--
[ Two articles by a disbeliever in Quran. ]
--
Subatomic Particles Revealed in the Qur’an?
There are several thousand Muslim web pages claiming that the Qur’an reveals the existence of subatomic particles.1 Yet, this is but one issue in a list of several dozens of claims about the alleged “scientific miracle” of the Qur’an. This “miracle” is considered proof for the book’s divine origin by many Muslims.
In the following I will quote just a couple of representative examples of this particular argument – most prominently the arguments propagated by Harun Yahya and Dr. Zakir Naik.
Harun Yahya writes on his website2:
SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES
… At the present time, modern science has revealed that the atom, previously regarded as the smallest particle, can actually be split. This fact only emerged in the last century, but was revealed in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago:
… He is the Knower of the Unseen, Whom not an atom's weight eludes, either in the heavens or in the earth; nor is there anything smaller or larger than that which is not in a Clear Book. (Qur'an, 34:3)
… Not even an atom's weight eludes your Lord, either on earth or in heaven. Nor is there anything smaller than that, or larger, which is not in a Clear Book. (Qur'an, 10:61)
This verse refers to "atom" and smaller particles still. … (Source; underline emphasis mine)
Similarly, Zakir Naik writes:
THE EXISTENCE OF SUBATOMIC PARTICLES
In ancient times a well-known theory by the name ‘Theory of Atomism’ was widely accepted. This theory was originally proposed by the Greeks, in particular by a man called Democritus, who lived about 23 centuries ago. Democritus and the people that came after him, assumed that the smallest unit of matter was the atom. The Arabs used to believe the same. The Arabic word dharrah most commonly meant an atom. In recent times modern science has discovered that it is possible to split even an atom. The fact that the atom can be split further is a discovery of the 20th century. Fourteen centuries ago this concept would have appeared unusual even to an Arab. For him the dharrah was the limit, beyond which one could not go. The following Quranic verse however, refuses to acknowledge this limit:
“The kafirun (unbelievers) say, ‘Never to us will come the hour’: say, ‘Nay! But most surely, By my Lord, it will come upon you-by Him Who knows the unseen- from Whom is not hidden the least little atom (dharrah) in the heavens or on earth: Nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in a clear book.” (34:3)
This verse refers to the Omniscience of Allah (SWT), His knowledge of all things, hidden or apparent. It then goes further and says that Allah (SWT) is aware of everything, including what is smaller than the atom. Thus the verse clearly shows that it is possible for something smaller than an atom to exist, a fact discovered only recently by modern science. (Texas Prison Dawah Project – The Quran and Modern Science; source; underline emphasis mine)
In ancient times a well-known theory by the name ‘Theory of Atomism’ was widely accepted. This theory was originally proposed by the Greeks, in particular by a man called Democritus, who lived about 23 centuries ago. Democritus and the people that came after him, assumed that the smallest unit of matter was the atom. The Arabs used to believe the same. The Arabic word dharrah most commonly meant an atom. In recent times modern science has discovered that it is possible to split even an atom. The fact that the atom can be split further is a discovery of the 20th century. Fourteen centuries ago this concept would have appeared unusual even to an Arab. For him the dharrah was the limit, beyond which one could not go. The following Quranic verse however, refuses to acknowledge this limit:
“The kafirun (unbelievers) say, ‘Never to us will come the hour’: say, ‘Nay! But most surely, By my Lord, it will come upon you-by Him Who knows the unseen- from Whom is not hidden the least little atom (dharrah) in the heavens or on earth: Nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in a clear book.” (34:3)
This verse refers to the Omniscience of Allah (SWT), His knowledge of all things, hidden or apparent. It then goes further and says that Allah (SWT) is aware of everything, including what is smaller than the atom. Thus the verse clearly shows that it is possible for something smaller than an atom to exist, a fact discovered only recently by modern science. (Texas Prison Dawah Project – The Quran and Modern Science; source; underline emphasis mine)
Another zealous Muslim even claims:
6.4 DIVISIBILITY OF ATOM IN THE QURAN
Scientifically Proving That Quran Is Word Of God …
This is the fourth proof that I am providing in my quest of proving that Quran is from God.
Atom. The very word brings nostalgic feelings to any physicist. From almost 2000 years people have been speculating about the Atom and its nature. Even in the 20th century people thought that Atom was not divisible and that there was nothing smaller than that.. But in 1897 Joseph John Thomson (the famous J.J. Thompson) discovered the Electron – A particle that is smaller than the Atom and one that resides within it. By this great discovery, it was proved for good that Atom was indeed divisible and that there were things that were smaller than the Atom.
… [more nostalgia omitted] …
So that was the science of the 20th century. Now let‘s see what the science in the Quran has got to say about the divisibility of Atom.
Read these verses:-
“…And not an atom’s weight in the earth or in the sky escapeth your Lord, nor what is less than that or greater than that, but it is (written) in a clear Book.” Noble Quran 10:61 (Pickthall Translation)
“The Unbelievers say “Never to us will come the hour”: say “Nay! but most surely by my Lord it will come upon you by Him Who knows the unseen from Whom is not hidden the least little atom in the Heavens or on earth: nor is there anything less than that or greater but is in the Record Perspicuous:” Noble Quran 43.3 [sic] (Yusuf Ali Translation)
The verses clearly state that there is nothing, just absolutely nothing that is hidden from Allah. All events, deeds and things even if they are smaller than the Atom are recorded by Him. So do you now see how scientific the Quran is? Mentioning “Atom” at that time itself is a wonder. But mentioning about things that are smaller than the “Atom” is nothing short of a miracle - A true scientific miracle that no ordinary human being would ever have known at those times. How then, can we explain the presence of these science stunners except that they were actually from the being – God, that created science and all its laws in the first place? (Source; underline emphasis mine)
Response
Although it was not yet empirically proven, the concept of “atoms” was well known in philosophy already since Democritus, who lived about a thousand years before Muhammad. Harun Yahya and Zakir Naik admit this explicitly, and the reader can read about that in Wikipedia (*). Therefore it would definitely not be a “wonder” to find the word “atom” mentioned in the Qur’an. The main issue is the Muslim claim that the Qur’an speaks about sub-atomic particles, and that is the topic of the following study.
Though there are thousands of web pages on the issue of “subatomic particles revealed in the Qur’an”, they all are based on the same two verses: Surah 10:61 and 34:3. The crucial phrase is "mithqala tharratin" which actually occurs in six verses: S. 4:40, 10:61; 34:3,22; 99:7,8. We need to study all of these verses to understand how the Qur’an uses this expression, but the careful analysis of S. 10:61 and 34:3 will be the central part of this article.
Except for one verse, S. 34:22, the context of all of these verses is the last judgment and the justice of Allah who will judge everything, who will punish the least wrong that has been done and will reward the least good that has been done. In the following study, all verses will be quoted according to the translation of Al-Hilali & Khan. These translators consistently render "mithqala tharratin" as “the weight of an atom (or a small ant)”, combining a modern with the classical interpretation of the word “tharrah” (cf. the article Does the Qur’an Speak about Atoms?).
4:40
Surely! Allah wrongs not even of the weight of an atom (or a small ant) but if there is any good (done), He doubles it, and gives from Him a great reward.
99:6-8
That Day mankind will proceed in scattered groups that they may be shown their deeds. So whosoever does good equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant), shall see it. And whosoever does evil equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant), shall see it.
In the above two passages, the "tharrah (ant/atom)" is clearly assumed to be the smallest thing since it is supposed to illustrate the meticulous justice of Allah.
Using, for example, "camel" instead of "tharrah" would miss the point, since a camel is large and there clearly are matters that are far less in value than camels. So, the author appeals to the weight of something that is the smallest and most insignificant thing imaginable to the listeners.
This observation speaks against the claim that in the mind of the author of the Qur'an there exist things that are even smaller than the "tharrah (ant/atom)". It would defeat the purpose of the illustration!
How should we then understand the two verses that speak about "less than that"? What does "less than" refer to?
10:61
Whatever you (O Muhammad SAW) may be doing, and whatever portion you may be reciting from the Qur'an, - and whatever deed you (mankind) may be doing (good or evil), We are Witness thereof, when you are doing it. And nothing is hidden from your Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom (or small ant) on the earth or in the heaven. Not what is less than that or what is greater than that but is (written) in a Clear Record.
34:3
Those who disbelieve say: "The Hour will not come to us." Say: "Yes, by my Lord, it will come to you." (Allah, He is) the AllKnower of the unseen, not even the weight of an atom (or a small ant) or less than that or greater, escapes from His Knowledge in the heavens or in the earth, but it is in a Clear Book (Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuz).
Again, the topic is the good or bad deeds of people and that even the smallest one of them does not escape Allah. He knows it all, and he will judge it all.
Are these verses teaching that there are particles (created things) smaller than atoms? Or does it reveal that there are particles weighing less than an atom?
NO, not at all! What is "less than that"? Note that what is less or greater is what is written in the book! What is written in the book? The good deeds and the bad deeds are written in the book.
The "unseen" refers to the hidden actions of people. They may be hidden from other people, but they are not hidden from Allah.
There is a comparison made in these verses, and every comparison has two sides. The two parts of the comparison are (1) the weight or value of the deeds, and (2) the weight of the smallest material / physical / created thing that exists (according to the understanding of the author and its audience), i.e. "tharrah (ant/atom)".
These verses say: Whether your hidden deed (good or bad) is less than or greater than the weight of "tharrah (ant/atom)", it is written in the book; Allah has recorded it.
In other words, the comparison (less or greater than) is made on the side of the deeds, not on the side of the material, the “atoms”.
Deeds may be less than or greater than [a deed that is equivalent to] the smallest thing (ant/atom) that is referred to as an illustration, but there is no hint at all in these verses that there may be something smaller than an atom in the material world. [Again, that would defeat the purpose of the illustration.]
The verse does not say "particles smaller than atoms" but speaks of DEEDS that may be less than the weight of an atom.
That is a huge difference. Anyone claiming that this verse speaks about sub-atomic particles is not taking this text seriously. The referent for “less than that” is the deeds of the people, not the “tharrah” – whether or not it actually means “atom” (and it definitely didn’t have this meaning in the time of Muhammad).
More specifically, the context of S. 10:61 has to do with a discussion between Muhammad and his god, where Allah is telling Muhammad that he knows of everything that Muhammad and his people do, even the deeds that are equivalent to the weight of a tharrah. And just to cover all imaginable possibilities, the author expands that statement and says that everything people do, be it less than that or greater than that, is recorded. Here is an interesting commentary on S. 10:61.
Al Tubrusi
. . . {Whatever you may be doing} meaning, O Muhammad in whichever situation you are involved such as spreading the message or teaching the Shari’ah or other things . . . {and whatever deed you (mankind) may be doing. . .} meaning, whatever you and your community do, we [Allah] know it and will be witnesses about it against you . . . {And nothing is hidden from your Lord} is not far or hidden from the knowledge of your god, his vision and his power {(so much as) the weight of a tharrah} meaning the weight of a small ant {on the earth or in the heaven. Not what is less than that} of an ant’s weight {or what is greater than that but is (written) in a Clear Record} meaning in a record written by Allah before creating him [Muhammad] that is the preserved tablet [Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuz]. . . The messenger of Allah (saw) used to cry hard when reading this verse. (Arabic source; translated by Mutee’a al-Fadi)
Note particularly the last sentence of this commentary. Why would Muhammad become so emotional and cry hard at the recitation of this verse if it was merely talking about atoms (and their weights) being recorded in Allah’s book, and not about a recording of all the deeds of himself and his community?
Does Allah really need to go back to his records in order to remember the atoms that he created a long time ago? How many atoms, what kind of atoms, and particularly which weight he assigned to which atom? Would that not be a very low view of God?
Note also that both verses have the reference “in the heaven(s) and on earth”. How can anyone know what kinds of atoms are in heaven? Maybe the atoms in heaven are much smaller than those on earth? One could deduce just as well that “less than that” (i.e. less than the earthly atoms) means that heavenly atoms are smaller than earthly ones that are known to humans, not that earthly atoms consist of smaller building blocks. This shows the arbitrariness in this particular “scientific interpretation” of these verses. How can these verses be “scientific statements” at all if we have no way to examine those heavenly atoms? A statement that can neither be verified nor falsified is not a scientific statement.
No, the whole focus of these verses is the deeds of the people; the deeds of the believers in 10:61 and the deeds of the unbelievers in 34:3. And these deeds are recorded because that record will be the basis upon which the last judgment will take place.3
34:22
Say: (O Muhammad SAW to those polytheists, pagans, etc.) "Call upon those whom you assert (to be associate gods) besides Allah, they possess not even the weight of an atom (or a small ant), either in the heavens or on the earth, nor have they any share in either, nor there is for Him any supporter from among them.
This verse has nothing to do with judgment or justice but the point is that those idols do not possess anything, not the least little bit.
Again, the power of the comparison or illustration demands that "tharrah" refers to the smallest thing in existence. It defeats the purpose to come up with smaller things than that.
In conclusion, these verses all assume that "tharrah" is the smallest, most insignificant thing. And if one translates “tharrah” as atom, then the Qur’an would give the appearance that there exists nothing less than an atom in the material world.4
This in turn implies that the Qur’an is wrong if "tharrah" is understood to be an “atom” in a scientific sense, since there clearly are entities smaller than the atom. However, at the time of Muhammad, "tharrah" did not have the meaning “atom”5, so that one cannot legitimately claim that there is a scientific error in these two verses. S. 10:61 and 34:3 do not make a scientific statement at all, neither explicitly nor implicitly.
Thus, the “scientific miracle” claim that the Qur’an speaks about sub-atomic particles is shown wrong. It is a silly attempt to read modern science into the Qur’an.
However, the silliness does not end here. Dr. Zaid Kasim Ghazzawi claims:
The process of atomic fusion can be explained fully from the Noble Qur'an. (Source)
That probably explains why Sudan , Somalia and Saudi Arabia
And then there exists a book, about which the publisher writes:
Aisha At-Tarjumana Bewley
Subatomic World in the Qur’an
Subatomic World in the Qur’an
The deeper the physicists go into trying to understand the working of the universe and to explain the basis of matter and its constituents, the closer they come to the picture of existence which is given in the Quran. They are not discovering anything new. The terminology is different but the picture of matter is the same. However it is only a limited picture and the Quran goes beyond it in a way which the physicists are not capable of grasping through their present frame of reference. (Source)
Well, sorry, I don’t buy that (claim), and I won’t buy it (the book) either, but this claim is so obviously beyond credibility, it is actually quite funny.
I cannot help but wondering why Aisha Bewley is still not suggested as a recipient for a Nobel Prize in Physics, even though her book was published already in 1980, nearly 30 years ago. Why have physicists worldwide not yet recognized her monumental discoveries?
Fact is that the Qur’an nowhere speaks about the structure of atoms. There is no description of protons, neutrons or electrons. Muslims who make such claims about the Qur’an merely provoke people with critical minds to examine the Qur’an in the light of these false claims and expose how this book is failing the very standards and claims made about it by the Muslims.
With every additional “modern scientific claim” that Muslims are inventing for the Qur’an they will make the book look more archaic and outdated when these modernistic claims are then exposed as false.
Harun Yahya’s “weight miracle”
At the end of his article on subatomic particles, Harun Yahya has another paragraph with a “bonus” miracle:
Another point worthy of note is that these verses draw particular attention to the weight of the atom. The word "mithqal," in the expression "mithqali tharratin" (an atom's weight) in the above verses, means weight. In fact, it has been discovered that the protons, neutrons and electrons which form the atom are also compounds which give the atom its weight. Therefore, it is yet another scientific miracle of the Qur'an that attention is drawn instead to the weight of the atom and not its size or any other feature. (Source; underline emphasis mine)
Apparently, Yahya has to find a miracle in every word of the Qur’an, no matter how trivial the observation.
If we pour one kilogram of water on two kilogram of dry sand then we get three kilograms of wet sand. I call that the miracle of the “additive weight of sand and water”. Maybe we should also claim that this was impossible to know at the time of Muhammad? Ridiculous! Every merchant knows that weight is an additive measure, and Muhammad was a caravan merchant before he started to claim prophethood. On the other hand, the volumes of the sand and the water are not added to each other. But since Muhammad had never seen sand or water in his life, he could not have known that.
Even if these verses in the Qur’an had spoken about “the weight of an atom” (which they don’t!) they definitely do NOT speak about “components of the atom” nor do they speak about the weight of the components in relation to the weight of the whole.
Nevertheless, the great desire of Muslims to see miracles in the Qur’an is resulting in the invention of more and more silly claims about their holy book. And the more Muslims are cheering those silly claims, the more Islam will look like it is a religion for the gullible.
Further reading: Amazing Qur’an or Amazing Gullibility?
Appendix: Piling up the lies – Examining Zakir Naik’s claims in more detail
While the last of the three Muslims quoted above is definitely wrong to claim that merely mentioning “atom” is already a miracle, Zakir Naik makes an opposite error with this claim:
… Democritus and the people that came after him, assumed that the smallest unit of matter was the atom. The Arabs used to believe the same. The Arabic word dharrah most commonly meant an atom. In recent times modern science has discovered that it is possible to split even an atom. The fact that the atom can be split further is a discovery of the 20th century. Fourteen centuries ago this concept would have appeared unusual even to an Arab. For him the dharrah was the limit, beyond which one could not go. …
How many Arabs in Muhammad’s time had a highschool education? How many would have studied Greek philosophy? Naik seems to claim that the ‘Theory of Atomism’ was common knowledge and understood and accepted by the average Bedouin in the Arabian Peninsula. That is definitely wrong which can easily be seen from the fact that “dharrah” (tharrah) did not mean “atom” in Muhammad’s time, not commonly and not even rarely. Even more, at that time, the Arabic language did not yet have a word for “atom”, see the article Does the Qur’an Speak about Atoms? This also implies that most Arabs in Muhammad’s time would not ever have heard about this concept.6
We have already shown that the Qur’an nowhere speaks about atoms, that “tharrah” acquired the meaning “atom” only in the 20th century (*), and that what is “less than the weight of tharrah” in S. 10:61 and 34:3 refers to the deeds, not material things like subatomic particles. With either one of these facts established, the Muslim argument is refuted.
However, there is a further aspect of serious dishonesty in Naik’s claims that I want to point out. Naik writes:
In ancient times a well-known theory by the name ‘Theory of Atomism’ was widely accepted. This theory was originally proposed by the Greeks, in particular by a man called Democritus, who lived about 23 centuries ago. Democritus and the people that came after him, assumed that the smallest unit of matter was the atom. The Arabs used to believe the same. The Arabic word dharrah most commonly meant an atom. In recent times modern science has discovered that it is possible to split even an atom. The fact that the atom can be split further is a discovery of the 20th century. Fourteen centuries ago this concept would have appeared unusual even to an Arab. For him the dharrah was the limit, beyond which one could not go. The following Quranic verse however, refuses to acknowledge this limit: …
None of these statements by Naik have any basis in historical reality. They are mere assertions in order to set the stage for the miracle claim. Naik tries to construct an environment and context where people are convinced of atomism so that he can then claim the Qur’an revealed something revolutionary that was contrary to common belief. But that is simply not so.
Already Naik’s first sentence is objectively wrong. The theory of atomism may have been known among philosophers, it was certainly discussed by several of them, but it was by and large not accepted. The most influential philosophers, specifically Plato and Aristotle, rejected this hypothesis (see the Wikipedia entry on Atomism). And since these philosophers rejected Democritus’ ideas, most people did certainly not consider matter to consist of atoms in the sense of Democritus. And if the Greek world did not, the Arabs most likely didn’t either. Naik has certainly not provided any evidence to the contrary.
Interestingly, this collection of wrong claims is found in the handbook of a Prison Dawah Project. In other words, these Muslims are seeking to draw the less-educated into Islam with fabricated miracles since (most of) these people do not have the educational background to recognize just how spurious and silly these claims are.
Footnotes:
2 Not only is the article containing this claim found on more than 700 pages on the web (according to Google), it was/is also published in print: Harun Yahya, Miracles in the Qur’an, AL-Attique Publishers Inc. (2001) (*,*); The Miracle in the Atom, Ta-Ha Publishers, UK, 2004 (*); etc. Yahya and the army of his admirers certainly seek to deluge the world with his writings.
3 The brother who translated the above commentary astutely remarked: S. 34:3 pronounces to the unbelievers a judgement that awaits them based on the written records of their deeds – not a record of the weights of their atoms!
4 In my view, the Qur’an does not even talk about “smallness” in these verses but about insignificance, and that insignificance is merely illustrated with something very small. The author does not make any claim regarding “the smallest thing in existence”. That is not the topic. Trying to foist a scientific understanding on these verses as if they are uttered in a university lecture on the question of what are the smallest entities in the universe makes a mockery of the text. This phrase is merely a metaphor utilizing an idiomatic expression of something whose smallness had become proverbial in Arabic.
6 Still, some highly-educated Arabs who were travelling widely and/or had a command of the Greek language may well have been aware of this theory. In any case, it does not appear in the Qur’an.
--
Does the Qur'an Speak about Atoms?
There are some translations of the Qur’an in which we read statements like these:
Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of an atom, and if it is a good deed He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward. S. 4:40 Shakir
Surely, ALLAH wrongs not anyone even so much as the weight of an atom. And if there be a good deed, HE multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward. S. 4:40 Sher Ali
And you are not (engaged) in any affair, nor do you recite concerning it any portion of the Quran, nor do you do any work but We are witnesses over you when you enter into it, and there does not lie concealed from your Lord the weight of an atom in the earth or in the heaven, nor any thing less than that nor greater, but it is in a clear book. S. 10:61 Shakir
The Unbelievers say, "Never to us will come the Hour": Say, "Nay! but most surely, by my Lord, it will come upon you; - by Him Who knows the unseen, - from Whom is not hidden the least little atom in the heavens or on earth: Nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in the Record Perspicuous: S. 34:3 Yusuf Ali
Based in particular on S. 10:61 and 34:3, Harun Yahya and various other Muslim missionaries even claim that the Qur’an reveals the existence of sub-atomic particles!1
However, other translations formulate these same verses rather differently; for example:
Lo! Allah wrongeth not even of the weight of an ant; and if there is a good deed, He will double it and will give (the doer) from His presence an immense reward. S. 4:40 Pickthall
Surely God shall not wrong so much as the weight of an ant; and if it be a good deed He will double it, and give from Himself a mighty wage. S. 4:40 Arberry
Surely! Allah wrongs not even of the weight of an atom (or a small ant) but if there is any good (done), He doubles it, and gives from Him a great reward. S. 4:40 Al-Hilali & Khan
Thou art not upon any occupation, neither recitest thou any Koran of it, nor do you any work, without that We are witnesses over you when you press on it; and not so much as the weight of an ant in earth or heaven escapes from thy Lord, neither is aught smaller than that, or greater, but in a Manifest Book. S. 10:61 Arberry
The unbelievers say, the hour [of judgement] will not come unto us. Answer, yea, by my Lord, it will surely come unto you; [it is he] who knoweth the hidden secret: The weight of an ant, either in heaven or in earth, is not absent from him, nor any thing lesser than this or greater, but [the same is written] in the perspicuous book [of his decrees]; S. 34:3 Sale
What is going on? Is the Qur’an speaking about atoms or is it speaking about ants?
There are six verses in the Qur’an which contain the expression in question, mithqala tharratin: S. 4:40, 10:61; 34:3,22; 99:7,8. What does it mean?
Edward Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon (*), first published in 1863-93 and still considered to be the best and most comprehensive Arabic-English dictionary available, has the following entry for tharrah (*):
[ picture omitted ]
The first listed meaning, i.e. the main meaning of the word, is that of (young) small ants. Based on the various quotations given, this word had become proverbial in signifying the smallest things and was therefore also used for motes of dust, or minute particles of gold. However, the term “atom” is not found in this extensive dictionary. If that is so, why does the term “atom” appear in a number of Qur’an translations of the 20th century?2
When the Arabs had to translate Greek texts on the theory of (the structure of) matter, they came across the Greek word "atomos" and then were faced with the problem what word to choose in Arabic to render it. Classically, Arab philosophers used the term "al gwhar alfard" (الجوهر الفرد) which means "singular essence" and that captures the Greek meaning reasonably well.3
However, in modern times (around the beginning of the 20th century) the word “atom” began to be translated into Arabic as “tharrah” in texts written for laypeople and religious people. Thus, “tharrah” acquired this new additional meaning, but this meaning is of relatively recent origin. In the Qur’an, however, and in other classical Arabic text, “tharrah” is never used in that meaning.
What happened with these modern English translations of the Qur’an is that first “atom” began to be translated as “tharrah” in popular texts, and then the word “tharrah” in the Qur’an (a classical text, written before this word acquired this new meaning) was translated as “atom” in modern English translations of the Qur’an, but that is an anachronistic interpretation; it is reading into the text a meaning that was unknown to the original audience.
“If you look at the old Arabic translators which were very familiar with the concept of "atom" they never used "tharrah" for it. I am not aware of even a single reference during the classical time of translation of Greek works into Arabic that uses tharrah for atom.” (Bassam Khoury, personal communication)
If Muslims want to insist that the Qur’an talks about atoms, they need to find ancient Arabic texts where this word is used for atoms, i.e. texts in which the structure of matter is discussed, for example Arabic translations of the classical Greek texts which talk about atoms.
Moreover, the classical Qur’an commentaries (the tafsir of Tabari, Qurtubi, etc.) never interpret the word in that sense, even though the Greek concept of atom was known in that time. Just some examples:
Sura 10:61
At-Tabari
{... mithqala tharratin} means: the weight of a tiny ant ... and Tharrah is a singular for Tharr. And Tharr: are the small ants ... (Arabic source)
Sura 4:40
Al Qurtubi
{Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of tharratin} means that Allah will not short them of any reward based on their deeds even if it was the weight of a Tharrah ...
And Tharrah is: the red ant; according to Ibn Abbas and others, and it’s the smallest of ants. And Ibn Abbas also stated that it is the head of an ant. (Arabic source)
Al-Baydawi
{Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of tharratin}. He does not decrease the reward nor increase the punishment of a deed the size of a Tharrah, which is a small ant. (Arabic source)
Al Jalalayn
{tharratin} the smallest ant ... (Arabic source)
Sura 34:3
Al-Jalalayn
{tharratin} the smallest ant (Arabic source)
Az-Zamakhshari
{the weight of tharratin} the weight of the least ant (Arabic source)
All of the above commentaries (translated by Mutee’a Al-Fadi directly from the Arabic online editions) consistently explain tharrah as referring to a tiny ant or the smallest/least ant (namlah).4
To come back to the original question: The Qur’an uses the expression mithqala tharratin six times. And mithqala tharratin means “the weight of an ant” as confirmed by the classical commentators of the Qur’an. It simply is an idiomatic expression in Arabic signifying the smallest thing.
That is the smallest thing occurring naturally, in everyday life of the Arabs. However, an ant can be split5, so there are things that are smaller (and therefore the Qur’an has no problem to talk about “and even smaller than that”)6, but this ant is still the proverbial "smallest thing" or the thing with the "least weight".
Therefore, if we look for a “dynamic equivalent” then it may be justified to translate the expression mithqala tharratin as the “weight of an atom” in modern language since for us today “the atom” is (or at least used to be) the smallest thing. In a dynamic sense, this is an acceptable translation, but not in a scientific sense, since the word did not mean “atom” to the original audience in the technical or scientific sense. The Qur’an is not making a scientific statement in these verses but a religious or theological statement saying that God will not do the least bit of injustice, and the author uses metaphorical language when he illustrates “the least bit” with the proverbial “tiny ant”.
Again, as a dynamic equivalent illustrating the religious message, a translation using “atom” is acceptable, but making the claim that the Qur’an speaks about atoms or even sub-atomic particles in these verses [cf. the article Subatomic Particles Revealed in the Qur’an? for a detailed discussion of this claim] is a misinterpretation and an abuse of the text.
In fact, translating the word as “atom” and then taking that translation in a literal way instead of treating it as an idiomatic expression leads to scientific nonsense. Let’s examine this verse:
Say: (O Muhammad SAW to those polytheists, pagans, etc.) "Call upon those whom you assert (to be associate gods) besides Allah, they possess not even the WEIGHT of an atom (or a small ant), either in the heavens or on the earth, nor have they any share in either, nor there is for Him any supporter from among them. S. 34:22 Al-Hilali & Khan
Isn't that a rather strange formulation? Can anyone possess THE WEIGHT of anything without possessing the thing itself? Taken literally, this formulation is nonsense. Not even in Islamic law can somebody own an attribute or property of an object. Umar cannot own the weight of Abdallah’s camel, nor can Ali own the height of Uthman’s house, nor can Zainab own the color of Aishah’s cat, nor can Fatima own the sweetness of Khadija’s honey.
It should have said:
... they possess not even an atom (or small ant), either in the heavens or on the earth, nor have they any share in either, ...
but adding "the weight of" turns the statement into nonsense.
The weight of something is an objective (scientific) reality of created things. These attributes or properties cannot be possessed or owned by anyone else, they are attached to the objects themselves.
The only justification for such a formulation is that "mithqala tharratin" is a fixed idiomatic expression signifying "the least or smallest thing" without referring to anything in particular.
Idiomatic expressions do not have to be logical. There are strange idiomatic expressions in most languages. But if we say that this is merely an idiomatic expression of the Arabic language, then this also forbids taking it as having a scientific meaning, let alone constituting a scientific miracle.
In the other five verses (S. 4:40, 10:61; 34:3; 99:7,8), "mithqala tharratin" = "the weight of an atom/ant" makes sense, since those verses are clearly metaphorical, comparing the MEASURE of the justice of God with the WEIGHT (a measure) of something. But in that sixth reference, S. 34:22, the formulation does not make sense if taken literally, only when it is taken as an idiom.
And there is a second reason why interpreting “tharrah” as “atom” and claiming that these verses are providing scientific information and constitute a scientific miracle, spells trouble.
What is the weight of “an atom”?
If Muslims want to discover science in these verses, they need to apply scientific exactness to the formulations. The author of the Qur’an does not seem to be aware of the fact that there are many different atoms with VERY different weights! (Just consult any of these tables of elements: 1, 2, 3.) One atom of Lawrentium (Lr) has about 260 times the weight of one atom of Hydrogen (H). So, what does it mean to speak of “the weight of an atom”?
If we are talking about a certain species of ants, then they are more or less of the same weight, particularly when looking at the young ones that just hatched. One individual may be a bit slimmer, and the other one slightly heavier, but they are still rather similar. Therefore, it is reasonable to talk of “the weight of an ant”. However, scientifically, it makes no sense at all to talk about “the weight of an atom” without specifying what atom we are talking about.
Trying to find a scientific statement in these verses completely misses their purpose. Apart from S. 34:22, for all other verses that use this expression (4:40, 10:61; 34:3; 99:7,8) the context is the last judgment and the justice of God who will judge everything. He will punish the least wrong that has been done and will reward the least good that has been done.
These verses illustrate the fine-tuning of God’s justice by comparing it with something of tiny weight. Whether it is the weight of an ant or an atom, it is a METAPHOR since deeds cannot be weighed like material things, no matter how small. These verses cannot be taken literal or we have a problem. When taking those verses seriously, then they have (only) a religious message, but certainly not a scientific one.
Abul Ala Maududi was a respected conservative 20th century Muslim scholar, an interpreter and translator of the Qur’an. Contrary to many of his colleagues, he understood that "mithqala tharratin" is an idiomatic expression that the author of the Qur’an used in a metaphorical way. He translated this expression (in at least some of these verses) by using an equivalent English idiomatic expression:
[4:39-42] Well, what harm would have come upon them, if they had believed in Allah and the Last Day and spent out of what Allah had given them? Had they done so, Allah would surely have had knowledge of their good deeds. Indeed Allah does not wrong anyone even by a jot: if one does a good deed, He doubles it, and then from Himself bestows a rich reward. (Source)
[10:61-65] O Prophet, We are witnessing whatever work you may be engaged in and whatever portion you may be reciting from the Qur'an; We are also keeping a watch, O people, over whatever you are doing: for there is not an iota of anything, small or big, in the earth and the heavens that is hidden from your Lord, and everything is on record in the clear Register. … (Source)
Although Yusuf Ali succumbed to the temptation to use “atom” in most of these verses, he saw the issue more clearly when he rendered S. 4:40:
God is never unjust in the least degree: If there is any good (done), He doubleth it, and giveth from His own presence a great reward.
Finally, here is a section of a longer hadith that also makes clear that “atom” would be a strange interpretation:
… Then it will be said, 'O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to; and ask, for your will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, my followers! My followers!' And then it will be said, 'Go and take out of Hell (Fire) all those who have faith in their hearts, equal to the weight of a barley grain.' I will go and do so and return to praise Him with the same praises, and fall down (prostrate) before Him. Then it will be said, 'O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and ask, for you will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, my followers! My followers!' It will be said, 'Go and take out of it all those who have faith in their hearts equal to the weight of a small ant (mithqala tharratin) or a mustard seed.' I will go and do so and return to praise Him with the same praises, and fall down in prostration before Him. It will be said, 'O, Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and ask, for you will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, my followers!' Then He will say, 'Go and take out (all those) in whose hearts there is faith even to the lightest, lightest mustard seed. (Take them) out of the Fire.' I will go and do so."' … (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 601; Arabic original)
Little ants and little seeds are a match. They are similar enough, i.e. they are within the same order of magnitude in regard to size. Atoms and seeds, on the other hand, would be a gross mismatch.7 They are so far apart it would be more than strange to put them together as two illustrations for the same thing. In fact, this hadith shows a progression from the “barley grain” to the “small ant” to the “lightest, lightest mustard seed”. Apparently, the smallest kind of mustard seed was understood to be even smaller than the small ant. The tiny mustard seed is the climax of the sequence of comparisons of smallness in this hadith. This makes it impossible to argue that with “the small ant” it was really an atom that was meant. Such an interpretation destroys the progression that is clearly intended in this sequence of statements.
That the author of the Qur’an saw the small grain of a mustard seed as being roughly equivalent to the small ant in weight can also be deduced from a comparison of S. 21:47 and 31:16 with S. 4:40, 10:61; 34:3; 99:7,8 (cf. this article). Without a doubt, the Qur’an does not speak about atoms in these verses.
Footnotes:
1 The examination of that claim is left for another article, Subatomic Particles Revealed in the Qur’an?
3 This page provides the following references for the classical Arabic translation of the Greek word "atomos": [ Arabic omitted ]
4 In Ibn Kathir’s tafsir the term “tharrah” is not explained in any of the verses. Interestingly, the English translators of the Ibn Kathir’s tafsir render “tharrah” as “a speck of dust” both in the translation (1) of all these verses as well as in the commentary (2) upon them: 4:40 (1,2), 10:61 (1,2), 34:3 (1,2), 34:22 (1,2), 99:7-8 (1&2). With this translation this group of translators uses a second meaning of tharr as given in Lane’s Lexicon, but one that is different from the explicit explanation given for this term by most classical commentators.]
5 In fact, notice that Al-Qurtubi quotes Ibn Abbas who refers to the head of the ant as the meaning of tharrah, and the head is part of the ant’s anatomy.
6 Actually, the “smaller than that” does not even refer to the ant, see the article, Subatomic Particles Revealed in the Qur’an?
7 The mustard seed would be more than a million times larger than the atom. Wikipedia provides various comparisons, e.g. "a typical human hair is about 1 million carbon atoms in width". (Source; accessed on 4 August 2009)
--
No comments:
Post a Comment