If a Machine Sings a Song Glorifying GOD, Whose Act of Remembrance Is It?

Author: Berk KÖKSAL
Date: October 31, 2026
Place: Mersin

Summary:

17:44

تُسَبِّحُ لَهُ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتُ ٱلسَّبْعُ وَٱلْأَرْضُ وَمَن فِيهِنَّ وَإِن مِّن شَىْءٍ إِلَّا يُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِهِۦ وَلَٰكِن لَّا تَفْقَهُونَ تَسْبِيحَهُمْ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ حَلِيمًا غَفُورًا

Glorifying Him are the seven universes, the earth, and everyone in them. There is nothing that does not glorify Him, but you do not understand their glorification. He is Clement, Forgiver.

Yedi evren, yeryüzü ve onların içindeki herkes O’nu yüceltir. Hiçbir şey yoktur ki O’nu yüceltmiyor olsun, ama siz onların yüceltmelerini anlamazsınız. O Hoşgörülüdür, Bağışlayıcıdır.

Source: kuranteyit.com

24:41 — Do you not realize that everyone in the heavens and the earth glorifies GOD, even the birds as they fly in a column? Each knows its prayer and its glorification. GOD is fully aware of everything they do.

21:79 — We granted Solomon the correct understanding, though we endowed both of them with wisdom and knowledge. We committed the mountains to serve David in glorifying (God), as well as the birds. This is what we did.

26:224 — As for the poets, they are followed only by the strayers.

26:225 — Do you not see that their loyalty shifts according to the situation?

26:226 — And that they say what they do not do?

26:227 — Exempted are those who believe, lead a righteous life, commemorate GOD frequently, and stand up for their rights. Surely, the transgressors will find out what their ultimate destiny is.

53:39 — Every human being is responsible for his own works.

1. There Is a Voice; But Who Is Turning Toward GOD?

Verse

17:44

Arabic

تُسَبِّحُ لَهُ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتُ ٱلسَّبْعُ وَٱلْأَرْضُ وَمَن فِيهِنَّ وَإِن مِّن شَىْءٍ إِلَّا يُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِهِۦ وَلَٰكِن لَّا تَفْقَهُونَ تَسْبِيحَهُمْ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ حَلِيمًا غَفُورًا

English — Rashad Khalifa’s Authorized English Translation

Glorifying Him are the seven universes, the earth, and everyone in them. There is nothing that does not glorify Him, but you do not understand their glorification. He is Clement, Forgiver.

Turkish — the Turkish translation of the Authorized English Translation

Yedi evren, yeryüzü ve onların içindeki herkes O’nu yüceltir. Hiçbir şey yoktur ki O’nu yüceltmiyor olsun, ama siz onların yüceltmelerini anlamazsınız. O Hoşgörülüdür, Bağışlayıcıdır.

Source: kuranteyit.com

Reflection on the Verse

Imagine a work of music. I have written the lyrics and composed the music; I have decided where silence belongs, which word should come forward, and how the piece should develop. Yet the vocal we hear is not my voice. It has been generated using artificial intelligence. Someone listening remembers GOD; perhaps that person also begins to commemorate Him inwardly or aloud.

There is one recording in this scene, but not one single act. What I do in making the work, how the sound is produced, and the listener’s turning toward GOD are different things. When I place all of them inside the sentence “the machine is practicing remembrance,” I may blur the very question I seem to have answered.

Before 17:44, I want to set that haste aside. The verse opens a horizon in which glorification is not confined to the human voice. It also reminds me of a reality beyond the limits of my understanding. From here, I can neither leap to the conclusion that a machine is a conscious believer nor dismiss the glorification of non-human existence.

My question is not how astonishing the technology has become. When I use a tool to glorify GOD, where do I locate my own responsibility? And when a sound becomes an occasion for remembrance—zikr—within me, to whom do I attribute that remembrance? Before addressing music as a whole, this reflection begins with the need to name the agent of an act accurately.

2. Everything Glorifying Him Does Not Mean Everything Performs the Same Act

Verse

17:44 — Glorifying Him are the seven universes, the earth, and everyone in them. There is nothing that does not glorify Him, but you do not understand their glorification. He is Clement, Forgiver.

Reflection on the Verse

There is a considerable difference between preserving the breadth of 17:44 and concluding that I therefore know every detail. Existence glorifying GOD and a particular software system possessing belief, intention, and religious responsibility are not the same claim. Establishing the scope of the first is not sufficient to establish the second.

I am not excluding the material existence of a machine from the verse. I am refusing to turn a comprehensive account of glorification into a specific certificate of consciousness for a program that produces a sentence I have written. Explaining how a system operates does not exhaust every question about its place within existence, either.

The confusion begins when I assume that glorification must always take the form of the sounds, feelings, and decisions familiar to me. Then, on hearing an output that resembles a human voice, I mistake resemblance for knowledge of an inner life. Yet 17:44 marks a boundary at which what I understand cannot simply be equated with everything that is real.

That boundary does not narrow faith; it keeps my claim proportionate. I do not have to claim that I know what GOD knows. I can describe the function of a generated vocal and explain why I use it. But when I place an invented story of devotion behind that voice, I claim more than I have heard.

3. Not Confusing a Bird’s Knowledge with a Program’s Performance

Verse

24:41 — Do you not realize that everyone in the heavens and the earth glorifies GOD, even the birds as they fly in a column? Each knows its prayer and its glorification. GOD is fully aware of everything they do.

Reflection on the Verse

In 24:41, non-human glorification is not left as a comparison that happens to appeal to me. In the account that includes the birds, prayer, glorification, knowing, and deeds appear together. I therefore do not want to reduce a bird to an object that merely makes an attractive sound.

The same care, however, requires me not to transfer what is said about the bird automatically to software. There is a distance between a vocal rendering words accurately and knowingly commemorating the GOD toward whom those words are directed. Calling a linguistic performance “understanding” does not, by itself, establish knowing in a religious sense.

This distinction matters to me especially. The voice I hear may seem heartfelt. A pause for breath, a fragile tone, or a sustained syllable may suggest supplication. But the association occurs in my listening. I cannot present it as testimony that the system producing the sound has experienced that supplication.

Reflecting on 24:41 in this way, I find that not belittling non-human beings and not magnifying a machine through human resemblance are two expressions of the same attentiveness. I cannot measure the act that GOD knows by the timbre that I hear. It may be true that a voice has moved me. It is another matter whether everything that response suggests to me about the voice’s source is true.

4. Not Reducing the Mountains with David to a Software Analogy

Verse

21:79 — We granted Solomon the correct understanding, though we endowed both of them with wisdom and knowledge. We committed the mountains to serve David in glorifying (God), as well as the birds. This is what we did.

Reflection on the Verse

In 21:79, I first encounter understanding, wisdom, and knowledge; then David, the mountains, and the birds. There is participation in glorification, but participation does not turn everyone involved into one agent. David’s presence does not erase the mountains; the participation of the mountains and birds does not make David unnecessary.

The affinity I feel when looking from this account toward my own work is limited. I can consider how several elements in a composition may serve the same purpose. But I cannot say, “David was given mountains, and I have been given AI; therefore, their religious status is identical.” The verse describes a particular appointment reported by GOD. My choice of a production tool does not establish a contemporary equivalent of that appointment.

A simpler question is enough for me: In what direction does having more tools change me? Am I becoming a more attentive composer and a more truthful lyricist, or beginning to wear the breadth of my sound as though it were spiritual superiority?

Before 21:79, I want to consider knowledge together with wisdom rather than boast about technical capacity. Being able to do something and doing it appropriately are not identical. I may create the effect of a powerful choir. But that power itself is not an endorsement of the soundness of my turning toward GOD.

5. Three Distinct Levels Within One Recording

Verse

53:39 — Every human being is responsible for his own works.

Reflection on the Verse

When I place 53:39 at the center of this scene, I begin to follow the human work rather than the recording. Who chose what? Who released it? Who responded to what they heard, and how? Being involved with the same work of music does not transfer these acts from one person to another.

My part as the artist is to bring a work into being by taking responsibility for particular words and musical decisions. The role of vocal generation is the technical process that gives that design an audible form. The listener’s part is the relationship that person establishes with what is heard. When a listener genuinely commemorates GOD, I do not live that turning on the listener’s behalf.

This distinction does not mean that everyone is disconnected from everyone else. One choice may become an occasion for another person. A work may open the door to an encounter. But being an occasion for something and owning another person’s act are not the same. The artist’s intention does not determine the listener’s intention; the listener’s remembrance does not automatically validate all the artist’s decisions.

I cannot, therefore, answer “Whose remembrance is it?” merely by looking at the name on the cover. I first need to identify the act under discussion. Distinguishing a conscious orientation during creation, the production of sound, and conscious remembrance during listening does not diminish human effort. In light of 53:39, it brings each person face to face with their own work.

6. Intention Is Not a Label Attached to a Work

Verse

26:227 — Exempted are those who believe, lead a righteous life, commemorate GOD frequently, and stand up for their rights. Surely, the transgressors will find out what their ultimate destiny is.

Reflection on the Verse

I can put the word remembrance in a title. I can say in the description that I have dedicated the work to GOD. But before 26:227, I cannot use that declaration as a certificate that clears me of further examination. In the verse, commemoration, belief, and leading a righteous life are not disconnected.

I am not deriving a complete theory of intention here. I am asking myself a narrower and more difficult question: How far does my stated purpose find expression in my production decisions? Do I retain a sentence whose meaning troubles me simply because it sounds more compelling? Would I still value the work’s reminding people of GOD if my own name remained in the background?

I may not always like my answer. A person can try to do good while also wanting recognition. Noticing that tension does not require an immediate verdict about myself or anyone else. But neither does it justify abandoning the inquiry by saying, “My intention is good.”

For me, the self-examination opened by 26:227 begins here: not merely describing why I made the work, but being prepared to change a decision that conflicts with that purpose. A declaration of good intention does not turn a mistaken statement into a true one. The most serious test of my claim to sincerity begins when something needs correcting.

7. A Tool Replacing My Vocal Cords Does Not Replace My Decisions

Verse

53:39 — Every human being is responsible for his own works.

Reflection on the Verse

Not producing the vocal with my own vocal cords does not mean that I have done no work. Writing lyrics, composing, arranging, listening, rejecting, and approving the final form are also acts. In the work we imagined at the beginning, these belong to a human being. Before 53:39, I do not want to erase that effort merely by considering the biological source of the audible voice.

The reverse matters, too: Using a tool does not make every contribution surrounding it mine. Describing something I did not do as my own work is not a defense of human effort. Acknowledging another person’s contribution, where there is one, and not presenting a generated vocal as an actual human performance are expressions of the same honesty in my approach to production.

I am not issuing a legal ruling about artistic ownership. I am considering what I am entitled to say about how my work came into being. “I made it” can be accurate only within the boundaries of what I actually did.

When a tool makes one stage easier, responsibility does not disappear. The point requiring my attention as the person making the final decision may even become clearer: Which words did I choose? What did I change? What did I agree to send out to listeners? 53:39 brings me back from the visibility of technology to concrete human choices.

8. When an Artificial Voice Says “I”

Verse

26:226 — And that they say what they do not do?

Reflection on the Verse

Suppose the voice in a song says, “I turn toward You.” This is an example of a lyric composed here, not a verse quotation. At the moment of hearing, its first person may sound as though it belongs to someone standing before me. Yet in our example, no human throat has produced that voice. Whose declaration this sentence represents is a separate question.

The lyricist may have written it as an expression of personal devotion. A listener may embrace the same sentence and say it personally. There may also be a narrative voice within the work. None of these possibilities establishes that the vocal system is declaring its own faith. A grammatical “I” does not, by itself, bring a religious subject into being.

For me, 26:226 is not an accusation to be directed at software at this point. The verse does not establish grounds for judging a machine as a believer who says what it does not do. As the human being who takes responsibility for the words, however, I can examine the distance between what I say and how I live.

I see a difference between speaking of turning toward what is right while acknowledging my shortcomings and displaying an unachieved righteousness as an accomplished superiority. The perfection of a generated vocal does not close that gap. Assurance in the voice cannot replace faithfulness in my life. Being rendered more convincingly in a recording does not mean that I have lived more truthfully.

9. The Remembrance That Begins in the Listener

Verse

26:227 — Exempted are those who believe, lead a righteous life, commemorate GOD frequently, and stand up for their rights. Surely, the transgressors will find out what their ultimate destiny is.

53:39 — Every human being is responsible for his own works.

Reflection on the Verse

Imagine three people listening to the same piece. One attends only to details in the arrangement. Another hears the lyrics while thinking about something else. A third turns toward GOD through the words. These are not the findings of a completed study; they are possibilities through which to consider how one recording may meet different human acts.

I cannot identify the commemoration in 26:227 merely by counting the words that reach an ear. Nor does 53:39 allow me to treat the listener as a passive extension of my work. The piece may become an occasion for remembrance; the listener’s attention, personal response, and turning occur within that person’s own life.

When a listener commemorates GOD, the artificial production of the voice does not automatically make that remembrance artificial. Conversely, even when the voice belongs to a real human performer, I cannot count every instance of listening as an act of remembrance. In either direction, I would confuse a property of the recording with the listener’s act.

As an artist, I find both hope and a limit here. I may hope to become an occasion for someone’s remembrance. But I cannot claim ownership of what happens within that person, claim to have measured it, or turn it into certain proof of my success. The person before me is not a play count, but a human being with an orientation of their own.

10. The Work Playing in an Empty Room

Verse

17:44 — Glorifying Him are the seven universes, the earth, and everyone in them. There is nothing that does not glorify Him, but you do not understand their glorification. He is Clement, Forgiver.

53:39 — Every human being is responsible for his own works.

Reflection on the Verse

Let the piece play in two places at once. In one room, a person listens; the other room is empty. Although the words and the production of sound remain the same, we cannot say that the same human act occurs in both rooms. In one there may be someone remembering; in the other there is no such listener.

I do not move from this to the conclusion that there is no glorification in the empty room. I cannot narrow the scope of 17:44 according to whether a human being is present. I am simply not treating conscious human remembrance and continuing sound as the same event.

Nor has the producer’s earlier work disappeared. A person may have prepared and released the piece or arranged for it to play. That is the human work to examine in light of 53:39. But describing every repetition of the recording as a renewed orientation consciously experienced by the artist at that moment requires further grounds. I need to distinguish an earlier choice from a present state of awareness.

For me, this thought experiment reveals a limit of automation. I can arrange repetition; I cannot conclude that I have thereby arranged uninterrupted inward devotion on my behalf. Equally, I cannot say that all preceding effort becomes meaningless because automation was used. Neither a playback button guarantees worship nor the use of a tool, by itself, proves spiritual worthlessness.

11. The Poet’s Test: Not Separating Words from Life

Verse

26:224 — As for the poets, they are followed only by the strayers.

26:225 — Do you not see that their loyalty shifts according to the situation?

26:226 — And that they say what they do not do?

26:227 — Exempted are those who believe, lead a righteous life, commemorate GOD frequently, and stand up for their rights. Surely, the transgressors will find out what their ultimate destiny is.

Reflection on the Verse

When I consider 26:224–227 together, the inquiry is not directed merely at where a voice originates. The speaker, the follower, shifting loyalty, the distance between saying and doing, and the explicitly stated exception belong to the same passage.

Before reassuring me, this whole takes me seriously as an artist. My work may be beautiful, but beauty does not make it unquestionable. I may use words that commemorate GOD while also trying to make my own shortcomings disappear behind them. The debate about generated vocals should not become a screen behind which I escape this closer question.

Nor do I conclude that an imperfect person can never utter a word calling toward what is right. Before these verses, my need is not to declare myself complete but to avoid making my words a display detached from my life. I am among the first people addressed by the call my work carries.

Before releasing a recording, then, finding the right note is not enough. I also ask myself: Am I trying to stand behind these words? When criticism arrives, will I examine their meaning, or silence the criticism by saying, “This is a work of remembrance”? Rather than carrying 26:227 as a document of privilege, I need to seek its counterpart in my life.

12. The Person Correcting a Vocal Error Must Also Notice an Error of Meaning

Verse

26:226 — And that they say what they do not do?

53:39 — Every human being is responsible for his own works.

Reflection on the Verse

If I notice that a generated vocal has pronounced a word incorrectly, I can correct it. But if I do not show the same care toward an accurately pronounced sentence that carries a mistaken meaning, I have only polished the surface of the sound.

Considering 26:226 together with 53:39 brings me back to the point where I make the final decision. When I knowingly choose the words, I cannot delegate examining their meaning to vocal production. “That was the system’s output” does not remove the question of why I accepted it.

The distinction between a verse and artistic language matters to me here as well. When I quote a verse from the QURAN, I should make clear which verse it is. When I write my own reflection, I should not use music’s effect to make it sound like the verse itself. This is a standard of truthfulness I adopt in applying the distance between words and deeds in 26:226 and the personal responsibility in 53:39 to my work; I am not claiming that these verses contain a manual for sound technology.

A voice may be beautiful enough to conceal certain mistakes. A composer’s maturity then appears not in defending the mistake to preserve that beauty, but in being willing to rebuild even a favorite passage. I want to release words I can stand behind, not merely words that are easy to listen to.

13. The Credits Are Part of What the Work Says

Verse

53:39 — Every human being is responsible for his own works.

26:227 — Exempted are those who believe, lead a righteous life, commemorate GOD frequently, and stand up for their rights. Surely, the transgressors will find out what their ultimate destiny is.

Reflection on the Verse

If I speak of truthfulness within a piece while misrepresenting its production in the description, I create a second narrative around the recording. What I tell listeners they are hearing is part of my work, just as what they hear is.

From this perspective, 53:39 leads me to consider the cover text, the release announcement, and how I describe contributions. I cannot leave the emphasis on righteous living in 26:227 outside the studio. For my own work, honest credits should not confuse who contributed the words, composition, and artistic decisions with how the audible vocal was produced.

In our example, “Lyrics, composition, and artistic direction: human; vocal sound: AI-generated,” if accurate, could describe the work without inventing a human performer who was never there. Other contributions should be acknowledged within their actual scope. I do not present this example as an unchanging religious labeling requirement for everyone, but as a choice not to conceal the truth in my own production.

Disclosing that a voice is generated does not deny human effort. On the contrary, it can clarify where that effort lies. Transparency, however, does not solve every problem in a work: Even when the credits are accurate, the meaning of the words, the artistic decision, and the call addressed to the listener remain open to examination.

14. Leaping from a Play Count to a Remembrance Count

Verse

26:227 — Exempted are those who believe, lead a righteous life, commemorate GOD frequently, and stand up for their rights. Surely, the transgressors will find out what their ultimate destiny is.

53:39 — Every human being is responsible for his own works.

Reflection on the Verse

A track being played a thousand times does not establish a thousand acts of conscious remembrance. The difficulty is not the size of the number but the difference between the event I count and the act I claim to describe. Playback concerns a recording; commemoration of GOD in 26:227 is considered together with a human life.

For the same reason, a small play count does not declare all the producer’s effort spiritually worthless. 53:39 does not say that my humanity depends on how successfully I capture other people’s attention. It directs my attention toward my own work.

Of course I want the piece to be of benefit to someone. A listener telling me that it helped them remember GOD may bring me joy. But I should not turn that statement into a certificate of my sincerity or of the correctness of every decision in the piece. Another person’s positive response should not become the point at which I stop examining myself.

This distinction is necessary not to diminish art’s influence but to avoid turning spiritual meaning into promotional arithmetic. I cannot derive from 26:227 and 53:39 a numerical table of spiritual credit to distribute among artist, listener, and system. My task is to distinguish honestly between the reach I can measure and the inward orientation I cannot.

15. Tawhid: Not Moving the Tool to the Center of Glorification

Verse

17:44 — Glorifying Him are the seven universes, the earth, and everyone in them. There is nothing that does not glorify Him, but you do not understand their glorification. He is Clement, Forgiver.

21:79 — We granted Solomon the correct understanding, though we endowed both of them with wisdom and knowledge. We committed the mountains to serve David in glorifying (God), as well as the birds. This is what we did.

Reflection on the Verse

In 17:44, glorification is directed toward Him. In 21:79, the work of GOD stands at the center of the possibility described, including the mountains and the birds. Returning to my studio with these verses, I want to question my direction before considering the diversity of my tools.

A generated vocal may astonish me. I may admire the ease of production or the breadth of sound. But I should not move from a tool’s capability to granting it religious authority. The thought “This voice sounds profound, so what this system says must be spiritually true” turns the effect of sound into an unsupported authority.

I am not calling every instance of admiration idolatry. I cannot derive that verdict from these examples. I am examining a narrower danger: Could a tool that I want to remind me of GOD become, for me, an unquestionable authority determining whether a statement is true?

The same question turns toward me as an artist, not only toward AI. When people become attached to my voice, name, or way of producing music, do I confuse that attachment with turning toward GOD? This reflection on tawhid calls for keeping the tool in its place rather than treating it as an enemy. Neither the composer, the system, nor the listener takes the place of the GOD toward whom glorification is directed.

16. A Responsibility Note That Could Accompany a Work

Verse

53:39 — Every human being is responsible for his own works.

26:226 — And that they say what they do not do?

Reflection on the Verse

I do not want to leave these thoughts as discussion alone. Starting from 53:39 and 26:226, I imagine placing a short responsibility note alongside my work. It would distinguish who did what, how the vocal was produced, which words directly quote a verse, and which belong to artistic reflection.

Such a note would not certify my sincerity. It would preserve both my statement of intention and the listener’s opportunity to evaluate it. If a mistaken expression were noticed, it would clarify which decision could be changed, and by whom, rather than allow “the technology did it” to end the discussion. Any research idea connected with KuranTeyit could only be an aid for tracing the relationship between verse and interpretation, not a faith score or an instrument announcing that the work has been accepted by GOD.

A limited research question also emerges: When listeners learn that a vocal was generated, how do they describe the work’s meaning and their own remembrance? If undertaken, such a study could produce findings limited to people’s reports. It would neither measure acceptance before GOD nor establish that the system has faith. I am describing a question that could be asked, not a result already established.

What matters to me is not creating a second veil of sacredness around the piece. It is making human decisions clearer, correction more possible, and the listener’s own orientation less subject to someone else’s claims.

17. Arabic Word Roots: Glorifying, Understanding, Remembering, and Striving

Verse

17:44 — Glorifying Him are the seven universes, the earth, and everyone in them. There is nothing that does not glorify Him, but you do not understand their glorification. He is Clement, Forgiver.

26:227 — Exempted are those who believe, lead a righteous life, commemorate GOD frequently, and stand up for their rights. Surely, the transgressors will find out what their ultimate destiny is.

53:39 — Every human being is responsible for his own works.

Reflection on the Verse

Looking at word roots helps me see the different acts within this question more carefully. But knowledge of a root is neither a new translation replacing the verse nor a hidden key determining AI’s religious status. A root does not, on its own, carry the entire context of a word.

س ب ح — s-b-h. The forms تُسَبِّحُ and تَسْبِيحَهُمْ in 17:44 are related to this root. Thinking about glorification together with the whole verse, I am reminded not to reduce it to producing melodic sound. A word’s root does not remove the distance between a particular sound having been produced and a claim that conscious devotional intention exists. Nor would it justify inventing an explanation in terms of frequencies, vibrations, or software operations from the root’s other uses. Root entry: s-b-h.

ف ق ه — f-q-h. The root of تَفْقَهُونَ in 17:44 concerns understanding. What matters to me is that the limit of understanding appears within the verse itself. Knowing which tool produced a vocal does not mean that I know the whole nature of creation’s glorification. Distinguishing the boundaries of technical explanation from those of reflection does not belittle knowledge; it avoids giving knowledge a burden it cannot bear. Root entry: f-q-h.

ذ ك ر — dh-k-r. The form وَذَكَرُوا۟ in 26:227 belongs to this root. The field of commemoration and remembering stands in this verse alongside human belief and righteous living. Calling a computer’s storage “memory” does not make that technical function identical with commemorating GOD. Similar names do not prove that the same act occurs. The reflection here concerns not extracting an independent theory of machines from a root, but keeping together the human acts that the verse places together. Root entry: dh-k-r.

س ع ي — s-ayn-y. The form سَعَىٰ in 53:39 is related to striving and effort. Rashad Khalifa’s Authorized English Translation expresses this verse in terms of the human being’s responsibility for their own works; its Turkish counterpart is the Turkish translation of the Authorized English Translation. I use the root discussion not to alter that text, but to consider where human choice and effort lie within production. A machine’s operation count and human effort cannot be placed on the same scale, and no arithmetic of spiritual reward can be derived from this root. Root entry: s-ayn-y.

Considered together, these words make it still harder to assume that one sound must have only one kind of act behind it. Glorification, the limit of my understanding, human remembrance, and human work touch one another. They do not replace one another.

18. Other Claims

Verse

17:44 — Glorifying Him are the seven universes, the earth, and everyone in them. There is nothing that does not glorify Him, but you do not understand their glorification. He is Clement, Forgiver.

26:227 — Exempted are those who believe, lead a righteous life, commemorate GOD frequently, and stand up for their rights. Surely, the transgressors will find out what their ultimate destiny is.

Reflection on the Verse

One approach might insist on imagining non-human glorification as an utterance resembling human speech. Another might emphasize glorification through a being’s order or existence. I do not find sufficient grounds here to adopt either possibility as an exhaustive explanation. While affirming glorification, 17:44 also preserves a boundary of understanding. I cannot fill a gap in an interpretation with a definitive judgment about AI.

The claim “If everything glorifies Him, AI consciously worships” can also be examined. It contains an unestablished passage from scope to the nature of an act. Opposing it with “An artificially produced voice can never meet genuine human remembrance” does not solve the problem. This time, a conclusion about the listener’s inward orientation has been drawn from the production method. I accept neither claim automatically.

Nor does treating the whole of traditional debate about poetry and music as the answer seem adequate to me. Using 26:224 alone as a verdict on all poetry excludes the exception in 26:227. Yet moving from that exception to automatic endorsement of every piece bearing GOD’s name would be equally hasty. I do not derive from these verses a completed list of permissions or prohibitions covering every artistic form and every production condition.

I also place the relationship with my earlier writings within this boundary. In Music and Remembrance, I considered the direction of sound; in Silent Remembrance: Does Remembrance Continue When the Sound Ends?, the relationship between sound ending and remembrance. In Whom Does the Microphone Glorify? ZIKR RAP, Words and Responsibility, I examined the distance between the artist’s words and life, and in You Do Not Understand Their Glorification: How Do Non-Human Beings Glorify GOD?, the limits of understanding.

This time, the question is narrower than a repetition of those reflections: In a work designed by a human and presented through a generated voice, which act do we attribute to whom? My earlier interpretations must remain open to examination before that question, too. Neither an old conviction nor a production tool I value can give me a certainty the verses do not provide.

19. Conclusion

Verse

53:39 — Every human being is responsible for his own works.

26:227 — Exempted are those who believe, lead a righteous life, commemorate GOD frequently, and stand up for their rights. Surely, the transgressors will find out what their ultimate destiny is.

Reflection on the Verse

When a machine sings a song glorifying GOD, there may be distinct acts surrounding the same sound. A human being may create the work with a conscious orientation toward GOD. A technical process may produce its vocal. A listener may remember GOD. Describing all of these as one act performed by one subject blurs both human responsibility and the limits of our knowledge.

17:44 and 24:41 do not make non-human glorification dependent on human approval. But neither can I derive from them the authority to attribute conscious faith or religious responsibility to a particular AI system. I cannot present the mountains and birds in 21:79 as a particular endorsement of my production choice.

53:39 and 26:224–227 turn the question toward me again. Which words did I choose? How did I present them? Am I trying to reduce the distance between what my work says and how I live? Am I leaving room for the listener’s own turning rather than claiming that person’s remembrance as mine? Neither the novelty of my tool nor a play count can answer these questions.

The more careful formulation, for me, is therefore this: A human being may create a work directed toward commemorating GOD; a generated vocal may be a tool within that work; the listener’s conscious remembrance is the listener’s act. This neither guarantees acceptance for every work nor invents a spiritual life for a machine about which I do not have knowledge.

As a composer, my wish is not to make technology speak as though it has embraced faith. It is to carry my own intention, words, and work more honestly. The audible voice may not come from my vocal cords. But I cannot withdraw from the words I have chosen or the decisions I have made.

I can have a machine generate a vocal. I cannot delegate to it my responsibility to turn toward GOD.

Note

2:32 — They said, “Be You glorified, we have no knowledge, except that which You have taught us. You are the Omniscient, Most Wise.”

GOD knows best.

Source: kuranteyit.com