Steve Chambers suggests that instead of drawing cartoons, people conduct serious research.
It would be far more effective to have a calm, protracted discussion and debate about the origins of Islam and the real life of Mohammed.  Such an event should be more akin to a panel discussion mediated by Jim Lehrer than a media circus presided over by Bill O’Reilly or Jon Stewart, and it should bring in views from across the political and religious spectrum.
Some research exists, and the civil records of the time suggest opportunities for additional research.
Writers were using vocabulary and written characters borrowed from the closely related Aramaic-Syriac that was the lingua franca of the Mideast of the era.  Using an understanding of these languages contemporary with the putative timeframe of Mohammed and the Qur’an leads researchers to significantly different understandings of the scripture and the traditions about the life of Mohammed.

Another point of agreement appears to be that non-Muslim sources from the period, including ancient coins and inscriptions, do not clearly support the traditional story about the role of Mohammed, the emergence of Islam, or the origin of the Qur’an.  Instead, they point to a very different set of possibilities.

The thinking of the academics goes much farther than basic points such as these and has profound implications for the understanding of the Qur’an and Mohammed’s role in founding Islam.
Yes, although the introduction of new evidence can produce a "don't confuse me with facts" response in believers.

No comments: