Misconceptions about Islam:

[HaLi8993]

There are many misconceptions that exist within the field of Islam one being the topic of women. Unfortunately due to ignorance and lack of knowledge of some people and the ever growing propaganda and Islamaphobia that exist today, including the ever growing media agenda’s that govern the way people think and act, women are deemed as being unequal to men in Islam.

We are all aware that women and men are not alike so I don’t understand when someone makes the statement that Islam should practice equality, what do you mean by equality??? This word – equality – which many thinkers in both the east and the west advocate in various fields of life is a word which is based on deviation and a lack of understanding, especially when it is attributed to the religion to Islam. One of the things that people misunderstand is when they say that “Islam is the religion of equality�. What they should say is that Islam is the religion of justice.

Here we should note that there are some people who speak of equality instead of justice, and this is a mistake. We should not say equality, because equality implies no differentiation between the two. Because of this unjust call for equality, people start to ask, what is the difference between male and female?’ So they made males and females the same. We are all aware that the Male is not like the female.

God says in the Quran:

“And the male is not like the female�[Quran Aal ‘Imraan 3:36] The male is different from the female in many ways, in his strength, in his body, in his toughness and roughness, whereas women are soft and gentle. Women are like men in some aspects and they differ from them in others. Most of the rulings of Islam apply to men and women equally.

In cases where a distinction is made between the sexes, the Muslim regards that as a mercy from God and a sign of His knowledge of His creation, but the arrogant people see it as oppression and injustice, so he stubbornly insists on claiming that men and women are the same. So let him tell us how a man can carry a foetus and breastfeed it? He stubbornly ignores the weakness of women and how they bleed during their monthly period, and he stubbornly refuses to accept reality.

But the Muslim is still at peace with his faith, surrendering to the command of God. “Should not He who has created know? And He is the Most Kind and Courteous (to His slaves), All Aware (of everything)� [Quran al-Mulk 67:14 ]

[HaLi8993]

@ Herictic

QUOTE: "My apologies. Instead of using Hali I kept using Hal when I addressed you"

ANSWER: Lol, No Problem!

[hERICtic]

Hali,

Sigh...I'm going to give this one more shot. But in order to continue this debate, we need some ground rules. You cannot keep ignoring questions posed to you.

When I ask for evidence, there are two kinds that I am refering to.

One is the evidence within the verse. The verse HAS TO be making the claim you are saying it is. It cannot be open to interpretation. It cannot be amibigous. It cannot have simpler, obvious explanations that you choose to ignore.

The other evidence is for your actual claim. You have to provide scientific evidence that backs up your claim.

Case in point.

He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress. (Quran, 55:19-20)

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)

Here is the claim from the Quran.

Two SEAS meet. There is a barrier between them.
These two SEAS consist of one with fresh water, the other salt water.
These two bodies of water DO NOT intermingle with one another.
Thats it. Nothing more.

Now, please answer my questions.

Show me using the Quran the author is NOT refering to a land mass.
Show me using a science site that its IMPOSSIBLE for the two waters to eventually mix with the action of pycnocline
Show me a sea that contains fresh water.
If its refering to pycnocline, why it is a miracle when it can be seen by ones own eyes up close?
I have given you FOUR times the quotes by Pliny and Aristotle(please go back and look them up), which predate the Quran by 1000 years, both giving in detail the effects of pycnocline, how the waters are seperate, fresh and salty. Why isnt it a miracle that they IN DETAIL describe the effect of pycnocline but the Quran is considered a miracle when very little detail is given?

I have brought up these points numerous times and you keep ignoring them to keep the Quran miraclous.

Please address each and every point.

Thanks.

[HaLi8993]

@ Herictic

QUOTE: "Hali,

Sigh...I'm going to give this one more shot. But in order to continue this debate, we need some ground rules. You cannot keep ignoring questions posed to you"

ANSWER: Lol, I don't ignore questions posted to me, you fail to acknowledge them. Only if you don't ignore my questions also, agreed?

QUOTE: "When I ask for evidence, there are two kinds that I am refering to. 

One is the evidence within the verse. The verse HAS TO be making the claim you are saying it is. It cannot be open to interpretation. It cannot be amibigous. It cannot have simpler, obvious explanations that you choose to ignore"

ANSWER: I simply cannot agree to this, reason being is because as Muslims we follow the Quran, and Hadith they go hand in hand, furthermore as mentioned previously we have what we call books of tafsir, which explain the meaning of each verse. As Muslims we cannot just read a verse and draw our own interpretations and meanings. If you cannot except the meaning of the verse then we have nothing.

QUOTE: "The other evidence is for your actual claim. You have to provide scientific evidence that backs up your claim"

ANSWER: I have no problem with this, I have clearly given you scientific proof but they go unnoticed, so really I have to ask you, what is your intention for debate, is it to prove Islam wrong or is it to seek for the truth with an open heart???

Do you still want me to continue to answer your questions???

[A Troubled Man]

ANSWER: I simply cannot agree to this, reason being is because as Muslims we follow the Quran, and Hadith they go hand in hand, furthermore as mentioned previously we have what we call books of tafsir, which explain the meaning of each verse. As Muslims we cannot just read a verse and draw our own interpretations and meanings. If you cannot except the meaning of the verse then we have nothing.

Hilarious. You need one book to explain the meaning of another book that helps explain the meaning of yet another book, and you wouldn't dare read that book for fear of drawing meaning from the words written there.

Is there another book that explains the meaning of the tafsir books?

[hERICtic]

@ Herictic

QUOTE: "Hali,

Sigh...I'm going to give this one more shot. But in order to continue this debate, we need some ground rules. You cannot keep ignoring questions posed to you"

ANSWER: Lol, I don't ignore questions posted to me, you fail to acknowledge them. Only if you don't ignore my questions also, agreed?

I have addressed every single point you have made.

I have asked you a few times to point out that it could not refer to land. You have yet to answer.

I have given you the exact quotes by Pliny and Aristotle and yet you keep asking me to keep giving them to you. Its as if you just completely ignore them.

These are just a few examples.

I have no problem answering any question to the best of my ability. I will always also answer them honestly.

QUOTE: "When I ask for evidence, there are two kinds that I am refering to. 

One is the evidence within the verse. The verse HAS TO be making the claim you are saying it is. It cannot be open to interpretation. It cannot be amibigous. It cannot have simpler, obvious explanations that you choose to ignore"

ANSWER: I simply cannot agree to this, reason being is because as Muslims we follow the Quran, and Hadith they go hand in hand, furthermore as mentioned previously we have what we call books of tafsir, which explain the meaning of each verse. As Muslims we cannot just read a verse and draw our own interpretations and meanings. If you cannot except the meaning of the verse then we have nothing.

But the verses are contained in the Quran. Are you saying without others telling you what the Quran states, you cannot grasp what is being stated?

I have debated quite a few Christian fundamentalists in the past. Quite a few times, the Bible has a huge blunder, something so inane it just does not make sense. What am I told? That because the holy spirit is not in me, I cannot grasp what the Bible is actually stating? In other words, the Bible clearly says X, all the evidence goes against it, so its ME who is not understanding what the Bible is REALLY saying.

You're saying the exact same thing. It all makes sense in English, until someone who reads English points out an error...then suddenly the translation is faulty.

So in other words, it can be painfully obvious what the Quran is refering to, but if it contradicts science or actually doesnt make the claim, but the Hadiths say otherwise, you'll side with the Hadiths?

Ok, for the sake of argument, what do the Hadiths and tafsir say about the water barrier? Show me a tafsir or hadith prior to the 20th century that claim it refers to a barrier in the waters.

QUOTE: "The other evidence is for your actual claim. You have to provide scientific evidence that backs up your claim"

ANSWER: I have no problem with this, I have clearly given you scientific proof but they go unnoticed, so really I have to ask you, what is your intention for debate, is it to prove Islam wrong or is it to seek for the truth with an open heart???

Do you still want me to continue to answer your questions???

You are creating strawman arguments.

You claim the Quran states X when in fact you can provide no evidence the Quran is making that claim. Then you base your entire argument around X.
You also ignore anything that contradicts X.

First, the Quran never makes the claim. I have already showed this numerous times regarding the water barrier.
Second, it can be VISIBLY seen with the naked eye. Therefore automatically, it cannot be a miracle.
Third, it was already known a 1000 years before the Quran was written.
Fourth, there isnt a sea that contains fresh water. This again, automatically destroys every single paste job you've done regarding the water barrier.
Fifth, there technically is not a water barrier. It APPEARS there is, but there isnt one. You're not understanding what is being stated in your very own paste jobs.
Sixth, the fact the waters do mix, renders your entire point moot.

This is what I mean by ingnoring what I am asking for. You have ignored each and every point I just brought up.

Now please, no need to paste anything I stated above. Just focus on this. Just address these issues. Paste the following points, address each. Stop avoiding them.

1) Name me the two seas, one containing fresh water and the other containing salt water that touch. Name me any two seas that fit this criteria.
2) Explain to me how Pliny and Aristotle did NOT know about the water seperation. I have given the quotes by each at least four times.
3) Show me with evidence the Quran cannot refer to land.
4) Show me with evidence that these seperation of the waters cannot be seen with the naked eye.

You are making the outlandish claim. The burden is upon you to provide the evidence.

I now have asked quite a few times for you to address the four points above in various posts. I am asking now specifically to address these four points.

Nothing else needs to be brought up. Just address those four points.

Thanks.

[HaLi8993]

@ Herictic

QUOTE: "I have addressed every single point you have made. 

I have asked you a few times to point out that it could not refer to land. You have yet to answer. 

I have given you the exact quotes by Pliny and Aristotle and yet you keep asking me to keep giving them to you. Its as if you just completely ignore them. 

These are just a few examples. 

I have no problem answering any question to the best of my ability. I will always also answer them honestly"

ANSWER: I don't believe this is true I have asked many questions that were not answered, you just choose what you want to answer lol.

I don't see how I could point out to you it's not land when it does refer to land also.

As for Pliny and Aristotle I am asking you to show me exactly where it is referring to a barrier. 

QUOTE: "But the verses are contained in the Quran. Are you saying without others telling you what the Quran states, you cannot grasp what is being stated? How naive. Very scary. 

So in other words, it can be painfully obvious what the Quran is refering to, but if it contradicts science or actually doesnt make the claim, but the Hadiths say otherwise, you'll side with the Hadiths? 

Ok, for the sake of argument, what do the Hadiths and tafsir say about the water barrier?"

ANSWER: We were not present at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) nor would we understand the context each verse is referring to and at what time and place it was revealed and for what reason. Hence we have a book of commentary, to say I cannot use this is ludicrous, cause it is part of the Islamic belief system. Just like the bible has commentary so does the Quran, whats so hard to understand?? Many verses in the bible are unclear so one refers to the commentary, do they not??? 

The Quran and Hadith go hand in hand, they compliment each other, when something goes against either the Quran or an authenticated Hadith regardless if it is scientific we do not accept this because we do not take something that man says over what God says, because God is All-Knowledgable where as man is not hence is probably wrong and later down the track new evidence will emerge that will override what man once thought, which is what we are witness to today.

I will get to this, but before I do are you going to accept the commentary or are you just going to say the Quran doesn't say this?, I have no problem siting the page.

QUOTE: "
You are creating strawman arguments. 

You claim the Quran states X. Then you base your entire argument around X. 
You also ignore anything that contradicts X. 

First, the Quran never makes the claim. I have already showed this numerous times regarding the water barrier. 
Second, it can be VISIBLY seen with the naked eye. Therefore automatically, it cannot be a miracle. 
Third, it was already known a 1000 years before the Quran was written. 
Fourth, there isnt a sea that contains fresh water. This again, automatically destroys every single paste job you've done regarding the water barrier. 
Fifth, there technically is not a water barrier. It APPEARS there is, but there isnt one. You're not understanding what is being stated in your very own paste jobs. Sixth, the fact the waters do mix, renders your entire point moot.

This is what I mean by ingnoring what I am asking for. You have ignored each and every point I just brought up. 

Now please, no need to paste anything I stated above. Just focus on this. Just address these issues. Paste the following points, address each. Stop avoiding them. 

1) Name me the two seas, one containing fresh water and the other containing salt water that touch. Name me any two seas that fit this criteria. 
2) Explain to me how Pliny and Aristotle did NOT know about the water seperation. I have given the quotes by each at least four times. 
3) Show me with evidence the Quran cannot refer to land. 
4) Show me with evidence that these seperation of the waters cannot be seen with the naked eye. 

You are making the outlandish claim. The burden is upon you to provide the evidence. 

I now have asked quite a few times for you to address the four points above in various posts. I am asking now specifically to address these four points. 

Nothing else needs to be brought up. Just address those four points. 

Thanks

ANSWER: The Quran explicitly says there is a barrier the commentary back the fact that there are two scholarly opinions one being land the other being a barrier invisible to the naked eye, now if you reject and do not allow me to use the commentary as I said we have nothing and cannot continue.

You are choosing to only believe in the opinion you want to believe in to justify your argument. About it referring to land

I don't believe anything of this nature was known, that's why I wanted you to show me the passage you believe explains anything about a  barrier.

As for the sea that doesn't contain fresh water it is very clear that it is not referring to the sea in the commentary on this verse, but of course you don't let me use the material Muslims believe in. Lol so unless you allow me to debate with you using my sources we don't have anything.

As for you claiming there is no water barrier it just seems like there is, that's why one of the meanings is a barrier invisible to the naked eye.

As for them eventually mixing, I haven't seen any evidence for this.

I will address each and every one of these points but before I begin to answer your questions I would like to ask you some questions first, do you agree?? Yes or No???

[HaLi8993]

@ A Troubled Man

QUOTE: "Hilarious. You need one book to explain the meaning of another book that helps explain the meaning of yet another book, and you wouldn't dare read that book for fear of drawing meaning from the words written there. 

Is there another book that explains the meaning of the tafsir books?"

ANSWER: lol, it's called commentary of the Quran, we do not play around with the meanings of the verses of God, we are very strict when it comes to it's interpretation, could you imagine if each person just added what they thought a particular verse meant, we are clearly a witness how things over time change and become corrupted due to this with other scriptures. 

Doesn't the theory of Evolution have volumes and volumes of explanations?? Or does it sum it up all in one book for any person to understand it??? Or does it require explanation??

[hERICtic]

As for Pliny and Aristotle I am asking you to show me exactly where it is referring to a barrier. 

This is exactly what I am refering to. I already gave this encyclopedia defintion of pycncoline:http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/pycnoclines

The word "barrier" appears no where in the definition, yet it refers to pycnocline.

Your entire argument is that since Pliny or Aristotle does not use the word "barrier" then it cannot be refering to pycnocline, when in fact they give a perfect description of the occurence.

This is blatantly dishonest.

ANSWER: The Quran explicitly says there is a barrier the commentary back the fact that there are two scholarly opinions one being land the other being a barrier invisible to the naked eye, now if you reject and do not allow me to use the commentary as I said we have nothing and cannot continue.

You are choosing to only believe in the opinion you want to believe in to justify your argument. About it referring to land

I don't believe anything of this nature was known, that's why I wanted you to show me the passage you believe explains anything about a  barrier.

Wrong. I have gone over this a few times quite clearly. First, the ORIGINAL interpretation was land. It was only fairly recently did the belief it was refering to pycncoline come about. Only when modern science started explaining it did this interpretation suddenly appear. No translator EVER stated it was anything but a land barrier bc this so called "miracles in the Quran came about". Think about it. Second, I have given the scripture numerous times. I have pointed out numerous times it actually states very little, ONLY that there is a barrier between the seas. Thats it. Thats all it says. You cannot claim its a miracle when in fact there are other explanations available. To even suggest ANY explanation that fits is acceptable is dishonest. We can ONLY go by what is stated in the Quran. Thats it. No one was there to question the author, so we can only go by what the Quran states. And all it states is that there was a barrier.

As for the sea that doesn't contain fresh water it is very clear that it is not referring to the sea in the commentary on this verse, but of course you don't let me use the material Muslims believe in. Lol so unless you allow me to debate with you using my sources we don't have anything.

Wrong again. Its YOU who keeps giving sites that describe actual seas meeting actual seas. I have no doubt the author was refering to fresh water lakes and the sea. Makes perfect sense. A barrier LAND, seperating the fresh water and the the salt water of the ocean. In fact, the Quran doesnt even mention the waters touching! Which gives more credence that it refers a land mass.

As for them eventually mixing, I haven't seen any evidence for this.

Thats because you're not understanding the sites you are reading. Pycocline IS the barrier. Its not invisible. It the MIXING of the waters above and the waters below. http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/ ... ucture.htm

And there is mixing! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pycnocline

I will address each and every one of these points but before I begin to answer your questions I would like to ask you some questions first, do you agree?? Yes or No???

So let me understand this. I mention that you ignore key evidence, key points and ignore questions...and you answer by saying you wont answer any of these issue until I answer your questions?

No. I'm not trying to be impolite, but this very post alone shows you do not understand what your Muslim sites are feeding you. Let me give you a direct hint: Lies.

You keep repeating what they tell you without actually doing any homework yourself.

Please answer my questions and I will be more than happy to address yours.

Thanks.

[A Troubled Man]

ANSWER: lol, it's called commentary of the Quran, we do not play around with the meanings of the verses of God, we are very strict when it comes to it's interpretation, could you imagine if each person just added what they thought a particular verse meant, we are clearly a witness how things over time change and become corrupted due to this with other scriptures.

Unfortunately, that doesn't explain why there are varying denominations of Islam and why Muslims fight and kill each other over their interpretations. And, if the Quran requires several books written by other men in order to zero in on a particular interpretation, then it is pretty much useless. 

Doesn't the theory of Evolution have volumes and volumes of explanations??

One book, "The Origin of Species" - try reading it sometime. Of course, some time ago, I provided YOU with a link to help understanding evolution, which you obviously just ignored.

Here is a link to the book...

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwi ... f-species/

[HaLi8993]

@ Herictic

QUOTE: "This is exactly what I am refering to. I already gave this encyclopedia defintion of pycncoline:http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/pycnoclines

The word "barrier" appears no where in the definition, yet it refers to pycnocline. 

Your entire argument is that since Pliny or Aristotle does not use the word "barrier" then it cannot be refering to pycnocline, when in fact they give a perfect description of the occurence.

This is blatantly dishonest"

ANSWER: A definition is not a description on how something works, I have given you evidence that it is referring to a barrier lol.

http://m.eb.com/topic/484518

Ok then show me what makes you believe that it is referring to pycnocline, let's have a look at it and compare it to what a pycnocline is. Can you kindly post this again.

It must be a barrier, separation, boundary of some sort that deals with the different densities of the two different waters. Otherwise how would we know it is referring to a pycnocline?

QUOTE: "Wrong. I have gone over this a few times quite clearly. First, the ORIGINAL interpretation was land. It was only fairly recently did the belief it was refering to pycncoline come about. Only when modern science started explaining it did this interpretation suddenly appear. No translator EVER stated it was anything but a land barrier bc this so called "miracles in the Quran came about". Think about it. Second, I have given the scripture numerous times. I have pointed out numerous times it actually states very little, ONLY that there is a barrier between the seas. Thats it. Thats all it says. You cannot claim its a miracle when in fact there are other explanations available. To even suggest ANY explanation that fits is acceptable is dishonest. We can ONLY go by what is stated in the Quran. Thats it. No one was there to question the author, so we can only go by what the Quran states. And all it states is that there was a barrier"

ANSWER: No, you are wrong lol, the original interpretations were land and an invisible barrier the later being the narration of Al-Qurtubi and Imam As-Suyooti.

It is only recently that researchers are proving what the Quran says. These interpretations existed between 1200's and the 1500's the first interpretation by Ibn Kathir and the second was narrated by al-Qurtubi from Ibn Abbaas, and as-Suyooti attributed it to a report from Abd ibn Humayyid from Qataadah. It can be found in See ad-Durr al-Manthoor. Again you don't want to accept it, I am not the one making these interpretations up the second interpretation (invisible barrier) found in the above mentioned commentary was written in the 1500's.

I can't emphasize this enough, we cannot just read the Quran and understand it without the commentary, this is not possible. You are basically telling me that Muslims don't believe in the books of tafsir, that is crazy, you just want to believe that Muslims only follow the Quran so you can say there is no barrier mentioned in the verse, but it is a known fact that Muslims have books of commentary unlike any other religion in the world. 

QUOTE: "Wrong again. Its YOU who keeps giving sites that describe actual seas meeting actual seas. I have no doubt the author was refering to fresh water lakes and the sea. Makes perfect sense. A barrier LAND, seperating the fresh water and the the salt water of the ocean. In fact, the Quran doesnt even mention the waters touching! Which gives more credence that it refers a land mass"

ANSWER: Yes, this is what it's referring too, where did I ever say they were both seas?? I will explain this to you provided you answer my question first.

QUOTE: "Thats because you're not understanding the sites you are reading. Pycocline IS the barrier. Its not invisible. It the MIXING of the waters above and the waters below. http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/ ... cture.htm 

And there is mixing! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pycnocline 

ANSWER: If Pycocline is the barrier then why are you saying Pliny or Aristotle don't need to mention this?

There is a slow mixing of waters, however the properties of each water do not transgress.

QUOTE:"So let me understand this. I mention that you ignore key evidence, key points and ignore questions...and you answer by saying you wont answer any of these issue until I answer your questions? 

No. I'm not trying to be impolite, but this very post alone shows you do not understand what your Muslim sites are feeding you. Let me give you a direct hint: Lies. 

You keep repeating what they tell you without actually doing any homework yourself. 

Please answer my questions and I will be more than happy to address yours. 

Thanks."

ANSWER: I won't answer any of your questions until you answer one  question of mine, it's not much to ask for, come on lol.

Your right your not TRYING to be impolite at all lol, must come naturally (just kidding)

Homework?? I have done plenty of that!

Seriously I only have one question.