User:CPO675/Sandbox 1

Order

1. Intro
2. What they Quran says - short paragraph on the science
3. Apologist claim? here or above the science?
4. Why is it incorrect - the science and refutation of apologist claim.
5. refutation of apologist claim
6. Why is it incorrect
7. Other groups that have the same mythology
8. Who knew that salt and fresh water didn't mix - Archimides
9. The historical context

Introduction

The Quran refers to two different bodies of water, emphasising there is one sweet and one fresh, and that they meet but there is a batter between them. Both early (and medieval Muslims) (cite), and modern Academic scholarship^[1](check whether to delete or not), have identified this with an ancient belief of there being a cosmic ocean of water surrounding the world.^[2]Other classical scholars have attributed it to the way fresh water bodies of water are separate to the salty seas and oceans in general, rather than two specific bodies of water not taking the verse literally.^[3][4]

Some modern Muslims have tried to reconcile the relevant verses with natural phenomena, including estuaries meeting the sea, and different seas having different salt levels. However critics do not believe the verses accurately describe this, and actually conflicts with the description in several key aspects as will be stated in the article.

When a fresh water river flows into the sea or ocean, there is a transition region in between. This transition region is called an estuary where the fresh water remains temporarily separated from the salt water. However, this separation is not absolute, is not permanent, and the different salinity levels between the two bodies of water eventually homogenize. The Qur'an, by contrast, suggests that there is a separation between two seas, one salty and one fresh water, maintained by some sort of divine barrier placed between them.

The Qur'an

There is a consistent theme of 'the two seas' ("al-baḥrayn, ٱلْبَحْرَيْنِ"), with the exact same term being used 5 times in the Quran.

We are told that there are two seas ("al-baḥrayn, ٱلْبَحْرَيْنِ"), one freshwater (palatable and sweet), and one seawater (salt and bitter), and that there is a barrier that it is forbidden to be pass, implying that they will never be passed. (verse straight after talks about creating humans)

Quran 55:22 quoted below states that coral emerge from both seas. However, coral are found only in salt water oceans, and exposure to freshwater leads to coral bleaching. (mentioned just after creating humans and jinn - nature)

And again in Q35:12 we are told the two seas with one being freshwater (palatable and sweet), and one seawater (salt and bitter). But from both come fresh meat (presumably fish) and ornaments to wear come from both (presumably coral and pearl as mentioned above in verse Q 55:22):

(Quran 35:12 following creation of humans from clay.)

Again, there is a barrier between the two seas. (verse before mentions creating the heavens and the Earth)

Another reference to "the two seas" (l-baḥrayni) is found in the story of Moses and his servant, where he meets a man (Al-Khidr) who has special knowledge of events that have not yet happened from god, and tests Moses to carry out seemingly immoral tasks without asking him why:

The full story of Moses ad Al-Khidr can be found at the bottom of the page for context.

Apologists claims

Estuaries and salt water

Apologists claim that the Quran is referring to different bodies of water have different densities which causes them not to mix, creating a barrier between them, and even that the descriptions show advanced knowledge of science that could not have been known to a human. You can see the images referenced in this link which are repeated on many Islamic websites.

The first claim is around fresh water from rivers meeting seas/oceans of salt water, with the transition stage known as estuaries:

Note that in the above referenced claim in the book (Introductory Oceanography, Thurman), they have changed it by adding the words “Zone of Separation” and “The partition onto Figure 4 by the apologists - the book itself does not claim such a thing.

However critics point out, as above, that a barrier is not a and ?? partition zone?? (look this up when book arrives) is not a totally accurate way to describe a barrier in that it doesn't block the water, as the seas do mix - and are they are constantly mixing. This water creates a is called Brackish Water. This is changing the meaning of the words to fit a natural phenomena - there is nothing mentioned about the scientific reasons for his (around different densities).

A layman could see this and think God put a barrier was a good explanation:

Issues with this interpretation

Problems with miracle claim

Critics point to issue's with inserting this is a scientific miracle, or even scientifically accurate:

1. Firstly as with all claims of scientific miracles in ancient scripture, nothing scientifically new was known/discovered from this verse as one would expect if it clearly described a new scientific fact - the method of 'discovering' falls into typical categories of selective literalism, de-historicization and pseudo-corelation etc. (see Scientific Miracles in the Quran), taking advantage of ambiguity in language to fit a modern reading rather than an honest one.
2. This description is so basic and lacking any actual science (i.e. God creates a barrier between two seas which stops them merging), it could easily apply to someone sailing nearby or over one of these and passing on the descriptions as they have done since ancient times^[5], as the colours are often different (as seen in the image X), leading people to assume there was an actual barrier between the two waters.
3. This description also implies there is no mixing between them at all, and could just as easily be written by someone believing that someone believing there was no mixing at all between them.

Problems with general accuracy

We are told that there are specifically the two seas(al-baḥrayn).

• This uses the definite particle 'al' for 'the' for a specific two seas, not general.
• 'baḥr' for large body of water/sea.
• the dual suffix/ending in 'ayn' means there are two of them.

1. Yet this happens in many places (there are over 1,200 documented estuaries,^[6] i.e. more than two) across the world - nowhere does the language suggest this is the case, as to match this verse it must be referring to a single specific but unnamed estuary. There are many far better ways to phrase this if it meant this phenomena.
2. There are many different types of estuaries (e.g. salt wedge, Fjord-type, Slightly Stratified - you can read about them here), however despite what it may look like on the surface they all mix to varying degrees - which is not a logic inference of having a barrier between them that they cannot pass. A pycnocline zone, and more specifically, a halocline zone, is always a mixture of fresh water and salt water - in fact it is a product of their mixing. In case of salt water and fresh water, there cannot be density discontinuity. The later can only be present if two liquids are immiscible, for example water and oil.
3. It does not say riverنھر (Nahar - a word used elsewhere in the Qur'an to describe a river) and sea, which would have been an accurate way to describe it if the mixing zone isn't part of either sea being mentioned but a 'barrier' - although to be fair every large body of water was referred to using this word in classical Arabic, this would not be the best way to match smaller estuaries such as???. This also would separate it from the other bodies of water with coral being referred to as apologists do.
4. Also arguably 3 bodies of water, it could have stated something along the lines of one is mixed blocking the others - which would have been a closer description to a barrier. Should describe one as a river in this case. Small rivers would especially not be a good description here. as there's no verse to say the 'barrier' contains mixed bodies of water in the Quran verses.
5. Estuary water sweet and palatable or filled with dirt? Estuary water often is salty as well (not just sweet), and dirty. Not an accurate description^[7] - delete?
6. The sea isn't permanently there, they completely change over time. Even the estuaries didn't exist when the Earth was made, so God letting the two bodies going free and a permanent barrier if false.

What it doesn't say

Where rivers and seas meet, often there is a barrier between them

Density of salt water is more than freshwater. This was first discovered by Aristotle. “The drinkable, sweet water, then, is light and is all of it drawn up: the salt water is heavy and remains behind.” -Aristotle (382 BC to 322 BC)^[8] But not like Water and oil which are immiscible (i.e. they don't mix).

There is no need to describe something inaccurately, as they don't describe many other natural processes - e.e.g formation of deserts and forest, could have jsut left out

A good easy to read guide on these issues for those interest is CostalWiki https://www.coastalwiki.org/wiki/Salt_wedge_estuaries

Two actual seas

Secondly, it states:

Problems with miracle claim and general science

• Leap of faith to separate the sweet and salty seas from the other two 'seas'
• verse 35:12 states ornaments for us to wear are from both seas, salty and sweet linking the coral and pearl this to the sweet and salty seas as repeated in verse 55:22, which coral also does not form in..
• Again, using the definite particle 'al' and barrier between them implies this is for two specific seas, while this phenomena occurs in many places, even the North Atlantic, South Atlantic the Pacific Oceans have different salt levels.^[9]
• A sill https://www.britannica.com/science/sill. An aquatic sill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_sill (containing other examples of sills)
• For the second point about the difference between the Atlantic and Mediterranean oceans not mixing, this is not true, as Piers Chapman - Oceanography - Texas A&M University writes in Water Encyclopaedia Ocean Mixing http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Mi-Oc/Ocean-Mixing.html

• BBC Science focus article on Atlantic and Pacific oceans mixing, and that previous videos showing non-mixing are incorrect https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/is-it-true-that-the-pacific-and-atlantic-oceans-dont-mix
• - such as this kind of sea https://ecobnb.com/blog/2018/11/denmark-two-seas/ - explore - two salty bodies of water?
• When did the Gibraltar sill get created? Not permanent

Refutation of the claim main points

• Problem - the seas do mix - get source, there is no barrier between them - the definition of a barrier is literally something that blocks (so has been stretched here)
• Partition forbidden to pass - uses term for never - however entre sealine changes over time with rivers broken down and destroyed - and current 'seas' 'barrier' breaks down over time
• This happens everywhere all across the world - why talking about two seas with 'al' particle (happens with all sweet and salty water/less dense water) - historical context
• Doesn't say riverنھر (Nahar) - although to be fair every large body of water was referred to using this word in classical Arabic. A specific word for ocean or lake did not exist either. Also arguably 3 bodies of water, it could have stated one is mixed blocking the others - which would have been a closer description to a barrier
• Salt vs seawater - is estuary water sweet and palatable or filled with dirt?
• Much better ways to write this verse that would actually fit with the science (give examples)
• Link historical context of premeal waters to the whale story too
• Coral does not occur in fresh water, which causes coral bleaching ^[10]
• Scientific claim - Quran says absolutely nothing about different densities, hence no-one ever thought it did until many years after the discovery - Scientist William Hayes denouncing miracle claim (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eziurUGGens&list=PLC0D4187BE2661850&index=2)

Antiquity interpretation

Other classical interpretations - Ptolemy's view?

There is another interpretation for this verse which many critics argue is the only one to accurately fit this verse on a literal reading (which there appears to be no reason it shouldn't be as God's word), which we will discuss below in the historical context. Which fits a prevalent antiquity (and pre-antiquity) view which was present across this region, and is held in biblical cosmology and later Christian/Jewish exegesis, that this refers to a somewhat magical cosmic ocean surrounding the Earth.

Whether the two seas mentioned in the Qur'an referred to these mythological seas or a more general inviolable barrier between bodies of salt and fresh water, critics argue that the verse in question is scientifically wrong.

Mention the two main articles from Western scholar articles - this has been examine heavily by Tomo Tesei?

The two seas in Islamic literature

Aftre Quran 18:60 says he won't give up until he reaches the two seas, or has progressed for many years/ages, implying this sea unction is extremely far from any land. Arabic word used for years.

(is Moses story necessary if he is already there?) not coming from the two seas? Only he will stop - remove long unnecessary section if it doesn't add anything Quran 18:60-82

In this story Moses goes with a 'servant of God' at the junction of the two seas, who is unnamed in the Qur'an but called 'Al-Khidr' in the Hadith. This man has extremely accurate foreknowledge of both future events and human nature (predestination), so he carries out seemingly strange immoral and tasks and asks Moses not to ask him about them - however Moses does, so after three events Al-Khidr parts ways with him and tells him why he committed the acts. He made a hole in the boat so it couldn't

This verse is expanded upon here: Sahih Bukhari 4:55:613

• Someone who has this foresight inclusion - future events and human nature (predestination) (ship sinking, boy becoming an unbeliever, orphans finding treasure) makes sense coming from god's sea - and disappears there after Moses keeps asking questions - this makes sense with them coming from a supernatural cosmic ocean
• the Islamic whale swimming in the ocean with Earth on it's back
• (put this section below the Islamic views part)?
• (Also Tommaso Tesei Some Cosmological Notions from Late Antiquity in Q 18:60–65: The Quran in Light of Its Cultural Context https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7817/jameroriesoci.135.1.19) article has futrther arguments

Map of world with encircling ocean (al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/al-bahr-al-muhit-SIM_1064) P57 KMMS map Karen C. Pinto. In God's Eyes: The Sacrality of the Seas in the Islamic Cartographic Vision https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=history_facpubs#:~:text=Teasing%20apart%20the%20depictions%2C%20this,Sea)%2Cand%20Bu%E1%B8%A5ayratKhw%C4%81rizm(Aral

Tomei Tomsei Cosmological notions (Tommaso Tesei Some Cosmological Notions from Late Antiquity in Q 18:60–65: The Quran in Light of Its Cultural Context https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7817/jameroriesoci.135.1.19) article on difficulty interpreting this verse, starting with the word saraban which has puzzled commentators + fish regaining life: All we know is that the fish breaks loose near a rock at the junction of the two seas and that this event indicates to Moses that he has reached the goal of his journey. When examined in light of a legend concerning Alexander’s journey to the Land of the Blessed, during which he fails to bathe in the water of life, the episode acquires more sense, however. Specifically, the fish’s escape represents an allusion to the resurrection of a salt ish after Alexander’s cook washes it in the water of life. The most ancient versions of this story are found in three sources preceding or contemporaneous to the rise of Islam: the Rec. β of the Alexander Romance (fourth/ifth century), the Babylonian Talmud (Tamīd, 32a–32b), and the so-called Syriac Alexander Song (ca. 630–635). Muslim exegetes introduced some elements of this legend in their explanation of the narrative told in the Quran. In fact, the ish’s escape episode is usually related to the motif of the water of life. 14 Western scholars, too, almost unanimously consider this story of Alexander to be behind the Quranic account. The motif of the source of life reported in the legend concerning Alexander should cer�tainly be understood in relation to the life-giving characteristics that Near Easterners attrib�uted to the sweet waters of the rivers. This concept is clearly manifested in the expression myʾ ḥyʾ, “living water,” that the author of the Syriac Alexander Song uses to designate the water of the miraculous source sought by Alexander....

When at v. 63 the Quran states that the ish “took its way in the sea in a marvelous way,” it evidently refers to its wondrously being revived upon contact with the miraculous water. In fact, the enigmatic episode acquires sense only if read in light of the dynamic described in the legend of the water of life, and the extreme vagueness with which the Quran describes the episode suggests that its audience was expected to be acquainted with the Alexander tale...

By following this watercourse Alexander is able to reach the earthly paradise, which here takes the place of the Land of the Blessed. This version of the story of Alexander relects a simple idea that follows the literal understanding of Gen 2:10–14, namely, that the earthly paradise could be reached by following the course of one of the four rivers. 24 In fact, sources conirm that during late antiquity it was widely held that paradise was a physical place situ�ated on the other side of the ocean encircling the earth. 25 In accordance with this concept, it was generally assumed that the rivers lowing from paradise passed under this ocean to reach the inhabited part of the world. This idea goes back at least to Ephrem (d. ca. 373), who in his commentary on Genesis (§2, ¶6) states: “Paradise is set on a great height, the rivers are swallowed up again and they go down to the sea as if through a tall water duct (ʾyk d-mn qtrynʾ) and so they pass through the earth which is under the sea into this land,” 26 and was taken up by other late antique authors, such as the above-mentioned Philostorgius and Seve�rian of Gabala, but also Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403) (Ancoratus, §58) and Augustine (d. 430) (Literal Meaning of Genesis, bk 8, §7; cf. Philo of Alexandria, Questions and Answers on Genesis, bk 1, §12). 27 The geographer Cosmas Indicopleustes (sixth century) also considers the four rivers to reach the inhabited world by following a subterranean course under the ocean: “the four rivers which divine scripture says emanate from Paradise cleave a pas�sage through the ocean and spring up in this earth” (Christian Topography, 2,81). 28 In his Homilies on Creation, the Syriac theologian and poet Narsai (d. 502) refers to a very similar concept about the course of the rivers from paradise to earth: “Glorious was its [paradise] spring, whose course lows at the four extremities [of the earth] / and like a pipe in the sea (w-ʾyk sylwʾ b-ymʾ), it passes [through it] without mixing [its water with it]” (Hom. 1, vv. 395–96)...

identiication of the water of life with the rivers of paradise, as conirmed by Philostorgius and, more signiicantly, in the Talmudic version of the Alexander legend, and, on the other hand, the idea that these rivers lowed underground beneath the sea from paradise to the inhabited earth, as several authors report—it seems very likely that saraban in Q 18:63 is meant to describe the subterranean passage under the sea that the ish takes once resur�rected by the miraculous water of the paradisiacal rivers...

The example of the life that rain brings to the arid soil (e.g., Q 43:11: “and Who sent down out of heaven water in measure; and We revived thereby a land that was dead; even so you shall be brought forth”) is often adduced as proof of God’s ability to resurrect from death. (life creating qualities of cosmic ocean)..

In Quranic cosmology, this expression is possibly intended to designate a place that has a specific role in the passage of the heavenly waters to earth. In light of the above, one can imagine majmaʿ al-baḥrayn as the place where the heavenly and terrestrial oceans meet, and from where the sweet waters reach the earth, by way of an underground course alluded to by the expression saraban

Islamic Views

Hadith and Qur'an

In the two most authoritative hadith collections, we see in Sahih Bukhari that Muhammad is recorded as saying that when going into the seven heavens on a night journey (see Buraq), the rivers in paradise came to Earth via the Nile and Euphrates. This clearly backs up the idea that fresh water comes in via a freshwater cosmic ocean

And this idea is backed up in Sahih Muslim:

From this Quran verse we see the highest heaven has a sea:

As well as a hadith in Sunan Ibn Majah's collection, which although is rated 'weak', show's early Muslim understanding of the verses sea in the sky, above the seventh heaven:

Islamic Commentaries

Al-Qurtubi, a prominent Sunni Scholar

Similarly Ibn Kathir

later commentaries after the flat earth model was rejected by astronomers state this barrier refers to land

This is obviously incorrect as coral doesn't form in fresh water, let alone springs. And the rivers are especially not connected - so is not a barrier between two seas?

large lakes referred to as seas, there is not a barrier between them. There are many lakes, springs and lagoons all over the world, they are not one body of water as the quran claims.

(https://islamqa.info/en/answers/165094/tafseer-of-the-verse-he-has-let-loose-the-two-seas-the-salt-water-and-the-sweet-meeting-together-between-them-is-a-barrier-which-none-of-them-can-transgress-ar-rahmaan-5519-20)

The Biblical and Judeo-Christian background literature

The story of Moses and his servant is one of four stories in Surah al-Kahf. Modern academic scholarship has identified antecedents of each story in the lore of late antiquity. This particular story is almost unanimously considered to derive from a legend about Alexander the Great and his search for the water of life. For details see the section on the four stories in Surah al-Kahf in the article Parallels Between the Qur'an and Late Antique Judeo-Christian Literature.

The bible itself also contains a sea above the Earth

Other religions an cosmic waters

This may be compared to the ancient Akkadian myth of the Abzu, the name for a fresh water underground sea that was given a religious quality in Sumerian and Akkadian mythology. Lakes, springs, rivers, wells, and other sources of fresh water were thought to draw their water from the Abzu underground sea, while the Ocean that surrounded the world was a saltwater sea. This underground sea is called Tehom in the Hebrew Bible. For example, Genesis 49:25 says, "blessings of the heavens above, and Tehom lying beneath".^[11] Wensinck explains,^[12] "Thus it appears that the idea of there being a sea of sweet water under our earth, the ancient Tehom, which is the source of springs and rivers, is common to the Western Semites". Similarly in Greek mythology, the world was surrounded by Oceanus, the world-ocean of classical antiquity. Oceanus was personified as the god Titan, whose consort was the aquatic sea goddess Tethys. It was also thought that rainfall was due a third ocean above the "Firmament of the Sky" (a vast reservoir above the firmament of the sky is also described in the Genesis creation narrative).

• https://archive.wikiislam.net/wiki/Meeting_of_Fresh_and_Salt_Water_in_the_Quran - Previous Wikiislam page on this 'miracle'
• Waters that Never mix - YouTube video