Posted: Oct 05, 2015 1:06 pm
by tolman
Does Islamic tradition make explicit claims about sacred texts only ever being written on freshly-made substrates?

As far as dating evidence potentially putting the discovered text not before Mohammed, but not conforming to a tradition saying things were written in a certain style up to point X, and a different style thereafter, were that what evidence suggested and if we ignore the various possible dating-related excuses people could make, that only really puts us in a situation where a pretty specific bit of received wisdom is shown to be wrong, which isn't necessarily any more serious than an archaeologist who had formed a theory of when things happened based on the best available evidence being shown to have been wrong when new evidence turns up.
Such an occurrence in a religious context needn't be taken as anything worse than a lesson in the fallibility of humans basing pronouncements on incomplete evidence.

Is there an Islamic tradition that any particular person's particular theological idea post-Mohammed is necessarily true simply because the person sincerely believed it was true and claimed it was true, and that not only can a theological idea be unquestionably correct, but that such a correct position can be clearly demonstrated or known to be correct by other humans?