The Quran and Mountains: Difference between revisions

The [[Qur'an|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 [[Hadith|hadiths]]. In recent times, many Islamic scholars have argued that this conception is both scientifically sound and and instance of [[Scientific Miracles in the Quran|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|apologists]] I. A. Ibrahim and [[Zakir Naik]], Professor Zaghloul Raghib El Naggar (a geologist specializing in biostratification), and the Saudi-financed surgeon [[Bucailleism|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 challenge the advocates' interpretations of the relevant verses as well as their use and presentation of scientific information on the topic. Critics further claim that the Qur'an is scientifically inaccurate in its description of a specific time period in which mountains were supposedly formed and Allah having cast them into the earth.

The above verses are the Quranic six day creation account. In this description, mountains are created within a four day period (which is usually understood to overlap with the first two day period mentioned in the creation account). Critics note that rather than being confined to a closed period, mountain formation began early in Earth's history due to the process of [[w:Plate techtonics|plate tectonics]] (with accompanying earthquakes), has continued for billions of years, and continues to do so now and into the future. With each plate collision mountains keep on rising higher little by little. And when the plates start to move away from each other, then these mountains start to erode until after millions of years, they completely disappear. On a geological timescale, mountains are not "firmly set", but rather they rise and fall, and are replaced by other mountain ranges over time. For example, there existed no Mount Everest 250 million years ago. The Himilayan mountain range began to grow when two continental plates collided, which will eventually separate again and Everest will gradually erode and disappear completely.  

 

Moreover, there are other type of mountains too, which are formed when Lava comes out from inside the earth. When this lava cools down, it forms high and big mountains, which are known as [http://www.universetoday.com/29833/how-mountains-are-formed/ volcanic mountains].

Rasool Allah told that the poor people will enter in the paradise half a day before the rich people, '''means 500 years before the rich people (while whole day is equal to 1000 years of people's reckoning)'''. al-Tirmidhi and al-Nisai etc recorded it and al-Tirmidhi said that this tradition is 'Hasan Sahih' (i.e. authentic according to al-Tirmidhi). In another tradition, it was asked from Abu Hurayrah, '''how long is this half day'''? He replied: "Didn't you read Quran?" I said: "Yes." '''Upon that he recited me verse 22:47''' ... Companion S'ad was asked: "'''How long is this half day'''." He replied: "'''500 years'''". Ibn Abbas recited this verse and said that '''this is the length of those 6 days, in which Allah created the heavens and the earth''' (Ibn Jarir). While Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal described it in more clear words in his book "Refutation of al-Jahmia". Mujjahid said that this verse is similar to verse  5 of Surah al-Sajdah [(Quran 32:5) He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up to Him, '''on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning.''']}}</ref> On this basis (and the similar verse {{Quran|70|4}} about fifty thousand years), advocates argue that "day" (yawm) should not be taken literally. Critics argue that this is a sythesis not apparent in the creation account itself, and in any case 1000 or 50000 years would not indicate that the author was aware of the sheer scale of geological and cosmological time (billions of years).

{{Quote|{{Quran|16|15}}|

And He has cast into the earth firmly set mountains, lest it shift with you, and [made] rivers and roads, that you may be guided,}}

The word 'he has cast' is ''alqa'' (lam-qaf-ya), which in this form (Arabic verb form IV) is frequently used elsewhere in the Quran to mean throw or cast. It is the same word as is used in {{Quran|3|44}} when lots are cast using pens (it would be easy to imagine that mountains were similarly scattered), and {{Quran|12|10}} when the prophet Yusuf is cast down into the well, and in {{Quran|20|20}} when Moses casts down his staff, which becomes a snake.<ref>[http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000266.pdf Lane's Lexicon, Suppliment p. 3012 أَلْقَىٰ]</ref>

Again, mountain formation is described in this verse only as a past event, rather than an ongoing process. Furthermore, according to modern science, mountains are not 'placed'/'cast' over earth's surface, but they are formed when two plates collide with each other (and earthquakes take place), then the crust of one plate goes upwards and forms a mountain, while the crust of the other plate goes downwards.  

Some critics also note that in another verse, {{Quran|41|9}} discussed above, Allah placed on the earth mountains "from above it" (min fawqiha من فوقها), though almost all major translations interpret the Arabic simply to mean the mountains are above the earth's surface (both interpretations seem possible based on how the preposition and verb are used in some other verses).

The above verse uses the word awtādan, which means pegs or stakes placed in the ground<ref>awtādan [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000171.pdf Lane's Lexicon] p. 2917</ref> and also occurs in reference to Pharaoh's stakes for crucifixion in {{Quran|38|12}} and {{Quran|89|10}}.

Critics also point out that unlike pegs which are objects placed into something else, mountains caused by plate tectonics are of continuous material as the surrounding crust, albeit of a different shape due to geological processes. Moreover, they do not peg anything to something else since the underside of mountains merely protrude deeper than the surrounding crust into the Earth's mantle, which is molten and not a solid object.

===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.<ref name="A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam">[http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-b.htm A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam/ B) The Quran on Mountains] - Islam-Guide.com, accessed October 1, 2011</ref> 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-range|78|6|7}} which reads, “Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, And the mountains as pegs?”[[File:Anatomy_of_the_Earth-_Cailleux-_p_220.jpg|alt=|thumb|425x425px|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'.<ref>Click [[:File:Anatomy of the Earth- Cailleux- pp 220-221.jpg|here]] for a more complete view of the page scan.</ref> 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. Moreover, the so-called pegs do not attach the crust to anything, but merely protrude into the molten mantle of the earth.

====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.<ref name="A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam"></ref> Advocates respond by suggesting that when viewed in this more accurate representation, the mountains resemble 'blunt pegs'; critics disagree. [[File:Ch1-1-b-img1.jpg|alt=|thumb|425x425px|A depiction of isostasy with a more accurate vertical scale|center]][[File:Ch1-1-b-img3.jpg|alt=|thumb|425x425px|Another depiction of isostasy with a more accurate vertical scale|center]]

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.<ref>Dèzes, Pierre (1999) - [http://comp1.geol.unibas.ch/~zanskar/zanskar_geology.pdf Tectonic and metamorphic Evolution of the Central Himalayan Domain in Southeast Zanskar (Kashmir, India)] - Mémoires de Géologie. Doctoral thesis (Universite de Lausanne) 32: 149. ISSN 1015-3578</ref> The same is true for the Pyrenees.<ref>Jaume Vergés, Manel Fernàndez, Albert Martìnez - [{{Reference archive|1=http://www.virtualexplorer.com.au/article/2002/58/the-pyrenean-orogen/tert.html#figure.08|2=2011-10-02}} The Pyrenean orogen: pre-, syn-, and post-collisional evolution] - Journal of the Virtual Explorer, Electronic Edition, ISSN 1441-8142, volume 8, paper 4, doi:10.3809/jvirtex.2002.00058</ref>

[[File:Andestru.gif|alt=|thumb|425x425px|center]]

Critics conclude that what may at most be said regarding the roots of those mountains that possess them is that they resemble pegs 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 it.

[[File:Mountvstree.png|thumb|425x425px|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.   

==Mountains as stabilising the Earth==

A number of attempts are commonly made to interpret the following verses in light of modern science.

{{Quote|{{Quran|15|19}}|And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.}}

{{Quote|{{Quran|16|15}}|And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and rivers and roads; that ye may guide yourselves;}}

{{Quote|{{Quran|21|31}}|And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance. }}

{{Quote|{{Quran|31|10}}|He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky, and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature, in pairs.}}

As mentioned above, the phrases describing the mountains is the word rawaasiya (steadfast, anchors, used to mean mountains).<ref name="LexiconRawaasiya" />

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:{{Quote||Modern geologists describe the folds in the Earth as giving foundations to the mountains, and their dimensions go roughly one mile to roughly 10 miles. The stability of the Earth's crust results from the phenomenon of these folds.}}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.  

{{Quote||The role of mountains as stabilizers for the Earth's crust can be clearly seen in their very deep roots, and can be justified by the fact that the motions of the lithospheric plates only come to halt when a continent collides with another, producing a collisional type mountain, which is believed to be the last phase in mountain-building. Without mountains, the movement of lithospheric plates would have been much faster and their collision more drastic. Even though mountains do act as retarders for the plate movements, they should not be understood to be an independent force or factor, because they are the very product of this motion in the first place.}}

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').  

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

{{Quote||The sea-deep roots stabilize the continental masses (or plates), as plate motions are almost completely halted by their formation, especially when the mountain mass is finally entrapped within a continent as an old craton.<ref name="El Naggar">Dr. Zaghlool El-Naggar PhD - [{{Reference archive|1=http://www.elnaggarzr.com/en/main.php?id=54|2=2011-10-02}} The Mountains as Stabilizers for the Earth] - September 24, 2002</ref>}}

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'.<ref>[{{Reference archive|1=http://web.archive.org/web/20050206082002/http://www.elnaggarzr.com/CV-E.htm|2=2011-10-02}} Curriculum Vitae of Professor DR. Z H. M. El-Na ggar] - Elnaggarzr.com</ref> 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.

{{Quote||While it is true that many mountain ranges are composed of folded rocks (and the folds may be of large scale) it is not true that the folds render the crust stable. The very existence of the folds is evidence of instability in the crust.<ref>{{citation|title=The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science|author=Dr. William Campbell|chaper=Science and Revelation|url=https://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/s4c2a.html|year=2002|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140217001308/https://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/s4c2a.html|publisher=Middle East Resources|edition=2nd|ISBN=1-881085-03-01}}</ref>}}El Nagger also suggests that mountains stabilize the lithospheric plates by sinking into the asthenosphere.{{Quote|1=|2=The stabilization of lithospheric plates by mountains is effected by their sinking deeply into the zone of weakness of the Earth (the asthenosphere) as wooden pegs sink into the ground to stabilize the corners of a tent. Such a process of stabilization cannot take place without the presence of a viscous, plastic material under the outer rocky cover of the Earth, into which the mountains "roots" can float. In as much as the ship casts its anchor into the anchorage of a port to avoid the dangers of rolling and swaying by winds and waves, the Glorious Quran uses the term "Rawasi" (=moorings or firm anchors) to describe mountains. Such firm anchors do not only stabilize the lithospheric plates, but also the whole planet in its spinning around its own axis (nutation, recession, etc.).<ref name="El Naggar"></ref>}}

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.<ref>Jordan, T. H., Nature, 1978, 274, 544–548; Elasser, W. M., in The Application of Modern Physics to Earth and Planetary Interiors (ed. Runcorn, S. K.), Interscience, New York, 1969, pp. 223– 240; Morgan, W. J., J. Geophys. Res., 1968, 73, 1959–1970</ref>

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).<ref>Sankaran, A.V. - [{{Reference archive|1=http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102001/1158.pdf|2=2011-10-02}} CURRENT SCIENCE] - VOL. 81, NO. 9, 10 NOVEMBER 2001 pp. 1158-1160</ref>

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.<ref>[{{Reference archive|1=http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/zones.html|2=2011-10-02}} Earthquake zones] - U.S. Geological Survey</ref><center>[[File:Map_by_J.P._Rothé.gif|alt=|center|thumb|425x425px|J.P. Rothé's 1954 map]]</center>

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. [[File:Seis-states.gif|alt=|frame]]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.{{Quote|[{{Reference archive|1=http://asc-india.org/menu/seismi.htm|2=2011-10-02}} Seismicity of South Asia]<BR>ASC India|Why do earthquakes happen here?  

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.