Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Qur'an
YUSUFALI: It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and
the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be
passed.
PICKTHAL: And He it is Who hath given independence to the two seas (though they meet); one
palatable, sweet, and the other saltish, bitter; and hath set a bar and a forbidding ban between them.
SHAKIR: And He it is Who has made two seas to flow freely, the one sweet that subdues thirst by its
sweetness, and the other salt that burns by its saltness; and between the two He has made a barrier and
inviolable obstruction.
In this thesis, I will prove that this verse is scientifically wrong. Also I will prove
that a layman can make a guess better than this.
When a river flows into the sea or ocean, there is a transition region in between. This transition region
is what we call estuary. (Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary ). The river-estuary-ocean system is
shown in Figure 1. I am sure majority of us already know about a river flowing into the sea or ocean
(and many of us already saw it in real life).
B. Making Logical deduction based on the verse (without using any science stuff) . Let's see how
far we can go by using common sense only.
Let’s completely ignore science for the time being. Rather, let’s assume that we are scientifically illiter-
ate. So we use our common sense only and make a series of logical deductions:
1. From the verse it is clear that during the time of Muhammad, people used to drink fresh water from
river.
2. From the verses it is also clear that people knew that sea water is salty and unsuitable for drinking.
3. From the verses it is also clear that people knew that river meets the ocean.
4. This means they knew that although river meets the ocean, the ocean water is not coming into the
river (otherwise river water will taste salty).
5. So when the question “why ocean is not coming into river?” arose in their mind, what could have
been their explanation?
A naive and vague explanation is that something is happening inside the meeting point of river and
ocean (i.e. the estuary) which is not allowing the ocean to come into the river. Plain and simple.
6. Now what’s that “something”?
Lets again have a look at Figure 1. Since estuary is the place where this “something” is taking place,
we can logically think of three processes which are the most probable causes.
Case 1: A slow transition between river and ocean is taking place.
Case 2: A non-physical partition between the two water bodies is preventing them from coming into
each other.
Case 3: A physical partition (like an underwater hill) is present and this separates the two water bod-
ies.
Figure 2: Three possible working principles of an estuary which a layman (who has no knowledge of
science but has common sense) can think of.
All these cases are shown in Figure 2. So up to this point, we have not used anything other than com-
mon sense, but we have already made a lot of progress.
Surely people during the time of Muhammad had common sense. Even if they didn't know how an es-
tuary really works, they could have easily figured out than an estuary should behave very similar to all
or some of these three cases.
b) there is a physical partition like a landmass or something present in between the river and
ocean and this prevents the mixing between the two water bodies. This is Case 3.
c) that forbidden partition is a universal truth. This means that the laws of nature will not allow
any other circumstances (like Case 1).
Now we consider the three cases and will conclude whether or not they are scientifically correct.
What about Case 1?
It seems correct. It doesn't contradict science.
What about Case 2?
It seems incorrect. It contradicts science. It assumes that river and ocean are like oil and water (i.e.
they don't mix!). A forbidden partition cannot exist between two miscible fluids. Even if we ignore
the agents which are stirring up the water (like the flow of the river and ocean and the wind) and as-
sume that the entire estuary is a stagnant mass, still by the process of diffusion, the fresh water will
start mixing with salt water.
What about Case 3?
It seems correct. It doesn't contradict science. But inferring this doesn't need any knowledge of
science at all. It comes directly from the minimum common sense. Hence this claim is a trivial
claim.
Now comes a grave question regarding the scientific justification of the verse. The verse claims
that only Case 2 and/or Case 3 are universally correct. Elementary science has already disproved Case
2. Common sense tells us that it is an over-expectation if we assume that whenever there is a river
meeting an ocean (i.e. within an estuary), there is always a physical barrier under the water.
So, what the verse claims is completely wrong and against elementary science (forget
modern science). The only possible case (Case 3) which makes sense is a trivial case.
Don't fear! It's a simple process (at least at this level). I bet you will understand! So please read.
Figure 3: Vertically stratified and vertically mixed conditions of an estuary. Case (a) is an ideal condi-
tion, not a real condition.
I have already introduced you to the basic physics of estuary. Now lets deal with a little advanced topic.
Lets see how estuaries can be broadly classified based on circulation. On this basis, the different types
of estuaries are:
i) salt-wedge ii) fjord iii) partially mixed iv) vertically homogeneous and v) fresh water estuaries.
Salt wedge
In this type of estuary, river output greatly exceeds marine input and tidal effects have a minor impor-
tance. Fresh water floats on top of the seawater in a layer that gradually thins as it moves seaward. The
denser seawater moves landward along the bottom of the estuary, forming a wedge-shaped layer that is
thinner as it approaches land. As a velocity difference develops between the two layers, shear forces
generate internal waves at the interface, mixing the seawater upward with the freshwater. An example
of a salt wedge estuary is the Mississippi River.
Partially mixed
As tidal forcing increases, river output becomes less than the marine input. Here, current induced turbu-
lence causes mixing of the whole water column such that salinity varies more longitudinally rather than
vertically, leading to a moderately stratified condition. Examples include the Chesapeake Bay and
Narragansett Bay.
Vertically homogenous
Tidal mixing forces exceed river output, resulting in a well mixed water column and the disappearance
of the vertical salinity gradient. The freshwater-seawater boundary is eliminated due to the intense tur-
bulent mixing and eddy effects. The lower reaches of the Delaware Bay and the Raritan River in New Jersey
are examples of vertically homogenous estuaries.
So, in short, what modern science tells us? It tells us that freshwater and salt water can
have little (in salt wedge), medium (partially mixed) as well as complete (vertically ho-
mogeneous) mixing. There is no event where there will be zero mixing. Even in the
absence of wind and currents (which is an absurd and non-physical condition), these two
waters will start to mix by diffusion. So there is no “forbidden barrier” between freshwa-
ter and salt water. HENCE THIS VERSE IS A SCIENTIFIC BLUNDER.
Figure 4: Longitudinal section showing salinity (parts per thousand ‰) in an estuary. We can see here
the partition (zone of separation) between the fresh and the salt water. (Introductory Oceanography,
Thurman, p. 301, with a slight enhancement.)- This image is taken from http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-
1-e.htm
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." And this is so true for Islamic apologists. Here I will show
you how little they know about estuarine physics, and finally how they themselves have contradicted
and proved the verse to be wrong.
Have a look at Figure 4 . Did you see the word “vertically mixed” in the figure? They themselves
have proved that river water has mixed with salt water. In fact, if you read my article carefully, you
will right away understand that they have actually chosen the worst possible case (Vertically Homo-
geneous Estuary). This estuary is just the opposite to what Qur'an states. So if they were a little smarter,
they would have chosen Salt Wedge estuary. In that case I would have to write one more paragraph to
refute their claims.
Again look at Figure 4. The words “Zone of Seperation” and “The partition” is added on to the figure,
the book doesn't claim anything like that. See the caption of Figure 4. They have already written “with
slight enhancement”.
Now comes another amazing excerpt from Section F. “This partition (zone of separation) has a differ-
ent salinity from the fresh water and from the salt water. (see Figure 4) This information has been dis-
covered only recently, using advanced equipment to measure temperature, salinity, density, oxygen dis-
solubility, etc.”. So they claim that this physics has been recently understood. Don’t omit the word “re-
cently”, it emphasizes that someone 1400 years ago knew about it. But wait. Firstly, the verse doesn’t
describe anything related to Figure 4, rather the opposite, and we have proved it conclusively.
Secondly, lets go back to Figure 2 and look at Case 1. Also please read the caption. What did you
see? Yes, you are right, Case 1 of Figure 2, was what a layman (a man with common sense and no
knowledge of science) can draw. Is there any difference between Figure 4 and the Case 1 of Figure 2?
Almost nothing. They represent almost the same physics. This shows that science is just refinement
of common sense. What science has done is that it has understood the physics more deeply and found
out the different amounts of salinity (given in parts per thousand ‰) as shown in Figure 4. (Also note
that the way Muslim apologists intentionally misrepresented Figure 4. They tried to convince you that
there are discrete bands of salinity, i.e. 10‰, 20 ‰, 30 ‰, etc. Well it's NOT! Salinity will vary contin-
ously. The more you refine, the more number of contours you get. See:
http://geosci.sfsu.edu/courses/geol103/labs/estuaries/partI.html).
A FINAL NOTE:
According to Tasfir (http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?
tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=25&tAyahNo=53&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0
&LanguageId=2), the meaning of this verse is
“And He it is Who merged the two seas: letting them [flow] one adjacent to the oth-
er: this one palatable, sweet, and the other saltish, bitter; and He set between the
two an isthmus, so that the one does not mix with the other, and a forbidding ban, a
shield that prevents the two from becoming mixed.”
The word “isthmus” means a narrow piece of land. So actually this verse means only
Case 3, i.e. the verse claims that whenever there is a river meeting the sea, there is a
land which separates them and acts like a forbidden partition. The author of the verse
had no idea that rivers and seas even meet, i.e. it completely discarded the options like
Cases 1 and 2. Hence the author of the verse didn't also have the minimum common
sense that a layman has.