http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13602000701737079

Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson

Defenders of Reason in Islam: Mu'tazililism from Medieval School to Modern Symbol

The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis

Islam's Predicament with Modernity: Religious Reform and Cultural Change

Islam without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty

Islam and Democracy: Fear of the Modern World

ps. I don't mind lending you at least some of the books above (via Amazon Kindle) if you're truly interested in learning about this period.

> Why did the ‘six-nine’ narrations gain such prominence?

>One may ask why early Muslim scholars did not refute the ages mentioned in the “six-nine” narration in their commentaries. It is possible that they simply took for granted that particular figures in such reports were not necessarily regarded as chronological data, and did not feel the need to comment further as this was self-evident for people of that time. American professor, Denise Spellberg, theorises that political factors, in particular the Shi`a-Sunni split, may have been important in the prevalent notion of Aisha’s young age at marriage. Her young age, and therefore that she was not known to any man before the Prophet , was an important point for supporters of the Sunni Abbasid caliphate as it proved her status as a divinely-appointed wife, and thus a reliable source regarding the ‘thorny’ question of his succession[36]. It may have been that Sunni scholars favoured the reports which placed Aisha at nine years of age as it helped raise her status as the only virgin bride of the Prophet . One may also add that the Shi`a cult around the figure of Sayyiduna Ali no doubt used the fact that he had been brought up in the prophetic household from his early childhood as a mark of his distinction above the other Companions, particularly Aisha. The Shi`a rejected the authority and status of Aisha, and it may have suited Sunni scholars to highlight those reports that showed Aisha to be very young when she entered the Prophet’s household .

http://hameem.org/index.php/multimedia/articles/89-articles/149-proof-that-aisha-was-over-15-years-old-when-she-married-the-prophet-peace-be-upon-him

But that cites this: https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Gender-Islamic-Past-Spellberg/dp/0231079990

Not the answer you're looking for, but here is some general info from the course I took that may lead you in the right direction.

This is the Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_knowledge_(IB_course)

This is one of the books we used (older editions are like $3):
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Introduction-Gregory-Bassham/dp/0078038316

I really feel like it should be a required course.

> we really need to get to the bottom of whatever pathology is causing this

The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin

> Tracing conservatism back to its roots in the reaction against the French Revolution, Robin argues that the right is fundamentally inspired by a hostility to emancipating the lower orders. Some conservatives endorse the free market, others oppose it. Some criticize the state, others celebrate it. Underlying these differences is the impulse to defend power and privilege against movements demanding freedom and equality. Despite their opposition to these movements, conservatives favor a dynamic conception of politics and society--one that involves self-transformation, violence, and war. They are also highly adaptive to new challenges and circumstances. This partiality to violence and capacity for reinvention has been critical to their success.
>
> Written by a keen, highly regarded observer of the contemporary political scene, The Reactionary Mind ranges widely, from Edmund Burke to Antonin Scalia, from John C. Calhoun to Ayn Rand. It advances the notion that all rightwing ideologies, from the eighteenth century through today, are historical improvisations on a theme: the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.

That's generally what I think, but I also think people's behavior is highly contingent on social circumstances. If I had to pick a book that represents my view, it would be Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature.

It is still there with comments and all of their glory: https://www.amazon.com/Trump-America-Great-Collectible-Ornament/dp/B01N67D8HO

Walls don't work. For more info, read this.

I answered your second question. I'll add emphasis if that helps you.

If you like that, you should buy the book

How did we get here? Worth checking out if your library has a copy:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0394703170

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp, [archive.is*](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FTrump-America-Great-Collectible-Ornament%2Fdp%2FB01N67D8HO%2Fref%3Dcm_cr-mr-title "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")
   
   ^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))

America Again: Re-becoming the Greatness We Never Weren't

Read more: amazon.com

If you did some research, you'd see he's one of the most hands-on CEOs in industry. A rare example of both engineering and financial acumen.

He will work on Re-becoming the Greatness We Never Weren't

https://www.amazon.com/Multitude-War-Democracy-Age-Empire/dp/0143035592

He literally wrote a book on the subject, and makes that distinction all the time.

Stephen Colbert - America Again: Re-becoming the Greatness We Never Weren't

https://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States/dp/0062397346/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494803789&sr=8-1&keywords=a+peoples+history+of+the+united+states

I think someone needs to put this book on his desk:

https://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Johnson-McNamara-Vietnam/dp/0060929081

While I rarely shill, I recommend to all the people of /r/EnoughTrumpSpam to read Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by renowned historian Richard Hofstadter. It reminds you that this is not a new line of thought in America, but rather one that predates the establishment of the country.

For less messy amazon links you can extract the part after "/dp/" in

https://www.amazon.com/Pounded-Handsome-Russian-Blackmailed-Getting-ebook/dp/B01MS6FO50/ref=cm_sw_em_r_awdo_v_das_am6Dyb8KCHTWB_tt), [megalodon.jp](http://megalodon.jp/2017-0113-0042-56/https://www.amazon.com:443/Pounded-Handsome-Russian-Blackmailed-Getting-ebook/dp/B01MS6FO50/ref=cm_sw_em_r_awdo_v_das_am6Dyb8KCHTWB_tt

and make it:

https://amzn.com/B01MS6FO50

Or via smile link:

https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01MS6FO50

BEEP BOP

Plz send any recommendations via PM

Should have elaborated on her especially when lumping her in with Glenn Beck. I meant her book or her speaking out. Anything that is seen as remotely negative about Trump is washed out by the supporters that then go after these people. Look at her [book for example] (https://www.amazon.com/Settle-More-Megyn-Kelly/dp/0062494600). It has immediately been given 1 star reviews barely even discussing the book due to people from places like The Donald that said to brigade her book.

Anyone who disagrees is thrown under a bus.

New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, and Sam Harris are constantly getting accused of Islamophobia, even though they do things like co-write books with practicing Muslims. The core problem is that a lot of people have difficulty separating out criticism of Islamic doctrine with racism against Muslims, and on the other side you have people like Trump who really are just racist.

But at the end of the day, Maher was a Bernie supporter who switched to Clinton when the time came, Harris supported Clinton from the start, and even Dawkins even got in a few kicks.

> The horseshoe theory says nothing more than radicalization and narrow mindedness is wrong, and I firmly stand with that statement.

Like I said: this only makes sense if you're completely ignoring what each side stands for in the broader sense. Left radicalization says "fuck intolerance". Right radicalization says "fuck progress and difference". Those two things aren't equivalent or equally worthy of consideration.

> Left wing idiocy is not an iota better than right wing idiocy.

Yes it is, fuck off. Good things and bad things aren't the same just because people might believe them equally deeply.

If you honestly think that, then you're the reason America's Overton Window has been creeping right for decades, and you're part of the reason that the center of our country and our largest coastal cities have been left to rot by corporate oligarchs who don't care about them.

> Yes, we centrists are more and more decried as cucks and traitors and whatnot. For decades the ability to compromise was something very highly regarded in politicians. We used to have way more moderates in this country. Apparently not getting anything done if you don't have a majority because god forbid we work with them has become mainstream, though.

Fuck compromise until we're compromising on different tactics to achieve just goals.

But when America's Overton Window is so far right that even our "leftist" party would be considered center-right by every other developed democracy, "compromise" is nothing but a sham that allows every structural problem to perpetuate itself.

You know what "compromise" with right-wingers has gotten us?

• The three-fifth's "compromise".
  
  
• The Missouri "Compromise".
  
  
• "Separate but equal".
  
  
• "Don't ask, don't tell".
  
  
• Reaganomics and the subsequent hollowing out of the middle class that coincided with dog-whistle race politics.
  
  
• The war on drugs and the war on poverty, which directly contributed to the "driving while black" phenomenon, in addition to the disproportionate incarceration and sentencing rates among black folks.
  
  
• A "states rights" approach to education policy that led to a race-to-the-bottom where Texas' right-wing backwards-ass lawmakers effectively decide education policy for most of the nation.
  
  
• A crumbling healthcare system that costs more per-capita than any other developed nation with single-payer systems.
  
  
• I could go on for literally days.
  
  > Vilifying half of the country as obstructionist assholes is more important than focusing on the problems. For some reason the word discussion has become "being right at any cost" instead of "sharing ideas". And people like you think that's a good development...
  
  Maybe half of the country are actually obstructionist assholes and maybe the truth isn't somewhere in the middle. Has that thought ever seriously crossed your mind, even once?
  
  You know what did or will change those things I mentioned?
  
  Standing up for something for once in your goddamn life and refusing to compromise until you see that result. You have to be willing to tell right-wingers "NO, YOU'RE FUCKING WRONG" if you want to be part of the solution rather than being passively complicit in the problem.
  
  Saying that does not make me "just as bad" as someone who thinks that poor people should die of preventable illnesses in the streets or that education should be treated as a scarce commodity, I'm sorry to inform you.
  
  Compromise is a tactic. It is not, and should never be, the driving goal.
  
  You know who wins when "compromise" is the ends and the means? The people with the least to lose and the most extant power.
  
  Every. Single. Time.
  
  "Compromise" didn't create the Civil Rights Acts: "divisive" protests and concerted action by "radical" groups did.
  
  "Compromise" didn't push LGBT equality onto the national agenda; that was "radical" queer folks showing up and speaking out.
  
  The list goes on and reaches through the annals of history: divisiveness and compromise are both necessary political tactics. It just so happens that we live in a country and in an age where the latter has been the dominant tactic of those with power for decades, and everyone else has suffered immensely for it.
  
  Every single time throughout our country's history that people disaffected by status quo politics spoke out, their ambitions have been tamed and neutered by "compromise" until they were loud enough to make that change happen themselves.
  
  Sometimes necessary progress is divisive. I don't give a fuck. I'm done begging regressive right-wing assholes to do what is right. I'm done with that, full stop.
  
  

  Give me a country where we "share ideas" that actually speak to the idea of all people being created equal instead of "sharing ideas" about how to rearrange the Titanic's deck chairs. Then we'll talk about "compromise".
  

  
  Until then -- until we actually have a country where "compromise" involves a diverse group of people coming to the table to talk about how we achieve progress and mutual inclusiveness instead of whether we should even strive for those things -- I'm done trying to "compromise" with people whose vested interests are regressive and backwards.