Entropy and Moral Order: Qur’ānic Reflections on Irreversibility, Agency, and Divine Justice in Dialog with Science and Theology

Article activity feed

1. 

   PREreview

   Jun 19, 2026

   This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/20764790.

   Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes To connect thermodynamics, information theory, and Qurʾānic concepts of moral accountability. To argue that entropy and irreversibility provide a conceptual framework for understanding why actions leave enduring traces. To explore how this framework can illuminate Qurʾānic ideas such as divine record-keeping, responsibility, and justice without reducing theology to physics. Evaluation Strengths The objective is explicit and easy to identify. The scope and interdisciplinary nature of the study …

   This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/20764790.

   Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes To connect thermodynamics, information theory, and Qurʾānic concepts of moral accountability. To argue that entropy and irreversibility provide a conceptual framework for understanding why actions leave enduring traces. To explore how this framework can illuminate Qurʾānic ideas such as divine record-keeping, responsibility, and justice without reducing theology to physics. Evaluation Strengths The objective is explicit and easy to identify. The scope and interdisciplinary nature of the study are clearly introduced. The introduction distinguishes analogy from reductionism, helping readers understand the intended methodology. Weakness The objective is spread across several sentences rather than condensed into a single formal research question or aim statement. For some journals, a clearer statement such as "This article aims to examine how entropy and irreversibility can serve as analogical frameworks for understanding Qurʾānic concepts of moral accountability and divine justice" would improve readability. Conclusion: The introduction does explain the objective of the research, and it does so with reasonable clarity, although it could be strengthened by presenting the objective as a concise, explicit research aim or research question.

   Are the methods well-suited for this research? Highly appropriate The paper's goal is to place thermodynamics, information theory, and Qurʾānic metaphysics into dialogue through structural analogies rather than causal or empirical claims. The methodology explicitly states that it is: Analogical: identifying structural parallels between physical and theological concepts. Operational: using entropy to describe physical constraints on record formation and persistence. Non-reductive: avoiding the claim that physics proves or generates religious truths. Because the research question is philosophical and interpretive, these methods are appropriate. The author is not testing a hypothesis, collecting data, or measuring variables; instead, the paper develops a conceptual framework. The chosen methods align with that purpose. Strengths of the methodology 1. Clear methodological boundaries The paper repeatedly emphasizes that it is not claiming an identity between entropy and Qurʾānic concepts and is not attempting scientific proof of scripture. This reduces the risk of category errors and scientific apologetics. 2. Appropriate use of interdisciplinary dialogue The framework combines: Thermodynamics (entropy, irreversibility), Information theory (Shannon entropy, Landauer principle), Qurʾānic concepts (kitāb, ṣaḥīfa, accountability). For a philosophy-of-religion or science-and-theology article, this is a reasonable approach. 3. Transparency about interpretive strategy The author openly identifies the work as analogical rather than empirical, allowing readers to evaluate the claims using appropriate standards. Methodological limitations 1. Lack of a systematic hermeneutical method The paper interprets Qurʾānic verses and theological concepts, but it does not explain: why particular verses were selected, how competing interpretations were handled, what exegetical framework was used. A stronger methodology section would specify a recognized Islamic hermeneutic approach. 2. Analogy selection may appear subjective Many of the central connections (e.g., entropy ↔ moral records, repentance ↔ informational re-indexing, Sūrah al-ʿAṣr ↔ moral negentropy) depend on interpretive judgment. The paper offers little methodological guidance for distinguishing persuasive analogies from arbitrary ones. 3. Limited engagement with counterarguments A rigorous conceptual methodology would explicitly address objections such as: Whether entropy has normative implications at all. Whether informational persistence truly supports moral accountability. Whether the analogies risk importing scientific concepts into theology inappropriately. 4. Not suitable for empirical validation The framework cannot be tested experimentally. Consequently, its conclusions are philosophical plausibility arguments rather than scientific findings. The methods are well-suited for the paper's stated purpose of developing a conceptual and analogical framework linking entropy, irreversibility, and Qurʾānic notions of accountability. However, the methodology would be stronger if it included a more explicit Qurʾānic interpretive method, clearer criteria for constructing analogies, and deeper engagement with potential counterarguments. As a theoretical science–religion paper, the methodological fit is good, though not without important limitations.

   Are the conclusions supported by the data? Somewhat supported Short answer Partially. The conclusions are supported by the paper's conceptual analysis and cited literature, but they are not supported by original empirical data, because the paper contains no new data collection, experiments, surveys, or quantitative analyses. The author explicitly states: "No new data were created or analyzed in this study." If evaluated as a theoretical/conceptual paper The conclusions generally follow from the premises developed throughout the article: Entropy contributes to irreversibility and record persistence. Information theory suggests that records have physical costs and durability. Qurʾānic concepts emphasize inscription, accountability, and preservation of deeds. Therefore, entropy can be interpreted as a structural analogue for understanding moral accountability within a Qurʾānic framework. Because the author repeatedly characterizes the argument as analogical, operational, and non-reductive, the conclusion that entropy may serve as a conceptual framework for thinking about accountability is reasonably supported by the paper's theoretical discussion. If evaluated as an empirical research article The support is much weaker. Several major conclusions extend beyond what the evidence directly demonstrates, for example: "Entropy emerges not merely as a physical principle but as a metaphysical horizon sustaining moral responsibility." "The universe thus appears simultaneously as a physical system and a moral ledger." The suggestion that the Qurʾānic moral cosmology is "more empirically grounded" than Kantian ethics. These claims are philosophical interpretations rather than findings established by empirical evidence. The cited physics literature supports claims about entropy, irreversibility, and information, but it does not directly establish theological claims about divine justice, moral accountability, or metaphysical meaning. Reviewer-style assessment Strengths Conclusions are consistent with the paper's stated analogical methodology. The author generally avoids claiming that physics proves Qurʾānic doctrine. The final conclusions are closely tied to themes developed throughout the paper. Concerns Some conclusions are stronger than the evidence warrants. Several theological and metaphysical claims rely on interpretation rather than demonstration. The paper occasionally moves from "structural analogy" to language that may imply deeper ontological support than has been argued.

   Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Somewhat appropriate and clear Mostly yes, but with important limitations. This paper is a conceptual/theoretical article, not a data-driven empirical study. Therefore, the standard question about whether tables, figures, and visualizations appropriately represent data is only partially applicable. What is presented? The paper contains: Extensive textual argumentation. Conceptual analogies and frameworks. Citations to scientific and theological literature. One visual schematic (Figure 1) in Section 8. It does not contain: Original datasets. Statistical analyses. Experimental results. Quantitative tables. Graphs based on measured observations. Assessment of Figure 1 The figure is described as: "Heuristic schematic (analogical). Immoral actions tend to erode social order (increase disorder), whereas moral actions tend to build and sustain it. In all cases, physical entropy continues to rise in accordance with the second law." For the paper's purpose, this figure is appropriate because: It visually summarizes a complex conceptual argument. It clearly signals that it is heuristic and analogical, not empirical. It helps readers understand the author's notion of "moral negentropy." Strengths Visualization matches the paper's conceptual nature The figure serves as a conceptual model rather than pretending to display measured data. No misleading quantitative presentation The author does not assign numerical values to moral concepts or present speculative relationships as statistical findings. Consistency with methodology Since the study relies on analogical reasoning, a schematic diagram is more suitable than quantitative charts. Limitations Limited visual support Only one figure appears despite the paper discussing numerous relationships among entropy, information, record formation, accountability, repentance, and eschatology. Figure is illustrative rather than analytical It aids understanding but does not provide evidence for the claims. Some concepts could benefit from additional diagrams For example: Entropy → Record persistence → Accountability Action → Trace formation → Judgment Sin → Repentance → Reinterpretation of record Physical domain vs. theological domain and their analogical connections Such diagrams could improve clarity without requiring empirical data. Reviewer-style comment Because the article is theoretical and contains no original dataset, conventional data presentation criteria are only partially applicable. The sole figure is appropriate as a heuristic representation of the proposed conceptual framework and is clearly identified as analogical rather than evidential. However, the paper would benefit from additional conceptual diagrams that more systematically illustrate the relationships among entropy, information, record formation, moral accountability, and repentance. Overall assessment: The existing visualization is appropriate and not misleading, but the paper relies heavily on text and could be strengthened by additional conceptual figures.

   How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Somewhat clearly The authors discuss and interpret their findings fairly clearly, and they do a particularly good job of connecting the conclusion back to the paper's central themes. However, the discussion is stronger in interpretation and synthesis than in critical evaluation and future research planning. Strengths 1. Clear interpretation of the main findings The conclusion explicitly restates the paper's core argument: Entropy should be understood as a structural condition for record formation and persistence. Irreversibility provides a framework for moral accountability. Qurʾānic concepts such as kitāb, ṣaḥīfa, and tawba can be interpreted through an analogical dialogue with thermodynamics and information theory. The reader can easily identify what the author believes has been established. 2. Consistent integration of findings The conclusion revisits major themes developed throughout the paper: Entropy and recordability. Moral responsibility. Divine justice. Repentance. Sūrah al-ʿAṣr and moral negentropy. The contrast with Kantian ethics. This creates a coherent narrative rather than introducing new ideas at the end. 3. Discussion of broader significance The author explains why the proposed framework matters: "This dual vision—law and mercy, irreversibility and reorientation—offers a constructive contribution to contemporary science–religion discourse." The paper therefore moves beyond summary and attempts to articulate its intellectual contribution. Weaknesses 1. Limited discussion of limitations A major weakness is the lack of explicit reflection on limitations. The conclusion does not adequately discuss: The speculative nature of several analogies. Alternative theological interpretations. Possible objections from physicists, philosophers, or Qurʾānic scholars. The limits of applying entropy concepts outside physics. Strong theoretical papers typically devote some space to these issues. 2. Findings are sometimes presented too confidently The discussion occasionally shifts from: "entropy can serve as an analogical framework" to stronger claims such as: "entropy emerges not merely as a physical principle but as a metaphysical horizon sustaining moral responsibility." These broader claims are interpretive and philosophical, yet the paper does not always distinguish them from more modest conclusions supported by the argument. 3. Future research directions are brief The paper does suggest future work: "Future research may explore how this Qurʾān-centered moral cosmology reframes debates on theodicy, ecology, or AI ethics." However, these suggestions remain quite general. The conclusion would be stronger if it identified specific research agendas, such as: Comparative studies with Christian or Jewish theological treatments of entropy. Detailed Qurʾānic hermeneutic analyses of record and accountability. Philosophical examination of information theory and moral agency. Ethical implications for AI systems and digital memory. The authors discuss and interpret their findings clearly and coherently, successfully integrating the paper's central themes and explaining their relevance to science–religion dialogue. However, the discussion would be strengthened by a more explicit treatment of limitations, alternative interpretations, and methodological constraints. Future research directions are identified but remain broad and would benefit from greater specificity. Overall, the discussion is clear and thoughtful, though somewhat more reflective and critical engagement would improve its scholarly rigor.

   Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Moderately likely Overall assessment Probably yes, but primarily within a niche interdisciplinary field rather than in physics, information theory, or mainstream theology. The preprint is unlikely to generate new scientific knowledge about entropy or information theory, but it may contribute a novel conceptual framework within the intersection of: Science and religion Philosophy of religion Islamic theology Qurʾānic studies Religious ethics Metaphysics of time Potential contributions 1. Original synthesis of multiple literatures The paper brings together: Thermodynamic irreversibility Information theory and record formation Qurʾānic concepts of accountability Moral philosophy Theology of divine justice This combination is relatively unusual and may stimulate new interdisciplinary discussions. 2. Development of a conceptual model The central idea—that entropy functions as a structural condition for accountability because actions leave persistent traces—is an identifiable intellectual contribution. The paper develops this theme consistently throughout the manuscript. 3. Expanding Islamic engagement with contemporary science Much science-and-religion literature has focused on Christian theology. By constructing a Qurʾān-centered framework, the paper potentially broadens scholarly discussion and may encourage further work in Islamic philosophy and theology. Factors limiting its impact 1. No new empirical knowledge The paper contributes no new scientific findings, datasets, experiments, or mathematical results. Its contribution is interpretive rather than empirical. 2. Heavy reliance on analogy Many of the paper's central claims depend on analogical reasoning rather than demonstrable necessity. Scholars may disagree about whether the proposed connections are insightful or merely metaphorical. 3. Limited engagement with competing perspectives The article would likely have greater scholarly influence if it engaged more extensively with: Critics of entropy-based ethics. Alternative Islamic interpretations. Contemporary philosophy of science debates. Objections from physicists regarding the extension of thermodynamic concepts into moral discourse. 4. Audience is specialized The work is unlikely to influence thermodynamics, cosmology, or information theory directly. Its natural audience is much smaller and concentrated in interdisciplinary humanities scholarship. conclusion The preprint is likely to advance academic knowledge insofar as it offers a novel and internally coherent conceptual framework linking entropy, information persistence, and Qurʾānic notions of moral accountability. Its contribution is primarily theoretical and interdisciplinary rather than empirical. While the work is unlikely to alter scientific understanding of entropy, it may stimulate productive discussion within science-and-religion studies, Islamic theology, and philosophy of religion. Its ultimate impact will depend on whether scholars find its analogical framework sufficiently rigorous and persuasive to support further research.

   Would it benefit from language editing? No The paper is already readable and professional, but careful language editing would make it more persuasive and publication-ready.

   Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, it's of high quality

   Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, after minor changes

   Competing interests

   The author declares that they have no competing interests.

   Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

   The author declares that they used generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.

   Read the original source
2. Version published to 10.3390/philosophies11010008

   Jan 13, 2026
3. Version published to 10.20944/preprints202512.0113.v1

   Dec 1, 2025