Is the Qur'anic Text Original? (2)
Thank you for your response. I shall see what I can work out from your response.
Unfortunately the place where we live and work has no regard for anyone's 'emotional' reading of history, what can be convincing is scholarship and archeological evidence. And unfortunately life is a bit more complicated than everyone giving respect to belief. Perhaps to understand the counter arguments one faces in the writings of Patricia Crone, who teaches at Princeton and who brings up many of the current questions, you may want to do a simple google search that may familiarize you with her thesis.
Again many thanks and the very best regards
In our religion it's not emotions that come first. It is first and foremost solid intellectual evidence that counts. It is only then that we have emotions supporting them.
I have tried to mention in my earlier response to you that what some scholars call historical and archaeological evidences are much less reliable. The evidence provided by our religion in the form of natural intellectual evidences is much more convincing and universal in its ability to convince.
I guess we need to politely point out to our Western friends that they too need to see beyond their boxes. Their expectations of evidences from religion at times are not very reasonable.
I can see emotions hampering the process of a free dialogue on both sides of the divide.