Title: The
Qur’an as Divine Revelation: Understanding Its Method of Proof (Unabridged Version)
Epigraph: It is
necessary to come to the Qur’an with a clear and unburdened mind—a kind of
clean slate—setting aside prior assumptions and allowing the text itself to
convey its meaning.
(Reading Time: 13
minutes)
Source Note: This is a direct English rendering of a
recorded discussion between Mr. Rizwanullah (Scholar, Al Mawrid, Lahore) and
Dr. Munir Ahmed, from the Lariab Series on YouTube. The content has been
translated faithfully into English with grammatical refinement, without
interpretive additions.
YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/65RCc3IJDz4?si=6bidmx1S1teTrDr7
Dr. Munir: In the
name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Peace be upon you, Mr.
Rizwanullah. I am very grateful that you have come to Faisalabad.
From today, we are beginning a
series in which we will discuss some important topics related to the
Qur’an—topics about which we feel our understanding should be improved and
refined.
The first question that came to my
mind, which I would like to present to you, is this: we believe that the Qur’an
is the Book of Allah, revealed to Muhammad ﷺ,
and that it was revealed gradually over a period of twenty-three years.
Now, if we say to a person today
that this is the Book of God, how do we explain that to them? Of course, it is
a matter of faith—but we want that what we believe in should also be
understood; it should become knowledge and certainty for us.
So, from this perspective, what
does the Qur’an itself say? And are there any other arguments as well? I would
like you to guide us on this matter.
Rizwanullah: Look, Doctor Sahib, this question is generally
answered in two ways. One way is that the claim—that this is the Book of God—is
supported by constructing a proof on our own. If I use the correct expression,
the proof is generated from us. The second way is that the argument which the
Qur’an itself presents is simply conveyed.
And in my opinion, the second way is more appropriate and also more
reliable. The first way, for example, is that from a rational standpoint we
present arguments, let me give you an example. There is a verse in Surah
Al-Anbiya (21:30) in which the Qur’an says that the heavens and the
earth were once joined together and then We split them apart.
أَوَلَمْ يَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوٓا۟ أَنَّ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ
وَٱلْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًۭا فَفَتَقْنَـٰهُمَا ۖ وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ ٱلْمَآءِ كُلَّ
شَىْءٍ حَىٍّ ۖ أَفَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ ٣٠
[They
ask for signs.] Have these disbelievers not many a time seen that the
heavens and the earth both are closed. Then We opened them and
We have created every living being with water of the heavens only. Will even
then they shall not accept faith?
Now someone reads this and says: look, human beings, based on their
knowledge, discovered something which is explained in the form of the Big Bang
theory. People have understood or discovered this theory today, whereas the
Qur’an mentioned it fourteen hundred years ago. Therefore, this becomes proof
that this is the word of God.
So this is one method of trying to prove that it is a divine book. What
I want to submit about this is that this method is not appropriate. One reason
is that the person presenting it does love the Qur’an and is saying this with
sincerity, but this point should first be established from within the Qur’an
itself. Whether it is the Qur’an or any book, there can be two ways of reading
it. One way is that you read it in an objective manner—meaning you see the
Qur’an as it is. The second way is that you take your own preconceived ideas
and start reading the Qur’an through that lens.
What happens in this second approach is that people begin extracting
scientific discoveries from the Qur’an, and then they go so far as to claim
that this is the proof that it is from Allah. So what I am trying to say is
that this method is not correct—first, because it is not a scholarly method;
and second, because it distorts the actual intent and meaning of the Qur’an.
That is, the original meaning is lost.
Dr. Munir: That is, the original meaning gets lost, and
something else begins to be derived from it. Also, if you could kindly give one
more clarification—it would be appreciated—that the first point you mentioned,
about establishing a claim and then proving it: in that, the example you gave
was from a usage of the Qur’an itself, but sometimes it also happens, right,
that someone does not do this through the Qur’an, but instead constructs a
purely rational argument or premise and tries to prove it?
Rizwanullah: Yes, I will present that as well. In my view,
if we first look at this and take it to its conclusion, then the point is this:
the verse from the Qur’an that I just recited before you—what context did it
come in within the Qur’an?
It refers to a very common observation, a human observation. That is,
you see every day that the earth and the sky—meaning, the sky appears smooth,
and you do not see any holes in it. The same is the case with the earth. But
then, by the command of God, when the matter of rain occurs, it seems as if the
sky has split open, and as a result, the earth too opens up its womb.
So this is something you observe every day—the coming into existence of
life. Therefore, Allah, after presenting this very natural, observational,
experiential argument, says that in exactly the same way, tomorrow, when the
next world—the Day of Judgment—will be established, our life will be brought
forth in the same manner.
Dr. Munir: This is a very common theme of the Qur’an:
this example of rain, of life, of life emerging from death—it is a very common
example.
Rizwanullah: Now, since the discussion has come up, let me
also submit this: the words used here—ratq and fataq—their
translation is usually done like this: that the earth and the sky were joined
together, and then We split them apart. But this “joining” (ratq)
used here is not the kind of joining where two separate things are physically
attached together. That is not how this word is used in the Arabic language.
In Arabic, for example, if you patch something—if you close a hole, you
repair it—when there is a crack, a tear, a rupture, and you mend it—that is
actually ratq. It is repair, sealing.
And fataq is exactly the opposite of that. It is opening
up, splitting apart—but not in the sense of what we call a blast or an
explosion. I am referring here to the Big Bang theory. Rather, it is simply
opening up.
So from this perspective, if you look carefully, the very words ratq
and fataq themselves make it clear that those who take
this verse as a basis to reach the Big Bang theory—and then go further and try
to prove from it that the Qur’an is divine—their entire premise is not correct
to begin with.
In this same context, another verse (14:10) also comes to
mind:
رُسُلُهُمْ أَفِى ٱللَّهِ شَكٌّۭ فَاطِرِ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ
وَٱلْأَرْضِ ۖ
“Do
you have doubt about the God Who is the creator of the heavens and the
earth?
This too is cited by many scholars in relation to the Big Bang, because
it contains the word fāṭir.
Interestingly, faṭr also carries a meaning close to fataq.
You can translate it as: “the One who splits open the heavens and the earth.”
But “splitting” here means bringing forth, causing to emerge—manifesting.
So here, “Fāṭir” does not mean “one who splits” in the literal sense. Rather, its
correct meaning in this context is simply “the Creator,” the One who brings
into existence.
Thus, the translation would be:
“Are you in doubt about Allah, the Creator of the heavens and the
earth?”
Now, these two verses establish a foundational basis. What I was trying
to clarify before you is a particular approach:
When people attempt to prove that the Qur’an is a divine book, the
method often adopted is not the one proposed by the Qur’an itself. Instead, the
argument is generated externally, and then an effort is made to derive support
for it from within the Qur’an.
The consequence of this is that a person approaches the Qur’an already
carrying a prior belief—often shaped by science or some intellectual
framework—and then tries to read the Qur’an through that lens.
In doing so, the Qur’an’s own mode of argument is overshadowed. The
proof no longer emerges organically from the Qur’an; rather, it is imposed upon
it from outside.
Dr. Munir: If you approach the Qur’an carrying prior
knowledge or a belief—especially one shaped by a scientific framework—then you
tend to understand the Qur’an in the light of that framework. As a result, it
creates the impression that the Qur’an is saying something similar, or that it
aligns with those ideas.
Rizwanullah: When you look at it this way, it creates an
impression on you that there is a similarity—that the Qur’an is expressing the
same idea.
But one important point must be kept in mind: it is only when you take a
scientific discovery with you into the Qur’an that the verse appears to yield
that particular meaning. Before that, it was not giving you that meaning at
all—it simply was not.
Dr. Munir: So, if we proceed by accepting this point,
then it follows that for a proper and sound intellectual study of the Qur’an,
it is essential that one approaches it with a completely clean slate—with a
tabula rasa. One should come to the Qur’an setting aside all prior knowledge,
placing it to one side, and then allow the Qur’an itself to speak and determine
what it intends to say.
Rizwanullah: This, then, would be the appropriate method for
reading the Qur’an—or, for that matter, any book in the world. What I was
submitting to you is that we should not adopt this particular method to prove
that the Qur’an is a divine book. This approach, no doubt, appeals greatly in
our times; people listen, they feel pleased, they applaud. Some even become
emotional and accept Islam through this method, because it appears to produce
results—people appreciate it for that reason.
However, if you examine it from a truly scholarly perspective, and as a
sincere student of knowledge, you will find that this method is neither correct
nor appropriate. The proper way is that of pure reasoning and sound
argumentation.
Dr. Munir: As for that purely rational, argumentative
method— we have not yet come to the direct study of the Qur’an. As you had suggested
that itself is also a claim.
Rizwanullah: For example, one might say: every book in the
world becomes obsolete over time, or errors begin to appear in it; whereas the
Qur’an is a book in which this has not happened for fourteen hundred years.
Now, this statement may be correct in its own place, but it is also evident
that this is not a proof provided by the Qur’an itself.
You see, in what we call ʿIlm al-Kalām (theology), it is not considered necessary that we bind ourselves to
deriving all arguments strictly from the Qur’an, the Sunnah, or Hadith. There are rational arguments as well, and
they can be valid in their own right. So this is another type of example—one in which the claim may indeed be
established, yet we still choose to avoid it. Why? Because perhaps, from a
certain standpoint, it may not be the most appropriate method.
Now, this question is not something new; it is, in fact, an old
question—one that arose at the very time of the revelation of the Qur’an. And
the Qur’an itself addressed it. So why should we not present the answer that
the Qur’an itself gives? Rather, I would submit that this question can be
opened up even further.
If we adopt the second method that I am proposing, then the question
becomes: how did this issue arise in that original context? For instance, when
the Qur’an was being revealed, it did not descend in such a way that angels
brought down sacred pages and handed them individually to every person. That is
not how the Qur’an came. It was revealed to the Prophet ﷺ, and the Prophet ﷺ
recited it to the people.
Thus, we can understand why the objection arose. Since it was the
Prophet ﷺ who was presenting the Qur’an
before the deniers and disbelievers, they found an opportunity to object. They
could say: ‘God did not give this to us directly; rather, it has come through
this person.’
From here, their objections take shape. The first objection is: the
speech that this man is presenting is actually his own—it is self-composed,
fabricated, or invented, however one wishes to phrase it. Since he is the one
conveying it to us, it must be his own creation.
The second objection would be: if it is not his own, then it must have
come from somewhere else—but not from God. They would
say that someone else has inspired him—this is another possibility, and I will
present examples of it shortly. So, in this regard, the objections can be
divided into two parts. The third, however, is that this is not from God at
all—that is, it is not from Allah. Now the Qur’an addresses all three of these
aspects.
Dr. Munir: The Qur’an mentions that they say: ‘This
Qur’an is claimed to be from God,’ and in response it declares that they are
committing iftirāʾ—that is, they
are accusing (the Prophet) of fabricating a lie against God by claiming that it
has been revealed to him and that it is the word of God.
Rizwanullah: So, approaching the question from these three
aspects: the Qur’an has addressed each of these three aspects separately and
has provided answers to them. In my view, if we proceed according to the same
logical sequence that the Qur’an itself has established, then a particular
beauty will emerge in our discussion as well.
And there is also a blessing in following the Qur’an’s arrangement—that
we are not presenting ilm al-kalam (theological speculation) here; rather, we
are trying to understand it from within the Qur’an itself.
Dr. Munir: When we examine this carefully, we see what
answers the Qur’an itself gives to these questions—within its proper structure,
and in what context it is speaking. We also look at what objections were raised
by earlier people, how valid they remain today, and we come to realize that,
many times, people have paid less attention to the way the Qur’an itself
answers them—even though those answers are highly effective.
Rizwanullah: Now look, the first question—their
objection—that the Prophet (peace be upon him) wrote this himself. So, in other
words, we are being lied to; he himself developed an interest, a desire to
present something, and for the sake of gaining influence over people, he
attributed it to God. This is what they kept saying.
The Qur’an responded to this in the following way: “I have indeed lived
among you for a lifetime before this.” Qur’an (10:16)
فَقَدْ لَبِثْتُ فِيكُمْ عُمُرًۭا مِّن قَبْلِهِۦٓ
ۚ أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ ١٦
I
have spent a whole life among you before this. [When have I uttered such
words?] Then, do you not use your intellect?
In other words, look—I have spent a long period of my life among you. My
childhood was before your eyes, my youth—you witnessed all of it, until I
reached this stage of maturity in life. And now you are saying that I would
lie, invoking the name of God?
So, my life—my past—is a testimony, and you yourselves are witnesses to
it. What did you use to call me until now? You used to call me Ṣādiq
(truthful), you used to call me honest. So what suddenly happened that, when I
recited the Word of God before you, you began to say this about me?
Thus, the Qur’an answered from this angle: look, there is a
contradiction within your own statement. The personality about whom you have
always held, as an established fact, that he is truthful—that you have never
experienced or observed any lie from him—and now, at this stage of his life,
you claim that he has lied?
This is the response: use your intellect, try to understand what is
being said.
Then, secondly, another aspect is presented here. In this, another
aspect is explained: is this, God forbid, a personal inclination of the Prophet
(peace be upon him)? Did he suddenly develop an interest and is now presenting
the Qur’an on that basis?
Here again, the same verse (10:16) is cited—that my past
is before you. Was I ever engaged in such pursuits? Did I ever show an interest
in these kinds of things? Did I attend such gatherings? Did I practice litanies
and devotions, or undergo retreats, or sit in meditation and contemplation?
This never happened.
Because a person’s interests and inclinations do not emerge all of a
sudden. For example, if you are now conducting a religious program with
enthusiasm, it is not the case that this is the very first decision of your
life and suddenly you are sitting here speaking. It doesn’t happen like that.
Your past bears witness—clearly—that there are always some signs, some traces
that become visible.
You are being addressed: has God deprived you of intellect? What are you
even saying?
Dr. Munir: In this regard, God has also pointed to what
is natural. And naturally, all my prior engagements are before you—how I spent
my days and nights. Did I acquire any formal education? Did I sit with any
teacher? Did I engage in discussions of philosophy and thought? And this
discourse about nature that I am now presenting—did I ever speak like this
before the age of forty?
Then there is also my character—both aspects are there.
Rizwanullah: Now, in this the focus should remain on what
this verse is actually saying. This verse is saying that this discourse is not
the Prophet’s (peace be upon him). In other words, the question we had raised
earlier—its first angle, its first aspect—this is its answer: the allegation
you are making, that it is fabricated and self-invented, is not correct.
Now, secondly, they also said something else. They argued: alright, even
if it is his, then how was it composed? The Qur’an has mentioned some of their
objections in detail—that how is this being written? They would say that
different people gather together and assist him, and in this way these things
are written. (25:4):
إِنْ هَـٰذَآ إِلَّآ إِفْكٌ ٱفْتَرَىٰهُ وَأَعَانَهُۥ
عَلَيْهِ قَوْمٌ ءَاخَرُونَ
ۖ
“This Qur’ān is mere
falsehood fabricated by this person and some
other people have helped him in this task.”
Now, there is another subtle point here. This first objection seems to
come from the Arab polytheists, and that makes sense—the nature and tone of an
objection often indicate who the objectors are.
But this second objection is different. The Qur’an is being recited, and
within it are many kinds of knowledge. Among that knowledge is material that is
also found with the People of the Book—there is the Torah, the Gospel, the
Psalms. You see that the Qur’an repeatedly refers to them. In fact, “referring”
is too weak a word—it goes beyond that, affirming those scriptures in a
decisive manner, and at times even critiquing certain things that had become
prevalent among them. It reaches a point where it almost seems as if their
scriptures are being challenged.
So what are the objectors saying here? They are saying: the knowledge
found in these books that appears in the Qur’an—what is its source? Its source,
they claim, is the very People of the Book living in Arabia—there were Jews
present, as you know, and also Christians. They argue that these ideas were
taken from them and then presented in the name of God.
Now, the Qur’an also responds to this. It says: “You did not recite any
book before this, nor did you write it with your own hand…” (29:48):
وَمَا كُنتَ تَتْلُوا۟ مِن قَبْلِهِۦ مِن كِتَـٰبٍۢ
وَلَا تَخُطُّهُۥ بِيَمِينِكَ ۖ إِذًۭا لَّٱرْتَابَ ٱلْمُبْطِلُونَ ٤٨
Before
this, you neither read any book nor wrote it with your hand. Had this been the
case, these rejecters could have however been inflicted with doubt.
I spent 63 years knowing what I could do, but I never acted upon it. Now
I am 73 years old, and I am proud that I have finally…
Have you ever seen that he read any religious book, or that he ever
wrote or dictated something with his own hand, such that it came under people’s
observation? If that had happened—if there had been any prior learning or
collaboration—then it would have given a basis to the one who doubts.
Otherwise, this doubt—doubting about a person who grew up before your eyes and
reached this age—you know that he never sat formally to receive instruction
anywhere, nor did he adopt religious learning from anyone, nor did he engage in
such scholarly circles.
And just as there were prominent scholars among the People of the Book,
it also did not happen that he had meetings with them. Now regarding meetings,
at most you can refer to a narration about Waraqah ibn Nawfal, which is sound
in its chain. In it, only the account of a meeting with Waraqah ibn Nawfal is
mentioned—that such a meeting took place.
But can one acquire such vast knowledge in a brief meeting? Can one
benefit to the extent that later he adopts an independent scholarly position,
carries out such a great task, and even develops the ability to critique?
Meaning, even if that narration is accepted as sound, it would only
establish that a meeting took place with Waraqah ibn Nawfal and that he
exchanged some good words with the Prophet (peace be upon him). On this basis,
to build such a huge claim—that he must have learned from him—is not valid.
Dr. Munir: And on this as well, please express your view:
as it is commonly held that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not know how to read or write—yet you see, among those who
could write and read in Arab society, as was the custom there, he was a person
of extremely great wisdom and of the highest character.
Rizwanullah: Look, I think we cannot state this with such
certainty that whatever we say will necessarily be correct—because the verse I
just recited, that you neither read any book nor wrote one, comes in a specific
context.
That is, it does not mean that the Prophet ﷺ never engaged in reading or writing at all; rather, the verse
is saying that he did not read or write religious scriptures. On this basis, we
cannot go further and claim definitively what level of ability the Prophet ﷺ had regarding reading and writing—whether he could read or not,
whether he knew or did not know. There is no conclusive statement we can make
on this matter, not even on the basis of this verse.
And the second word that is commonly used is “ummi.” Even on that basis,
no definite conclusion can be drawn, because we know that the word ummi is used
in the Qur’an in a specific sense—it relates to a people. That is, in contrast
to the People of the Book, the descendants of Ishmael—those who did not have a
revealed book—were called ummi. So ummi essentially refers, in a religious
sense, to people without scripture.
Similarly, when the Prophet ﷺ
is referred to in Surah Al-A‘raf as “al-nabiyy al-ummi,” it is in that same
sense—that he belonged to the ummiyyīn, a community without a prior revealed
book. (7:157)
ٱلنَّبِىَّ ٱلْأُمِّىَّ
“…this unlettered prophet…”
These are the two verses usually presented, (7:158), and in my
view, on this basis, you cannot state in a clear and definitive manner whether
the Messenger of Allah ﷺ knew how to read and write or
not.
Whether the Messenger of Allah ﷺ
knew how to read and write or not—this remains undetermined. But what this
verse is saying, I have already presented before you. The essential point in it
is that he did not read religious texts, nor did he sit with religious
scholars, nor engage in discussions of philosophy and speculative thought.
Dr. Munir: And then, the subjects of the Qur’an—the
themes that are expressed in its verses, the principles that were
conveyed—these did not emerge gradually over a long period of intellectual
development; rather, they appeared all of a sudden, so to speak, not as the
result of a slow progression. This too, in my view, is an important point.
Rizwanullah: Look at it this way, consider this analogy:
suppose a case is being heard in a court, a major trial is underway, and a
person stands up as a lawyer. He begins presenting intricate philosophical
points of law, citing precedents from past cases. The judge is astonished; the
audience is listening intently—and then someone whispers to you that this man
has started this work only today and has never even studied. This would be
unbelievable.
Now consider that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is presenting the Qur’an. The matter goes even further than
this—for example: “Say, bring the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful.”
This is a challenge directed at the scholars of the People of the Book, who are asked to bring the Torah and verify what is being said. (3:93)
قُلْ فَأْتُوا۟ بِٱلتَّوْرَىٰةِ فَٱتْلُوهَآ
إِن كُنتُمْ صَـٰدِقِينَ ٩٣
“Say: If you do not accept,
bring the Torah and read it, if you are truthful.”
A person cannot suddenly reach such a level; this cannot happen all at
once. Therefore, to claim—God forbid—that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ fabricated this himself is, from a purely rational standpoint,
untenable. Notice that this argument itself is not based on a religious proof;
rather, it is based on his life and his past. We are saying: you are
witnesses—such a thing is simply not possible.
So, these two aspects together make it clear: what you are claiming—that
the Prophet ﷺ fabricated this discourse
himself—is not correct.
Dr. Munir: In concluding this discussion of these two
points, if you find it appropriate—this establishes the argument against the
deniers of that time. But does it also serve as evidence for us today, that
when we present this to someone, we can, on the basis of the Messenger’s
conduct, his personality, and the perception people had of him in the public
mind—the impression formed of him, the way people observed him—confidently say
that there were no such causes? That is, there were no prior sources, no
earlier background…
Rizwanullah: Whether it is a person from the past or
someone today, if they raise an objection, they must have some basis. If
someone claims that the Prophet ﷺ
is the author of the Qur’an, they need a logic for that—what will they present?
They will have to go back to that same historical period and try to find some
traces there, on the basis of which they can build their case that the Prophet ﷺ took these ideas from somewhere and, God forbid, attributed
them to God. The answer to this question also lies there.
So, I am saying to you: when those direct contemporaries—who were the
immediate audience—were left without any answer because no such evidence
existed, then where will a modern critic find such material? What people today
try to present—I already mentioned is the incident of Waraqah ibn Nawfal. They
try to turn this small matter into something significant. Even if we assume
that his meeting with Khadija bint Khuwaylid was very long, still it would not
be sufficient.
I did not want to go into detail earlier, but even in that narration you
will find variations in wording. If you read it in Sahih al-Bukhari, it
mentions that Waraqah used to write scriptures—some reports say in Arabic,
others say in Hebrew. Now consider this: in that time, just as religious
authority often becomes monopolized, scholars tend to keep knowledge restricted
from the general public. This was also the case with the People of the Book, as
even the Qur’an mentions. The كبار
scholars of the Torah did not make it easily accessible even to ordinary Jews;
it remained in Hebrew.
So, did the Prophet ﷺ know
Hebrew? Was he formally educated somewhere? There is no evidence, no argument
that can support such a claim. Likewise, even if there were interactions with
Waraqah ibn Nawfal, or with the Jewish tribes around Madinah—such as Banu
Nadir, Banu Qaynuqa, and Banu Qurayza—it was not the case that scriptures were
being translated, published, and made accessible to everyone such that the
Prophet ﷺ could have studied them.
Nothing like this existed.
So, if we conclude the matter at a fundamental level, only one point
emerges: a person who is presenting before you such a profound
discourse—covering faith, ethics, law, and all major aspects of religious
knowledge—about whom there exists no evidence whatsoever that he acquired this
from any source or learned it from anyone, then it is not reasonable to claim
that he authored it himself. He simply could not have produced it on his own.
Dr. Munir: Thank you. Respected sir, absolutely—through
these two verses we have learned a great deal. Our discussion will continue
from this perspective, as we try to understand what the Qur’an itself says
about this matter: that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ
is not the author of the Qur’an, and that its true author is someone else—the
Lord of the universe.
What that is like and how it is, God willing, we will discuss in the
next session.
Thank you very much.
__________________________________________________________________________________
It is necessary to come to the
Qur’an with a clear and unburdened mind—a kind of clean slate—setting aside
prior assumptions and allowing the text itself to convey its meaning.
Source: Mr. Rizwanullah, Scholar Al Mawrid, Lahore
Arranged by:
Aamir I. Yazdani
MPhil Islamic Thought & Civilization (PAKISTAN)
MSc Irrigation Engineering (UK)
