1. Perhaps Their Harmony is not that Simple: Bediuzzaman
Said Nursi on the Qur’an and Modern Science
ISRA YAZICIOGLU
Abstract This article discusses the noteworthy approach of a twentieth-century Muslim scholar,
Bediüzzaman Said Nursi (1877–1960), to the issue of Qur’an and science. Nursi points out the
“problem of authoritarianism” in both religious and secularist discourses, arguing that many of
the clashes between faith and reason result from a misunderstanding of spheres of expertise. Nursi
also argues that even at the height of scientific and technological development, the Qur’an remains
indispensable in humankind interpreting the world around them. Nursi’s case illustrates that the
task of relating the modern science and the Qur’an requires attention to their interpretive dimensions.
Key words: Quran; “Scientific miracles”; Scientism; Naturalism; Islamic theology; Said
Nursi
The aim of this article is to discuss the noteworthy approach of a twentieth-century
Muslim scholar and exegete, Bediüzzaman Said Nursi (1877–1960), to the relation-
ship between the Qur’an and science. Nursi’s case illustrates that the task of relat-
ing the modern science and the Qur’an requires attention to the interpretive
dimensions of both. Before I turn to discussing Nursi’s approach, in the first part
of the article I shall discuss a popular contemporary Muslim discourse on
science, the genre of “scientific miracles” of the Qur’an, in order to provide a heur-
istic comparative context.
1. The genre of “scientific miracles” of the Qur’an
The idea that there is harmony between Islam and science is a widely shared notion
among contemporary Muslims. As Stefano Bigliardi has summarized well, contem-
porary Muslims express such a claim in a variety of ways. One way is to highlight
the exhortations in the sacred sources of Islam, namely the Qur’an and the hadith or
prophetic sayings, for the pursuit of knowledge and study of nature. Another
common trend is to point out the major scientific developments that took place
during Muslim history as an evidence of the harmony between Islam and
science. Finally, a frequently used argument is that there is no disagreement
between the Qur’an and science, and that the Qur’an actually anticipates many
modern scientific discoveries.1
© 2013 Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences
Theology and Science, 2013
Vol. 11, No. 4, 339–355, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2013.836888
Downloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

2. The latter approach, also known as the genre of “scientific miracles” of the
Qur’an, has become quite popular with the use of the Internet enhancing its dis-
semination.2
This genre is devoted to presenting examples of modern scientific
discoveries that are compatible with the plain sense of the Qur’an. For instance,
the Qur’anic verse that refers to resurrection, “Does man think that We [God]
shall not put his bones back together? In fact, We can reshape his very finger-
tips” (Q. 75:3–4) is interpreted as being remarkably in agreement with the nine-
teenth-century discovery of uniqueness of fingerprints.3
Similarly, various
Qur’anic verses mentioning the formation of an embryo in a mother’s womb
(e.g. Q. 39:6; Q. 23:12–14) are read as conforming to the findings of modern
embryology.4
Likewise, Maurice Bucaille, a French physician who was a major
proponent of the genre, locates in the Qur’an descriptions that match the
current scientific opinions in cosmology, astronomy, geology, zoology, and
history.5
Such connections between the Qur’anic passages and scientific discoveries are
offered as supporting two main conclusions. First is a negation: it is argued that
such verses show that there is no dissonance between the Qur’an and science,
and therefore the Qur’an is not disqualified from being a genuine revelation
from God. This negation of any disagreement between the Qur’an and modern
science was anticipated earlier, perhaps most clearly by the Indian Muslim
scholar S. Ahmad Khan (1817–1897). Writing under British colonialism in India
and taking the Enlightenment claims as well as missionary challenges to Islam
seriously, Khan had put forth fifteen principles for Qur’anic interpretation.
Khan’s fourteenth hermeneutical principle anticipates the central thesis of the
genre of scientific miracles, which was to emerge decades later:
Whatever God has said in the glorious Qur’an about the things that exist in the world
and the created beings is either absolutely, or in some respect or other, in accordance
with reality. It is not possible that what He declares be opposed to what He has
created, or vice-versa. In some places we have called the speech of God: Vūrd af
Gād (i.e. “word of God”) and have called what He has created: Vūrk of Gād (i.e.
“work of God”) and have said that agreement between the word and work of
God is essential. If the word is not according to the work, then such word cannot
be the word of God.6
In addition to negating any dissonance between the Qur’an and scientific facts,
this popular genre of “scientific miracles” argues that the Qur’an is indeed a gen-
uinely inspired text, revealed by the Creator of the universe. The idea is that it is
“inconceivable” that such scientifically accurate descriptions be offered by an
ordinary man who lived in the seventh-century Arabian desert, unless that
person was genuinely inspired by God as His messenger to people.7
Hence the
term “miracle”: the proponents of this genre say that scientifically accurate
descriptions of nature in such an ancient text cannot be explained by referring
to Muhammad’s genius, mere coincidence, or the scientific information available
in his milieu. Rather, they argue, it can only be described as a miracle, a special
circumstance that acts as a sign that the Qur’an is indeed revealed by God, the
All-Knowing One.
340 Theology and ScienceDownloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

3. This genre of “scientific miracles” also fits in with the traditional Muslim belief
that God gave each messenger or prophet a miracle appropriate to his audience.
While Prophet Moses was given miracles that would surpass feats of magic in
his time, Prophet Jesus was gifted with healing miracles that were fitting for his
audience’s high regard for medicine. And the miracle given to Muhammad, they
argue, was the Qur’anic text itself, appropriate to its first audience of seventh-
century Arabia, who had a very fine taste for verbal eloquence. According to this
traditional Muslim belief, the miracle of the Qur’an was given to Muhammad, as
the final messenger of God, as a miracle that would endure until the end of
time.8
Thus, for many contemporary Muslims, the “scientific miracles” of the
Qur’an are just another specific manifestation of the miracle of the Qur’an for the
needs of a contemporary age.9
This contemporary Muslim understanding of the harmony of the Qur’an and
science also at times refers to the biblical text as its control group, so to speak.
For instance, Bucaille, in his book The Bible, the Qur’an, and Science: The Holy Scrip-
tures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge, argues that while the Bible contains
truth revealed by God to the messengers of God before Muhammad, including
Abraham, Moses and Jesus, some of its content contradicts modern science,
unlike the Qur’an. As Bigliardi has aptly summarized:
Bucaille buttresses his interpretation with numerous references to Christian exe-
getes, and his purpose is not to radically discredit the Bible. He maintains that
it was genuinely inspired and that it therefore still fulfills a basic religious aim:
it helps humans to understand God’s power… The mistakes in the Bible, Bucaille
argues, cannot be ascribed to God, but to the historical process undergone by the
text, written down by different authors and transmitted with interpolations and
errors. Keeping this process in mind, Bucaille holds, the absence of such mistakes
would be surprising.10
Given its explicit belief claims as well as implicit existential assumptions, such as
belief in the existence of God and His communication with humanity through
scriptures, it is not surprising that this widespread genre has been controversial.
There have been Christians who have been offended, either at the unfavorable
comparison of the Qur’an with the Bible, or at the too-literal interpretation of
the biblical text. This discourse also comes across as strange for those who
believe that harmony between modern science and religion is a lost cause.
Finally, the genre also has been criticized among Muslims for containing examples
of stretched readings and hasty conclusions, and for blurring the real purposes of
the Qur’an. The aim of this article is not to pass a judgment against this genre,
which at times offers very interesting evidence for its thesis, and carries existential
implications for a number of people. Rather, my purpose is to highlight other
issues worthy of attention in conceiving a harmonious relation between Islam
and science that are commonly left out in this contemporary popular Muslim dis-
course. By exploring the approach of an important and yet understudied contem-
porary Qur’anic exegete by using primary texts and interpretive analysis, this
article will thus contribute new material to the study of the relation between the
Qur’an and science.
Perhaps Their Harmony is not that Simple 341Downloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

4. 2. Said Nursi on the harmony of the Qur’an and modern science
As a Muslim theologian and Qur’anic exegete from Anatolia, who lived during late
Ottoman and then Turkish Republican periods, Nursi was very much interested in
reconciling faith and reason, and Islam and science. Such a concern was not unique
to Nursi in his era. In fact, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century,
there was strong optimism about science and progress among many Muslim intel-
lectuals. For instance, Jamal al-din al-Afghani (1838–1897), the famous Islamic
scholar and activist who traveled across the Muslim world for Muslim solidarity
and reform, confidently claimed that “there was, is, and will be no ruler in the
world but science.”11
Indeed, Afghani’s Egyptian students, Muhammad
’Abduh (1849–1905) and Rashid Riḍa (1865–1935), Indian scholars such as
S. Ahmad Khan (1817–1898) and Shibli Nu’mani (1857–1914), as well as many
Ottoman activists and scholars, such as İzmirli İsmail Hakkı (1868–1946), were
all excited about scientific developments in Europe. They were confident that
Islam was fully compatible with science and progress, even more so than Christian-
ity had been.12
Nor was such concern to harmonize science and religion an exclusively Muslim
phenomenon.13
While the nineteenth and early twentieth century was a time of
great enthusiasm about science and technology in both the Western and the
Muslim worlds, it was also a time when the ideas of atheism and materialism
were becoming much more pronounced than ever before. In fact, many of the
Western-educated elite in Nursi’s milieu of late Ottoman and early Turkish period
saw the successes of science and technology as lending support to a materialist
and an atheistic worldview. It is in this very climate that Nursi argued that there
is no real tension between the Qur’an and modern science; and that any apparent
clash between them derives merely from a misunderstanding of either one.
As Nursi’s life journey took him through the various social, political and per-
sonal upheavals of the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, his
discussion of the relationship between science and religion also seems to have
gone through some changes.14
Perhaps at the risk of oversimplifying, we may
observe that in the earlier part of his scholarly career Said Nursi seems to be
more excited about new scientific discoveries and technological development. In
this period, which he later labels as the “Old Said” period, he seems to have
embraced modern science and technology with excitement, albeit not without
exhortations on maintaining faith and serving humanity in God’s name. His
approach to harmony of faith and science in this period is reminiscent of many
other Muslim reformists and revivalists. Like his contemporaries, the “Old Said”
highlights the importance of free inquiry from a Qur’anic perspective and considers
the study of universe as a religiously meaningful act: believers should be open-
minded, appreciate the relevance of the Qur’an in a new era, and embrace
reason and science as divine gifts leading to appreciate the Creator better. In con-
trast, after the horrors of the World War I, Nursi seems to become more cautious
vis-à-vis modern science and technology. He still very much believes that scientific
inquiry and technology are fully compatible with faith in God. The difference is
that his approach to modern science in this second period, which he himself
342 Theology and ScienceDownloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

5. labels as the “New Said” period, is more critical. The “New Said” puts more
emphasis on the fact that what is meant by modern science is not always a
neutral endeavor, and he spends more time on noting the philosophical and
ethical strings frequently attached to modern science.
Having given this brief background on Nursi and his context, I shall now high-
light some key aspects of Nursi’s approach, based on his writings, which were
mostly penned in Ottoman Turkish. First, I shall note aspects of his approach
that are most reminiscent of the popular Muslim understanding of the relation
between Islam and science: he, too, claims that there is no dissonance between
the Qur’an and modern scientific findings. Next, I shall offer examples of what I
see as a deeper engagement with modern science, in which Nursi identifies
various philosophical underpinnings and interpretations of both modern science
and the Qur’an. It is this deeper level of engagement that showcases the important
considerations missing from the popular Muslim views of the harmony between
the Qur’an and modern science.
Nursi on the harmony between the Qur’an and scientific data
Like other Muslims, Nursi believed that the creator of the universe is the same one
who speaks in the Qur’an. Thus, reminiscent of Khan’s hermeneutical formula, he
argues that there cannot be any genuine contradiction between what happens in
the world and what the Qur’an says; the Creator’s work and word will be
always in harmony. As a result, he believes that to the extent that modern
science studies and accurately describes the world, it cannot be in tension with
the Qur’an. Instead, what appears to be a clash between the Qur’an and modern
science is in reality either a clash of science and misinterpretation of the Qur’an,
or a clash between the Qur’an and a mistaken interpretation of science.
According to Nursi, in both types of situations the underlying problem is “dicta-
torship” in scholarship.15
That is, too often an expert of one field breaches the field
of another specialty, as if one’s authority in one subject gives him authority in all
fields of study. Yet, “with respect to a problem subject to discussion in science or
art, those who stand outside that science or art cannot speak authoritatively,
however great, learned and accomplished they may be [in another discipline],
nor can their judgments be accepted as decisive. They cannot form part of the
learned consensus [of that discipline.”16
One may be a great engineer, but his or
her judgment “on the diagnosis and cure of a disease does not have the same
value as that of the lowliest physician.”17
When such distinction between
spheres of expertise is overlooked, either by theologians or by scientists, a clash
between religion and science may appear.
Nursi suggests that on the religious side such “dictatorship” in scholarship
happens through confusing what is divine and what is human. Just because
Qur’anic exegetes are discoursing about God’s word does not mean that their
works are impeccable, as God’s word is. In fact, “not everything mentioned in
Qur’anic commentary is genuinely a Qur’anic commentary” [Tk. tefsirde mezkur
olan herbir emir, tefsirden olmak lazım gelmez].18
Hence, a Qur’anic exegete may
Perhaps Their Harmony is not that Simple 343Downloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

6. well have interpreted a verse in a way that contradicts a scientific fact that was not
available in his time. To claim that a great theologian has more authority on a scien-
tific issue than an up-to-date scientist is mere ignorance.19
What Nursi argues for may sound too obvious. Yet, given the realities of trans-
mission of religious discourse, it is, unfortunately, not at all redundant. In fact, as a
contemporary Muslim intellectual, Abdolkarim Soroush, notes, in some parts of
the Muslim world some seminarians still uncritically transmit scientific errors
found in past religious texts.20
It is noteworthy that as he acknowledges the scientific errors of past theologians,
Nursi does not dismiss all medieval religious discourse as outdated. Instead, he
suggests that insofar as their aim to understand the Qur’anic guidance is considered,
a medieval commentator’s scientific mistake is not a genuine problem in itself. After
all, when the Qur’an speaks of the world, it speaks not so as to communicate scien-
tific information about it, but rather to attract attention that there is an order, and to
point out to the Maker of that order.21
From Nursi’s perspective, therefore, it does
not matter ultimately for the purposes of spiritual edification, if some of the readers
of the Qur’an over the ages have made mistakes in the details of the cosmic
order. For the point of the Qur’an is to reveal the purpose and meaning of the
world around us, not to supply technical information about it.
Nursi gives three more reasons as to why religious literature may contain scien-
tific mistakes. First, in the medieval era, some religious scholars gave too much
importance to israiliyyat and Greek philosophy. Second, it is a human tendency
to exaggerate religious narratives. Finally, many fail to appreciate the metaphoric
character of certain religious references.
To begin with israiliyyat, the narrations and stories taken from Jewish and Chris-
tian sources, Nursi notes that this genre, which mainly came into circulation among
Muslims through Jewish scholars who converted to Islam, were initially deemed
helpful or at least not harmful in supplementing the Qur’anic interpretation.
Over time, these narrations came to be used frequently in traditional exegesis of
the Qur’an. Yet, Nursi argues, like many other contemporary Muslim theologians,
that one must be careful about the superstitious parts in these haggadic stories. The
stories may indeed contain some truth, but cannot be uncritically relied upon in all
its details. And, they certainly do not deserve clinging upon in the face of counter
scientific evidence.22
Nursi suggests that same caution be applied to the material that entered the tra-
ditional Islamic discourse from Greek thought.23
For instance, the ideas that
heavens consist of nine layers, or that fire, air, water and soil are four basic elements
in the universe, are not Qur’anic in origin, but derive from the “superstitions” of
Greek science that were used by some previous exegetes.24
While the medieval
authors may be excused since they did not have access to more accurate scientific
information, Nursi has no patience for someone clinging to that mistake of the past
in the contemporary age in the name of faith.25
According to Nursi, a third source of scientific mistakes in some traditional reli-
gious works is the tendency on the part of some people to exaggerate sacred nar-
ratives. It is a common human tendency to go into excess about things that one
likes [Ar. mayl al-tazayyud], to speculate as one narrates events [Ar. mayl
344 Theology and ScienceDownloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

7. al-mujāzafa], and exaggerate stories as one transmits them [Ar. mayl al-mubālagha].26
Yet, Nursi argues, such elaborations on otherwise authentic accounts misses the
crucial distinction between possibility and reality. For, while God can create any-
thing, God does not create anything haphazardly; rather, the Creator creates with
wisdom. Thus, Nursi argues, even when God creates a miracle, He creates it as a
sign for those who are open to believe. Miracles are never created in such over-
whelming proportions that would compel everyone to believe regardless of their
voluntary choice. Nursi strongly criticizes these religious enthusiasts—or “extern-
alists” [ẓahiriyyun], as he calls them—for their fallacy to assume that they could
make an authentic story more attractive by exaggerating them.27
A similar mistake is made when the Prophet’s life is portrayed as if it was full of
miracles. Again, the problem in this assumption is not to think that God can
support His Prophet with so many miracles, but to fail to appreciate His wisdom
and to expect that God would choose for this exemplary human being a life that
is utterly removed from the conditions of an ordinary person.28
Nursi contrasts
such unfortunate zeal for exaggeration with the respectful appreciation of the
reality of the world created by God. People who love exaggeration are in effect dis-
paraging and disrespecting the beauty and perfection in the way things are
created.29
Indeed, “exaggeration is implied disparagement.”30
According to Nursi, yet another source of confusion in religious discourse is
related to the metaphorical nature of certain Qur’anic verses and hadith (sayings of
Prophet Muhammad). When one takes such metaphors in the sacred texts literally,
then it can give the appearance of a clash between faith and science: “when meta-
phors pass from the learned to the hands of ignorant, it becomes regarded as
[literal] truth and opens door for superstition.”31
Nursi gives a telling illustration
of how this distortion can take place. He recalls from his childhood that his
mother used to explain the lunar eclipse by saying that a transparent snake had swal-
lowed the moon! In reality, however, the “snake” was simply a metaphor among the
medieval astronomers for a particular constellation of sun, moon and heavenly
bodies during an eclipse. But in time, as the expression passed into circulation
among common people, it became regarded as literally true.32
An example of such misunderstanding of sacred sources concerns a controversy
that Nursi was asked about. Some local preachers were saying that “the earth rests
on a bull and a fish,” and yet “geography sees it hanging in space and traveling like
a star. There is neither bull nor a fish?” Nursi answers by noting that some hadith scho-
lars have interpreted a prophetic saying by relying on stories taken from israiliyyat,
and missing the metaphor in the saying, they have turned it into “something
strange.”33
Then he goes on to explain how the “bull” and “fish” may be taken as sym-
bolic names of the angels that are appointed for the land and the sea, or it might be that
the Prophet wanted to express the two sources livelihood of the world—agriculture
and fishing. Besides, relying on a slightly different narration of the same hadith,
Nursi also notes that Prophet was alluding to constellations.34
In any case, Nursi
reminds us that “the extraordinary and unreasonable stories in certain Islamic
books are either israiliyyat, or they are allegories or they are interpretations of scholars
of hadith, which certain careless people have supposed to be hadiths and attributed
them to the Noble Prophet [Muhammad], upon him be peace.”35
Perhaps Their Harmony is not that Simple 345Downloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

8. Reminiscent of his predecessor Khan, Nursi also argues that the Qur’an itself
does not contain any scientific errors. For instance, he claims that the Qur’an has
never affirmed that the sun revolved around the earth. What the Qur’an simply
did was to refrain from explicitly stating that the sun revolved around the earth,
so as not to alienate communities in past centuries who might have thought so.36
Nursi notes that just as the sacred sources, such as the Qur’an and the hadith, need
to be distinguished from their mistaken interpretations, so scientific data needs to be
separated from its materialistic interpretation. A scientist’s authority within his field
of expertise must be respected, and should be distinguished from his personal
interpretation of the world in existential and metaphysical terms. Nursi regrets
that many a weak believer wavers when they hear a scientist deny faith, for they
confuse scientific expertise with a materialistic interpretation of the world.37
In addition to distinguishing between science and its materialistic interpretations,
Nursi makes an interesting distinction between two types of disciplines: (1) those
that improve with accumulation of knowledge in time; and (2) those on which the
passage of time has little effect. The former is mostly in the realm of sciences; a
simple fact that was a mystery for a genius in the Middle Ages can eventually
become, in later centuries, a fact well known even by kids. Just as moving a big
stone becomes easier as the number of people pushing it increases, so these sciences
improve with the passage of the time.38
On the other hand, the second type of knowl-
edge, which pertains to spirituality and knowledge of the Divine, is like jumping
over a trench; the fact that one person was able to jump over the trench does not
facilitate the task of the next person. In other words, expertise in this second type
of knowledge is not affected by the passage of time or with accumulation of technical
information over time.39
That is why, Nursi says, in matters of faith one should not
simply prefer the opinion of a modern scientist or a modern thinker to the theological
comment of a great theologian of past. The former is in no way privileged in spiritual
matters simply because of living later in history and having access to more accumu-
lated technical data about the world.40
In sum, Nursi argues that there cannot be any genuine conflict between the
Qur’an, which he regards as the word of the Creator of the universe, and
modern science, insofar as it neutrally studies the world. In popular Muslim dis-
course on science and the Qur’an, such a distinction between the Qur’an and its
interpretations that may contain scientific error is acknowledged quite clearly.
What is less discussed is the distinction between science and its interpretations,
and how a materialist interpretation of science can be mistaken for science itself.
Nursi’s contribution to the contemporary Muslim discourse is noteworthy in that
respect; and in what follows, I shall offer some examples of such a distinction
between modern science and its philosophical interpretation.
Nursi on the purposes of the Qur’an and the materialist interpretations of
science
Confusion between science and its philosophical interpretations is not uncommon,
especially in popular discourses. For instance, “scientism” is often considered to be
346 Theology and ScienceDownloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

9. scientific.41
Yet, scientism, which claims that science is the most reliable source of
knowledge for all areas of human life, is in fact a nonscientific dogma. For,
modern science itself does not claim to answer all questions of life. Rather, its
aim is to study the universe for the purpose of finding consistent patterns, and
to use these to predict and control certain events. Within its defined area, science
raises and deals with many questions; but there are also many questions that fall
outside of its scope. Questions regarding morality are among the latter. For
instance, whether it is okay to steal when in need is not a question within science’s
purview. Moreover, science does not ask questions about its basic assumptions,
such as the uniformity of nature or the stability of natural laws over time.
Indeed, there is no way of scientifically proving that the natural laws are absolute
or even stable. Such questions are instead raised and discussed in other disciplines,
such as philosophy of science. Furthermore, science also does not concern itself
with existential and metaphysical implications that can be drawn from the
natural order it studies. The questions whether the regularity and wisdom dis-
played in nature point to a wise Creator behind the scenes, or to a meaning in
human life that transcends death, are not a scientific questions; yet they are still
worth asking. Hence, to claim that science is the only reliable source of knowledge
is simply a fallacy. And, scientism, which rejects the need for religion, is not scien-
tific in itself; hence what appears to be a clash between science and religion is in fact
a clash between scientism, a philosophical view, and religion.
Similarly, “methodological naturalism” of scientific approach is often confused
with naturalism, which is in fact a philosophical view. The former is a scientific
assumption for the sake of successful inquiry within the parameters of natural
science. It is the act of a scientist going into the lab with the expectation to find
something within direct human perception and which is repeatable by anyone in
similar conditions. Given this methodological naturalism, miracles should not
concern the scientist, not because they are proven by science to be invalid—they
are not; but because they simply fall outside of scientific purpose of identifying
general patterns that can be repeated. Such methodological assumption for the
sake of research does not at all contradict religion. In contrast, “naturalism” is a
philosophical approach that rejects the existence of anything that transcends
nature. Hence, naturalism as a philosophical claim contradicts with monotheistic
traditions, including Islam, which emphasize the existence of a Creator that trans-
cends and sustains nature. These examples of scientism and naturalism highlight
the need to distinguish between science and various philosophical views that inter-
pret scientific data, when discussing the relation between science and religion.
Nursi’s work is noteworthy in that it offers an explicit engagement with the phi-
losophical interpretations of modern science, consciously distinguishing them from
science. In fact, Nursi often contrasts the Qur’anic worldview with materialist and
naturalist worldview: both are talking about the same universe, yet interpreting it
completely differently. For Nursi, the Qur’an is the interpreter of “the mighty book
of the universe”; it shows how the world through the wisdom, power and beauty in
it points to the Divine Artist behind the scenes.42
In contrast, Nursi argues that
materialist philosophy completely misses these indications in nature. Cutting off
the art from the Artist, the materialist approach claims that there is no intrinsic
Perhaps Their Harmony is not that Simple 347Downloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

10. meaning to the way the things are.43
According to Nursi, the approach of such
“misguided philosophy” is analogous to the attitude of someone looking at a pro-
found text and instead of reading it, merely analyzing the shapes of the letters and
the geometrical relations between letters, the quality of the paper and the ink; then
claiming to have uncovered the reality of the book. Such a person thinks that the
beautiful calligraphy in the book has no meaning to it, and is just there like that,
as meaningless figures. Whereas, Nursi argues, the person who looks at the
world in the light of the Qur’an is like a person who is literate, and pays attention
to the ink and calligraphy on the pages of the book so as to read the meaningful
messages communicated through them.
Thus, Nursi argues, unlike naturalist or materialist worldview, the Qur’an
reveals the reality of the world as full of meaningful signs, each being is a
message from the Divine. He argues that the Qur’an teaches how all the phenom-
ena in the universe point beyond themselves, to the source of all power, wisdom
and beauty. Nursi gives the example of how the Qur’anic guidance teaches how
to “read” a beautiful flower. The Qur’anic perspective translates the flower’s
speech into our language. Unlike the pretension of the materialist approach, a beau-
tiful flower is not a thing that exists on its own and for its sake. The flower is not
there to proclaim itself and vanish. Rather, just like writing on a page, it indicates
a meaning other than itself. The flower, coming into life from lifeless matter, and
also withering away after some time, points to an enduring source of beauty,
life, and power beyond itself. In other words, with the Qur’anic guidance,
human beings can decipher the ontological “speech” of the flower: “I am made
beautiful. Look at me and see how Beautiful is the Artist who made me, I am a
gift from Him…” The Qur’an thus deciphers the profound meanings inscribed
on the pages of time and space, reading the manifestation different beautiful qual-
ities of God, or asma al-ḥusna, such as wisdom, knowledge, and power, in their
various shades and colors.44
Nursi’s contrast between the Qur’an and materialist philosophy is directly rel-
evant to the relationship between religion and science in that it recognizes the mate-
rialist and atheistic claims that are often attached to modern science.45
In fact, Nursi
goes into detailed discussions of why the philosophical claims—such as the claim
that the nature works on its own, that the world runs as a result of “blind chance,”
and that material causes and natural laws obviate the need for God—are mistaken
interpretations of the world that contradict both the Qur’an and rationality.
Deferring a detailed discussion of Nursi’s justification of monotheism to
another study, in what follows I shall present two representative examples display-
ing an awareness of the distinction between science and its materialistic
interpretations.
First example: The sun as a lamp?
Nursi was asked a question about a reference to the sun in the Qur’an. To provide
the context, I shall quote the Qur’anic passage:
348 Theology and ScienceDownloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

11. What is the matter with you? Why will you not [look forward to] God’s majesty, When
he has created you stage by stage? Have you ever wondered how God created the
seven heavens, one above the other, placed the moon as a light in them and the sun
as a lamp, how God made you spring forth from the earth like a plant, how He will
return you into it and then bring you out again… (Q. 71:13–18) (emphasis added)46
The question addressed to Nursi was: why does the Qur’an refer to the sun as a
“lamp” for the earth, as if the sun is subservient to the earth? After all, the ques-
tioner continues, modern science has demonstrated that the sun is not revolving
around the earth: actually, it is the center around which the earth and other
planets revolve.
In response, Nursi contrasts the purposes of the Qur’an with the purposes of
science. Unlike science, the Qur’an is not talking about sun for the sake of giving
technical information. Rather, the aim of the Qur’an is to reveal how sun is a
sign pointing to God’s mercy and wisdom: “the Qur’an does not mention the
sun for its own sake. Rather, it refers to it for the sake of the One who illuminates
it.”47
Thus, when the Qur’an refers to the sun as a “lamp,” it is actually revealing its
intrinsic reality. For, Nursi argues, the term “lamp” calls into mind the idea of fur-
niture in a home, which is intentionally placed there for the benefit of the inhabi-
tants. Hence, by describing the sun as a lamp, the Qur’an proclaims that the
world is a purposefully constructed home, that human beings and living beings
are guests of a Merciful and Powerful Host, and that the sun is an obedient creature
of this Host.48
This question asked to Nursi shows to what extent a particular interpretation of
science may pass off as a scientific fact. It is a fact that the earth revolves around the
sun. In contrast, the claim that that the benefit of the sun for living beings is a mere
accident and not an intentional gift by a Creator is a philosophical interpretation, and
not a scientific position per se. Nursi seems to be quite aware of such interpretive
dimensions frequently attached to modern science. And he is clear that, while
there is no discrepancy between the Qur’an and science on a factual level, there
is nevertheless a tension between the Qur’an and such interpretations of science
that reject the “witness” of the world to the Transcendent.
Indeed, using this example, Nursi contrasts the Qur’anic view with what he calls
as “atheistic philosophy” [Tk. dinsiz felsefe]. Like an illiterate person missing the
meaning of the words on a page, the latter approach pretends to have uncovered
the truth about the sun simply by noting its quantifiable properties: “See how [athe-
istic philosophy] says ‘the sun is just a vast burning liquid mass. It causes the
planets, which have flung off from it, to revolve around it. Its mass is such-and-
such… [etc.].’”49
Nursi claims that this description, when presented as the reality
of the sun, is in fact ignorance. For it denies the purpose, wisdom and mercy com-
municated through the existence of sun. He argues that such an interpretation of
the world only yields “a terrible dread and fearful wonder” in existential sense
and “it does not afford the spirit the satisfaction and fulfilment of true knowl-
edge.”50
Such materialistic interpretation is not science per se, and the reader
must be careful about such views that try to pass off as neutral science.51
Nursi’s
awareness of the distinction between science and its materialist interpretations is
also reflected in his word choice. When he is contrasting the Qur’an with such
Perhaps Their Harmony is not that Simple 349Downloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

12. interpretations of modern science, Nursi often uses the term philosophy [falsafa]
instead of mere science, which is reserved for what he considers as neutral scientific
study [Tk. fen and hikmet-i cedide, Ar. fann and ḥikma al-jadı̄da].
In sum, Nursi nuances the picture of the simple harmony between the Qur’an
and science by showing awareness of the distinction between philosophically
neutral aspects of modern science, and philosophical interpretations of nature com-
monly attached to modern science. This approach goes beyond addressing the
question of how the Qur’an is compatible with scientific data: it argues for the rel-
evance of the Qur’an by showing how the Qur’an offers a crucial perspective that is
not supplied by science, and that is in fact in tension with its popular atheistic or
materialistic interpretations. As another example of Nursi’s approach to the
relation between science and religion, let us turn to his exegesis of Q. 31:34.
Second example: Nursi’s interpretation of the “five unknowns”
As another example of how Nursi’s Qur’anic hermeneutics not only makes room
for science, but also presents the Qur’anic discourse as offering an indispensable
perspective for interpreting science, let us attend to his exegesis of Q. 31:34.52
The verse reads as:
Verily, with God alone rests the knowledge of when the Last Hour will come: and it
is He [who] sends down rain; and He [alone] knows what is in the wombs: whereas
no one knows what he will reap tomorrow, and no one knows in what land he will
die. Verily, God [alone] is all-knowing, all-aware.
This verse is traditionally known as the verse of “five unknowns,” mughayyabat al-
khamsa, for it was commonly interpreted to mean that only God knows the five
things mentioned in the verse: when the doomsday is, when it will rain, what is
in a mother’s womb, what will happen to one tomorrow, and where one will
die. Obviously, such a statement seems to be in flat contradiction with modern
developments in technology that enable reliable weather forecasts as well as the
visualizing of an embryo in the womb.53
In order to resolve the apparent tension between the verse and modern science,
Nursi first makes a distinction between two types of occurrences in nature: (1) those
that come into existence according to a set pattern, and (2) those that come into
existence without a set pattern. He claims that both types of events serve as signs
[Ar. ayāt] pointing to God, but in different ways. Sunrise and sunset, for instance,
belong to the first category. There is a clear pattern and schedule according to
which human beings can predict the times of sunrise and sunset; whereas the
occurrence of rain belongs to the second category, in that it has no such set
pattern. Hence, the rain forecast is not based on a set pattern we have discovered;
rather, it is dependent on our perception of the symptoms or the “forerunners” of
the coming rain, such as a change in humidity level. In the absence of such forerun-
ners, we would not know when it would rain—unlike our prediction of when the
sun will rise the next day. Nursi says that even he himself can sometimes foretell
rain a day before it comes, because he has rheumatoid arthritis and is sensitive
350 Theology and ScienceDownloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

13. to the subtle humidity changes in the weather. The modern methods of detecting
the forerunners of rain have become more precise and nuanced, but that does
not change the fact that the occurrence of rain does not have a regular pattern—
unlike, for instance, sunrise. The verse still is valid in highlighting in that
certain things, including rain, do not come into existence with a strict schedule,
and they remain unknown for us until their “preliminaries” become detectable.54
Nursi argues that the same is true regarding our knowledge about a baby in the
womb. There is a part of the process of embryonic growth that falls under the first
category, and there is another aspect that is under the second.55
In other words,
there is a uniform aspect or pattern to the growth of any embryo, such as its
main physical features, on the basis of which we can easily anticipate what
organs a baby will have. We confidently expect that a human fetus will resemble
other human beings in basic features. A second aspect involved in the baby’s for-
mation in the womb, however, is under the nonuniform category of natural
events.56
That aspect is the particularity of each baby, such as her character and
the unfolding of her unique life journey. These are special to each embryo, and
cannot be strictly anticipated as one would anticipate her physical features.
Nursi thinks that even what her face will exactly develop into will be difficult to
discern, for each person’s facial features will have some unique aspect.57
Thus,
when the verse says “only God knows what is in the womb,” it is again calling
to attention that there are such diverse manifestations in nature that do not
follow a clear, exact pattern. And our ability to know baby’s gender beforehand,
or the modern technology’s ability to peek into the womb in general, does not elim-
inate that unknown aspect.
To my mind, what is most interesting in Nursi’s comment on this verse is that he
is not simply content with releasing the apparent tension between the plain sense of
the Qur’an and modern scientific discoveries by offering such a distinction between
two types of natural occurrences, regular versus irregular events, and our knowl-
edge regarding them. He goes further and reads this verse on “five unknowns”
with the purposes of the Qur’an in mind. According to Nursi, since the Qur’an’s
main purpose is to reveal how the world points to God, the verse’s reference to
the existence of events without a set pattern must be articulating a meaning
serving that purpose.
Indeed, according to Nursi, there is a profound meaning behind the fact that
certain things in nature (like sunrise) happen according to a set pattern, while
others (like rain) do not. He argues that uniformity of nature points to the existence
of one source of power and wisdom behind all, i.e. to one God. Hence the baby in
the womb, whose basic organs and capacities resemble all other human beings,
offers spiritual testimony [shahāda] that “whoever is making me, is the maker of
all other human beings who look like me, as well as the maker of all living
beings [with whom I am interconnected].”58
This witness of the embryo in the
womb, just like the witness of regular sunrises, is not concealed in “unseen”
[ghayb], in the sense that it has a particular pattern to it that is well known to
human beings.59
On the other hand, the events in nature that unfold without a set pattern, like
the particular life journey of a baby, the timings of rainfall, or an individual’s
Perhaps Their Harmony is not that Simple 351Downloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

14. lifespan, each point to God in a different way. Nursi argues that they reveal the
will and choice of the Maker, and declare that His mercy or power is not con-
strained by a particular strict formula.60
Now, this type of declaration comes
from “the unseen,” in that one cannot foresee how a particular being will
bear witness to freedom and unboundedness of God’s will before it actually
comes into existence. Hence, in Nursi’s interpretation, while uniformity in
nature allows the human being to appreciate the wisdom of the Creator, the
presence of what appears to us as irregularity or spontaneity in the world
points to the will and creativity of the Creator.61
Our inability to decipher a
precise pattern for certain events makes us notice the Divine choice manifested
in the universe. More importantly, it enables the believer to feel gratitude more
fully, instead of taking for granted the most precious things in existence, such as
life and water.62
This final example shows how Nursi understands the relevance of the Qur’an in
an age of science and technology. According to him, even when human beings can
predict weather, peek into the womb, they still need the guidance of the Qur’an in
how to existentially interpret the nature around them, which manifests both regu-
larity and spontaneity.
Conclusion
The harmony between the Qur’an and modern science is a very popular subject in
Muslim circles. And rightly so: despite all its shortcomings and complications
(such as environmental problems and the horrors of war technology), science
has benefited and transformed our lives tremendously. Being in contradiction
with such a respected discourse, or more broadly with empirical reality, is not
something a genuine religion can afford. After all, religion is here to
interpret the world, not to replace or to contradict it. The genre of scientific mira-
cles of the Qur’an has been immensely popular among contemporary Muslims
precisely because it aims to disclose such crucial harmony between the Qur’an
and science.
Without intending to disparage such a popular approach, the purpose of this
article was to show how the harmony between the Qur’an and science should
imply more than finding convergences between the scriptural text and scientific
data. Rather, there are a number of important hermeneutical issues that needs to
be raised and discussed. For instance, what is the purpose of the Qur’anic dis-
course? How is it different from the purposes of science? Is the Qur’an really rel-
evant in an age when we know what goes on in a cell, can split an atom,
exchange information instantly across the world, and explore space? Moreover,
what do we make of the rejection of essential faith concepts under the guise of
science—such as claims that human benefit from the world is accidental and not
intended, that there is no special meaning to human life, and that nature works
on its own, without need for a transcendent Creator? By using the case of Said
Nursi, this article has illustrated some of the ways in which such questions
might be treated from a contemporary Muslim perspective.
352 Theology and ScienceDownloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

15. Endnotes
1 See: Stefano Bigliardi, “The Contemporary Debate on the Harmony between Islam and
Science: Emergence and Challenges of a New Generation,” Social Epistemology 27:4
(2013) (forthcoming).
2 For a helpful overview of the genre, see ibid.
3 Throughout this article, the standard Egyptian numbering of the Qur’an is used. Unless
otherwise noted, the translations are from M.A.S. Abdel Haleem’s English translation of
the Qur’an, The Qur’an—A New Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004),
except where the Qur’an is cited within another quote, in which case the quoted
author’s translation is retained.
4 Thus, for instance, a famous professor of anatomy, Keith L. Moore, considered the Qur’an
as anticipating the latest scientific descriptions of the early stages of the embryo in the
womb. See Moore, “A Scientist’s Interpretation of References to Embryology in the
Qur’an,” Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of North America, February 18, 1986;
available online at http://jima.imana.org/article/view/8693/18.
5 See Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur’an, and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the
Light of Modern Knowledge (Paris: Seghers, 1981), 119 ff.
6 Muhammad Daud Rahbar, “Sir Sayyid Aḥmad Khān’s Principles of Exegesis translated
from his Tahrir fi ‘Usul al Tafsir,’ II,” Muslim World 46:4 (1956): 324–335. (In formulating
this principle of interpretation, Khan uses English terminology within his original Urdu
writing.)
7 Gasser Hathout, a medical scientist, notes this in his presentation posted on YouTube
with the title, “Qur’an and Science-Embryology,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
= fk1OHeHeqvk (accessed October 2011). Similarly, Bucaille, one of the key sources of
the genre, notes: “In view of the state of knowledge in Muhammad’s day, it is inconcei-
vable that many of the statements in the Qur’an which are connected with science could
have been the work of a man. It is moreover, perfectly legitimate, not only to regard the
Qur’an as the expression of a Revelation, but also to award it a very special place on
account of the guarantee of authenticity it provides and the presence in it of scientific
statements which, when studied today, appear as a challenge to human explanation.”
(Bucaille, Holy Scriptures, 269).
8 For contemporary examples of this traditional view, see Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Heart
of Islam (New York: HarperCollins, 2002), 24; M. Sami M. Ali, Scientific Miracles of the Glor-
ious Qur’an, tr. Abdussamad Kyle (Syria: n.p., 1997), 10–12.
9 Ali, Scientific Miracles, 13.
10 Bigliardi, “Snakes from Staves? Science, Scriptures and the Supernatural in Maurice
Bucaille,” Zygon: Journal for Religion and Science 46:4 (2011): 793–805, 796.
11 Keddie, “An Islamic Response to Imperialism,” 102, cited in Muzaffar Iqbal, Contempor-
ary Issues in Islam and Science (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), 149.
12 For a helpful summary of Muslim views of science and religion at the time, see Iqbal,
Islam and Science, 131–158.
13 For instance, writing around the same time period as Nursi, the renowned Protestant
theologian Paul Tillich (1886–1965) also sought to reconcile religion and science in a
Christian context. For an interesting comparison of the two theologians, see Kelton
Cobb, “Revelation, the Disciplines of Reason, and Truth in the Works of Bediüzzaman
Said Nursi and Paul Tillich,” in Islam at the Crossroads: On the Life and Thought of Bediüzza-
man Said Nursi, ed. Ibrahim M. Abu-Rabi (New York: SUNY Press, 2003), 129–150.
14 For a short biography of Nursi, see Colin Turner and Hasan Horkuc, Said Nursi: Makers of
Islamic Civilization (Oxford: I.B. Tauris, 2009), 5–19.
15 Bediüzzaman Said Nursi, Risale-i Nur Kulliyati [henceforth RNK], vol. 2 (Istanbul: Yeni
Asya Yayinlari, 1996), 1991.
Perhaps Their Harmony is not that Simple 353Downloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

16. 16 Nursi, The Rays: From the Risale-i Nur Collection, trans. Sukran Vahide (Istanbul: Sözler
Neşriyat, 2002), 127. Here, and in the following citations from Vahide’s translation, I
have occasionally modified her translation in consultation with the original.
17 Ibid.
18 Nursi, RNK, vol. 2, Muhakemat, 1991. “Tk.” refers to Turkish original. “Ar.” refers to
Arabic terms, which are often shared as loan words in Ottoman Turkish.
19 Ibid.
20 See: Abdulkarim Soroush, Reason, Freedom, and Democracy in Islam: Essential Writings of
Abdolkarim Soroush, trans., ed. and intr. Mahmoud Sadri and Ahmad Sadri (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2000), 180–182. Not unlike Nursi, Soroush emphasizes dis-
tinguishing between what is sacred and what is human in religious discourse.
21 Nursi, RNK, vol. 2, 1986. Cf. Khan’s similar view: “the Arabs called that upon which they
lived arḍ (earth) and the bluish dome-like thing which was above them they called sama
(sky), and they were completely ignorant of the problems relating to these two things in
sciences. And yet that result of guidance, spiritual teaching and (belief in) the unity and
power of the Creating Essence, which was intended by the Qur’an, was gained by them.”
Rahbar, 330.
22 Ibid., 1990–1991.
23 Ibid., 1988–1989.
24 Ibid., 1262, 2010.
25 Ibid., 1986, 1987.
26 Ibid., 1992.
27 Ibid., 2007.
28 “All the states and acts of the Noble Messenger (upon whom be blessings and peace) tes-
tified to his veracity and prophethood, but not all of them had to be miraculous. For God
Almighty sent him in the form of a human being so that he might be a guide and leader to
human beings in their social affairs, and in the acts and deeds by means of which they
attain happiness in both worlds. [God sent him] so that he might disclose to human
beings the wonders of Divine art and His power that underlie all occurrences…”
Nursi, Letters, 122 (italics added). Also see RNK, 1999.
29 Here, Nursi notes that it is this profound appreciation of reality that made Al-Ghazālı̄
declare his famous statement that “there is not in possibility anything more wonderful
than what is” [laysa fi’l imkān abda’ mimmā kān]. For a lucid contextualization of
Al-Ghazālı̄’s statement, see Eric Ormsby, Theodicy in Islamic Thought (Princeton, NJ: Prin-
ceton University Press, 1984), 33–41.
30 Nursi, The Words: From the Risale-i Nur Collection (Istanbul: Sozler Publications, 1998,
trans. Sukran Vahide), 749.
31 RNK, vol. 2, 1991.
32 Ibid. Nursi’s reference to metaphors brings to mind the famous Qur’anic passage on
mutashābihāt (Q. 3:7).
33 Nursi, Flashes: From the Collection of Risale-i Nur, trans. Sukran Vahide (Istanbul: Sozler
Publications, 1995), 127.
34 In an earlier text, Nursi also mentions the authenticity of this hadith, suggesting that since
it is not a very strong narration, it is not a must for one’s faith to accept this particular
narration as hadith (RNK, 2002).
35 Nursi, Flashes, 131.
36 Cf. Khan, quoted in Rahbar, pp. 328, 330–1.
37 Nursi, RNK, 896; Rays, 127.
38 Nursi, RNK, 1987–1988.
39 Though Nursi admits that the proofs of faith can become clearer in time (RNK, 1987).
40 Ibid.; see also Nursi, Words, 143–145.
41 For a helpful discussion of this point, as well as the point about “methodological natur-
alism” in the next paragraph, see Garret J. DeWeese and J.P. Moreland, “How Should
354 Theology and ScienceDownloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014

17. Christians Think About Science,” in Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult; a Beginner’s
Guide to Life’s Big Questions (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2005), 131–154.
42 Nursi, Words, 376.
43 Nursi, RNK, 49.
44 See ibid., 49, 211–212, etc.
45 See for instance, Nursi, Words, 709; Flashes, 232 ff.
46 I amended Abdelhaleem’s translation on the basis of Muhammad Asad’s translation in
The Message of the Qur’an (Gibraltar: Dar al-Andalus, 1984), 897.
47 Ibid., 167.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid. In fact, Nursi contrasts the Qur’anic worldview with “unguided philosophy” from
other angles as well. For instance, he argues: “as for unguided philosophy, it regards the
extraordinary creation around us as ordinary and treats the world in an ignorant and
indifferent fashion. It labels things and pretends that by labeling it explained away
their amazing nature. It focuses the attention to ‘freaks,’ or abnormalities, which have
fallen from being extraordinary, have come out of the order in creation, and deviated
from the perfections of their true natures. It offers them to conscious beings as objects
of wise instruction. For example, it says that the creation of a human being,—which is
an amazing event showing the Creator’s power—, is commonplace and looks at it
with indifference. Instead of being at awe at wonderfulness of the order, it regards
abnormalities, such as a person who has come out of the perfection of creation, and
has three legs or two heads, worthy of amazement” (Words, 150 ff.).
51 Hence, Nursi cautions the readers “so do not be deceived by its glittering exterior and be
disrespectful towards the most miraculous expositions of the Qur’an!” (Words, 252).
52 Nursi, RNK, 639 ff.
53 RNK, 640–641.
54 RNK, 640. It seems to me that these categories could also be used in interpreting the
verse’s reference to the time of death. To be sure, many people in their death bed are
known to have recognized that their time of death is very near. Yet, Nursi could say,
such knowledge is again on the basis of the preliminaries of death that they are now
sensing, rather than on the basis of any clear formula of death that humans have discov-
ered. Hence, our time of death remains an unknown category for us.
55 Ibid.
56 Ibid.
57 In fact, Nursi is fascinated with human face, and regards it as a “signature of the Divine”
in that while the essential features of all faces are the same and each has a unique dis-
tinguishing mark (ibid.).
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid., 641.
61 Ibid., 641.
62 Ibid., 640.
Biographical Notes
Isra Yazicioglu is Assistant Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at
St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Perhaps Their Harmony is not that Simple 355Downloadedby[SaintJoseph'sUniversity]at09:3812March2014