Talk:The Quran and Mountains: Difference between revisions

Thanks for your edits and on the other article. I'll let IbnPinker work out how to integrate your edits here as he recently rewrote the introduction and a few other parts. We have a format standard whereby there should be an introductory paragraph or two. Before making extensive edits I also recommend reading https://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Message_to_New_Users and the pages linked therein. For example, if you drill down you'll find the page which explains how to cite hadiths using the templates, use quote blocks etc. https://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Source_Editing#Referencing_Hadith

Regarding the added content, the History of Yaqubi point is too dubious because if you click the source and see the next few lines of the poem, it contains a prophecy about the coming of Muhammad, and therefore the poem is actually post Islamic. If that's on the Urdu page, I think it should be removed from there too.

I also think the whole day like 1000 years section should be avoided. Muslims would just point to the other verse 70:4 which says a day is like 50,000 years to show the number is not fixed/literal. It's a strong enough point just that the mountains were made during four "days", or periods of the creation process (traditionally this is understood as the first four days, but it's unclear), yet we know that mountains continue to form to this day as it is an ongoing process. Hadiths can only be supplementary but not able to prove an error in the Quran, and tafsirs are even weaker again for this purpose (though sometimes of interest to show what Muslims believed).

Regarding the bullet points, as mentioned above it's not clear from the Quran itself when the four days in which mountains were formed are supposed to occur (probably the first four but it's unclear). Also, I don't think it's accurate that Earth took billions of years to solidify. The sun formed about 5 billion years ago and the Earth solidified quite quickly after its formation 4.5 billion years ago. Life began within 500 million years of that. I think for this reason it's better to remove or revise most of those five bullet points and to not be too reliant on the hadiths for the argument (they just add extra strength but it needs to stand without them).

I think it's true though that there is a need for better structuring and making it a bit more concise. The apologetic claims with mountains in the Quran are 1) The claim that they are like pegs in structure or function, and 2) that they stabilise the earth which comes in two flavours, a) the claim that they reduce earthquakes or b) the isostasy claim. As you've mentioned, these in fact are both scientific errors when properly analysed. Then there are in addition the other errors about mountains being cast down, and it's an ongoing process etc. where you made use of the scientific errors page. I'm not sure whether that should come first or after the other stuff but it needs to be well organized.

One other missing point that could be added in terms of the function of pegs issue is that pegs fasten one thing to another. While not obvious to some people from the images, it's worth pointing out that the mountains are part of the crust (not separate material like a peg) and they just go deeper into the mantel, which is molten and not a solid mass to which the mountains are fastening anything.Lightyears (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Your response is Highly appreciable. You have made very good and strong points.

(1) Your criticism of the tradition of History is Yaqubi is correct and it does praise Muhammad later. (2) What do you think about the verse of "placing the mountains from above"? Could it be used? (3) Regarding Verse 70:4. Yes, Muslims will use it as an excuse. But question is if we should step back and let them go away by making such excuse, or will it be BENEFICIAL if we counter their excuse with arguments/proofs? For example, we could refute the verse 70:4 by saying: "The Critics point out that vIt sereems to me that we have better proofs and better chances as compared to the Muslim on the back foot on this issue. Please note, I am not talking about the "absolute proof/chance", but about having "better proof/chance" than the other side.

• We

could be used to claim that there are contradictions and Quran and it was a human writing, and thus