Falsifiable and unfalsifiable claims

A claim is falsifiable if it can be proven to be false. If a claim cannot be proven to be false, then it is unfalsifiable. Both falsifiable and unfalsifiable claims may be either true or false.

Example of a falsifiable claim: All swans are white.
Example of an unfalsifiable claim: Invisible and undetectable angels roam throughout the world.

All swans are white is a falsifiable claim because all it takes is the observation of a single black swan to falsify the claim. As for the claim that invisible and undetectable angels roam throughout the world, this is unfalsifiable because there is no way to disprove this claim, which is why they are often treated with skepticism. Anyone can make a plethora of unfalsifiable claims. When challenged, a claimant can simply say, “Prove me wrong!” The claimant cannot be proven wrong because the claims are unfalsifiable. Despite this, the claimant should at least provide good evidence or reasons for accepting the unfalsifiable claims because what is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Indeed, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Islām's unfalsifiable claims

Every religion makes unfalsifiable claims, and Islām is no different. Here is a list of some of Islām’s unfalsifiable claims:

• This life (dunyā) is a test.
• People will be resurrected after death in the hereafter (ākhirah) and will either go to a garden of everlasting bliss (Jannah) or burn in Hell (Jahannam) forever.
• In between a person’s death and resurrection is a life in the grave (qabr) known as the Barzakh, which can either be pleasant or agonizing.
• Souls exist.
• Angels (malāʾikah) exist.
• Jinn exist.
• Magic is real.
• The evil-eye is real.
• Notable events occurred, such as the splitting of the moon and al-Isrāʾ wa al-Miʿrāj (the Night Journey and the Ascension).
• Certain individuals did in fact exist, such as Prophets Nūḥ (Noah), Ibrāhīm (Abraham), Mūsā (Moses) عليهم السلام, and others.

The futility of debates regarding unfalsifiable claims: splitting of the moon, the Night Journey and the Ascension, and the existence of ancient figures

Debating unfalsifiable claims is often unproductive, as such discussions typically lead to inconclusive outcomes. For example, events like the splitting of the moon and the Night Journey and the Ascension, which are central to Islāmic tradition, are some of the most commonly debated points of discussion, but these events lie outside of empirical verification. The Qurʾān states that the moon was split as a sign to the pagan Arabs, affirming the truthfulness of Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ (Qurʾān 54:1). While no scientific evidence currently confirms such an event, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is possible that future discoveries could reveal that the moon did in fact split. However, it is also possible that Allāh (God) split the moon and returned it to normal in such a way that left no evidence behind. In this scenario, no scientific evidence can ever be found to confirm the event.

As for historical evidence, reports of the moon splitting are found almost exclusively within Islāmic sources, particularly in the ḥadīth corpus. Multiple narrations from different Ṣaḥābah (companions) of the Prophet ﷺ, each with independent chains of transmission (asānīd), attest to the event, and these reports are considered mutawātir, meaning they were transmitted by so many individuals that fabrication is virtually impossible. Still, it is strange that no other civilization has recorded witnessing the event, but the moon's visibility or the brief duration of the split could explain the lack of external reports. However, there is one exception: the late Indian Islāmic ʿālim (scholar) Muhammad Hamidullah recorded a historical anecdote in a manuscript that mentions an Indian king who reportedly witnessed the event and later embraced Islām.

There is a very old tradition in Malabar, South-West Coast of India, that Chakrawati Farmas, one of their kings, had observed the splitting of the moon that celebrated miracle of the Prophet ﷺ at Mecca, and learning, on inquiry, that there was a prediction of the coming of a Messenger of God from Arabia, he appointed his son as regent and set out to meet him. He embraced Islam at the hand of the Prophet ﷺ, and when returning home, at the direction of the Prophet ﷺ, he died at the port of Zafar, Yemen, where the tomb of “the Indian king” was piously visited for long centuries. An old MS in the India Office Library, London (No. Arabic 2807, fols. 152-173) speaks of it at length [1].

The German orientalist, Otto Loth, mentioned the manuscript as well.

A fabulous account of the first settlement of the Muhammadans in Malabar, under king Shakrûti of Cranganore, a contemporary of Muhammad, who was converted to Islam by the miracle of the division of the moon [2] [3].

Interestingly, there is a ḥadīth that mentions that an Indian King visited the Prophet ﷺ and gifted him ginger (Al-Mustadrak ʿalā aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥayn 7190). It is possible that this king is the same one who saw the moon split in India. Of course, one could argue that these are Muslim sources, but local Hindus accepted the narrative as well, as mentioned by George Milne Rae, a Scottish-born missionary [4]. Professor Nathan Katz mentions that the Malayalam Hindu text, the Keralolpatti, records the conversion of the last Cheraman Perumal king who went to Makkah and embraced Islām.

Local Hindus share the narrative. The nineteenth-century, quasi-historical Malayalam text, the Keralolpatti, records that the last Cheraman Perumal king went to Makkah, converted to Islam, and became known as Makkattupoya Perumal, “the emperor who went to Makkah.” As ritual recompense for this familial apostasy, the maharajahs of Travancore used to recite, when they received swords of office at their coronation, “I will keep this sword until the uncle who has gone to Mecca (Makkah) returns.” The text and the custom reveal a basic familial structure for interreligious relationships in South India. The apostate king remains the “uncle” of succeeding generations of maharajahs [5].

However, the dating of the account mentioned in the Keralolpatti does not correspond with the event of the moon-splitting in the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ, which is one reason why it is rejected. Still, it is possible that the account may have been true, but the dating may have been wrong. Additionally, if it was a Muslim source, it would make sense that Muslims would invent the tradition in order to argue for the prophethood of Muḥammad ﷺ, but it is strange to believe that Hindus fabricated the account, as they have nothing to gain by it. Even the Indian professor and adherent of Hindutva, M.G.S. Narayanan, said that there is no reason to reject the tradition that this king accepted Islām because this report does not enhance the prestige of Hindus [6]. It is notable that the first masjid (mosque) built in India is widely regarded to be the Cheruman Juma Mosque in Kerala, which was said to be built within the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ due to the conversion of the king, but many historians are skeptical of when it was built due to the architecture style.

Perhaps the strongest argument that the moon split is that the Qurʾān boldly mentions that the event occurred in the 54th sūrah (chapter). This sūrah was revealed during the Makkan period and before the Hijrah (migration), meaning before Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ migrated to Madīnah. In Makkah, the Muslims lacked political power and social influence, but they gained strength when they migrated to Madīnah. During the Makkan period, the Muslims were few in number and faced intense persecution. It would seem unlikely for the Qurʾān to confidently assert such a dramatic public miracle if it had not occurred, as the pagan Arabs, who were hostile to the Prophet ﷺ, could have easily used the claim to discredit him and turn more people against Islām. If the claim were false, it would have led to widespread doubt among early Muslims, potentially causing many to abandon their faith to avoid persecution. If the moon did not split, why would Muslims continue to undergo suffering for a cause that was clearly false? From this perspective, it seems improbable that such a bold claim would be made in such a vulnerable period unless it were actually true. However, a counterargument is that many individuals throughout history have followed leaders, cults, or movements even after failed prophecies or miracles, so continued belief alone does not prove the truth of the claim.

Muslims cannot prove that the moon split, but neither can the event be definitively disproven. The same applies to al-Isrāʾ wa al-Miʿrāj (the Night Journey and the Ascension), during which Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ is said to have traveled from Makkah to Jerusalem and then ascended to the samāwāt (heavens), all in a single night (Qurʾān 17:1). Although the journey was not witnessed by others, the Prophet ﷺ was challenged to describe Jerusalem and did so accurately (Ṣaḥīḥ Al-Bukhārī 3886). Skeptics may argue that he could have obtained this information from someone familiar with the city before he was challenged to describe the city.

Additionally, while most historians and academics affirm that Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ did exist, as well as ʿĪsā (Jesus) عليه السلام, Islām confirms the existence of other figures, such as Nūḥ (Noah), Ibrāhīm (Abraham), Mūsā (Moses) عليهم السلام, and so on; these figures are also affirmed by other religions. However, many historians are skeptical if these figures existed due to the lack of direct, contemporary evidence outside of religious texts. While ancient flood myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh suggest a tradition that resembles the flood of Nūḥ عليه السلام, they do not confirm his existence as a historical person. Ibrāhīm’s عليه السلام life is difficult to verify because there are no inscriptions, artifacts, or records from his supposed time that mention him by name. Similarly, the story of Mūsā and the Exodus is not supported by Egyptian records, which are otherwise extensive for that period. As a result, many scholars view these figures as legendary or symbolic, rather than verifiable historical individuals. However, the absence of direct evidence does not necessarily disprove that these figures existed.

The point of these arguments and counterarguments is that they remain ultimately inconclusive because what is being debated is unfalsifiable. Since such claims cannot be proven or disproven, debating them is unproductive. Without a method to verify or falsify a statement, the discussion shifts from rational analysis to personal belief. As a result, there is unlikely to be agreement on such topics.

Why do Muslims believe in Islām's unfalsifiable claims?

One may ask why Muslims believe in unfalsifiable claims. The first step in addressing this question is to ask whether such claims are logically possible. Consider, for example, the belief in malāʾikah (angels); if Allāh exists and is omnipotent, then it is entirely reasonable to believe he could create such beings. Some may ask how can it be known that Allāh exists if he cannot be observed through the senses or has not made himself observable by the senses. Muslims respond that denying Allāh’s existence leads to logical contradictions, and so his existence is affirmed on rational rather than empirical grounds. To help explain, one does not need to engage in any scientific experimentation in order to test if a married bachelor can exist because a married bachelor is a logical contradiction, and so it can be dismissed on rational grounds without any need for empiricism. Similarly, belief in Allāh is supported by logical proofs and does not require empirical evidence. Science relies on empirical evidence and measures what is observable, so using science to prove or disprove Allāh’s existence is a category error; it is like using a thermometer to weigh an object. While Allāh’s existence is not scientifically verifiable, Muslims argue that it is logically demonstrable.

Once the existence of Allāh has been established, then it follows that it is certainly possible that malāʾikah could exist. The next question is whether they actually exist, to which Muslims respond that the Qurʾān affirms their existence. However, one may ask why should the Qurʾān be trusted. Knowledgeable Muslims do not rely on circular reasoning by saying the Qurʾān is true simply because it claims to be the word of Allāh. Rather, it is argued that the Qurʾān is the word of Allāh because it teaches a correct concept of God, has remained preserved, is free of errors, and contains miraculous content. Once a person is convinced of the Qurʾān’s veracity, then such a person has good reasons for having faith in the Qurʾān’s unfalsifiable claims.

It is important to recognize that not all of the Qurʾān’s claims are unfalsifiable. If every statement were beyond verification, skepticism would be reasonable. However, the Qurʾān includes many falsifiable and testable claims, such as specific prophecies that were highly unlikely to occur. The fulfillment of these prophecies serves as evidence of the Qurʾān’s divine origin.

To help understand, consider the following scenario: it can be proven that one God exists. A man then comes and claims he is a prophet and that he was given a book from God that serves as a guide and instruction for humanity. The book mentions that only one God exists. The book is correct in this regard because multiple gods or no gods leads to logical contradictions. The book also mentions a list of rules. The book then mentions that angels exist and that those who die while believing in this book will go to a fantastic place of everlasting happiness after death, and those who die as disbelievers will burn in hell forever. The book then ends.

One cannot say this book is true or false simply because one likes or dislikes its rules. Likewise, one cannot say this book is true or false just because one appreciates or has disdain for the book’s claims on the afterlife. This book cannot be disproven to be from God but also provides no evidence that it is from God. All it mentions is that God is one, and then it lists a set of rules and makes two unfalsifiable claims: one regarding the existence of angels and one regarding the afterlife.

However, now consider that a person has a book that makes falsifiable claims that include miracles and prophecies that are highly specific and unlikely to occur. For example, it prophesies that all people will become temporarily blind on a particular date. This is a falsifiable claim, so no one can object and say that the claim cannot be disproven. Most notably, the claim is also very unlikely to occur, so if this prophecy comes true, then this is a great indicator of this book’s truthfulness. One may say that the fulfillment of one prophecy could be luck or a coincidence, but if this book makes numerous prophecies that are highly specific and unlikely to occur, and these prophecies are fulfilled, then it is reasonable to accept the book’s veracity and the man’s claim to prophethood. Once one accepts the book, then one has good reasons for having faith in its unfalsifiable claims.

Is the Qurʾān falsifiable?

The Qurʾān is falsifiable. It can be proven false if anyone of the following occur:

• The Qurʾān is shown to not have been reliably preserved.
• The Qurʾān is found to have an error, such as a contradiction or a failed prophecy.

Since the Qurʾān makes numerous falsifiable claims, it cannot be said that it is unverifiable and untestable. Rather than requiring individuals to accept its message on the basis of blind faith or unfalsifiable assertions, the Qurʾān challenges people to test it, offering falsifiable claims that can be tested. These testable elements serve as a basis for evaluating its authenticity and are presented as evidence to support the Qurʾān’s claim that it is the word of Allāh. Furthermore, as mentioned in the article, “How to Navigate the Question of True Deity and Religion,” if mutawātir (mass-transmitted) aḥādīth were contradictory, then this would also falsify Islām.

[1] Hamidullah, Muhammad. Muhammad Rasulullah: A Concise Survey of the Life and Work of the Founder of Islam, p. 107.
[2] Muslims do not accept being labelled as Muḥammadans. This label was popularized by Orientalists. However, the term is acceptable in some contexts, such as saying the Muḥammadan ummah, which means the nation of Muḥammad ﷺ.
[3] Loth, Otto. Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office, vol. 1, p. 299.
[4] Rae, George Milne. The Syrian Church in India, p. 169.
[5] Katz, Nathan. Who Are the Jews of India? p. 21.
[6] Narayanan, M. G. S. (1996). Perumals of Kerala: Political and Social Conditions of Kerala Under the Cēra Perumals of Makotai (c. 800 A.D.-1124 A.D.). Kerala (India): Xavier Press. p. 65.