Title:
The Qur’an as God’s Book: Understanding the Method of Proof 
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: 10-12 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
Question: The question before us is how we are to
understand the Qur’an as the word of God. If we present this to a modern
individual and say that this is a divine book, how do we explain it to them?
Approach: This is an important question because, although it is a matter of faith, we also desire that what we believe should be understood—so that it becomes knowledge, and from knowledge, certainty.
In response to this, it is
generally observed that two or three kinds of answers are given. One method is
that the claim—that the Qur’an is the word of God—is supported by generating
arguments independently and then attaching them to the Qur’an. The other method
is that the argument provided by the Qur’an itself is presented as it is. It
appears that the second method is more appropriate and more effective.
Explanation: As for the first method, it may be
explained with an example. It is often said that people study science and, on
the basis of their knowledge, arrive at discoveries such as the Big Bang
theory. Then it is claimed that this theory has already been mentioned in the
Qur’an fourteen hundred years ago, and this is taken as evidence that the
Qur’an is divine. This approach is adopted to prove that the Qur’an is a book
from God.
However, it should be noted that
this method is not appropriate.
Those who present such arguments may do so with sincerity and with love for the Qur’an, but the issue is that such a claim should already be established within the Qur’an itself. Any book, including the Qur’an, can be read in two ways. One way is to read it objectively, as it presents itself. The other way is to approach it with preconceived ideas and then begin to interpret it in light of those ideas.
What happens in this case is that
people take scientific discoveries and begin to extract them from the Qur’an.
They then go further and present this as proof of the Qur’an’s divine origin.
This is not a correct method. It is also problematic in another sense: the
primary subject of the Qur’an is overshadowed, and something else is made to
appear as its central message.
To clarify this further, consider
an example from the Qur’an itself. There is a passage in which a general
observation is presented—something accessible to human experience. It is
observed that the sky appears as a continuous expanse, without visible openings,
and the earth likewise appears whole. Yet, at various times, by God’s command,
rain descends as though the sky has opened, and the earth brings forth life as
though it has split open. On the basis of this observation, the Qur’an states
that in the same way, when the next world is established, life will emerge
again.
This is a significant subject. The
example of rain giving life to dead land is used to explain the concept of life
after death. It is important to understand the language used here. The words
employed in the Qur’an, such as ratq and fataq, are often
translated to mean that the heavens and the earth were joined together and then
separated. However, these words do not necessarily convey the meaning of two
things being physically joined and then split apart in the sense of a cosmic
explosion.
In Arabic usage, ratq
can refer to closing or sealing something—like repairing a tear or closing an
opening—while fataq is its opposite, meaning to open or to bring
forth. It does not necessarily imply an explosive separation. When these
meanings are taken into account, it becomes clear that interpreting such verses
as references to the Big Bang, and then using that as proof of the Qur’an’s
divinity, is not a sound line of reasoning.
A similar point can be made
regarding another verse often cited by scholars, in which God is described as
the creator of the heavens and the earth. The term used conveys the sense of
bringing forth or originating, rather than splitting in a physical or explosive
manner. Sometimes, linguistic expressions develop specific connotations, and
this must be taken into account in translation and interpretation.
Analysis of Above Examples: The purpose of these
examples is to clarify a methodological point. One approach to proving the
Qur’an’s divine origin relies on generating arguments externally and then
reading them into the text. Although such arguments may appear convincing, they
are ultimately dependent on prior assumptions. When a person approaches the
Qur’an with a particular body of knowledge—such as a scientific theory—and
reads it through that lens, they begin to perceive similarities. However, those
meanings were not apparent before that external knowledge was introduced.
This approach, in the present age, appeals to many people. It attracts
audiences; people listen, some are impressed, applause follows, and at times
individuals even become emotionally inclined toward Islam through such
presentations. This happens because a kind of effectiveness is visible, people
appreciate it. However, when one considers the matter from an academic
perspective, and observes a sincere student of knowledge, it becomes clear that
this method is not disciplined in its reasoning. It does not represent a purely
intellectual or rational mode of argument.
The Recommended Approach to Study the Qur’an: From this, it follows that for a correct and sound study of the Qur’an, one must adopt a different approach. 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.
This, then, is the appropriate
method for understanding the Qur’an, and for considering the claim that it is
the word of God.
Independent Claims of Proof and Their Limitations: Before even turning directly to the Qur’an’s own examples, one may consider the type of claim that is often presented independently. For instance, it may be said that every book in the world, after some time, begins to show its weaknesses or errors, whereas the Qur’an is a book in which no such issue has arisen for fourteen hundred years. Although this statement may be correct in itself, it is evident that this too is not a proof that originates from the Qur’an.
In the discipline of theology (ilm ul kalam), it is not considered necessary that all arguments must be derived strictly from the Qur’an or from the Sunnah and Hadith. There are also rational arguments, and they may be valid in their own place. This example illustrates that a claim may indeed be supported and even established through such reasoning. Yet, despite this, the question remains: why should such methods be avoided? The answer lies in the fact that they may not be appropriate from a certain methodological standpoint.
This question is not merely modern. It was also raised in the time of the Qur’an itself, and the Qur’an addressed it. When the Qur’an responds to a question that was posed in its own time, its answer becomes clearer. It may also be said that the question can be further expanded: if we adopt the method suggested here, then we must also ask how this question arose in the first place.
The Qur’an did not descend in such a manner that angels appeared openly from the sky and handed over a sacred text directly into people’s possession. Rather, the Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and he recited it to the people. When this is understood, the reason for the objection also becomes clear. The Prophet was presenting the Qur’an to those who denied him, and this gave them the opportunity to say that this was not something given to them directly by God; rather, it was being presented by a human being. From this, different forms of objections emerged.
Forms of Objections: One objection was that the speech being presented by the Prophet was his own, since he was the one conveying it to them. Another objection was that, if it was not his own, then it must be coming from some other source—not from God, but from someone else who had inspired him. These were the types of claims they put forward.
Thus, the matter can be seen in three aspects, and the Qur’an addressed all three. It was claimed that the Qur’an is from God, and in response, it was said that this is a fabrication—that the Prophet is attributing falsehood to God by claiming that this revelation has been sent down to him.
When the Qur’an responds to these aspects, it does so by addressing each one separately and refuting them logically. It appears more appropriate that we proceed along the same line of reasoning that the Qur’an itself has established. In doing so, a particular beauty emerges in the discourse of the Qur’an, and it also becomes clear that what is being presented is not an independent exercise in speculative theology, but an attempt to understand the argument from within the Qur’an itself.
When one examines how the Qur’an answers these objections in their proper context—what exactly was being said, what objections were raised, and how those objections are to be understood today—it becomes evident that many of these issues persist because the responses of the Qur’an have not been adequately conveyed. When they are properly translated and presented, they carry a powerful effect.
Consider the first objection: that the Prophet himself composed the Qur’an and was attributing it falsely to God. The Qur’an responds by directing attention to the Prophet’s own life. It states, in effect, that a long period of his life had passed among them before this claim was made. They had observed him closely. Yet now, after all that time, they were beginning to accuse him of falsehood.
In this way, the Qur’an points out a contradiction within their own position. The very person whom they had always regarded as truthful and trustworthy—someone who had never been associated with lying—is now, at this stage of his life, being accused of fabricating a lie of the greatest magnitude. The Qur’an calls upon them to reflect and to use their reason: how can such a claim be consistent with what they already know?
Another aspect of the objection is whether this might be, God forbid, a personal inclination or interest of the Prophet, whether he had developed a desire for such discourse and was now presenting it. In response, it is again pointed out that his past life was entirely before them. There had been no prior indication of such an inclination. He had not been engaged in such pursuits, nor had he shown any interest in such gatherings, practices, or disciplines.
It is observed that when a person develops an interest or inclination, some signs of it appear over time. A person’s past bears witness to their tendencies. For example, if someone is conducting a religious program, it is not the case that they have suddenly, without any prior background, begun speaking in this manner. Their past reflects some continuity, some indication, some traces that point toward their present activity.
In the same way, the Qur’an directs attention to the Prophet’s life, indicating that no such prior signs existed that would suggest that this was a personal undertaking or a developed interest. His past stood as evidence before them, and from it, no such conclusion could reasonably be drawn.
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: 10-12 minutes)
YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/65RCc3IJDz4?si=6bidmx1S1teTrDr7
Approach: This is an important question because, although it is a matter of faith, we also desire that what we believe should be understood—so that it becomes knowledge, and from knowledge, certainty.
Those who present such arguments may do so with sincerity and with love for the Qur’an, but the issue is that such a claim should already be established within the Qur’an itself. Any book, including the Qur’an, can be read in two ways. One way is to read it objectively, as it presents itself. The other way is to approach it with preconceived ideas and then begin to interpret it in light of those ideas.
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?
The Recommended Approach to Study the Qur’an: From this, it follows that for a correct and sound study of the Qur’an, one must adopt a different approach. 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.
Independent Claims of Proof and Their Limitations: Before even turning directly to the Qur’an’s own examples, one may consider the type of claim that is often presented independently. For instance, it may be said that every book in the world, after some time, begins to show its weaknesses or errors, whereas the Qur’an is a book in which no such issue has arisen for fourteen hundred years. Although this statement may be correct in itself, it is evident that this too is not a proof that originates from the Qur’an.
In the discipline of theology (ilm ul kalam), it is not considered necessary that all arguments must be derived strictly from the Qur’an or from the Sunnah and Hadith. There are also rational arguments, and they may be valid in their own place. This example illustrates that a claim may indeed be supported and even established through such reasoning. Yet, despite this, the question remains: why should such methods be avoided? The answer lies in the fact that they may not be appropriate from a certain methodological standpoint.
This question is not merely modern. It was also raised in the time of the Qur’an itself, and the Qur’an addressed it. When the Qur’an responds to a question that was posed in its own time, its answer becomes clearer. It may also be said that the question can be further expanded: if we adopt the method suggested here, then we must also ask how this question arose in the first place.
The Qur’an did not descend in such a manner that angels appeared openly from the sky and handed over a sacred text directly into people’s possession. Rather, the Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and he recited it to the people. When this is understood, the reason for the objection also becomes clear. The Prophet was presenting the Qur’an to those who denied him, and this gave them the opportunity to say that this was not something given to them directly by God; rather, it was being presented by a human being. From this, different forms of objections emerged.
Forms of Objections: One objection was that the speech being presented by the Prophet was his own, since he was the one conveying it to them. Another objection was that, if it was not his own, then it must be coming from some other source—not from God, but from someone else who had inspired him. These were the types of claims they put forward.
Thus, the matter can be seen in three aspects, and the Qur’an addressed all three. It was claimed that the Qur’an is from God, and in response, it was said that this is a fabrication—that the Prophet is attributing falsehood to God by claiming that this revelation has been sent down to him.
When the Qur’an responds to these aspects, it does so by addressing each one separately and refuting them logically. It appears more appropriate that we proceed along the same line of reasoning that the Qur’an itself has established. In doing so, a particular beauty emerges in the discourse of the Qur’an, and it also becomes clear that what is being presented is not an independent exercise in speculative theology, but an attempt to understand the argument from within the Qur’an itself.
When one examines how the Qur’an answers these objections in their proper context—what exactly was being said, what objections were raised, and how those objections are to be understood today—it becomes evident that many of these issues persist because the responses of the Qur’an have not been adequately conveyed. When they are properly translated and presented, they carry a powerful effect.
Consider the first objection: that the Prophet himself composed the Qur’an and was attributing it falsely to God. The Qur’an responds by directing attention to the Prophet’s own life. It states, in effect, that a long period of his life had passed among them before this claim was made. They had observed him closely. Yet now, after all that time, they were beginning to accuse him of falsehood.
In this way, the Qur’an points out a contradiction within their own position. The very person whom they had always regarded as truthful and trustworthy—someone who had never been associated with lying—is now, at this stage of his life, being accused of fabricating a lie of the greatest magnitude. The Qur’an calls upon them to reflect and to use their reason: how can such a claim be consistent with what they already know?
Another aspect of the objection is whether this might be, God forbid, a personal inclination or interest of the Prophet, whether he had developed a desire for such discourse and was now presenting it. In response, it is again pointed out that his past life was entirely before them. There had been no prior indication of such an inclination. He had not been engaged in such pursuits, nor had he shown any interest in such gatherings, practices, or disciplines.
It is observed that when a person develops an interest or inclination, some signs of it appear over time. A person’s past bears witness to their tendencies. For example, if someone is conducting a religious program, it is not the case that they have suddenly, without any prior background, begun speaking in this manner. Their past reflects some continuity, some indication, some traces that point toward their present activity.
In the same way, the Qur’an directs attention to the Prophet’s life, indicating that no such prior signs existed that would suggest that this was a personal undertaking or a developed interest. His past stood as evidence before them, and from it, no such conclusion could reasonably be drawn.
___________________________________________________________________________________
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)
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)
No comments:
Post a Comment