The Quran and Mountains: Difference between revisions

The Quran has a particular conception of the nature of mountains, their formation, and the geological role they play that is is referenced in multiple verses and several hadiths. In recent times, many Islamic scholars have argued that this conception is both scientifically sound and and instance of miraculous scientific foreknowledge on the part of the Quran which, they argue, could not have arrived at the conception it holds without divine insight. Individuals key to the popularization of this idea include the apologists I. A. Ibrahim and Zakir Naik, Professor Zaghloul Raghib El Naggar (a geologist specializing in biostratification), and the Saudi-financed surgeon Dr. Maurice Bucaille.

Parties advocating the description of mountains found in the Quran as a scientific miracle identify two key claims made in the scripture: (1) that Mountains can be described as 'pegs' and (2) that mountains play some role in 'stabilizing the Earth' - these two ideas, advocates hold, are evidence of a miraculous scientific insight. Critics problematize the miracle claim by arguing that its advocates: (1) rely on arbitrarily specific definitions of ambiguous words, (2) rely on arbitrarily specific interpretations of ambiguous phrases, (3) rely on readings that are arbitrarily literal or metaphorical, and (4) reference their own authority as the basis of their correctness while failing to provide adequate argumentation. These tactics, critics suggest, are commonly employed in the presentation of any number of scientific miracles claimed on the part of the Qur'an or other Islamic scripture.

Key verses and terms

Key Arabic terms in the discussion surrounding the proposed miracle include awtad, meaning 'pegs/bulwarks/stabilizers/projections'^[1], rawasiya, meaning 'mountains', and tameeda, meaning 'tumble/shake/quake/convulse/sway'^[2].

The word rawasiya comes from the root arsa, the same root used for the Arabic 'anchor'. To 'throw out' or 'cast' 'the anchor' is alqa al-mirsah. Using these terms, similar to the phrase "cast the anchor to keep the ship from moving", one can say "cast the mountains to keep the earth from shaking."^[2] Dr. Zakir Naik translates awtad as 'stakes' or 'pegs' (like those used to anchor a tent).^[1]

15:19

16:15

Quran 16:15 uses the word ard which can be used to describe the Earth, its surface, or the ground in general. Critics argue that the ambiguity of this word is critical to the advocates' argument, as it can be and is adapted to variously refer to anything from the Earth, the crust, the lithosphere, the mantle or any combination of the above, as needed.

Critics also argue that it problematic that the Quran uses in these contexts the word tameeda, which advocates of the miracles interpret as meaning 'shaking' or 'disturbance', instead of the word zalzala, which is used elsewhere in the Quran and means ‘earthquake’. The advocates of the miracle, the critics argue, cannot explain why the Quran would only metaphorically allude to earthquakes rather than naming them outright, as the Quran does elsewhere. To the critics, the usage of an altogether different word than 'earthquakes' suggests that the Quran was not alluding to earthquakes and that the advocates of the miracle have made an arbitrarily favorable interpretation in understanding the verse as they do.

21:31 & 20:105

Other interpretations of Quran 21:31 are as follows:

Another verse used to evidence the idea that mountains have roots is Quran 20:105. Although the verse makes no reference to the word 'root', a number of translators include this interpretation in their translations. Advocates use such translations, including those of Yusuf Ali and al-Muntakhab, to buttress their argument. Critics argue that such evidence is vacuous, as the word 'root' no where appears in the verse, and the advocates of the miracle are simply referencing those specific translators who both already concur with them and have taken the liberty to insert that interpretation into their respective translations.

31:10

78:6-7

Discussions regarding the proposed miracle

Isostasy and mountains as peg-like structures

Schematic from Cailleux's Anatomy of the Earth

The schematic diagram taken from page 220 of Anatomy of the Earth by the French geologist Cailleux is cited by various sources advocating the reality of the proposed miracle.^[3] The basic underground protrusion of the crust beneath the mountainous region of the Alps, for instance, appears as a sort of peg embedded in the lower layer of the Earth. This, the advocates suggest, coheres nearly with Quran 78:6-7 which reads, “Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, And the mountains as pegs?”

The geological phenomenon observed is known as isostasy. This term describes the nature of the Earth's crust such that the height of the crust above the layer of the Earth immediately beneath the crust tends to be proportionate to the depth of the crust into the lower layer in the same area.

Thus, elevation above sea-level tends to correlate positively with the thickness of the Earth's crust at any given place. The reason why the crust tends to exist in this manner is compared to the same physics of floatation whereby the majority of an iceberg suspended in water extends below sea level and, at the same time, it is the case that the taller the portion of ice above sea level, the deeper the iceberg dips down below.

Advocates of the scientific miracle argue that isostasy affirms the peg-like nature of mountains and that Muhammad could not, in the 7th century, have come to realize this without divine aid. Critics respond to this by arguing that the caption associated with the diagram found in Cailleux's book explicitly points out that the visual representation has had its 'vertical scale greatly exaggerated'.^[4] As a result, critics argue, the peg-like nature of mountains is not so plainly evident as the exaggerated representation found in the diagram would make it seem.

Accurate representations of isostasy and exceptions

Other visual representations with less exaggerated and more accurate vertical scales, some of which are cited by the advocates themselves, do not depict mountains as so plainly resembling pegs.^[3] Advocates respond by suggesting that when viewed in this more accurate representation, the mountains resemble 'blunt pegs'; critics disagree.

Critics hold that the 'roots' of the mountains described by isostasy do not resemble pegs in either form or function. For instance, isostasy, while often observed, is by no means universal and there are several outstanding examples of mountains and other elevated geological structures which have no such roots.

Examples include structures formed by the geological processes of extension and faulting, such as the Nevada Basin and Range, as well as those formed thrust and fold belts, such as the Appalachians, Eastern Bolivian Andes, Zagros Mountains, and the Calcareous Alps. Indeed, even the Himalayas are underlaid by a crust structure shaped like a broad wedge and which does not resemble a peg.^[5] The same is true for the Pyrenees.^[6]

Another important example is the Andes mountain range, whose 'roots', as observed in a true-scale cross-section of the range, do not resemble a peg and which do not serve any 'peg-like' purpose.

Critical and historical perspectives

Critics conclude that what may at most be said regarding the roots of those mountains that possess them is that they resemble pigs in some minimal metaphorical sense and that it is not the case that all mountains are literal pegs, as described in the Quran, which have been 'cast down' into the earth in order to stabilize this.

If the advocates opt to transition to a metaphorical interpretation here, the critics continue, they have made an arbitrary decision, as the relevant scripture appears to take its own description quite literally (as is generally the case with verses in the Quran describing the step-wise creation of the Earth and heavens).

Historians circumvent the debate and simply hold that since there is no reason to believe that Muhammad was receiving revelation from some deity, or even that such a deity exists, Muhammad likely either inferred the existence of some subsurface structure beneath mountains on the basis of basic visual comparisons between the side of a mountain and the bottom of a tree or adapted the beliefs of predecessors who had made such observations before his time.

Historians point out, for instance, that the ancient Hebrews held similar ideas regarding the 'roots of mountains'. It is not at all inconceivable and to some extent certain that such ideas had been passed down to and adapted by Muhammad.

The function of pegs vs. that of mountains

General arguments

Some advocates of the miracle argue that where mountains result from the collision of tectonic plates, they also cause the stability of the Earth. One advocates of the miracle writes as follows:

Critics, in response, point out the difference between cause and effect, suggesting that the advocates conflate the two, and describe how the formation of mountains is an incidental result of the collision of the tectonic plates, an event which in fact causes rather than prevents earthquakes. The mountains generated at these fault lines are a product of the tectonic collision and cannot be said to in any sense prevent it from taking place.

Other advocates of the miracle, aware that these mountains result from and do not prevent tectonic collision, proceed differently. These advocates argue that the mountains slow the collision down and dampen the impact.

To these advocates, critics respond that there is no scientific evidence which suggests that mountains slow down tectonic collisions in any meaningful way. And, while it is inevitably the case that the crumpling of the crust which forms the mountains throughout the collision somehow 'dampens' the impact, there is no evidence that the resultant mountains stabilize either plate (it is also difficult to interpret what this could possible mean, as the mountains do not exist prior to the collision in any case, and so could not, again, meaningfully 'prevent' it). What stops the collision are simply the opposing forces of either plate.

Moreover, the critics add, considering the above, these mountains are not acting in any capacity that can be described as peg-like (a better analogy might be the bumper of a car, which crumples upon collision to save the driver, for instance, from being crumpled - but this has nothing to do with pegs and does not serve the purpose of 'stabilization').

Arguments presented by Professor El Naggar

Professor El Naggar presents the above arguments in fewer words and with a less detailed explanation.

Critics have responded to El Naggar's argument by equating it with the common argument made by advocates of the miracle which conflates the causality and effects involved in the collision of tectonic plates. The mountains, the critics repeat, are the product of the collision and play no known role in stopping it. The collision of the plates stops, instead, gradually slows down as a result of the opposing forces of the two colliding plates.

Critics also point out that El Naggar provides no reference for the causal connection he presents, and that the unevidenced claim presented here by El Naggar is itself only cited by un-refereed conferences on so-called 'Islamic science'.^[8] El Naggar's own body of research contains nothing that would support the claim, which is perhaps unsurprising, as El Naggar's own specialization is in biostratifaction and not in the supposed 'stabilizing role of mountains'.

Interestingly, the respected and much more widely-published geologist Dr. David A. Young reportedly concluded precisely the opposite of what El Naggar suggests, differentiating between the mountains existence as a product of the collision and any supposed role they might be assumed to play in rendering the crust stable. It is perhaps important to note that, by stark contrast, none of El Naggar's scientific publications have been peer-reviewed.

El Nagger also suggests that mountains stabilize the lithospheric plates by sinking into the asthenosphere.

As above, there is no scientific evidence which demonstrates that mountains stabilize the lithospheric plates, and El Naggar provides no references. By contrast, there is scientific evidence that suggests that continental plates are stabilized by craton keels. Craton keels are deep extensions of cratons into the mantle which extend any where from 60-300km below the surface. These keels extend far deeper than mountain roots. The formation of these craton roots, or keels, is, however, unrelated to mountains or their formation.^[10]

Critics also point out that cratons are stable regions of the earth's crust that are no longer subject to mountain building processes. These craton roots or keels form through the depletion of basaltic elements into the asthenosphere, leading to less dense material that sinks deeper into the mantle due to the lower buoyancy (i.e. the isostasy of the crust, that is, rather than of the mountains).^[11]

The relationship between mountains and earthquakes

Critics also point out that, as early as the 1920s, scientists noted that earthquakes are concentrated in very specific and narrow zones arounds the planet (known as Wadati-Benioff zones). In 1954, French seismologist J.P. Rothé published a map showing the concentration of earthquakes along the zones indicated by dots and cross-hatched areas.^[12]

Critics note how the earthquakes originate mainly from the edges of tectonic plates, including collisional mountain ranges and ocean trenches and ridges, which demonstrates that mountains do not stabilize the crust or the earth. The presence of mountains on any part of the Earth's surface thus often suggests the presence of precisely those underground geographical circumstances which generate earthquakes.

Critics cite the Himalayan mountain range as a specific example of a mountain range which, rather than preventing earthquakes, is in fact closely associated with them. The collision of tectonic plates causes mountains to form and this same collision also causes earthquakes, which explains the correlation of the two phenomena.

Indeed, a mountainous region is often indicative of a high-earthquake frequency in the same area. Other examples of mountainous regions that are high-frequency earthquake zones include the Andes^[13] and the African mountains.^[14]

Many of the the largest earthquakes, including the two largest earthquakes ever recorded, are associated with mountainous regions.^[15] The largest earthquake was the great Chilean earthquake, which occurred 140km south-south-west of Concepción (Biobio), Chile, registered at 9.5Mw – the Andes mountain range, evidently, did not prevent the earthquake or cause the region to be particularly stable.

The second largest earthquake was the Prince William Sound earthquake, which occurred 33.2km SE of Mt. Goode (Alaska), U.S.A., registered at 9.2Mw – Mt Goode, nearby, was of no assistance. The sixth largest earthquake was the Ecuador earthquake, which occurred 138km west of Tortuga (Esmeraldas Province), Ecuador, registered at 8.8Mw – the nearby Andes mountain range was likewise of no assistance. The eighth largest earthquake was the Arunachal Pradesh, which occurred 20.7 kilometers NW of Tajobum (Arunachal Pradesh), India, registered at 6Mw – this earthquake took place in the Assam hills and caused landslides in the mountains which, again, did not prevent or stabilize the earthquake. Such examples where formidable mountains and mountain ranges co-exist with earthquakes of immense magnitudes, critics point out, are abundant and thus undermine the idea that mountains stabilize the Earth or play any role in mitigating earthquakes.

Critics point out the largest earthquake ever recorded - the Chilean earthquake in 1960 - in particular. The U.S. Geological Survey had the following to say regarding this earthquake:

The Andes Mountains did not prevent or stabilize this earthquake. On the contrary, later research revealed that the collision of tectonic plates that caused the earthquake also caused the Andes mountains to be raised. Similar earthquakes in the past are responsible for the existence of Andes in the first place. This collision even serves as a textbook example of the general phenomena, as can be seen below.

Mountains and isostatic stabilization

Advocates of the miracle point to George Airy's model of isostasy, which supports the idea that isostasy occurring below mountains causes mountains themselves to be more stable than if isostasy were not occurring below. This, they argue, is another point of evidence that mountains stabilize the Earth as described in the Quran. Critics respond to this argument by stating that George Airy's model says nothing special of mountains, per se, and simply demonstrates that isostasy - that is the extension of the earth's crust below the surface to a degree correlated to the height of the surface at any given point - generally causes the crust of the earth to be stable, whether or not a a given area is mountainous. Moreover, they point out, the fact that a mountain's isostasy causes the mountain to stabilize 'itself' - that is, just as the isostasy of any region causes that same region to be stable - does not mean that the mountain is in any way stabilizing the Earth in general or even the surrounding region in any meaningful way. They summarize this counterargument by suggesting that, on the basis of Airy's model, it can be said that if there were a region possessing a mountain and subject to isostasy, there is no reason to believe that region would be more stable than another, similar region that did not have a mountain but was also subject to isostasy to the same, natural extent.

Another way the critics put it is that the phenomenon of isostasy is itself responsible for the stability of the crust - whether or not the crust is host to mountains in any given region. Isostasy stabilizes mountains, even terrain, and even indented regions on the Earth's surface. The Mountains do not cause this isostasy any more than isostasy causes mountains, as isostasy is co-occurrent with any variety of terrain - mountainous or otherwise. The co-occurrent isostasy is, however, responsible for the stability of the mountains as well as the crust, and not the other way around - that is, a region excepted from the norms of isostasy (as many are) will not be as stable, whether this region is mountainous or not. Isostasy is best understood as a phenomenon separate from the mountains altogether, as it is no more bound in the simple fact of its existence to the presence of mountains than it is to region of simple, flat crust (even if the specific form it takes in either of these cases is).

Earthquakes and the meaning of tameeda

When shown evidence that collisional-type mountains are associated with earthquakes some Muslims will then claim that the Qur'anic verses do not refer to earthquakes at all. They will claim that tameeda also means stagger, roll, sway, or tilt, and that there's significant difference between them and the short sharp shock of an earthquake (i.e. tameeda refers to some phenomenon, assumed to be associated with geological timescale, that is presently unknown to and undefined by our present understanding of geological science).

The relevant verses are as follows:

The phrase "tamida bi" from mada, yamidu, is only used in the above three Qur'anic verses which are marked **. Hans Wehr's "Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic" gives the meaning of the verbal phrase "mada bi" as: to shake something violently. "Mada bi" is the very form used in these verses.

It is clear that the term ‘tameeda’ is associated with people (i.e. less it should shake with you). Thus, tameeda cannot possibly refer to shaking in a geological timescale as people do not live in geological timescales. For this reason, tameeda and zalzala are synonyms, just as the English terms ‘seismic activity’ and ‘earth tremors’ are synonyms for earthquakes.

Even some Muslim commentators do not consider tameeda to mean shaking in geological timescale.

Admittedly Ibn Kathir was not a geologist, but he certainly knew Classical Arabic and his reading of the relevant verses suggests that tameeda is not associated with a geological timescale.

The word, ‘stabilize’ does not mean ‘prevent earthquakes’

Apologists claim that the stabilization is over a geological timescale because of the term ‘tameeda’ as opposed to ‘zalzala’.

For the same reason as the previous section, the term ‘stabilize’ must mean ‘prevent earthquakes’ as tameeda cannot be associated with geological timescales.

Apologists who make this claim also fail to notice that mountains, whether individually or as a mountain range, do not last very long in geological timescales. Wind, water and ice erode them away, or even tectonic movements can destroy them. Now it is worth pondering what kind of stability the relatively short-lived mountains can provide to the 4.5 billion years old earth, if there is anything miraculous that the Qur'an says about mountains.

Mountains Stabilize the Earth's Rotation About its Axis

The mass of the Earth is 5.97*10²⁴ kilograms. The mass of mountains is of a much lower order. Hence they have an infinitesimally small effect on the earth's moment of inertia. In fact, the earth's rotational speed and axial tilt are affected more by the distance of the moon from earth and the post-glacial rebound since the ice ages.

Mountains Absorb Some Waves During Earthquakes

Studies like this one are sometimes quoted by apologists to prove their point. It is clear however, that earthquakes are not prevented. Only the waves are somewhat affected by the presence of mountains as the above simulation suggests. If there were an earthquake larger than Mw 7.5 or if a human settlement were situated between its epicenter and a mountain range, there would be widespread destruction anyway.

Conclusion

The claim that mountains are pegs is untrue as not all mountains have "peg-like" roots. And even the ones that can be claimed to have these peg-like roots, resemble pegs only with a lot of imagination. The claim that mountains stabilize the crust or the earth is (at best) unproven. There is no scientific evidence for this assertion, therefore the Qur'an cannot be validated by scientific evidence that does not exist.

The mere fact of isostacy is not proof that mountains stabilize the crust or the earth. The mere fact that collision-type mountains are formed at the edges of tectonic plates is not proof that mountains stabilize the plates. The mere fact that mountains have deep roots is not proof that mountains stabilize anything.

Lastly, is the Qur'an really the first scripture to make the assertion that Mountains stabilize the earth? Well, some Christians do not think so,^[16] and the Bible predates the Qur'an by at least 400 years.

See Also

• Scientific Miracles in the Quran
• Scientific Errors in the Quran

References