Sapient Thoughts #15: Does the Quran refer to the “Big Bang”? | Mohammed Hijab (2021-02-01) ​

0:00:02 [Music]
0:00:12 and welcome to another episode of
0:00:14 sapient thoughts where we discuss
0:00:15 theo philosophical issues where we
0:00:17 refute those arguments of the detractors
0:00:19 of islam
0:00:20 in addition to making our own arguments
0:00:22 for the veracity of islam
0:00:24 today inshallah we're going to be
0:00:25 talking about the big bang and whether
0:00:27 or not the quran
0:00:28 talks about the big bang or actively
0:00:30 teaches the big bang
0:00:32 and of course this is a ubiquitous kind
0:00:34 of claim that you find
0:00:35 with those who espouse the scientific
0:00:37 miracles narrative
0:00:38 both in the western world in the
0:00:40 english-speaking world and of course the
0:00:42 middle east as well i'm sure in other
0:00:43 parts of the world
0:00:45 that i don't have access to
0:00:46 unfortunately because my language skills
0:00:48 are limited
0:00:49 but let's say let's answer this question
0:00:52 the question of whether the quran or not
0:00:54 actively speaks about the big bang
0:00:56 before we do this though
0:00:57 i think it's very important to note that
0:01:00 here at sapiens institute we think that
0:01:02 the most sophisticated
0:01:04 way of dealing with the quran in in so
0:01:07 much as
0:01:07 it talks about the naturalistic
0:01:09 phenomena of the world
0:01:10 is to apply a multi-layered approach and
0:01:13 this approach really says that the quran
0:01:15 speaks in a simple and concise yet
0:01:17 powerful and rich
0:01:18 way which communicates with different
0:01:21 audiences from
0:01:22 the 7th century all the way through to
0:01:24 the 21st century
0:01:26 and it also says that when we're looking
0:01:28 at verses
0:01:30 when we're looking at verses we need to
0:01:31 allow ambiguities to
0:01:34 to remain as ambiguities in other words
0:01:36 picking one
0:01:38 of many different interpretations and
0:01:39 claiming that this is a scientific
0:01:40 miracle is a limitation
0:01:42 now obviously this method requires or
0:01:44 the multi-layered method requires a
0:01:46 video in its own right it deserves
0:01:48 uh more attention and of course we're
0:01:49 gonna we're gonna do that
0:01:51 but for the purposes of today we're not
0:01:53 going to be
0:01:54 going into much depth uh however there's
0:01:56 one more thing i think
0:01:57 is important to put forward in terms of
0:01:59 conceptual analysis
0:02:01 which is david schatz his conception or
0:02:04 compartmentalization of concordance into
0:02:07 two different types now what is
0:02:08 concordism
0:02:09 concordism loosely defined is uh
0:02:12 the propensity of a scripture whether
0:02:15 it's the bible or the quran or whatever
0:02:17 to be in agreement with science or to
0:02:19 actually actively teach science now
0:02:21 david chats divides it into two
0:02:22 different things
0:02:23 he refers to as bold concordism and
0:02:25 modest concordism
0:02:26 so bold concordism is really the
0:02:29 postulation that the scripture is
0:02:31 actively speaking about said
0:02:33 scientific phenomena and modest
0:02:35 concordism is that the scripture
0:02:36 may not speak about it in such explicit
0:02:39 terms
0:02:39 but indeed uh is not against it in such
0:02:42 explicit terms
0:02:44 whatever said phenomena is i think the
0:02:46 modest concordance position
0:02:48 is much more tenable from a
0:02:50 hermeneutical and executive perspective
0:02:52 now let's move on to this uh this big
0:02:54 bang example and
0:02:56 and look at the verses so obviously this
0:02:58 is chapter number 21 verse number 30
0:03:00 where allah says you know that the unit
0:03:03 the heavens and the earth
0:03:06 they were both one piece so we separated
0:03:08 them this is a loose translation and
0:03:10 it's a very legitimate translation
0:03:12 because if you look at
0:03:13 the exegetes like tabari and even kefir
0:03:15 and
0:03:16 all of these major kind of exegetes of
0:03:18 the past
0:03:19 and obviously also the arabic language
0:03:22 and
0:03:23 literally just means for something to be
0:03:26 together
0:03:27 and for them to be separated however
0:03:30 when you look at what these exegetes say
0:03:31 they do actually
0:03:34 expound on different types of meaning so
0:03:36 for example yes it does say that the
0:03:38 heavens and the earth were together and
0:03:39 then we cleared them asunder or have we
0:03:41 separated them or whatever you want to
0:03:43 translate it but they also say
0:03:46 that this could mean that this is when
0:03:48 the uh
0:03:49 the same or the skies started to rain
0:03:52 and when the
0:03:53 uh grounds started to produce vegetation
0:03:56 this is another exegesis that is
0:03:58 of the same verse and many of the salaf
0:04:00 and many of those medieval commentators
0:04:02 took this as the as the primary meaning
0:04:04 in fact and that is why
0:04:06 uh the next verse talks about we have
0:04:08 made for more to every living thing that
0:04:09 says it makes more sense in that sense
0:04:11 but we will leave both of those
0:04:13 interpretations as valid interpretations
0:04:16 now those interpretations and more have
0:04:19 been said about this verse
0:04:20 so to choose one of them are we
0:04:22 justified in choosing one of them
0:04:24 because the
0:04:24 dominant scientific theory of the day
0:04:28 is espouses or is closer to that one of
0:04:31 them
0:04:32 i think we should be more reserved and
0:04:34 conservative with this because quite
0:04:35 frankly
0:04:36 of all the different kinds of sciences
0:04:38 that are out there you could argue
0:04:39 making
0:04:40 a strong argument that physics and
0:04:42 especially astronomy is the most
0:04:44 volatile in terms of change i mean
0:04:46 paradigm shifts
0:04:47 we know not only the newtonian to
0:04:49 einsteinian shift but all kinds of
0:04:51 theories have been
0:04:52 elaborated upon in the last hundred
0:04:54 years in science and astronomy i mean
0:04:56 string theory oscillating universe
0:04:58 eternal universes i mean you can see
0:05:00 from the from the writings of some of
0:05:02 the
0:05:02 most prominent scientists that we have
0:05:03 like roger penrose for example and in 10
0:05:06 or 20 years he changes his mind on very
0:05:08 foundational issues when it comes to
0:05:09 cosmology
0:05:10 therefore to pin you know a verse in the
0:05:13 quran
0:05:14 on the changing and courageable and
0:05:19 moving if you like scientific discourse
0:05:22 i think is quite dangerous because
0:05:23 what if in 50 years in 70 years or 100
0:05:26 years
0:05:27 the dominant cosmology is different and
0:05:30 that is a
0:05:30 very plausible scientific possibility
0:05:33 it's extremely plausible for the
0:05:35 dominant
0:05:36 cosmology to have shifted and for this
0:05:38 reason this for me defines another
0:05:40 limitation of saying that the quran
0:05:42 talks about the big bang theory
0:05:44 which is that okay if you if you're
0:05:46 saying this today let's see if you
0:05:48 remain consistent
0:05:48 maybe if your grandchildren remain
0:05:50 consistent that have the same
0:05:52 methodology where all of these western
0:05:55 scientists
0:05:56 are now changing their mind and it
0:05:58 becomes an oscillating theory
0:05:59 and then maybe you go to another
0:06:01 interpretation but this movement
0:06:04 of science and also the fact that there
0:06:05 are different interpretations
0:06:08 kind of says to me that we shouldn't be
0:06:10 cherry-picking verses and trying to make
0:06:12 them match
0:06:13 you know the interpretations match with
0:06:14 modern-day scientific phenomena
0:06:16 because if we do that we're actually
0:06:18 outlining a failed
0:06:20 hermeneutic and we are actually
0:06:22 justifying for those
0:06:24 individuals who are attacking islam the
0:06:26 detractors of islam
0:06:27 who use one of many interpretations
0:06:30 which might be unscientific and
0:06:31 legitimate through the language
0:06:33 that this is a legitimate recourse so if
0:06:36 we're saying that we will
0:06:37 we'll take one of many different
0:06:38 interpretations and now we're going to
0:06:39 elaborate upon that
0:06:41 then that what that does is it opens a
0:06:42 can of worms because now
0:06:44 the uh the detractor or anti-muslim
0:06:46 apologist is well
0:06:48 justified in saying that according to
0:06:49 the quran the heaven oh sorry the earth
0:06:52 was created before the heaven for
0:06:53 example
0:06:54 and this is the opinion of this person
0:06:55 and that that person
0:06:57 will will come back and say well hold on
0:06:58 the opinion of the other person and that
0:06:59 person
0:07:00 is opposite to that well they'll say
0:07:02 well hold on you have justified to
0:07:04 yourself
0:07:05 taking an ambiguous verse and and saying
0:07:08 that it means this
0:07:09 when there are these other alternate
0:07:10 linguistic alternatives and exegetical
0:07:12 alternatives
0:07:13 so why are we not within our rights to
0:07:16 choose unscientific
0:07:17 interpretations and say this is what it
0:07:19 means well in fact this
0:07:21 whole idea of using ambiguous verses
0:07:24 which have more than one interpretation
0:07:26 and running with it is exactly the
0:07:28 opposite
0:07:29 exactly the opposite of what allah tells
0:07:31 us
0:07:37 that there are this chapter three verse
0:07:38 seven it says that this book has
0:07:40 verses which are foundational and others
0:07:42 which
0:07:47 for those people who have swerving in
0:07:49 their hearts or some kind of deviance in
0:07:51 their hearts they will choose
0:07:53 yes those interpretations that they
0:07:57 which are ambiguous and they don't know
0:07:59 what the the verse goes on to say they
0:08:01 don't know what these interpret no one
0:08:02 knows
0:08:03 what these the interpretation actually
0:08:05 definitely definitively means except for
0:08:07 allah
0:08:07 and some say well also those who are
0:08:10 very
0:08:10 grounded in knowledge and some say no
0:08:13 not even those because the sentence
0:08:14 starts
0:08:15 and that's another discussion but the
0:08:16 idea is that choosing one of many
0:08:18 different
0:08:19 interpretations and insisting that this
0:08:21 is what the quran says
0:08:23 is not the the sophisticated
0:08:25 hermeneutical method
0:08:26 and in fact it can go into what
0:08:30 you may say about allah which you don't
0:08:32 know it may go into that
0:08:34 or it could go into what the prophet
0:08:35 says
0:08:38 whoever lies about me intentionally then
0:08:40 let him prepare his sea in the hell fire
0:08:42 where you know that there are other
0:08:43 interpretations but you're intentionally
0:08:45 choosing one
0:08:46 so you can fit it with a particular
0:08:47 narrative and so this is problematic so
0:08:51 from all of those perspectives and that
0:08:53 you have
0:08:54 changing science that it's a
0:08:56 cherry-picking approach
0:08:57 that you know it's limited and you know
0:09:00 you could even say one of the possible
0:09:01 assumptions i'm not saying it's a
0:09:02 definitive or something
0:09:03 is that if it is talking about the big
0:09:05 bang if let's say that chapter 21 verse
0:09:08 number 30
0:09:08 is talking about the big bang if it is
0:09:11 talking about the big bang
0:09:12 does that mean to say that those people
0:09:14 in the 7th century who had no knowledge
0:09:16 of astronomy
0:09:16 would have had this verse or the meaning
0:09:19 of this veil to them
0:09:20 like they wouldn't understand the
0:09:22 implications of the big bang and so this
0:09:24 verse would
0:09:24 be meaningless or very very close to
0:09:27 being meaningless to them
0:09:28 so that would be a yani this this could
0:09:31 be something which is also damaging
0:09:33 the truth of the matter is this verse
0:09:35 does indicate to us that there was some
0:09:37 kind of separation
0:09:38 but we don't know allah what exactly
0:09:40 cosmologically it's talking
0:09:42 about and similarly
0:09:46 you know the the heaven we have in
0:09:48 chapter 51 of the quran the heaven we
0:09:49 have created it with power
0:09:51 and we we are steadily expanding it now
0:09:53 yes there are some people
0:09:55 even terribly that i've looked at the
0:09:57 tephasia in the exegetes that say that
0:09:59 uh musayan does mean expanding there are
0:10:02 some tabernacles who say that
0:10:04 like for example abdul rahman ibn zaid
0:10:06 even islam and i've read this in
0:10:08 uh even jose's kittep
0:10:13 and so this is definitely represented in
0:10:14 the literature i'm not taking that away
0:10:16 from
0:10:17 from that however there's a few issues
0:10:19 it says
0:10:22 dunya for example and we know and we've
0:10:24 talked about this in other episodes that
0:10:26 means all that isn't all that is above
0:10:28 and so this does not necessitate that
0:10:30 it's just a worldly dunya
0:10:32 that we associate with the universe so
0:10:34 this might be talking about something
0:10:35 which is completely
0:10:36 above and beyond our understanding
0:10:38 because we haven't even
0:10:39 accessed the other six heavens for
0:10:41 example and it could be talking
0:10:43 something above the six heavens because
0:10:44 sama
0:10:45 could involve the kursi and technically
0:10:47 so why are we getting ourselves okay
0:10:49 it's talking about the expanding
0:10:50 universe for sure
0:10:51 we don't know allah if it's talking
0:10:53 about the expanding universe for sure
0:10:55 because
0:10:55 quite frankly the majority of exegete
0:10:57 says
0:11:03 we're able to do so allah we created the
0:11:06 heaven with power and we were able to do
0:11:07 so
0:11:08 and there's no contradiction between the
0:11:09 two meanings and yes it could mean both
0:11:11 but to insist it's talking about the
0:11:13 expanding universe in redshift
0:11:14 i think it's a bit uh is a bit much and
0:11:17 if you do insist it's definitely talking
0:11:19 about this and this is how we should
0:11:20 understand the verse
0:11:21 then once again the cherry-picking
0:11:22 approach and the inconsistencies of it
0:11:25 you'd have to
0:11:25 afford for the hasam for the
0:11:27 interlocutor which in this case will be
0:11:29 the anti-muslim
0:11:30 apologist who's going to use
0:11:32 unscientific interpretations in much the
0:11:33 same way
0:11:34 as you're using scientific ones so what
0:11:36 needs to be done here is we need to
0:11:38 remain consistent and we need to
0:11:41 understand the limits
0:11:42 of of using this kind of uh evidence
0:11:45 and what quite frankly in the last 20 or
0:11:47 30 years we've seen the the strengths
0:11:48 and uh
0:11:49 weaknesses of this the advantages and
0:11:51 disadvantages the advantages if you
0:11:53 from a dower perspective quite frankly
0:11:54 if you try and bring people into islam
0:11:56 because of this
0:11:56 those people that you bring into islam
0:11:58 because of this will be most affected by
0:12:00 the anti-islamic apologists
0:12:02 when they provide for them for for them
0:12:05 equal or similar types of argumentation
0:12:07 using equal or similar
0:12:09 uh methods and so it could
0:12:12 and we have seen and we have the
0:12:13 evidence that it could increase apostasy
0:12:15 for those particular individuals
0:12:17 who have been convinced of islam because
0:12:19 of that reason so one has to
0:12:20 exercise extreme caution here and they
0:12:23 have to be consistent
0:12:24 and they have and they have to do
0:12:25 justice to the quran and leave that
0:12:27 which is ambiguous as ambiguous
0:12:29 and speak with um speak with
0:12:33 with a sophisticated tongue not when
0:12:35 when when it's an ambiguous verse
0:12:37 because
0:12:37 no one knows really what this verse
0:12:39 exactly is talking about
0:12:40 and i hope that answers the question but
0:12:43 finally i will say as
0:12:44 muslims can we believe in the big bang
0:12:45 and can we believe in the expanding
0:12:47 universe
0:12:48 and redshift in the beginning of the
0:12:49 universe absolutely i don't see any
0:12:50 problem with that and in other
0:12:52 videos you see that we're talking about
0:12:53 for example the the days meaning
0:12:55 something which is longer
0:12:57 an epoch or generational time period so
0:12:59 it doesn't need to mean
0:13:00 a 24-hour period so from those
0:13:02 perspectives i see no harm
0:13:04 in believing the big bang theory so long
0:13:05 as you believe that allah is the one who
0:13:07 created or
0:13:08 who initiated it yeah i don't see any
0:13:11 issue with believing it so long as allah
0:13:13 is the orchestrator of it
0:13:14 and he is this is part of his hulk but
0:13:16 you should from a scientific perspective
0:13:19 be a little bit more less eager and a
0:13:22 bit more
0:13:23 use the word agnostic really because we
0:13:24 don't know for sure how far
0:13:26 this big bang theory is uh
0:13:29 is true because quite frankly it's
0:13:31 underdetermined from a
0:13:33 philosophy of science perspective
0:13:34 there's like maybe 16 or 17
0:13:37 differing models with very similar
0:13:39 epistemic weight
0:13:40 and so this under determination should
0:13:42 allow us to realize
0:13:44 that from an islamic perspective of vani
0:13:46 and it's not
0:13:47 qatari and therefore we should not uh
0:13:50 which means it's
0:13:51 speculative and it's not something which
0:13:52 is certain
0:13:54 uh and so we shouldn't need to feel the
0:13:57 need to really
0:13:58 uh overcompensate here with this issue
0:14:00 and i hope it answers the question of
0:14:01 salaam alaikum
0:14:05 [Music]