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. Â
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.
Islam The Compassionate Way Of Life
Moderator: Moderators
Post #361
The link works.HaLi8993 wrote: @ Hericitc
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.Here is a great example of how Muslim "scholars" NEED to twist the Quran to make it "amazing".Â
The Quran lacks all evidence that it's from a god so verses are twisted beyond all comprehension to make it extraordinary.Â
The following site states these are predictions from the Quran.Â
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Â
ATOMIC ENERGY AND FISSIONÂ
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)Â
Me: Its quite clear the above verses is 100% unscientific to begin with. To salvage this problem, the following is given:Â
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.Â
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/predi ... ndex.htmlÂ
Me: LOL! In other words, just make up anything one wants. Unbelievable.Â
I have no doubt Hal will soon arrive and back up the above assertion that its utterly amazing how it predicted atomic energy.Â
Sheesh.
Are you claiming things that are not true again Herictic?Â
Through Quran 6:95 we are able toÂ
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.
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #362
It is pointless to discuss science with true believers in the Quran. They will take verses literally when they want and ambiguous verses will be interpreted according to whatever they think is the correct scientific position. There are many examples of this:
In 1966, when Sheik Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baaz was vice-president of the Islamic University of Medina, he wrote an article denouncing Riyadh University for teaching the "falsehood" that the earth rotates and orbits the sun.
In his 1966 article, ibn Baz did claim that the sun orbited the earth,[26][27][28] and that "the earth is fixed and stable, spread out by God for mankind and made a bed and cradle for them, fixed down by mountains lest it shake".[28] As a result of the publication of his first article, ibn Baz was ridiculed by Egyptian journalists as an example of Saudi primitiveness,[21] and King Faisal was reportedly so angered by the first article that he ordered the destruction of every unsold copy of the two papers that had published it.[19][28] In 1982 Ibn Baz published a book, Al-adilla al-naqliyya wa al-ḥissiyya ʿala imk�n al-ṣuʾūd ila al-kaw�kib wa ʾala jaray�n al-shams wa al-qamar wa sukūn al-ar� ("Treatise on the textual and rational proofs of the rotation of the sun and the motionlessness of the earth and the possibility of ascension to other planets"). In it, he republished the 1966 article, together with a second article on the same subject written later in 1966,[29] and repeated his belief that the sun orbited the earth.[20] In 1985, he changed his mind concerning the rotation of the earth (and, according to Lacey, ceased to assert its flatness), when Prince Sultan bin Salman returned home after a week aboard the space shuttle Discovery to tell him that he had seen the earth rotate.[19][22]
Wikipedia
In 1966, when Sheik Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baaz was vice-president of the Islamic University of Medina, he wrote an article denouncing Riyadh University for teaching the "falsehood" that the earth rotates and orbits the sun.
In his 1966 article, ibn Baz did claim that the sun orbited the earth,[26][27][28] and that "the earth is fixed and stable, spread out by God for mankind and made a bed and cradle for them, fixed down by mountains lest it shake".[28] As a result of the publication of his first article, ibn Baz was ridiculed by Egyptian journalists as an example of Saudi primitiveness,[21] and King Faisal was reportedly so angered by the first article that he ordered the destruction of every unsold copy of the two papers that had published it.[19][28] In 1982 Ibn Baz published a book, Al-adilla al-naqliyya wa al-ḥissiyya ʿala imk�n al-ṣuʾūd ila al-kaw�kib wa ʾala jaray�n al-shams wa al-qamar wa sukūn al-ar� ("Treatise on the textual and rational proofs of the rotation of the sun and the motionlessness of the earth and the possibility of ascension to other planets"). In it, he republished the 1966 article, together with a second article on the same subject written later in 1966,[29] and repeated his belief that the sun orbited the earth.[20] In 1985, he changed his mind concerning the rotation of the earth (and, according to Lacey, ceased to assert its flatness), when Prince Sultan bin Salman returned home after a week aboard the space shuttle Discovery to tell him that he had seen the earth rotate.[19][22]
Wikipedia
Post #363
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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????
First mistake: You claim that since Mohammed lived in the desert he could NOT have known about a land mass between two bodies of water? LMAO!
Second mistake: You have no presented a single piece of evidence as to what the Quran refers to. None. You assume it means X, then use science sites to back you up. That's not evidence. You need to present evidence that the Quran is actually referring to the process your science sites explain.
If you cannot, this issue is dead. That's the entire crux of your problem. I have given other examples of what the verse could refer to, unless you can show with 100% certainty the Quran does not refer to any of my examples AND show the Quran with 100% certainty refers to what you wish it to, you do not have an argument.
Do you understand this?
Mohammed was quite aware of the Jordan river, the sea of Galillea and the Dead Sea. I gave the example it could refer to the Jordan river, which perfectly backs up my assertion.
Can you prove hes not referring to the Jordan river? No. If you cannot, you have no case. Its that simple.
Mistake 4: The Quran never mentions all bodies of water.
I realize the Quran is not a book of science. Its you and your Muslim apologists who take verses out of context and/or distort add/delete from the Quran to make it appear to have science claims. I never denied the Quran mentions two bodies of water divided. What the Quran does not mention is what exactly it refers to. It could be a land barrier, it could be what Aristotle claimed, it could be the Jordan river, it could be where a river meets a sea or ever something I and others have not thought of. There isnt enough evidence to make an exact claim as to what is being referred to.
Quote:
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.
I realize no amount of typing I can do will ever compare to an actual site so I went online to find perhaps one that would explain better what I am trying to convey.
Perhaps there are better sites out there, but these should suffice.
http://www.archive2012.faithfreedom.org ... n-revised/
http://www.reocities.com/freethoughtmecca/water.html
Quote:
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:
2) Please show me that the Quran is 100% refering to pycnocline:
Mistake 6: I never claimed you said the Quran used that word. You are stating though, the Quran is referring to that process. So I am asking you (again), what evidence do you have it could only refer to pycnocline?
3) Please show me the Quran is not refering to the Jordan river:
4) Please show me evidence one CANNOT see pycnocline with their own eyes:
How many posts now have we had this debate and you STILL have not done so.
Let me make this more clear.
You claim the Quran refers to pycnocline.
Show me evidence WITHIN the Quran it is.
Show me evidence that it cannot be the Jordan river seperating the Dead Sea and the Sea of Gallile.
Show me evidence that it cannot be refer to a river going into a sea.
Ever notice every time you try to make a claim with the Quran, its gives a few words then you use a science site with a thousand words to back it up?
If the Quran was amazing, it would have the description the science site uses. Not just a few ambiguous, unclear words.
As for your sillly mountian claim...I'll get to that. I'll leave you with this though.
YOU claim the Quran states mountains were placed upon the earth to prevent earthquakes.
Fact: Mountains are the result of earthquakes.
Mountain regions have more earthquakes than non mountain regions.
Sorry for the rush job, but I do not have much time. It may even take me a few days or even a week to get back to you if you do respond.
Take care.
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?
Hal wrote: 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??
Quote:
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????
I have stated in the past, your posts are well written, but you commit the same mistakes over and over, you do not understand what others write, you ignore any evidence to the contrary and never seem to actually present any evidence and refuse to actually take the time to think what you have written.Hal wrote: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?
First mistake: You claim that since Mohammed lived in the desert he could NOT have known about a land mass between two bodies of water? LMAO!
Second mistake: You have no presented a single piece of evidence as to what the Quran refers to. None. You assume it means X, then use science sites to back you up. That's not evidence. You need to present evidence that the Quran is actually referring to the process your science sites explain.
If you cannot, this issue is dead. That's the entire crux of your problem. I have given other examples of what the verse could refer to, unless you can show with 100% certainty the Quran does not refer to any of my examples AND show the Quran with 100% certainty refers to what you wish it to, you do not have an argument.
Do you understand this?
Mohammed was quite aware of the Jordan river, the sea of Galillea and the Dead Sea. I gave the example it could refer to the Jordan river, which perfectly backs up my assertion.
Can you prove hes not referring to the Jordan river? No. If you cannot, you have no case. Its that simple.
Mistake number 3. NOT once, did I EVER claim he copies for Aristotle. You need to pay attention. The point I brought up is that it was already known. If it was, as I have provided evidence for, then its not a miracle in the Quran. Plus, Muslims interacted with other cultures, especially the Greeks, so Mohammed could have easily learned it. You are dishonest bc you claimed the Quran verse is more indepth than what Aristotle claimed, when ever a child can read that its not. The Quran is quite simplistic and doesn't explain what its referring to. Hence why I am able to come up with other possible answers while you cannot provide any evidence whatsover using the Quran what its referring to. With Aristotle, there isnt any question what he wrote about. Its 100% certain.Hal wrote: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!
Mistake 4: The Quran never mentions all bodies of water.
I realize the Quran is not a book of science. Its you and your Muslim apologists who take verses out of context and/or distort add/delete from the Quran to make it appear to have science claims. I never denied the Quran mentions two bodies of water divided. What the Quran does not mention is what exactly it refers to. It could be a land barrier, it could be what Aristotle claimed, it could be the Jordan river, it could be where a river meets a sea or ever something I and others have not thought of. There isnt enough evidence to make an exact claim as to what is being referred to.
Quote:
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.
Its you who is stating that it must be referring to pycnocline. Not me. I'm giving other examples which fit perfectly. No one has denied that you have given science sites that describe a water barrier. What you're not understanding is that you havent given any evidence the Quran is referring to that. The fact you dismiss the idea that its the Jordan river is why I call you dishonest. The example makes more sense. Mohammed lived/worked near the trade/caravan routes of the Jordan sea. So yes, he was quite aware of this and the example fits better. Remember, the Quran states a barrier that cannot be transgressed. You argued earlier that it could not, I provided evidence that pycnocline IS transgressed and you argued with me on this!! Now you're saying you never claimed this. Well, then the Jordan river is a better fit bc its a superior barrier between the two bodes of water compared to ANY pycnocline!!!Hal wrote:]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 realize no amount of typing I can do will ever compare to an actual site so I went online to find perhaps one that would explain better what I am trying to convey.
Perhaps there are better sites out there, but these should suffice.
http://www.archive2012.faithfreedom.org ... n-revised/
http://www.reocities.com/freethoughtmecca/water.html
Quote:
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:
Sure. Except for one problem. I cannot find where we first started our debate. This thread, another thread. If you can find that for me, I'll happily point out that you took this stance. I'm so confident that you claimed this, I'll call this mistake number 5.Hal wrote: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:
Hal wrote:Please show me where I have said that the Quran in that verse uses the word pycnocline??
Mistake 6: I never claimed you said the Quran used that word. You are stating though, the Quran is referring to that process. So I am asking you (again), what evidence do you have it could only refer to pycnocline?
3) Please show me the Quran is not refering to the Jordan river:
Mistake 7: I never claimed you said this. I claimed it. I'm asking you (again) to show me it cannot be referring to the Jordan river. You've dismissed this earlier in the post that it cannot be...show me why.Hal wrote: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:
Mistake 8: I already did in previous posts and once again gave a site on this very post to show it.Hal wrote: 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
Why you are of course. You still have no provided any evidence to back up your assertion. You seem to get very confused on what evidence is. You need to show evidence the Quran is making the claim to begin with and that it cannot refer to any other example I have given.Hal wrote: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.
How many posts now have we had this debate and you STILL have not done so.
Let me make this more clear.
You claim the Quran refers to pycnocline.
Show me evidence WITHIN the Quran it is.
Show me evidence that it cannot be the Jordan river seperating the Dead Sea and the Sea of Gallile.
Show me evidence that it cannot be refer to a river going into a sea.
Ever notice every time you try to make a claim with the Quran, its gives a few words then you use a science site with a thousand words to back it up?
If the Quran was amazing, it would have the description the science site uses. Not just a few ambiguous, unclear words.
As for your sillly mountian claim...I'll get to that. I'll leave you with this though.
YOU claim the Quran states mountains were placed upon the earth to prevent earthquakes.
Fact: Mountains are the result of earthquakes.
Mountain regions have more earthquakes than non mountain regions.
Sorry for the rush job, but I do not have much time. It may even take me a few days or even a week to get back to you if you do respond.
Take care.
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #364
There are dozens if not hundreds of examples of contradictions and scientific inaccuracies in the Quran and other 'holy' Islamic writings. One of the amusing and easy ways to demonstrate this is by simply going to websites that support or confront the 'wisdom' of Islam.
For example:
Is not He (better than your gods) Who has made the earth as a fixed abode, and has placed rivers in its midst, and has placed firm mountains therein, and has set a barrier between the two seas (of salt and sweet water). Is there any ilah (god) with Allah? Nay, but most of them know not.
Qur'an 27:61
and
(Is not He Who has made the earth as a fixed abode,) meaning, stable and stationary, so that it does not move or convulse, because if it were to do so, it would not be a good place for people to live on. But by His grace and mercy, He has made it smooth and calm, and it is not shaken or moved
The Command to praise Allah and send Blessings on His Messengers
Tafsir Ibn Kathir
from http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Er ... h_is_still
Contrast that with this from
http://www.quranandscience.com/earth/11 ... quran.html
The word "earthquake" is mentioned twice in the Glorious Qur'an, indicating "The Last Hour Quake" which is much more devastating than all the earthquakes that have affected and will affect our plant throughout its long history. The Glorious Qur'an reads:
"O mankind! Fear your Lord and be dutiful to Him! Verily, the earthquake of the Hour (of Judgment) is a terrible thing. The Day you see it, every nursing mother will forget her nursling, and every pregnant one will drop her load, and you shall see mankind as in a drunken state, yet they will not be drunken, but severe will be the Torment of Allah." (Surat Al-Hajj (The Pilgrimage):1-2)
So we have earthquakes, but we don't have earthquakes because the Earth is 'not shaken' and does not move, according to the Quran.
The Quran claims the Earth is 'fixed', yet we know it rotates on its axis as it moves around the sun.
Trying to match science and the Quran is like doing the same with the Bible, only there are even more errors. Both of these texts reflect the thinking of the times in which they were written. For their adherents to try to cherry pick specific verses to fit them to current thinking in science is futile and intellectually dishonest.
For example:
Is not He (better than your gods) Who has made the earth as a fixed abode, and has placed rivers in its midst, and has placed firm mountains therein, and has set a barrier between the two seas (of salt and sweet water). Is there any ilah (god) with Allah? Nay, but most of them know not.
Qur'an 27:61
and
(Is not He Who has made the earth as a fixed abode,) meaning, stable and stationary, so that it does not move or convulse, because if it were to do so, it would not be a good place for people to live on. But by His grace and mercy, He has made it smooth and calm, and it is not shaken or moved
The Command to praise Allah and send Blessings on His Messengers
Tafsir Ibn Kathir
from http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Er ... h_is_still
Contrast that with this from
http://www.quranandscience.com/earth/11 ... quran.html
The word "earthquake" is mentioned twice in the Glorious Qur'an, indicating "The Last Hour Quake" which is much more devastating than all the earthquakes that have affected and will affect our plant throughout its long history. The Glorious Qur'an reads:
"O mankind! Fear your Lord and be dutiful to Him! Verily, the earthquake of the Hour (of Judgment) is a terrible thing. The Day you see it, every nursing mother will forget her nursling, and every pregnant one will drop her load, and you shall see mankind as in a drunken state, yet they will not be drunken, but severe will be the Torment of Allah." (Surat Al-Hajj (The Pilgrimage):1-2)
So we have earthquakes, but we don't have earthquakes because the Earth is 'not shaken' and does not move, according to the Quran.
The Quran claims the Earth is 'fixed', yet we know it rotates on its axis as it moves around the sun.
Trying to match science and the Quran is like doing the same with the Bible, only there are even more errors. Both of these texts reflect the thinking of the times in which they were written. For their adherents to try to cherry pick specific verses to fit them to current thinking in science is futile and intellectually dishonest.
Post #365
@ Iam
Sorry about that Iam, when I had originally clicked on the link it was not working. I can admit my mistake and say that this must of been a technical glitch on my part. After looking at the link one can safely say that even the author is of total agreement that the verse "close in resemblance the splitting of the atom's nucleus in order to obtain atomic energy. The verse "MAY" meaning there is no definitive answer.The link works.
Post #366
@ Danmark
. We take Quranic verses for what they mean according the the authentic evidence supported by Islamic compliance.Â
This is what Ibn Bazz really said Danmark, any attempt to defame him and misinterpret what he said:
"According to the people of knowledge the Earth is round. Indeed, Ibn Hazm and other scholars have declared that there is consensus on this matter among the people of knowledge This means that all of the surface of the Earth is connected together so that the form of the planet is like a sphere. Nevertheless, Allah has spread out the Earth's surface in relation to us, and He has placed upon it firm mountains, the seas, and life as a mercy for us. For this reason, Allah said: "And (do they not look) at the Earth, how it was spread out flat (sutihat)." [Sûrah al-Ghâshiyah:20] Therefore, the Earth has been made flat for us in regards to our relationship to it to facilitate our lives upon it and our comfort. The fact that it is round does not prevent that its surface has been made flat for us. This is because something that is round and very large, then its surface will become very vast or broad, having a flat appearance to those who are upon it."
This is the fatawa of Sheikh Ibn Bazz about the shape of the Earth. Whoever says otherwise is lying against him and is narrating whatever they hear without verifying the accuracy of what Ibn Bazz really said.
May Allah give him the highest ranks of Paradise and have Mercy on him.
Thanks for calling me a true believer in Islam, I really appreciate this compliment DanmarkIt is pointless to discuss science with true believers in the Quran. They will take verses literally when they want and ambiguous verses will be interpreted according to whatever they think is the correct scientific position. There are many examples of this:Â
In 1966, when Sheik Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baaz was vice-president of the Islamic University of Medina, he wrote an article denouncing Riyadh University for teaching the "falsehood" that the earth rotates and orbits the sun.Â
In his 1966 article, ibn Baz did claim that the sun orbited the earth,[26][27][28] and that "the earth is fixed and stable, spread out by God for mankind and made a bed and cradle for them, fixed down by mountains lest it shake".[28] As a result of the publication of his first article, ibn Baz was ridiculed by Egyptian journalists as an example of Saudi primitiveness,[21] and King Faisal was reportedly so angered by the first article that he ordered the destruction of every unsold copy of the two papers that had published it.[19][28] In 1982 Ibn Baz published a book, Al-adilla al-naqliyya wa al-ḥissiyya ʿala imk�n al-ṣuʾūd ila al-kaw�kib wa ʾala jaray�n al-shams wa al-qamar wa sukūn al-ar� ("Treatise on the textual and rational proofs of the rotation of the sun and the motionlessness of the earth and the possibility of ascension to other planets"). In it, he republished the 1966 article, together with a second article on the same subject written later in 1966,[29] and repeated his belief that the sun orbited the earth.[20] In 1985, he changed his mind concerning the rotation of the earth (and, according to Lacey, ceased to assert its flatness), when Prince Sultan bin Salman returned home after a week aboard the space shuttle Discovery to tell him that he had seen the earth rotate.[19][22] Wikipedia
. We take Quranic verses for what they mean according the the authentic evidence supported by Islamic compliance. This is what Ibn Bazz really said Danmark, any attempt to defame him and misinterpret what he said:
"According to the people of knowledge the Earth is round. Indeed, Ibn Hazm and other scholars have declared that there is consensus on this matter among the people of knowledge This means that all of the surface of the Earth is connected together so that the form of the planet is like a sphere. Nevertheless, Allah has spread out the Earth's surface in relation to us, and He has placed upon it firm mountains, the seas, and life as a mercy for us. For this reason, Allah said: "And (do they not look) at the Earth, how it was spread out flat (sutihat)." [Sûrah al-Ghâshiyah:20] Therefore, the Earth has been made flat for us in regards to our relationship to it to facilitate our lives upon it and our comfort. The fact that it is round does not prevent that its surface has been made flat for us. This is because something that is round and very large, then its surface will become very vast or broad, having a flat appearance to those who are upon it."
This is the fatawa of Sheikh Ibn Bazz about the shape of the Earth. Whoever says otherwise is lying against him and is narrating whatever they hear without verifying the accuracy of what Ibn Bazz really said.
May Allah give him the highest ranks of Paradise and have Mercy on him.
Post #367
@ Herictic
Mistake 1: Your first mistake is you claiming that I'm claiming that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) could not have known about land mass, did I say such a thing?, certainly not! I think you are miss crewing things once again. All I said is that this would be amazing! The very fact that one of the opinions is indeed land mass would be a viable reason to believe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew this. Â Â
You are claiming that this is nothing special and that land mass can be seen if this is the case then you would need to prove how anyone 1400 years ago could have known 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 having its own course and destination that is separated from that of the other.Â
Mistake 2: You are claiming I have not provided evidence as to what that verse is referring too, this is false I have given you both opinions I suggest you go back and refresh your memory.
QURAN:
"He has let loosed the two seas meeting together. Between them is a barrier which none of them can transgress"
It is very simple Herictic, do try and understand, theÂ
Quran states that there are barriers in the sea. Science has confirmed this fact. The scientific term for one form of barrier is called the "pycnocline"Â
On page 287 of this link it tells us the following about this barrier:Â
"In seas where the pycnocline is a distinct feature(for example, in the Baltic Sea and fjords in the Nordic seas), it is a barrier which prevents deep waters from mixing with surface waters...."
Again in another book the meaning of pycnocline:
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/egeo3/glossary.aspx
"The boundary between layers of water of different densities"
And finally, this barrier can not been seen with the naked eye:
http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/MarineNotes/Jan-Feb96/index.php
"The pycnocline forms an invisible boundary..."
The Quran states there are barriers in the sea. Science confirms there are barriers in the sea. Therefore, the statement in the Quran agrees with what modern science has recently discovered. Very simple!!Â
So either way regardless of whatever barrier the Quran is referring too, the fact that there is a barrier that prevents the waters from transgressing is sufficient enough to show us that nothing of this nature could have been known 1400 years ago.Â
Assertions don't count for much Herictic you need to prove what you say. You would need to prove that waters transgress and that there exists no barrier and stop occupying your time with the Jordon River. As I have said on numerous occasions the Quran is not a book of science. Let us assume for argument sake, that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not referring to the scientific fact. This means we affirm that Muhammad (peace be upon him) in no way was referring to the scientific fact, therefore that answers the question. The reason why there is not enough information in the passage is because he did NOT know about this scientific fact.Â
But this only further demonstrates the miracle of the Quran. Here is a man who had no knowledge of science... let me repeat - he in no way had any knowledge of science... yet there are so many statements in the Quran which agree with science.Â
Therefore, by assuming that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had no knowledge of science only further proves the argument that the Quran is the truth.Â
Mistake 4: This does not apply to all bodies of water. Can you show me how we have taken things out of context, changed the meaning of the verse according to the Tafsir, added, subtracted or changed a single vowel or letter from the Quran?? We do not make it seem to have scientific claims, even though the Quran is not a book of science, many scientific facts that are expressed in an extremely concise and profound manner in its verses have only been discovered with the technology of the 20th century. These facts could not have been known at the time of the Quran's revelation, and this is still more proof that the Quran is the word of God. If you had read this verse without your biased opinions about Islam, what do you think this would apply too?? Hey Herictic it could also be what science and the Quran speak of. What ever it may be, the waters to not transgress and there exists a barrier.
Can you show me where I said such a thing, you are still confused as to what is meant by transgress, it means that each waters salinity, temperature and density do not transgress with each other.
It's funny how you have to resort to anti-Islamic websites to prove your point, unfortunately Herictic they are wrong. If you want to prove what you say to be of truth I would appreciate it if you would use scientific websites as I do if you want to deny what I say is wrong.
The fact that you cannot accept the truth and try and make excuses for this is not in your best interest, furthermore the reason for your constant attempts in disproving the Quran wrong is of no avail.
What the Quran is referring too is what we have of evidence of the meaning of the verse something you are on a continual battle to accept.
Let me make this easier for you Herictic:
1) You claim that the Quran cannot be referring to pycnocline when we are well informed that there exists a barrier in the sea proven by science that is called a pycnocline
2) You want to believe that the barrier is land, again Islam does not object to this, as one of the scholarly opinions is that the barrier is referring to "dry land"Â
So either way Herictic the Quran is correct and this is not the only foundational proof in the Quran which is based on the sole core of Islamic Creed, something that will be of benefit too you.
One of the reasons as mentioned previously why the Quran does not go into detail with this is because some things may not have been discovered yet and another reason which you have admitted is that it is not a book of science.
Moreover the words are precise and meaningful only to those that recognize the truth from falsehood, furthermore there is ample evidence in the Quran that are precise and accurate that could and not have been known 1400 years ago without the scientific tools and knowledge the world has today. One example being the human embryonic development, which is referred to a "leech" with such explicit words how could this have been known?
I would ask you to refute the links I have posted about Mountains first, thanks Herictic
PS. Very sorry for the late reply I also have other commitments and priorities that are considered a greater priority. But I will try and respond when I get a chance especially when I'm waiting at the traffic lights or stuck in traffic lol.
The problem with your response Herictic is that what is consider as a mistake is not, and what you have presented within the entire duration of our time discussing this issue is nothing to back your claims, furthermore a lack of investigation into the truth. What you have done is go on anti-Islamic websites and regurgitate what they are saying, it would be better for you to use your mind to do your own research on this matter.I have stated in the past, your posts are well written, but you commit the same mistakes over and over, you do not understand what others write, you ignore any evidence to the contrary and never seem to actually present any evidence and refuse to actually take the time to think what you have written.Â
First mistake: You claim that since Mohammed lived in the desert he could NOT have known about a land mass between two bodies of water? LMAO!Â
Second mistake: You have no presented a single piece of evidence as to what the Quran refers to. None. You assume it means X, then use science sites to back you up. That's not evidence. You need to present evidence that the Quran is actually referring to the process your science sites explain.Â
If you cannot, this issue is dead. That's the entire crux of your problem. I have given other examples of what the verse could refer to, unless you can show with 100% certainty the Quran does not refer to any of my examples AND show the Quran with 100% certainty refers to what you wish it to, you do not have an argument.Â
Do you understand this?Â
Mohammed was quite aware of the Jordan river, the sea of Galillea and the Dead Sea. I gave the example it could refer to the Jordan river, which perfectly backs up my assertion.Â
Can you prove hes not referring to the Jordan river? No. If you cannot, you have no case. Its that simple.
Mistake 1: Your first mistake is you claiming that I'm claiming that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) could not have known about land mass, did I say such a thing?, certainly not! I think you are miss crewing things once again. All I said is that this would be amazing! The very fact that one of the opinions is indeed land mass would be a viable reason to believe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew this. Â Â
You are claiming that this is nothing special and that land mass can be seen if this is the case then you would need to prove how anyone 1400 years ago could have known 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 having its own course and destination that is separated from that of the other.Â
Mistake 2: You are claiming I have not provided evidence as to what that verse is referring too, this is false I have given you both opinions I suggest you go back and refresh your memory.
QURAN:
"He has let loosed the two seas meeting together. Between them is a barrier which none of them can transgress"
It is very simple Herictic, do try and understand, theÂ
Quran states that there are barriers in the sea. Science has confirmed this fact. The scientific term for one form of barrier is called the "pycnocline"Â
On page 287 of this link it tells us the following about this barrier:Â
"In seas where the pycnocline is a distinct feature(for example, in the Baltic Sea and fjords in the Nordic seas), it is a barrier which prevents deep waters from mixing with surface waters...."
Again in another book the meaning of pycnocline:
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/egeo3/glossary.aspx
"The boundary between layers of water of different densities"
And finally, this barrier can not been seen with the naked eye:
http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/MarineNotes/Jan-Feb96/index.php
"The pycnocline forms an invisible boundary..."
The Quran states there are barriers in the sea. Science confirms there are barriers in the sea. Therefore, the statement in the Quran agrees with what modern science has recently discovered. Very simple!!Â
So either way regardless of whatever barrier the Quran is referring too, the fact that there is a barrier that prevents the waters from transgressing is sufficient enough to show us that nothing of this nature could have been known 1400 years ago.Â
Assertions don't count for much Herictic you need to prove what you say. You would need to prove that waters transgress and that there exists no barrier and stop occupying your time with the Jordon River. As I have said on numerous occasions the Quran is not a book of science. Let us assume for argument sake, that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not referring to the scientific fact. This means we affirm that Muhammad (peace be upon him) in no way was referring to the scientific fact, therefore that answers the question. The reason why there is not enough information in the passage is because he did NOT know about this scientific fact.Â
But this only further demonstrates the miracle of the Quran. Here is a man who had no knowledge of science... let me repeat - he in no way had any knowledge of science... yet there are so many statements in the Quran which agree with science.Â
Therefore, by assuming that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had no knowledge of science only further proves the argument that the Quran is the truth.Â
Mistake 3: Again there is no evidence of what Aristotle has mentioned is from him, nor is there any evidence that Muhammad (peace be upon him) knew of such a thing. You have still not provided me the entire work of Aristotle, unless you let me have a read for myself of this you have nothing, taking things out of context and detextualising passages from a book that cannot even be found is no evidence. For all I know this and the book could be something made up. This would be of no surprise! Furthermore if you do not believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him) copied Aristotle then what is the problem? You have agreed and stated that the Quran is simple, it is only logical that if the Prophet (peace be upon him) had indeed learnt it, even though he was illiterate, then he would have gone into more detail about it, would he not?? I would just like to also point out that we do not understand the Quran by simply drawing our own conclusions as to the meaning of Quranic verses but we console the books of Tafsir where both opinions as to the meaning of this verse is found.Mistake number 3. NOT once, did I EVER claim he copies for Aristotle. You need to pay attention. The point I brought up is that it was already known. If it was, as I have provided evidence for, then its not a miracle in the Quran. Plus, Muslims interacted with other cultures, especially the Greeks, so Mohammed could have easily learned it. You are dishonest bc you claimed the Quran verse is more indepth than what Aristotle claimed, when ever a child can read that its not. The Quran is quite simplistic and doesn't explain what its referring to. Hence why I am able to come up with other possible answers while you cannot provide any evidence whatsover using the Quran what its referring to. With Aristotle, there isnt any question what he wrote about. Its 100% certain.Â
Mistake 4: The Quran never mentions all bodies of water.Â
I realize the Quran is not a book of science. Its you and your Muslim apologists who take verses out of context and/or distort add/delete from the Quran to make it appear to have science claims. I never denied the Quran mentions two bodies of water divided. What the Quran does not mention is what exactly it refers to. It could be a land barrier, it could be what Aristotle claimed, it could be the Jordan river, it could be where a river meets a sea or ever something I and others have not thought of. There isnt enough evidence to make an exact claim as to what is being referred to.
Mistake 4: This does not apply to all bodies of water. Can you show me how we have taken things out of context, changed the meaning of the verse according to the Tafsir, added, subtracted or changed a single vowel or letter from the Quran?? We do not make it seem to have scientific claims, even though the Quran is not a book of science, many scientific facts that are expressed in an extremely concise and profound manner in its verses have only been discovered with the technology of the 20th century. These facts could not have been known at the time of the Quran's revelation, and this is still more proof that the Quran is the word of God. If you had read this verse without your biased opinions about Islam, what do you think this would apply too?? Hey Herictic it could also be what science and the Quran speak of. What ever it may be, the waters to not transgress and there exists a barrier.
Nope you are mistakenly under the impression that the Quran need mention the word pycnocline. It really doesn't matter what you think fits perfectly, this is only your assumption. If you are in agreement of a barrier then can you tell me how this would have been known, the evidence is found in the verse that specifies the word "barrier" lol.ÂIts you who is stating that it must be referring to pycnocline. Not me. I'm giving other examples which fit perfectly. No one has denied that you have given science sites that describe a water barrier. What you're not understanding is that you havent given any evidence the Quran is referring to that. The fact you dismiss the idea that its the Jordan river is why I call you dishonest. The example makes more sense. Mohammed lived/worked near the trade/caravan routes of the Jordan sea. So yes, he was quite aware of this and the example fits better. Remember, the Quran states a barrier that cannot be transgressed. You argued earlier that it could not, I provided evidence that pycnocline IS transgressed and you argued with me on this!! Now you're saying you never claimed this. Well, then the Jordan river is a better fit bc its a superior barrier between the two bodes of water compared to ANY pycnocline!!!Â
I realize no amount of typing I can do will ever compare to an actual site so I went online to find perhaps one that would explain better what I am trying to convey.Â
Perhaps there are better sites out there, but these should suffice.Â
http://www.archive2012.faithfreedom.org ... -the-s...Â
http://www.reocities.com/freethoughtmecca/water.html
Can you show me where I said such a thing, you are still confused as to what is meant by transgress, it means that each waters salinity, temperature and density do not transgress with each other.
It's funny how you have to resort to anti-Islamic websites to prove your point, unfortunately Herictic they are wrong. If you want to prove what you say to be of truth I would appreciate it if you would use scientific websites as I do if you want to deny what I say is wrong.
Mistake 5, You seem to like passing on your own mistakes to others. Is this the common practice when you can't answer questions? From what I remember it was on this very thread we had discussed this topic.Sure. Except for one problem. I cannot find where we first started our debate. This thread, another thread. If you can find that for me, I'll happily point out that you took this stance. I'm so confident that you claimed this, I'll call this mistake number 5.
Mistake 6, What you did say was that the Quran does not refer to pycnocline to deny that there is a barrier that science has confirmed that exists in the sea that is called a pycnocline cannot be denied Herictic. Did I say it is only referring to a pycnocline?? Certainly not!!, what I did say Herictic once again which you keep ignoring is that there are two opinions one referring to vast lands that separate the rivers from the seas, so that there is no mixing of their waters and two being a barrier that is not visible to human eyes.ÂMistake 6: I never claimed you said the Quran used that word. You are stating though, the Quran is referring to that process. So I am asking you (again), what evidence do you have it could only refer to pycnocline?
Mistake 7, wrong again Herictic. Who said that it cannot be referring to the Jordon River?? If you are of the opinion it is dry land then it may very well be.Mistake 7: I never claimed you said this. I claimed it. I'm asking you (again) to show me it cannot be referring to the Jordan river. You've dismissed this earlier in the post that it cannot be...show me why.
Mistake 8, Anti-Islamic websites do not suffice, Nice try!. Can you explain in your own words the possibility of seeing a Pycnocline as you have claimed.Mistake 8: I already did in previous posts and once again gave a site on this very post to show it.
Lol, I have provided ample evidence Herictic let's not fool ourselves here.....Why you are of course. You still have no provided any evidence to back up your assertion. You seem to get very confused on what evidence is. You need to show evidence the Quran is making the claim to begin with and that it cannot refer to any other example I have given.Â
How many posts now have we had this debate and you STILL have not done so.Â
Let me make this more clear.Â
You claim the Quran refers to pycnocline.Â
Show me evidence WITHIN the Quran it is.Â
Show me evidence that it cannot be the Jordan river seperating the Dead Sea and the Sea of Gallile.Â
Show me evidence that it cannot be refer to a river going into a sea.Â
Ever notice every time you try to make a claim with the Quran, its gives a few words then you use a science site with a thousand words to back it up?Â
If the Quran was amazing, it would have the description the science site uses. Not just a few ambiguous, unclear words.Â
As for your sillly mountian claim...I'll get to that. I'll leave you with this though.Â
YOU claim the Quran states mountains were placed upon the earth to prevent earthquakes.Â
Fact: Mountains are the result of earthquakes.Â
Mountain regions have more earthquakes than non mountain regions.Â
Sorry for the rush job, but I do not have much time. It may even take me a few days or even a week to get back to you if you do respond.Â
Take care.
The fact that you cannot accept the truth and try and make excuses for this is not in your best interest, furthermore the reason for your constant attempts in disproving the Quran wrong is of no avail.
What the Quran is referring too is what we have of evidence of the meaning of the verse something you are on a continual battle to accept.
Let me make this easier for you Herictic:
1) You claim that the Quran cannot be referring to pycnocline when we are well informed that there exists a barrier in the sea proven by science that is called a pycnocline
2) You want to believe that the barrier is land, again Islam does not object to this, as one of the scholarly opinions is that the barrier is referring to "dry land"Â
So either way Herictic the Quran is correct and this is not the only foundational proof in the Quran which is based on the sole core of Islamic Creed, something that will be of benefit too you.
One of the reasons as mentioned previously why the Quran does not go into detail with this is because some things may not have been discovered yet and another reason which you have admitted is that it is not a book of science.
Moreover the words are precise and meaningful only to those that recognize the truth from falsehood, furthermore there is ample evidence in the Quran that are precise and accurate that could and not have been known 1400 years ago without the scientific tools and knowledge the world has today. One example being the human embryonic development, which is referred to a "leech" with such explicit words how could this have been known?
I would ask you to refute the links I have posted about Mountains first, thanks Herictic
PS. Very sorry for the late reply I also have other commitments and priorities that are considered a greater priority. But I will try and respond when I get a chance especially when I'm waiting at the traffic lights or stuck in traffic lol.
Post #368
@ Danmark
Again Danmark these are no contradictions, WikiIslam is an Anti-Islamic website known for spreading hatred, animosity and false information about Islam, if you would kindly point out what you believe to be the contradiction I could clarify this for you.
The Earthquake that will take place before the end of time is  established, the hour, meaning the hour of judgement. This will be a  prelude to Resurrection. Hence there is a difference between this and earthly earthquakes that we experience. This is no contradiction they are two totally different things. You will find descriptions of this earthquake in the Tafsir of other verses in the Quran also such as Quran 56: 1-6 where it confirms that the earth will be shaken and moved violently over all of its surface and through its depths.Â
Quran 56: 1-6
1. When the Waqi`ah occurs) (2. There is not, for its occurrence, Kadhibah.) (3. Bringing low (some), exalting (others).) (4. When the earth will be shaken with a terrible shake.) (5. And the mountains will be powdered to dust,) (6. So that they will become floating dust particles.)Â
Lol, as for the earth being "fixed" it appeared that you have answered your own question Danmark, it is clear from the meaning of the verse you have given according Tafsir Ibn Kathir that the meaning of fixed means the earth is stable and stationary meaning it is referring to the earth being a stable ground not it rotating on its axis as it moves around the sun, again these are two different things you will find the following translation that confirms this inÂ
Sahih International:
"Is He [not best] who made the EARTH a stable ground and placed within it rivers and made for it firmly set mountains and placed between the two seas a barrier? Is there a deity with Allah ? [No], but most of them do not know."
If it were referring to space then the verse wouldn't have stated rivers and seas and if what was meant by earthy earthquakes then there wouldn't be the mention of every nursing mother forgetting her nursling, and every pregnant women dropping  her unborn child, nor mankind as in a drunken state, yet they will not be drunk. As these things are not likely to occur as a result of earthly earthquakes.Â
Therefore Danmark failing to understand the religion of Islam is why you believe there is a contradiction however the Quran testifies to all truth and the truth is apparent in it. Free from all contradictions and errors. We would not need to match science with the Quran because science is compatible with the Quran and proves it to be of truth. God is the owner of science and the Quran is for all times and places as it is a universal religion. There  are many narrations that speak of what is still yet to occur and what has already taken place again further testifying to its accuracy.
Those who wish not to believe in the Quran are denying it out of lack of knowledge and stubbornness. There are numerous teachings of Islam that only science and modern technology has been able to prove nowadays. For example the benefits of sleeping on your right side, the benefits of honey, the benefits of circumcision, the benefits of fasting, the benefits of breastfeeding for 2 years, the benefits of black seed oil, the benefits of cupping, the benefits of going to the toilet sitting down (for men) and using water to purify ones self and the benefits of praying  only to mention a few.
Everything God has commanded us to do is for our own wellbeing and everything he has prohibited is for our own self detriment.Â
Therefore Danmark I invite you to learn about Islam from reliable  sources, and believe and submit to the Lord of the Worlds your Creator and Sustainer of all that exists and stop rejecting the truth that has come to the final, perfect example to follow, the seal of the Prophets and Messengers (peace be upon him).
Sorry for the late reply DanmarkThere are dozens if not hundreds of examples of contradictions and scientific inaccuracies in the Quran and other 'holy' Islamic writings. One of the amusing and easy ways to demonstrate this is by simply going to websites that support or confront the 'wisdom' of Islam.Â
For example:Â
Is not He (better than your gods) Who has made the earth as a fixed abode, and has placed rivers in its midst, and has placed firm mountains therein, and has set a barrier between the two seas (of salt and sweet water). Is there any ilah (god) with Allah? Nay, but most of them know not.Â
Qur'an 27:61Â
andÂ
(Is not He Who has made the earth as a fixed abode,) meaning, stable and stationary, so that it does not move or convulse, because if it were to do so, it would not be a good place for people to live on. But by His grace and mercy, He has made it smooth and calm, and it is not shaken or movedÂ
The Command to praise Allah and send Blessings on His MessengersÂ
Tafsir Ibn KathirÂ
from http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Er ... h_is_still
Contrast that with this fromÂ
http://www.quranandscience.com/earth/11 ... uran.htmlÂ
The word "earthquake" is mentioned twice in the Glorious Qur'an, indicating "The Last Hour Quake" which is much more devastating than all the earthquakes that have affected and will affect our plant throughout its long history. The Glorious Qur'an reads:Â
"O mankind! Fear your Lord and be dutiful to Him! Verily, the earthquake of the Hour (of Judgment) is a terrible thing. The Day you see it, every nursing mother will forget her nursling, and every pregnant one will drop her load, and you shall see mankind as in a drunken state, yet they will not be drunken, but severe will be the Torment of Allah." (Surat Al-Hajj (The Pilgrimage):1-2)Â
So we have earthquakes, but we don't have earthquakes because the Earth is 'not shaken' and does not move, according to the Quran.Â
The Quran claims the Earth is 'fixed', yet we know it rotates on its axis as it moves around the sun.Â
Trying to match science and the Quran is like doing the same with the Bible, only there are even more errors. Both of these texts reflect the thinking of the times in which they were written. For their adherents to try to cherry pick specific verses to fit them to current thinking in science is futile and intellectually dishonest.
Again Danmark these are no contradictions, WikiIslam is an Anti-Islamic website known for spreading hatred, animosity and false information about Islam, if you would kindly point out what you believe to be the contradiction I could clarify this for you.
The Earthquake that will take place before the end of time is  established, the hour, meaning the hour of judgement. This will be a  prelude to Resurrection. Hence there is a difference between this and earthly earthquakes that we experience. This is no contradiction they are two totally different things. You will find descriptions of this earthquake in the Tafsir of other verses in the Quran also such as Quran 56: 1-6 where it confirms that the earth will be shaken and moved violently over all of its surface and through its depths.Â
Quran 56: 1-6
1. When the Waqi`ah occurs) (2. There is not, for its occurrence, Kadhibah.) (3. Bringing low (some), exalting (others).) (4. When the earth will be shaken with a terrible shake.) (5. And the mountains will be powdered to dust,) (6. So that they will become floating dust particles.)Â
Lol, as for the earth being "fixed" it appeared that you have answered your own question Danmark, it is clear from the meaning of the verse you have given according Tafsir Ibn Kathir that the meaning of fixed means the earth is stable and stationary meaning it is referring to the earth being a stable ground not it rotating on its axis as it moves around the sun, again these are two different things you will find the following translation that confirms this inÂ
Sahih International:
"Is He [not best] who made the EARTH a stable ground and placed within it rivers and made for it firmly set mountains and placed between the two seas a barrier? Is there a deity with Allah ? [No], but most of them do not know."
If it were referring to space then the verse wouldn't have stated rivers and seas and if what was meant by earthy earthquakes then there wouldn't be the mention of every nursing mother forgetting her nursling, and every pregnant women dropping  her unborn child, nor mankind as in a drunken state, yet they will not be drunk. As these things are not likely to occur as a result of earthly earthquakes.Â
Therefore Danmark failing to understand the religion of Islam is why you believe there is a contradiction however the Quran testifies to all truth and the truth is apparent in it. Free from all contradictions and errors. We would not need to match science with the Quran because science is compatible with the Quran and proves it to be of truth. God is the owner of science and the Quran is for all times and places as it is a universal religion. There  are many narrations that speak of what is still yet to occur and what has already taken place again further testifying to its accuracy.
Those who wish not to believe in the Quran are denying it out of lack of knowledge and stubbornness. There are numerous teachings of Islam that only science and modern technology has been able to prove nowadays. For example the benefits of sleeping on your right side, the benefits of honey, the benefits of circumcision, the benefits of fasting, the benefits of breastfeeding for 2 years, the benefits of black seed oil, the benefits of cupping, the benefits of going to the toilet sitting down (for men) and using water to purify ones self and the benefits of praying  only to mention a few.
Everything God has commanded us to do is for our own wellbeing and everything he has prohibited is for our own self detriment.Â
Therefore Danmark I invite you to learn about Islam from reliable  sources, and believe and submit to the Lord of the Worlds your Creator and Sustainer of all that exists and stop rejecting the truth that has come to the final, perfect example to follow, the seal of the Prophets and Messengers (peace be upon him).
Post #369
Basically your entire premise is this:
It could be a land mass.
It could be where a river meets a sea.
It could be the Jordan river.
But its definently pycnocline.
So its a scientific miracle.
I ask for evidence that the Quran is actually refering to pycnocline and your evidence is that you say it is...then give a science site about pycnoline.
The explanations I mentioned actually fit the description better, since a land mass and the Joran river are a superior barrier.....yet since those would not be scientific miracles, you continue to cling to pycnocline.
Gotcha.
As for the mountains....
Quran states the mountains ARE the pegs.
You change it to the mountains have pegs.
Even though moutains dont, they have roots.
Which is already mentioned in the Bible.
Quran states mountains were placed upon the earth to prevent earthquakes.
Yet mountains are the results of the earthquakes.
Mountain regions actually have MORE earthquakes.
So you find one example of a moutains under the ocean which MAY slow down an earthquake...
And you claim its a miracle.
Gotcha.
Sorry Hal, I just cannot take you seriously.
It could be a land mass.
It could be where a river meets a sea.
It could be the Jordan river.
But its definently pycnocline.
So its a scientific miracle.
I ask for evidence that the Quran is actually refering to pycnocline and your evidence is that you say it is...then give a science site about pycnoline.
The explanations I mentioned actually fit the description better, since a land mass and the Joran river are a superior barrier.....yet since those would not be scientific miracles, you continue to cling to pycnocline.
Gotcha.
As for the mountains....
Quran states the mountains ARE the pegs.
You change it to the mountains have pegs.
Even though moutains dont, they have roots.
Which is already mentioned in the Bible.
Quran states mountains were placed upon the earth to prevent earthquakes.
Yet mountains are the results of the earthquakes.
Mountain regions actually have MORE earthquakes.
So you find one example of a moutains under the ocean which MAY slow down an earthquake...
And you claim its a miracle.
Gotcha.
Sorry Hal, I just cannot take you seriously.
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #370
So... if a verse comes from an 'evil' website the verse is somehow invalidated? LOL.HaLi8993 wrote:
Sorry for the late reply Danmark
Again Danmark these are no contradictions, WikiIslam is an Anti-Islamic website known for spreading hatred, animosity and false information about Islam, if you would kindly point out what you believe to be the contradiction I could clarify this for you.
The Earthquake that will take place before the end of time is  established, the hour, meaning the hour of judgement. This will be a  prelude to Resurrection. Hence there is a difference between this and earthly earthquakes that we experience. This is no contradiction they are two totally different things. You will find descriptions of this earthquake in the Tafsir of other verses in the Quran also such as Quran 56: 1-6 where it confirms that the earth will be shaken and moved violently over all of its surface and through its depths.Â
Quran 56: 1-6
1. When the Waqi`ah occurs) (2. There is not, for its occurrence, Kadhibah.) (3. Bringing low (some), exalting (others).) (4. When the earth will be shaken with a terrible shake.) (5. And the mountains will be powdered to dust,) (6. So that they will become floating dust particles.)Â
Lol, as for the earth being "fixed" it appeared that you have answered your own question Danmark, it is clear from the meaning of the verse you have given according Tafsir Ibn Kathir that the meaning of fixed means the earth is stable and stationary meaning it is referring to the earth being a stable ground not it rotating on its axis as it moves around the sun, again these are two different things you will find the following translation that confirms this inÂ
Sahih International:
"Is He [not best] who made the EARTH a stable ground and placed within it rivers and made for it firmly set mountains and placed between the two seas a barrier? Is there a deity with Allah ? [No], but most of them do not know."
If it were referring to space then the verse wouldn't have stated rivers and seas and if what was meant by earthy earthquakes then there wouldn't be the mention of every nursing mother forgetting her nursling, and every pregnant women dropping  her unborn child, nor mankind as in a drunken state, yet they will not be drunk. As these things are not likely to occur as a result of earthly earthquakes.Â
Therefore Danmark failing to understand the religion of Islam is why you believe there is a contradiction however the Quran testifies to all truth and the truth is apparent in it. Free from all contradictions and errors. We would not need to match science with the Quran because science is compatible with the Quran and proves it to be of truth. God is the owner of science and the Quran is for all times and places as it is a universal religion. There  are many narrations that speak of what is still yet to occur and what has already taken place again further testifying to its accuracy.
Those who wish not to believe in the Quran are denying it out of lack of knowledge and stubbornness. There are numerous teachings of Islam that only science and modern technology has been able to prove nowadays. For example the benefits of sleeping on your right side, the benefits of honey, the benefits of circumcision, the benefits of fasting, the benefits of breastfeeding for 2 years, the benefits of black seed oil, the benefits of cupping, the benefits of going to the toilet sitting down (for men) and using water to purify ones self and the benefits of praying  only to mention a few.
Everything God has commanded us to do is for our own wellbeing and everything he has prohibited is for our own self detriment.Â
Therefore Danmark I invite you to learn about Islam from reliable  sources, and believe and submit to the Lord of the Worlds your Creator and Sustainer of all that exists and stop rejecting the truth that has come to the final, perfect example to follow, the seal of the Prophets and Messengers (peace be upon him).
"He has created the heavens without supports that you can see, and has cast (alqa) onto the earth firm mountains (rawasiya) lest it should shake with you (tamida bikum **) ..."
In the Prophets (Al-Anibiya') 21:31, as one of seven warnings we read:
"And We have set on the earth firm mountains (rawasiya ), lest it should shake with them (tamida bihim**)."
Finally in the Bee (Al-Nahl) 16:15, among many "signs for the wise" we read:
"And He has cast onto the earth firm mountains (rawasiya) lest it should shake with you ... (tamida bikum**)"
The phrase "tamida bi" from mada, yamidu, is only used in the above three Quranic verses which are marked **. Hans Wehr's "Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic" gives the meaning of the verbal phrase "mada bi" as: to shake something violently.
"Mada bi" is the very form used in these verses.
We see then that the believers and unbelievers are told that Allah has done this great thing. He has thrown down and placed the mountains so that the earth will not shake violently with them. Therefore, we must ask ourselves what the followers of Muhammad were supposed to understand.
http://answering-islam.org/Campbell/s4c2a.html
If the verses about the earth being stable neither refer to an absence of earthquakes nor to the Earth not moving on its axis or around the sun, what DO these verses refer to?
It is much simpler to simply admit the truth, 'the prophet' was about to kill himself and in his mental state of confusion and depression he imagined the angel Gabriel talking to him, telling him he was a prophet. This is what happens when one like Muhammad focuses on himself. This leads to despair, to mental imbalance which leads to delusions of grandeur and angels, a typical religious experience, common to both Islam and Christianity
