Islam The Compassionate Way Of Life

[HaLi8993]

God cannot be compared to mankind, hence His actions cannot be questioned. God is Fair, Just, Wise and All- Knowing. Therefore whatever He the Almighty does, is due to a legitimate reason and purpose although we may not be able to understand just why.  

A loving Mother may be forced to place her child under the knife for surgery due to a particular disease however there is no doubt she loves her child. Yet to those that do not understand the circumstances this is seen as cruel. It is God that is All-Knowing hence it is not for any of his creatures to question his doings but rather we will be questioned for ours.

So what then gives individuals the right to place their limited understandings above that of God, instead of trusting their Creator and believing and submitting with full conviction to His will. Instead mankind is arrogant and proud denying and believing that he is above the Creator in knowledge and understanding when God is the One that is the Creator of all that exists.

[Danmark]

This Quranic saltwater freshwater barrier thing is so typical of the Islamic obsession with 'proving' the Quran is the word of god by science. It is a perfect example of this silly art.
http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-e.htm
presents a typical argument.

The Quran has a verse, "He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition", (Quran, 25:53) that comes out with a typical quranic absolute statement. Then the 'scientist' goes thru a lengthy explanation to show how nature fits the verse.

The problem of course is that nature does NOT fit the Quran. Anyone who has been in the ocean knows that salt and freshwater mix just fine. Fresh water from rivers and springs flows into the sea, and the sea remains salty.

Those of us who have been fortunate enough to swim in places like the Desolation Sound area of British Columbia know that huge quantities of freshwater flow from the rivers into the inland sea (Strait of Georgia). Indeed, there is a layer of water on the surface, the first few feet or so, that is not as salty as the water below. It is still salty, but has a lower content of salt. The water is in the process of mixing. There is no 'forbidding partition.'

Certainly the salty and less salty water are different from each other, but they are in a mixing process. Anyone who has done any cooking knows that mixing is not instantaneous. Yet the Quran apologists like the one in the URL above go to great lengths to attempt to show that the mixing of freshwater and saltwater are somehow an example of the 'forbidding partition' when even their examples show the opposite.

But the real issue is why do Muslims feel the desperate need to twist facts to try to show the perfection of their imperfect holy book. Isn't it enough for them that the book is inspiring to them? It is what it is and no more than that. What the Islamic hopefuls are doing is to bring same upon their beliefs by grossly overstating their claims.

[HaLi8993]

@ Danmark

No Hal. I simply showed you an interpretation from Islam Today. It was not my interpretation. And the point of the interpretation was not to claim the Quran said the earth was flat, but that it did not say 'egg-shaped'.

Yes, and this is the same thing I said, that the verse you had provided wasn't even talking about the shape of the earth. Why are you so concerned if it did not say egg shaped if you agree that it wasn't talking about the shape of the earth???

[HaLi8993]

@ Iam

I did a quick search on www.quaran.com for heaven and these are the two verses that showed up first. The quran calls the atmosphere of our planet and some imaginary bubble surrounding it "heaven". Try reading it sometime. But of course if you can find verses that definitively call the universe "heaven" then you will have found one of the myriad contradictions. Does the Earths atmosphere continually expand, sorry it doesn't. That is an error in the book without errors.

If I'm ever interested in cooking lessons I will keep this link in mind Iam, thanks but there are no Quranic verses in that link and there are plenty of verses apart from these two verses you have quoted found in the Quran about heaven. I suggest you have another search.

As for Verse 2:19 again this  isn't dealing with the universe and it's expansion but for arguments sake another translation of Quran - 2:19, you will find that it says "sky":

Sahih International

"Or [it is] like a rainstorm from the sky within which is darkness, thunder and lightning. They put their fingers in their ears against the thunderclaps in dread of death. But Allah is encompassing of the disbelievers."

This can also be found in 2:22 where is says:

"[He] who made for you the earth a bed [spread out] and the sky a ceiling and sent down from the sky, rain and brought forth thereby fruits as provision for you. So do not attribute to Allah equals while you know [that there is nothing similar to Him]."

And again this verse is not dealing with the expansion of the universe so you simply cannot make this claim - that it says the Earth is expanding where does it say such a thing?? Verse 2:22 is dealing with:

The Oneness of God's divinity and how He has favored His servants by bringing them to life after they did not exist. He also surrounded them with blessings, both hidden and apparent. He made the earth a resting place for them, just like the bed, stable with the firm mountains.

Even though these verses you have quotes have nothing to do with the universe expanding. I need to point out that the word "heaven", as stated in some verses, is used with the meaning of space and universe. In other words, in the Qur'an it is revealed that the universe "expands". And this is the very conclusion that science has reached today. For example if you refer to the meaning of the verse 

51:47 you will see that it says:

"With Hands We constructed the heaven. Verily, We are able to expand the vastness of space thereof"

[HaLi8993]

@ Herictic

I'm sorry Hal, but again, either you are dishonest or in complete denial. 

As we debated before, here are the two verses. 

25:53 - And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition. 


55:19-20 - He released the two seas, meeting [side by side]; Between them is a barrier [so] neither of them transgresses 

First, why cant it refer to a land mass? Second, why cant it refer to another water mass, such as the Jordan river? Both would fit perfectly? In fact, the Jordan river is between the sea of Galilea and the Dead Sea. 

Please provide evidence it cannot refer to either one. 

Here are the quotes (again, for at least the sixth time) of Aristotle. 

"Light parts are dissolved from the sea water by the sun and the dense, salty part remain" (pg 132) 

"...This means that the sea has changed its place. it is possible that a gulf is formed when the barrier between the sea and lowlan is destroyed..." (pg 145) 

Lettinck, Paul 1999. Aristotle's Meteorology and its reception in the Arab world 


""For it is clear that a barrier of silt was formed and after it lakes and dry land, but in course of time the water that was left behing in the lakes dried up and is now all gone." (pg 27)

"The drinkable, sweet water, then, is light and is all of it drawn up: the salt water is heavy and remains behind." (pg 32) 

Aristotle, Webster E.W. 2006. Meteorology. 

Each quote fits the Quran perfectly. 

How about the Bible, which I also gave you a few times. 

Jeremiah 5:22 Should you not fear me?" declares the LORD. "Should you not tremble in my presence? I made the sand a boundary for the sea, an everlasting barrier it cannot cross. The waves may roll, but they cannot prevail; they may roar, but they cannot cross it. 

Also, as stated to you when we first debated, you can actually see AND feel the pycnocline! 

Hal, as I stated in our first debate, you are adding to scripture. Making claims that just are not there. 

There isnt any evidence its refering to pycnocline at all. 
The scripture could have other simpler meanings. 
Pycnocline was already known by the Greeks. 
It can be seen and felt. 
You made the claim that the Quran states they do not mix. When in fact, its the mixing of the waters and the sediments, with temperature which creates the pycnocline. 
Also, its not a impenetratable barrier. 

Since you were so keen on ignoring the Greeks every single time I presented the comments, here it is again, a little more indepth. 

[W]e find it maintained that rivers not only flow into the sea but originate from it, the salt water becoming sweet by filtration. But this view involves another difficulty. If this body is the source of all water, why is it salt and not sweet? [...] Now the sun, moving as it does, sets up processes of change and becoming and decay, and by its agency the finest and sweetest water is every day carried up and is dissolved into vapour and rises to the upper region, where it is condensed again by the cold and so returns to the earth. [...] The drinkable, sweet water, then, is light and all of it drawn up: the salt water is heavy and remains behind, but not in its proper place. [...] The place which we see the sea filling is not its place but that of water. It seems to belong to the sea because the weight of the salt water makes it remain there, while the sweet, drinkable water which is light is carried up 

Aristotle, Meteorologika, Book II, 354b15-30 & 355a30-355b1, as per Jonathan Barnes (trans. & ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle, (Princeton, 1985), Vol. 1, pp 577 & 578. 

Will you at least concede this point? 
Last but not least, your claim that the salt water and the fresh water do NOT mix.

Sorry Herictic but I'm neither of these things!

Are we saying that it cannot be land mass?? Have we denied anything of this nature?? If you go back to the extensive conversation we had on this topic you will find that I mentioned that one of the scholarly opinions was that what is meant by the barrier between the two seas (i.e., between rivers and seas) is the vast lands that separate the rivers from the seas, so that there is no mixing of their waters, rather each of them has its own course and destination that is separate from that of the other. 
The barrier referring to the dry land. 

As for your second question again, are we saying that this applies to all bodies of water??

Herictic you can post what Aristotle said 100 times it won't make a difference, because one, it does not even come close to what the Quran says, hence doesn't even come close to fitting perfectly, secondly if someone were to say that the Quran was a copy job of Aristotle, then you must also be able to show where Aristotle's work was copied.

If you remember correctly Hericitic, there were two opinions of the Quranic verse, lets not ignore the other opinion that this is referring to a virtual barrier (resulting from differences in density) which oceanographers speak of today. You are still continuing to concentrate on the first opinion, in which both the bible verse and Aristotle is referring too, but as I stated in our long discussion previously we cannot ignore the other opinion. If we choose the land opinion then this is what Jeremiah 5:22 is referring too. To suggest that the Quran is wrong and copied the bible is not possible, this is because this verse may be the truth, this is no surprise as we believe that the original Gospel was revealed by God, in saying this, we are also aware that the current day bibles have been changed something the Quran hasn't. So there is no evidence that this wasn't added to the bible or if this verse really represents the real words of God, no way of knowing cause we don't have the original Gospel, so either way this still wouldn't prove that the Quran is wrong.

As I have said Herictic you cannot prove anything, as much as you would like too, so I suggest you stop trying as we have been through all this already. 

Furthermore the Quran tells us very clearly that though they meet and mix, there is a barrier between them. How?? Here it explains with scientific proofs given by non-Muslim scientists. Are you denying this also??

 Refer to this:
 
http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-b.htm

Seeing as you are so persistent to show me what Aristotle said, I want to see his entire work can you give me a link to his book, cause I want to check this out myself. Taking extracts from a book isn't evidence at all. For all I know and what I have seen on numerous occasions is when people take a passage from a book and detextualize  it.

[HaLi8993]

@ Danmark

This Quranic saltwater freshwater barrier thing is so typical of the Islamic obsession with 'proving' the Quran is the word of god by science. It is a perfect example of this silly art. 
http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-e.htm 
presents a typical argument. 

The Quran has a verse, "He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition", (Quran, 25:53) that comes out with a typical quranic absolute statement. Then the 'scientist' goes thru a lengthy explanation to show how nature fits the verse. 

The problem of course is that nature does NOT fit the Quran. Anyone who has been in the ocean knows that salt and freshwater mix just fine. Fresh water from rivers and springs flows into the sea, and the sea remains salty. 

Those of us who have been fortunate enough to swim in places like the Desolation Sound area of British Columbia know that huge quantities of freshwater flow from the rivers into the inland sea (Strait of Georgia). Indeed, there is a layer of water on the surface, the first few feet or so, that is not as salty as the water below. It is still salty, but has a lower content of salt. The water is in the process of mixing. There is no 'forbidding partition.' 

Certainly the salty and less salty water are different from each other, but they are in a mixing process. Anyone who has done any cooking knows that mixing is not instantaneous. Yet the Quran apologists like the one in the URL above go to great lengths to attempt to show that the mixing of freshwater and saltwater are somehow an example of the 'forbidding partition' when even their examples show the opposite. 

But the real issue is why do Muslims feel the desperate need to twist facts to try to show the perfection of their imperfect holy book. Isn't it enough for them that the book is inspiring to them? It is what it is and no more than that. What the Islamic hopefuls are doing is to bring same upon their beliefs by grossly overstating their claims.

Thanks Danmark, that's exactly the same site I am sharing with Herictic, you will find explanations with scientific proofs given by non-Muslim scientists in that link, I suggest you read it. Wouldn't call this silly at all Danmark unless you deny science. As I said we don't need to prove anything. It's the Atheist that needs to prove the universe and everything in it came about purely by chance. This view is contrary to sound human nature, reason and logic, and is contrary to simple logic and indisputable facts.  

Danmark God is the Creator of nature, the Quran fits perfectly with nature, the sea remains salty but the fresh water remains fresh water, Mmmmm I wander why??

Taking a swim wouldn't prove anything Danmark, 
This link makes it very clear that:

"The human eye cannot see the difference between the two seas that meet, rather the two seas appear to us as one homogeneous sea"

They mix but do not transgress!! 

It is important to note that the Quran is not a book of science Danmark, the reality is that scientists have proved this and this is not something that is coming from us, again you ask for proof and then choose to reject it. Furthermore it is only expected that Atheists will reject factual evidence that is in agreement with Islam considering the fact that Atheism became prevalent due to a philosophy of some anti-religious thinkers.

The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered?? It is the "CREATOR", the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is "God", or more appropriate in the Arabic language, "ALLAH" 

So the question should be why do Atheists so desperately try and prove religion wrong if they do not believe in God???

[Danmark]

@ Danmark

No Hal. I simply showed you an interpretation from Islam Today. It was not my interpretation. And the point of the interpretation was not to claim the Quran said the earth was flat, but that it did not say 'egg-shaped'.

Yes, and this is the same thing I said, that the verse you had provided wasn't even talking about the shape of the earth. Why are you so concerned if it did not say egg shaped if you agree that it wasn't talking about the shape of the earth???

The same verse that is translated as 'egg shaped' is, according to other scholars, translated as the place where the Ostrich lays his egg, referring to the 'spreading out' of the Earth. I'm not claiming that, that means the Quran says the Earth is flat; just that it didn't say 'egg shaped' necessarily. Egg shaped is wrong since the Earth is round. If it doesn't say 'egg shaped,' it does not matter to me. My only point is that the Quran seems to be interpreted differently by different Muslims depending on what they want to prove.

Christians are the same. They all want to twist things to try to prove their faith. Sad really, because to disinterested, objective people it is a transparent and ineffective exercise that proves nothing.

[Danmark]

@ Danmark

This Quranic saltwater freshwater barrier thing is so typical of the Islamic obsession with 'proving' the Quran is the word of god by science. It is a perfect example of this silly art. 
http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-e.htm 
presents a typical argument. 

The Quran has a verse, "He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition", (Quran, 25:53) that comes out with a typical quranic absolute statement. Then the 'scientist' goes thru a lengthy explanation to show how nature fits the verse. 

The problem of course is that nature does NOT fit the Quran. Anyone who has been in the ocean knows that salt and freshwater mix just fine. Fresh water from rivers and springs flows into the sea, and the sea remains salty. 

Those of us who have been fortunate enough to swim in places like the Desolation Sound area of British Columbia know that huge quantities of freshwater flow from the rivers into the inland sea (Strait of Georgia). Indeed, there is a layer of water on the surface, the first few feet or so, that is not as salty as the water below. It is still salty, but has a lower content of salt. The water is in the process of mixing. There is no 'forbidding partition.' 

Certainly the salty and less salty water are different from each other, but they are in a mixing process. Anyone who has done any cooking knows that mixing is not instantaneous. Yet the Quran apologists like the one in the URL above go to great lengths to attempt to show that the mixing of freshwater and saltwater are somehow an example of the 'forbidding partition' when even their examples show the opposite. 

But the real issue is why do Muslims feel the desperate need to twist facts to try to show the perfection of their imperfect holy book. Isn't it enough for them that the book is inspiring to them? It is what it is and no more than that. What the Islamic hopefuls are doing is to bring same upon their beliefs by grossly overstating their claims.

Thanks Danmark, that's exactly the same site I am sharing with Herictic, you will find explanations with scientific proofs given by non-Muslim scientists in that link, I suggest you read it. Wouldn't call this silly at all Danmark unless you deny science. As I said we don't need to prove anything. It's the Atheist that needs to prove the universe and everything in it came about purely by chance. This view is contrary to sound human nature, reason and logic, and is contrary to simple logic and indisputable facts.  

Danmark God is the Creator of nature, the Quran fits perfectly with nature, the sea remains salty but the fresh water remains fresh water, Mmmmm I wander why??

Taking a swim wouldn't prove anything Danmark, 
This link makes it very clear that:

"The human eye cannot see the difference between the two seas that meet, rather the two seas appear to us as one homogeneous sea"

They mix but do not transgress!! 

It is important to note that the Quran is not a book of science Danmark, the reality is that scientists have proved this and this is not something that is coming from us, again you ask for proof and then choose to reject it. Furthermore it is only expected that Atheists will reject factual evidence that is in agreement with Islam considering the fact that Atheism became prevalent due to a philosophy of some anti-religious thinkers.

The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered?? It is the "CREATOR", the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is "God", or more appropriate in the Arabic language, "ALLAH" 

So the question should be why do Atheists so desperately try and prove religion wrong if they do not believe in God???

This is all so very silly. All you have to do is pour half a cup of fresh water into half a cup of salt water to realize they mix. There is no 'forbidding barrier.'

What is meaning of 'not transgressing' if it does not mean 'not mixing?'

How can the freshwater remain fresh when it is mixed with salt? This is preposterous.

Salt water remains saltwater until the water evaporates leaving the salt behind. The more you squirm and twist the meanings of these things, the more your desperation shows.

[olavisjo]

.

This is all so very silly. All you have to do is pour half a cup of fresh water into half a cup of salt water to realize they mix. There is no 'forbidding barrier.'

That is exactly what Dawkins said...

[youtube][/youtube]

[Danmark]

.

This is all so very silly. All you have to do is pour half a cup of fresh water into half a cup of salt water to realize they mix. There is no 'forbidding barrier.'

That is exactly what Dawkins said...

[youtube][/youtube]

Thanks Olav. Hadn't seen that. I actually performed the great experiment. As if I didn't know what would happen. I poured a slightly greater quantity of freshwater into saltwater without any mixing other than what the pour itself did, and tasted it. Salty of course.

The interesting phrase is 'they mix but do not transgress.' Whatever that means. I suppose it is a phrase that serves only one purpose: To make the believer able to retain his belief no matter what the evidence.

What the video does not go on to explain, and I did, is that there is mixing, it simply does not occur as quickly in the vast ocean as it does in the small cup. As I've mentioned I have swum in such water in British Columbia. The 'fresh' water on top is still salty, tho' not as salty or as cold as the water below. We even have a term for it. 'Brackish.'

[Iam]

This alleged quranic miracle is the most STUPID of all of the alleged miracles of the quran. Anyone who believes this nonsense is the PERFECT candidate for mind control experiments, IMHO.