Not only have you clearly acknowledged that you have never read any academic material on this subject, you are now proving that as well as being ignorant of academic research, you are in fact very
anti-academic.
I would say you are one of the most anti-academic posters on this site. If you spent 1/10th of the time reading 'academia' that you do pretending you understand it then copy/pasting contextless passages from dictionaries and wikipedia, you would have probably earned a PhD by now.
I have provided you with links to over 30 pieces of genuine academic scholarship, however, without actually reading any of it, you dismissed it all as worthless. As this was a cross section of recent scholarship, you thus dismissed the entire field of contemporary critical Western scholarship as worthless without feeling the need to understand even 1% of it. It's clear that you don't even understand 1% of it because you mistook critical academic history for theological apologetics. I mean you wouldn't have made this mistake if you had been able to recognise the name of a single modern scholar. You also wouldn't have been able to make this mistake if you read the titles of the articles, never mind actually opened them.
Even religious apologists try to demonstrate that the material is incorrect, but you didn't even get this far. It was simply 'worthless'. At least apologists actually read the perspectives they want to argue against.
Whilst the work of well respected scholars is 'worthless', you then cite 1. A polemical video by a journalist famous for not being a scholar of Islamic history 2. A blog written by an unknown person who is clearly not an expert 3. A video by a Christian apologist based on material so thoroughly discredited that not only is it rejected by academics, but also anti-Islamic polemicists.
What goes 'on and on' is 1. you favouring polemics, wikipedia and dictionaries over rigorous scholarship 2. you posting untrue/highly speculative information as being 'factually correct' 3. you not understanding the difference between theology and history despite it being pointed out to you 50 times, so you argue against theology when others are discussing history 4. you commenting authoritatively on a topic you genuinely know almost nothing about and wilfully ignoring evidence that demonstrates this 5. you promoting the attitude that it is better to make up some clear and precise pseudo-history than accept that what actually happened is currently unknown or contentious.
On a thread about academic perspectives, you are shilling for anti-academic polemics and ignorance, as opposed to critical enquiry.
Would you like to get back on topic and start discussing academic perspectives please? Either present some of the ones that you agree with, or provide reasoned criticism of the ones you disagree with. No more polemical videos or blogs please. You have claimed you are familiar with this topic, so it shouldn't be difficult to find a small number of articles that have informed your opinions should it? Even just 1 would be a start.
Or, seeing as all my articles are 'worthless', why don't you comment on which arguments you found particularly pathetic? Which was the worst article you read? Perhaps one of the Reynolds articles, you have expressed particular contempt for him and I find him very insightful so should make for a good discussion.
