by Dr. Abdul-Kalaam Pangloss
The scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an, a method by which Muslims cite their own modern, scientifically enlightened reinterpretations of the holy writ as evidence in favor of a divine origin for the text, often employs the popular claim that the Muslim scripture spoke of the Big Bang nearly fourteen centuries before scientists formulated the relevant theory. There are literally thousands of websites that put forth this form of apologia. In fact, in terms of popularity among Muslims who champion the scientific-hermeneutic approach, the Big Bang polemic is second only to the embryology polemic. Of course, as is the case with all such polemics within this approach, the "correct" interpretation was only stumbled upon after Western scientists had already made the discovery, which means this is more a case of the miracle of reinterpretation.
Nonetheless, while noting that retrofitting is the real trick behind these miraculous exegetical discoveries is suitable enough, some readers may prefer to be given more reason to doubt specific examples. In light of this fact, this article will examine the claim that the Qur'an forshadows the Big Bang theory. In the end it will be shown that this new approach to the text is not sufficient for proving that the text is the word of God.
The first Qur'anic verse cited as evidence of the Big Bang is Soorat al-Anbiyyaa 21:30, the relevant portion of which goes as follows:
This reads awa lam yaraa allatheena kafaroo anna as-Samaawaati wa al-Arda kaanataa ratqan fa-fataqnaahumaa. How one translates those words can make or break the polemic. The opening part of the verse asks "Do not those who disbelieve see that..." and then we get to what it is that the disbelievers have not seen (id est, what should have been obvious to them - interestingly hinting that the original intention of the author was to convey something that was taken as common sense at the time the text was uttered). A step-by-step analysis of the relevant remaining Arabic is needed here. Have not the disbelievers seen that as-Samaawaati ("the heavens") wa ("and") al-Arda ("the earth") kaanataa ("were") ratqan ("sewn [together]") fa ("then") fataqnaahumaa ("we ripped them").
What this is a reference to is not clear (though it does seem to be quite similar to numerous other creation myths that have the heavens and earth being separated by various deities, such as Kronos, Vishnu, Pan Gu, et cetera). Nonetheless, proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach sometimes offer a translation along the lines of "the heavens and the earth were once one piece, and then we separated them out from it". Of course, this is not exactly what the text says. The polemic attempts to correlate the ripping/separating with the Big Bang, but the problem with such exegesis is that if we accept that interpretation, then the verse is clearly stating that the earth was in existence before the Big Bang, which would be a gross error. The actual fact of the matter is that the earth did not come into existence until billions of years after the Big Bang.
The second verse called to witness by those who claim the Qur'an spoke of the Big Bang is found in Soorat az-Zaariyaat 51:47, and it goes as follows:
 wa as-Samaa banaynaahaa bi-aydin wa-inna lamoosi'oona And the heaven we built it with our hands, certainly we are Moosi'oon. |
Those who support the Big Bang polemic translate the verse roughly along the lines of "and the heavens we created with power, and verily we are expanding them." In our translation, however, the word moosi'oon has deliberately been left untranslated. It is the plural form of the word
(moosi'), similar to the way muslimoon can be the plural for 
(muslim). So the question now is, what sort of word is moosi', and what does it mean?First it should be noted that the word is an active participle - id est, it is a noun, not a verb. It is from the Form IV verb of the waw-seen-ayn trilatreral root,
(awsa'a), which can mean stretch or expand, but can also mean to enrich or be rich. Note that the one other time the word moosi' appears (Soorat al-Baqarah 2:236), it is in the singular, and there it clearly means "one who is rich/wealthy." Also of interest, in al-Qurtubee's commentary on the Qur'an, ad-DaHaak is cited as summing up the meaning of moosi'oon with a single word: 
(aghnaynaakum), which means "we enriched you" (see al-Qurtubee, al-Jaami'oo li-aHkaam al-Qur'aan, vol. 17, 51:47-49). This at least tells us how early Muslims understood the verse, and if we hold to the rule, espoused by Muslims, that the Qur'an is its own interpreter (al-Qur'aan yufassiru ba'duhu ba'dan), then the reference to the one other time the word appears weighs heavily in favor of ad-DaHaak's understanding of the aya.Of course there are other problems. As was noted above, the word is a noun - an active participle from the Form IV (af'ala) stem of the relevant root. To explain the active participle, first note that any Arabic word breaks down to a trilateral root (sometimes to a quadrilateral root, but we will ignore this for now). Then note that there are various verb stems (Form I - fa'ala, Form II - fa''ala, et cetera). If you take any root XYZ, the active participle of the Form IV (af'ala) stem of that root would be muXYiZ (most textbooks on Arabic will offer as an example muf'il from the faa-ayn-lam root, or less often muqtil from the QTL root). So, as per the examples already given, moosi' comes from the waw-seen-ayn root, and muslim comes from the seen-lam-meem root - also, the Arabic word for "atheist" is
(mulhid) which comes from the lam-Haa-dal root - and there are many other examples.An active participle most literally means one who performs the actions relevant to the verb. Therefore, the best translation of the relevant portion of the aya might be "we are the ones who enrich [the heavens]." Moosi'oon does not mean "we are expanding it". In order to conjugate awsa'a in the present tense, one would have to employ the imperfect
(yoosi'u). The first person plural ("we are expanding") would be 
(noosi'u), and the way to say "we are expanding it" would be 
(noosi'uhaa). The fact that the Qur'an uses moosi'oon rather than noosi'uhaa is a rather large hint that the intention was in fact that of an active participle - "we are the ones who do" - rather than a verb conjugated in the present tense - "we are doing" - regardless of the action intended by the verb (enriching, expanding, widening, et cetera).Now, one objection that a Muslim can raise is to note that sometimes the Qur'an employs an active participle (from whatever stem), and it can be roughly understood as a verb in the present tense. Thus, while our points above stand, the Muslim may argue that it is not impossible to translate the relevant portion of the aya as saying "we are expanding" [because (1) the verb can mean expand, among other things, and (2) active participles are at times understood as working like verbs]. This brings us into a new part of the discussion, and that will immerse us in the Bible as well as the Qur'an.
A SCIENTIFIC-HERMENEUTIC APPROACH TO ISAIAH
Just as one can wrench such interpretations from the Qur'an, so too one can wrench such interpretations from the Bible. However, before we go on, we should take a look at the verse that follows the Qur'anic verse being investigated (i.e. - Soorat az-Zaariyaat 51:48):
 wa al-arda farashnaahaa fani'ma al-maahidoona And the earth we laid it out, we are the spreaders (of it). |
The reason we bring this up, is because the two verses combine to form a very familiar sequence: first God is credited with the expanding/stretching of the heavens, and then with the "spreading" of the earth (in The Platygaean Qur'an, Sulayman Talliy argues that the Qur'an means to imply the earth is flat when it speaks of "spreading out" the earth - though the verses examined employ a different verb from the one used in the verse above). With that in mind, one realizes how strikingly similar Soorat az-Zaariyaat 51:47-48 is to Isaiah 42:5 -
 koh amar ha-el YHWH bore ha-shamaim v'noteihem, roqa ha-arets v'tse'etsa'eha noten n'shamah la'am 'aleiha v'ruach laholkhim bah Thus said the god YHWH, creating the heavens, and expanding them out, spreading out the earth and its productions, giving breath to the people on it, and spirit to those walking in it. |
The passage from the Qur'an reads like a rough translation of Isaiah 42:5. The author of the Qur'anic passage, living in a Judeo-Christian environment, probably heard something along the lines of these verses. Regardless, one can take the same scientific-hermeneutic approach to this verse as well. Note that in Hebrew, the words YHWH bore ha-shamaim v'noteihem most literally means "YHWH is creating the heavens and expanding them." The verb noteh is the present tense (hoveh) conjugation of the verb lintot, which can mean stretch, bend, expand, et cetera.
Now, some might object that this is an understanding employing modern Israeli Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew. The argument is that students of Biblical Hebrew do not distinguish between present tense conjugations and active participles, thus noteh (which we translated as "expanding") is nothing more than an active participle ("one who expands" [the heavens]). It should be noted that in Hebrew, particularly in the pa'al stem, active participles are spelled and pronounced exactly the same as present tense (masculine singular) conjugations (exempli gratia: kotev, "writer," is spelled kaf-vav-tav-bet, same as kotev - "he is writing" or "I am writing" or "you are writing," depending on the pronoun that precedes it). Nonetheless, we can tell when something is meant to be a verb and when something is meant to be an active participle via context (similar to the way in English "suspect" could be a present tense conjugation in the sense of "I supsect that..." or a passive participle, such as "Billy is the main suspect"). Even textbooks on "Biblical Hebrew" vis a vis modern Israeli Hebrew concede that the hoveh conjugation can mean present tense, and is distinguished from a participle in the same fashion it would in modern Israeli Hebrew. Consider the following (in square brackets "[...]" one will find transliterations of Hebrew that appeared in the original text):
The participle, like the adjective, may function attributively (for example, [ha-Kohen ha-'Oleh], "the ascending priest"), or as a predicate (for example, [ha-Kohen 'oleh], "the priest is ascending"). In its attributive use, the participle is typically translated as an ajective (note how the form [ha-Kohen ha-'Oleh] is parallel to [ha-Kohen ha-Zaqen], "the old priest"), while as a predicate, it is usually translated as a verb (note how [ha-Kohen 'oleh] is similar to [ha-Kohen 'alah], "the priest ascended").In light of the above explanation, noteihem is obviously used in a verbal sense ("expanding them"). Further evidence that the active participle can be treated as present tense appears in other books on Biblical Hebrew, such as the following quote:
[Marc Zvi Brettler, Biblical Hebrew for Students of Modern Israeli Hebrew, (Yale University Press, 2002), p. 111]
The participles imply continuous activity, and this is especially true of the active form. In meaning they are like gerundives or verbal adjectives, and may agree in gender and number with a a noun or pronoun, e.g., [anachnu moshlim], we are ruling.Yet more evidence in our favor can be found in the fact that Gesenius offers "stretching them" (present tense) as a possible translation of noteihem [see A.E. Cowley & E. Kautzsch (eds.), Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, (Oxford, 1970), 124 k, p. 399]. Menahem Mansoor similarly explains how the active participle can convey present tense in Biblical Hebrew [see Menahem Mansoor, Biblical Hebrew Step-by-Step, (Baker Book House, 1978), pp. 79-80]. Also worth noting, the Artscroll Stone Edition TaNaKh, which represents the cream of present day Jewish scholarship, contains a footnote for Isaiah 42:5 that reads: "Literally, the verse is in the present tense" [see Rabbi Nossom Sherman, The Artscroll Series Stone Edition Tanach, (Mesorah, 2003), Isaiah 42:5, p. 1026].
[R.K. Harrison, Biblical Hebrew, (Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., 1995), p. 87]
Still, some may still wish to argue context, and claim that the very first verb employed in Isaiah 42:5 (amar) is conjugated in the past tense, thus the entire verse should be conjugated in the past tense. Personally, we think our translation (where amar is past tense and noteh is present tense) works just fine. Nonetheless, let us then look for a verse that uses noteh, but does not begin with a verse conjugated in the past tense. For that we submit Isaiah 51:13 -
 vatishkach YHWH 'osekha noteh shamaim And you will forget that YHWH your maker is expanding the heavens. |
First we need to justify our translation. The first word is vatishkach, which is a vav (which serves as a sort of conjunction, "and") and the word tishkach, which is a future tense second person conjugation of the verb lishkoch (to forget). Thus we decided to translate it "and you will forget". Now, what will you forget? The next two words are standard: YHWH 'osekha, "the Lord your maker." That is followed by a verb, noteh, which, as was already noted, is the present tense conjugation of the verb lintot. Now all that is needed is the last word, the subject that the verb is acting upon, and that is shamaim, the heavens. Thus our translation is accurate.
Of course, there are yet still more objections, such as the claim that vatishkach actually employs a "vav-consecutive" (or "waw consecutive"). This is a concept that does not exist in Hebrew as it is taught today, but rather is only a theoretical concept that was adopted by scholars of "Biblical Hebrew" to explain some of the strange uses of verb tenses in the Bible. The claim of those who support the notion of the vav-consecutive is that if a vav appears before a future tense (or "imperfect") conjugation of a verb, the verb is to be treated as past tense (even though the actual conjugation of the verb is not past tense). This hypothesis is based on the fact that, at this time, it is one way to make sense of certain verses that employ a future tense conjugation preceded by a vav in sentences that we would like to believe are referring to something in the past (exempli gratia: Genesis 30:8 that begins vatomer Rachel...).
Of course, the reality is that while the hypothesis does seem to have some theoretical support from verses like Gen 30:8, there is no reason to believe that this rule is actually iron clad. It is simply an assumption. Even Biblical scholars who serve as supporters of the concept of the vav-consecutive admit that it is wrong to claim it always means past tense; consider the comments of Victor Sasson:
The term waw consecutive with the imperfect as has been used throughout its long history has given the false impression that it is used only in narration, i.e. for the sole purpose of narrating consecutive events in the past.Sasson continues:
[Victor Sasson, "Some Observations on the Use and Original Purpose of the Waw Consecutive in Old Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew," Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 47 (1997), pp. 124-125]
Even illustrious scholars in the past were guilty of this gross generalization. The fallacy can also be traced back to the Medieval Hebrew scholars and the theory of waw conversive. At least the term waw conversive suggests nothing about consecutiveness in tenses, in verbal forms, or in sequential statements. On the other hand, the waw consecutive has usually been viewed even in modern times as a static, general linguistic phenomenon, irrespective of literary genre and irrespective of period of history. This received tradition appears to have been accepted unquestionably over the generations. It is erroneous and misleading.In his conclusion, Sasson actually states that the original usage of the vav-consecutive was contrary to the way it is generally believed to be used in Biblical Hebrew:
[ibidem, p. 125]
The waw consecutive with imperfect was originally used in Old Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew in war, war-related, epic and mythic texts. It was used originally for its high style, grandiose quality. We find it used (for one reason or another) sparingly. In its durative quality, it is similar to free-standing imperfects. It was also used in contrast to preterites which denoted completed, irreversible actions.Ultimately, Sasson's theory is that in the earliest strata of the Hebrew Bible, and before the Hebrew Bible, the vav-consecutive actually meant present or future tense - during the later strata of the Hebrew Bible, it meant past tense - and after the Hebrew Bible (as early as the writing of the texts at Qumran, i.e. 2,000 years ago) it took on the usage it has to this day: future tense. This is bizarre, as it means that the only time the vav-consecutive meant past tense was when certain Biblical verses (but not all!) were written, but this theory is based only on those Biblical texts (i.e. to treat them as future would give bizarre examples). So there are no texts outside of the Bible that give any indication of the vav-consecutive (if there is such a thing, it is a theory that started among medieval Hebrew scholars regarding the vav being prefixed to a future tense verb in the Bible), thus this theory is based only on the fact that it allows us a convenient way to make sense of certain Biblical passages.
[ibidem, p. 126]
Furthermore, those who hold to the shaky rule of the vav-consecutive also note that a vav before a perfect tense verb renders it imperfect, id est - present or future tense (see Isaiah 7:14 for an example). In that case, we can then go back to Isaiah 42:5, and apply this rule to v'noteihem, once again giving us a present (or future) tense conjugation. No matter which way you slice it, we can pull the same exegesis on Isaiah that proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach pull with Soorat az-Zaariyaat.
So, now we ask the relevant question: is it possible for a mere mortal to write a text that can at a later time be reinterpreted as being in harmony with the expansion of the universe? The answer seems to be a clear yes, thus the verse from the Qur'an is not a sufficient proof that the text is from a divine origin. However, to drive this point home even harder, let us consider the American Bible Society's Arabic translation of 1867, which can be quite illuminating. The text of that work (the portion containing Isaiah 42:5 and 51:13) can be found online. The translation was taken directly from the Hebrew. Here we will give the relevant portion of 42:5 first:
 Haakadhaa yaqoolu 'llaahu 'r-Rabbu khaaliqu 's-Samaawaati wa-naashiruhaa |
Now, if moosi' implies present and continuous action because it is an active participle (as some have argued), then so too does khaaliq and naashir, since these are also active participles. If one looks up the nun-sheen-raa root in Rohi Baalbaki, Al-Mawrid: A Modern Arabic-English Dictionary, (Dar El-Ilm Lilmayin, 1988), on p. 236 one will find listed among the meanings of nashara "extend, expand". So, nashara can mean expand, and the active participle naashir would mean "one who expands". In light of those proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach who claim that an active participle can also mean present and/or continuous action, khaaliq and naashir in the Arabic translation give us something strikingly similar to the way we rendered the same verse in English: "thus says the Lord Allaah, [who is] creating the heavens and expanding them."
As for Isaiah 51:13, we would like to offer the relevant portion of the Arabic translation of that verse as well:
 Wa-tansaa ar-Rabba saani'aka baasita 's-Samaawaati |
Now, some may have had a problem with us translating the Hebrew tishkach (forget) in the future tense. Regardless, the text of Isaiah 51:13 nonetheless is literally in the future tense with regard to the relevant verb. Now, if we wanted to have our translation into Arabic be in the future tense, what conjugation would we use? The answer is the imperfect indicative. And, SURPRISE!, the imperfect indicative of the nun-seen-yaa root (for "to forget") is tansaa (with alif maqsoora at the end), precisely what appears in the translation we have cited. The word tansaa means either "you are forgetting" or "you will forget".
Then we get to the Arabic word baasit, which is an active participle from the baa-seen-taa root. Baalbaki, al-Mawrid, p. 1171 lists among the meanings of this root "extend, expand," and J. Milton Cowan, Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, 3rd ed., (Spoken Language Services, 1971), p. 57, has the verb mean "to spread out, stretch out, enlarge, expand". Thus, if we were to concede that in Arabic active participles can be understood as present tense, this verse can be understood in a way very similar to our own English translation: "and you will forget the Lord your maker is expanding the heavens..."
Now, note that this Arabic translation uses two different verbs (nashara and basata) for noteh in these two verses. Being that noteh can mean stretch, extend, expand, another possible corresponding root in Arabic would be waw-seen-ayin (but Form I wasa'a implies oneself being wide, thus expanding/widening/extending something else would have to be Form IV awsa'a) - i.e., the word employed in Soorat az-Zaariyaat may have fit here as well.
Regardless, this exploration of this Arabic translation from 1867 (actually, it strecthes back to 1816) answers a number of questions, but most importantly it helps us answer the following: is it possible for a mere mortal, with no knowledge of the Big Bang, to write or utter a sentence in Arabic that employs an active participle derived from a root that can mean "expand" when explaining what God did or is doing to the heavens? The answer is a resounding yes, as the translators, living in the 19th century, before the Big Bang theory or the expansion of the universe was formulated, employed not one, but TWO active participles that are each derived from verbs that can mean "expand" to describe what God did or is doing to the universe. So, what this teaches us is that it is possible for the rough ideas laid out in the text of Isaiah to make their way into Arabic, for the speaker/translator to use an active participle in the Arabic version, and for that speaker/translator to do this without any knowledge of an expanding universe. It is possible for a mere mortal to write sentences in Arabic that can later be correlated with portions of the Big Bang theory. Thus we have a perfectly natural explanation for the verse in Soorat az-Zaariyaat.
This is relevant because proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an would like us to believe that it is impossible for the author of the Qur'an to employ the relevant active participle and not intend it to be a reference to the expansion of the universe. However, the Christian scholars who worked on the creation of the ABS translation themselves had no knowledge of the expansion of the universe, and almost certainly didn't believe any such thing. Yet we see that such coincidences can happen. Is it possible for a person who does not know anything about scientific discovery X to write a sentence that can be correlated by others with scientific discovery X at a much later date? It is indeed very possible.
FURTHER READING
Jochen Katz' Answering Islam site usually serves as a great resource for possible answers to popular claims put forth by proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an, but the site's section on the Qur'an and science does not have any immediate reference to the Big Bang specifically. Nonetheless, the Answering-Islam team does have at least a couple articles relevant to the subject that we could find (though they are not readily apparent on the main "Qur'an and Science" page). Consider the following: 1 & 2 (NOTE: the first link begins by attempting to cast doubt on the Big Bang theory, - we here at the FTMecca do not doubt the soundness of the theory). Also relevant from the Answering Islam site is the article Does the Qur'an Speak About a "Lifecycle of the Universe"?
Katz' Answering-Islam team approaches the issue from a Christian perspective. Approaches to this polemic from a non-theist (atheist/agnostic) perspective are somewhat slim on the net (hence our motivation for writing this article). Nonetheless, there is Avijit Roy's Does Quran have any Scientific miracles? Also of interest might be Richard Carrier's Cosmology and the Koran: A Response to Muslim Fundamentalists. Interestingly, Carrier's article gave rise to an informal debate with Nadir Ahmed on the Infidel Guy radio show. The debate can be accessed through Nadir Ahmed's site.
Also, there are books that attempt to take a scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Bible, showing that such things can be done with texts other than the Qur'an. For books that correlate the Biblical passages with the Big Bang theory, consider:
- Nathan Aviezer's In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science
- Gerald Schroeder's Genesis and the Big Bang