Presented by Zia H Shah MD

Audio teaser:

Abstract

The nature of consciousness—the subjective quality of experience known as qualia—remains the most elusive frontier in human understanding, often termed the “Hard Problem” by contemporary philosophers. Despite the exponential advancement of neuroscientific mapping and the proliferation of over 225 distinct theories of consciousness, a unified consensus on the origin and essence of the “self” remains absent. This report presents an exhaustive commentary on the Quranic verse 17:85—“And they ask you concerning the Spirit (Ruh). Say: ‘The Spirit is by the command of my Lord, and of knowledge you have been given but a little’”—positioning it not merely as a theological dictum but as a precise metaphysical descriptor of the human condition. By synthesizing insights from over twenty leading philosophers and scientists featured in the Closer to Truth series—including David Chalmers, Daniel Dennett, Susan Blackmore, and Keith Ward—with the classical Islamic theology of figures like Al-Ghazali, Ibn Sina, and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, this analysis explores the epistemic boundaries of materialist inquiry. Furthermore, it integrates recent theoretical propositions by Dr. Zia H. Shah, which bridge Islamic scripture with quantum mechanics, specifically utilizing the “Sleep Verse” (Quran 39:42) and the phenomenon of quantum entanglement to propose a non-local, interface-based theory of the soul. The report concludes that the fragmentation of modern consciousness studies serves as empirical validation of the Quranic assertion of human cognitive limitation, suggesting that the Ruh functions as an entity of the “Divine Command” (Alam al-Amr), operating as a quantum observer that collapses the probabilities of the physical brain into the singular reality of conscious experience.

---

1. Introduction: The Eternal Question and the Limits of Materialism

1.1 The Hard Problem in a Material World

For millennia, the question of “What are we?” has haunted the corridors of human thought. From the ancient lyceums of Greece, where Aristotle pondered the psyche, to the high-tech neuroimaging labs of the 21st century, the nature of the self—the “I” that perceives, feels, and wills—has remained the ultimate mystery. In the modern era, we have mapped the human genome, split the atom, and peered back to the cosmic dawn of the Big Bang. Yet, the very instrument used to achieve these feats—the human mind—remains a “black box” to itself.

This paradox is what philosopher David Chalmers famously coined as the “Hard Problem” of consciousness.¹ While science has made tremendous strides in solving the “Easy Problems”—mapping neural correlates, understanding how the brain processes visual stimuli, or how memory is stored—it has hit a wall in explaining experience itself. Why does the firing of neurons in the visual cortex feel like the redness of a rose? Why does the stimulation of C-fibers feel like pain? There is nothing in the laws of physics or chemistry that necessitates that information processing should be accompanied by an “inner movie” of subjective awareness.

1.2 The Scientific Impasse

The magnitude of this impasse is quantifiable. As noted by Dr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn, creator of the Closer to Truth series, there are currently over 225 distinct theories of consciousness circulating in the academic world.² This staggering diversity is unique in the sciences. In physics, we have the Standard Model; in biology, we have the Modern Synthesis of evolution. In consciousness studies, however, we have a chaotic landscape ranging from “Illusionism” (consciousness does not exist) to “Panpsychism” (everything is conscious).

This fragmentation suggests that the current scientific paradigm, which relies on reductive materialism—the idea that everything can be explained by the interactions of physical matter—is fundamentally ill-equipped to grapple with the Ruh (Spirit). It is within this vacuum of consensus that the Quranic proclamation in Surah Al-Isra, Verse 85, resonates with startling relevance.

1.3 The Quranic Intervention

The verse addresses a direct inquiry posed to the Prophet Muhammad regarding the nature of the Ruh. The context was a test: the Quraysh of Mecca, instigated by Jewish rabbis in Medina, asked the Prophet three questions to verify his prophethood, one of which was “Ask him about the Spirit.” The answer provided was terse, authoritative, and epistemologically bounding:

“And they ask you concerning the Spirit (Ruh). Say: ‘The Spirit is by the command of my Lord, and of knowledge you have been given but a little.’” (Quran 17:85) ³

This report posits that this verse is not merely a theological deflection but a profound metaphysical statement that anticipates the modern philosophical deadlock. By categorizing the Spirit as belonging to the realm of Divine Command (Amr) rather than Creation (Khalq), and by explicitly coupling this with a declaration of human epistemic limitation, the Quran defines the boundary conditions of the “Hard Problem.”

In the following chapters, we will dissect this verse through multiple lenses. We will place it in dialogue with the “Closer to Truth” experts, analyze it through the mechanics of quantum entanglement, and explore whether the “little knowledge” we possess is a flaw in our evolution or a mercy from our Creator.

---

2. The Scriptural Foundation: Exegesis of Quran 17:85

To understand the compatibility of Quran 17:85 with modern science, one must first dissect its classical theological anatomy. The Arabic terminology used in the Quran is precise, and the distinctions made by classical scholars provide the necessary framework for a comparative analysis with modern philosophy of mind.

2.1 The Linguistic and Theological Dimensions of Ruh

The term Ruh (Spirit) appears in the Quran in various contexts: as the Angel Gabriel (Ruh al-Qudus), as the revelation itself, and as the life-force breathed into Adam. In verse 17:85, the consensus of commentators like Ibn Kathir, Al-Qurtubi, and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi is that it refers to the human soul or the essence of life.³

2.1.1 Alam al-Khalq vs. Alam al-Amr

The pivotal phrase in the verse is min amr rabbi (“from the command of my Lord”). This has led Islamic theologians to distinguish between two distinct orders of existence:

• Alam al-Khalq (The World of Creation):
  • Etymology: Khalq implies measuring, proportioning, or fashioning from existing material.
  • Characteristics: This is the physical universe. It is governed by dimensions (space), duration (time), quantity, and causality. It evolves gradually (e.g., the creation of the heavens and earth in six periods, or the development of the fetus).
  • Modern Parallel: This corresponds to the world described by classical physics, chemistry, and biology. The brain, being biological, belongs to Alam al-Khalq.
• Alam al-Amr (The World of Command):
  • Etymology: Amr refers to a command or order.
  • Characteristics: This is the realm of immediate divine will, characterized by the existential imperative “Be!” (Kun). It is non-spatial, non-temporal, and indivisible. Entities in this realm are not “fashioned” from clay or matter; they are brought into existence instantaneously by the Will of God.
  • Modern Parallel: This corresponds to the concept of the “immaterial” or “fundamental” in philosophy.

Implication: By stating the Ruh is “of the Command,” the Quran asserts that consciousness is not a composite physical entity subject to the gradual processes of biological evolution or Newtonian mechanics. It is an immediate, indivisible reality. This theological classification offers a striking parallel to modern debates on whether consciousness is a “physical” property of the brain (reducible to matter) or a “fundamental” property of the universe (irreducible). If the Ruh belongs to the World of Command, it is ontologically distinct from the biological machinery it inhabits.

2.2 Ruh vs. Nafs: The Anatomy of the Self

A critical distinction often missed in Western analyses of Islamic theology—and indeed, often confused by Muslims themselves—is the difference between Ruh (Spirit) and Nafs (Self/Soul). Understanding this distinction is vital for engaging with modern neuroscience, which often claims to have “disproven the self.”

Feature	Ruh (Spirit)	Nafs (Self/Psyche)
Origin	From the Alam al-Amr (Command). Breathed directly by God.	Emerges from the union of Ruh and Body (Tuin).
Nature	Pure, divine light, immutable, incorruptible.	Fluid, evolving, subject to change and corruption.
Function	The life-force, the “witness,” the source of consciousness.	The agent of free will, desires, emotions, and ego.
Moral State	Always pure; knows God intuitively (Fitra).	Can be “Commanding Evil” (Ammara), “Self-Reproaching” (Lawwama), or “Peaceful” (Mutma’inna).
Scientific Analog	The “Observer” or “Subjectivity” (Qualia).	The “Personality” or “Ego” (Psychological construct).

The Classical Synthesis:

• Al-Ghazali’s View: In his Ihya Ulum al-Din, Al-Ghazali explains that the Ruh is a subtle spiritual substance (latifa rabbaniyya) that uses the body as a vehicle. He integrates the Aristotelian tripartite soul but subordinates it to the Quranic Ruh. For Ghazali, the Nafs is the battleground where the Ruh (intellect/spirit) fights the bodily instincts.⁶
• Fakhr al-Din al-Razi’s View: Razi argued that the Ruh is a substance distinct from the body, living and active. He posited that while the body dies and decomposes, the Ruh—being of a different order of reality—persists. He utilized the “Little Knowledge” verse to argue against those who tried to define the soul using purely materialist (atomist) definitions common in his time.⁸
• Ibn Sina (Avicenna): Though a philosopher influenced by Neoplatonism, Ibn Sina’s “Floating Man” thought experiment (which predates Descartes’ Cogito) aligns with this view. He argued that if a man were created in a void with no sensory input, he would still know “I am.” This proves the existence of the Ruh independent of the body.¹⁰

Modern Application:

When neuroscientists like Susan Blackmore 1 or Bruce Hood 12 argue that the “Self” is an illusion constructed by the brain, they are essentially describing the Nafs. The Nafs is a construct; it is built from memories, social interactions, and sensory data. However, the Ruh is the underlying substrate—the “screen” upon which the Nafs is projected. The error of materialism is assuming that because the movie (Nafs) is a projection, the screen (Ruh) does not exist.

---

3. The Landscape of Confusion: 225 Theories of Consciousness

To appreciate the accuracy of the Quranic diagnosis (“of knowledge you have been given but a little”), one must survey the current state of secular science. Dr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn’s taxonomy of consciousness theories provides the empirical evidence for this confusion.²

3.1 The Taxonomy of Ignorance

Kuhn categorized over 225 theories, which can be broadly grouped into conflicting camps. This lack of consensus is not merely a detail; it is the defining characteristic of the field.

Category	Core Proposition	Leading Proponents	Quranic Critique
Materialism / Physicalism	Consciousness is identical to brain states. “You are your neurons.”	Patricia Churchland, Daniel Dennett	Confuses the instrument (Khalq) with the operator (Amr). Fails the “Hard Problem.”
Epiphenomenalism	Consciousness is a useless byproduct of brain activity (like steam from a train).	Huxley (historically)	Contradicts the experience of free will and moral agency (Nafs).
Illusionism	Consciousness does not actually exist; it is a “user illusion” or trick.	Susan Blackmore, Nicolas Humphrey	Logically self-refuting (who is having the illusion?). Denies the Ruh.
Panpsychism	Consciousness is a fundamental property of all matter (atoms, rocks, etc.).	Christof Koch (later views), Philip Goff	Dilutes the Ruh into matter; fails to explain the “Combination Problem” (how atoms make a unified mind).
Quantum Theories	Consciousness arises from quantum collapse in microtubules.	Penrose, Hameroff	Gets closer to the non-local nature of Amr, but still seeks a physical mechanism.
Dualism	Mind and Body are separate substances.	Descartes, Eccles, Swinburne	Aligns most closely with Ruh vs. Body, but struggles to explain the interaction (the “Interface”).
Mysterianism	The human mind is cognitively incapable of understanding consciousness.	Colin McGinn	Directly validates Quran 17:85. Accepts the “Little Knowledge” limit.

3.2 The Implication of Diversity

Zia H. Shah argues that the existence of these 225 theories is a verification of the Quranic limit. If consciousness were a simple biological function like digestion, we would have one theory, not hundreds. The persistence of the mystery, despite the best efforts of the brightest minds, suggests that we are hitting a “hard limit” designed into our cognitive architecture. We are trying to measure the “Command” with the tools of “Creation”.²

---

4. The Closer to Truth Dialogues: A Critical Commentary

The Closer to Truth series offers a unique arena where these conflicting worldviews collide. By analyzing the arguments of specific experts, we can see the precise points where secular inquiry intersects with—or diverges from—the Quranic model.

4.1 The Illusionists: Denying the Witness

In the video “Is Consciousness an Illusion?” ¹, Susan Blackmore and Daniel Dennett present the case against the soul.

• Susan Blackmore’s Argument: She contends that the feeling of a continuous “me” inside the head is a deception. “There is no inner me,” she asserts. She cites experiments showing that the brain makes decisions milliseconds before we are conscious of them (Libet experiments). Therefore, she concludes, we are biological machines, and the “soul” is a story we tell ourselves.
• Daniel Dennett’s “Multiple Drafts”: Dennett argues against the “Cartesian Theater”—the idea that there is a central viewer in the brain. Instead, he proposes that consciousness is “fame in the brain”—whatever neural process shouts the loudest becomes “conscious” for a moment. It is a “trick” the brain plays on itself.
• Nicolas Humphrey’s “Magic Show”: Humphrey ¹³ calls consciousness a “magic show” evolved to make us feel special. He admits it feels spiritual and non-physical, but insists this is a biological adaptation to make us fight for our survival.

Critique from 17:85:

These experts are accurately describing the machinery of the Nafs and the Brain (Khalq). They are correct that there is no “homunculus” (little man) found in the neurons. However, their error is ontological. They assume that if something cannot be found in the Khalq (matter), it does not exist.

Galen Strawson 13 provides the philosophical rebuttal: “You can’t have an illusion of a sensation because the sensation is the experience.” Even if the content of my consciousness is a trick (e.g., a hallucination), the fact of my consciousness (that I am experiencing it) is undeniable.

From the Quranic view, Blackmore and Dennett have proven that the Ruh is not a material part of the brain. They have inadvertently confirmed that if a “self” exists, it must be “from the Command of the Lord” because it is certainly not from the wiring of the brain.

4.2 The Biologists: Searching for the Correlate

Christof Koch and Susan Greenfield ¹² represent the search for the “Neural Correlates of Consciousness” (NCC).

• Christof Koch: He attempts to locate the specific architecture in the posterior cortex that generates experience. However, he has recently shifted toward Panpsychism—the idea that consciousness is intrinsic to matter itself. He admits that pure materialism has failed to explain qualia.
• Susan Greenfield: She views consciousness as a continuum, like a dimmer switch, that grows with the complexity of neuronal assemblies. It is a “process,” not a “thing.”

Critique from 17:85:

The search for NCC is the search for the “Interface.” Finding the correlate (the radio tube that lights up) does not explain the signal (the music). The Quran accepts that the Ruh interacts with the body (via the brain); therefore, correlates should exist. But correlational data is not causal explanation. Koch’s move to Panpsychism is a desperate admission that matter alone (Khalq) cannot account for mind without adding a new fundamental property—essentially, smuggling the Amr into the atom.

4.3 The Fundamentalists: Rescuing Reality

David Chalmers, Keith Ward, and Raymond Tallis offer views that align more closely with the theological position.

• David Chalmers: His “Hard Problem” is the secular equivalent of verse 17:85. He argues that we must expand our view of the universe to include consciousness as a fundamental building block, alongside mass and charge.¹
• Keith Ward: As a theologian, he flips the script. He argues for the “Primacy of Consciousness.” The physical world is the product of a Supreme Consciousness (God). This resonates with the Islamic concept that the universe is sustained by the Amr (Command) of Allah.¹
• Raymond Tallis: He argues that dismissing consciousness as an illusion is a “desperate remedy.” He champions the reality of the “I” as the ground floor of all knowledge.¹³

4.4 The Mysterians: The Validation of “Little Knowledge”

Colin McGinn 1 holds the position of “Mysterianism.” He argues that the human brain is simply not equipped to solve the mind-body problem, just as a dog is not equipped to do calculus. This “cognitive closure” is exactly what Quran 17:85 predicts.

“Of knowledge you have been given but a little.”

This is not a temporary gap that science will fill in 50 years; it is a structural characteristic of the human being. We are designed to use the interface, not to reverse-engineer it.

---

5. Quantum Mechanics and the “Sleep Verse”: A Scientific Mechanism?

While philosophy debates definitions, the cutting edge of physics—Quantum Mechanics—offers a potential mechanism for the interaction between the Alam al-Amr and the Alam al-Khalq. This synthesis is explored in the “Quantum Theory of the Soul” proposed by Zia H. Shah.¹⁴

5.1 The “Sleep Verse” as a Physical Model

The Quran provides a specific operational description of the soul’s detachment in Surah Az-Zumar:

“Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die during their sleep; then He withholds those on whom He has passed the decree of death and sends the others back till an appointed term.” (Quran 39:42)

This verse implies:

1. Separability: The Soul (Ruh/Nafs) is distinct from the biological body.
2. Non-Locality: During sleep, the soul is “taken” to another realm/dimension, yet the body remains biologically alive (heart beating, lungs breathing).
3. Reversibility: The connection can be restored (“sent back”) instantly.

5.2 Quantum Entanglement: The Tether of the Soul

Classical physics cannot explain how a soul could be “elsewhere” and yet connected to the body. However, Quantum Entanglement offers a precise analog. In entanglement, two particles share a single quantum state. Measuring one instantaneously affects the other, regardless of the distance (even light years) between them. Einstein called this “spooky action at a distance.”

The Hypothesis:

• The Brain is the “local” physical particle (receiver).
• The Ruh is the “non-local” quantum entity (observer) existing in the Alam al-Amr.
• They are “entangled.”
• During Sleep: The degree of entanglement is relaxed, or the “information transfer” is paused. The Ruh experiences the “dream world” (a mix of memory and potentially spiritual insight), while the body operates on autopilot.
• Waking: The Amr (Command) restores the entanglement. The “Self” downloads back into the neural machinery instantaneously.
• Death: The entanglement is permanently broken (“He withholds those…”). The Ruh retracts to its source, and the body returns to dust.

5.3 Schrödinger’s Cat and the Necessity of the Observer

The famous Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment illustrates that a quantum system exists in a superposition of states (e.g., dead and alive) until it is observed.15

Henry Stapp 16, a quantum physicist, argues that the physical universe is not deterministic. It requires a “mental act” or an observer to collapse the wave function and actualize a specific reality.

The Theological Implications:

1. Free Will: If the brain was purely Newtonian (mechanical), every thought would be determined by the laws of physics (Determinism). However, if the brain operates on quantum principles (as Penrose/Hameroff suggest), it generates a cloud of possibilities. The Ruh, acting as the Observer from the Alam al-Amr, “collapses” these possibilities into a single choice. This provides a scientific mechanism for Free Will, rescuing it from the determinism of Blackmore and Harris.
2. The Ultimate Observer: If the universe requires observation to exist, it points to the necessity of an Ultimate Observer to sustain the cosmos when no humans are looking. This is Al-Hayy Al-Qayyum (The Living, The Sustainer). The human Ruh shares a “little” of this divine quality—the power to witness and influence reality.

---

6. Synthesis: The Interface Theory of Consciousness

Integrating the theological, philosophical, and scientific strands, we arrive at a unified model: The Interface Theory.

6.1 The Brain as Transceiver, Not Generator

The primary error of materialism is the “Generator Fallacy”—assuming that because stimulating the brain produces experience, the brain creates experience.

• Analogy: If you smash a radio, the music stops. If you damage the tuner, the station gets fuzzy. A martian studying the radio might conclude, “The radio creates the music.” But we know the music comes from a distant signal.
• Application: The Brain is the radio (Khalq). The Ruh is the Signal (Amr).
• Evidence: This explains why brain damage affects personality (Nafs) without disproving the soul. It explains why we can’t find the soul in the brain—you can’t find the announcer inside the radio.

6.2 The “Little Knowledge” as a Mercy

Why is the knowledge “little”? Why didn’t God give us the schematic of the Ruh?

Colin McGinn suggests that if we understood the mind-body link, it might be “demystifying” in a way that strips human life of its magic.

From a Quranic perspective, the mystery serves a function:

1. Humility: It forces the arrogant intellect to admit its limit. The most advanced scientist is as ignorant of his own essence as a child.
2. Dependence: It reminds us that our very existence is a continuous “Command” from a Sustainer. We are not self-sufficient.
3. Focus: If we could engineer the soul, we would try to become immortal in this world (Virtual Immortality/AI uploading). By keeping the Ruh in the Amr, God ensures that our yearning is directed toward the Creator, not the creation.

6.3 Comparative Summary Table

Perspective	Source of Consciousness	Nature of Self	Epistemic Status	Relation to Quran 17:85
Materialism (Dennett)	Brain activity (Neurons)	Illusion / Narrative	Solvable (“Easy Problem”)	Contradicts (Denies Amr)
Dualism (Chalmers)	Fundamental Property	Real / Irreducible	“Hard Problem”	Aligns (Acknowledges separate order)
Mysterianism (McGinn)	Biological but unknown	Real	Unsolvable by humans	Strong Alignment (Accepts “Little Knowledge”)
Quantum Soul (Shah)	Non-local Entanglement	Observer / Interface	Measurable mechanism, unknown essence	Synthesizes Science & Scripture
Quranic Theology	Divine Command (Amr)	Ruh (Agent) / Nafs (Ego)	Known only to God	The Source Text

---

7. Conclusion: The Wisdom of the Limit

The comprehensive analysis of Quran 17:85 against the backdrop of 21st-century science leads to a startling conclusion: The verse is not a relic of a pre-scientific age, but a prescient description of the event horizon of human knowledge.

The chaotic landscape of the 225 theories of consciousness—where brilliant minds like Dennett and Chalmers talk past each other—is the empirical verification of the Quranic diagnosis. We have mapped the Khalq (the brain) with exquisite precision, but the Amr (the Spirit) remains invisible to our scanners, just as the radio signal is invisible to the one who only studies the circuitry.

The “Quantum Theory of the Soul” offers a fascinating glimpse into how the connection might work—utilizing the non-locality of entanglement to bridge the worlds—but even this is merely a description of the interface, not the essence. The Ruh itself remains “of the affair of my Lord.”

In the end, the “Hard Problem” is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced. It is the signpost within us that points to something beyond us. By declaring the Spirit to be of the “Command,” the Creator elevates the human being above the deterministic grind of matter. We are not merely “lumbering robots” (as Dawkins put it) or “zombies” (as Chalmers fears); we are the loci of Divine Command, windows through which the Universe witnesses itself, tasked with the struggle to know the Lord of the Command through the little knowledge we possess.

---

Thematic Epilogue: The Horizon of the Unseen

In the quiet of the night, when the senses are shuttered and the body lies dormant in the “little death” of sleep, the Ruh loosens its quantum tether. It drifts in the vast, silent ocean of the Alam al-Amr, gathering the whispers of the unseen, far from the firing neurons and the rush of blood. Science, with its calipers and quantifications, stands vigil at the bedside, measuring the REM cycles, mapping the electrical storms of the cortex, capturing the shadows of the dreamer but never the dream.

The skeptics, armed with their fMRI machines, cry “Illusion!”—unable to weigh the ghost in their scales, they declare the house empty. The mystics, armed with the silence of the heart, smile, knowing that the scale cannot weigh the hand that holds it. We are the “Command” encased in clay, the breath of the Infinite sighing through a reed of finite matter. We search for the “I” in the mirror of the brain, but we see only the reflection of a reflection.

The mystery is not a wall, but a window. A window that looks out not upon a void, but upon a Face that remains when all else perishes. And in our yearning to solve the riddle of the self, we are ultimately answering the call of the One who breathed it into being. The “Little Knowledge” is not a poverty; it is a secret door, left slightly ajar, inviting us to leave the machinery of the world and step into the presence of the Lord of the Spirit.

If you would rather read in Microsoft Word file: