Talk:Koranic Law of Nature

Because Koranic Law of Nature is religion-neutral book, why don't quotes from Bible as well? 82.210.108.152 01:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Not Neutral At All
This book, besides being incredibly one-sided with little factual information at all, seems to be written by someone bent on 'proving' the Koran's scientific accuracy. It is not about nature, Islamic principles or even facts. It seems to contain origional research, and has a fundamentalist agenda. Because of these, I think a total rewrite or deletion of the article is necessary. It is a total violation of what Wiki stands for.

IWoF and ILoN form single book?
Both Islam Way of Life and Koranic Law of Nature are religion-neutral. Both talking about science. The first about social science, the later on natural science. Can we merge them?

Apparently not, because the first are commandments while the later are facts. While both are supporting each other, they are not the same things.

82.210.108.152 02:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently we can put them in the same name space, such as Islam:Way of Life:Law of Nature

This will strengthen the relation, without merging them into a big bloated book.

20:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Be wary of the NPOV guidelines
The NPOV standard for Wikimedia projects is something that is often difficult to master, and almost all philosophical/theological books seem to suffer from this same issue. I see many similarities between this and the Christianity series of Wikibooks. I defended their inclusion into Wikibooks during previous discussions, but I am suggesting that the contributors try to stick to as much factual information as they can. This is a discussion about Islam, not a soapbox to promote the faith.

In particular, when discussing the early prophets, like Abraham, Mohammed, and Jesus, there is a tendancy among Quroranic writings to add an honorific to the mention of these names like Abraham(blessed be his name). This is a certain point of view and does violate NPOV guidelines, especially when writing to a largely western audience in English. How the Arabic Wikibooks deals with this is up to their own standard of contuct, and I would suspect that they offer a little more lattitude on things of this nature due to the Arabic culture and traditions. I am sympathetic and respectful of the fact that this is going to be written by many Moslems and written for a Moslem audience as well. Further discussion here is certainly appreciated on this topic, and you can add discussion about this topic on Staff Lounge, which is a general discussion forum for all of the Wikibooks users.

I hope this Wikibook is successful, and it is an interesting topic. English-language writings of Islamic philosophies are sometimes difficult to obtain, and content of this nature can help diminish the negative attitudes toward Moslems world-wide, particularly in America and Europe. --Rob Horning 18:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is indeed essential. No prophet nor mention of Judgment Day should go into this book, personaly I think. 212.123.21.178 11:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

New Intro
I've written a new and expanded introduction. I've tried to keep a NPOV throughout, but I know many people will feel that it is dismissive of the claims of the Koran, but there will be no pleasing some people on these matters. However, I feel that the Koran is open to interpretation and people do try to bend it to try to prove that it states things that are not necessarily clearly stated in the text.

In my opinion, this book is a discussion of the relationship of Koranic Natural Law to counterparts in other religions and in science. It is not an essay on how the Koran is indisputably correct, the true word or God, or any other such biased claim. If people want to write that kind of thing, they are in the wrong place.

I am also aware that this book will possibly attract edit warring from the religiously inclined (on more than one side) and the NPOV inclined. Especially contentious may be the comparison with other religions, especially if the other religion is somehow perceived (and people who get upset about these things can perceive a great deal of things that they disagree with) to come out on top. However, Wikibooks is not place for religious soap-boxing, and we should endevour to maintain an NPOV regardless. Inductiveload (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternative translations
I expanded the section on the cerebrum, and in doing so noticed that the translation used is very different to some common translations (such as that by Maulana Muhammad Ali, which I added and linked). This is a complication of this book I hadn't considered, and further opens the text to interpretation.

A possible question in cases such as this is what to do when the translations are so different as they are here? Should the interpretations be treated separately (eg. a spearate section for fore-brain and fore-lock referencing versions) or should all the discussion for a particular verse be conflated?

Answers, please, on a postcard. Inductiveload (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)