Another great question, this time by Dr Peter Guinther, who asks: "It’s hard to believe that these new discoveries on the coins hasn’t been brought out prior to now, especially by archaeologists. I guess archaeologists [and Numismatists] don’t do much with polemics?" Concerning why archaeologists and numismatists haven't picked up on what they are seeing for the 7th century has a lot to do with the fact that there has only been one narrative on how Islam began, and that is the one which was created and compiled in the Islamic Traditions in the 9th and 10th centuries, which is the only story we are permitted to accept today, and thus the only narrative which is taught to everyone, including the archaeologists and numismatists.
So, when they come across artifacts, including coins, which seem to show a completely different narrative, they don't have any other paradigm to plug it into except the one they already know, because it is the only one being taught.
That's why they struggle to understand what they are looking at on these coins, and so, they fall back to the only explanations they can think of; namely, that these coins with crosses and fire altars on them simply prove that the Byzantines and the Zoroastrians still had control over the commerce of that day.
Ironically, even the traditions they are dependent on don't agree with that conclusion. The Islamic Traditions are very clear that the Arabs (whom they call Muslims) had defeated both the Byzantines on the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Persians throughout their land by 651 AD, and had control of the land from Tripoli to Afghanistan by the time Mu'awiya comes to power in 661 AD; who himself continues to mint coins for another 20 years with no Islamic references on them whatsoever. So, for 60 years following the death of Muhammad one cannot find any true Islamic references.
These modern Archaeologist and Numismatist experts would never venture the thought that maybe Islam didn't even exist this early, and that these coins are actually correct, or that they really are showing the religion of those who minted them (which was one of the major reasons leaders included religious icons on coins). And the reason modern scholars wouldn't; it's not the narrative they've been taught, nor is it particularly healthy to venture an alternative one in today's politically charged environment, particularly against Islam...not today.
That job is for people like myself, and others like me who are getting it out on-line. The great thing about all of this is that until now everything we had to go on was based on an argument from silence, so it was natural for everyone to default back to the Islamic Traditions, because an argument from silence is one of the weakest arguments to argue from. With these coins, coupled with Gibson's Qibla mis-directions, and Dan Brubaker's manuscript changes, as well as the difficulty of finding any references for Mecca until 741 AD, we are no longer arguing from silence; and it is now the Islamic Traditions which are now forced to argue from silence, since they cannot forward any archaeological or numismatic material to support their narrative...which makes our job so much easier.
© Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2020
(26,930)
0 Comments