Refutation of the scientific miracle on the meeting of fresh and salt water in

Qur'an

The verse which I will be considering in this thesis is 025.053

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.

Muslim Apologists believe that this verse is scientifically accurate

Muslim apologists believe that this verse of Qur'an is scientifically accurate. They conclude that since
the process was unknown to humankind during the time of Muhammad, this verse (and Qur'an as a
whole) is surely revealed by God (Allah).
I am a physical oceanographer, so I think that I am in a better position to judge these claims. I don't
want you to believe what I am saying; I want you to critically examine my arguments and see whether
my arguments can be verified and validated. This is what we do in writing scientific articles and I will
follow the same methodology here. So go ahead...search Google, read books, articles and then make
your decision.

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.

My thesis will be as follows. I will

A. briefly introduce you to a real river-estuary-ocean system
B. make logical deductions based on the verse and see how far only common sense can take us.
C. explain what the verse claims on the meeting of fresh and salt water
D. explain what elementary science tells us about the process
E. explain what modern science tells us about the process
F. show you how Islamic apologists prove this “scientific miracle”
G. state my analysis on the “scientific miracle”
A. How is a real river-ocean system?

Figure 1: A river-estuary-ocean system (Reference:

http://www.cits.rncan.gc.ca/site/eng/resoress/guide/permanen/pg03.html)

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.

C. So what does the verse claim?

The verse tells something very definite, it tells that there is a “partition that is forbidden to be
passed”. Only definite answers can demand for scientific claims. So let's again refer back to Figure 2
and decide which of the cases are closest to this verse. Surely its either Case 2 or Case 3 or both.
Why not Case 1? This is because Case 1 is a transition and NOT a forbidden partition. Since the only
sources of water in an estuary are from river and ocean/sea, it automatically implies that sea/ocean wa-
ter mixes with river water to produce this intermediate water. Still, if one argues that this intermediate
water of Case 1 is the forbidden partition (and I am sure many Muslims will do this argument), then I
have the following answer:
It’s evident from common sense that Case 2 is exactly a forbidden partition. Now, Case 1 can only be
true if Case 2 is false (i.e. when the interface in Case 2 is broken, only then Case 1 can arise). Hence,
under any circumstances, Case 1 cannot be called a “forbidden partition”.
So according to this verse, Case 1 is discarded.

So let's summarize what the verse tells us. It tells us that:

a) the interface between sea water and river water acts as a forbidden partition, i.e. sea water
cannot cross this partition and enter into the river (and vice versa). This is Case 2.

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).

D. What we expect Elementary Science to tell us?

Firstly, lets ask ourselves that what we expect from science. Science should corroborate observational
evidences. So if we observe in our daily life that ocean water is not coming into the river (we drink
river water regularly and its sweet taste remains unchanged), science should give an explanation why
this is happening. Plain and simple. For example, if we observe that leaves are green, science should
explain the reason why it is green. If it concludes that leaves are blue, then it’s not science. So, let's
scrutinize Cases 1, 2 and 3 under the light of elementary science.

What elementary science tells us:

Let's assume that we have an elementary knowledge of science. We will briefly recapitulate some of
our elementary scientific knowledge.
I) Elementary science tells us that if there is a porous membrane separating saline water from fresh wa-
ter, then by the process of diffusion, the salt water will diffuse into the fresh water. If this system is
kept for a long time, then the entire unit will become a mixture of fresh and salt water (brackish water).
II) Elementary science also tells us about miscible and immiscible fluids. Water and oil are immiscible
(i.e. they don't mix) which water and milk are miscible (they mix). It also tells us that salt water and
fresh water are miscible fluids (water mixes with water).
III) Elementary science also tells us that stirring helps in mixing. This is what we do when we add
sugar or milk in a cup of coffee.

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.

E. So what Modern Science tells us about this process?

Don't fear! It's a simple process (at least at this level). I bet you will understand! So please read.

An Introduction to Estuarine Physics

Firstly, a little and interesting scientific fact. Density of salt water is more than freshwater. This was
first discovered by Aristotle. “The drinkable, sweet water, then, is light and is all of it drawn up: the
salt water is heavy and remains behind.” -Aristotle (382 BC to 322BC)
Thus, in estuaries, the dense salty water from ocean should sink and fresh river water should rise to the
top. If denser liquid is in bottom and lighter liquid is on top, this means that density is varying in vertic-
al direction (See Figure 3 (a)). It is to be noted that Figure 3 (a) is an ideal condition, not a real con-
dition. Even if we assume that the entire estuary is a stagnant mass of water, still there will be diffusion
and fresh water will slowly start mixing with salt water. But as both of the water bodies are in motion,
they will rapidly start to mix with each other. If a lot of circulation is present in the estuary (the agents
which are responsible for this are tidal input, river output as well as the wind) then the entire estuary is
vertically mixed. This is shown in Figure 3 (b)

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.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(US Govt. Research Institute like NASA) has made
cool graphics to explain the mixing in estuaries. Please have a look (it will clear your con-
cepts).
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_estuaries/est05_circulation.html

References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary, Kennish, M.J. (1986) "Ecology of Estuaries. Volume I:

Physical and Chemical Aspects." Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc. ISBN: 0-8493-5892-2
Note: I have discarded fjords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fjord) and freshwater estuaries (
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_estuaries/media/supp_est05e_fresh.html) since they are not relevant to
what we are dealing with right now. If you are interested in them, great..I have provided the links.

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.

F. So how does Islamic apologists explain this “scientific miracle”?

Their claim is as follows: “One may ask, why did the Quran mention the partition when speaking about
the divider between fresh and salt water, but did not mention it when speaking about the divider be-
tween the two seas?
Modern science has discovered that in estuaries, where fresh (sweet) and salt water meet, the situa-
tion is somewhat different from what is found in places where two seas meet. It has been discovered
that what distinguishes fresh water from salt water in estuaries is a pycnocline zone with a marked den-
sity discontinuity separating the two layers. This partition (zone of separation) has a different salinity
from the fresh water and from the salt water. (see Figure 4) This information has been discovered only
recently, using advanced equipment to measure temperature, salinity, density, oxygen dissolubility, etc.
The human eye cannot see the difference between the two seas that meet, rather the two seas appear to
us as one homogeneous sea. Likewise, the human eye cannot see the division of water in estuaries into
the three kinds: fresh water, salt water, and the partition (zone of separation).” (References: copied
from http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-e.htm .There are hundreds of sites with the same garbage. e.g.
http://www.quranandscience.com/earth/177-the-barrier-between-rivers-and-seas-estuary.html)

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

G. My analysis on this “scientific miracle”

"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”.

To show how the “miracle scientists” lie

In Section F , there is a line saying “..what distinguishes fresh water from salt water in estuaries is a
pycnocline zone with a marked density discontinuity separating the two layers”. Pycnocline
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pycnocline) is produced by a vertical density gradient in a body of water.
When the water is all mixed, there is no vertical density gradient (see “Vertically Homogeneous” estu-
ary in Section E). This means there is NO PYCNOCLINE ZONE. So, they are talking about pycno-
cline zone (and if they understood the physics correctly, then they should be showing a picture like Fig-
ure 3(a)) but unfortunately they are showing a picture which has no pycnocline, i.e. Figure 4. I hope by
now you understood how smart and scientific they are. (An important note: Pycnocline zone, and more
specifically, a halocline zone, is always a mixture of fresh water and salt water. It’s a product of their
mixing. In case of salt water and fresh water, there cannot be density discontinuity. The later can only
be present if two liquids are immiscible, for example water and oil.)

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).

Hence, we can conclude that

1) the verse is a SCIENTIFIC BLUNDER
2) a layman can get very close to the actual physics without any “divine” knowledge
3) “miracle scientists” still lies and distorts to show that this scientific blunder is a
scientific miracle

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.