Rowan Williams and Paul Williams Debate

Paul Williams gave a few jabs in his introduction, Rowan William emphazied the 'universality' of Jesus message opposing Paul Williams advocating a local alone message (mind you contradicted by the Quran itself), which ended up in a more or less debate atmosphere in the Q & A.

Unfortunately the questions were diverse and seem quite random, based on Muslim/Christian Polemics and only 'summations' were given, yet still if you want to summarize an issue I don't think this did justice to any of the questions. To give credit where credit is due Paul Williams is obviously a more experienced debater and was able to unpack more information in short jolts in the Q&A not that this reflected the complete accuracy of his answers. I am curious whether Paul William's repeated persistent obession in appealing to Erhman and Dunn etc are contrasted by a reading of Metzger, Wallace and Hurtado, as it's only fair to read the critics and those who just generally disagree with your own agenda and note the scholarly reasons why.

 

An issue of Methodology: Common Ground and Common Premises

In philosphy, it's charitable to understand your opponent and the position they hold to, and even provide them with the most optimal position avalible to them. Which I believe is why most critics of Islam will always assume along with Muslims that their sources are accurate and reflective of the teachings of early Muslims and Mohammed and assume Islamic depictions of history are generally accurate including the existance of Mohammed, the single version of the Quran etc.

Paul Williams on the other hand takes the least traditional view that most of the New Testament is not written by anyone who knew Jesus, many epistles are forgeries, Paul doesn't teach the divinity of Christ etc. In other words opponents of Islam argue on common ground from Muslim sources themselves that Islam must be false, while Paul Williams does not argue Christianity must be false based on Christian premises, but rather from a premise that no conservative Christian begins to start with.

It would be like a Muslim arguing the Quran says the Bible is corrupt, then quoting Erhman to confirm this. But the question is what authority do the Quran or Erhman have to an Evangelical or Conservative Christian?

Unfortunately Paul Williams is not the only Muslim to take this journey. Yet I agree with Williams in some sense. It is not always obligatory to be charitable and assume common ground with your opponent, especially when you see people like Paul Williams who refuse this and who even never actually quotes from or even attempt to suggeste reading the opposition to his scholars. In this scenario an 'eye for an eye' tactic should be employed. Which is why I would recommend the internet and other opponents of Paul Williams to start emphazing the dubious nature of Mohammed's existence, the reason why all hadith can be thrown aside and distrusted, the reason why the Quran is not a product of a single entity but rather has numerous authors and has been redacted many times. The truth is people like James White don't want to make these arguments against Islam because they believe it's inconsistent for Muslims and Christians not believe God is working in creation, that radical skepticism is an irrational methodology. But I disagree with Dr. White and others here. Why not make Paul Williams consistent by applying the same standards of historicity, textual criticism that he applies to the Bible, why not apply these same standards to the Quran? Hence everyone can work with a shared common ground.

My Challenges To Muslims Who Critque the Bible with Textual Criticism and The Historical Methodology

And now you know the basis for the following challenges to Muslims:

Using historical and critical scholarship alone I would like to know the following information:

I would like to know the scribe(s) and author(s) of each individual chapter of the Quran.

I would like to know the exact time period, location and date each chapter was written.

I would like to know what all the original chapters looked like and how has it changed.

I would like to know how many versions of each chapter existed, were they longer or shorter? what languages were they?

I would like to know how many Islams there were?

I would like to know how many codices of the Quran existed?

I would like to know what historical evidence you have Mohammed was born in 570 A.D. and died in 632 A.D.?

I would like to know what historical evidence is there for any of the first four caliphs?

I would like to know what historical evidence there is for the existance of Khadija, Aisha or any of the companions of the prophet?

Using historical evidence alone what evidence do we have for Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim?

What historically do we know about their lives? 

As you could see, there could be many questions asked and using the historical methodology, textual criticism and critical scholarship we could have a field day with Islam. So I endorse and advocate Paul Williams must keep appealing to the secular methodologies he employees and we will continue to use this on his own faith.

All praise due to Paul.