Ulysses Everett McGill
- Aug 26, 2011
I'm not really sure what you mean by 'covered up', tbh. By who? For what purpose? The historicity of religions' origins is a inherently tricky subject, with many murky (often contradictory) texts, timelines, characters, different methodological traditions etc.Notice the question mark in the OP? Whole point of this thread is to debate if indeed parts of Islamic history has been covered up. Some interesting counter articles you posted which as expected will come from an Islamic apologist who conveniently left out the balance of Doctrina Jacobis account.
A Byzantine, Christian tract considers Mohammed to be a false prophet? Well, that's hardly surprising, wouldn't you say? I mean, it's Christianity's central position on Mohammed/Islam.FrankCastle said:Heres the full account and not surprisingly Jacobi considers Muhammed to be a false prophet:
But why should the Doctrina Jacobi be valued higher than other sources of Islamic history that contradict it?
And if you dislike the response from 'Islamic apologists'*, why do you find a Catholic apologist's perspective particularly valuable?
* I don't think they are Islamic apologists, btw. David A. King is a historian of science (astronomy, specifically) and AJ Deus seems to be a researcher and historian with a particular interest in early Islamic history. He's posted a bunch of papers here on a variety of related topics. His review of Gibson's book is also worth reading.