Rawāsiya and Tamīda

Anoushirvan

So, this is where my dilemma lies.

I see only three possible options going forward (anyone feel free to enlighten me if you see any other options)

Either (1) the science is wrong, (2) the Qur'anic verses on this topic are wrong, or (3) rawsiya, an, and/or tamda are not being translated correctly into English.

Or I guess (4) I'm not approaching this the right way.

Peace Comrox,

I would say (2) and (4).
There are a lot of statements in Quran regarding Earth, Universe, and human creation that I consider to be scientifically inaccurate in our todays standards, not to say erroneous.

But I do not consider that they indicate that Quran is not from divine origine, contrary to Christians or atheists.

Purpose of Quran is not teach science, but to teach concepts of the Kitab, i.e. eternal God's will for mankind.
Likewise a messenger was sent to humans under the form of a human, and not under the form of an angel, concepts of the Kitab came under the form of concepts that people already knew, not under the form of concepts nobody could understand in the 7th century.

It didn't make sense, and still doesn't, to teach people using scientific concepts they were not ready to accept, because these concepts weren't aligned with what they used to know.

If you take for example these two verses

133 And He is the One who has spread out the land, and made in it stabilizers and rivers, and all the fruits He made in pairs. The night covers the day. In that are signs for a people who think.
1615 And He has cast onto the earth stabilizers so that it would not tumble with you, and rivers, and paths, perhaps you will be guided.

you will notice an opposition between stabilizers/moutains (rawsiya) and rivers (nahar).
Moutains represent solid faith, while rivers represent confusion the same word nahar also means tumult/chide in Arabic (see project root list).
Therefore you have a choice in your life follow tumultuous way (nahar) or follow God's path (subulan).

I'll let you analyse verses like this one
225 And give good news to those who believe and do good works that they will have estates with rivers (anhru) flowing beneath them....

huruf

There is nothing wrong with the rawasy it refers to the mountains and it says o that they can move with you.

the translation of 16.15 i wrong. It makes the usual mitake of changing the meaning to the opposite. It makes commlete sense. The isostasy principle means that the fact that moountains are anchored in the depth means that the can ocillat while maintaining stability. They are stabilisers. No error in qur'an.

Salaam

Wakas

peace all,

I think by the juxtaposition the implication of "an" is "lest" rather than "that" but I'm not certain.

And He cast in the earth/land solidly grounded lest it (earth/land) MYD with you

Miim-Ya-Dal = To be shaken, moved, agitated, spread, give food. It was/became in a state of motion or commotion. Was/Became agitated in a state or violent motion or commotion; or violently agitated. Turn/Twist about. Become contorted and convulsed. Quivered, trembled. Confound, perplex, amazed. Inclining from side to side.

http//corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=(311011)
3rd person feminine singular imperfect verb, subjunctive mood

The implication seems to be the solidly grounded mountains/anchors prevent (or reduce severity of) the earth/land MYD'ing with you, making it habitable.

Bender

Bender,

I think you are speaking of diacritical markers I do not acknowledge that your scholars claim alter pronunciation and meaning. You cannot see if it is if or that on the word alone, this depends on sentence structure and you get the sense if you are familiar with the language.

The word is always written and pronunciation the same.

Be well
Amenuel

RED You seem to know my scholars very well, can you give me 1 name of my scholars please?

BLUE Of course I am not as familiar with the language as you are, without the markers and my scholars I am lost.

GREEN For the moment I take you as my scholar, so please enlighten me with your wisdom how I should pronounce " "?
In or An or Un or maybe Anna or Inna or Unni or whatever you like and please tell me how you did come to this conclusion.
Maybe you can also translate this for me
btw I am only interested in the " " part so please spare me the "Being" and "Is Who Is" wisdom.

uq

Wakas,

peace all,

I think by the juxtaposition the implication of "an" is "lest" rather than "that" but I'm not certain.

And He cast in the earth/land solidly grounded lest it (earth/land) MYD with you

Miim-Ya-Dal = To be shaken, moved, agitated, spread, give food. It was/became in a state of motion or commotion. Was/Became agitated in a state or violent motion or commotion; or violently agitated. Turn/Twist about. Become contorted and convulsed. Quivered, trembled. Confound, perplex, amazed. Inclining from side to side.

http//corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=(311011)
3rd person feminine singular imperfect verb, subjunctive mood

The implication seems to be the solidly grounded mountains/anchors prevent (or reduce severity of) the earth/land MYD'ing with you, making it habitable.

That's exactly right bro.

When a verb follows in the subjunctive mood and is marked as an accusative, it is best rendered into English as Lest because it indicates the intended prevention of the act.

An example off the top of my head is Zaid fastened the camel's bridle lest it wander off. Note the Fata on the last letter of the last word of the sentence; this Fata indicates the verb's subjunctivity.

Comrox,

Thanks for the info. I paid particular attention to Dr. Avouac's statement in which he establishes that earthquakes are more likely to occur at fault lines. Speaking frankly, I would have thought that to be a given. I mean, where else are earthquakes likely to occur? It is only by the friction caused by the movement of two or more plates rubbing against each other that seismic activity can occur. Forgive my ignorance, but do you know of any other causes of seismic activity?

My apologies, I should have been clearer in my previous post. I meant to imply the following. How frequent and severe would earthquakes have been at a time in the earth's geological history at the stage in which its crust had cooled but before the stage in which mountain ranges began to form?

Knowing the answer to this question is likely to be purely theoretical, for it is no longer empirically quantifiable for the most part. Nonetheless, the theorised answer to this question can be compared to data of the crust of today's earth in order to garner a greater understanding of the effect of mountain ranges on the frequency and severity of earthquakes.

Having done that, I think we would be better-placed to falsify or verify the Quranic statements made in 1615, 2131, and 3110.

Bender

Wakas,

That's exactly right bro.

When a verb follows in the subjunctive mood and is marked as an accusative, it is best rendered into English as Lest because it indicates the intended prevention of the act.

An example off the top of my head is Zaid fastened the camel's bridle lest it wander off. Note the Fata on the last letter of the last word of the sentence; this Fata indicates the verb's subjunctivity.

An example from the quran would be nice.

do you know of any other causes of seismic activity?

In the Netherlands we have earthquakes because of extraction of gas.

The earth is in constant movement, according to this site tens of earthquakes with a magnitude of at least 1.5 in the last 24 hours.
So what does "lest it will shake with you" mean?

Comrox

Comrox,

Thanks for the info. I paid particular attention to Dr. Avouac's statement in which he establishes that earthquakes are more likely to occur at fault lines. Speaking frankly, I would have thought that to be a given. I mean, where else are earthquakes likely to occur? It is only by the friction caused by the movement of two or more plates rubbing against each other that seismic activity can occur. Forgive my ignorance, but do you know of any other causes of seismic activity?

I can find only two other causes that are possible; both of them having slimmer chances of producing an earthquake then tectonic plate movement and breakage. Here they are

(1) Volcanic activity.

Some, but not all, earthquakes are related to volcanoes. For example, most earthquakes are along the edges of tectonic plates. This is where most volcanoes are too. However, most earthquakes are caused by the interaction of the plates not the movement of magma.

Most earthquakes directly beneath a volcano are caused by the movement of magma. The magma exerts pressure on the rocks until it cracks the rock. Then the magma squirts into the crack and starts building pressure again. Every time the rock cracks it makes a small earthquake. These earthquakes are usually too weak to be felt but can be detected and recorded by sensitive instruments. Once the plumbing system of the volcano is open and magma is flowing through it, constant earthquake waves, called harmonic tremor, are recorded (but not felt).

source http//volcano.oregonstate.edu/how-are-volcanoes-and-earthquakes-related

(2) Man-made explosives.

Earthquake-like seismic waves can also be caused by explosions underground. These explosions may be set off to break rock while making tunnels for roads, railroads, subways, or mines. These explosions, however, don't cause very strong seismic waves. You may not even feel them. Sometimes seismic waves occur when the roof or walls of a mine collapse. These can sometimes be felt by people near the mine. The largest underground explosions, from tests of nuclear warheads (bombs), can create seismic waves very much like large earthquakes. This fact has been exploited as a means to enforce the global nuclear test ban, because no nuclear warhead can be detonated on earth without producing such seismic waves.

source http//www.geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/why.html

My apologies, I should have been clearer in my previous post. I meant to imply the following. How frequent and severe would earthquakes have been at a time in the earth's geological history at the stage in which its crust had cooled but before the stage in which mountain ranges began to form?

Knowing the answer to this question is likely to be purely theoretical, for it is no longer empirically quantifiable for the most part. Nonetheless, the theorised answer to this question can be compared to data of the crust of today's earth in order to garner a greater understanding of the effect of mountain ranges on the frequency and severity of earthquakes.

There seems to be very, very little information on early Earth in relation to earthquakes and mountain formation. Concerning earthquakes, one article says the following

Since continents first formed, they've constantly shifted, with volcanoes and earthquakes shaping and reshaping the surface, islands and mountains emerging and being wiped out over the eons.

source http//www.livescience.com/6156-violent-planet-forces-shape-earth.html

From the above, I would say that earthquakes have existed as long as the tectonic plates themselves have existed. On the emerging theory of how tectonic plates formed

Starting roughly 4 billion years ago, cooler parts of Earths crust were pulled downwards into the warmer upper mantle, damaging and weakening the surrounding crust. The process happened again and again, the authors say, until the weak areas formed plate boundaries. Other researchers have estimated that a global tectonic plate system emerged around 3 billion years ago.

As the process repeated over time, it created a large tectonic plate with an active subduction zone. Over a much longer period, the same process could have created many tectonic plates, says co-author David Bercovici, a geophysicist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. Weve got a physical mechanism to explain how it could have happened, he says.

Bercovicis model suggests that early subduction created weak spots in Earths crust that are now plate boundaries. Plate tectonics is defined by the idea that strong plates are separated by weak boundaries, and action at those boundaries creates geological phenomena such as volcanoes, mountains and earthquakes, he notes.

source http//www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/earth-tectonic-plates-new-model_n_5104087.html

(Two definitions to help with understanding the above info

Subduction A geological process where one plate moves under another and is forced down into the mantle.

Subduction zone The boundaries that mark the collision between two of the planet's tectonic plates.)

So. We know Earth began roughly 4.6 billion years ago. The tectonic plate system that allows earthquakes (and mountains) to be possible might have been fully formed on a global scale around ~3 billion years ago.

It's also hard to find information on when the earth cooled down enough, but this is what I've found

The Hadean Eon ended roughly 3.8 billion years ago with the onset of the Archean age. Much like the Hadean, this eon takes it name from a ancient Greek word, which in this case means beginning or origin. This refers to the fact that it was during this period that the Earth had cooled significantly and life forms began to evolve.

source http//www.universetoday.com/76509/how-was-the-earth-formed/

With this information, we can assume Earth and therefore Earth's crust had cooled a lot 3.8 billion years ago. This fits around the time that the global tectonic plate system was in place (give or take a few hundred million years).

The last piece of information we need is figuring out how long ago mountains formed. We only have some insight, given the mountain ranges that still exist today

Many scientists also believe that the Appalachian Mountains are the oldest mountains in the world. It is possible that the New River is older than any mountain range in the entire world. Finally, the New River's mountain contorting course has exposed rocks that are over 1 billion years old.

source https//www.nps.gov/neri/learn/nature/the-new-river-fact-or-fiction.htm

So we have a gap of 2 to 3 billion years between a cooled Earth with plate tectonics, to modern-day mountains and mountain ranges. I'm sure there were a lot of earthquakes then, but I'm not sure we can say if there would be more than there are today? Maybe someone else feels different on this subject.

I think it must be noted, however, that just because we have a gap of a few billion years between cooled Earth and mountains, it doesn't necessarily mean that Earth didn't have mountains before 1 billion years ago (I don't think it's fair to jump to that conclusion). It just means that no mountains have survived from an earlier time period.

I have to go now; I'm getting really sleepy and I will reply more in the morning.

Peace. peace

Comrox

An example from the quran would be nice.
In the Netherlands we have earthquakes because of extraction of gas.

Really? Do you have any scientific support or article to back up that claim?

The earth is in constant movement, according to this site tens of earthquakes with a magnitude of at least 1.5 in the last 24 hours.
So what does "lest it will shake with you" mean?

So crazy.

But can we feel all those earthquakes... isn't that the question? How many do we feel usually?

huruf

The earth is constantly moving. Mountains form and as they form the whole crust adjusts, and everything on the crust moves with it. Mountains do nnot tumble because as they form they take the shape of pegs as well tated in the Qur'an so that they are stable, they move but with everythig on them but they do nto tumble because they are stable and by the stability maintain the staility of the crust. When the adjustment has not been gradual and tensions accumulate, there happen earthquaques. Bur earthquaques of consideraation are rae bearing in mind the extension of the areas where the earth plates move todards eath other. The point is that any mountain with those movements eeven of lesser consideraation would indeed tumble if they were not well anchored a pegs into the depths so that they are stable.

Salaam

huruf