Big Bang Claim: Misinterpreting Quran 21:30
Muslim apologists often claim that the Quran predicted the Big Bang theory 1,400 years before modern scientists discovered it. This claim centers on a single verse that supposedly describes the universe's origin from a singular point. However, careful examination of the Arabic text, classical Islamic commentary, and scientific accuracy reveals that this "miracle" is based on mistranslation, anachronistic interpretation, and wishful thinking.
The Verse in Question
"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?" (Quran 21:30)
Modern Muslim apologists claim this verse describes the Big Bang—the cosmological theory that the universe began as a singularity approximately 13.8 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. They argue that "joined entity" refers to the primordial singularity, and "We separated them" describes the universe's expansion.
This interpretation is presented as evidence that Muhammad could not have authored the Quran because no human in 7th-century Arabia could have known about the Big Bang.
The Arabic Text and Classical Understanding
The key Arabic term is "ratq," translated as "joined entity" in the verse above. Classical Arabic lexicons define ratq as:
- Stitched together
- Closed up
- Joined or combined
The verb "fataqa" (We separated) means to split, rip apart, or separate.
The critical question is: How did classical Muslim scholars—those closest to the original Arabic and the time of Muhammad—understand this verse? The answer is revealing.
Ibn Kathir (1301-1373): One of the most respected Quranic commentators wrote: "Allah tells us that He created the heavens and the earth as a joined entity, then He separated them. Some of the scholars said that this means that they were joined together, meaning that they were connected to one another, then He separated them..."
Ibn Kathir's commentary makes no mention of cosmic origins or anything resembling the Big Bang. He understood the verse as describing the separation of the already-created heavens and earth.
Al-Tabari (839-923): Perhaps Islam's greatest early commentator, wrote that this verse refers to how the heavens and earth were joined, then Allah separated them by creating space between them. He cites various early Muslim authorities who understood this as the creation of rain (from heaven) falling to earth, or the physical separation of the sky from the ground.
Al-Qurtubi (1214-1273): Another classical authority, understood the verse similarly—as a description of the heavens and earth being separated from each other, not as a description of the universe's origin from a singular point.
For over 1,300 years, Muslim scholars read this verse without seeing any connection to cosmology as we understand it. Only after the Big Bang theory became widely accepted in the mid-20th century did Muslim apologists begin claiming the Quran had predicted it all along.
The Scientific Problems
Problem 1: The Big Bang Didn't Separate Heaven and Earth
The Big Bang theory describes how the universe emerged from a singularity and expanded. It says nothing about "separating" pre-existing heaven and earth. In fact, in the moments after the Big Bang, there was no earth and no heaven as we know them—just expanding energy and, eventually, subatomic particles.
The Earth formed approximately 9 billion years after the Big Bang from the accretion of dust and gas around our young sun. The "heavens" (if we interpret this as the visible universe or sky) and Earth were never "joined together" in any scientific sense that then got separated.
Problem 2: The Water Statement
The verse continues: "and made from water every living thing." This is presented as another scientific miracle—that life originated from water.
However, this observation isn't miraculous. Ancient peoples across many cultures, including the Greeks (Thales of Miletus, 624-546 BCE), observed that life requires water and theorized that life originated from it. This was common knowledge in the ancient world based on simple observation.
Moreover, the statement isn't even scientifically accurate in the modern sense. Life originated from chemical processes, not "from water" per se. Water was essential as a solvent and medium, but life comes from complex organic chemistry, not water itself. Single-celled organisms don't come from water; they come from pre-existing cells (or, at the origin of life, from complex chemical reactions).
Problem 3: The Context Doesn't Support Cosmology
Reading Quran 21:30 in context reveals it's not making a scientific statement about cosmology at all. The surrounding verses discuss signs of God's power as arguments against those who deny resurrection and judgment:
"And We did not create the heaven and earth and that between them in play. If We had intended to take a diversion, We could have taken it from [what is] with Us - if [indeed] We were to do so." (Quran 21:16-17)
The verse about separating heaven and earth is one of several examples of God's creative power designed to convince skeptics, not a scientific treatise on the universe's origin.
Ancient Near Eastern Parallels
The concept of heaven and earth being separated from an original unity wasn't unique to the Quran. This was a common ancient Near Eastern cosmological motif.
Ancient Egyptian Myth: The Egyptians believed the sky goddess Nut and earth god Geb were separated by the god Shu, who lifted Nut (heaven) away from Geb (earth).
Mesopotamian Myth: The Enuma Elish, a Babylonian creation myth, describes how the god Marduk split the body of Tiamat to create heaven and earth.
Greek Philosophy: Greek philosophers like Anaximander wrote about the heavens and earth being separated from an original unified state.
The idea that sky and ground were once joined and then separated was part of the cosmological imagination of ancient peoples who observed the obvious distance between earth and sky and attempted to explain it mythologically.
Muhammad, living in a region influenced by these cultures through trade, migration, and cultural exchange, would have been exposed to such ideas.
The Apologetic Strategy
The "Quranic science" apologetic follows a predictable pattern:
- Find a vague verse that could, with creative interpretation, relate to a modern scientific discovery
- Ignore or dismiss 1,300+ years of classical interpretation that saw no such meaning
- Reinterpret Arabic words using secondary or tertiary definitions that better fit modern science
- Claim this as proof of divine revelation
- When challenged, accuse critics of being biased or not understanding Arabic
This approach is intellectually dishonest for several reasons:
First, it assumes modern scientific theories are the final word on truth. But science is provisional—theories change as evidence accumulates. If Islamic apologetics ties the Quran's credibility to current scientific consensus, what happens when that consensus changes? Already, aspects of Big Bang cosmology are being questioned and refined by scientists.
Second, it requires dismissing the understanding of those who actually spoke 7th-century Arabic as their native language and lived in the cultural context of revelation. Why should we trust modern apologists' interpretations over classical scholars' understandings?
Third, it's selective. The Quran contains numerous statements that contradict modern science (which we'll examine in other articles), but these are either ignored or subjected to even more creative reinterpretation. You can't have it both ways—claiming the Quran is scientifically accurate where it seems to align with modern science while explaining away clear contradictions.
The Confirmation Bias Problem
Humans are prone to confirmation bias—the tendency to interpret information in ways that confirm our pre-existing beliefs. The "Quranic science" phenomenon is a textbook example.
If you approach the Quran already believing it's divine, you'll naturally look for ways its statements can align with modern knowledge. You'll be motivated to find secondary meanings in Arabic words, to emphasize certain parts of verses while ignoring context, and to see "miracles" where none exist.
An objective reading, however, reveals that the Quran reflects the cosmological understanding of 7th-century Arabia—a flat or dome-covered earth with the heavens above, all created relatively recently by a powerful deity. This was unremarkable for its time.
Biblical Contrast: Not a Science Textbook
Christianity has never claimed the Bible is a science textbook. The Bible's purpose is theological and relational—to reveal who God is and how humans can be reconciled to Him through Jesus Christ.
Genesis 1 describes creation in poetic, theological language emphasizing God's sovereignty and the goodness of creation. It answers "who" and "why," not "how" in scientific terms:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
This statement affirms God as creator without specifying the mechanism. It's compatible with various scientific models, from young-earth to old-earth to evolutionary creation. The point isn't scientific precision; it's theological truth: God is the source of all that exists.
Christians don't need to reinterpret Genesis every time scientific consensus changes because we don't claim Genesis is describing cosmology in scientific terms. It's describing God's relationship to creation using the literary forms and cultural understanding of its time.
Moreover, Christianity's credibility doesn't rest on scientific predictions but on a historical event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is a claim that can be investigated historically, not one requiring creative reinterpretation of ancient texts to align with modern physics.
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." (1 Corinthians 15:3-6)
Paul presents evidence that could be verified by questioning living witnesses. This is historical reasoning, not scientific retrofitting.
Questions to Consider
- If Quran 21:30 truly described the Big Bang, why did 1,300 years of Muslim scholars fail to see this meaning in the text?
- Is it intellectually honest to reinterpret ancient texts based on modern scientific discoveries while claiming those texts predicted those discoveries?
- Why does the "miracle" of Quranic science only become apparent after modern scientists make discoveries, never before?
- If Allah wanted to prove the Quran's divine origin through scientific accuracy, why use such vague language that requires creative interpretation rather than clear, unambiguous statements?
- What happens to the Quran's credibility if scientific consensus changes or if the Big Bang theory is significantly revised or replaced?
- Why should we trust modern Muslim apologists' interpretations of Arabic over classical scholars who were native speakers of the language?
- If similar creation myths existed in cultures surrounding Arabia before Islam, what makes the Quranic version uniquely miraculous?
- Should religious faith be based on strained scientific interpretations of ancient texts, or on more solid foundations like historical evidence and philosophical reasoning?
- Which is more intellectually honest: admitting that ancient religious texts reflect the scientific understanding of their time, or endlessly reinterpreting them to align with current science?