"these people take the modern literalistic and literary approach that if it did not leave literary texts behind them then there is no evidence for anything.
This is IMO a kind of eurocetntric claptrap. the arabs were at this point just on the edge of literate culture. so they thought in terms of oral tradition, and why not? what gives moderns the right to turn up their noses up at this?
the ultimate end of this idea is that Muhammad did not exist. but this is preposterous. no group forms without a charismatic leader to cluster around. this is human nature. muslims exist so muhammad must have existed also . end of story
now note I am neither a Muslim not a friend of muslims, but i grow weary of the scholarly west thinking that their mode of preserving historical knowledge is the only one which is valid
i am not a trained scholar but i clearly have more imagination than they do, for it makes perfect sense to me to imagine a nomad warrior tribe who disdained literacy merely because i was new, so took a long time to write things down, hence the 200 year gap; and to do so without presuming this is disproof of historicity.
such is IMO the hostility of certain modern scholars whose hatred of Islam has blinded them to to its own "
i'm an archaeologists i've been researching for days to write an article to refute them. all i can say he had me beat.
[link] [comments]
from Islam https://ift.tt/32QuqfT
Post A Comment:
0 comments so far,add yours