The Qur'an and Mountains

This article analyzes the apologetic claim that the Qur'an is validated by the geological science concerning mountains.

Introduction

Many articles have been written in response to the claim that the Qur'an is validated by the geological science concerning mountains. This article adds to these by addressing several newer points that have been adopted to justify the original claim or to evade contrary scientific evidence.

Due to what some refer to as the ‘richness of the Arabic language,’ apologists such as I. A. Ibrahim have been able to use the vague interpretations of several Qur'anic verses in their attempt to prove the scientific validity of the Qur'an. In this, they are backed by a Muslim geologist specializing in biostratification, Professor Zaghloul Raghib El Naggar, and a western surgeon, Dr. Maurice Bucaille.

Apologists' Debating Technique

There are two elements to this claim that the Qur'an had foreshadowed the scientific knowledge concerning mountains:

1. Mountains are pegs.
2. Mountains stabilize the crust or the earth.

Some of the tactics that are used to argue their case are as follows:

1. If a word has multiple meanings or translations, they will choose the one that suits them best at the time, ignoring all the rest as if they never existed.
2. If unable to come up with a valid response, they will claim that only a genuine intimacy with Classical Arabic will enable the proper understanding of a given verse and then, rather ironically, proceed to argue in the English language.
3. They will add complexity to an otherwise ‘simple’ verse without explanation nor justification. An example is the extension from ‘peg’ to ‘isostacy’ to ‘stabilize the crust/lithosphere/earth’.
4. They will switch from the ‘literal’ to ‘metaphorical’ case whenever convenient. A sure sign of loss will be when they claim that the Qur'an is not a book of Science but Scripture, despite previously or concurrently promulgating the validity of ‘Qur'anic Science’.

Relevant Verses and Terms

The relevant Qur'anic verses are:

The relevant Arabic terms are: awtad for pegs/bulwarks/stabilizers/ projections;^[1] rawasiya for mountains, and tameeda for tumble/shake/quake/convulse/sway etc.^[2]

Wehr translates this word as unshakable mountains. The Munjid says (al-jibal al-thawabat al-ruwasikh) firmly established, fixed mountains. The word comes from the root (arsa), the same root used for the Arabic word for anchor. To throw out or cast the anchor is (alqa almirsah). So instead of "cast the anchor to keep the ship from moving", we have "cast the mountains to keep the earth from shaking."^[2]

Dr. Zakir Naik translated awtad as stakes or pegs (like those used to anchor a tent).^[1]

The most pertinent verse is 16:15 transliterated as follows:

Waalqa fee al-ardi rawasiya an tameeda bikum waanharan wasubulan laAAallakum tahtadoona.

Note the verse uses the word 'ard' which can be used to describe the Earth, its surface, or the ground in general, an example of apologetic language vagueness – meaning that it can refer to anything from the Earth, the crust, the lithosphere, the mantle or any combination of the above that suits the apologist's argument at the time.

Also note that the word ‘tameeda’ is claimed to refer to shaking or disturbance, as opposed to ‘zalzala’ which means ‘earthquake.’ A further dissection of this term will be given later.

Other interpretations of verse 21:31 are as follows:

There is another verse that may suggest that Mountains have roots, but only when apologists choose to use a certain definition in a typically vague verse:

Many translations translate the word 'yansifuha' as wipe out, break, carry away, annihilate, destroy, and crush, but apologists will prefer the meaning, ‘uproot’, as the Yusuf Ali and Al-Muntakhab versions have done.

Discussion

A summary of the apologetic case is as follows:

Mountains have deep roots thus they resemble ‘pegs’

The above schematic diagram is taken from "Anatomy of the Earth", Cailleux, p. 220, and is cited by various Islamic websites.^[3]

Superficially it would seem they have a point. Verse 78:6-7 says, “Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, And the mountains as pegs?”

They point to the fact of isostacy where the bulk of the mountain extends into the upper mantle as proof that Prophet Muhammad could not have known that mountains were ‘pegs’ staking the crust to the upper mantle unless Allah told him.

Sounds convincing? Herein lies the genius of the Qur'an – to make definitions so vague as to provide apologists with sufficient ‘wriggle room’.

Analysis

What they fail to provide is the accompanying description given directly above the schematic diagram,^[4] pointing out that the vertical scale has been greatly exaggerated.

The following pictures from the same Islamic sites^[3] resemble ‘very blunt’ pegs. In fact, they resemble pegs only with imagination.

The observation here is that they equate ‘deep mountain roots’ with ‘pegs’. There are several difficulties with this interpretation in that not all mountains have peg-like roots. An analysis of mountain formation reveals the fact that not all mountains have peg-like roots, for example volcanoes; those formed by extension and faulting (e.g. the Nevada Basin and Range); thrust and fold belts (e.g. Appalachians, Eastern Bolivian Andes, Zagros Mountain, the Calcareous Alps). A cross-section of the collisional Himalayas reveals a broad ‘wedge’ rather than Cailleux’s schematic ‘peg’ diagram,^[5] as do the Pyrenees.^[6]

The diagram below is a true scale cross section of the Andes mountain range. The mountains and their “roots” (which do not resemble “pegs” in the slightest) are in yellow.

Therefore it appears likely that they are mistaken when claiming mountains are pegs in the literal sense. They base their claims on a single, greatly exaggerated, schematic diagram and not from a more comprehensive survey of mountain types and genuine geological data.

For these reasons, it can be conceded that mountains are pegs only in the metaphorical sense, but definitely not in the literal sense.

They also seem incredulous that Muhammad should have known that mountains have 'roots', arguing that since the bulk of the mountain is below ground it is unobservable. Muhammad could only have referred to mountain roots (like pegs) from a divine source. However, this may not be true since ancient people already knew mountains have roots. For example, the ancient Hebrews seemed to have acquired this knowledge.

Deep roots stabilize the earth (or mountain roots act as pegs)

Analysis

The author of this proposition seems to have confused Cause with Effect. In his example of continental-collisional type mountains, he failed to see that mountains are caused by tectonic plate collision and do not effect plate stabilization.

It is possible that the reason why lithospheric plates come to a (slow) halt is not due to mountains but due to the opposing plates. The author's proposition is akin to saying that in an automobile collision, the crushed engine compartment stabilizes the car during the crash. In reality, the crushed engine compartment (analogy = mountain) is the effect of the crash (analogy = tectonic plate collision). It does not stabilize the car during the collision.

In short, there is no scientific evidence that continental-collisional type mountains stabilize tectonic plates. All assertions to this effect are mere opinion without scientific foundations.

Mountains stabilize the earth because plate movements are impeded by their formation

Analysis

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

Analysis

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]

Mountains prevent earthquakes

Analysis

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

Analysis

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).

Analysis

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’

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

Analysis

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

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

• Qur'an Predicted Land Decreasing
• I. A. Ibrahim - A hub page that leads to other articles related to I. A. Ibrahim

References