← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.
What is the scientific evidence for the existence of angels? I will answer you in one sentence at the end of the episode, but before that, we will build the answer step by step. For those who have not followed the previous episodes, you may want to detail some points, so I will be with you in a live broadcast after the episode for more simplification, clarification, and answering questions, God willing.
First, we have explained in detail that science is a broad circle, and observational experimental science "science" is part of this circle. So when I say to you: there is scientific evidence for the existence of angels, do not say to me: where are they so that I can touch them or examine them in a lab? Rather, we must look: does belief in angels fall within the general circle of science or not?
We have proven that there is an unseen world, a world other than the world of testimony that we witness and observe. And those who describe themselves as materialists are forced to resort to unseen explanations in the end, but the difference is that there is no evidence for them from reason, nature, sense, or news, as we have explained in many episodes.
Materialists who do not agree with these explanations do not answer the question of the origin of the universe and life, but they stand silent and helpless. All of this indicates that - practically - everyone acknowledges the existence of the unseen, even if some deny it with their tongues.
This is to determine which of the unseen realities fall within the scope of science. There are many claimed unseen realities, so we must follow a scientific method to know which of them fall within the circle of science and which are superstitions.
What we have done so far in this series is that we have proven - by a scientific method - the greatest of the unseen realities, which is the existence of a Creator endowed with the attributes of power and knowledge. We did this through a scientific method based on sources of knowledge in which reason plays a central role, and which employed "science" to prove the existence of the Creator and His attributes.
Here comes the role of the sources of knowledge themselves in realizing that this Creator does not do anything in vain, but His creation indicates His wisdom, so He does not leave people neglected, but there must be prophethood. And His wisdom must provide these prophets with what proves the truth of their prophethood and distinguishes them from liars; so they are supported by miracles.
The judgment of the prophethood of a prophet and the miracle of his miracle is a rational judgment that employs sources of knowledge and reaches this scientific conclusion in the end: that this prophet is a true prophet, and that the book he brought is truly from the Creator of the universe and life. This is one of the important upcoming stations in the journey of certainty, God willing.
After we prove that someone is a true prophet of the Creator, and that a certain book is a true revelation of the Creator, this book contains unseen news about the unseen world that we do not witness. What is the scientific stance towards this news?
The stance: is acceptance and submission, because it gains its argument and reliability from the truthfulness of the one who reports it. Therefore, believing in it and submitting to it, because it gains its argument and reliability from the truthfulness of the one who reports it.
There are two possibilities:
Supported by scientific reasoning.
Neither affirmed nor denied by observational science, but proven by the broader scientific methodology.
Alright, what if this news of the unseen contradicts "science"? So, you find yourself at a crossroads, either you believe in "science" and deny the unseen, or you believe in the unseen and deny science.
The answer: They cannot contradict. These pieces of news of the unseen will not, in their relationship with empirical science, be outside of one of two possibilities:
This detail is important, brothers, and removes much confusion. Some say: empirical science has a relationship with the unseen, - no, it does not have a relationship with the unseen. The matter requires precise detail. "Science" points to unseen matters, while it does not point to nor negate other unseen matters, and yet - with that - it is proven by scientific evidence.
Let us take an example of each of these cases:
When the Creator informs you through a revelation that you have believed in with evidence, in a scientific manner, that there is a resurrection after death, then empirical science requires - rationally - the ability of the Creator to do so. And with this, you understand the saying of Allah the Most High: {And he has set forth for us an example and has forgotten his own creation. He says, "Who will give life to bones when they have rotted?" Say, "He will give them life who brought them forth the first time, and He is Knowing of every creation. Who made for you from the green tree, fire, that when you kindle from it, behold! You are with it bright and shining. Is not He who created the heavens and the earth able to create the likes of them? Yes, indeed! And He is the Knowing Creator."} [Ya-Seen: 78-81].
This is a scientific argument built on observations of empirical "science," that a Creator we see the traces of whose power and greatness; the creation of man after his death will be easier for Him than the creation of the heavens and the earth whose greatness we observe "by science," and easier than the creation of man the first time while we see by science the greatness in this creation of man. {And it is He who begins creation and then repeats it, and that is easier for Him.} [Ar-Rum: 27]. {The creation of the heavens and the earth is greater than the creation of the people, but most of the people do not know.} [Ghafir: 57].
This is the first case: that "science" is indicative of the unseen, supporting it.
The second case - dear respected ones - is that the unseen is not something that "science" negates nor confirms, and an example of that: the angels. Science, by its very definition, works on the world of testimony through observation and experimentation. And reason, employs - employs science - in indication, general indication of the Creator and His attributes - as we have mentioned -. As for the acts of the Creator, and what He brings about in the world of the unseen, it is not within the scope of science's work.
So, the evidence for the angels remains from the cognitive system itself that produced science for us. The evidence: it is scientific evidence by its broadest definition, not science. Science and the existence of angels, are two branches of one root, and it is not a condition that one indicates the truth of the other for us to believe in it, but it is sufficient that it indicates their truth; the truth of the foundation upon which they are built.
I repeat, brothers: science and the existence of angels, are two branches of one root, and it is not a condition that one indicates the other for us to believe in it, but it is sufficient that it indicates their truth; the truth of the foundation upon which they are built.
And just as it is foolishness to deny the angels by science, it is foolishness to try to prove the angels by science. The relationship between them is not one of proof nor negation nor contradiction. And it is not from science to seek phenomena that have no material explanation, to attribute them to the angels for example.
And likewise, you will not be consistent with yourself nor proceeding from fixed rules when you use this cognitive system in building science, then you reject it, and do not want to derive from it when this system itself indicates the existence of the angels.
The cognitive system is the same, the sources of knowledge within it are the same, and it indicates to you both things: on science, and on the truth of these unseen matters. The correct unseen acquires its truth from the proof of the truth of the informer of it scientifically. Then this unseen - after that - is either supported by observations of empirical science, or it is not supported by them nor contradicted, but it is nevertheless scientifically proven in both cases.
And what applies to the angels, applies to the jinn and other unseen matters that science does not confirm nor negate, but are proven by scientific narrative evidence. And we do not accept from their news except what is authenticated to the revelation. The certainty of the existence of the angels and the jinn does not mean at all believing everything attributed to them, but what is authenticated to the Creator and His messengers by the scientific methodology followed in verifying the attribution of news.
On the other hand, when the unseen is not scientifically proven in this way, then you will find in it actual contradiction with science, such as the claim that the Creator wrestled with a human until this human almost overpowered the Creator (Exalted is Allah from that). This news is not something that has been scientifically proven, as scientific evidence has indicated the occurrence of tampering in these books. Therefore, this piece of unseen news does not gain reliability because its attribution to the Creator is not authentic, nor to His messengers, so it is no wonder that it contradicts science. The universe and life indicate a Creator of absolute power, greater than to be overpowered by a human.
Peace be upon you. One who has not accepted the authenticity of prophecies or revelation may say, "Fine, what do I gain from all this talk of yours?" I say to you: You benefit by knowing how to object to something in a scientific manner so that our discussion is scientific. You will feel ashamed to say, "There are no angels because there is no scientific evidence for them," because by doing so, you commit the fallacy of assuming that those who believe in their existence agree with you that science is limited to the scientific method; this is ignorance.
Rather, you should say, "Prove to me that science is not limited to the scientific method," which is what we have done in the previous episodes. Or you should say, "I do not accept that this revelation is from the Creator, or I do not accept the existence of the Creator at all." At that point, I would say to you: Then we know where the disagreement lies, so let us take a step back and discuss these premises: the Creator, revelation, and prophecies. But it is a flaw to say to me, "Bring scientific evidence for the existence of angels," as if you are saying, "Measure the weight of something using a ruler."
When I spoke about the refutation of the myth of (infinite golden universes), someone responded with a lengthy article consisting of a collection of fallacies, one of which was his statement: "If you go back to the definition of the scientific method, you will find that belief in the unseen is in complete contradiction (180 degrees) with science because science requires experimental evidence that is perceived by the senses. Trying to prove the existence of angels, jinn, the soul, paradise, resurrection, and the hereafter through experimental science is impossible, and those who try to explain religion through science and science through religion are bound to lose their battle."
I think you now understand, dear audience, the extent of the ignorance piled up in these two lines. He assumed that science is equal to experimental science only and that experimental science is equal to the senses only. Since angels, jinn, and resurrection are not perceived by the senses, they are not part of science. {But they denied that which they could not comprehend with their knowledge} [Yunus: 39]. They removed these truths from the realm of science, so the circle of science did not encompass them, and thus they denied them or considered them opposed to science.
A proposition resulting from psychological defeat in the face of dominant nations, where one of them submits to the definition of science by these nations, a definition resulting from centuries of struggle with a distorted religion and fabricated unseen realities. Then this person turns around and imposes this distorted definition on our religion. A proposition resulting from the complete loss of the cognitive system. {Darkness upon darkness, if he stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it. And he to whom Allah has not given light, he will have no light} [An-Nur: 40].
This, brothers, is an example that shows you the difficulty of responding to statements that have no scientific basis; because one of them says in two lines what requires episodes to refute, as you need to build the scientific methodology first, then dismantle his statements, and show what they contain of ignorance. Nevertheless, the followers - the poor ones - of these people applaud with great intelligence, admiring this so-called scientific talk.
Compare this nonsense and stumbling with a methodology that puts everything in its place and completes the sources of knowledge. {And those who have been given knowledge see that what has been revealed to you from your Lord is the truth, and it guides to the path of the Mighty, the Praiseworthy} [Saba': 6]. This is in addition to the fact that we have already proven to you that science would not exist at all if it were not for the sources of knowledge, all of which are based on faith (in the Creator), which is the greatest truth of the unseen. How then can faith in the unseen be in complete contradiction (180 degrees) with science?
Then look at the state of those who rejected this sequential methodology, how they rejected the unseen news for which the evidence indicated the truth of its source, even though it came to us through messengers who were complete in their morals and trustworthiness. These rejecters ended up accepting the nonsense of people who justify the fornication of relatives and are expelled from their jobs after harassing women, such as Lawrence Krauss, who wrote the book "A Universe from Nothing," and people who justify marital infidelity, such as Dawkins, who wrote the book "The God Delusion" and told people: The beginning of life on earth was a seed sown by extraterrestrial beings.
Look at them as they leave the news of the trustworthy for the nonsense of such people. {An evil recompense is for the wrongdoers} [Al-Kahf: 50]. {Have you not seen those who dispute the signs of Allah, how they are turned away?} [Ghafir: 69]. Look at the end they reach and how their insights and minds are obscured; they are blind in their tyranny.
Now, in one line: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of angels?
The evidence: It is the information from revelation, which was confirmed by sources of knowledge without which science - including observational and experimental science - cannot stand.
In conclusion, dear audience, proofs and rational arguments, and the scientific foundation, will not benefit unless we are addressing people who are seekers of truth, ready to humble themselves for it. May Allah conceal from us some unseen realities so that those who have surrendered their souls may believe in them, and the arrogant may turn away from them. He believes who believes by choice built on reason. If Allah willed, He would reveal His unseen realities and frighten all His servants, thus submitting them to faith in Him. But what would be the reward then with eternal happiness after that? He, the Most High, loves from His servants the submission of hearts, not just forms. If He had revealed His unseen realities, He would have deprived the righteous of His servants of this high rank of faith in the unseen; for the sake of the arrogant.
Then read the words of Allah the Most High: {Ta-Sin. These are the verses of the clear Book. Perhaps you will kill yourself with grief that they are not believers. If We should bring down to them an angel, their affair would be decided, but they would not be granted respite. And whenever there comes to them a reminder from the Most Merciful, they turn away from it. So they have denied, and they will come to know what they were mocking. Have they not seen the earth, how much of every noble pair We have produced therein? Indeed, in that is a sign, but most of them are not believers. And indeed, your Lord is the Exalted in Might, the Merciful} [Ash-Shu'ara': 1-9].
He, the Most High, is too exalted to make His evidence as the arrogant demand, but He is at the same time Merciful, and from His mercy is that He has placed in the universe sufficient and clear evidence for those who seek the truth. {And indeed, your Lord is the Exalted in Might, the Merciful} [Ash-Shu'ara': 9].
And peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.