Cosmogony in the Quran

Is it true that, as Alexander Koyre put it, that "man has lost his place in the world" and that the scientific 'revolution' has brought about "the destruction of the cosmos. The disappearance of the conception of the world as a finite, closed, and hierarchically ordered whole"?. Historians of science would certainly agree, after all, the modern conception of the universe is nothing like the crafted, ingeniously designed, and ordered one of the classical world. The pre-Copernican universe 'made sense', or, let's say, 'conforms to the expectations of man', who as a 'Techne-endowed' creature with an 'enterprising' sense, is naturally driven to likewise view the world.

That forsaken cosmos appeared to him as one machine the parts of which were interdependent, an immense edifice with countless floors, each level was assigned a definite function, each occupant had its precise (Fusilat, chp41, v12 'So He formed the heaven into seven heavens in two Days, assigning to each its mandate') and exclusive place in it; there were no privations or gaps between things that the differences between species is a question of degree, that said differences can be graded and scaled, that between any two closely related species a hybrid, that makes it so that one tends to show a shading-off of the properties of one class into those of the next rather than a sharp-cut distinction between them.

"Nature refuses to conform to our craving for clear lines of demarcation; she loves twilight zones, where forms abide which, if they are to be classified at all, must be assigned to two classes at once"

A.O. Lovejoy The Great Chain Of Being p56

Such as would conform to expectation, as every engineer, architect or mechanic designs his machine in such a way that every part fulfilled, to the best possible degree, its role with respect to the next, and to the whole.

"Any division of creatures with reference to some one determinate attribute manifestly gave rise to a linear series of classes. And such a series, Aristotle observed, tends to show a shading-off of the properties of one class into those of the next rather than a sharp-cut distinction between them"

A.O. Lovejoy The Great Chain Of Being p56

The 'whole', therefore, is not a simple thing, it's that with respect to which there's this and that specific thing. If the parts of said great machine were not, as conceived by Aristotle and others, as intimately connected as the above-quoted passage suggests; if there is, let's say a discontinuity in the universe whereby, a certain class or phenomenon or species does not 'shade off' into another, then there would be no universe. A single instance of discontinuity is enough to cancel out the very condition of 'being'; for the existence of particular things. This great principle is mentioned in the Quran in an amazingly complex but exceedingly articulate way.

The key word here is the Futoor فُطُورٍۢ; translated in this context as 'flaws', but appears in quite a different sense in the rest of the Quran, e.g, it's used in an approximate sense to 'create' in Verse 22 of Chapter 36, as below

Surely, it cannot mean both 'flaw' and 'origination' at the same time though the general sense of each context may suggest so. This is where a 'hermeneutical' approach whereby the meaning of a term is drawn from every instance of its application in the text should be carried out. Must not the amazing continuity of the universe be reflected in all his work, i.e the Quran?. It's only right that the very text that we're here holding should, in some sense, mirror the cosmos, that its words are 'meres', which must thereby be understood mereologically. Should it be treated otherwise--i.e should we 'exit' the circle of the text and seek the aid of a dictionary or the interpretations of the exegete; the meaning gained will not 'marry up' to that of the verse/context from which we've, quite literally, 'severed it'.

The closest term in English to Futoor is interpolation; which means to insert something of a different nature into something else, or, as we here understand it, the act of introducing into a certain sphere of relations a foreign component. The caveat here is that, upon introduction, the thing ceases to be foreign, and is wholly assimilated into and gains membership in the whole, expanding and 'enriching' with new relations and dependencies, rather than 'disorganizing', the sphere. The new component is not simply 'dropped', or, in the Heideggerian phrase, 'thrown', into the 'sphere', but rather, is made a symbiote, an entity by whose introduction the sphere has gained a new 'sense', and, reciprocally, a 'thing' whose meaning is found in the manner of its 'symbiotic' subsistence. Meaning that, 'understanding the whole' would, through and through demand the inclusion of the part.

"Why should I not worship he who 'originated' me' (36:22), merely approximates the 'full sense' of the verse; 'originated me' فطرني, if properly understood should include the 'connotations' which the term 'futoor' involves; thereby expanding the meaning to include the fact that one is 'originated' as a constituent' of the universe. Me, here becomes me 'sub specie aeternitatis''

The change which an expanded sense of the term 'futoor' entails is profound. It implies membership; that your 'existence' is not an arbitrary event, not a question of chance, not an accident of the time and place, but rather, an insertion, an act of reason; reared by universal considerations such as the implications of your existence, how conducive you are to the whole, and what precise role you're existence is required to fullfil etc... We are thus to take the person behind the verse to have had that very rich sense in mind when he said it. As Borges writes in one of his stories

"He was seeking a soul worthy of participating in the universe" J.L Borges 'The Circular Ruins'

This works as both an answer to the question of 'being' as well as a cosmogony--an account of the origination of all things, but also one that's capable of accounting for the existence not only of the whole, but also of each constituent with all its circumstantial complexity. "Do you see any 'Flaws' (discontinuity)" (67:3). The term 'flaw' there ought to be replaced with 'discontinuity'; as discontinuity would emphasize the precedence of perfect harmony and continuity; having continuity as the foundation, a universal subject that sufficiently predicates all possible 'states of being'. The question remains of how we can reconcile the first with the second sense of 'futoor', How, could 'futoor' which implies continuity, can also imply 'discontinuity' as verse 67:3 relays?

The answer is, simply, that the word gains its meaning in its constructive relation to other terms in the sentence--i.e in whether it's used as the subject, or a derivative (predicate) part of the sentence. This is a logical function of negation: An idea can be meaningful in two ways, when implied in the context but isn't directly posited, and when directly posited--e.g

"The latest intel processor is fast'

The idea of 'processor' involves that of 'Ram', but Ram does not occur in the proposition. The meaning of Ram is preserved in 'processor' (as a presupposition); but this elliptical meaning obviously differs from one in which Ram is explicitly mentioned in conjunction with the processor:

"The processor is supported by a sizable Ram"

It's given, to anyone whose remotely familiar with computer hardware, in the proposition "The latest processor is fast" that a fast processor implies a sizable Ram, because he will know that the function of the Ram will automatically be efficient relative to the processor's, and that, logically, the first proposition necessarily implies the second. We understand here that something obviously drives one to make mention of the size of the RAM rather than leave it as 'implied' by the speed of the processor; and that the second proposition is not in any way superfluous, but emphatic!.

Such as the use of the term Futoor in the above verse. Futoor is the fundamental, invariable, basic cosmogonic 'condition' of the universe, it is 'given' in speaking about a particular species that they were 'introduced' at some point by the creator, that they were 'interpolated' into the cosmic (symbiotic) framework of the universe, but we don't mention that (for the same reason that we would-- a 'reason'), we leave the 'origin' of the species in the background as we proceed to discuss aspects deemed, in that particular instant, more 'pertinent'. So when it comes to a process such as 'futoor', positing it without a subject or a predicate, as in, when not used to describe the ‘interpolation’ of this or that other species, has the strange effect of 'absolute negation'; it removes the postulate of 'creativity', whereby, in describing nothing in particular, it describes all.

Thus if nothing in particular is being described by the term 'futoor' (interpolation), 'everything' is--the universe at large. The novelty suggested by the term there would negate any continuity hitherto maintained. Nature abhors a vacuum, goes the medieval maxim. The universe admits of anomalies only insofar as they're 'additions', symbiotes, integral, and functionally meaningful to the grand 'scheme' of the universe. Where not integral, then, they are unrelated to the preceding scheme which we’ve thus far been following, an assumption arises that since it doesn’t fall in line with the previous series, it must be a new series.

In the language of cosmology such ‘interjections’ are tantamount to a whole new universe, a whole new scheme utterly discontinuous with any scheme that had preceded it. The universe 'arises simultaneously with each of its constituents, it never 'ceases', there's no 'universe' in the sense of a box with content inside it. It's a single series that's in a state of continuous and progressive 'unfolding', expanding by means of the constant realization of new possibilities of combination, and combination necessitates some form of preestablished harmony--i.e a transcendental unity--i.e the universe itself. Much like how all geometrical forms issue from the simple ‘line’.

Creation vs Futoor

if we take another example, the meaning of the verse will be made all the more clear

Here the description 'the originator is highly significant, all the more for the context in which it occurs, and the terms with which it occurs in association. He posits that he's the originator of the heavens and earth, which, as we noted in the previous essay, refer to the concepts of space and time; that these are, in a sense the foundation of the universe. By foundation we mean that there exists nothing in the universe apart from their originator on whose existence they, and by extension, everything else, depends. They're the very principles from which arise the operations of motion, of progress, of growth, of senescence, though they manifest themselves physically, their metaphysical 'being' is the actual basis for their physical being.

Think about it, anything that appears, appears either on earth, or descends from the heavens above. But this description would be inadequate if it doesn't explicitly account for the 'depth-factor' of phenomena; wherein occurs such things as generation, 'appearance' and persistence, as well as the corruption and 'disappearance' of things. This is where the true meaning of heavens and earth is contained; in their fourfoldness, that they carry both the physical as well as the metaphysical sides of being. There must, in a sense be an extensive as well as intensive ways of representing things; even ideas are physical, in that they're 'things in themselves', but their 'concreteness' which we deem as the quintessential 'thing' is a question of degrees, this is indicated in the verse 4 of chp 32 'It is Allah Who has created the heavens and the earth and everything in between in six Days' where 'everything in-between' refers to the 'forms' which mediate concrete existence, and those which approximate them, because reality or 'real things' are never immediately given to us, they emerge out of things which are not given to our sense, to more complex processes, and those are, in the space-time scheme which we said is the analogue of the Quran's 'heavens and earth', what it refers to as the 'in-between'.

Being the most fundamental things in the universe (Heavens & Earth), or, the universe itself insofar as the universe is an unfolding agglomerate of relations, a system in-motion, then what better term expresses their creation besides 'futoor'?, a term which, in this context describes how the universe arose from a condition, whatever it may be, in which it bore no existence--in the form in which it currently is. It's thus an specification of the more conventional and rather vague term 'create' as occurs numerous times in the Quran.

Now, what may you say is the difference between an expression such as 'Khaleq' خلق and that of 'fater' فاطر?.

Being more frequently used, we are led to believe that the term is more general (and thus deserves to be more frequently used: more general and 'inclusive' terms, you'll find, are, as a rule, more important and more frequently used than their more 'specialized' variants). The fact of being a more general term, means that the comparatively 'special' term 'futoor' is already contained in it. Futoor is an aspect of the general process denoted by Khaleq; or, that futoor is a certain stage of the general scheme of Khaleq', not the other way around.

The difference is approximate to that found between the proposition, 'Ram is computational', which, though permit us to assert the contrary, that all computation involves function analogous to that fulfilled by the RAM, however, when as a general definition--i.e if the aim is a compendious description of the whole process, we propose such a term as would include all aspects of computation, which is to say 'define computation', then, RAM would merely be one of the terms subsumed in the description, as it's inadequate by itself. The more general the term the better. In this explanation is contained the key to every Quranic proposition.

God deploys the term 'Khaleq' as the most 'general' way of describing the origins of the universe, it does not say 'fater' in such context as we find the term 'Khaleq' because, for the purpose of felicity, the chosen term is chosen on the basis of the principle of sufficient reason, a sufficiency whereby any other term would be superfluous, and distortive to the intended meaning of the verse. What does this reveal if not that 'Creation' in the sense of 'Khaleq' is comprised of stages or steps; a fact that though some may deem obvious and 'given', seems to have no hermeneutical import in the formation of the concept as some exegeses and translations (exegeses too) show.

Even in English, we naturally seek such terms as 'befits' our expressive 'needs', terms which won't fall short of describing that which we intend to, let's say, 'capture'. We use cold in place of 'freezing', in place of 'frosty', or call something 'red' in place of 'crimson', 'maroon', 'scarlet', because the margin of infelicity or error, is much narrower in the term Red, than in that of crimson, any other shade of red, or, let's say, we would be less wrong in calling something Red than we would 'crimson' for instance, as it may be 'maroon', but we'd be right in saying that it's red in either case.

Thus we use 'Khaleq' to describe the general process of creation, and 'futoor' to describe which stage in the process we refer to. 'Khaleq' & 'Fater' are among god's many names, though in the former is involves more than can be accounted for by a term such as 'Fater', the expression Khaleq is given as the background process as the term 'Fater' assumes contextual precedence or priority. In other words, we enter the 'process' of Khaleq such that it recedes into the background (pause and enter). We understand from this that the terms are related, related in such a way that both refer to the same general sphere of relations, that, methodologically speaking, we pause and survey the whole process, in view of precisely which place each function occupies in relation to the rest, then choose on the basis of this panoramic view, the term expressive of the function that we're here after.

The burden of proof

"The universe is much too complex for the simplicity of Men" wrote Borges, and in a sense, how can someone claim to have found a 'glitch in the matrix' if they've not made out what the matrix is in the first place. "Do you see any 'Flaws' (discontinuity)" reveals itself as a rhetorical question, the purposes of which is to bring the recipient to reach the position from which the question was originally posed, revealing its didactic motive. The question is a designed to 'bring out' and 'dislodge' that aporia (internal contradiction) lodged deep in the doubter’s thinking. Unknowingly, in confronting the question, the doubter brings with him criterion against which he 'gauges' the validity of what he assumes to be the meaning of the verse.

He will point out seeming 'contradictions' which he feels are littered throughout the universe or the Text itself (The Quran), only to find the burden of proof constantly on his side; as proving the inconsistency and disharmony of the universe can only be done by 'understanding the the totality of the universe which he claims is in disharmony', which is impossible. Here he reveals his criterion, harmony, the very condition which he feels the universe fell short of fulfilling. Hence God asks him to 'Look again', i.e can you not see that if they're had been disharmony in any shape or form, you yourself, would not be here, questioning that of which you're a part?; that the universe is an absolute unity and that you're a prime constituent of said unity?. We must clarify that the disharmony that we’re speaking of, the kind of disharmony that could have prevented the universe from emerging, concerns the fundamental constitution of beings, not any actions which may be viewed as ‘detrimental’ and corrupt. Thus, though disharmony and corruption can arise, it remains that in being seen as aberrations, pools directly from a formal and more fundamental state of harmony.

It becomes clear, the deeper we delve into this concept, that the object of knowledge, of science, is to reach a wholistic standpoint, to see the universe as harmonious whole, and thankfully, seeing it a such does not, apposed to seeing it otherwise, demand that we understand the universe to the same degree as God.

Beautiful and ironical at the same time, that it takes understanding every possible detail, every possible relation, entity, the entire catalogue of beings, history of the universe and the infinite chain of causes and effects, to adequately substantiate a single instance of contradiction, but it only takes two or three cases (as in Abraham's case with the celestial bodies) to prove otherwise--that it is a consistent, 'consonant', and error-free whole. This is obviously God's doing. The Quran describes the vicissitudes of the detractor in a way which can only be captured metaphorically, as 'darkness upon darkness', waves upon waves of unsubstantiated 'data' overwhelm you as you helplessly try to make sense of what they are and mean. He elaborates that without his light, which obviously is a metaphor for 'intellect' as its frequent use in the Quran testifies, one can hope to gain no insight.

The same 'rhetorical' motif resurfaces throughout the Quran, particularly in verse 82 of chapter 4 'Al'Nisa', where it's said, in support of the claim that the Quran is consistent and 'error-free' text, that had it been from someone other than God many inconsistencies and contradictions would have been found. Again, proving a contradiction subjects you to the task--an infinite task--of assimilating the book, as, you'll first have to understand the text, and to do so you must, as the famous dictum by Schleiermacher goes 'understand the writer better than he understood himself"(Hans-Georg Gadamar 'Truth & Method' p191), and you soon find yourself before a mission no less mortifying than that of understanding the universe itself, because, the book mirrors it in a way which only by advancing deep enough into its studies can one truly appreciate.

The Ketab

Ikhtelaf اختلاف (contradiction/inconsistency) deserves a slight 'rectification'. Yes, it means contradiction, but in what sense?. Its inflexions in the Quran readily provide the answers, (خليفه, يخلف, خلف) respectively meaning 'successor, inherit, 'behind'. Contradiction, those examples show, involves a temporal factor; the process of 'finding' a new standpoint that's judged to be inconsistent with a previously held one, or, of ditching a previously held standpoint for a new one; there's indeed a sense of 'inheritance' and 'succession' here, because succession and inheritance both imply a predecessor, specifically one that no longer exists.

This is only inevitable for entities that 'indwell' the universe, we can see neither the whole as it is, nor the part in all its painstaking details, all we have are instances which we use as basis from which to carry out certain abstractions, and generalizations. Knowledge for us finite beings, is an unceasing task, at no point can you reach a standpoint that would allow you to make an 'eternally' valid rule--eternally valid in the sense of a rule that will apply in every possible, variegated case throughout the whole of human existence. This, the Quran stresses with the term 'Ketab', and a ketab, is what you may call a mandate, which contains in form a thorough exposition of a certain concept or phenomena in a way to allows one to interact with it, a rule that will apply in all possible cases, however unique the circumstances in which they find themselves are.

Human law must always change to account for new trends and changes in social norms, to 'keep up', and so do all 'enterprising' forms of human activity, which may be said stem from and depend for their progress on that which we find in the legal system that governs the state, for instance, we don't expect anarchies to bring about a great economy, high living standards, technological and industrial innovation, we rather expect them from constitutional states, or states with a unified and stable 'governing' systems; the stability of the former, it's shown to be' inversely proportional or directly conducive to economic prosperity. We say this to say that a human society's best asset in the long and difficult road to prosperity is a certain effective and stable governing 'system', one that shows itself to be adaptable, to the greatest possible extent, to new challenges without being changed or compromised as so often happens. This is the sense in which 'Book' Alketab is used in the Quran.