In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
The listed citations from the Wikipedia article you linked:
Cahen, Claude (1965). Lewis, B.; Pellat, Ch. & Schacht, J. (eds.). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Volume II: C–G. Leiden: E. J. Brill. OCLC 495469475.
McCants, William (2012). Founding Gods, Inventing Nations: Conquest and Culture Myths from Antiquity to Islam. Princeton University Press.
Cohen, Mark (2008). Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13931-9.
Cook, Michael (2024). A History of the Muslim World: From Its Origins to the Dawn of Modernity. Princeton University Press.
Daniel, Elton L. (2010). "The Islamic East". In Robinson, Chase F. (ed.). The New Cambridge History of Islam, Volume 1: The Formation of the Islamic World, Sixth to Eleventh Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83823-8.
Dennett, Daniel Clement (1950). Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674331594.
Debie, Muriel (2024). "The Arabs and Northern Languages and Scripts before Islam". In Vacca, Alison; Borrut, Antoine; Ceballos, Manuela (eds.). Navigating Language in the Early Islamic World: Multilingualism and Language Change in the First Centuries of Islam. Brepols. pp. 195–257.
Donner, Fred M. (2014). The Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton University Press.
Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 51
Hoyland, Robert G (1997). Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam). The Dawrwin Press, Inc. Princeton, NJ.
Hoyland, Robert G. (2014). In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-991636-8.
Kaegi, Walter E. (1995). Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521484558.
Kennedy, Hugh (2007). The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81740-3.
Lapidus, Ira M. (2014). A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-51430-9.
Esposito, John L. (1998). Islam: The Straight Path. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-511233-7.
Nicolle, David (1994). Yarmuk AD 636: The Muslim Conquest of Syria. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-85532-414-5.[permanent dead link]
Nicolle, David (2009). The Great Islamic Conquests AD 632–750. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84603-273-8.
Pagden, Anthony (13 March 2008). Worlds at War: The 2,500 – Year Struggle Between East and West. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-923743-2.
Stillman, Norman (1979). The Jews of Arab Lands : A History and Source Book. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. ISBN 978-0-8276-0198-7.
Vaglieri, Laura Veccia (1977). "The Patriarchal and Umayyad caliphates". In Holt, P. M.; Lambton, Ann K. S.; Lewis, Bernard (eds.). The Cambridge History of Islam Volume 1A: The Central Islamic Lands from Pre-Islamic Times to the First World War. Cambridge University Press. pp. 57–103. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521219464.005. ISBN 9780521219464.
I suspect a lot of what we accept as "true" about history prior to modern communication and mass education probably aren't actually true. Can you imagine how different the "truth" would be if we were a Bronze Age (or whatever) society and the Trump administration controlled a tiny minority of literate people, and dictated to them what to write the truth was? And situations lik
It probably would not matter all that much, as most bronze age societies that had extensive writings were still very much oral societies.
Even in Ancient Greece, the written word was often distrusted and not seen as good evidence. Politics, for example, was almost exclusively conducted orally. Plato in his writings on Socrates (the dialogue "Phadrus", on Theuth's / Thoth's gift of writing) makes the point that written words can not answer questions. The orators were the flagbearers in Greek society.
Of course, since a lot of our knowledge of ancient Greece comes through their writing (even somewhat ironically our knowledge on how they viewed writing) and since we view writing very differently, this is not readily apparent to us.
As for historical truth being a construct, this is a point commonly made in many history textbooks and in debates on historicity. Then again, people often skip that part, which is probably a point in Plato's favor.
As for historical truth being a construct, this is a point commonly made in many history textbooks and in debates on historicity. Then again, people often skip that part, which is probably a point in Plato's favor.
It seems you are agreeing with me in a more diplomatic way. Do you really think that the first Islamic Caliphate was established in Medina in 622 as recorded in Islamic writings? I would say it is as likely as the events of Exodus being literally true.
Yet Wikipedia will just state this as being the "true" history for obvious political reasons. And no real academic scholarship on the subject has been attempted, again for obvious political reasons.
This is not something I know well but from a quick search and some academic papers it seems like there is not much archeological evidence of organised Islamic states in the first ~50-60 years after 622AD but that there is quite a lot from ~680AD onwards. I skimmed over a few things to arrive at this brief summary but the main source was:
It seems you are agreeing with me in a more diplomatic way. Do you really think that the first Islamic Caliphate was established in Medina in 622 as recorded in Islamic writings? I would say it is as likely as the events of Exodus being literally true. Yet Wikipedia will just state this as being the "true" history for obvious political reasons. And no real academic scholars
No, I was not really commenting on that specific issue. It was indeed more aimed as a comment on writing in the bronze age.
However, a quick perusal into the Wikipedia articles linked in the article shows that the historicity is indeed debated, and often found lacking - and this is established via academic sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Isla...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun_C...
So, I would agree that the initial Wikipedia article could do well to include that. However, I would very much dispute that "no real academic on the subjected has been attempted", when clearly a lot of academic scholarship has been done on the subject. It is also clear that other Wikipedia articles does indeed include debates on the historicity of these events.
No, I was not really commenting on that specific issue. It was indeed more aimed as a comment on writing in the bronze age.However, a quick perusal into the Wikipedia articles linked in the article shows that the historicity is indeed debated, and often found lacking - and this is established via academic sources.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Isla...
I obviously picked this example because of my own biases, but the general point is actually much more broad; that the line between history, mythology and outright fiction is extremely blurred for most cultures across space and time, including The West. Although some cultures are clearly much more amenable than others to honest inquiry.
..] You were not willing to take action on a bet, but were willing to take the terms of winning the bet here under the assumption that what I initially said about the posts were incorrect. In the quoted bit (yes I cut out a bit, the rest is unnecessary. Yes I am cherry picking this bit from your rant, your walls don't provide any meat and tend to drag on forever.) you say exact
jfc - even after explaining the joke to you, you still don't get it... how stupid can anyone be?
i stand by my assessment - the one poster here to chime in on it defends my perspective (and he genuinely hates me, go take a look at lagtight and geezer mentions of me - i'm definitely on his axis of evil top 10 list) so that should tell you a lot about your subjective interpretation
you honestly think if i thought it were crystal clear that your stance was correct and I was lying then i would have both told you where to look and even publicly posted itt for others to see it themselves?
it's not my problem you have a hardon for me
as as clearly shown - you are the liar, you notably cherry picked someone who didn't understand how dms worked - whom i didn't even have any prior dealings with (someone transferred a debt to simplify 2 transactions into one, which is how that happened) and ignored his apology post which cleared up that i hadn't scammed him
there's no way you could have seen earlier post and not seen the immediate follow ups which cleared up the issue
zeta is genuinely unhinged, used to send me 20 texts a day, dude needs his meds
so it's wild you accuse me of lying when all the evidence clearly shows you are the unhinged loser who twice now has cherry picked posts to try to portray it as something other than what it is
and all this despite that all information available online would strongly indicate you quit poker deep into makeup with your backers - lifetime in the red - i am obviously not going to start cherry picking things like your 4.5 million loss to blom directly preceding your disappearance from high stakes poker for good - there's context involved, perhaps that site wasn't accurately tracking things or that lifetime you are up despite that you opted out of tracking, or that he was your backer and you were chip dumping profits, or maybe you were still up massively lifetime and just decided to ride off into the sunset with your millions rather than getting back into the lab and plugging your leaks
i've never been in a position to lose 4.5 million to an individual player over a few weeks, so i'm not in a position of strength to comment upon that, i was just a regular macau grinder who looked over at the nosebleed stake tables wondering if i should shot take it but never pulled the trigger and stuck to the regular tables despite that i was a 17bb/hour winner at those stakes
that info is not new to me, you by default have my respect, you rose higher in your variant of poker than i ever did in mine and i assume even if it ended disastrously (which i honestly don't know) while i quit while at the top to move onto bigger and better things, even then you clearly did some right things along the way to get there and for that you have my respect
the point is idk what happened and i'm thus not going to wildly speculate or post that stuff out of context to slander you even though you really suck as a person
I suspect a lot of what we accept as "true" about history prior to modern communication and mass education probably aren't actually true. Can you imagine how different the "truth" would be if we were a Bronze Age (or whatever) society and the Trump administration controlled a tiny minority of literate people, and dictated to them what to write the truth was? And situations lik
yeah this is something i talk about a lot when people start talking about crazy/bad roman emperors vs the good ones
every single good emperor was succeeded either by a chosen successor, an ally, or someone who was completely detached from the process which removed/killed that emperor
(ie emperor a is killed by emperor b who severely underestimated his ability to hold onto power and was replaced by emperor c within months - while emperor b had every reason in the world to slander emperor a to give cause to his actions - emperor c, regardless of his prior views on emperor a would ensure that a had a good legacy and thus b was wrong to do what he did and thus c's action was just and he was right to usurp the throne himself)
this is actually part of my 2 part litmus test for reading about history - if the author does not address the bias of the information presented then i'm out (the other is if they ignore logistics - ie if we're reading marching an army to france and they don't mention how the army was raised, how they marched, how they were fed etc then i put it down and find another)
Fox News suddenly changes its narrative
"videos appear to show he never drew his holstered firearm”
Fox News suddenly changes its narrative
"videos appear to show he never drew his holstered firearm”
The last video I saw its clear the officer had taken the weapon before he was shot
....and does not look like it discharged upon drawing it from the holster. (someone (not 2+2) made that claim.)
The shooting could happened this way:
*nurse's shirt in back rides up exposing gun while being punched in face by ICE
*several cops see this and correctly shout Gun, Gun, Gun
*while withdrawing pistol, another IC sees the gun being withdrawn and assumes it is the nurse's hand doing the withdraw. Draw own weapon out of holster.
*confusion, jostling (1, maybe 2 seconds) and 1st ICE shoots.
*other ICE withdraw back a few feet, draw own guns and opens fire because 1st ICE possibly* saw something they did not.
but I find it dubious that it would cause academics to simply republish in whole statements from the Koran and the Hadiths as if they were facts
That is highly dubious. Since the 1800s Orientalists were highly skeptical of the historicity of Koranic narratives and that remains to this day. In stuff like the Old Testament United Kingdom there was a default tendency to believe before confronted with the lack of evidence, but that never existed in Islamic studies in the west.
The notion that the history of the Islamic world in the 800s is as poorly-attested to as events the Old Testament or that it's all based on an uncritical reading of the Koran is some world-class historical illiteracy.
The notion that the history of the Islamic world in the 800s is as poorly-attested to as events the Old Testament or that it's all based on an uncritical reading of the Koran is some world-class historical illiteracy.
The 800s were fairly well attested. The issue is people in the 800s retrofit an entire mythology of what happened before to justify their present actions, and presented it as history.
And again, they were certainly not the first or last group of people to do this.
But it is a unique present day circumstance where the mythology is still presented as history, and then debated.
The equivalent would be us presenting genesis and exodus as the accepted history, and then scholars debating whether this was actually true or not. Which is probably what was going on 1200 (or whatever) years ago.
....and does not look like it discharged upon drawing it from the holster. (someone (not 2+2) made that claim.)The shooting could happened this way:*nurse's shirt in back rides up exposing gun while being punched in face by ICE*several cops see this and correctly shout Gun, Gun, Gun*while withdrawing pistol, another IC sees the gun being withdrawn and assumes it is the nurse's
I don't know if its true, but the story I heard was ICE took the gun, it accidentally discharged (which apparently that model of Sig is prone to do), and then the ICE agents shot him 9 times.
No matter how it actually went down there is zero evidence the shooting was justified.
the people chiming in and listing sources here and there mean well but fundamentally don't understand how this all works
while there are countless archaeological sites and artifacts, there is very little in the way of big-picture context outside of the koran for that time period
so while we have a coin with a leader's head on it, the ruins of an old fort, and a papyri in egypt detailing administrative logistics, it is the overall narrative of the koran that binds them into a story
vague leader on a coin - the coin probably represents x, based on style, date, and what we know from texts
ruins of a fort - given the timeline and location, it probably represents a conflict referenced in the koran
egyptian papyri - they are talking about new taxes for the army, which aligns with when a ruler took over and reorganized forces
idk enough of this specific time and place to comment directly - but what you see above rings true for most ancient history
alexandria illustrates the point: there is no inscription explicitly crediting alexander the great with its founding, but the city’s layout and ruins match a late 4th century bc hellenistic foundation
likewise, contemporary mentions of alexander are extremely sparse. a few inscriptions exist, but they rarely name him directly; he is often referred to by epithets like "the invader" or "king of kings." modern historians link these references to him using the narrative context preserved in later sources
without writers like arrian, plutarch, or other historians recording his campaigns and founding cities, identifying sites and understanding events would be much harder. we did not find alexander from archaeology; our written history drives the interpretation of the archaeology itself
ancient egypt works the same way. our understanding is so scant that a single wall carving is often the only basis for much of its history. discoveries like these can radically reshape timelines and dispel older ideas, such as a chaotic dark age
many finds lack context. we say "this temple was built by pharaoh x" not because the temple says so, but because the estimated construction date aligns with the most probable ruler
troy is another example. it was identified by following homer’s description; archaeological sites matching the timeline and geography support the connection, though myth and history overlap
as you can imagine, many places in anatolia fit homers vague description. troy has been identified multiple times and we're currently on the third iteration - without homer, these ruins would be just another anonymous settlement
likewise, most of our maps of ancient greece are only as detailed as they are because of homer
and nevermind the fact that we don't know if homer was a person or just the figment that got credit for all old greek texts, or if he was a real person, we don't know where he was from nor even what century he lived in - but we do guess that he lived about 500 years after the time of the events of the iliad and treated gods and mythical creatures as genuine artifact - the reason why people were looking for an island nearby troy is that homer mentioned the gods watching the battle from a nearby island
bronze age stone masons rarely inscribed city names, dates, or rulers on their blocks
the principle is clear: artifacts provide raw data, but narratives—whether from the koran, homer, or later historians—supply context, meaning, and continuity; without them, much of ancient history remains fragmentary and ambiguous and without such literary drivers we have nothing
I don't know if its true, but the story I heard was ICE took the gun, it accidentally discharged (which apparently that model of Sig is prone to do), and then the ICE agents shot him 9 times.
No matter how it actually went down there is zero evidence the shooting was justified.
The last video I saw was an ice officer grabbing the gun but never dropped it . You are correct that model when dropped can go off.
I think the one officer calling gun made the officer shoot thinking the individual had pulled a gun out
As well it does warrant justification but may explain it .
Also I was told if you have a carry permit and do not have it on you you are not legally allowed to carry that gun .
Reports said he had no I'd on him or the permit but who knows if that's true
The last video I saw was an ice officer grabbing the gun but never dropped it . You are correct that model when dropped can go off.I think the one officer calling gun made the officer shoot thinking the individual had pulled a gun out As well it does warrant justification but may explain it . Also I was told if you have a carry permit and do not have it on you you are not legal
Better shoot him just in case.
Also I was told if you have a carry permit and do not have it on you you are not legally allowed to carry that gun .
Reports said he had no I'd on him or the permit but who knows if that's true
This is completely and utterly irrelevant to assessing the awfulness of the shooting. I assume that you understand why.
This is completely and utterly irrelevant to assessing the awfulness of the shooting. I assume that you understand why.
In a vacuum the shooting was awful; but that being said I am 100% sure that if you were forced to do your job day after day with people constantly stalking and harrasing you, while blowing whistles in your face, and even following you home to harass you during your down time; the quality of your work would severely suffer too.
The activists are intentionally creating chaotic, high leverage, high intensity situations; which are going to produce poor results.
In a vacuum the shooting was awful; but that being said I am 100% sure that if you were forced to do your job day after day with people constantly stalking and harrasing you, while blowing whistles in your face, and even following you home to harass you during your down time; the quality of your work would severely suffer too.The activists are intentionally creating chaotic, hi
Or they could take the hint and stop terrorizing citizens.
In a vacuum the shooting was awful; but that being said I am 100% sure that if you were forced to do your job day after day with people constantly stalking and harrasing you, while blowing whistles in your face, and even following you home to harass you during your down time; the quality of your work would severely suffer too.The activists are intentionally creating chaotic, hi
I am 100% certain that the quality of my work wouldn't degrade in a way that caused me to shoot people.
