RE: The Doctrina Jacobi
May 12, 2015 at 5:46 am
(This post was last modified: May 12, 2015 at 6:04 am by Rayaan.)
(May 11, 2015 at 8:52 am)Rhythm Wrote: I believe that what Min is trying to explain to you, is that while you may not, personally, have been aware of that source....the 634 date -includes- that source, even if it is not credited.
1. "Includes" that source doesn't make it fair to say that I made an oblique reference to it, as Min wrote in the OP.
These are the sources that were known to me. The Doctrina Jacobi was unknown to me. So now, the question is, which is more honest? For someone to claim that I made a direct reference to something that was known to me, or to claim that I made an "oblique" reference to something that was unknown to me? Obviously not the latter. But that's exactly what Min did. He started this thread saying that I made an oblique reference to the Doctrina Jacobi, which was unknown to me, but ironically he didn't say anything about the direct references that I made of all the ones that were known to me. Is that not a self-serving and dishonest way to represent my arguments to others?
2. The 634 date was just the earliest date of the references because the sources range from 634 to 719 CE. The date for them is spread out (in time) and that's why I said that the references only began or started from the year 634 CE, as I did so in the comment below:
Quote:So all those references of an army general named Muhammad and start from the year 634 CE is actually Abd al-Malik, even though he was born in 646 CE?
The DJ, on the other hand, dates itself to 634 CE - when it was already completed - so that doesn't actually fit the bill with the (broader) date that I had in mind.
(May 11, 2015 at 8:52 am)Rhythm Wrote: Lets say I gave a date for the death of socrates, there are very few sources from which to draw a number like that (and many sources take the word of another source) - and even if I'm unaware as to where those dates come from, I will invariably be referencing one of them, obliquely. I may, for example, be directly referencing a secondary source without realizing that this secondary source draws it's date from an unknown (to me) primary.
But the sources have all been listed in the article that I provided, and I quoted three of them here. So, evidently, there are multiple sources that dates from 634 CE and onwards (to 719 CE). There's a handful of them, not just one or two.
And yet Min argued "I cannot imagine any other document which fits the bill" for the date 634 CE.
