to conspire.'" (Al-An'aam, 6:122–124)
After this, Allah says:
فَمَنْ يُرِدِ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَهْدِيَهُ يَشْرَحْ صَدْرَهُ لِلْإِسْلامِ وَمَنْ يُرِدْ أَنْ يُضِلَّهُ يَجْعَلْ صَدْرَهُ ضَيِّقاً حَرَجاً كَأَنَّمَا يَصَّعَّدُ فِي السَّمَاءِ كَذَلِكَ يَجْعَلُ اللَّهُ الرِّجْسَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ
"So whoever Allah wants to guide—He opens his chest to Islam; and whoever He wants to mislead—He makes his chest tight and constricted as though he were climbing toward the sky. Thus Allah places impurity upon those who do not believe." (Al-An'aam, 6:125)
Here, Allah speaks about the condition of the kaafir and the mu’min, then gives an example of the prominent criminals in the towns who cannot accept faith due to their extreme disbelief and crime. Then, Allah explains His will regarding guidance and misguidance, stating that He opens the heart of the one He wills to guide to faith, and He makes the heart of the one He wills to mislead tight and constricted. Even if they wanted to believe, they could not, just as a person cannot ascend into the sky.
Ibn Jareer at-Tabari said: "The explanation of the Ayah 'As though he were climbing toward the sky' this is an example that Allah – Exalted be His Mention – has given for the heart of this kaafir, illustrating the extreme difficulty and constriction in reaching the truth, similar to his inability to ascend to the sky, as it is beyond his capability. Ahlut-Ta'weel (i.e., scholars of tafseer) have said something similar to what we have mentioned regarding this..."
Then, he mentioned the narration from 'Ataa' al-Khurasaani, who said: "It is like someone who cannot ascend into the sky." And from ibn Jurayj: "He makes his heart tight and constrained, such that no belief can enter it, just as one cannot ascend to the sky due to the intensity of the difficulty."
And from as-Suddi: "It is as though he were trying to ascend into the sky because of the tightness of his chest."
The meaning, according to them, is that the kaafir's inability to believe is like his inability to ascend to the sky. The tightness and constriction of his heart are due to his inability to believe, not due to the physical ascent into the sky.
Their tafseer does not return the analogy to constriction and difficulty, but rather to the refusal to believe and the inability to do so. The opening of the heart to faith precedes it. For whomsoever Allah wills guidance, He opens their heart to it, and for whomsoever Allah wills disbelief, He makes their chest tight and constricted, such that they cannot believe in Allah. Their ability to believe is as impossible as a person being unable to ascend to the sky.
This tafseer is a subtle understanding of the Salaf, and their tafseer stems from the necessary meaning of the second phrase: making the chest of the kaafir tight and constrained. The implication of this is that if the kaafir wanted to believe, they could not, just as a person cannot ascend to the sky. They drew attention to this implication, which may be missed by many who read the Ayah.
In their tafseer, they affirm the concept of Qadar, and that Allah does as He wills. Whoever Allah wants to guide, He opens their heart to faith, and whoever He wants to mislead, He constricts their heart, making it so that no good can enter. This is a refutation of the Qadariyyah, who claim that humans create their own actions.
As for contemporary empirical research, it has revealed an issue related to ascending to higher altitudes. It was found that a person’s ability to breathe naturally decreases gradually as they ascend into the sky, due to the lower partial pressure of oxygen in the upper atmospheric layers. The proponents of “scientific miracles” have taken this universal phenomenon as an interpretation of the difficulty faced by the kaafir due to their inability to believe.
They have made the comparison return to constriction and distress, and their meaning is: the condition of the kaafir’s chest being tight and rejecting the truth and belief is like that of someone ascending into the sky.
They made the point of similarity, which is the shared characteristic between them: constriction and distress, and used the simile tool "as if" so that the comparison would take a clear, tangible form.
When you reflect on these two interpretations and compare them to the context and objectives of the Qur’an, which of the two is more appropriate and stronger? There is no doubt that what was mentioned by the Salaf is more appropriate and stronger. The second interpretation, although it may be possible, does not reach the same level of strength. Even if this contemporary interpretation is accepted as one of variety, the first one is unquestionably preferred.
The strength of it lies in several matters:
The first: What the Salaf said is understood at all times, from the moment the revelation was sent down until today, whereas what the contemporaries mentioned was hidden from people until the matter of this meaning became apparent to them today.
The second: The indication of the impossibility of belief for them, by way of the impossibility of a person ascending to the sky, is stronger and more appropriate than the indication of comparing the hardship and difficulty that the kaafir feels within himself to what one experiences when ascending the layers of the sky.
The third: For the hardship and difficulty are something he perceives, whereas the impossibility of belief is hidden from him, and this is the point of the indication in the Ayah. This is a subtle aspect of the way Allah’s Qadar unfolds.
The fourth: That the meaning of the Ayah should not be limited to this tafseer derived from empirical research. This principle is often violated by proponents of “scientific miracles,” and I have found that some of them approach the tafseer of the Salaf in varying degrees:
- Some are completely unaware of the tafseer of the Salaf (the Sahaabah, the Taabi’een, and their followers) and never refer to it, as if it is insignificant or not worth considering. These individuals often stray from the correct path, and the majority of those involved in “scientific miracles” do not accept them.
- Some read the tafseer of the Salaf, but they do not understand it. When they present it, they do so in a vague manner that does not reflect their intended meaning, nor does it convey the depth of their knowledge and their profound understanding.
- And there are some who misunderstand the words of the Salaf, misinterpret their statements, and may even object or criticize them. In reality, they are criticizing what they have misunderstood, not the actual tafseer itself, as they have failed to comprehend it properly. What appears from the way those who advocate this approach present the new meanings they have arrived at is that they limit the meaning of the Ayah to what they have understood, without explicitly stating this. This is a dangerous pitfall that many well-meaning individuals who have entered this field fail to notice.
In fact, they even utter words that imply belittling the Sahaabah and undermining their intellects. I am certain that if these well-meaning individuals were to become aware of this implication, they would revise their statements. However, the research method they have adopted has led them to overlook this dangerous pitfall.
For example, some say: “... There are Ayat and words in the Qur'an whose true meaning could not have been understood until scientific progress revealed the precision of those meanings and terms. This suggests to any rational person that the words of the Glorious Book are the words of Allah, who is all-encompassing in knowledge of everything. Even though there may have been ignorance in understanding some of its words and meanings, the increase in human knowledge has come to inform humanity of what they were previously unaware of in the words of their Lord.”
Doesn’t this statement imply that something of its meanings was hidden from the Sahaabah, and similarly from the Taabi'een and their followers, and that some of the Qur'an remained ambiguous and unknown until (scientific progress!) came and revealed these meanings? If one were to believe this implication, it would be extremely dangerous. But I have no doubt—while thinking well of the speaker—that they did not notice this serious implication, and I believe that if they had, they would have modified their statement.
As a result of this principle, the sayings of the Salaf are not mentioned; instead, what has been reached by contemporary empirical research is presented and interpreted as the meaning of the Ayah. This limits the meaning of the Ayah to that newly discovered interpretation, which is a complete error.
Another was asked: “Why didn’t the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) explain these aspects to the Sahaabah?”
His answer was that if the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had informed them of these “scientific realities,” they would not have understood them, and there might have been doubt or disbelief on their part.
This answer is one of the most astonishing of all. How could this be said about a people who believed in matters far greater than these universal realities? I believe the error in this is too clear to require further explanation, and I fear that these individuals might be among those who take pride in the knowledge they have acquired, attributing ignorance to the Sahaabah who believed in far greater matters than these.
Did they not believe that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was taken on the night journey (Israa’) and then ascended (Mi’raaj) during a part of the night, and saw what he saw of his Lord’s great signs? Is this not more miraculous than what empirical researchers mention?
And you could say the same about other matters that they believed in and affirmed without objection.
And speaking of such matters, I have seen a book by one of the esteemed individuals on the methodologies of the mufassireen, where he responded to the question of why the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not explain the entire Qur’an. One of his answers was “Because of the limited intellectual capacity of the Sahaabah. If the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had explained to them all the knowledge and sciences contained in the Ayat, they might not have been able to grasp it, and it might have been a cause of wonder for some of them. The scholars who came after the Sahaabah introduced some of the scientific content of the Ayat. That is why it is said: ‘The best mufassir of the Qur’an is the era (of the person).’”
This statement from that esteemed individual is truly astonishing. How could Allah's best selection for His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) be those with a weak level of knowledge? And what is meant by the knowledge in which they were weak? Aren't they the most knowledgeable of the Ummah, and isn't the Ummah dependent on them in this matter?
Did not the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) inform them of what would happen until the Day of Judgment? Those who remembered it retained it, and those who forgot it, forgot it.
Such a statement is dangerous, and I think well of the one who said it did not realize the error it contains. The matter certainly requires a revision of style and expressions. And Allah is the One sought for help.
Afterward, these two quotes I shared regarding “scientific miracles” are from esteemed individuals who spoke on the subject of “scientific miracles,” not from others who have faltered in this field.
Here, it is necessary to differentiate between their virtue, their longstanding efforts in calling [others] to Allah, and their sincere concern for guiding people, and the mistakes they have made. The first is something to be appreciated, acknowledged, and not denied. However, this virtue does not serve as a shield against pointing out the errors they have made.
Similarly, pointing out their mistakes does not mean rejecting them or disregarding their contributions. The intention here is to correct the course on this issue, which has been tied to the Book of Allah, and has been made one of the most important achievements of contemporaries. In fact, some have even made it the primary way of calling kuffaar to Islam.
I will conclude this research with some scattered issues on this topic, as follows:
Firstly: The issues of empirical science between the Qur'an and modern science:
- Knowledge of natural laws is not tied to belief or ideas because it results from research and contemplation. It is part of the sciences that Allah has entrusted to His slaves. As much effort as is put into research, people, by Allah’s permission, will reach the desired outcomes. Since the pursuit of these empirical sciences is linked to the ability to conduct research and the existence of an appropriate environment for it, and since the kaafir West has been keen on this, they have advanced ahead of the Muslims in this.
- The reference to some of these matters related to empirical sciences in the Qur'an was not its primary aim, nor was the Qur'an revealed for the purpose of addressing them. When you compare these with doctrinal and legal knowledge, you will find that the creedal and Shar’i information — that is, how they come to know their Lord and how they worship Him — is the primary purpose of the Qur'an's revelation. It is what Allah has taken upon Himself to clarify for the people. As for worldly knowledge, including empirical sciences, it is entrusted to people, as has been mentioned. When it does appear in the Qur'an, it is usually tied to a creedal or Shar’i point, coming as a secondary matter, not as the main focus. That is, the Qur'an does not intend to present them as abstract scientific realities, but rather to use them as signs to prove, for example, the Oneness of Allah and His right to worship, or to establish a Shar’i ruling, or to affirm the Day of Judgment.
- The scientific issues that are interpreted by those who research "scientific miracles" or “scientific tafseer” are understood only by the elite among people, and they can only be reached through experience.
- The difference between the Qur'an and empirical science in the affirmation of the scientific phenomenon:
1. The Qur'an presents a reality as it is, once and for all, while experimental science begins its search from scratch, gradually reaching scientific reality.
2. The Qur'an mentions the scientific phenomenon in a general way, without going into detail, while empirical science tends to elaborate on the scientific subject.
- Human knowledge is limited and non-comprehensive, and it is viewed from a particular perspective. Therefore, it may overlook certain aspects of an issue, leading to a distorted judgment and research results. Sometimes, discoveries are made by chance rather than through practical experience.
- The Qur'an presents scientific phenomena far from the imaginations that existed at the time of its revelation, whether these sciences were known to the Arabs or to others. These imaginations were proven incorrect in later centuries, and there are still others that will be revealed by empirical science. All of this cannot contradict the realities of the Qur'an, provided those sciences are valid.
- Some scientific issues may be true in themselves, but the mistake occurs when an Ayah is interpreted to support them, or when it is falsely assumed that the Ayah refers to them.
Secondly: The Muslim's stance on “the phenomena of empirical science” mentioned in the Qur'an:
- Belief in a universal phenomenon mentioned in the Qur'an does not require sensory perception; it is enough that it is mentioned in the Qur'an. This is different from scientific phenomena, which require belief based on sensory perception, whether or not they are mentioned in the Qur'an.
- The Muslim is required to adhere to the apparent meanings of the Qur'an, and by doing so, they are safeguarded from distortion or denial of its teachings, even if they contradict contemporary empirical science. So, if scientific theories oppose the Qur’an, even if they are called “scientific facts,” it is not obligatory to believe in them. Rather, the Muslim should remain firm in the apparent meanings of the Qur'an, because the believer is required to believe in the texts of the Qur'an alone.
- One must be cautious about applying the terminology of contemporary sciences to the words of the Qur'an and interpreting them in light of it.
- Scientific research resulting from studies does not necessarily guarantee its validity; it varies in terms of credibility. Hence, one study might mention the benefits of something, while another study contradicts those benefits.
Thirdly: Do we need “scientific tafseer,” or “scientific miracles”?
The result of what the researcher in “scientific miracles” concludes is to prove that the reality or cosmic theory or empirical theory has been mentioned in the Qur'an, either explicitly or implicitly. This serves as evidence of the truth of the Qur'an and that it is from Allah. This conclusion can only be reached after abstract research into cosmic realities and empirical materials. There is no doubt that if the researcher is someone who believes in Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), they will not come up with anything that contradicts what is in the Qur'an and Sunnah. However, if the researcher is a kaafir, they may commit errors that contradict the Shari’ah, and this would be evidence of the mistakes in the course of their research. Thus, we have two main points:
First: The need to focus on empirical research and reflection on the universe in order to compete with the enemies of Allah, who have advanced in this field.
Second: The focus on the so-called “scientific miracles” to prove the validity of this religion for those who only believe in material facts, and calling them to Islam. This is because, since this era is the era of revolutionary worldly empirical sciences, providing these interpretations, consistent with what has been proven in these sciences, serves as an invitation to these people to embrace this true religion.
This statement is true, but the issue requires a balance when presenting the extent of calling to the Qur'an with these “scientific interpretations.” Has it proven successful and distinctive?
What is feared is that the call using these interpretations, which align with empirical sciences, may have been given more weight than it deserves. The number of people influenced by them is small and hardly comparable to the number of people impacted by a daa’iyah or Islamic center that clarifies the true religion to the people.
It is well known that the many groups who embraced Islam did so with far simpler reasons than this scientific approach. Most of them accepted Islam because they found it in harmony with their natural disposition, the fitrah with which Allah created them, without needing to reach belief in Allah through knowledge that only a few people can grasp.
Moreover, those researchers in empirical sciences from among the kuffaar who may convert to Islam due to these “scientific miracles” can be observed to have the following characteristics:
- They often have no time to call others to Islam, as their focus is primarily on understanding the new religion they have embraced, due to old age—usually—and being preoccupied with research and experiments, which keeps them distant from truly understanding the nature of this religion.
- Some of those who convert may do so only nominally, without genuinely submitting to Islam.
- The impact of these individuals is almost negligible. In fact, if their conversion were confirmed, they might be opposed, ridiculed, and disrespected in their scientific communities.
Finally, some who submit to the realities mentioned in the Qur'an or the Sunnah may accept them from the perspective of empirical science, without truly understanding the nature of revelation and that this Qur'an is from Allah. Between them and that understanding, there is a hidden veil, and Allah knows best.
Therefore, attention should be focused more on the first matter—empirical research and contemplation of the universe—than on the second matter, the so-called "scientific miracles," for two reasons:
The first reason: It is the only field in which our enemies have surpassed us, and we must compete with them in it, striving to advance ahead of them.
The second reason: When Muslim researchers engage in these studies, we can be certain that they will not reach incorrect conclusions that contradict the Qur'an and Sunnah. Rather, they will reassess some of the findings of Western, kaafir research that contradict the Qur'an and Sunnah.
If our focus remains on caring for the so-called “scientific miracles” to prove the validity of this religion to those who only believe in material facts, we will continue to be dependent on the West, waiting for every new development in science, then searching for what aligns with it in our Shari'ah. It is clear that many of these sciences have come to us in ways that contradict our Shari'ah, and this is because our stance as Muslims is that of a weak student, a passive receiver, feeling that we have nothing to offer.
Scientific research, without the strength to protect it, cannot be effective in reality. Therefore, knowledge must be accompanied by strength within the Ummah to support and preserve it. Otherwise, we will see the phenomenon of scholars migrating from Muslim lands to the kaafir lands of the West.
I ask Allah to grant me and you success in what He loves and is pleased with. I hope He keeps me and you away from extremism and bias in this issue and in others. Indeed, this particular issue is sensitive, and emotions are involved in it. In responding to those who object to it, rhetorical writing comes to the forefront, turning it from a scientific issue that requires clarification and explanation into a matter of defending positions and personalities.
And I say finally: There are many issues in this topic that need clarification and explanation, and if it were not for the constraints of space, I would have pointed them out. I ask Allah to grant me success and assist me in writing about it with a fair and balanced approach, free from extremism.
Dr. Musaa’id at-Tayyaar
Sources:
Shaykh Dr. Musaa’id at-Tayyaar said in his book "مفهوم التفسير والتأويل والاستنباط والتدبر والمفسر" (pp. 7-13, footnote) when discussing the term "scientific miracles":
I have written a thesis on this subject, and I hope that Allah makes it easy. I had previously avoided writing on this topic due to the overwhelming amount of material presented. However, after reading some of the books that discuss “scientific miracles,” it became clear to me that the matter requires clarification. There is a need to regulate the tafseer of the Qur'an in light of these issues that have emerged from contemporary empirical research. I also realized that there is a flaw in naming it as such, and that it could more accurately be described as “evidence for the truth of the Qur'an,” not as a miracle. Moreover, labeling it “scientific” is another flaw, as it implies that other interpretations are not scientific. It should also be noted that this naming carries traces of Westernization, which associates worldly sciences with the label “science,” while other fields such as the literary sciences, social sciences, and especially religious (Shar’i) sciences, are not afforded the same label. The topic is a complex one, but I have mentioned it here to focus on two questions that were raised with me regarding two issues related to what is called “miraculous.”
First Question: Some people have observed a numerical coincidence between the great event by which Allah punished the kuffaar on (September 11, 2001) and an Ayah in Surah at-Tawbah. This reader concluded that the 110th Ayah in Surah at-Tawbah refers to one of the towers, whose floors match this number, and that the Surah’s position in the Qur’an, being the 9th, refers to the Gregorian month, while the part of the Qur’an containing this Ayah, being the 11th, refers to the day on which this event took place. He claimed that this was a miracle of the Qur’an, because—according to him—it pointed to this future event!
I don’t understand why he didn’t consider the lunar calendar for the count, or mention the second tower, which does not match the number he believed in?!
This is undoubtedly a coincidental alignment, and the Ayah was revealed regarding the Masjid ad-Diraar, with no connection between it and what happened, either directly or indirectly. And if someone claims that this tower is part of the buildings of ad-Diraar, then where does the other tower fit into the Ayah? And if these two towers are considered part of the buildings of ad-Diraar, by analogy to the masjid ad-Diraar, then this would include all buildings of harm they use against the world, and specifically against Muslims.
Then, what is the need for this strange and puzzling connection? And who can be certain that this is what Allah intended? This falls into the realm of condemned opinion, for it is speaking about Allah without knowledge. How often does this happen among those who claim “scientific miracles” or “scientific interpretation” of the Qur’an?
And does the person who holds this view believe that this arrangement was divinely inspired, or does he think it is just a coincidence of this arrangement?
If it was coincidental, then how many coincidences could appear to you? You might come across coincidences related to numbers when reading a history book or anything else. Would these coincidences be considered miraculous?!
And if he claims that this is the intended meaning, and that it is not a mere coincidence, his statement is refuted by several points:
First: The arrangement of the ajzaa’ (sections) is the work of later [individuals], and there is no direct instruction from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) regarding it; it is a matter of ijtihaad.
Second: There are two opinions regarding the arrangement of the Surahs: one says it is ijtihaadi, and the other says it is divine and fixed (tawqeefi). Perhaps the one who perceives this amazing alignment is unaware of this, and even if aware, has he thoroughly researched the issue of whether the arrangement of Surahs is tawqeefi or ijtihaadi to justify his conclusion from this coincidence?
Third: Does the one making this claim know about the field of "the science of counting the Ayat"? And does he know that there is a difference of opinion regarding the number of Ayat in a Surah? The majority say it has 130 Ayat, while the Koofi count, which is based on the Mushaf in your hand, counts 129 Ayat. According to the majority, this would invalidate the Ayah count because, according to them, the Ayah number should be 111. Did he know this and thoroughly examine this issue?
And it is as if I can hear you, dear reader, saying: "You have gone on at length about this, even though its falsehood is evident and does not require such elaboration."
So, I say to you, offering my apology: Your era is one in which those who bring forth strange and novel ideas gain prominence, and those who excel in attracting attention with such things stand out. Therefore, I wished to respond to those who approach the Book of Allah in a manner that no rational mind can accept. I also wished to make it known that knowledge has its proper gateway, and whoever seeks it from the wrong entrance will end up with conclusions that reason cannot accept and ideas that only the gullible—though they may be regarded as great in the eyes of people—will fall for.
And I inform you that you do not need to prove the greatness and truth of the Qur'an through this particular approach—so-called "miraculousness"—for it is not the only way to demonstrate the magnificence of this Qur'an. Rather, it is just one of the many paths. Know that knowledge alone may not be sufficient if it is not accompanied by a force that protects it. Indeed, Allah restrains through authority what He does not restrain through the Qur'an. So, understand well what I have said, and Allah is the One who grants success to the straight path.
Second Question: The questioner said: I heard in a tape on “scientific miracles” by Dr. Zaghloul an-Najjaar his discussion regarding the Ayah:
وَأَنْزَلْنَا الْحَدِيدَ فِيهِ بَأْسٌ شَدِيدٌ
"And We sent down iron, wherein is great military might." (Al-Hadeed: 25)
Among what he said was the following:
"I was delivering this lecture at the University of Melbourne in Australia four years ago, and a chemistry professor at the university stood up and said to me: 'Sir, have you ever tried to compare the number of Surah al-Hadeed in the Qur’an with the atomic mass of iron, and the number of the Ayah in the Surah with the atomic number of iron?'"
I said to him: "No, the issue of numbers is extremely sensitive. If a person delves into it without extreme caution, he may end up destroying himself."
He said: "Please, when you return to your country, verify this matter…"
I took the Mushaf, the periodic table of elements, and a book on inorganic chemistry, and I was astonished to find that the number of Surah al-Hadeed (Iron) is 57, and iron has three isotopes (54, 56, 57). The Ayah number in the Surah is 25, while the atomic number of iron is 26. I said: "Such a close correlation must have a meaning." Then my Lord inspired me with a remarkable Qur’anic Ayah in which Allah, the Almighty, addressing the final Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), says:
وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَاكَ سَبْعًا مِنَ الْمَثَانِي وَالْقُرْآنَ الْعَظِيمَ
"And We have certainly given you seven of the oft-repeated verses and the great Qur’an." (Al-Hijr: 87)
The Qur’an itself, by its wording, separates al-Faatihah from the rest of the Qur’an and considers al-Faatihah as an introduction to the Qur’an. So I thought: If we separate al-Faatihah from the rest of the Surahs, the number of Surah al-Hadeed becomes 56 instead of 57, and there exists an iron isotope of 56, which is the most abundant isotope of iron.
The Ayah number is 25, while the atomic number of iron is 26. Then I found that the Qur’an describes al-Faatihah as the "seven oft-repeated Ayat," and its actual Ayat are six. The Basmalah is counted as an Ayah in al-Faatihah and as an Ayah in every Surah that contains it, except Surah at-Tawbah. So if we add the Basmalah at the beginning of Surah al-Hadeed, the Ayah number would become 26.
One cannot help but marvel at this astounding insight! Who taught al-Mustafa (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) this knowledge 1400 years ago? No one at that time knew anything about atomic weights or atomic numbers. But this is the miracle of this final Book, which falsehood cannot approach from before it or behind it. These brilliant Qur’anic insights remain an everlasting testimony to the truth that the Qur’an is the word of Allah and that this final Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was truly connected to divine revelation."
(Excerpt from the lecture "Scientific Miracles in the Noble Qur’an" by Dr. Zaghloul an-Najjaar, available in audio recordings.)
I do not think that even a layperson, let alone a learned individual, would fail to recognize the excessive contrivance undertaken by the esteemed doctor in an attempt to prove a matter that holds no significance in itself—let alone being considered a miracle of the Qur'an. It is also clear to any student of knowledge the issues that arose in his tafseer of the Ayah. I do not know whether the esteemed doctor is aware of the Prophetic tafseer of this Ayah! The narration from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) clearly indicates that As-Sab‘ al-Mathaani (the Seven Oft-Repeated Ayat) and al-Qur’an al-‘Adheem (the Glorious Qur’an) are both descriptions of Surah al-Faatihah, and the conjunction (wa) here serves to join attributes rather than distinct entities. Al-Bukhaari and others have narrated several hadiths conveying this meaning, including:
On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Umm al-Qur’an (al-Faatihah) is the Seven Oft-Repeated Ayat and the Glorious Qur’an."
Al-Bukhaari narrated this hadith under hadith no. 4704.
Ibn Katheer commented on these narrations, saying:
"This is explicit evidence that al-Faatihah is the Seven Oft-Repeated Ayat and the Glorious Qur’an." (Tafseer al-Qur’an al-‘Adheem, by ibn Katheer, ed. Saami as-Salaamah, vol. 1, p. 547)
Since this tafseer has been authentically established from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), any other opinions become invalid, and the tafseer of the Ayah must be what he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) stated.
Furthermore, it is evident that he erred in asserting with certainty that the Basmalah is an Ayah from every Surah, without thoroughly verifying this matter or referring to the scholars whose statements on this issue are well known. Instead, he selectively chose what suited his argument while disregarding what did not align with his position—without a proper academic investigation, unlike his usual approach in empirical sciences. But is such a choice valid without thorough verification?
Moreover, even the science of Ayah enumeration does not support him. According to the Koofi and Basri counting methods, the number of Ayat in the Surah is 29, whereas, according to other scholars, it is 28. Based on this, the Ayah number in question would be 24 instead of 25. And if he were to count the Basmalah as an Ayah according to this view, then the Ayah would become 25, thus invalidating the foundation of his argument.
All this excessive effort to link such issues to the Qur’an stems from those who approach the Qur’an with preconceived conclusions, seeking to mold the Qur’an to fit their predetermined ideas, disregarding anything that contradicts them—even if what contradicts them is true knowledge. This lecture on "scientific miracles" contains other errors as well, but this is not the place to discuss them.
(For reference regarding Ayah enumeration, see: "كتاب البيان في عدّ آي القرآن" by ad-Daani, edited by Dr. Ghaanim Qudoori al-Hamd)
After quoting the words of shaykh Dr. Musaa’id at-Tayyaar (may Allah reward him), I acknowledge that some readers of this article may not be pleased with this response, as their minds have been deeply ingrained with the idea of "scientific and numerical miracles," considering these matters to be as firm as immovable mountains.
However, I say: Let there be some sincerity in seeking the truth, carefully examining the words of the scholars who place the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah before their eyes, rather than simply appealing to emotions.
Source:
Relevant: