Why can't the 'SIN Sifters' ever AGREE?

With Mel's most recent series on the Dome of the Rock (taken from A.J. Deus's research on that building) now being put online, questions are being asked by many of those who are commenting wondering why Mel seems to be changing his views concerning the Dome's importance, and especially his doubts for the early dates for the inscriptions on the inner ambulatory. Yet, other 'Sin-Sifters' like Thomas Alexander do not agree with Mel's conclusions, which suggests that the team of Sin-Sifters are not consistent. Jay asked Mel to come and explain to the viewers why he is willing to change his views, even when they are not consistent with others on the Sin-Sifting team. He and Jay explained that this is the 'nature of the beast' in the quest for historical accuracy. The dictum which Jay has demanded, and which all of those in the SIN-Sifting community have always stood by is that they always 'follow the evidence' as they find it 'on the ground', and in the case of the Origins of Islam, that evidence must be derived from the 7th century itself, or soon after, but not from the later 9th - 11th centuries, whose material are mere creative redactions back to the 7th century. Because so little work has been carried out on the evidence from that century, it's a virginal field, with research ongoing in a multiplicity of areas, including the coins, the rock inscriptions, the Qiblas, the Qur'anic manuscripts, as well as its Aramaic antecedents, and also research into the Dome of the Rock itself, because of its importance in so many of these disparate arenas of historical research. As new artifacts, letters, articles, and traveling documents are being found, the narrative has to change, in order to represent the evidence which is coming to light, and this has been the case with the Dome of the Rock. A.J. Deus's research was one of the first to use eye-witness accounts of individuals who had actually traveled to Jerusalem between the 7th - 19th centuries, who once there had taken the time to describe the Dome of the Rock as they saw it, and even in some cases draw it in pictographic form. This is the best sort of evidence one could hope for, and has been a treasure store for those of us who are deeply interested in when the damning inscriptions against the divinity of Jesus, as well as the introduction to the Shahada, could have actually been written, and by whom. The Standard Islamic Narrative has always stated that this building and those inscriptions were created by Abd al-Malik in 691 AD, and until now none of us had any reason to doubt it; until A.J. Deus came along with his new research on the Dome. A.J. Deus's research, using the many eye-witness's travel-logs suggests that this SIN view is now untenable, forcing us to possibly re-date not only the inscriptions, but also the content of their theology, a theology which has become the dead-rock for the last 1400 years of Islamic thinking. Deues's research may change what we know about early Islam, to say nothing about when the Qur'an was written, and even how it came to be written, and by whom. So, hold this space, as there is much yet to research, and then come to conclusions on. Meanwhile, don't ask us to come out with any definitive conclusions, due to the tentative nature of the material we are given. Instead, much of what we record and then upload on Pfanderfilms will be known as our "green sheets", a sort of "What if" scenarios concerning the significance of what we are finding. As we find out more and are able to fill in the pieces of the puzzle better, we will then move on to what we could call "white sheets", which, when ready, will be written up and then published. But don't be surprised if we don't always agree, nor even able to make up our minds; due to the nature of Historical criticism itself. © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2022 (64,700) Music: "Townsong" by Alexander Nakarada, from filmmusic-io