Hi deusvult! HERE GOES!!!
The thing is a lot of the excavations done around his time show that the general sentiment of the workers at the time were positive. There was pro government graffiti on the walls, positive poems about work and play, and generally things seemed not too bad during during that time. There were inscriptions of periodic strikes at the time though. It's still possible if one were so inclined, but if your not then it's doubtful any of the Egyptian stuff happened.
Ah I hadn't known that
I'd have to look into it more (when I get better internet access....). Thanks!!!
All that is fine if you think the book is a record of some local religious guy claiming to be a prophet and his petty squabbles with the local Jews. In other words if you place it in history. That's not what is claimed though. The book is universalized. Disbelief is always disbelief and will always be disbelief. I really don't need to show you the dozens of clips of various imams and regular Muslims talking in those same terms today.
Some Muslims say a lot of rubbish stuff, and some Muslims say stuff having literally never read the Qur'an
Je suis find that annoying (I don't know French btw).
I think the Qur'an is:
- Interpreted in its historical context (by everyone)
- And then the same principles are applied universally
That's the point of scholars, I think. That is also why Qur'an tafseers contain historical facts. So the interpretation of the Qur'an isn't ever divorced from its historical context by anybody (maybe some random fringe groups, but whatever).
So re: the disbelief is disbelief, please see my reply to Tony.
Cuz I (and I think many Muslim scholars. I can reference them when I get better internet access, like I said) think that kufr in the Qur'an is not equivalent to being a non-Muslim. Kufr would be blatant and outright denial cuz a person is lazy or arrogant or whatever.
Edit: But then I guess some scholars also say the opposite, but I don't know enough about their works to comment. e.g. I don't fully understand (nor have I really bothered trying to understand) the notion of Dar ul Harb in classical works (pretty familiar with what foaming-at-the-mouth modern day Muslims think
). But then again, that's a problem I have with Islam: God's inability to transmit all the nuances of His religion smoothly and clearly. Hence the ex-Muslim title
I never got why that is such a big talking point. All literature is considered with intellect. Even "low brow" literature like comic books deal with existential issues. The Quran is no different than any other piece of literature. I guess it would mean that unlike most religions Islam asks a person to think,which I don't think is true, but I think that shows how low religious thought is instead of elevating the Quran. Also the Quran isn't afraid to stoop so low as to brow beat people.
I don't think other religious literature says not to think (or doesn't ask people to think). I think it does. I think the Qur'an is just better at it, that's all
Possibly cuz I've grown up with the Qur'an and listened/read the tafseers on it, so I appreciate it more?
“Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we would not (now) be amongst the Companions of the Blazing Fire!” (Surah Mulk [Chapter 67] verse 10)
I mean really, if this has said in a conversation to try and persuade someone, the conversation would be over because the person knows the other person doesn't really value their opinion.
I don't think it's meant to persuade people. I think it's supposed to be taken as a fact.
But this is an interesting verse, I think, because of the two paths that are presented to belief: Listening and using one's brain.
While the latter is commendable, I don't really know what the former entails. Would it count as 'blind faith', just listening to the guy in the turban? :S I think I'm gonna look that up.
It's written in a triumphalist almost sadistic way. Why use reason to figure out the Quran when if, by chance, you come up with the idea that it's not true then you've simply not used your intellect. Even you can see the demeaning character of that charade.
Used your intellect wrongly. Like I said, I think the idea is that in Muhammad's time it was obvious that he was a prophet. :/
But yeah I guess people can use their intellect and come to the conclusion that the Qur'an is false. What then? I don't know. :/ Sorry. I still think intentions play a role in intellectual conclusions (at least, they do in mine), so I guess that would be the factor that gets you sent to Hell? :S :S (Not you specifically.)
And re: the philosophy thing, I'm sorry!
Didn't mean to avoid it.
Topic: Quran etc etc split from "What book are you reading?"