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.

[hERICtic]

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.

Why am I not surprised that you'd once again use mental gymnastics to salvage this issue?

If its a land mass then its not an amazing scientific discovery, now is it?

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.

Now this is just blatantly dishonest. Seriously? Please try to be honest. You are making a fool of yourself.

Here is what the Quran states:

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

Thats it.

I asked for evidence that its refering to pycnocline and you presented none. Why? Because thats ALL the Quran states!!!

I asked for evidence that it is not refering to the Jordan river? You presented none. Why? Because you have no evidence its not.

Yet the Jordan river is a perfect fit.

Here is what Aristotle states:

[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.

How can you keep any dignity and claim the Quran is more indepth that what Aristotle claimed? Seriously Hal????

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.

You're not even understanding what anyone is claiming. You're so intent on proving the Quran is never wrong, you're not grasping what Danmark and I have stated repeatedly.

I have given many websites in the past on this to you. Your claim is that its refering to pycnocline.

You claim that its cannot be transgressed.

You cannot even provide evidence it is. But lets assume for one second it is.

Pycnocline can be seen.
It can be felt.
The barrier is a mixing of the salt water and fresh, with sediments.
The salt water in pycnocline DOES filter into the fresh above and the fresh does filter into the salt. Debris and sediements DO flow through the barrier as well as sea creatures.

The barrier does NOT prevent anything from not going through.

Do you grasp this? Do you understand this? I have brought this to your attention numerous times.

I am not saying the Quran is wrong. You're making the Quran incorrect.

I believe its the Jordan river. It fits perfectly. Its not an amazing claim, but it works as hyperbole.

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.

I have given evidence to every single one of my claims. You have presented none.

Please show me how its IMPOSSIBLE to go through pycnocline.
Please show me that the Quran is 100% refering to pycnocline.
Please show me the Quran is not refering to the Jordan river.
Please show me evidence one CANNOT see pycnocline with their own eyes.
Please show me evidence that no one could see pycnocline unless god told them.

I bet you that you cannot show evidence for one of the claims above. Not one.

This is the sheer dishonesty I refer to. You'll fail in every aspect of showing evidence...yet continue to dance around this subject.

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??

I have no idea what you are asking me. When we first debated this I mentioned to you numerous times that the barrier can be transgressed and you disputed me on this. Now you're claiming that it can be? Then what exactly is so scientific about the Quran in regards to this verse?

If they meet and mix, then it can be transgressed. Then the Quran would be wrong.

Refer to this:

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

I'm not sure what this has to do with our debate. We also covered this though in the past. The Bible also mentions this. Plus, mountains do NOT stabalize the earth. They're the result of the earth being unstable. Plus, regions with mountains STILL have earth quakes. This is so blatantly unscientific its absurd.

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.

This is exactly why its frustrating dealing with you. I gave you the exactly where the quote is taken from. Probably close to 8 times now. Look it up yourself. Stop reading your apologist websites and do some research yourself.

Even if you wish not to do the homework yourself, it matters not. Answer the questions I asked you.

[hERICtic]

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.

Guess you missed the one Hal is trying to use now that mountains prevent earthquakes.

[hERICtic]

Here is a great example of how Muslim "scholars" NEED to twist the Quran to make it "amazing".

The Quran lacks all evidence that it's from a god so verses are twisted beyond all comprehension to make it extraordinary.

The following site states these are predictions from the Quran.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATOMIC ENERGY AND FISSION

Allah splits the seed and kernel. He brings forth the living from the dead, and produces the dead out of the living. That is Allah, so how are you misguided? (Qur'an, 6:95)

Me: Its quite clear the above verses is 100% unscientific to begin with. To salvage this problem, the following is given:


The terms "seed" (al-habb) and "kernel" (an-nawa) in the above verse may indicate the splitting of the atom. Indeed, the dictionary meanings of an-nawa include "nucleus, centre, atomic nucleus." Furthermore, the description of bringing forth the living from the dead can be interpreted as Allah creating matter from dead energy. Producing the dead out of the living may refer to energy (dead) emerging from matter (living), since the atom is in motion. (Allah knows best.) That is because as well as "living," al-hayy can also mean "active, energetic." With its meaning of "non-living," al-mayyit, translated above as "dead," may very probably refer to energy.

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/predi ... index.html

Me: LOL! In other words, just make up anything one wants. Unbelievable.

I have no doubt Hal will soon arrive and back up the above assertion that its utterly amazing how it predicted atomic energy.

Sheesh.

[HaLi8993]

@ 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.' 

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.

Danmark please tell me you are kidding!

This analogy does not meet nor represent what we are talking about, we are not discussing the mixing of water we are talking about the barrier that exists.

It's not preposterous at all Danmark, this is something that has been proven, are you denying scientific findings?? 

It is clear from your response that you have not understood what we are talking about, especially when you are trying to deny scientific evidence by giving me irrelevant examples.

There is a slanted unseen water barrier between the seas through which water from one sea passes to the other. But when the water from one sea enters the other sea, it loses its distinctive characteristic and becomes homogenized with the other water. In a way this barrier serves as a transitional homogenizing area for the two waters. Therefore each sea having it's own salinity, temperature and
density.

[HaLi8993]

@ olavisjo 

That is exactly what Dawkins said...

Thanks olavisjo for sharing that video with us, just shows the deceptions of good old Dawkins doesn't it.

[HaLi8993]

@ Danmark

 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.'

Danmark did you even watch this video?? If you had watched it you would have noticed that your experiment is irrelevant lol.

Seriously you guys make me laugh!

If you read the links and pay attention to the numerous scientific explanations and diagrams proven by science Danmark I'm pretty sure you will know exactly what this means. Hopefully this will allow you to let go of your ideology and retain the truth by seeing the evidence.

[HaLi8993]

@ 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.

Anyone who believes in the Quran, believes with certainty that it is the words of God. Any sane, intelligent and wise person would not deny the Quran as it is nothing but the truth and a total wholistic way of life that is the true representation of reality unlike the falsehood behind man made ideologies.

[HaLi8993]

@ Herictic

Why am I not surprised that you'd once again use mental gymnastics to salvage this issue? 

If its a land mass then its not an amazing scientific discovery, now is it?

The same reason I am not surprised that you are back here again debating the same things I have already refuted. Lol.

Well yes it still would be considering as something amazing considering that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) lived in the desert. Furthermore we cannot deny the other opinion can we??

Now this is just blatantly dishonest. Seriously? Please try to be honest. You are making a fool of yourself. 

Here is what the Quran states: 

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

Thats it. 

I asked for evidence that its refering to pycnocline and you presented none. Why? Because thats ALL the Quran states!!! 

I asked for evidence that it is not refering to the Jordan river? You presented none. Why? Because you have no evidence its not. 

Yet the Jordan river is a perfect fit. 

Here is what Aristotle states: 

[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. 

How can you keep any dignity and claim the Quran is more indepth that what Aristotle claimed? Seriously Hal????

How is this blatantly dishonest Herictic, lol?? Is it because you cannot provide any evidence where you are successfully able to show where Aristotle's work was copied??

Can you show me where in the verse it has mentions this applies to all bodies of water?

Again Herictic the Quran is not a book of science, however even if the Quran was viewed from the scientific lens, these verses do not contravene scientific facts. You seem to think you would need to use a specific word in order to reach a meaning. There is such a thing as pycnocline and the Qur'an does mention bodies of water naturally divided. Even the staunchest opponent of Islam should realize that neither science nor the Qur'an concern themselves with the disruption of that order. The fact stated, is that there is a divide between the waters and there is a clear distinction between salt and freshwater. From a superficial view this distinction is clear and from a much more penetrating view there is an actual phenomena that takes place just as the Qur'an describes. 

Did I even mention anything about the Jordon river, or are you making things up? Again can you show me where the Quran has copied Aristotle's work. Nope you cannot!

You're not even understanding what anyone is claiming. You're so intent on proving the Quran is never wrong, you're not grasping what Danmark and I have stated repeatedly. 

I have given many websites in the past on this to you. Your claim is that its refering to pycnocline. 

You claim that its cannot be transgressed. 

You cannot even provide evidence it is. But lets assume for one second it is. 

Pycnocline can be seen. 
It can be felt. 
The barrier is a mixing of the salt water and fresh, with sediments. 
The salt water in pycnocline DOES filter into the fresh above and the fresh does filter into the salt. Debris and sediements DO flow through the barrier as well as sea creatures. 

The barrier does NOT prevent anything from not going through. 

Do you grasp this? Do you understand this? I have brought this to your attention numerous times. 

I am not saying the Quran is wrong. You're making the Quran incorrect. 

I believe its the Jordan river. It fits perfectly. Its not an amazing claim, but it works as hyperbole.

The Quran isn't wrong Herictic, what both you and Danmark have done is claim the Quran is saying something it is not, furthermore you have both provided irrelevant examples that have no significance as to what we are discussing.

I too have given you ample scientific material that is in total reality of what truly exists within the seas. Something you have rejected. 

Yes the characteristics of one water do not transgress the other in terms of temperature, salinity and density.

Herictic seriously be honest with me do you know what a Pycnocline is?? How can it be seen and felt?

One question for you Hericitc, can you show me how fresh water and salt water has exactly the same properties??

Where did I say it prevents things going through? What your saying are things that we are NOT saying but you seem to think we are saying. Lol

Now you are giving your own interpretation claiming its the Jordon River? Oh brother......

I have given evidence to every single one of my claims. You have presented none. 

Please show me how its IMPOSSIBLE to go through pycnocline. 
Please show me that the Quran is 100% refering to pycnocline. 
Please show me the Quran is not refering to the Jordan river. 
Please show me evidence one CANNOT see pycnocline with their own eyes. 
Please show me evidence that no one could see pycnocline unless god told them. 

I bet you that you cannot show evidence for one of the claims above. Not one. 

This is the sheer dishonesty I refer to. You'll fail in every aspect of showing evidence...yet continue to dance around this subject.

1) Please show me how its IMPOSSIBLE to go through pycnocline:

Please show me where I have stated that things cannot go through Pycnocline.

2) Please show me that the Quran is 100% refering to pycnocline:

Please show me where I have said that the Quran in that verse uses the word  pycnocline??

3) Please show me the Quran is not refering to the Jordan river:

Please show me where I have said it is referring to the Jordan River?

4) Please show me evidence one CANNOT see pycnocline with their own eyes:

Seeing as you don't know what a pycnocline is read this and tell me how it is possible to see this:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... pycnocline

So who is being dishonest Herictic, when you cannot even show me where I have even said any of these things to begin with. You want evidence for things I have never claimed.

I have no idea what you are asking me. When we first debated this I mentioned to you numerous times that the barrier can be transgressed and you disputed me on this. Now you're claiming that it can be? Then what exactly is so scientific about the Quran in regards to this verse? 

If they meet and mix, then it can be transgressed. Then the Quran would be wrong.

You still don't get it, we are not talking about the barrier being transgressed we are talking about the barrier that maintains each waters own individual characteristics. This is the meaning of not being transgressed. As I said I'm only refuting you on what you are saying and not what you think the Quran is trying to say. 

I'm not sure what this has to do with our debate. We also covered this though in the past. The Bible also mentions this. Plus, mountains do NOT stabalize the earth. They're the result of the earth being unstable. Plus, regions with mountains STILL have earth quakes. This is so blatantly unscientific its absurd.

Yeah sorry about that, I was meant to put the link Danmark put before which was:

http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-e.htm

As for Mountains you are denying science again. These are not our findings.

You cannot get a better and more beautiful description of the Quranic verse that describes Mountains like pegs, how would anyone 1400 years ago know that mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground?? Come on Herictic lets be realistic here. 

This is exactly why its frustrating dealing with you. I gave you the exactly where the quote is taken from. Probably close to 8 times now. Look it up yourself. Stop reading your apologist websites and do some research yourself. 

Even if you wish not to do the homework yourself, it matters not. Answer the questions I asked you.

If you feel this way then why the need to come back and put yourself in this situation again?

You have given me nothing except quotes from a book that cannot even be found let alone shown how it was copied, let's face it Herictic you have shown no evidence of anything you have claimed that I have claimed, then you point the finger at me and accuse me for not showing you evidence. What you don't realize is the websites you are on that try to refute the truth found in the Quran are trying their upmost best to fool people, the reality is that they are detextualizing passages from books to prove their silly claims. Thanks for the advise but I have done my research. I wish you would do yours.

Why would I need to answer the questions you have asked me, when I haven't even claimed these things?,  let's not act like Dawkins now!!

[HaLi8993]

@ Herictic

Guess you missed the one Hal is trying to use now that mountains prevent earthquakes.

http://www.livescience.com/18548-diving ... ounts.html

Interesting read!

[HaLi8993]

@ Hericitc

Here is a great example of how Muslim "scholars" NEED to twist the Quran to make it "amazing". 

The Quran lacks all evidence that it's from a god so verses are twisted beyond all comprehension to make it extraordinary. 

The following site states these are predictions from the Quran. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
ATOMIC ENERGY AND FISSION 

Allah splits the seed and kernel. He brings forth the living from the dead, and produces the dead out of the living. That is Allah, so how are you misguided? (Qur'an, 6:95) 

Me: Its quite clear the above verses is 100% unscientific to begin with. To salvage this problem, the following is given: 


The terms "seed" (al-habb) and "kernel" (an-nawa) in the above verse may indicate the splitting of the atom. Indeed, the dictionary meanings of an-nawa include "nucleus, centre, atomic nucleus." Furthermore, the description of bringing forth the living from the dead can be interpreted as Allah creating matter from dead energy. Producing the dead out of the living may refer to energy (dead) emerging from matter (living), since the atom is in motion. (Allah knows best.) That is because as well as "living," al-hayy can also mean "active, energetic." With its meaning of "non-living," al-mayyit, translated above as "dead," may very probably refer to energy. 

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/predi ... ndex.html 

Me: LOL! In other words, just make up anything one wants. Unbelievable. 

I have no doubt Hal will soon arrive and back up the above assertion that its utterly amazing how it predicted atomic energy. 

Sheesh.

Me: Herictic, we wouldn't need to twist things to make the Quran look amazing, it's content and teachings are morally and ethically of the highest standards, hence it is nothing short of amazing. The verse you quoted is very clear. I would suggest you focus on things that would be of value and benefit to you rather than wasting your energy on things that are of no benefit to you and what you want to believe.

Are you claiming things that are not true again Herictic? 

Through Quran 6:95 we are able to 
Recognize God Through Some of His verses for example how he causes the seed grain and the fruit stone to split and sprout in the ground, producing various types, colors, shapes, and tastes of grains and produce. He Who does all this, is God, the One and Only without partners. And how are people deluded away from the truth to the falsehood of worshipping others besides God.

It's the first that I have heard this verse suggest anything about Atomic Energy and Fission maybe you could try showing me a link that works so I may check this out Herictic, especially when detextualization is very abundant ourdays.