I have no clue who the "you" is, but if you would ask me, I would answer, yes, I need to know that I believe what I believe for a reason. That's why you have empirical, versus stated beliefs. You have Occurrent, Dispositional, Explicit, etc Beliefs.
http//plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

My beliefs are empirical indeed -- some of the things in the Qur'an are extraordinary claims, others less so. I have to ask though, what reason would be sufficient for you to believe? I refer back to my allegory earlier; it is of no difference to the man whether he convinces you or not, he decided of his own will to tell you the tale. I think what more we are looking at here, rather than types of belief, are types of analytical behaviour.

I infer that you believe things based on the truths present and work backwards from there, I believed in the Qur'an by working from the basis that this is a series of 'truths' being presented to me, and then compared them with my own experience and knowledge. As in modern science, even things that have been observed to be true remain a theory. Without the willingness to accept something alternative is the truth, it becomes impossible to progress.

I once thought I saw a UFO. Later inspection showed me it was wishful thinking combined with a trick by my brain. So I stopped believing I saw a UFO.

I don't feel this is a fair analogy, seeing something in the sky could be anything from a unique angle of an object in the sky, to indeed, a UFO. The Qur'an is either the work of man, or the work of God as it claims.

And that is precisely why there is something called faith. Which I lack. So if a person claims he has a Toyota in his garage I accept it. If the claim is there's an invisible dragon in my garage or a 747 I sort of would expect extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.

Again, I don't feel this is a fair analogy. It feels a lot like the 'flying spaghetti monster' argument. If you switch God with something ridiculous and remove the basis of the belief in God -- i.e his works, then it is only logical that you wouldn't believe the claim.

What "extraordinary insight" are you talking about? I am not aware of anything extraordinary said of Muhammad. Except maybe the splitting of the moon, but that is more allegoric than factual.

Not 'of Muhammad', 'by Muhammad'. If you take away God being the author of the Qur'an, then the book must be written by Muhammad -- or Muhammad and his allies. In this case, one would consider the Qur'an to be something extraordinary Muhammad wrote, in the same way The Illiad is something extraordinary Homer wrote.

What exactly would you call "like the Qur'an"? And if someone did, who would be the judge and by what standard? Sorry, the inimitability claim fails badly in reality.

A book claiming to have knowledge 'of the Unseen' if you like. As for judges, considering humanity is subjective the only fair judge would be all of those who read it. However, this is irrelevant, as is the question posed at the end of my first post. The Qur'an itself claims it is of no difference whether you believe it or disbelieve in it, for the author is free of need.

Alhamdullilah, how you have changed!

Welcome back.

After having read the posts in this thread it seems you would not believe without concrete evidence.

I definitely see where you are coming from, before I read the Qur'an I felt the same way -- but I pose a question to you. Had there been hard evidence, would everyone not believe? Is that what God really asks of us?

From reading the Qur'an, I get the message that God wants us to put our trust in him. It is similar to a man coming to you, and narrating an extraordinary tale. It is of no difference of to him whether you believe his story or not, he knows it to be true.

And then the question arises, if the Qur'an is not from God -- how does one explain Muhammad's extraordinary insight? The greatest philosophers who have ever lived haven't managed to come close to recording something like the Qur'an, yet are held in higher esteem in the west.

well in that case, I live in a KAFIR country, how am I suppose to take guidance form the people who have authority?

Is it not written in the ayah?

...If you dispute in any matter, you shall refer it to GOD and the messenger, if you do believe in GOD and the Last Day. This is better for you, and provides you with the best solution.

Salam,

Thank you so much for the insight guys!

Satan could have easily been an Angel.

Pickthall Translation
1850 - And (remember) when We said unto the angels Fall prostrate before Adam, and they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He was of the jinn, so he rebelled against his Lord's command. Will ye choose him and his seed for your protecting friends instead of Me, when they are an enemy unto you? Calamitous is the exchange for evil-doers.

Sahih International
1850 - And when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblees. He was of the jinn and departed from the command of his Lord. Then will you take him and his descendants as allies other than Me while they are enemies to you? Wretched it is for the wrongdoers as an exchange.

This verse seems to disagree. It also implies the free will situation -- it is mentioned he is a jinn because only a jinn could disobey a direct command. It also implies that he willingly submitted for a time, until he heard the one command he was unwilling to comply with (to prostrate to Adam.)

I will put it this way,

I have found in the Qur'an, repeatedly, the message that you do not make distinctions between the prophets.

Considering this, it is hypocritical for us to refer to Muhammad and then honour him with SAS, if we do not do the same for every other prophet who has lived. Even the distinction between SAS and AS is too much. So either we carry the respect in our heart when we refer to them (I.E, it's implied this person is of great status) or we honour them all with the exact same term. Anything in between is hypocrisy, imo.

Peace

I think to boil down the message of salat purely to programming/conditioning, is too simple.

I hold salaat to mean the contact prayer. You can hold salaat at any time, and anywhere, and potentially without moving your lips. Your intention through salaat could be to ask for help, to thank, to ask for providence upon yourself or others, etc. The result is, inshallah, manifestation of that which you prayed for, which reinforces itself in your mind as the truth -- the truth being appealing to the mind, results in you engaging in salat.

Depends on how much proof you want, really, doesn't it?

I mean, if you look at the Qur'an, you can instantly recall events in your life or situations and feelings you've experienced that Allah has already put forward (some 1400 years before you were even born) as an example.
Science is covered in the scripture, to an extent, but it isn't really a pillar of belief, because when the reality reciprocates the Qur'an and vice versa, is there need for flawed human 'proof'?

One more question The only Quran I have at home is the Yusuf Ali version...can anyone recommend a better English translation of the Quran for me to study? I would appreciate it!

Insofar, I have found the Muhammad Pickthall translation to be the most accurate. I have also heard good things of the Free-Minds translation but cannot speak from experience as I have not read it.

Salam.

Peace, thread starter! I hope you will change your user name soon due to not being scared anymore.

It's great that you're here. The truth is mind blowing, life changing, this is so. Satan wants you to think it's scary. My own reaction to the truth has historically been to heed Satan and deny it, only less and less so as time goes by. I hope to one day be able to accept the truth fully, though I suspect this might have to wait until judgement day.
My own denying of truth has made me try to accept some ready-made doctrine or other (like you seem to have done), so I wouldn't have to for myself, nor would I have to trust in the guidance of the Lord.

Some posters in this thread would have you accept doctrine based on numerological infatuation. They give bad advice that you should ignore, in my opinion.
My advice to you is to stay clear of the doctrine of others. You obviously know how to find truth within yourself. Keep at it, and you will find more and more insights. These will be confirmed by the Qur'an. It's a gradual process, at least for me it is.
You should pray, and you should relax, because you are safe in the hands of the One who is Merciful beyond comprehension.
You should try to check all of your assumptions, often. You should try to let go, trust in your Creator, let Him show you what's true and false, let Him take care of you.
Then you follow the truth as best you can and ask forgiveness for your shortcomings. Pray for patience!

Best wishes, don't be scared, it's better than alright! God bless you!

I cannot say it any better than this brother has said it.

Alhamdullilah you are being guided, peace and blessings be upon you sister.

Peace, everyone.

Thanks for your thoughts. I spent some time thinking about it more deeply, and it does confuse the matter. I think it depends on your personal definition of miracle. What I meant more with the opening post was a miracle in the sense that, for example if everyone on the planet was to witness a miracle at once, they would undoubtedly ascribe it to the divine. For example, Moses parting the sea. However, the Qur'an is of a miraculous nature, so that too would be a miracle.

It doesn't affect anything for me, I just like thinking about these kinds of questions.

I from time to time used to have these fleeting doubts. I really hate calling them that, because they are more like questions that last around 5 seconds.

I remedied this just by rereading the Qur'an. When you recognise the majesty of the book, and how accurately it portrays the nature of humanity as well as the natural world itself, and the subtlety upon subtlety veiled in the wording -- even when translated into the English language, I have no doubts in my heart left that this book and this deen is from Allah.

Every time I look at a bird now I remember Allah.

I guess what I'm getting at is, read the reminder, and see if it reminds you

Can't edit the topic. Should read 'Al-Asr'. Too early in the morning for correct spellings.

Sounds like you've been living in a bubble for sometime. A lot of us here lived in the same bubble.

I hope Allah helps you breach the barrier.

It has been done.

Anthropic principle

Which was formed from scientific principles.

If we find an irrefutable and perfect philosophical idea, then it will lead us to a bullet-proof scientific fact.

Can you think of any time in the entire history of mankind this has been done?

And if not, do you see why?

I typed mono-panentheism and not mono-pantheism.

Sorry, I misread.

For this discussion to go anywhere, I'd need to understand how you subscribe to mono-panentheism better, many people have many different takes on it.

I do not 'blindly' follow rules.

I start with the basis that Allah is correct. Anything otherwise is impossible. From there, I work backwards. What did Allah say. Is this logical. Why is it logical. If it is not logical, what would the cause of it seeming illogical be. And eventually, I feel I have an understanding of what he said. Then, I revisit the verse and attempt to solidify that understanding by comparing it to other places in the book where similar terms are used.

At no point has this sequence of deduction ever failed me, which is why I follow. Because Allah is correct, and has proven himself to be time and time again.

Please understand that the big bang is not a fact and is not accepted by many scientists. Let us leave physics aside and concentrate on philosophy.

To say that ''God'' always was, is to say that the possibility of something always existing is philosophically correct and plausible. As the question has no end, occam's razor should be applied, and the easiest solution may be the answer that we are all part of an ever-living energy.

What I propose is simple, instead of seeing Islam as a monotheistic philosophy, I see it as a monopanentheistic philosophy.

Please excuse my earlier tone, it is because in life I am always confronted with prideful people who believe that they have the truth on every subject and never take the time to analyze anything, which is very frustrating. Again, I am very sorry.

Your apology is accepted. I can understand your frustrations.

To begin with, applying existing and altogether human philosophies to a being that we, as humans struggle to conceptualise -- even with said being contacting us to inform us of his nature, is a little illogical. For example, God is perfect. There is nothing on earth that by human rationale we would call perfect, yet Allah calls our forms perfect. Does this mean God is wrong?

Continuing with your application of Occams Razor, I agree, the most simple plausible solution should be applied. However, you cannot ignore that which is evident to simplify further. That would not be Occams Razor at all.

Then there is your position of monothiestic pantheism. From the language used in the Qur'an, assuming we both agree Allah is the author of the book, I understand that it is not that everything is God, rather everything belongs to God. Do you see what I mean? I am not well versed enough in pantheism, but from what I understand the natural world as it is, looking at it from a pantheistic basis, would not make sense.