Scientific Tafsir Zakaria Kamal -

Yet his relevance today is arguably greater than ever. In a time when young Muslims are leaving religion because they are told they must choose between a literalist reading of the Qur’an (where mountains are pegs) and atheistic materialism, Kamal offers a . He argues that one can be fully committed to the scientific method—with all its fallibility, historicity, and provisionality—and fully committed to the Qur’an as divine revelation, provided one reads nature and text as two books written by the same Author, in two different languages: one of quantitative law, the other of qualitative meaning.

On the other hand, secularized Muslims and Western orientalists claimed that the Qur’an had nothing to say about nature beyond medieval folklore. Against both extremes, Kamal proposed a : a return to the rationalist tradition of falsafa (Islamic philosophy) as embodied by al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, and Ibn Rushd. He believed that the decline of tafsir began when theology ( kalam ) defeated philosophy ( falsafa ). His project was to revive the philosophical reading of revelation. 2. The Qur’an as a “Summons to Reason” (Istiqlal al-‘Aql) Central to Kamal’s scientific tafsir is the concept of Tawhid not merely as a theological formula, but as a cosmic hypothesis . For Kamal, the declaration “There is no god but God” is also a statement about the universe’s intelligibility. Because the universe is the creation of a singular, rational Will, it operates according to consistent laws ( sunan ). This consistency is the precondition for science. scientific tafsir zakaria kamal

In an age where the Qur’an is often forced onto a Procrustean bed of modern physics or biology—either to “prove” its divinity via a miracle or to be dismissed as mythological—the voice of the Egyptian existentialist philosopher Zakaria Kamal stands as a remarkable, yet largely overlooked, alternative. Kamal did not ask, “Does the Qur’an contain scientific facts?” Instead, he asked a more fundamental question: “How does the Qur’an’s worldview structure the very possibility of science?” Yet his relevance today is arguably greater than ever