One of the main arguments against the Qur’anic historicity has ‘traditionally’ (orientalism-ally speaking) meant that for a long while the earliest extant copy of the Qur’an was Uthmanic. And this was wrapped up (negatively) in the supposed ‘politics’ of the Uthmanic time period or thereafter. The claims, therefore, were that the Qur’an we currently possessed did not correspond to the one from the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him). However, the Qur’anic manuscript found in Birmingham has revised that old fossil of a critique.
I have already posted this video and discussed the range of arguments about the age of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), here. This post (below), however, focusses on a very interesting discussion that took place during the question and answer session regarding the centrality of hadiths in the Islamic tradition. Continue reading
In this clip, a discussion on the likely origin of the Muslim prayer (salah) took place. This clip came from a longer interview on BBC Radio, here. For an overview of the longer interview, please read the Reference Section, below.
On Paul Willilams’ site, Blogging Theology, there was a conversation in the comments section of one post about the veracity of the (early) hadith tradition (which was very interesting) begun by a chap named Graham:
The main argument about the criticisms of Early Islamic history has been put forward in recent times by Tom Holland, the fiction writer and historian (Islam – The Untold Story). His argument can be summarised as:
- The religion was invented – about a century after the Arab Conquest – to justify Muslim rule; and
- Prophet Muhammad did not exist at all (in the way history, so far, has told us).
Putting aside the absolute hilarity of his claims, his points have, nonetheless, been critiqued – as weak – in many places, the most succinct of which (on the net) includes:
Theo Hobson identifies that though there is a stronger secular liberalism, which he acknowledges as more aggressive, he does spell out the existence of a softer, more inclusive one too. He asks the Muslim panel if they recognise and acknowledge the latter, softer type. I sense it is this question that is perceived as being (apparently) ‘skirted’: an accusation from the non Muslim party. The way the Muslim panel respond is as though this softer type of secular liberalism either doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter even if it existed. Presumably, this is because of soft liberalism’s perceived irrelevance given the current context of tighter measures around freedom and self autonomy ostensibly against terrorists but actually against mainstream practicing British Muslims. I sense the non Muslim cannot fathom the motivation for the Muslim panel’s defensiveness. They are accused of ‘playing the victim’. They respond: they’re merely representing reality.
QUESTION: Are children inclined to believe God to:
a) Be three-in-one persons;
b) Be One; or
c) Not exist?’
Be honest. Which are they more likely to naturally incline towards?