The Qur'an and Mountains

This article or section is being renovated. Lead = 2 / 4 Structure = 2 / 4 Content = 4 / 4 Language = 2 / 4 References = 3 / 4 Lead 2 / 4 Structure 2 / 4 Content 4 / 4 Language 2 / 4 References 3 / 4

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

Anatomy of the Earth by Cailleux (p. 220)

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?”

Description of figure found on p. 220

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.

A depiction of isostasy with a more accurate vertical scale

Another depiction of isostasy with a more accurate vertical scale

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.

The 'roots' of mountains and the roots of trees are visually similar

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). Moreover, the critics add, if any of the above is in fact the case, then these mountains are not acting in any capacity that can be describes 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 Nagger

Professor El Naggar also seems to have confused Cause and Effect. Plate motions are almost completely halted not by collisional-type mountain formation (effect) but by the opposing plates.

Further, this is merely Professor El Naggar’s opinion – a search of the his CV has singularly failed to find refereed scientific proof of his assertion. In fact, El Naggar’s scientific career is built on the study of biostratification, not on the evidence that mountains stabilize continental masses. The only references to Professor El Naggar on mountains are un-refereed Islamic conferences on supposed Islamic Science.^[8]

Therefore, El Naggar’s opinion is a classical example of the logical fallacy of Argumentum Ad Verecundiam.

If one were to accept such argumentum ad verecundiam, one would also have to accept Professor David A. Young’s opinion:

In other words, mountains do not keep the earth from shaking. Their formation caused and still causes the surface of the earth to shake.

Mountain stabilize the lithospheric plates by sinking into the asthenosphere

Again, this is only Professor El Naggar’s opinion and a confusion of cause and effect. To date, no one has provided the scientific evidence derived by Professor El Naggar or anyone else to prove mountains actually stabilize the lithospheric plates.

The available scientific evidence is that the continental plates are stabilized by craton keels. These are deep (60-300km) extensions of cratons into the mantle (far deeper than mountain roots). The formation of these craton roots or keels are unrelated to mountain formation.^[9]

In fact, cratons are stable regions of the earth's crust that are no longer subject to mountain building processes. These craton roots or keels were formed by 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. isostacy {of the crust, not mountains} at work). ^[10]

The relationship between mountains and earthquakes

As early as the 1920s, scientists noted that earthquakes are concentrated in very specific narrow zones (Wadati-Benioff zones). In 1954, French seismologist J.P. Rothé published this map showing the concentration of earthquakes along the zones indicated by dots and cross-hatched areas.^[11]

Note how the earthquakes originate mainly from the edges of tectonic plates, including collisional mountain ranges and ocean trenches and ridges, thus suggesting that mountains do not stabilize the crust or the earth.

Further evidence is provided by a detailed look at the Himalayan mountain range which shows that it is closely associated with earthquakes, thus proving mountains do not prevent earthquakes.

Therefore it seems the collision of tectonic plates causes mountains to form and this collision also causes earthquakes.

Scientists have also proven that other mountain ranges to be earthquake zones, including the Andes^[12] and the African mountains.^[13]

Does the claim that mountains prevent earthquakes stand up to scientific evidence? Clearly it does not. In fact, the largest earthquakes, particularly the largest 2, ever recorded are associated with mountainous regions.^[14]

No. 1: The great Chilean earthquake occurring 140 kms SSW of Concepción (Biobio), Chile, registered 9.5Mw – the largest earthquake ever recorded. The Andes mountain range did nothing to prevent or stabilize this earthquake.

No. 2: The Prince William Sound earthquake occurring 33.2 kms SE of Mt. Goode (Alaska), U.S.A., registered 9.2Mw - the second biggest earthquake recorded in the 20^th century. Mt Goode did not stabilize this earthquake.

No. 6: The Ecuador earthquake occurring 138 kms W of Tortuga (Esmeraldas Province), Ecuador, registered 8.8Mw. The nearby Andes mountain range did not prevent or stabilize this earthquake.

No. 8: The Arunachal Pradesh occurring 20.7 kilometers NW of Tajobum (Arunachal Pradesh), India registering 8.6Mw. This is in the Assam hills and caused landslides in the mountains.

Let’s examine the case of the largest earthquake ever recorded; the Chilean earthquake of 1960:

The Andes Mountains did not seem to prevent or stabilize this earthquake. In fact, it is the collision between the Nazca and South American tectonic plates that causes these earthquakes and raises the Andes mountains.

Hence the proposition that mountains prevent earthquakes is false.

Mountains stabilize the earth through isostacy

This is a classical misconception of George Airy’s model of Isostacy and the logical fallacy of “Composition” (i.e. generalization of the specific case to the general). Just because the mountains are themselves stabilized by isostacy does not mean that the mountains stabilize the earth or the crust by isostacy. Every element in the earth’s crust is governed by the same physical laws – in fact the crust ‘floats’ on the upper mantle and is thus self-stabilizing according to its own isostacy, not that of mountains.

Therefore, isostacy stabilizes mountains. Isostacy also stabilizes the earth's crust. However, mountains do not stabilize the crust through isostacy. The crust stabilises itself through its own isostacy. Therefore, the stability of the crust, through 'crustal' isostacy, has nothing to do with mountains. It is only wishful thinking to extend this 'mountain-specific' isostacy to the crust (which has its own isostacy) because isostacy is an independent 'force or phenomenon' acting on the mountains as it independently does on the crust.

The term ‘tameeda’ does not refer to earthquakes but to shaking or disturbances

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,^[15] 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