The Glorious Quran and Science

, , , , ,

The Command of the Lord and the Little That We Know: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Commentary on Qur’ān 17:85 and the Enigma of Consciousness

Epigraph وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ ۖ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي وَمَا أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا Al Quran 17:85 Presented by Claude for Zia H Shah MD Abstract This essay reads Qur’ān 17:85 — “The soul is of the affair of my Lord, and you have not been given of knowledge except a little” — as a…

25–37 minutes
, , , ,

Epigraph

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

Al Quran 17:85

Presented by Claude for Zia H Shah MD

Abstract

This essay reads Qur’ān 17:85 — “The soul is of the affair of my Lord, and you have not been given of knowledge except a little” — as a fourteen-centuries-old declaration of the epistemic boundary that modern consciousness science has independently rediscovered. Real progress has been made in the study of the states of consciousness through research on sleep, anesthesia, and hibernation; yet the “hard problem” of why physical processes are accompanied by subjective experience remains unsolved. The proliferation of explanatory frameworks — Robert Lawrence Kuhn’s 2024 survey maps over 200 theories, and derivative catalogues now exceed 300 — is treated here not as failure but as evidence for the Qur’ānic claim of a divinely-set limit; the 2025 IIT-versus-GNWT adversarial collaboration published in Nature failed to vindicate either leading theory. Drawing on classical tafsīr (al-Ṭabarī, al-Rāzī, Ibn Kathīr, al-Qurtubī), the philosophical mysterianism of Colin McGinn, the arguments of Nagel, Jackson, and Levine, and Immanuel Kant’s noumenon/phenomenon distinction, the commentary situates consciousness at “the meeting point of the finite and the Infinite.” It further develops, following the writings of Zia H. Shah MD at thequran.love, the thesis that consciousness, Paradise and Hell, and God’s omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent interface with the cosmos may reside in dimensions beyond our familiar four — the modern conceptualization of what earlier ages called the supernatural or transcendent — and are therefore permanently beyond empirical capture, however far science advances. Related verses (6:103, 2:255, 42:11, 50:16, 56:85, 57:4, 67:14, 12:76, 18:109, 6:59, 55:33, 20:110) build a sustained Qur’ānic theology of the limits of human knowledge.

Introduction: The Final Frontier

Consciousness is the one fact each of us knows with absolute certainty and the one fact no one can explain. It is, as Zia H. Shah MD has written, “the final frontier of the five centuries or more of the scientific enterprise” — an interface, in his phrase, “capable of receiving messages from beyond.” We can enter the brain of another person as a neurosurgeon, Shah observes, but we can never enter the mind of any person other than ourselves. Only God can.

The last several decades have delivered genuine, hard-won advances — but almost entirely in understanding the levels or states of consciousness rather than its intrinsic nature. We now possess detailed accounts of how the brain transitions into and out of sleep, how anesthetic molecules silence awareness, and how hibernating mammals suppress cortical activity to a whisper and revive without damage. These are triumphs of what David Chalmers famously called the “easy problems” — the mechanistic questions of function, discrimination, integration, and report. What remains untouched is the “hard problem”: why any of this physical processing should be accompanied by subjective experience at all — why there is “something it is like” to be us.

The scale of the impasse is quantifiable. In August 2024, the neurophysiologist and Closer to Truth producer Robert Lawrence Kuhn published a roughly 175,000-word survey, “A Landscape of Consciousness,” in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, arraying more than 200 distinct theories along a spectrum from hard physicalism to the view that consciousness is the sole reality; derivative catalogues built directly on Kuhn’s taxonomy, such as the Consciousness Atlas, now visualize over 300 theories of phenomenal consciousness. A field with one correct theory does not generate hundreds of them. The very abundance is a symptom.

It is precisely this symptom that Qur’ān 17:85 anticipated. This commentary argues that the verse is neither an anti-intellectual retreat nor a mere gap-filler awaiting the next fMRI study, but a structural claim about the human epistemic condition — a claim corroborated, domain by domain, by the science and philosophy of mind, and best understood through the modern language of extra dimensions.

I. Qur’ān 17:85 — The Text and Its Epistemic Humility

The verse reads:

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

“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.’” (Qur’ān 17:85)

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

Occasion of revelation

According to the report of ‘Abd Allāh ibn Mas’ūd preserved by al-Bukhārī, the Prophet was walking on a farm, leaning on a palm-leaf stalk, when a group of Jews passed by. Some urged the others, “Ask him about the Rūḥ”; others cautioned against it. When they asked, the Prophet fell silent, and ibn Mas’ūd — recognizing the signs of revelation descending — waited until the verse was recited. A parallel report from Ibn ‘Abbās holds that the Quraysh of Mecca had been coached by the Jewish scholars of Medina to test the Prophet’s claim with this question. The majority of exegetes — Ibn Kathīr, Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurtubī, Abū Ḥayyān, al-Ālūsī — hold that the question concerned the reality of the living human soul, and that the sūra is predominantly Meccan, with Ibn Kathīr judging it likely the Prophet was questioned a second time at Medina.

The meaning of rūḥ and amr

The term rūḥ (روح) occurs numerous times in the Qur’ān, denoting variously the human soul/spirit, the angel Gabriel, divine revelation, and the “breath” of life breathed into Adam. Al-Rāzī offered a detailed linguistic analysis and concluded that the true nature of the rūḥ is reserved to God’s knowledge alone; al-Ṭabarī read the verse as marking an inherent limit on human knowledge of metaphysical realities; al-Qurtubī surveyed the lexical range and stressed the verse as a reminder of human epistemic limitation.

The decisive phrase is min amri rabbī — “of the affair / command of my Lord.” As Shah notes, drawing on classical cosmology, many scholars understood the rūḥ to belong to the ‘ālam al-amr (the “World of Command”) as opposed to the ‘ālam al-khalq (the “World of Creation”): the soul originates directly by God’s command “Be!” without the intermediary processes that characterize material things. This is why it is not, in principle, dissectible by the tools appropriate to created bodies. Sufi exegetes such as Ibn ‘Arabī described the rūḥ as a barzakh — an isthmus between the divine and human realms, partaking of both yet reducible to neither.

The final clause — wa mā ‘ūtītum mina l-‘ilmi illā qalīlā, “you have not been given of knowledge except a little” — is the hinge of this essay. Sayyid Qutb and Mufti Muhammad Shafi both stress that the verse does not forbid inquiry; it locates inquiry within its proper domain. It is a call to epistemic humility, not to silence.

II. Scientific Commentary: Progress at the Edges, Silence at the Center

Sleep: a “little death” studied in fine detail

The Qur’ān itself invites the sleep analogy in 39:42:

اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا وَالَّتِي لَمْ تَمُتْ فِي مَنَامِهَا ۖ فَيُمْسِكُ الَّتِي قَضَىٰ عَلَيْهَا الْمَوْتَ وَيُرْسِلُ الْأُخْرَىٰ إِلَىٰ أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ

“Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die [He takes] during their sleep. Then He keeps those for which He has decreed death and releases the others for a specified term. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.” (Qur’ān 39:42)

The verse frames sleep as a nightly, reversible relinquishing of the self — a “little death” — and the reliable return of the unified self on waking as itself a sign worth contemplating. As a physician board-certified in sleep medicine, Shah treats this material with clinical precision: modern polysomnography maps the architecture of NREM and REM sleep, the thalamocortical gating of sensory input, and the systematic dissolution and reconstitution of the conscious field. Yet the return of the same first-person subject each morning — the continuity of the “I” across an interval of its own absence — is described, not explained, by these mechanisms.

Anesthesia: switching consciousness off, and the limits of that switch

General anesthesia — a reversible, drug-induced loss of consciousness administered to billions of patients — is one of the most controlled interventions on awareness available to science. Research shows that propofol-induced unconsciousness is characterized by a breakdown of cortico-cortical and thalamo-cortical communication. In a study of rhesus macaques by the Bastos and Miller laboratory (Bastos et al., eLife, 2021), “unconsciousness was marked by slow frequency (~1 Hz) oscillations in local field potentials, entrainment of local spiking to Up states alternating with Down states of little or no spiking activity, and decreased coherence in frequencies above 4 Hz,” and “thalamic stimulation ‘awakened’ anesthetized NHPs and reversed the electrophysiologic features of unconsciousness.” Large human studies using PET have linked decreased thalamic activity to disconnectedness under propofol, dexmedetomidine, and sevoflurane — but notably not under S-ketamine, whose dissociative profile differs.

Crucially, the candidate neural correlates — disrupted frontoparietal connectivity, disrupted network hubs, reduced spatiotemporal complexity — have been shown to appear outside the states they supposedly mark. Studies of patients in disorders of consciousness who show paradoxical brain responses to propofol demonstrate that these markers can dissociate from the conscious level itself. Anesthesia thus tells us a great deal about when and where consciousness switches off, and almost nothing about why the switch is attached to experience.

Hibernation and torpor: an altered state distinct from all others

Kelly L. Drew and colleagues, in their 2007 review in the Journal of Neurochemistry (“Central nervous system regulation of mammalian hibernation”), describe torpor as defining “the lower limit of mammalian metabolism,” associated with “an altered state of consciousness distinct from wakefulness, sleep, or coma.” In deep hibernators, whole-animal metabolic rate can fall to as low as 2% of basal metabolic rate (Buck & Barnes, 2000), with body temperature dropping to within a degree or two of ambient — in the arctic ground squirrel, core temperature can descend even below freezing. Neuronal activity is broadly attenuated, cortical connectivity plummets, and hippocampal synapses undergo dramatic retraction with tau hyperphosphorylation reaching levels that would be pathological in humans — yet on arousal, dendritic and synaptic integrity is fully restored without damage. This reversibility is a research frontier for stroke and neurodegeneration. But once again, the science characterizes a state of the organism; the intrinsic nature of the awareness that dims and returns is untouched.

The hard problem and the proliferation of theories

Chalmers’ distinction between the “easy problems” (functions) and the “hard problem” (experience) frames the entire enterprise. The catalogue of proposed solutions is vast and mutually incompatible:

  • Global Workspace Theory (GWT/GNWT) — Baars, Dehaene, Changeux — holds that consciousness arises when information is “broadcast” globally across a frontoparietal network.
  • Integrated Information Theory (IIT) — Tononi, Koch — identifies consciousness with a system’s integrated information (Φ), located in a posterior cortical “hot zone.”
  • Higher-Order theories, representational theories, electromagnetic-field theories, and embodied/enactive theories populate the physicalist range.
  • Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) — Penrose and Hameroff — locates consciousness in quantum computations in neuronal microtubules; critics counter that the brain is too “warm, wet, and noisy” for quantum coherence, with decoherence expected at sub-picosecond timescales.
  • Panpsychism — associated in various forms with Nagel, Chalmers, and Galen Strawson — takes experience to be a fundamental feature of reality, avoiding the problem of deriving mind from wholly mindless matter.

Kuhn’s 2024 taxonomy organizes these into exactly ten major families, arrayed from materialist to non-materialist, which he names: Materialism Theories; Non-Reductive Physicalism; Quantum Theories; Integrated Information Theory; Panpsychisms; Monisms; Dualisms; Idealisms; Anomalous and Altered States Theories; and Challenge Theories. The number of recognized theories — over 200 in Kuhn’s survey, and over 300 in the derivative Consciousness Atlas — is itself the datum.

The 2025 adversarial collaboration: the decisive negative result

The most rigorous recent test came from a seven-year, open-science “adversarial collaboration” launched at the Allen Institute in 2018, pitting IIT directly against GNWT. Proponents of both theories, together with theory-neutral researchers (the Cogitate Consortium), pre-registered divergent predictions and pass/fail criteria; 256 human participants viewed stimuli while fMRI, MEG, and intracranial EEG recorded neural activity. The results were published in Nature on 30 April 2025 (Ferrante et al., Nature 642:133–142; doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08888-1). Neither theory was vindicated. In the authors’ own words, the findings “align with some predictions of IIT and GNWT, while substantially challenging key tenets of both theories.” IIT’s prediction of sustained posterior synchronization and GNWT’s account of prefrontal “ignition” both failed key tests. After decades of effort and the most decisive experiment yet devised, the two leading theories of consciousness were both found wanting — a striking empirical echo of “you have not been given of knowledge except a little.”

III. Philosophical Commentary: The Explanatory Gap and Cognitive Closure

Nagel, Jackson, and Levine

Thomas Nagel’s 1974 essay “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” argued that complete physical knowledge of a bat’s echolocating brain would still not yield knowledge of the subjective character of the bat’s experience; the facts of experience are accessible only from a point of view. Frank Jackson’s 1982 “knowledge argument” sharpened the point with Mary, the color scientist who knows every physical fact about vision from within a black-and-white room and yet appears to learn something new — what red is like — upon her first sight of it. Joseph Levine, in 1983, named the underlying difficulty the “explanatory gap”: physical accounts leave unexplained why brain states should feel like anything at all. Whether one reads the gap as merely epistemic or as ontological, all these arguments converge, from different directions, on a single omission — the qualitative, first-person dimension that third-person description does not capture.

McGinn’s mysterianism: the philosophical mirror of 17:85

The most direct philosophical parallel to Qur’ān 17:85 is the “new mysterianism” of Colin McGinn. In his 1989 paper “Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?”, McGinn argued that consciousness is a fully natural phenomenon with a perfectly real explanation — but one to which the human mind is cognitively closed. Just as a dog’s cognitive architecture cannot grasp calculus however much sensory access it has to numerals, our own minds — evolved for spatial-motor problem-solving — lack the concepts needed to bridge the gap between physical process and subjective experience. McGinn calls this position “transcendental naturalism”: the solution is, in his phrase, “written in our genes,” yet structurally beyond our reach.

Shah draws the connection explicitly: McGinn’s cognitive closure “is exactly what Quran 17:85 predicts.” The verse’s claim is not that a fact is missing that better instruments will supply, but that the human knower is constitutionally bounded — “of knowledge you have been given but a little” describes a structural characteristic of the human being, not a temporary gap. As Shah puts it, “we are designed to use the interface, not to reverse-engineer it.” (It is worth noting that mysterianism is contested — Dennett, the Churchlands, Frankish, Dehaene and others reject the hard problem itself as ill-posed or illusory — and this essay presents McGinn’s position as a serious interpretive resonance, not a settled consensus.)

Kant’s noumenon and the walls of the mind

Behind all of this stands Immanuel Kant’s distinction between the phenomenon — reality as it appears within the forms of our sensibility (space and time) and the categories of our understanding — and the noumenon, the thing-in-itself, which those very forms prevent us from knowing directly. On a Kantian reading, consciousness studied from the outside is always phenomenon; the rūḥ “of the command of my Lord” would belong to the order of the noumenal — real, but not deliverable to the apparatus that constitutes empirical knowledge. The Qur’ānic and the critical-philosophical traditions here meet: some realities lie beyond the reach of the knowing faculties as such.

IV. Theological Commentary: Signs Within the Self

If the rūḥ is “of the command of my Lord,” the Qur’ān nonetheless makes the self a primary site of revelation. Several verses build this theme.

41:53 — signs within ourselves.

سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ ۗ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ

“We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?” (Qur’ān 41:53)

Shah reads fī anfusihim (“within themselves”) as an invitation to treat human consciousness as a sign (āya) leading to God: the very irreducibility of first-person awareness to physics and chemistry points beyond matter. He aligns this with the argument from consciousness advanced by Richard Swinburne and J. P. Moreland — that if inert matter cannot generate first-person experience, the most coherent explanation is that finite minds derive from a prior, infinite Mind.

8:24 — God between a person and the heart.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اسْتَجِيبُوا لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ ۖ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَحُولُ بَيْنَ الْمَرْءِ وَقَلْبِهِ وَأَنَّهُ إِلَيْهِ تُحْشَرُونَ

“O you who have believed, respond to Allah and to the Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life. And know that Allah intervenes between a man and his heart and that to Him you will be gathered.” (Qur’ān 8:24)

Shah’s commentary frames consciousness as “the meeting point of the finite and the Infinite.” God’s intervention “between a man and his heart” signifies a nearness closer than the self is to itself — the theological ground of the claim that our inner life is never “sealed off” from its Sustainer. One classical reflection asks how anyone could dare conceal a sinful intention “from the One who is between him and his own heart.”

75:14–15 — the inner witness.

بَلِ الْإِنسَانُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِ بَصِيرَةٌ ﴿١٤﴾ وَلَوْ أَلْقَىٰ مَعَاذِيرَهُ ﴿١٥﴾

“Rather, man, against himself, will be a witness, even if he presents his excuses.” (Qur’ān 75:14–15)

The innate moral consciousness — the conscience that testifies against its own owner — is here presented as a faculty no external observer installs and no excuse can silence: self-awareness with a built-in moral valence.

7:179 — faculties that must be actively used.

…لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لَّا يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لَّا يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ آذَانٌ لَّا يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ كَالْأَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ…

“…They have hearts with which they do not understand, they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. Those are like livestock; rather, they are more astray…” (Qur’ān 7:179)

True awareness, the verse implies, is not the mere possession of sensory and intellectual organs but their active, mindful engagement — a striking anticipation of the modern distinction between mere information processing and genuine understanding.

Together with 39:42 on sleep, these verses present a Qur’ānic anthropology in which consciousness is a divine trust, a sign, a witness, and a summons — real and meaningful — while its ultimate essence remains “of the command of my Lord.”

V. The Limits of Human Knowledge: 6:103 as the Anchor

The keystone verse for the theology of epistemic limitation is Qur’ān 6:103:

لَّا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَبْصَارُ وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الْأَبْصَارَ ۖ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ

“Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision; and He is the Subtle, the Acquainted.” (Qur’ān 6:103)

Ibn ‘Abbās, as reported in al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, glossed the verb idrāk here as “to encompass”: no created vision — of jinn, humans, or angels combined — can encompass God’s Being, while His perception encompasses them all. As al-Ālūsī and the lexicographers note, al-Laṭīf denotes what is so subtle as to be imperceptible to the senses, and al-Khabīr the All-Aware; Muhammad Asad observed that wherever this pair occurs with the definite article (as in 6:103 and 67:14), it expresses God’s absolute inaccessibility to human perception and comprehension, set against His own total awareness.

Shah renders the theological payload memorably: “Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the human consciousness.” Because consciousness “lies at the sacred boundary between the finite and Infinite,” he argues, it is reasonable that it will “always remain shrouded in mystery.” Revelation itself, he notes, presents an “interface issue”: how can the Infinite communicate with a finite mind? The Qur’ān’s answer is that God’s knowledge envelops us though our knowledge cannot envelop Him.

A constellation of verses extends this into a systematic doctrine:

2:255 (Āyat al-Kursī): “…they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills…” — وَلَا يُحِيطُونَ بِشَيْءٍ مِّنْ عِلْمِهِ إِلَّا بِمَا شَاءَ. Human knowledge is a rationed grant, not an autonomous conquest. Quran

20:110: “He knows what is before them and what is behind them, but they do not encompass Him in knowledge” — يَعْلَمُ مَا بَيْنَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَمَا خَلْفَهُمْ وَلَا يُحِيطُونَ بِهِ عِلْمًا. Surah Quran The same verb of “encompassing” marks the boundary.

42:11: “There is nothing like unto Him” — لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ — the ontological ground of divine incomparability, which entails that no created concept can be adequate to Him.

67:14: “Does He who created not know, while He is the Subtle, the Acquainted?” — أَلَا يَعْلَمُ مَنْ خَلَقَ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ My Islam — the Creator’s knowledge of the creature is prior to and greater than the creature’s self-knowledge.

12:76: “…but over every possessor of knowledge is one [more] knowing” — وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ ذِي عِلْمٍ عَلِيمٌ My Islam — a hierarchy of knowing crowned by God.

18:109: “If the sea were ink for the words of my Lord, the sea would be exhausted before the words of my Lord were exhausted, even if We brought the like of it as a supplement” Quran — the incommensurability of divine knowledge with any finite measure.

6:59: “And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him…” — وَعِندَهُ مَفَاتِحُ الْغَيْبِ لَا يَعْلَمُهَا إِلَّا هُوَ Wikipedia — certain domains of reality are reserved absolutely.

2:216: “And Allah knows, while you know not” — وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ — even our value judgments outrun our knowledge.

55:33: “O company of jinn and mankind, if you are able to pass beyond the regions of the heavens and the earth, then pass. You will not pass except by authority [from Allah].” Quran O — يَا مَعْشَرَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنسِ إِنِ اسْتَطَعْتُمْ أَن تَنفُذُوا مِنْ أَقْطَارِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ فَانفُذُوا ۚ لَا تَنفُذُونَ إِلَّا بِسُلْطَانٍ. Read in a modern key, the verse names an ultimate horizon on our capacity to “penetrate” the structure of the cosmos except by a granted authority.

Taken together, these verses do not disparage science; they frame it. They describe a knower who is real, capable, and responsible, but bounded — and a reality whose deepest layers are held in the knowledge of the One who is al-Laṭīf al-Khabīr.

VI. The Afterlife: Beyond Comprehension, Yet Hinted

The Qur’ān is candid that the details of the Hereafter exceed human conception, even as it offers deliberate hints. The paradise-expanse verses are central.

۞ وَسَارِعُوا إِلَىٰ مَغْفِرَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَجَنَّةٍ عَرْضُهَا السَّمَاوَاتُ وَالْأَرْضُ أُعِدَّتْ لِلْمُتَّقِينَ

“And hasten to forgiveness from your Lord and a garden as wide as the heavens and earth, prepared for the righteous.” (Qur’ān 3:133)

سَابِقُوا إِلَىٰ مَغْفِرَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَجَنَّةٍ عَرْضُهَا كَعَرْضِ السَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْضِ أُعِدَّتْ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ فَضْلُ اللَّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ ذُو الْفَضْلِ الْعَظِيمِ

“Race toward forgiveness from your Lord and a Garden whose width is like the width of the heavens and earth, prepared for those who believed in Allah and His messengers. That is the bounty of Allah which He gives to whom He wills, and Allah is the possessor of great bounty.” (Qur’ān 57:21)

Quran 57:21 with 3:133 — describe Paradise as “as wide as the heavens and the earth.”

The width of Paradise being “as the heavens and the earth” prompted a famous exchange preserved in the commentary tradition and cited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr: the Byzantine emperor Heraclius reportedly sent word to the Prophet, “You call to a garden whose breadth is the heavens and the earth. So where is the fire [of Hell]?” The Prophet replied, “Glory be to God! Where is the night when the day comes?” — an answer that, as Shah observes, hints that Paradise and Hell may occupy, as it were, different “dimensions” of one reality, present yet not co-located in ordinary space.

That the Hereafter’s substance lies beyond present comprehension is stated directly in 32:17 and its accompanying ḥadīth:

فَلَا تَعْلَمُ نَفْسٌ مَّا أُخْفِيَ لَهُم مِّن قُرَّةِ أَعْيُنٍ جَزَاءً بِمَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ

“And no soul knows what has been hidden for them of comfort for eyes as reward for what they used to do.” (Qur’ān 32:17)

Commenting on this verse, the Prophet transmitted the divine saying (ḥadīth qudsī) recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (3244; also 7498) and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (2824): “Allah said: I have prepared for My righteous servants what no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and what has never occurred to a human heart.” The triad — eye, ear, heart — comprises precisely the faculties of 7:179; the reward is defined by its imperviousness to all three. The afterlife is thus, epistemically, the mirror image of the rūḥ: real, promised, and consequential, yet structurally beyond the reach of the knowing apparatus of this world.

The narration that “Paradise is closer to one of you than the strap of his sandal, and so is the Hellfire” (al-Bukhārī 6488) reinforces the same intuition of proximity-in-another-mode: the Hereafter is not necessarily far away in ordinary space but veiled behind the limits of our perception.

VII. Extra Dimensions: The Modern Idiom of the Transcendent

Here the essay turns to the integrative thesis developed at length by Zia H. Shah MD in his “Extra dimensions” series at thequran.love. The proposal is that the boundary named by 17:85 and 6:103 can be modeled — not merely metaphorically — by the physics and mathematics of higher dimensions, and that extra dimensions are the modern conceptualization of what millennia of tradition called the supernatural or the transcendent.

The dimensional analogy: Flatland

Edwin Abbott Abbott’s 1884 novella Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions supplies the governing image. A two-dimensional being — “A Square” — cannot conceive the third dimension until a Sphere lifts him out of his plane. From the vantage of the higher dimension, the Sphere can see the inside of Flatland’s closed rooms and even the interior of its inhabitants; its voice seems to come “from all directions at once”; it can appear, disappear, and touch the Square’s innards as a sudden internal sensation. Shah retells this (in his “Quranic Paradise” essay) through the fable of Finn, a fish of two-dimensional “Lineland” drawn successively into Flatland and three-dimensional Spaceland, returning home unable to convince his fellows of the realities he has seen.

The analogy is exact for the theological claims. A being of n+1 dimensions relates to an n-dimensional world precisely as the Qur’ān describes God’s relation to ours: present at every interior point without being locally confined; seeing what is hidden; nearer to the enclosed self than that self is to its own surface. As Shah argues in his omnipresence essays, “just as a three-dimensional being can be in contact with multiple points of a two-dimensional surface at once, God could be in contact with all points of our three-dimensional world by virtue of a higher-dimensional presence.” Omniscience, on this view, “logically implies some form of omnipresence.”

The physics backdrop — with due caution

The physics that makes extra dimensions respectable begins with Kaluza–Klein theory (1919–1926), which unified gravitation and electromagnetism by positing a fifth, compactified dimension: the four-dimensional Einstein equations plus the Maxwell equations emerge together from a single five-dimensional gravitational theory. This idea was inherited by string theory and M-theory, which require ten or eleven dimensions respectively, with the surplus six or seven “compactified” to scales far below current experimental resolution. The ADD (Arkani-Hamed–Dimopoulos–Dvali) model of 1998 proposed instead that some extra dimensions might be “large,” with gravity — but not the other forces — propagating into them, which would explain gravity’s apparent weakness (the hierarchy problem). Searches at the Large Hadron Collider for missing-energy signatures and microscopic black holes, and sub-millimeter tests of Newtonian gravity, continue.

Intellectual honesty requires the caveat Shah himself makes: extra dimensions remain unconfirmed in physics. As of this writing no experiment has demonstrated their existence, and Shah frames his position candidly as “prospectively predicting something from the Holy Quran, which is not yet an established reality among physicists.” The essay therefore treats extra dimensions in two registers: (1) as speculative physics, an open and serious research program, and (2) as conceptual model, a rigorous way to render intelligible what “supernatural” and “transcendent” have always meant — realities lying beyond the axes of our familiar space and time, and hence beyond instruments that can only probe along those axes.

The thesis: consciousness, Paradise and Hell, and God’s interface as extra-dimensional

On this framework, three things the Qur’ān places beyond our knowledge share a common structure — they are, in the modern idiom, extra-dimensional:

  1. Consciousness / the rūḥ. As an entity “of the command of my Lord” (17:85), interfacing with but not reducible to the three-dimensional brain, the soul is naturally modeled as anchored in a dimension our instruments cannot enter. This is why, however complete our neuroscience becomes, the first-person interior — like the inside of Flatland’s rooms — is invisible to any measurement confined to the lower-dimensional “surface.” Shah’s occasionalist writings put it starkly: because consciousness is “the intersection point of the finite human mind and the Infinite Divine Presence,” God is instantly aware of the innermost thoughts of all humanity at once.
  2. Paradise and Hell. The width of Paradise being “as the heavens and the earth” (3:133; 57:21), its bounties being what “no eye has seen” (32:17), and its being “closer than the strap of the sandal” (al-Bukhārī 6488) all fit a reading in which the Hereafter occupies dimensions folded into, yet inaccessible from, our present four — present but veiled, like day behind night.
  3. God’s omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. The verses of divine nearness and knowledge map onto exactly the powers a higher-dimensional being would possess relative to a lower world:

وَنَحْنُ أَقْرَبُ إِلَيْهِ مِنْ حَبْلِ الْوَرِيدِ — “…and We are closer to him than [his] jugular vein” (Qur’ān 50:16).

وَنَحْنُ أَقْرَبُ إِلَيْهِ مِنكُمْ وَلَٰكِن لَّا تُبْصِرُونَ — “And We are nearer to him than you, but you do not see” (Qur’ān 56:85).

وَهُوَ مَعَكُمْ أَيْنَ مَا كُنتُمْ — “…and He is with you wherever you are” (Qur’ān 57:4).

Nearer than the jugular vein, nearer than the onlookers yet unseen, present wherever we are — this is precisely the phenomenology of the Sphere in Flatland, transposed to the Creator. Shah’s conclusion is that “the very existence of a comprehensively conscious Creator might require that the stage of reality has more than three dimensions,” and that God is best pictured not as “spread out like an ethereal fog” but as “deeply present in a higher reality that undergirds every point of our reality.”

The decisive corollary for the theme of this essay is that these realities are permanently beyond empirical inquiry, however scientifically advanced it becomes — not because science is weak, but because instruments confined to four dimensions cannot, in principle, image what lies orthogonal to all of them. This is the physics-flavored restatement of lā tudrikuhu al-abṣār (6:103) and of mā ‘ūtītum mina l-‘ilmi illā qalīlā (17:85).

VIII. Synthesis: Epistemic Humility as Common Ground

The remarkable convergence this commentary has traced is that three independent enterprises — empirical science, analytic philosophy, and Qur’ānic theology — arrive at the same wall from different sides.

  • Science reaches it in the failure of hundreds of mutually incompatible theories and in the 2025 Nature collaboration’s refutation of both leading contenders: consciousness can be correlated, manipulated, switched off by propofol and dimmed by torpor, and still not explained.
  • Philosophy reaches it in Nagel’s bat, Jackson’s Mary, Levine’s explanatory gap, McGinn’s cognitive closure, and Kant’s noumenon: the first-person, qualitative fact is systematically omitted by third-person description, perhaps by the very structure of our cognition.
  • Theology reached it first, in 17:85 and 6:103: the rūḥ is “of the command of my Lord,” and “you have not been given of knowledge except a little.”

Qur’ān 41:53 supplies the synthesis. The signs are “in the horizons and within themselves” — fī al-āfāq wa fī anfusihim. The outward-facing sciences read the horizons; the inward-facing disciplines read the self; and the point where they meet — consciousness — is offered as the sign that “it is the truth.” The failure to reduce mind to matter is not, on this reading, a defeat for knowledge but a signpost: an āya that the self is a receiver tuned to a reality beyond itself. Epistemic humility becomes not resignation but orientation. We are, in Shah’s image, meant “to use the interface, not to reverse-engineer it” — and the inability to reverse-engineer it is itself the evidence pointing home.

This posture neither halts research nor sanctifies ignorance. The Qur’ān that says “you have been given little” also commands us to “reflect” (39:42), to “race” toward the good (57:21), and promises ever-more signs “time after time” (41:53). It rebukes those who possess hearts, eyes, and ears but do not use them (7:179). The humility is dynamic: inquiry is sacred precisely because it keeps disclosing the boundary — and the boundary keeps pointing beyond itself.

Epilogue

Fourteen centuries before the hard problem had a name, Qur’ān 17:85 located the essence of the soul “of the affair of my Lord” and measured human knowledge as “little.” Modern consciousness science — for all its genuine mastery of sleep, anesthesia, and hibernation — has confirmed the measurement: it can say ever more about the states of awareness and nothing decisive about awareness itself, and its hundreds of competing theories and inconclusive landmark experiments testify to a boundary rather than a mere frontier. Philosophy, from Kant to McGinn, has independently mapped that same boundary as cognitive closure and the explanatory gap. And the Qur’ān’s wider theology of knowledge — 6:103, 2:255, 20:110, 42:11, 67:14, 12:76, 18:109, 6:59, 55:33 — frames it not as an accident but as the human condition before an al-Laṭīf al-Khabīr whose knowledge encompasses us while ours cannot encompass Him.

The most fruitful modern language for this boundary, as Zia H. Shah MD has argued, is that of extra dimensions: consciousness, the Hereafter, and God’s omnipresent interface with the cosmos plausibly reside in dimensions beyond our four, which is exactly what “supernatural” and “transcendent” have always meant, and exactly why they remain — in principle, not merely in practice — beyond the reach of any instrument. To read the fine-tuned cosmos and the conscious self as “two verses of one Book,” in Shah’s phrase, is not to end inquiry but to sanctify it. “Is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?” (41:53). The little we know is enough to know how little we know — and that, the Qur’ān suggests, is itself a sign.

References / Bibliography

Primary Qur’ānic and ḥadīth sources

  • The Qur’ān, verses 2:216; 2:255; 3:133; 6:59; 6:103; 7:179; 8:24; 12:76; 17:85; 18:109; 20:110; 32:17; 39:42; 41:53; 42:11; 50:16; 51:47; 55:33; 56:85; 57:4; 57:21; 67:14; 75:14–15. Arabic (Uthmānī) with Sahih International translation via quran.com and tanzil.net.
  • Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3244, 6488, 7498; Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2824 (ḥadīth qudsī, “what no eye has seen”). sunnah.com.
  • Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurtubī, al-Rāzī, and Ma’ārif al-Qur’ān on 17:85 and 6:103; via alim.org, quran.com, islamicstudies.info.
  • Seyyed Hossein Nasr (ed.), The Study Quran, commentary on 3:133.

Zia H. Shah MD, thequran.love

Science and philosophy

  • R. L. Kuhn, “A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications,” Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 190 (2024): 28–169. doi:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2023.12.003.
  • O. Ferrante et al. (Cogitate Consortium), “Adversarial testing of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theories of consciousness,” Nature 642 (2025): 133–142. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08888-1.
  • D. Chalmers, “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness” (1995).
  • T. Nagel, “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” Philosophical Review 83 (1974): 435–450.
  • F. Jackson, “Epiphenomenal Qualia,” Philosophical Quarterly 32 (1982): 127–136.
  • J. Levine, “Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 64 (1983): 354–361.
  • C. McGinn, “Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?” Mind 98 (1989): 349–366.
  • E. A. Abbott, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions (1884).
  • A. Bastos et al., “Neural effects of propofol-induced unconsciousness and its reversal using thalamic stimulation,” eLife (2021); article 60824.
  • K. L. Drew et al., “Central nervous system regulation of mammalian hibernation,” Journal of Neurochemistry (2007); with T. Buck & B. Barnes (2000) on metabolic suppression.
  • Consciousness Atlas (consciousnessatlas.com), taxonomy derived from Kuhn (2024).

Leave a comment

Trending