This Legal Rule Flips the Debate About the Qur’an
Example 1
Imagine you walk into a room and find a book. On the cover, it says: Written by Jane Doe. Now, someone walks in and says, “Actually, I don’t think Jane wrote this book. I think its somebody else.”
Here’s the question: Who needs to prove their point? Is it you or the other person? Now since the book itself claims that Jane Doe is the author, you have nothing to prove. The burden of proof would fall on the other person. They must show evidence that Jane Doe is not the author.
Example 2
Let’s say Person X is driving his car and then Person Y comes and says “Well this car is actually mine. Person X stole it from me.” In this scenario, Person Y would have to prove his point that the car originally belongs to him. The police will not simply come and take Person X’s car away because somebody claimed it was stolen. The burden of proof would fall on Person Y.
Example 3
If a person has been living in a house for years, and somebody else appears out of nowhere, saying “This house actually belongs to my grandfather, and you have no right to live here!”. The legal system would not kick the resident out immediately. The accuser must provide evidence first.
This is a basic principle in both everyday reasoning and legal systems — both modern and Islamic. If something is in the possession of somebody, it is considered to be there’s unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof falls on the one claiming otherwise.
For example, a commonly accepted principle in modern law says “Possession serves as prima facie evidence of ownership” (https://effectivelaws.com/possession-in-fact-vs-possession-in-law/)
This same principle exists in Islam as well, as seen in the following hadith:
عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه و سلم قَالَ: “لَوْ يُعْطَى النَّاسُ بِدَعْوَاهُمْ لَادَّعَى رِجَالٌ أَمْوَالَ قَوْمٍ وَدِمَاءَهُمْ، لَكِنَّ الْبَيِّنَةَ عَلَى الْمُدَّعِي، وَالْيَمِينَ عَلَى مَنْ أَنْكَرَ” . حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ، رَوَاهُ الْبَيْهَقِيّ [في”السنن” 10/252]، وَغَيْرُهُ هَكَذَا، وَبَعْضُهُ فِي “الصَّحِيحَيْنِ”.
On the authority of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: Were people to be given everything that they claimed, men would [unjustly] claim the wealth and lives of [other] people. But, the onus of proof is upon the claimant, and the taking of an oath is upon him who denies.
A hasan hadeeth narrated by al-Baihaqee and others in this form, and part of it is in the two Saheehs.
Hadith 33, 40 Hadith an-Nawawi
https://sunnah.com/nawawi40:33
Now take that principle and apply it to the Qur’an. The Qur’an very clearly, and repeatedly, mentions that it is the word of God.
So again — who has to prove their point? Those who accept what it says about itself? Or those who say: ‘No, this cannot be from God’?”
This is actually the center of an incredible conversation between The Islamic Scholar Bediuzzaman Said Nursi and… the devil.
In his book titled The Words, Bediuzzaman talks with the devil whispering doubts to him: ‘What if the Qur’an is just human speech? What if it’s not from God?’
So how does Bediuzzaman respond? He uses a metaphor based on this legal principle.
He says imagine two people are fighting over an item. If they’re both nearby, we might, depending on the circumstance, place the item in the middle until one of them proves it’s theirs…like two siblings fighting over a toy, for example.
But if they are far away — like one’s in New York and the other in Tokyo — you cannot place it in the middle. You leave it with whoever’s already holding it, and the other person has to prove their claim.
So what does this have to do with the Qur’an?
Bediuzzaman says that if human speech is on one end, and divine speech is on the other — these two are infinitely far apart. What is the middle ground between God and human? No such thing even exists.
And since the Qur’an clearly says its from God, – according to this basic principle in both Islamic and Modern law – the default position should be that it is from God.
If someone says otherwise, the burden of proof is on them. They must invalidate the miracles of the Qur’an one by one, attempt to find a contradiction, and so on…in order to prove their point.
In fact this strategy is the correct way to argue against anybody of a different faith. For example, suppose you debate with a Mormon on whether or not the Book of Mormon is from God. The correct way to do that would be to accept the default position that its from God, for argument’s sake…and then to proceed and show the contradictions and reasons for why it cannot be from God. This is the correct way to debate, based on this logical principle rather than asking the Mormon to prove that their book is from God.
Source
