According to Britannica’s definition I hit the nail on the head. Britannica doesn’t get into the fact that they had to limit the number of interpretations you could use in court or the history timeline very understandably that this took place in. But it is the same as what I had stated.What nail? You said they counted ijtihads. There's nothing about that in Britannica. It's not that "they didn't get to it", it's that you made that up. So, it's not the same as what you said you at all. The important thing here is that you made it up first, then went looking in encyclopedias for an answer. You hoped to find one that fit your made up thought, but you didn't. With your wild acquisitions here I now wonder if you have the ability or necessary skills to do more than follow what every Tom, Dick and Harry has to say about religion. It sounds like you have just decided to get your feet wet looking at religion outside of the bible and because you wasted years on biblical religion with little satisfaction, it has done nothing more than made you cynical.
According to Britannica’s definition I hit the nail on the head. Britannica doesn’t get into the fact that they had to limit the number of interpretations you could use in court or the history timeline very understandably that this took place in. But it is the same as what I had stated.What nail? You said they counted ijtihads. There's nothing about that in Britannica. It's not that "they didn't get to it", it's that you made that up. So, it's not the same as what you said you at all. The important thing here is that you made it up first, then went looking in encyclopedias for an answer. You hoped to find one that fit your made up thought, but you didn't. With your wild acquisitions here I now wonder if you have the ability or necessary skills to do more than follow what every Tom, Dick and Harry has to say about religion. It sounds like you have just decided to get your feet wet looking at religion outside of the bible and because you wasted years on biblical religion with little satisfaction, it has done nothing more than made you cynical. It's "accusation". What I'm accusing you of is making things up. So far, you have shown me an encyclopedia entry that I think you said you looked up AFTER you made the assertion, then you note that it doesn't back up your claim, but instead of admitting you made it up, you claim that data to support your made up fact exists elsewhere. That's about as close to a supernatural explanation as you can get. Showing the data that backs up your claim is a skill I learned in elementary school.
According to Britannica’s definition I hit the nail on the head. Britannica doesn’t get into the fact that they had to limit the number of interpretations you could use in court or the history timeline very understandably that this took place in. But it is the same as what I had stated.What nail? You said they counted ijtihads. There's nothing about that in Britannica. It's not that "they didn't get to it", it's that you made that up. So, it's not the same as what you said you at all. The important thing here is that you made it up first, then went looking in encyclopedias for an answer. You hoped to find one that fit your made up thought, but you didn't. With your wild acquisitions here I now wonder if you have the ability or necessary skills to do more than follow what every Tom, Dick and Harry has to say about religion. It sounds like you have just decided to get your feet wet looking at religion outside of the bible and because you wasted years on biblical religion with little satisfaction, it has done nothing more than made you cynical. It's "accusation". What I'm accusing you of is making things up. So far, you have shown me an encyclopedia entry that I think you said you looked up AFTER you made the assertion, then you note that it doesn't back up your claim, but instead of admitting you made it up, you claim that data to support your made up fact exists elsewhere. That's about as close to a supernatural explanation as you can get. Showing the data that backs up your claim is a skill I learned in elementary school. Do you want me to walk you through the process of how to do internet research? I will do that if you want to take this to the next step. You will have to follow my directions as we together find this data on the internet. I told you I had read the facts some years back. As I remember some of the courts allowed up to 20 interpretations to be used. But most of the courts reduced the number to twelve. The reason I require you to also spend time on this is that I am not your bitch. And I have a religious preacher friend that is a lot like you. We would discuss items of religion. He would also demand proof. I would spend hours and hours doing the research and after presenting to him. He would brush it off like it was never anything that mattered. This way if the data is not there then I look like a liar. But when we find it then you will not be able to brush it off and play your little games of making me spend my time on something that you really don’t give a shit about. If you aren’t involved then all you are doing is getting your jollies off by using wild acquisitions to make me spend my time. I want you up front and center on this. This should be quite easy. We will be looking at the history of the Islam court system. How the system evolved, and I can’t remember the dates for sure, but I think we will begin in the 900 AD. I think we will find it around 1200 AD or after. We will be looking in the system for how the surreal legal system worked, which the Islam legal system is based upon. The surreal system comes from the Haldeef and the Koran. I also demand that you state what needs to be found so you can’t twist the facts afterwards, like you religious based thinkers are known for.
There’s nothing for you to walk me through Mike. Either you do it or you don’t. You again repeat that you think you remember reading something, and if I don’t accept that vague memory as true, you start with the name calling and the school yard language. Why would we need to start at any particular date to find this answer? Why, if you think this fact of yours was related to 1200 would you start looking at 900? As far as how invested in this I am, my posts and my blog (click here)] are public, that’s all the evidence I can offer, unless you want to come to Minnesota and look at my bookshelf.
There's nothing for you to walk me through Mike. Either you do it or you don't. You again repeat that you think you remember reading something, and if I don't accept that vague memory as true, you start with the name calling and the school yard language. Why would we need to start at any particular date to find this answer? Why, if you think this fact of yours was related to 1200 would you start looking at 900? As far as how invested in this I am, my posts and my blog (click here)] are public, that's all the evidence I can offer, unless you want to come to Minnesota and look at my bookshelf.Here you go again playing your little game. I am not your bitch. So stop trying to play me. I told you I want you up front and involved. Otherwise you have done nothing but played your little game with me, and I am not going to allow you to do that. Memory is what most people have. And it varies. Some things I remember in detail and quite well. Other times I can’t remember where I put the truck keys. I am ready when you are. I got to say I am impressed by your writing in your post. Good job. You started off stating that knowledge was claimed by different factors. I wonder if you picked up on my posts that knowledge was the key and the common denominator for most successful deity religion. I seem to be the only one connecting that god was based upon knowledge. On the early expansion of Islam, you didn’t mention the health care for everyone. Kind of a big thing back then for many of the people. Second only to a fairer tax system. The Romans built forts and walled cities. Whereas the Islamic nation built hospitals and schools. Also, Islam was a monolithic religion. At what point did Christians start dividing their god into three entities as main stream Christianity, was that at the first council? To answer your question, we will start a 900 because I am not sure of the exact date one would put on a timeline. At the time I read this, I was more into following the laws to get a better understanding of the people and issues like slavery, land ownership and trade and how all this worked in a court system. Slavery is very misunderstood and varies greatly to today's beliefs. And it is said that the Hittite Empire move their laws and courts to a different system than what was commonly used at the time. And it is thought by some experts that was the reason for the fall of the Hittite Empire. I wanted to understand what was the commonly use legal system at that time and had legal systems changed over time and was it still true that the court systems could still worked basally the same in all the countries with different systems of government. The research at the time was required to understand the trading system that was used. I had reached a point that a central bank was required due to the methods of financing used. Could not find the answer or any data about the central banking back then. Ended up calling and talking to a professor who had written books on central banking. He said that there had to have been a central banking system back then. That I was correct in my thinking. But just like today, there is very little written on the inter-workings of the central banks. And he said there has been no written material found on how the older systems worked directly with the central banks, but they know it worked.
I have no idea what “game" you are talking about. You made a claim, I asked you back it up. You have a history of making claims without backing them up, and a history of showing your sources and not accepting that they aren’t good sources. If you had simply said, “that’s how I remember it", I might have let it go, but you went so far as to say the Encyclopedia Britannica had left it out. Unless you are a known expert in the field, you don’t get to do that.
You can quit using your childish language and quit making unfounded claims and I’ll quit pointing it out. I’m not asking you to do anything that I wouldn’t ask any other non-credentialed person. And someone with credentials, someone who really wanted me to learn and understand, I wouldn’t have to ask, they would tell me where the data is that verifies their claim. That’s what teachers do. That’s the irony here, you are saying I’m asking you for something that I shouldn’t expect, when it’s YOU who is asking ME to go look up a claim that YOU made. It doesn’t work that way.
I have no idea what “game" you are talking about. You made a claim, I asked you back it up. You have a history of making claims without backing them up, and a history of showing your sources and not accepting that they aren’t good sources. If you had simply said, “that’s how I remember it", I might have let it go, but you went so far as to say the Encyclopedia Britannica had left it out. Unless you are a known expert in the field, you don’t get to do that. You can quit using your childish language and quit making unfounded claims and I’ll quit pointing it out. I’m not asking you to do anything that I wouldn’t ask any other non-credentialed person. And someone with credentials, someone who really wanted me to learn and understand, I wouldn’t have to ask, they would tell me where the data is that verifies their claim. That’s what teachers do. That’s the irony here, you are saying I’m asking you for something that I shouldn’t expect, when it’s YOU who is asking ME to go look up a claim that YOU made. It doesn’t work that way.You can’t see the forest for the trees. You don’t get to set the rules and play your little games. Had you ask me like a normal person, then I may have taken the time to get you that information. A little information that I have found helpful is that when you find information on the internet and it doesn’t meet the logic test, then it needs to be verified. Example, if religion was around 2% of daily life then the logic tests require that the data fit the other 98% of a person’s life and commerce for the time period. Data has changed and is still changing for political and religious reasons. Here’s an example. Take the relationship between Israel and Egypt, not the best of friends. And Israel’s goal to rewrite history. Now go to Wikipedia and lookup Pidyon haben https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidyon_haben . What you will find is mostly bull shit. Wikipedia started to change the history of Pidyon Haben about six years ago. Before that Wikipedia had the correct history, but that history did not fit the goals of Israel today. The data is now so far out in space that it is unbelievable by anyone that understands a little history and how commerce worked. As you know the first born was the Egyptian Pharaoh’s tax system. The first born of all animals. That included man belonged to the Pharaohs. All the ceremony ever was is the payment of taxes to the Egyptian Pharaohs. But you would never understand that from Wikipedia today. Now what I do is put the pieces of data into a pile and when the pile gets big enough I can start putting the puzzle together. So is this political as first said, or is this the start of history being re-discovered? They finally found Avaris and are starting research the site. And they have found the new unknown Pharaohs that are thought to be the Pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom area. If Abraham was a Pharaoh of the Middle Kingdom and he used the first born tax. Then maybe the Wikipedia data is changing because the only way for the new Wikipedia data to be correct is for Abraham to have been the Pharaoh of the Middle Kingdom. An example of none political data. Have ten people lookup the history of the olive on the internet. And the results will be a little different from each other. And they will have one thing in common. They will all be wrong. The European olive only produced every other year with very low production rate. What will be missing is the production rate was so low that flaxseed was used for oil and the olive was not used a human food. In 1700 BC when the Hyksos came to Egypt from Asia, they brought the hybrid olive that change Europe and the way of living. This is why the data has to be tested to meet all the timelines. The olive failed the commerce timeline test without the Asian hybrid olive.
Do I understand you? Wikipedia is wrong, 10 random people are wrong, possibly the entire Internet is wrong? Only you know the correct history of olives? Is that what you are saying?
Do I understand you? Wikipedia is wrong, 10 random people are wrong, possibly the entire Internet is wrong? Only you know the correct history of olives? Is that what you are saying?No, obviously you don’t understand me. I tried to give you a method that I use to filter the junk that is on the internet. And a couple of examples of how that works. Personally I like Wikipedia and support it monetarily. And I think it is good that you are posting on the blogspot. In your blog you said you were finally getting back in to your historical research on the beginning of science. I thought it would be a nice jester to let you know some of the problems and methods I have found doing research. And the further back in history you go the good data decreases and the junk increases. What I said is that when you do research on the internet you have to be careful that you don’t pick-up junk or incomplete information. The 10 random people will not so much have wrong information, they will have incomplete information telling them the olive was product of countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. Which is true, but as far as the history of the olive, is it correct to leave out the major changes to history caused by the hybrid olive? The major history of the olive was from the 1700 BC to the peak of the Roman Empire. Items left out would include. 1. The hybrid olives were consumed by humans as food, whereas the natural Mediterranean olive was not. The hybrid olive produced olive every year, the Mediterranean olive only every other year. The hybrid olive was big and had high yields compared to the Mediterranean olive that was small and very low yields. 2. Changed the oil production from flaxseed to olive oil. 3. Because olive oil is smokeless, it became the major oil use for lighting. 4. Food was preserved in olive oil. 5. Olive oil became a major trade item. And there were things like Abraham wanting to go to Israel after leaving Egypt because of the olives orchards. Hybrid olives would not grow in Egypt because of the weather. Abraham could not go to Israel right away because Egypt was fighting the Hittites in Syria over control of the olive oil and passed through Israel on the battle campaigns for twenty years. The point being, I found it best to test your data when using the data in research. Most of the time the data you are looking for is on the internet. But knowing when you have all the data can be a challenge.
How do we pronounce Ijtihad? Itchyhead?
How do we pronounce Ijtihad? Itchyhead?My guess is eej-tee-hod (short "o" sound). (But itchyhead has the advantage of being funny.)
Do I understand you? Wikipedia is wrong, 10 random people are wrong, possibly the entire Internet is wrong? Only you know the correct history of olives? Is that what you are saying?No, obviously you don’t understand me. I tried to give you a method that I use to filter the junk that is on the internet. And a couple of examples of how that works. I think you just can't tell how you are coming across. You have some idea about there being "junk" on the internet, which is obviously true, given the wildly differing opinions you can find, it can't all be good, and since you can find quite a bit about the earth being flat, there's a lot of junk. But you provide no help at all in sorting that out. In fact, you've mentioned Abraham quite a bit lately, as if understanding him is somehow key, but there is very little evidence that he ever actually existed. It seems your method is, accept some basic facts that you believe with very little reason, then build on that.
How do we pronounce Ijtihad? Itchyhead?The "ihad" is like "jihad". The beginning is small I and soft J, then "tea", ij-tea-had. Emphasis on the first syllable.
How do we pronounce Ijtihad? Itchyhead?Can’t even come close to trying to pronounce these types of words. I use MS Windows Narrator. Narrator is a screen reader. I have never check to see how accurate the Narrator is compared to the dictionary. When I see words like this that come from the Middle East, I have two thoughts. First they were read from right to left and second they may have been built on older words. For example “Israel" is built on three words. IS = land, RA = God, EL = THE. Land, God, The. Or right to left, the god’s land.
How do we pronounce Ijtihad? Itchyhead?Can’t even come close to trying to pronounce these types of words. I use MS Windows Narrator. Narrator is a screen reader. I have never check to see how accurate the Narrator is compared to the dictionary. When I see words like this that come from the Middle East, I have two thoughts. First they were read from right to left and second they may have been built on older words. For example “Israel" is built on three words. IS = land, RA = God, EL = THE. Land, God, The. Or right to left, the god’s land. I'll stick with Itchyhead. Lois