You seem to find it important to know that it is the first rather than the second. Is that right?
Yes
If I had to choose between the two, I would doubtless choose inspiration over the first.
Of course, I flat out doubt the first to even exist, so it is not even a decision at all...
I understand
It is also usually offered as evidence for things it does not even attempt to address, so I'm afraid that statement carries no weight whatsoever far as I am concerned.
I didn't understand that. Sometimes readers take it out of context. I think in a context the message would be very clear. Espacially when the Quraan is taken a a whole. Quraan and Islam is a whole system, parts can't be taken and judjed accordingly.
If you meant scientific, well it doesn't speak them explicitly. But they are signs. Quraan doesn't discuss science as it is not a scientific book. But certainly they are signs for those who seek science as their only prove.
For example here is a "long video" that shows some of these signs.
[youtube]HONF5YsqdUs[/youtube]
⺠Scientific Miracles Of The QuranâMind-Blowing FactsâAll parts 1-17 English [Full Documentary] - YouTube
There are other videos too. You will also many scientists or atheists that came to Islam because of certain events they observed.
I hope you take a look at them if you have time.
One should notice that while translations of the Quran are freely and widely available, its text tends to be comparatively unimpressive to those who are not already Muslims. It actually offers very little information outside specifically traditional or religious fields, and is strongly alegorical to the point of being difficult to negotiate.
I think there are some translation errors. Me being a muslim who speaks Arabic, Sometimes I use different translations for different verses because it is too often that when translation takes place, the clear meaning doesn't ge clear anymore.
But still the message of Islam is clear, and some scientific signs are clear too.
Your good will is noted and appreciated.
That is one thing I never quite understood in Islamic doctrine.
Sure, the Quran insists in the need to believe in God (although it also claims, countering it albeit not explicitly, that "there is no compulsion in religion").
This verse was revealed when there was one muslim trying to force his children into Islam. This verse came to say to the people that you are responsible only to deliver the message as clear as possible. You are in no position to force the people into believe.
But really, how clear can it be, or must it be, that belief in God is in and of itself meaningless? That it says nothing about how the specific person deals with it? Some people lose their way very badly indeed because they insist in believing to have God by their sides.
Quraan is full with verses directed to atheists asking them to observe things and reflect on it. It is also full of verses about righteousness.
Also, and this may be difficult for a Muslim to accept perhaps out of simple cultural conditioning, atheism is not at all to be avoided. It carries no bad consequences whatsoever, and avoids a few dangerous traps of theism.
I know that many atheists have more values than many other people do. But this is not all what life is about.
Theories will doubtless keep coming, but I think you are seeing a bias where none exists. To be fair, where none could even make a difference in the first place...
The bias I am seeing is in some theories and not all.
I guess I just don't have a problem with admitting no connection to answers about the meaning of infinity.
It is unanswerable.
It does not mean that I have to propose or believe that there is a name and a purpose for those lack of answers. Existence as a whole may well be truly and completely accidental, for all anyone really knows.
It does not mean that I have to be troubled by that, either.
In that sense, if you have time I hope you read this
http://www.al-dawah.dk/boger/engelske/pdf/Faith_and_Progress.pdf
That may have been the case, but it is not at all evident. "False" prophets arise far too easily and are way too difficult to tell from the genuine article for the existence of "true" prophets to be a given.
Prophets needs to prove they are prophets. We can tell a true from a false one by the proof.
Is that so? I would like to hope people were a bit more critical of what they were told.
That do you mean what they were told ?
People saw the miracles of the prophets that were meant for that age, they didn't hear.
The Bahais make similar statements. I personally think that there is something of a misunderstanding there. Prophecy, in the sense of caring for the quality of faith, is in fact much wider and much less related to belief in God.
I think Bahais take by the quran. And the Quraan states that prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is the last of the prophets. They don't take by that verse. They try it to make it say something else.
I speculate that back at the time "atheism' had a very different meaning than it does now.
My point was that religion for them to control their behaviors was necessary.
I have a strong hunch that this strong reliance on belief in God over actual deeds and moral values is a very recent phenomenom.
I have to disagree with you.
The article seems to be presenting some interesting insights into social psychology as applied by the Quran. I wish the presentation were a bit clearer, though.
I wished that too. Anyways, I found that interesting, I didn't read as a whole but I think it has some interesting things
QURANIC-SCIENTIFIC-THEOLOGY AND SCIENTIFIC-QURANIC-THEOLOGY | Caner Taslaman
Anyways sorry I pushed too many information in this reply.
But I am leaving the forums for a long time maybe. If anything send me a message and I will get an e-mail notification.
Hope you take your time on this subject if you found it interesting.
