Many verses in the Qur’an are cryptic. While being aware of theological tools helps understand the meaning, in many instances, scientific findings, too, prove to be of use to unpack the mysteries therein. One of those verses I find fascinating is al-Isra 17:44:

“The seven heavens, the earth, and all that is in them glorify Him. There is nothing that does not glorify Him with praise, but you do not understand their glorification. Truly, He is Most Forbearing, Most Forgiving.”

In classical commentary, the phrase “the seven heavens, the earth, and all that is in them” is generally understood as a reference to all beings, conscious or unconscious. It is explained that everything glorifies God in its own way, though the nature of this glorification cannot be directly grasped by human understanding.

To go deeper into the meaning of this verse, we will first review approaches found in classical exegetical sources as well as modern interpretations. In particular, we will briefly highlight the commentary of Bediüzzaman Said Nursi in his work Ayetü’l-Kübrâ, a fifty-page treatise devoted in part to this verse. After that, we will present a framework of interpretation shaped by modern scientific findings, suggesting an alternative reading of the verse that accounts for both its metaphysical and physical dimensions. The broader goal is to contribute to a new interpretive ground at the intersection of revelation-based knowledge and scientific observation, through the universal laws that govern existence.

Glorifying God

In classical sources, the concept of tasbih (glorification) in this verse is often explained as all beings’ turning toward divine order and the Creator, each in its own way. For example, al-Tabari sees tasbih as each being worshiping God in its own language. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi states that sometimes this happens through words and sometimes through the state of existence itself, and that it can only be grasped by those with intellect. Ibn Kathir considers the tasbih of all beings to be real, though imperceptible to human senses. Elmalılı Hamdi Yazır emphasizes that the order in the universe itself demonstrates a kind of tasbih.

A common point among these classical commentators is that tasbih occurs on two levels: through spoken expression (lisan al-qal) and through existential state (lisan al-hal). This dual approach applies both to conscious beings (such as humans) and unconscious beings (such as stones, air, or atoms). The verse highlights that this universal glorification operates on a level beyond human comprehension. Thus, tasbih is not limited to conscious acts of worship but can also be understood as the ongoing and all-encompassing order within the natural world.

From this perspective, the workings, regularities, and interrelations of all things—from subatomic particles to galaxies—can be seen as manifestations of divine laws, a kind of ontological tasbih. The cosmological view offered by the verse thus points to a profound overlap between the natural laws discovered by modern science and the metaphysical insights of classical thought.

Modern interpretations tend to explain tasbih as beings’ fulfilling their functions in line with their purpose of creation and their inherent nature (fitrah). In this sense, even if not a conscious act of worship, every being is seen as glorifying God through its orientation embedded in creation. Each being’s continuation of existence according to its own nature is also considered tasbih.

In this framework, tasbih is not limited to conscious expressions but includes the structural order, physical laws, and natural processes observed throughout the universe. Modern interpretations therefore understand tasbih as an ontological orientation: every being continues its existence in accordance with its own internal laws and physical limits. This shows that tasbih is not only a religious or metaphysical concept but also resonates with the idea of natural order observed by science.

In his treatise Ayetü’l-Kübrâ, Bediüzzaman Said Nursi discusses tasbih on both metaphysical and ontological levels. He likens the universe to a book and every being to a letter or sentence in that book, each directly remembering the Creator. For him, tasbih is not merely metaphorical but a true glorification that each being performs through its existential function. Nursi structures his metaphysical reflections through contemplation, grounding what is perceivable in rational thought.

He emphasizes that the continuity and order seen throughout the cosmos directly point to the Creator: “The entirety of the universe glorifies its Maker with true remembrance.” “The manifestations of divine power appear in everything, and each being declares: There is no god but He.” “With the motion of particles, a glorification, remembrance, and worship take place.” “Every creature has a task; its task is worship.” These statements highlight how all beings, from subatomic particles to the cosmic whole, operate within law, order, and functionality.

When compared with modern interpretations, Nursi’s approach shows some key differences. While modern exegetes often see tasbih as symbolic or systematic order—beings acting in line with their purpose of creation—Nursi considers it direct and real. For him, every being actively and consciously glorifies God. His approach integrates physical reality with a metaphysical perspective, presenting creation as not only “existent” but also “meaningful.” This resonates with both classical and modern interpretations while adding a contemplative dimension that speaks to modern seekers of meaning.

Nursi even describes the entire universe as a grand assembly of remembrance (common ground for everything but Allah): “The heavens, the earth, and all within them are like a great gathering of remembrance. Every atom praises God in its own language. Humans may not perceive this praise, but it is real.” This view emphasizes that the order of the universe is not only physical but also meaningful and holistic.

What do scientific findings say?

In continuing this discussion, our focus will shift to how this “common ground” can be conceptualized in light of modern scientific discoveries. That is, how the building blocks, laws, and principles uniting all beings in the universe can be understood through contemporary science.

The idea of glorification through words (tasbih by speech) is easily understood as conscious beings verbally exalting God. But how should glorification through state (tasbih by being) be understood? Both classical and modern interpretations agree that all beings and events are bound by divine laws governing their existence and functioning. This compulsory harmony and order can be seen as the creation glorifying its Creator. Still, this idea may seem abstract at first, so it requires explanation. In particular, we will explore what modern science offers for understanding tasbih by being.

Science gives us several fundamental elements that reveal a common ground uniting all of existence. Among these are shared building blocks (subatomic particles), universal physical laws, common origins, and systematic methods of observation and interpretation. Every being demonstrates, in its own context, that it is part of the larger whole through structural similarities and compliance with shared laws.

At the microscopic level, this unity is especially clear. All observable entities are made of atoms—small and discrete units. The atomic structure is universal: a nucleus of protons and neutrons, surrounded by a cloud of electrons. These fundamental particles themselves are composed of even more basic particles such as quarks and leptons. Thus, all material systems are built from the same components in varying combinations.

In addition to this shared structure, quantum numbers define the order within atoms, governing matter’s behavior at a universal level. The position and energy of electrons are described by four quantum numbers:

• n: the principal quantum number, indicating energy level,

• l: angular momentum, describing orbital shape,

• ml: orientation of the orbital in space,

• ms: electron spin.

By the Pauli exclusion principle, no two electrons in an atom can share the same four quantum numbers. This rule shows that universal order operates even at the subatomic level. Each particle has a unique position in this order.

Other principles, such as Hund’s rule (that electrons are first singly filled with the same spin before they are filled doubly) and the Aufbau principle (that electrons first fill subshells of the lowest available energy, then those of higher energy), further highlight this extraordinary order, leaving no room for randomness at the atomic level. Together, they point to a coherent, universal structure encompassing all matter. In Nursi’s words, this could be seen as a shared “mosque” for all creation.

Each particle’s individuality—defined by its unique quantum state—coexists with the universality of the shared laws. In religious terminology, this can be linked to Ahadiyyah (the unique individuality of each being) and Wahidiyya (the unity of all beings within one system). While a deeper discussion of these theological concepts is beyond the scope of this article, we note that even in physical reality, these dual dimensions of uniqueness and unity are observable.

One of the most striking scientific principles supporting this universal order is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. This principle points to a limit built into the very structure of nature: it is impossible to know both the exact position and momentum of a particle at the same time. This is not due to shortcomings in measurement tools but due to the nature of reality itself. It reveals an inherent “limit of knowledge” in the physical world.

As such, the principle is not only a physical rule but also an epistemological sign: it defines the boundaries of human knowledge about nature. In a metaphysical reading, it indirectly suggests an unbridgeable difference between Creator and creation. While natural laws provide knowledge, the limits of this knowledge reveal the boundaries of human existence and understanding.

Conclusion

In this study, we have attempted to interpret the concept of tasbih in Qur’an 17:44 through both classical and modern exegesis, alongside insights from contemporary science. The order observed in creation, from the quantum level to cosmic structures, manifests laws and harmony that align with the Qur’anic concept of glorification. This perspective allows us to reconsider the idea of tasbih by being in a scientific framework.

In short, the laws, order, and functionality observed in the universe can be seen as signs of beings’ connection to their Creator, a form of existential orientation. The author hopes that this article may serve as a modest attempt to show how scientific discoveries can contribute to a deeper understanding of a Qur’anic expression.

To prove his point, Nursi states three possibilities to explain the existence of things in the universe:

1. Everything is created by causes

2. Everything is created on its own

3. Everything is an outcome of natural laws.

The common theme of these three possibilities is that creation is dependent on some natural rules and causes. Bediuzzaman refutes these possibilities by arguing that these rules and causes are not conscious; thus, they are not aware of other causes or the ultimate purpose. From this, Nursi concludes that natural causes are not true creators but veils—screens behind which the act of creation takes place, while we perceive only laws and outcomes on the surface. This article explores this argument by relating it to contemporary scientific and technological examples.

Mechanisms do not explain agency

One point of discussion in this debate is whether elements in nature operate randomly or follow a certain manual, so to speak. Modern molecular biology give us numerous examples to ponder over this point. For instance, T-cells, a type of immune cells, are able to distinguish whether a cell belongs to the host or not via their highly precise receptors [2]. Such a precise receptor cannot be adequately explained by randomness alone, without a system of built-in rules that guide and stabilize its formation. Similarly, B-cells, which are another type of immune cells, can produce highly accurate antibodies against pathogens in the body. To be able to produce these antibodies, they have gone through a process called hypermutation and selection in which many versions of antibodies with small changes are made and only the most effective ones are retained [3]. Such a process is not random; on the contrary it follows specific selection criteria. Neither B-cells, nor other components involved in B-cell mutation have intelligence or training to conduct these processes on their own. They appear to be following an instruction manual, which has been provided by an authority who knows every detail of these processes.

Some people have the tendency to underestimate such complexity as soon as the mechanism of these systems are demystified through scientific discoveries. Discovering the underlying mechanism of a complex biological process helps us understand the system but does not indicate that the mechanism has the power to conduct the action. In this article, I further discuss this perspective by leveraging the recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) as analogies to clarify the distinction between mechanism and agency.

Why technology makes this easier to see

I use examples from AI and modern computing because they can turn abstract ideas into concrete pictures, even for children, who often find abstraction difficult. For instance, the idea of recording all of our deeds by a Creator is easier to grasp in a world where phones, sensors, and street cameras quietly record what happens around us. Being in multiple places at the same time is also easier to understand via technologies such as virtual reality.

Several examples from computer science and modern technology help us better understand the relationship between mechanisms, rules, and agency in creation—the difference between what executes and what intends. To develop software, we need a programmer—someone with intelligence, power, and intention to write and direct the code. A book cannot exist without a writer, and software cannot exist without a programmer. Similarly, in biology we observe many “books” of information, and information, by its very nature, points beyond itself to an author.

Generative AI makes this contrast especially vivid. With generative AI technologies and methods such as vibe coding, one can now produce working software code using a simple prompt. This shows that parts of writing code can be automated once the underlying structure and rules are already in place. In other words, machines can learn the mechanism of coding, which implies that producing complex software happens automatically. Yet the “autonomy” is borrowed: the AI system is executing mechanisms that someone else designed, trained, and powered. It depends entirely on human-designed architectures, pre-existing data, external energy, and meaningful prompts to function. AI can generate text or code, but it cannot decide why it should do so, nor can it sustain or direct its own existence. We can therefore compare generative AI to a keyboard or a pen—a powerful tool, but still a tool—which requires a “writer” to operate it. Today, the writer (i.e., the user) no longer needs to specify every detail; a short prompt can be sufficient.

Likewise, biological processes—despite their sophistication and apparent autonomy—do not possess agency. They operate according to rules but rules themselves do not create; they are enacted. Therefore, just as intelligent machines require a human creator, life itself points to a Creator beyond the mechanisms that sustain it. As the Qur’an states: “His command is only when He intends a thing that He says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is” (Surah Ya-Sin 36:82).

Randomness, direction, and purpose

Another common argument suggests that random changes, given enough time, can account for the complexity we observe in life. Time certainly amplifies processes—but time alone does not define direction or meaning. Random variation can generate differences, but without a standard for evaluation, there is no sense of progress.

An everyday analogy makes this clear: Randomly rearranging letters indefinitely will not produce a meaningful book unless there is already an understanding of language and meaning. In the same way, biological changes require more than chance—it requires a framework that distinguishes what works from what does not.

This can be illustrated through computer algorithms, too. An algorithm that undergoes random modifications cannot “improve” unless improvement is defined. In AI, this role is played by an optimization or reward function, which could be described as a built-in goal. Even self-learning systems such as AlphaGo require pre-defined goals and evaluation rules. Without knowing what to optimize for, learning would be impossible.

Likewise, natural processes that seem to develop or improve over time presuppose a standard by which “improvement” is measured. Yet these processes do not define their own goals or evaluation criteria. Order, harmony, beauty, and directed complexity therefore point not merely to rules, but to a conscious source that established those rules with intention.

Autonomy still requires sustenance

A further question naturally follows: even if creation has an origin, does it then run on its own? This is the classical debate between a continuously active Creator and a non-intervening God.

The clock analogy is often used to argue for non-intervention: once a clock is wound, it runs independently. Yet this analogy fails upon closer inspection. Even a clock requires continuous energy; without it, the system stops. The universe likewise depends on energy at every moment. Moreover, unlike a clock, natural systems are not fully deterministic. Flexibility, contingency, and openness to change are intrinsic features of reality.

From a technological perspective, even the most autonomous AI systems remain continuously dependent on external inputs. Agentic AI requires power to operate, retraining when conditions change, and intervention when goals or constraints are altered. Apparent autonomy does not remove dependence—it conceals it.

Similarly, natural laws are not independent actors but frameworks through which ongoing sustenance is expressed. Knowing how a system operates does not eliminate the need for the One who sustains its operation. Rather, the consistency of rules can be understood as a veil through which continuous divine power and will are manifested.

Rules as a veil, not a replacement

Seen in this light, natural laws can be understood not as rivals to divine action, but as expressions of consistency in how that action unfolds. Nature, then, is not the author of existence but the script through which existence is written. Rules describe patterns; they do not generate meaning. Mechanisms enable processes; they do not explain purpose.

By reflecting on both nature and technology, we are reminded of a simple but profound insight: understanding the workings of the universe does not diminish the question of its Creator. It deepens it.

References

1. Nursi, Said. Nature: Cause or Effect. NJ: Tughra Books. 2012.

2. Johannes Pettmann, Anna Huhn, Enas Abu Shah, Mikhail A Kutuzov, Daniel B Wilson, Michael L Dustin, Simon J Davis, P Anton van der Merwe, Omer Dushek (2021) The discriminatory power of the T cell receptor eLife 10:e67092.

3. Syeda, M.Z., Hong, T., Huang, C. et al. B cell memory: from generation to reactivation: a multipronged defense wall against pathogens. Cell Death Discov. 10, 117 (2024).