Epigraph:

وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ ۖ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي وَمَا أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا ‎

And they ask you concerning the soul. Say, ‘The soul is by the command of my Lord; and of the knowledge thereof you have been given but a little.’ (Al Quran 17:85)

Presented by Zia H Shah MD with the help of Claude AI

The Quranic verse 17:85 offers a profound statement about the soul that resonates across disciplinary boundaries. “And they ask you concerning the soul (al-ruh). Say, ‘The soul is of the affair of my Lord, and mankind has not been given of knowledge except a little.’” This seemingly simple declaration about human epistemic limitations regarding the soul presents a striking parallel to contemporary scientific and philosophical challenges in explaining consciousness. This commentary examines this verse comprehensively, treating soul and consciousness as synonymous concepts.

The textual foundation: examining Quran 17:85 in its original context

Original Arabic text and multiple translations

The verse in its original Arabic reads: وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ ۖ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي وَمَا أُوتِيتُمْ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا

Transliteration: Wa yas’alūnaka ‘ani r-rūḥi quli r-rūḥu min ‘amri rabbī wa mā ‘ūtītum mina l-‘ilmi ‘illā qalīlā

Various scholarly translations reveal subtle interpretive differences:

• Sahih International: “And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, ‘The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little.’”
• Yusuf Ali: “They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say: ‘The Spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men!).’”
• Muhammad Sarwar: “They ask you about the Spirit. Say, ‘The Spirit comes by the command of my Lord. You have been given very little knowledge.’”
• Muhsin Khan: “And they ask you (O Muhammad) concerning the Ruh (the Spirit); Say: ‘The Ruh (the Spirit): it is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with my Lord. And of knowledge, you (mankind) have been given only a little.’”

The Arabic term “ruh” (روح) appears 21 times in the Qur’an with various meanings, including the human soul/spirit, Angel Gabriel, Jesus, and divine revelation itself. This lexical flexibility has led to different interpretations of what exactly is being referred to in this verse.

Historical context of revelation

According to authentic hadith narrations, this verse was revealed in response to a question about the nature of the soul/spirit. Two main accounts exist:

1. Ibn Mas’ud’s Account (Bukhari and Muslim): The Prophet Muhammad was walking through a farm in Madinah when some Jews approached and asked about the Ruh. The Prophet remained silent, received revelation, and then recited this verse.
2. Ibn Abbas’s Account: The Quraysh of Makkah sent representatives to Jewish scholars in Madinah asking what questions they should pose to test Muhammad’s prophethood. The Jews suggested asking about the nature of the Ruh, among other things.

Most scholars consider the verse to be Makki (revealed in Mecca), though some suggest it might have been revealed a second time in Madinah when the Jews posed their question.

Classical Islamic interpretations: exploring traditional scholarly perspectives

Major classical commentaries (tafsir)

Classical Islamic scholars offered varied interpretations of this verse, focusing particularly on the meaning of “ruh” and the implications of limited human knowledge.

Al-Tabari emphasized that the verse indicates inherent limitations in human knowledge concerning metaphysical matters. He discusses whether “ruh” refers to the human soul or the angel who brings revelation.

Ibn Kathir explored both interpretations of “ruh” as either the human soul or the angel of revelation. He acknowledged that while the verse appears in a context discussing the Qur’an, the direct question concerned the nature of the soul.

Al-Qurtubi examined various meanings of “ruh” in the Qur’an, including the human soul, angel Gabriel, and the Qur’an itself. He emphasized how the verse serves as a reminder of human limitations in knowledge, particularly regarding metaphysical matters.

Al-Razi provided a detailed linguistic analysis of “ruh,” concluding that knowledge of its true nature is reserved for Allah alone, highlighting human intellectual limitations.

Schools of Islamic theological thought on the soul/ruh

Different Islamic theological schools developed distinct approaches to understanding the soul:

Athari (Traditionalist) Position: Takes a literalist view of the Quranic text, affirming that the ruh is a created entity whose true nature remains within Allah’s knowledge alone, generally understood as the life force Allah breathes into humans.

Ash’arite Position: Maintains that the ruh is a subtle body (jism latif) created by Allah that permeates the physical body. Al-Ghazali elaborated on the ruh as a divine, spiritual substance that survives bodily death, distinguishing between the animal soul and the rational soul.

Maturidi Position: Places greater emphasis on the rational faculties of the soul, viewing the ruh as an immaterial essence that is the locus of human intellect and moral responsibility.

Shia Perspectives: Often emphasize the connection between ruh and divine light (nur), distinguishing between ruh (spirit), nafs (self), and qalb (heart). Shia tradition particularly emphasizes the pre-existence of souls before bodily creation.

Mu’tazilite Position: Approached ruh as a subtle material substance, created in time and subject to natural laws, though of a different order than ordinary matter.

Mystical dimensions: Sufi interpretations of soul and consciousness

Sufism offers the richest Islamic exploration of consciousness and its spiritual dimensions. For Sufis, the ruh is:

1. The site of divine self-disclosure (tajalli) where Allah reveals Himself through the purified human spirit
2. The instrument of spiritual perception (kashf) through which direct spiritual knowledge is attained
3. The locus of divine love (mahabbah), with the ruh’s highest function being to love Allah

Ibn ‘Arabi, the influential Sufi metaphysician, described the ruh as a barzakh (isthmus) between divine and human realms—neither fully divine nor fully created but partaking of both natures. He elaborated a complex cosmology in which ruh connects the material and spiritual worlds.

According to Sufis, the soul exists in a hierarchy of spiritual substances, from the lower self dominated by desires (nafs al-ammarah) to the innermost core of consciousness where divine knowledge is received (sirr).

Jalal al-Din Rumi’s poetry frequently explores the ruh as a divine spark seeking return to its origin: “The soul has been taken from the body as a hostage, teaching it to seek knowledge as ransom for its liberation.”

Modern Islamic scholarly perspectives on soul/consciousness

Contemporary Islamic scholars have approached this verse from various angles:

Traditional Perspective: Modern traditional scholars like Mufti Muhammad Shafi maintain that the Ruh primarily refers to the human soul, the essence of which remains largely beyond human comprehension. While humans can understand some attributes and functions of the soul, its complete reality is known only to Allah.

Scholars like Sayyid Qutb emphasize that this verse does not discourage intellectual inquiry but rather directs human intellect to function within its proper domain, acknowledging the limits of human knowledge.

Progressive Perspective: Contemporary scholars with more progressive approaches, such as Sarra Tlili, have challenged traditional interpretations. Tlili argues that the original meaning of Ruh was simply “blown breath” during the time of the Qur’an’s revelation, suggesting that later interpretations were influenced by anthropocentric tendencies.

Seyyed Hossein Nasr advocates maintaining traditional metaphysical understandings of ruh while engaging contemporary consciousness studies, arguing that modern reductionist approaches fail to account for the spiritual dimensions of human experience.

Muhammad Iqbal’s “Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam” attempted to reconcile traditional concepts of ruh with modern philosophical and scientific developments. Iqbal saw the human ego (khudi) as a dynamic spiritual entity capable of growth through creative action.

Scientific perspectives on consciousness: examining the hard problem

Contemporary scientific approaches to consciousness offer fascinating parallels to the Quranic insight about the limitations of human knowledge regarding the soul.

The hard problem of consciousness

David Chalmers famously defined the “hard problem of consciousness” as the difficulty in explaining how physical brain processes give rise to subjective experience. Unlike the “easy problems” of consciousness (explaining cognitive functions), the hard problem addresses why we have subjective experiences at all.

This fundamental gap in understanding aligns remarkably with the Quranic statement about limited knowledge humans have been given regarding the soul/spirit. Despite advances in neuroscience, the subjective nature of consciousness remains resistant to complete scientific explanation.

Neural correlates and major theories

Modern neuroscience has identified specific brain regions and patterns associated with conscious experience, including posterior cortical regions, the global neuronal workspace, and the thalamocortical system. While scientists can identify where and how consciousness manifests in the brain, the fundamental question of why these physical processes produce subjective experience remains unresolved.

Global Workspace Theory (GWT): Developed by Bernard Baars and expanded by Stanislas Dehaene, this theory proposes that consciousness emerges when information becomes globally available to multiple brain systems. While GWT explains many empirical findings, it doesn’t fully address why global availability produces subjective experience.

Integrated Information Theory (IIT): Developed by Giulio Tononi, IIT proposes that consciousness corresponds to a system’s capacity to integrate information. The theory defines a measure (Phi or Φ) representing the amount of integrated information in a system. While gaining significant attention, IIT remains controversial and contested.

Quantum theories of consciousness

Some theorists have turned to quantum mechanics to explain consciousness. The Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) theory proposed by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff suggests that consciousness emerges from quantum processes in brain cell microtubules.

These quantum approaches remain highly speculative but address the explanatory gap between physical processes and subjective experience. Arguments include consciousness exhibiting non-deterministic properties that might be explained by quantum indeterminism and quantum physics potentially explaining the unity of conscious experience.

Critics note that the brain is too “warm, wet, and noisy” for quantum coherence to be maintained, with quantum states in the brain likely decohering at sub-picosecond timescales.

Scientific limitations and the Quranic insight

The verse “and of knowledge you have been given only a little” resonates profoundly with the current state of consciousness science. Despite remarkable technological and methodological advances, science still struggles with fundamental questions about consciousness:

1. How and why physical processes give rise to subjective experience
2. The measurement problem (consciousness can’t be directly observed in others)
3. The binding problem (how disparate neural processes create unified experience)
4. The boundary problem (where consciousness begins and ends)

These scientific limitations align with the Quranic insight that human knowledge of the soul/consciousness remains fundamentally limited—not because science is inadequate, but because some aspects of consciousness may transcend complete material explanation.

Philosophical approaches to consciousness: ancient to contemporary

Philosophical inquiry into consciousness spans centuries and cultures, offering frameworks that resonate with and diverge from the Quranic perspective.

Ancient philosophical traditions

Greek Philosophy: Plato developed a dualistic view where the soul (psyche) was immaterial and immortal, distinct from the body. Aristotle viewed the soul as the form or organizing principle of the living body, while distinguishing the intellect (nous) as potentially separable.

Indian Philosophy: Ancient Indian philosophical systems offered sophisticated analyses of consciousness through concepts of Atman (individual consciousness) and Brahman (universal consciousness). The Samkhya school posited a dualistic framework distinguishing between purusha (consciousness) and prakriti (matter).

Chinese Philosophy: Chinese traditions approached consciousness through ethical and practical frameworks. Confucianism emphasized self-cultivation of moral consciousness, while Daoism explored consciousness in relation to natural harmony.

Islamic philosophical contributions

Medieval Islamic philosophers developed sophisticated theories of soul and consciousness that engaged with both Greek philosophy and Quranic revelation:

Al-Farabi incorporated Aristotelian ideas with Neoplatonic elements, describing multiple levels of human intellect and proposing an “Active Intellect” that could bridge the gap between material brain and immaterial intellect.

Ibn Sina (Avicenna) provided the famous “floating man” thought experiment to demonstrate that consciousness could exist independently of the body. He argued that if a person were created suspended in air, unable to perceive anything through the senses, that person would still be aware of their own existence.

Ibn Rushd (Averroes) took a more naturalistic approach, emphasizing the embodied nature of consciousness while maintaining its connection to a universal Active Intellect.

Contemporary philosophical frameworks

Modern philosophy of mind offers diverse frameworks for understanding consciousness:

Dualism: Contemporary defenders of substance dualism like Richard Swinburne argue that the irreducibility of first-person experience supports the view that consciousness belongs to a non-physical substance. Property dualism (David Chalmers) holds that consciousness consists of non-physical properties that emerge from or supervene on physical systems.

Materialism/Physicalism: Reductive physicalism holds that consciousness is identical to physical processes in the brain. Non-reductive physicalism maintains that while consciousness depends entirely on physical processes, mental properties cannot be reduced to physical properties.

Idealism and Panpsychism: Idealism holds that reality is fundamentally mental. Panpsychism (Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, Galen Strawson) holds that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality, avoiding the difficulty of explaining how consciousness could arise from wholly non-conscious matter.

Emergentism and Neutral Monism: Emergentism holds that consciousness is an emergent property of complex physical systems. Neutral monism holds that reality consists of entities that are neither inherently mental nor physical, with both mind and matter constructed from these neutral elements.

The problem of qualia and subjective experience

The problem of qualia—subjective, qualitative aspects of conscious experience—presents significant challenges to materialist accounts. Thomas Nagel’s famous paper “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” highlighted consciousness’s inherent subjectivity. Frank Jackson’s “Knowledge Argument” about Mary the color scientist suggests that conscious experience involves non-physical facts.

These philosophical challenges reflect the Quranic insight about the limitations of human knowledge regarding the soul. The “hard problem” of consciousness highlights an explanatory gap that persists despite centuries of philosophical inquiry.

Comparative theological perspectives: soul across religious traditions

Examining how different religious traditions understand the soul/consciousness reveals both important commonalities and distinctions.

Jewish concepts of soul/spirit

Jewish tradition offers a complex understanding of the soul with significant parallels to Islamic concepts:

1. Nefesh (נֶפֶשׁ): The animating life-force, connected to breath and vitality
2. Ruach (רוּחַ): The spirit or wind, representing emotional and moral dimensions
3. Neshamah (נְשָׁמָה): The higher intellectual soul or divine spark within humans

In Kabbalistic tradition, additional soul dimensions include chayah (life-essence) and yechidah (the highest soul-level that unites with God). Like Islamic perspectives, Jewish thought sees the soul as created by God yet possessing a special divine quality.

Christian theological understanding

Christian theology traditionally distinguishes between soul (psyche) as the animating principle and spirit (pneuma) as the higher aspect that communes with God. This division parallels Islamic distinctions between nafs and ruh.

In Christian thought, especially following Augustine and Aquinas, the soul is understood as created by God specifically for each person, immortal by divine grace, the form of the body, and the seat of the imago dei (image of God).

Christianity has debated whether humans are bipartite (body and soul) or tripartite (body, soul, and spirit), with the latter view finding support in passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:23.

Hindu and Buddhist concepts

Hindu and Buddhist concepts provide instructive contrasts to Islamic understanding:

1. Hindu Concept of Atman: Hinduism teaches that atman (the inner self) is identical with Brahman (ultimate reality). This contrasts with Islamic teaching that the ruh, while precious, remains created and distinct from Allah.
2. Buddhist Concept of Anatta: Buddhism rejects the concept of an eternal, unchanging self or soul. This contrasts sharply with Islamic belief in the ruh as a real spiritual entity that survives death.

While these Eastern traditions differ significantly from Islamic understandings, they provide important points of comparison in how consciousness is conceptualized across cultural and religious boundaries.

Interdisciplinary synthesis: where science, philosophy, and theology converge

Analyzing Quran 17:85 through the lens of consciousness studies reveals fascinating convergences and divergences across disciplines.

Epistemological humility: the boundaries of knowledge

Perhaps the most striking convergence between the Quranic perspective and contemporary approaches to consciousness is epistemological humility. The verse’s statement that humans have been given “of knowledge except a little” regarding the soul resonates with:

1. Scientific recognition of the “hard problem” and explanatory gap in consciousness studies
2. Philosophical mysterianism (Colin McGinn) suggesting humans may be constitutionally incapable of solving certain aspects of the mind-body problem
3. Theological traditions across religions that recognize transcendent aspects of consciousness

This shared recognition of epistemic limitations suggests that consciousness/soul may represent a boundary case for human understanding—a phenomenon that crosses domains between the physical and metaphysical.

Divergences in approaches to consciousness

While the Quranic perspective emphasizes divine origin (“of the affair of my Lord”), scientific approaches typically seek purely naturalistic explanations. Philosophical approaches span from strict materialism to various forms of dualism and idealism. These different starting assumptions lead to different methodologies and conclusions.

However, the shared recognition of consciousness as a challenging explanatory problem creates space for dialogue. The Quranic acknowledgment of limited human knowledge neither dismisses scientific inquiry nor demands a specific philosophical framework, but rather situates the question of consciousness within a larger cosmic context.

Implications of treating soul and consciousness as synonymous

Treating soul and consciousness as synonymous terms has several important implications:

1. It grounds theological discussions of the soul in phenomenology—the lived experience of consciousness that is directly accessible to each person
2. It connects ancient theological concepts to contemporary scientific research, allowing for dialogue between traditional wisdom and modern discoveries
3. It suggests that consciousness has both material and transcendent dimensions, requiring interdisciplinary approaches for comprehensive understanding
4. It raises questions about consciousness beyond human experience—if ruh/soul and consciousness are synonymous, how might we understand consciousness in other beings or potentially in artificial systems?

Contemporary significance for consciousness studies

The Quranic perspective offers several contributions to contemporary consciousness studies:

1. Integrative Framework: By situating consciousness as “of the affair of my Lord,” it suggests consciousness may require understanding at multiple levels of reality, not just the physical
2. Epistemological Boundaries: It acknowledges inherent limitations in human understanding of consciousness while encouraging continued inquiry
3. Ethical Dimensions: It frames consciousness as having inherent value and spiritual significance, with implications for how we treat conscious beings
4. Methodological Pluralism: It suggests that multiple approaches—scientific, philosophical, and spiritual—may be necessary for a complete understanding of consciousness

Conclusion: the mystery of consciousness across domains

Quran 17:85 offers a profound perspective on the mystery of consciousness that resonates across scientific, philosophical, and theological domains. Its acknowledgment of human epistemic limitations regarding the soul/spirit aligns remarkably with contemporary challenges in explaining consciousness.

The verse neither dismisses inquiry nor claims to provide a complete explanation, but rather situates consciousness within a larger cosmic framework that acknowledges both its divine origin and the inherent limitations of human understanding. This perspective offers a valuable contribution to interdisciplinary dialogue on one of humanity’s most profound mysteries.

As scientific research advances our understanding of neural correlates of consciousness, as philosophical inquiry continues to refine conceptual frameworks, and as theological traditions explore the spiritual dimensions of human experience, the Quranic insight reminds us that consciousness may always retain an element of mystery—not because inquiry is futile, but because consciousness itself may transcend complete human comprehension.

The soul/consciousness, as “of the affair of my Lord,” invites continued exploration while acknowledging that such exploration occurs within the context of limited human knowledge. This epistemological humility provides common ground for dialogue across disciplines and traditions, united in the recognition that consciousness represents one of reality’s most profound and persistent enigmas.