Atheist-Leaning Questions vs a Modern Muslim Scholar – Full English Transcript
-
I came across a very interesting Urdu TV discussion with Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. The host and some of the students are clearly tilted towards an atheist / strongly sceptical way of thinking, and they keep pressing him on “science vs Qur’an” type questions.
Ghamidi is a modern but still traditional Muslim scholar, and I found the back-and-forth quite engaging, so I’ve translated/rendered the whole 30+ minute exchange into English as neutrally as I could, without adding my own comments.
Sharing here “as is” for anyone who is interested.
https://youtu.be/BF6tQUEjh7gNote:
Just a small note for context before anyone takes the host in this video too seriously: this video is quite old. The same host — Owais — is now a well-known atheist on YouTube and openly mocks the Qur’an and its verses. So even though in this clip he sounds “scientific,” today his entire content is anti-Qur’an.
For me, personally, someone who believes in God and may misunderstand a verse is still far better than someone who rejects the Qur’an completely. Many atheists today attack the Qur’an mainly because of how certain translations and traditional explanations present things. So I’d be careful not to lean towards this host’s line of thinking just because he mentions “flat earth” or “science.”
My intention is only to clarify the background, not to target anyone.Host:
Science has already proven that the earth is not flat. So how do you look at these Qur’anic verses in the light of scientific reasoning? You treat a purely literary style as if it’s a scientific statement.According to verse 90 in Surah Al-Kahf, Zulqarnain, on another journey, reached a place where the sun rises. And there is also the idea that after sunset the sun hides under the Throne of God and then rises again the next day by God’s permission, and on the Day of Judgment it will not be allowed to rise.
So again, we come back to this view that the earth is flat. First religions held this position, then why did they change?
Ghamidi:
This is not a religious issue at all. Look, first you turn a non-religious issue into a religious one, and then you ask, “Why did religion change its stance?”Host:
Doctor, you said earlier that the Qur’an is a complete book, right? Everyone has a different perception in how they take the Qur’an. Similarly, the Qur’an says: We created the universe, and it is for man to discover it. So complete science is not inside the Qur’an.Don’t you think you two are actually talking about separate subjects? Okay, fine. But don’t you think science is in Islam?
Host:
Sir, in Surah Al-Kahf, where Zulqarnain is mentioned, in verse 86 it says he reached the place where the sun sets. Then in verse 90 it says he reached the place where the sun rises.The problem is: reaching the place where the sun sets or rises is only possible if we imagine the earth as flat, as people of that time did. Now that modern science has proven the earth is not flat, how do you see these verses in the light of scientific reasoning?
Ghamidi:
It is not said that the sun was actually setting there. It says he saw the sun setting there. That is a purely literary expression.Just like we say, “I went to Karachi today and saw the sun setting in the sea.” You take a literary description and treat it as a scientific statement. The verse is not presenting this as a scientific topic at all.
It is describing that he reached a particular place, and from there he saw nothing but sea ahead of him – and saw the sun setting.
Host:
But the exact wording in translation is: “Zulqarnain reached the place where the sun sets.” These are the exact English words of Pickthall and the Urdu words of Maulana Fateh Muhammad Jalandhri: “He reached the place of the setting of the sun.”Ghamidi:
It is said: he reached that place where he saw the sun setting. Obviously, we also see the sun setting. We also say “West” and “East.” From every location, the sun can be seen setting. Despite knowing all the scientific facts, we still say: “The sun has set.” We still say “Maghrib” and “Mashriq.” This is common language.You also use it. Every day you say, “I’ll come at Maghrib time.” What does Maghrib mean? The time when the sun sets.
Every day in the newspaper you read: “Sunrise is at such-and-such time, sunset is at such-and-such time.” We are not speaking the language of science, we are speaking the language of literature. We describe things as humans see them.
The Qur’an’s purpose there is not to teach you the science of sunrise and sunset.
Host:
Fine, your explanation of these verses is logically acceptable. But, Doctor, the idea that the earth is flat also has supporting evidence in hadith.For example, in Sahih Bukhari, there is a narration attributed to Abu Dharr al-Ghifari that after sunset the sun goes under the Throne of God, and then the next day, with His permission, it rises again. And the Day of Judgment will come when permission will no longer be given.
So again we are back to the same view: the earth is flat, because a man of that age only saw the sun “disappearing” and “appearing” like that. Whereas today we know the sun never actually goes anywhere – it is always shining on one side of the earth while the other is in darkness.
Ghamidi:
What is being expressed here is something extraordinary, but the point is to draw your attention to this reality: that the entire system of rising and setting, in which the sun appears from one horizon and disappears at another, is all running by God’s command.So the intention is not what you call “scientific research.” The intention is to tell human beings that everything is in submission to God.
In the Qur’an it is repeatedly stated that the stars prostrate to God, the trees prostrate to God – meaning they are bound by His laws. Allah has tied them with specific laws, and they operate according to those laws.
This is mentioned in many places. Why do you insist on reading this as a science textbook? The job of religion is to draw your attention to fundamental realities. The job of science is to tell you the mechanisms – for example, how the sun appears to rise and set.
Host:
But, sir, you are rejecting the evidence we present. We brought Qur’anic “evidence” that the earth is flat, you disagreed with it. Now we brought hadith “evidence,” and you still disagree and give your own interpretation.The fact is that until the 15th century CE, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scholars were agreed on at least two things after belief in God:
The earth is flat.
The earth is the center of the solar system – a geocentric view.
Then Galileo came and proved this wrong, and gradually the stance changed. Why? Because those beliefs were based on the science of that time. People observed the world in a certain way and formed an opinion. When new evidence came, they changed.
So after every scientific discovery, why do religious people keep changing their stance?
Ghamidi:
Because it was never a religious stance in the first place.You first take something that was purely from the science of that age, then you stamp it as “religion,” and later when science changes, you say: “Look, religion has changed.”
There were many people who believed many things. Scientific research later proved them wrong. That is all.
Host:
All right, that was the old days. But even as late as 1982 in Saudi Arabia, there was a mufti, Sheikh ‘Abdul Aziz bin Baz, who gave a fatwa that the earth is flat, basing it on this verse: “wal-ardu ba‘da dhalika duhihat” (the earth has been spread out). And he said whoever opposes this is committing kufr.Ghamidi:
If he did indeed give a fatwa in that way, we can only make du‘a of goodness for him.But in that Qur’anic verse, this topic is not there at all. The verse is saying: look how We have made the earth for you as a place to walk, to live – like a spread-out bed for you. If you take a purely literary style and treat it as a scientific statement, what can be done except to pray for you?
We will clarify what the Qur’an itself is saying. If a scholar, for political, social, cultural, or any other background reason, attributes something to the Qur’an that is not actually there, then Allah has given us knowledge as well – we can also read and think.
Host:
You smiled once when it was said that humans were created from clay, and from that it was claimed that we are “from the tree of the earth.” Could that also be just a figure of speech?Ghamidi:
There it is indeed a literal reality being described: that man was created from clay, from earth. And elsewhere it says: We created every living thing from water.We all understand the difference between literal and figurative usage.
For example, if I say, “I went to the zoo and saw a lion,” you will understand that I am talking about the actual animal. But if I quote a line of poetry, “What lion is this whose arrival makes colors tremble,” both you and I know that “lion” here is figurative.
So when the Qur’an says, “Look at the earth, how it has been spread out,” tell me: I am translating it very simply. Where does the idea of flatness come from in this wording? It just says the earth is spread for you, like a bed, embracing us, like a mother. All of this is describing Allah’s great mercy through the earth, not geometry.
Host (new question):
Allah says He is “above the seven heavens.” I read Harun Yahya’s book where he defines seven heavens as seven atmospheric layers. When we cross them and go into space – people even go to the moon – we don’t see God. How do you explain this?And many Muslim scholars give similar explanations for verses. What do you say about this?
Ghamidi:
The Qur’an never says such things. In fact, it negates them.I recited earlier a verse where the Qur’an declares: you cannot say, “Here is something above which is God,” nor “Here is something below which is God,” nor that something existed before Him or after Him.
The Qur’an refuses to bind God to space or time.
Later hadith literature contains many reports, such as: God is above seven heavens, between each heaven there is 500 years’ distance, and on each heaven there sits a prophet, and the mi‘raj story is also often connected to this.
But the Qur’an’s teaching is: God is beyond (mā warā’) the heavens and the earth; He encompasses everything by His knowledge. Where He “is” in a spatial sense – the Qur’an never discusses His essence in that way. It gives us His attributes, not an address.
Host:
Scholars like Harun Yahya try to extract science from religion. Don’t you think they are being unfair to both religion and science?Ghamidi:
When Harun Yahya’s full arguments are presented, I can comment on them specifically. I don’t like to pass judgment on individuals in this general way. I’ve seen some of his work; from what I have seen, he doesn’t do exactly what you’re describing.He simply draws attention to places where the Qur’an mentions something about the natural world. He is not forcing all of science into those verses.
Female student:
You said the Qur’an defines certain things and then stops there and tells us to use our intellect further. Science itself is a product of intellect. If we say science is not a “dimension” of the Qur’an or Islam, then how should we view science?Ghamidi:
We should see science as science. We should benefit from it. We should gain its knowledge. That in itself is from God: Allah gave humans intellect so they could use it to search for means of sustenance; they do farming; they built industries; they made incredible progress.When we travel in airplanes, do we want to learn from the Qur’an how to build them? No – humans used their intellect. The Qur’an is not about that; that is not its subject.
Host (new set of questions):
In Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 29, it says the earth was created first, then Allah turned to the heaven and made seven heavens.But in Surah An-Nazi‘at, verses 27–29, it seems to say the sky was created first, then the earth spread out. And in Surah Al-Anbiyā’, verse 30, it says the heavens and the earth were once joined, then separated.
If we look from a “religious” point of view, these three seem contradictory. Big Bang theory gives a different narrative altogether. How do you see these?
Ghamidi:
There is no contradiction at all. The Qur’an clarifies in Surah As-Sajdah that the earth and heavens were created in “two days,” then other processes took place – and it also tells us that “God’s days” are not like our days; sometimes one of His days is more than 500 years.So first, in two “days” (phases), the basic heavens and earth were created. Then a process took place on earth where all conditions and signs of life were produced. Then the sky was given its current form and order.
The Qur’an sometimes highlights one stage, sometimes another. This is like describing a building project in different ways:
One time you say: “We prepared the clay, bricks, and blueprint, then we raised the Taj Mahal.”
Another time: “We built the foundations and then we raised the structure.”
You are talking about different stages of the same process. The Qur’an presents different parts of the same creative process; it is not delivering a detailed scientific cosmology, just drawing attention to the signs of Allah.
Host:
But at three different places – not just one – the text appears to conflict: one says earth, then sky; another sky, then earth; another says both were one mass then split.Ghamidi:
Only if you force your own sequence onto the verses. For example, in Surah Al-Baqarah, the point is: Allah made the earth for you, placed His blessings in it, then turned to the sky and fashioned it.This is talking from the human point of view: “for you, the earth was made with provisions, and then the sky was given order.”
In another place, the Qur’an mentions the initial cosmic phases. In another it mentions the later earthly phases. It is one process seen from different angles.
Host (new question about Ibrahim):
Humans have difficulty grasping realities beyond this life. But in Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 260, even Ibrahim did not fully believe in resurrection until he saw dead birds brought back to life in front of him.If even a prophet’s faith needed physical happening to consolidate it, how can an ordinary person be expected to believe without that?
Ghamidi:
Read the verse carefully. When Ibrahim asks, Allah asks him first: “Do you not believe?” He replies: “I do believe; I only ask for reassurance of the heart.”So his question was not due to lack of faith, but to seek even greater reassurance. There is no limit to itmi’nan al-qalb (inner tranquility).
Similarly, we today ask many questions; Allah, in His mercy, shows signs in the horizons and within ourselves. Many scientific discoveries have highlighted religious truths further. This, too, is a response from Allah to human questioning.
Host:
But then how can an ordinary person ever reach that reassurance?Ghamidi:
He can. Allah has given every person enough intellect and capacity. An ordinary person cannot demand, “Raise a dead man in front of me,” but Allah still shows signs in creation and within the self.He fulfilled many demands of common people throughout history as well. And in our age, Allah has shown incredible signs through scientific progress that strengthen faith.
Host (records & sound question):
The Qur’an says our deeds and words will be recorded and presented on the Day of Judgment. Today, science has shown that whatever we say actually leaves traces in the air – words are in a sense “recorded” in the environment. How do you relate this?Ghamidi:
This is exactly what I was pointing to. You asked: how do we get reassurance?Today Allah has allowed the human being to discover technologies where every word, every action can be digitally captured and replayed.
People once wondered: “How will our entire record be presented?” Today, you yourself compile everything in computers. These are signs from Allah in the horizons and ourselves which help even common people understand these concepts more easily.
Host (science vs religion again):
So can we separate science from religion? If we do that, doesn’t it mean we are pulling something out of Islam that actually belongs to it?Ghamidi:
No one is saying “take this out of Islam.” We are saying the subjects are different.Religion’s subject is:
your moral purification,
analysis of your inner being,
and preparing you for success in the Hereafter.
Science’s subject is very different:
it researches physical nature,
studies diseases and cures,
develops operations and techniques.
These are not the subject of religion.
Host:
Doctor, you said the Qur’an is a complete book. Everyone has his perception. Similarly, the Qur’an says Allah created the universe and man must now discover it. Does that not mean science is “in” Islam and cannot be separated?Ghamidi:
I said the Qur’an is complete with respect to its own subject. Every book is complete for its own topic. The Qur’an’s subject is not how to build ships, trains, satellites, or computers.You will not be questioned on the Day of Judgment: “Why did you take the train instead of a plane?” or “Why did you invent or not invent a satellite?”
You will be questioned about ethics: Did you tell the truth? Were you honest? Did you live an upright life? This is the Qur’an’s domain.
Science, technology, medicine – these are separate domains in which humans are free to research and develop.
Host (Qur’an and science again):
But the Qur’an calls us to study the universe. Isn’t that science?Ghamidi:
The Qur’an calls you to look at the universe to recognize God and the Hereafter. It does not say: “Study the universe to derive the laws of thermodynamics.”Science studies laws and uses them to invent things. Religion directs you to ask: “Who created this? What does it mean? What is my moral responsibility?”
Host (stars & devils):
In Surah Al-Mulk and Surah As-Saffat, it’s said that stars are created so that they may strike devils and prevent them from eavesdropping on heavenly matters.Science tells us stars are formed through cosmic processes after the Big Bang. If their purpose is to hit devils, why are stars constantly being born and dying?
Ghamidi:
The verses do not say that this is the only purpose of stars. They say that Allah has made them serve this role as well – to drive away devils.Allah takes many kinds of work from His creation; the Qur’an simply tells us some of those aspects.
Science deals with the how of creation; God tells us something about the why or the unseen side of it.
Host:
So in your opinion, stars really are used to drive away devils?Ghamidi:
Yes, the Qur’an states plainly that the piercing meteors (shihāb) are used to drive away devils. That doesn’t mean that is their only function.The verse says this is one of the functions Allah has assigned: to stop devils from stealing news.
Host:
But if the earth is round, there is no absolute “up” or “down.” Above is space, below is also space. Yet the Qur’an speaks in terms that seem to assume “up” is one side and “down” is another. Doesn’t that reflect the flat-earth mindset of that age?Ghamidi:
People of every age speak this way. Even today we say, “I’m going up,” “I’m going down.”Language hasn’t changed. Science may describe the universe differently, but everyday speech is still the same: we talk of “up” and “down,” “sunrise” and “sunset.”
You are trying to extract precise astrophysics from casual everyday language.
Host:
All right, but why didn’t God speak in a language that crosses these linguistic limitations? You say He speaks to people in their language – but isn’t He capable of speaking beyond human grammar, directly in scientific terms?Ghamidi:
God speaks to human beings in the language they understand. That language is the highest form of human expression, often literary and eloquent, not technical.If God started speaking with the formulations of future physics textbooks, nobody would understand. Revelation addresses people, not machines.
Host (miraj question):
The Mi‘raj (ascension) of the Prophet is a story that the rational mind struggles with. In science terms, how do you see it?Ghamidi:
If God shows something to His prophet – that is His choice. Science deals with natural laws. The Mi‘raj is beyond those laws; it is not the subject of science.This is the same confusion again: science’s job is to describe what happens under natural laws. God can break or suspend those laws whenever He wills. Science cannot evaluate that.
Host (people of ‘Ad’s height):
In Surah Al-Fajr, it mentions the people of ‘Ad, as a very mighty people. Some say they were extremely tall. Science, however, hasn’t found any fossils of such gigantic humans. How do you see that?Ghamidi:
Read the verses carefully. Where does it say their height was different from normal humans?The Qur’an says they were a very powerful nation, unmatched in strength in their land – “lam yukhlak mithluhā fi l-bilād” – there had never been a nation like them in physical power.
That doesn’t mean they were 50 feet tall. It refers to overall might and strength, not necessarily extraordinary height.
Host (another question – pairs):
There is a verse that says Allah created everything in pairs. But we now know there are humans with intersex conditions, and animals and creatures reproducing asexually, like earthworms, starfish, and others.Doesn’t this mean the Qur’an didn’t know about such creatures?
Ghamidi:
The Qur’an knew, and people also knew. It is a general statement, not a biology thesis.We say, “In the world, there are men and women.” We talk to them in those terms. We don’t list a third gender every time, though we know they exist.
So when the Qur’an says “in pairs,” it is giving a broad, general description. Your real problem is: you take ordinary conversational language and try to squeeze lab-level science out of it.
Every day I say, “Ladies and gentlemen,” though I know there are other gender categories and complexities. Do I have to list them all each time?
Host:
That’s for us humans – we fail to do justice to the third gender. But God was talking; why didn’t He explicitly mention others, since He knew everything?Ghamidi:
Because He speaks in the language humans speak. That language is refined and eloquent, not a list of clinical details.Host (cousin marriage question):
Research shows that cousin marriages increase genetic disease risk by up to 28%. Western think tanks say that lower IQ and EQ in some Muslim populations is linked to continuous cousin marriages for generations.In the US, several states ban first-cousin marriages. How do you explain this from a religious point of view?
Ghamidi:
That has nothing to do with Shariah; it has to do with human experience and medical research. When you discover a harm in something, you regulate it – just as you prohibit smoking when it’s proven harmful.If science establishes that close-cousin marriages cause serious harm, laws can be made accordingly.
Religion’s subject is not medical harm. Religion’s subject is ethics and moral order. The allowed and forbidden relationships in the Qur’an are defined from an ethical perspective, not from genetic statistics.
Host:
But in the Qur’an, in Surah An-Nisā’, it mentions that your paternal and maternal cousins are allowed to you in marriage. Allowed means what? Is it not encouraging it?Ghamidi:
Allowed means: it is permissible, not obligatory. Many things are allowed but not obligatory.The Qur’an lists permissible relationships from an ethical/moral angle. If later, a specific harm becomes known (like genetic disorders), human society can regulate it. The Qur’an is not a medical code.
Host:
So the Qur’an did not tell us about diseases related to cousin marriage, but we now know from science. Similarly, it did not mention smoking and cancer.Ghamidi:
Exactly. The Qur’an is not there to label individual substances medically harmful or harmless. It gives moral principles: do not harm yourselves or others, do not waste, etc.Detailed harms (like cancer from smoking) are discovered through science and medicine. It is then our duty to avoid them.
Host (Jesus’ miracles):
But then we read in the Qur’an that Jesus healed lepers, cured blindness, and so on. Isn’t that also physical/medical?Ghamidi:
Those were miracles, not standard medical practices. They were extraordinary events granted just before God’s punishment descended on that nation.They were signs of his prophethood, not lessons in medicine. The Qur’an even says he would make a bird shape from clay, blow into it, and it would become a living bird by Allah’s permission. This is to prove his truthfulness, not to teach a therapy.
Host:
If you tell a 5-year-old today: “Make a clay bird, blow into it, and it will fly,” he will not accept it, because his scientific upbringing rejects that. But 200 years ago, a child might have believed it because he grew up hearing many such magical tales.So isn’t it impossible to make religion and science mutually compatible?
Ghamidi:
If I bring someone from 200 years ago and describe today’s Wi-Fi, internet, live-broadcasting conversations to him – that we’re sitting here and our talk is heard in America – he’ll call it magic. Yet this is your science.So what appears impossible in one era becomes everyday reality later.
Similarly, when God’s realities fully unfold, people will laugh at the narrowness of our current thinking.
The problem is not that religion and science are inherently incompatible; the problem is that humans get trapped in the knowledge of their own time and treat it like the ultimate standard.
Host (Suleiman & the ant):
In Surah An-Naml, there’s the story of Prophet Suleiman and the ant. Modern research (for example, by Harvard’s Edward Wilson) says ants communicate not by sound but by smell – chemical signals.So should we treat the Qur’anic description as metaphor, since ants don’t “speak” in words?
Ghamidi:
Where does the Qur’an say they used sound? It simply says Suleiman understood their speech. How he understood it, by what mechanism, the Qur’an doesn’t specify.Allah gave him the ability to understand the “language” of birds and other creatures. That capacity is from God, whether the medium was sound, scent, or something else.
Host (final philosophy question):
In 1620, Francis Bacon said the basis of knowledge is not inspiration but experiment. If we accept his statement, then the knowledge in heavenly scriptures, which is based on revelation not experiment, can we still call it “knowledge”?Ghamidi:
Why not? Bacon was mistaken in limiting knowledge to one source.Knowledge has many foundations:
what our intellect grasps,
what we learn from history,
what we gain from our inner consciousness,
and what we receive from God through His prophets – and that revealed knowledge also has rational proofs.
The claim that only empirical knowledge is “real” is outdated.
We now know even our senses deceive us: what we see as solid matter isn’t really solid in that sense; our eyes see something that has already moved from its place; modern physics has changed our understanding of matter itself.
So knowledge grows. The real misfortune is when a person becomes a prisoner of his current phase of knowledge and tries to judge all great realities using just that limited phase.
-
Peace Fusion.
Never mind being a prisoner of the current phase of knowledge now, some are stuck in the phase of the time of the prophet or just after.
I should say, like when Traditional Islam took over.
Anyway, some brothers were asking me to answer"The Christian prince" a long critic of Traditional Islam and the Qoran s interpretation of some so called scholars .
My reply to them and to "The Christian prince" is that I will wasting my time and theirs.
I hope people now see the problem of all human interpretations and their debates with one another.
Yes, it is all pointless. Whistling under the wind. and ongoing aimlessly.
May be we should learn to look at the "man in the mirror" and to "change His/her ways".
Indeed "prisoner of our past/current phase" apply to all of us.
GOD bless you.
Peace.
