Rawāsiya and Tamīda
-
I apologise also for the use of that, the correct rendition, as you point out, is lest.
Giving the verse again, we have And He cast into the earth solidly grounded lest it should shake and tremble with you.
What word is "lest" ?
lest it shuld shake with you is wrong, it is adding words there there are not.
I think translators translate as "lest" which of course is nonsense.
Interestingly enough, it appears that 787 uses another word for mountains - "jibla"?
we have at least
rawasiya = mountain(s)
jibaal = mountain(s)
tur = mountain(s)
tawdi = mountain(s)Enough evidence that translators have no clue about the language of the quran
-
Peace all,
lest it shuld shake with you is wrong, it is adding words there there are not. the meaning is so that it moves with you. which means that everything moves smoothly because the mountains are well tabilised. Like landshake buildins, they must have certain elasticity so that there is room for movement without breaking. That is what maountains do. But the translators seemnot to have understood it. So indeed everything on the earth moves, but provided it doe sso in such a way that that movent does not break the balance it is ok. I explained that. There is not intention that the earth shouldnot move but that it should move in such a way that life a safety on it are possible and that what is on it moves with it.
There i nothing worng or ununderstandable in the Qur'an' statements.
SalaamThat makes much more sense. Thank you. group
What word is "lest" ?
I think translators translate as "lest" which of course is nonsense.
Yup, is what they translate. You both seem to be at odds with uq then. Why do you think it is nonsense, and what would you suggest as the translation? )
we have at least
rawasiya = mountain(s)
jibaal = mountain(s)
tur = mountain(s)
tawdi = mountain(s)Enough evidence that translators have no clue about the language of the quran
rotfl Doesn't make sense that all of those could mean mountain, at least in the same sense of the word mountain...? nope
Thank you everyone on this thread again for your contributions. group yay
-
The rawasy I think are stabilisers and it may well be something similar to what uq has explained. In this case the Qur'an does not name the thing but the office of the thing the mountain in its office of stabilizer, thanks to their configuration as pegs, half above, half below, it oscilates so that movement has a check.
Tur, I think, Pazuzu explained in one of his books that it is a wooded muntain. I am not sure to remember well 100% but I think it was that, wooded land of course is always harder to erode and when it is a mountain, if it is not wooded obviously it is ar easier to strip of earth.
Tawdi, I would have to study.
By the way this reminds me of the several terms used in the Qur'an to explain how the human being ws made and the varied manners of matter mentioned most translated as mud or earth, but which I am sure give too many clues to consider that the task was more complex than the magic instantaneous apparition of a full fledged man out of a lump of mud -woman, we all know, that was later made in a restaurant, out of a spare rib, when God realised He had messed up with the male and tried to patch it somehow. Of course I am joking. It is hard for me not to joke here and there, specially when the matter lends itself.
I regret not to have a good (or bad) command of biology and antropology to apply into the study of all those terms from a scientific point of view. Because if am sure of anything it is that they are not there without a meaning.
Salaam
-
Peace all,
Yup, is what they translate. You both seem to be at odds with uq then. Why do you think it is nonsense, and what would you suggest as the translation? )
Hi,
RED Because nowhere it can be understood as "lest" and these verses are not exceptions.
BLUE I think means "that" (NOT a demonstrative pronoun). As in "eat Spinach you may become muscle" or "Allah commands you do this" -
The above-given words, that have all been translated as Mountains, each have different nuanced meanings in Classical Arabic. The reader is best referred to an Arabic-English lexicon to know the meaning of each.
Comrox, you mentioned that you are "confused since the whole "mountains prevent shaking" aspect of the verse seems to be such at odds with modern science and research."
My knowledge of geography and tectonic plates is limited to my school education, but if I remember correctly, mountains impede the movement of tectonic plates thereby anchoring the plates, this, in turn, limits the occurrence of major earthquakes and thwarts their severity when they do occur.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Comrox, you mentioned that you are "confused since the whole "mountains prevent shaking" aspect of the verse seems to be such at odds with modern science and research."
My knowledge of geography and tectonic plates is limited to my school education, but if I remember correctly, mountains impede the movement of tectonic plates thereby anchoring the plates, this, in turn, limits the occurrence of major earthquakes and thwarts their severity when they do occur.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
First let me just start out with the basics of what I know and have researched Mountains are formed because of tectonic plate movement. Tectonic plates aren't stable and they are frequently in motion, no matter how small. When plates crash into each other, they push up against one another. So mountains require tectonic plate contact. Earthquakes require tectonic plate contact too, and built up energy released to Earth's surface from the friction of the plates (source http//earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/kids/eqscience.php).
So from what I have looked at and the above explanation, it seems the earth could be experiencing earthquakes (that we can feel) during the continuing formation of a mountain because of that specific plate moment. But it must also be noted that mountains take a long time to form, from tens of thousands of years to even millions of years (so the plate changes can often be much too small for humans to detect on the surface; thus "earthquakes" happening below often don't even reach the surface).
The famous Mount Everest is still growing (albeit very, very slowly - by a half-inch every year) because of the tectonic plates still pushing up against each other even now (sources of all of the above information http//wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-are-mountains-made/ and http//community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900917&slug=1093659).
Quote from another article on mountain formation and earthquakes
Tectonic plates may hold landmasses, water bodies or both. The plates arent static -- that is, they move around, and their movements usually arent smooth or continuous. A plate may seem to sit still for many years, but then lurches forward a certain distance in a matter of seconds. It is this abrupt shifting of plates against one another that is responsible for most earthquakes. Over millions of years, the accumulation of many plate shifts result in significant changes to the face of the Earth -- including the formation of mountains.
source http//classroom.synonym.com/earthquake-activities-influence-formation-mountains-22552.html
Quote from the article on Mount Everest's growth
Mount Everest grows about a half-inch taller each year as the Himalaya Mountains are pushed up by the creeping collision between the Indian and Asian land masses. The resulting Earth strains make the entire region vulnerable to large earthquakes.
source http//community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900917&slug=1093659
In 1847 God speaks about moving or removing mountains (jibla) to see the earth as a level plain. I'm no geologist, but I'm not sure if it's even possible for there to be no mountains on the earth at one time, given the existence of plate tectonics and their nature. I suppose this statement could be taken allegorically or on a regional scale only, perhaps (as opposed to a world wide scale).
There are mountains that exist even at the bottom of the ocean. These are called seafloor mountains. The peaks of seafloor mountains can supposedly halt big earthquakes from occurring and causing devastation to a region. This article I'm reading (source http//www.livescience.com/18548-diving-mountains-stop-start-earthquakes-subduction-seamounts.html) explains the seafloor mountains may break up a tectonic plate in smaller increments than the tectonic plate would if that particular mountain type wasn't there. Earthquakes would still occur because of the tectonic plate breaking up, but it would not be one large earthquake and instead be a series of small ones, is the point. And there are thousands of these seafloor mountains (source http//www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29465446).
Sounds like these "seafloor mountains" are doing more good than harm, but then the author of the article says this
Yet new research suggests these burrowing mountains can also play the villain.
"They could form a barrier to a giant earthquake and they could also easily trigger a giant earthquake," said Roland von Huene, a veteran geophysicist who has studied subducting seamounts for more than 30 years.
source http//www.livescience.com/18548-diving-mountains-stop-start-earthquakes-subduction-seamounts.html
I guess the question I would have concerning the information above, is if God was addressing these types of sea mountains to the audience of the Qur'an? There is nothing to suggest (in 1615) that He was referring to these specific mountains, but rather mountains in general. Reference to casting these mountains on the earth (in 1615) suggests that God was only referring to mountains on land?
Going back to mountains on land - the earthquake that hit Nepal last year affected the Himalayas - dropping their height by 3 feet, and dropping the surrounding areas by 5 feet. If mountains were supposed to prevent the earth from shaking, surely these areas should not have dropped in the first place?
Satellite imagery shows that the parts of the Himalayas sank three feetand the area around it as much as five feetas tectonic plates snapped under extreme pressure.
source http//factually.gizmodo.com/the-himalayas-dropped-3-feet-after-the-nepal-earthquake-1704285067
All this information seems to prove that tectonic plates are unstable, and therefore the resulting land and mountains are unstable and unpredictable as well.
--
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. ) peace
Hi,
RED Because nowhere it can be understood as "lest" and these verses are not exceptions.
BLUE I think means "that" (NOT a demonstrative pronoun). As in "eat Spinach you may become muscle" or "Allah commands you do this"Time to try to find a Classical Arabic-English lexicon I guess. )
EDIT For kicks and giggles I typed into Google Translate, and the modern translation came up with "that" (according to Google at least ;D).
-
loosely means "it/that (is)", but that way of translating it not always applicable because this language is used differently from English. In some grammatical forms it also means "if" and that depends on the clause and is possible to make out by reading the whole sentence.
For example, "an sha Allah" would be translated "it is (a) matter (of) Allah'. The "an" is hence a pronoun. It - matter - Allah. However, "that (be)" is a good suggestion because "an" indicates very strongly on the subject of the sentence.
Morphologically the word is structured using alef and noon and alef means "be" as a letter and noon "integrity" so together it is "Be Integrity" like "if the case is so and so, then" and why sometimes the word is used linguistically as "if".
So an sha Allah is " be (an) integrity matter (it be) Allah's ".
Be well
Amenuel -
In 1847 God speaks about moving or removing mountains (jibla) to see the earth as a level plain. I'm no geologist, but I'm not sure if it's even possible for there to be no mountains on the earth at one time, given the existence of plate tectonics and their nature. I suppose this statement could be taken allegorically or on a regional scale only, perhaps (as opposed to a world wide scale).
Isn't that verse referring to the day when all is returned to God?
-
I agree with Wakas in that 1847 refers to the time when the Hour comes to pass. There are many other supernatural descriptions of the Hour, such as the stars being extinguished, the heavens being rent asunder, the sky being rose-coloured, etc. So maybe 1847 is an extension of these supernatural events.
I have read that the proterozoic period was the period in geological history in which the earth began to form a solid non-molten crust (source http//nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/crust/). The earth's crust according to this source and others is estimated to be between 2-4 billion years old.
From what you have presented above, it would seem to me that the most pertinent question to be asked is how frequently did earthquakes occur when non-molten crusts first formed on the earth's surface?
I think it is only by answering this question that we can make a comparative analysis between the frequency and severity of earthquakes in the earth of the proterozoic period and in today's earth.
Having answered that question, we will then be in a better position to analyse the statements in the Quran relating to mountains impeding the occurrence of earthquakes.
-
Isn't that verse referring to the day when all is returned to God?
That is true, a good point to make. )
I have read that the proterozoic period was the period in geological history in which the earth began to form a solid non-molten crust (source http//nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/crust/). The earth's crust according to this source and others is estimated to be between 2-4 billion years old.
From what you have presented above, it would seem to me that the most pertinent question to be asked is how frequently did earthquakes occur when non-molten crusts first formed on the earth's surface?
So when the Earth's crust was fully formed, cooled, and hardened you mean?
I think the movement of plate tectonics has always remained constant. I'm not sure anyone can say how frequently earthquakes occurred then, but I suppose one could imagine how many earthquakes there were with the rubbing of tectonic plates as they moved past each other over millions of years.
Watch the video (it's not long - only 25 seconds) of the theory of Pangaea and the continents shifting (as the plates connecting them shifted), over millions of years https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaUk94AdXPA Mountain ranges were formed and earthquakes too.
How much plates move is detailed below
The surface of the earth is broken into seven large, and many smaller, moving plates -- all of which ride on the asthenosphere. Each plate is approximately 50 miles thick and moves anywhere from 1/2 inch to several inches per year. As plates move, they collide or separate or move over one another.
Think about it, if a single plate moves only 1/2 inch per year, that means it moves
5" in 10 years
50" in 100 years
500" in 1,000 years
5,000" in 10,000 years
50,000" in 100,000 years
500,000" (or about 8 miles) in 1 million years
How far, in miles would it move 100 million years? (800 miles, right?)
How about 1 billion years? (8,000 miles, right?)
That means approximately 24,000 miles of travel for the plate over 4 billion years.source http//dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/TAD/education/BGBB/1/earth_changed.html
So earthquakes would occur whenever any of the plates faltered or shifted as they rubbed past each other, at any time during the above process or any time the contact occurs now.
Not sure if this has answered your question, if not I'll try to get more information to answer it better. )
Also, on the Himalayan mountain range and their relation to earthquakes, Dr Jean-Philippe Avouac says
Large earthquakes tend to cluster along plate boundaries, but the major faults associated with most plate boundaries are under the sea and are therefore difficult to monitor. Among the plate boundaries running onshore, the Himalaya is one of the largest and most active. The Himalaya has produced magnitude 8 earthquakes in the past, so we would like to be able to make quantitative predictions for future events, particularly along the 800 km stretch of the central Himalaya that has not produced any large earthquakes for more than four centuries.
She also says
...we have demonstrated that there is essentially one major fault that emerges at the front of the Himalaya in Central Nepal. This is where the large Himalayan earthquakes occur repeatedly over geological time...
sources http//www.tectonics.caltech.edu/outreach/highlights/earthquakes_and_mountains_International_Innovation.pdf
-
In some grammatical forms it also means "if" and that depends on the clause and is possible to make out by reading the whole sentence.
For example, "an sha Allah" would be translated "it is (a) matter (of) Allah'.
There is a difference.
There is IN (=if) and there is AN (=that)
I could be wrong but I think there is no "an sha Allah" in the quran.
I think there is only "an YAsha Allah" and "in sha Allah", but not sure have to check it. -
Time to try to find a Classical Arabic-English lexicon I guess. )
Don't do that!!! Make your own lexicon.
EDIT For kicks and giggles I typed into Google Translate, and the modern translation came up with "that" (according to Google at least ;D).
I knew I was as smart as google.
-
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 -
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.... -
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
-
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 moodThe 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,
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
AmenuelRED 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. -
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 moodThe 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.
