Reddit reply in r/AcademicQuran: examples of puzzlement in secular quranic studies — November 8, 2025 | Ali Shukri Amin

>I really do think it's a simple case though; a group of people have said "I understand your criticism of ruling out supernatural explanations. I will agree to not do so, and then we can check again to see whether the evidence favors the natural or the supernatural explanation." But this is not enough —

This was never my primary critique, it just happens to be a common misconception that well-meaning proponents of HCM repeat. I think they are sincerely trying to be "unbiased" and pursue objective research, but the very claim of neutrality and objectivity deserves to be *critiqued*.

>. I'd simply like to hear a super clear example where you think that someone could just evaluate the evidence in a balanced manner, without any biases against the supernatural, follow the data where it leads, and find that the supernatural explanation is the correct one.

This question is the whole problem. You have, in one sentence, described everything that I am critiquing. You want a clear example of:

1. Evaluating evidence
2. A balanced manner
3. Without biases
4. Following the data
5. Concluding whether an incident is natural or supernatural

You want me to agree that what will constitute evidence is empirical, evaluate it by my senses, in a balanced manner (i.e. without prejudices, particularly religious ones), follow the empirical data, then conclude as to whether something is natural or supernatural.

To do this in the way you have asked is to cede all of the presuppositions about HCM that are unprovable.

You're looking at my reasoning backwards/upside-down which is the entire problem. You are starting from choosing to rule out or not rule out supernatural explanations, following the data, evaluating history, etc. But if I ask you how we arrived at this issue, we start to unpack a lot of unjustifiable assumptions. These unjustifiable assumptions make a huge difference in what our ultimate conclusions would be. If I take your assumptions, I will reach your conclusions.

If you ask me why I am not engaging with you at the level of method it's because that requires me to accept the premises that justify the method which will, inevitably, reach similar if not exactly the same conclusion.

If I were to say, "God Revealed the Bible therefore it is inerrant. My method is to analyze the Bible with the assumption that it is true." You would question my assumptions before engaging with my method. If I insisted that all of your conclusions must conform to my presupposition of the inerrancy of the Bible, it would be no surprise when I fail to conclude there are mistakes in the text.

But if a person says, "The material world is the only way to know objective truth by way of empiricism." And I question that, suddenly this is an abstract and esoteric thing.

I agree that we should critique people's assumptions. If someone says, "I believe in Islam blindly and that's why I accept the Quranic text as is without alteration and the six sunnan ad well" then this is not robust.

But I find it strange that we can spend all day critiquing the presuppositions and weaknesses of traditional Islamic methods but we cannot also turn a lens on the method by which we are criticizing those methods as well.

It isn't an abstract issue. It's one of immediacy and urgency. If anyone asks why we should use the HCM & an academic claims "because it is an unbiased scientific approach attempting to derive objective historical facts" but that same academic cannot back up this assertion to even the most elementary criticism (like repeating a why question 3 times) - this is supremely problematic.

When we engage with traditional Islamic scholarly works we understand the biases that underpin their worldview. When we engage with secular scholarly works, we act like no biases exist at all. It's a double standard and it leads to a much weaker understanding.

With respect to extremely practical problems of epistemology with secular history and the HCM, just look at the problem of induction and how this strains most causal explanation of historical events. You don't even need to step outside of the realm of HCM's methods as the problem of induction is widely discussed in the secular academy (moreso among statisticians & philosophers of science, less so historians unfortunately).

As to your initial question, what conceivable scenario could exist within the worldview of the secular method that could not find a naturalistic explanation? Besides the tacit concession of possibly considering supernatural explanations, has there ever been a single incident in which an esteemed secular researcher of any field has seriously proposed a supernatural explanation?