Rawāsiya and Tamīda
-
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.
-
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,
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
