Islamic Disuse and Twisting, Etc. of
Earth and Geology
25 Nov 2012
E: Earth and Geology.
Ea. The creation of the Earth.
Eb. Description of the Earth.
Ec. The future of the Earth.
Ea. The creation of the Earth.
Ea1. (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).
“We placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so that it would not move under them - - -“. It is strange how some Muslim debaters find Quran versions saying exactly what they need to be able to make claims or proofs or explanations. Here MI/SMQ wants to “prove” that the so-called roots of mountains were foretold in the Quran, and that a word like “embedded” may fit – it is nor a proof for anything, but it might be used as a basis for claims about it being a proof.
As strangely the more serious translators in such cases all too often have more down to earth translations, and translations more difficult to twist or disuse. In this case M. Yusuf Ali has; “And We (Allah*) have set on earth mountains standing firm - - -“, and Shakir; “And We have made great mountains in the earth - - -“. Not one word about “embedded” or “roots” of the mountains.
This “proof” simply is a made up one – but then dishonesty is well accepted in Islam if you “need” it to promote or defend the religion. (But how much is true in a religion partly relying on dishonesty? – and how much is a dishonest religion worth?)
As an extra raisin we may mention that the original Arab word here translated with “places” , “set”, or “made”, in reality means “dropped”, and is the same word a sailor uses when he drops an anchor. But no mountain ever was dropped onto Earth.
Ea2. (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).
“We placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so that it would not move under them - - -“. What MI/SMQ here “forgets” to mention, is that the words they translate with “would not move under them”, in reality means that the mountains are needed to stabilize the flat Earth so that it would not start wobbling and then may be turn over and drop the living beings off. This really was what Muhammad told. (Muslims normally explains this away with earthquakes, but that is not what the Quran really says).
Ea3. (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).
“This is because modern astronomical findings have disclosed that the iron found in our world has come from giant stars in outer space”. This MI/SMQ calls “the miracle of iron”, and refers to 57/25: “. . . And We (Allah*) sent down Iron - - -“.
What kind of scientific nonsense is this? – or cheating or lack of knowledge? EVERYTHING on and in Earth, with the possible exception of hydrogen, some of the helium and perhaps some of the lithium, came from big stars which went supernova. Muhammad only claimed that his powerful god had sent down the good thing iron – just like Muhammad claimed (never proved, but claimed like always for Muhammad) Allah sent down all the good things. But he does not express the faintest word about the reality: That everything came from the deep universe (and not from his god), and that everything came from exploded stars (and not from his god).
This “miracle” or “proof” is meaningless – especially since the fact we mention is pre-university stuff, and MI/SMQ has got to know it if he/she has at least a little education after primary school. Muhammad boasts about the power of his god, and MI/SMQ claims it is a proof for the Quran. To be a proof for the Quran, Islam first will have to prove that Muhammad knew that the iron – and everything – came from the stars, and that he was not just boasting about the power of his god, and that he knew it came from former stars and was not just created by his claimed god (if he did not know this, the fact that it came from earlier generations of stars, does not prove he knew from where it came.)
This is one
more claim, not a proof. Claims are cheap and are easy to pick up –
and to make up.
Eb. The description of the Earth.
Eb1: (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).
“It is He (Allah*) who sends down water in due measure - - -“. This MI/SMQ claims is proved – and thus a proof for the divine origin of the Quran – by the fact that it rains just as much on Earth as it first evaporates (and far from always in due measure). And where is the proof for that it is Allah who sends down the rain, and not f.x. nature - - - or f.x. Yahweh or another god? “A roof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclution”.
Even omitting the fact that it is not proved that it is Allah who us behind the water circle, and thus that this claim in no case can prove anything at all of such things, this “proof” is a bit too naïve to serve adults. When one knows that the water circle is a closed circuit, it hardly takes even primary school to understand that the amount of rain over time exactly balances the amount of evaporated water.
To claim that such a fact is a proof for the Quran or for Allah, only tells something about the brain of the writer.
Eb2: “Science have recently discovered that at the very bottom of the ocean it is completely dark, meaning there is no light”, ETT states and refers to 24/40 which mentions darkness in deep oceans.
In what corner of your class-room have you been sleeping when the teacher was speaking, ETT? This is age old knowledge. If you swim on the high sea and get your open eyes under the water, you see it. There also is an age old fishing device – a small sheet of glass at the end of f.x. a 20-30 cm long, wide “tube” (often made from wood) . Put the piece of glass on the water, and you get an excellent view of possible fish, etc. - - - and of the darkness below. Also the art of diving for salvaging things is some 2ooo years old, and also such divers saw what happened to light in the seas. (Also remember that the quran does not say the deep sea is black, only that they are dark – easy to see when f.x. swimming any place where the sea is deep, and you try to look down (and not difficult from there on to guess that the really deep places it is black, but blackness Muhammad does not mention)).
We guess ETT is a desert dweller – only a desert dweller or a very badly informed person could find a nonsense “proof” like this. No statement of what “everybody” knew is a proof for that Muhammad/the Quran knew something unknown – it is not even an indication for anything but that ETT knows little about what he/she is writing about.
Islam and its Muslims often have problems with the rules for making logically correct conclusions, and they also often seem to be unable to - or do not want to - see the difference between words like “a coincidence”, “possible”, “perhaps”, “probably”, “likely”, etc., etc., and the word “proof”. If they like a point, they use it or twist it and name it “a proof”. But a definition for a proof is: “A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”. Here more than one conclusion are possible – and the most likely one is that Muhammad had been told about the darkness in the deep sea.
At best a weakly based claim, not a proof.
Eb3. (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).
“It is Allah Who sends the winds which stirs up clouds (not the sea, but clouds*) which He spreads about the sky however He wills. He forms them into dark clumps, and you see the rain come pouring out from the middle of them” (30/48). This MI/SMQ claims is the exact way the water circle works in nature (impossible to tell, because the Quran gives far too few details + this quote is “doctored” a little to make it look closer to scientific realities).
M. Yusuf Ali translates: “It is Allah who sends the Winds, and they raise the Clouds: then does He spread them in the sky as He wills, and break them into fragments (raindrops*) - - -“. Shakir says nearly the same – and some details far from what MI/SMQ says (lucky Muslim debaters who very often find Quranic texts closer to the real word than do the best translators).
This verse does not describe the water circle. It simply describes the rain in Arabia: Wind sometimes may bring clouds, and the clouds are spread over the land and sometimes gives rain.
But now something happens: According to Yusuf Ali and to Shakir Allah breaks the clouds into small pieces; raindrops. MI/SMQ does not meet this problem, because for some reason his/her text luckily is different. That the clouds are broken into raindrops, is exactly the opposite of what really happens: Droplets drifts together and form drops.
Thus for one part this verse like quoted from MI/SMQ only covers parts of the water circle – in spite of MI/SMQ’s claims – and the parts easy for everybody to see. In addition reasonably reliable translators’ translations show that the forming of drops is wrong in the Quran – something MI/SMQ manges to hide by “fixing” the translation a little. Like showed several times before: Honesty is not the main thing for many Muslims when trying to prove that the Quran is “The Truth”.
MI/SMQ’s claimed proof is invalid – building partly on incomplete information (the first part of the water circle is not mentioned in the Quran), and partly on wrong facts (f.x. breaking up clouds instead of condensation/melting together of droplets). And not least: It is not proved that Allah has anything to do with it, and thus even if MI/SMQ had had his/her facts correct, this thus could not prove anything about a divine connection between Allah and the Quran (this in addition to that all the errors and worse in the Quran proves no god was involved in the making or delivery of it).
We may add that HAN claims this verse gives “an accurate description of the water cycle”. But for one thing the description of the cycle is neither accurate nor complete – it f.x. only describes rain, not the evaporation, and for another the description on how the drops are made is wrong (which means it only and in a primitive way describes half of the water cycle + at least one marked error – but then the truth in a claim is not always the main thing for a Muslim in a religious debate, but to “prove” that the Quran is correct and divine - - - with honest or dishonest means.
Eb4. (From “Evidence that Islam is true” - EIT).
“Have We (Allah*) not made the earth as a wide expanse and the mountain as pegs?” (78/6-7)
You may notice that EIT does not comment on “a wide expanse”, which means something wide and flat, and is one of the places where the Quran indicates that Earth is flat.
Pegs are something long and thin – limited wide, limited broad, but often of relatively good length. When used – f.x. as a tent peg - part of it is above earth and part below. The Quran nowhere indicates if it is talking about the part above the Earth – the visible mountains – or the part below – the “root” of the mountain, or both.
If Muhammad meant the mountains standing like tall pegs, Muslims’ argumentations all are wrong.
If he indicated what is below, it still is wrong, as the mountains’ “roots” are not formed like pegs. If you cut a mountain and its “root” along the mountain, you will get a picture like a long sheet, and if you cut across, you will get roughly a semi-circular picture of the “root”. The “root” of a mountain – not to mention a mountain chain (f.x. the Andes or the Rocky Mountains) – is roughly the shape of a long through, and far, often VERY far, from the shape of a peg.
You may say there may be an exception in the case of so-called subduction zones – zones where one sheet of the crust of the Earth – a tectonic plate - is forced down under another. In this case you may get a kind of long and quite deep sheet instead of a through, but definitely no peg. (As far as we know there is no subduction zone in or near Arabia – there is a rift along the Dead Sea and Red Sea and into East Africa, but that is something else).
The final funny thing concerning mountains and the Quran, is that Muhammad claimed the mountains were dropped down (no Muslim mentions this if he can avoid it, as no mountain ever was dropped down – the same verb is use as when a sailor drops an anchor) in order to stabilize the flat Earth so that it should not start wobbling and perhaps turn over and drop you off. Muslims of today, however, claim he meant it to stop earthquakes. But also this is somewhat ironic, as mountains do not hinder earthquakes, and as at least the growing of mountains means just earthquakes and sometimes volcanism.
Also this claim is invalid as a proof, as the given facts are not correct – and also because it is not proved that Muhammad meant the roots of mountains. With good-will you may call it an indication, but not a proof.
Eb5. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“That (the function of mountains*) is, we may liken mountains to nails that keep wood pieces together”. This is such a geological nonsense, that we do not bother to comment on it, except that if there is a function mountains do not have, it is to fix the tectonic plates (large pieces ot the Earth’s crust) together, like ICCI indicates/claims.
Some “proof” for divine knowledge and thus divine origin in/of the Quran! – based on a completely wrong fact!
Eb6. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19).
“Moreover, the pressure the mountains exert on the crust of the earth - - - prevent the magma movements of the core of earth from reaching the earth (what does this mean?*) and destroy the earth’s crust”. This is scientific nonsense.
· The radius of Earth is very roughly 4000 miles/6.400 km. The mantle is fluid and the upper core at least semi-fluid = ca. . (Further down it is solid again because of the high pressure. To give the different layers – our table is in km, but divide by 1.6 and you get it in miles: The crust = some 30 km, the upper mantle = some 720 km, the lower mantle = some 2170 km, the outer core some 2260 km, and the inner core some 1220 km. Note that this is the normal way of defining layers in the Earth = 5 layers. Some Muslims have found a way to find 7 layers, and claim these 7 layers = the 7 earths mentioned in the Quran (f.x. 65/12), and thus that these verses are proved right – nonsense for some reasons.)
· The “roots” of mountains punch a few/some miles/km down into this.
· How much do you think a few miles/km of “mountain roots” mean to the movements in a layer some 3220 miles/5150 km deep – or even some 1800 miles/2890 km if you only reckon the mantle? (But the “roots” may give the movements in the magma – the melted stone – better grip on the crust, and strengthen the crust’s movements, and thus make more earthquakes).
· The “enormous” weight of the mountains just is a few percents or less of the total weight of the crust – which again only is some small percents of the weight of the magma, and even less if you add the upper core. It means little or nearly nothing to the total weight of the crust and it’s (wrongly claimed) keeping down of the magma. (What keeps the magma down there, is not the weight of the crust – not any more that the weight of a sheet of ice keeps the water under it down (like the ice, the crust is only floating on the magma).
· The hot magma is not kept down by the weight of the crust/mountains. The real reason is that it is made from heavier kinds of minerals and metals than the crust, and thus sinks down – secondary school physics.
· Also: The making of mountains produces lots of earthquakes – it does not hinder them. We may here add that the Quran in reality does not talk about the danger from earthquakes when it talks about mountains stabilizing Earth – it talks about the danger that the flat Earth may start wobbling and perhaps capsize. But Muslims have turned to earthquakes after it became clear that the real meaning in the Quran is utterly wrong.
· We also point to the fact that ICCI quietly forgets to mention the other method of making mountains: The eruptive ones. May the reason be that it is well known they often make earthquakes?
ICCI concludes with: “It is very interesting that these technical facts - - - were revealed in the Quran centuries ago”. But:
· Not one of these technical facts is mentioned in the Quran. ICCI only claims it is.
· The “magic of similarity” – that similarity or claimed similarity, real or twisted, are proofs – you meet very often from Muslims.
· Several of ICCI’s geological “facts” are wrong – but are claimed to be interesting real facts revealed in the Quran. What does it mean that the Quran reveals wrong scientific facts?
Once more: Some “proof”!
Eb7. (From The House of the Crescent Moon – HCM.)
“It is now known that large, deep bodies of water bordering each other (often too deep for diving before the invention of scuba gear) are separated by a physical barrier” (ref. 27/61).
· Even if it was too deep to find the shallow and the deep parts by diving, it was easily done when fishing – a fisherman quickly learns where there are deep or shallow water – included where there are under water barriers.
· Worse: Other verses in the Quran tells that when the book talks about “the two waters” etc, it talks about sweet water contra salt water (f.x. 25/53 and 35/12 – something any knower of the Quran knows). It is common knowledge that there are barriers – land – between sweet water and the sea. It is common knowledge and proves no divine knowledge in the Quran. The “proof” is invalid also for this reason.
· Worst: There is no way people in HMC have not read the Quran, and thus no way they do not know that the Quran in cases like this talks about sweet vs. salt water (f.x. 25/53 and 35/12). Thus this claimed “proof” is based on dishonesty - - - and is invalid also for this reason, as it talks about something entirely different from what HCM pretends (a Hilah – a lawful pretending?), and about something easy to see without the help from any god.
Eb8. (From The House of the Crescent Moon – HCM.)
“By the burning sea” (52/6). HCM claims this refers to hot springs, etc. under the sea (sometimes called Black Smokers), springs Muhammad impossibly could know about. But:
· Where is the proof for that this was what Muhammad meant? If this is not first proved, this verse is no proof for divine knowledge in the Quran.
· If you have ever seen a sunrise or sundown over a calm sea, you have seen “a burning sea”.
An invalid “proof”. For one thing central underlying claims are not proved, and for another at least 2 conclusions/explanations are possible. (“A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”.)
Another and very serious point is that “the burning sea” is not what the original Quran says. A. Yusuf Ali (according to Islam one of the 3 best translators of the Quran to English, and likely the very best – the other 2 are M. H. Shakir and Picthal): “- - - the ocean filled with Swell - - -“. M. H. Shakir: “- - - And the swollen sea - - -“, Muhammad Asad: “- - - the surf-swollen sea - - -“. Not one word about “burning sea”. HCM either has changed the text or cherry-picked a “special” translation to find a point. Honesty has no first priority for Muslims or for Islam when it comes to – right or wrong and by honest or dishonest means – “proving” that the Quran is true. The goal is not to find the truth, but to prove the Quran is the truth and from a god – right or wrong.
We add that the oath used in this connection well can be about what happens at the Day of Doom, when the oceans according to the Quran will burn. HCM claims this explanation is impossible, as the oath is about its present and the Day of Doom is in the future. But there is no prohibition against swearing by something in the future, if that “something” is an established or accepted “fact”.
A made up, wrong, and invalid “proof”. And if the Quran really is talking about the swell of the sea, and not a burning sea, this “proof” is not only invalid, but irrelevant for the point. And dishonest.
Eb9. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“’He (Allah*) wraps the night up in the day, and wraps the day up in the night’ - - - This situation can only be true if the earth is round”. A “proof” for that Muhammad knew that the Earth was a sphere.
· But what does it mean that day is wrapped up by night, etc.?
· Does this in reality happen?
· Night in reality just is the lack of light. You cannot wrap anything up in the lack of something – and it would be extra impossible to wrap light up in lack of light.
· In f.x. Arabia the effect could have been similar even if Earth was a cylinder, if the sun was placed over its “equator”.
· We may add that night – full darkness – is an inverted cone (as seen from the sun) with (nearly) total lack of light, surrounded by a larger cut (by the Earth) cone of partly darkness (morning and evening). Both these are constants and do not move, relative to Earth – it only looks like that because of Earth’s spin. Day and night simply do not “wrap each other up” – they are neighbors, but do not “inflict” anything on each other in such a way. Any god had known this – then who made the Quran?
· The Quran tells that the sun (and the moon) “swim along in its course” = the sun moves over Earth (f.x. 21/33, 36/38, 55/5). If it is the sun/day which moves, the night and day can change softly no matter what form Earth has, at least if the speed of the sun is regulated.
· The Quran tells that night and day follow their courses = it is they who move. In that case the shape of Earth does not matter - the gradual change between night and day could happen no matter what shape the Earth had, included flat - because it would depend on the movement of night and day.
· But the real point: Muhammad saw how day and night changed. He did not need to know the shape of Earth - he only described what he saw.
It is highly – very highly – likely that point h is the explanation for Muhammad’s words, but several possible explanations/conclusions are possible.
“A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”. In addition the highly reason for the words is something of most common knowledge – the change between day and night. Definitely no divine knowledge necessary. This is not a proof – not even a decent claim.
The claimed “proof” is invalid.
“Proofs” of this quality – where the explanation is so obvious as in point h here – either proves lack of brain or lack of honesty. In the last case someone has found an obviously invalid “argument”, but uses it all the same, because one sees it works – said in the right way, not everybody remember here that you do not need to know the shape of Earth to be able to describe the daybreak or nightfall one sees every day. Go looking, and you will find some Islamic “proofs” of this category. Honesty or the search for the truth is not always a central point for Muslims trying to prove the Quran.
Ec. The future of the Earth.
Ec1. (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).
“You will see the mountains you reckoned to be solid going past like clouds” (27/88). MI/SMQ claims that this proves that the Quran has foretold the tectonic movements in the Earth, which was discovered last century – this in spite of that movements from 0 to 4 inches (0 to 10 cm) a YEAR just is not similar to the movements of clouds. But read the previous verse (27/87) and you will see that this is a claimed foretelling about things which are to happen at the Day of Doom. It is not possible that MI/SMQ knows the Quran so badly that he/she is not aware of this, but all the same he/she makes up a claimed “proof” from this verse. Well, we have some places commented on many Muslims’ view on the use of dishonesty or search for the truth when it comes to promoting or defending Islam.
>>> Go to Next Part
>>> Go to Previous Part
This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".