Does Islam preach forcible conversion?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Agreed - especially in the presence of people so full of their own importance.

You do not need to edit my comments in order to defend your pal.


Nor am I the one who boasted of reading

stacks of books

on this topic.



I am also amused that you consider making a note of a text's title and its author to be:

more trouble than it's worth

[rogue06]

I have done the same, without physically taking notes even. It is something that people who aren't familiar with formal advanced academic learning do quite frequently. In the early days of TWeb, pre first crash, it was unusual see any referencing unless a claim was challenged.




Most people, even those with qualifications, usually do not use formal academic research procedures. Formal academic research methods are usually employed where formal academic papers are being prepared and written.


For informal venues such as TWeb, an initial claim doesn't need citations ...

X - I think this.
Y - According to Z, X is wrong because ... [{an acceptable response}]
Y - I don't think that is right; evidence provided by [cited material] suggests that ... [{an acceptable response}]
Y - Looking at the primary sources, which say that .... [+ citation] it seems that X is mistaken. [{an acceptable response}]
To the above, X is free to respond with citations supporting his position, or perhaps accede to Y's presentation.
Y - According to Z, X is wrong. [{not an acceptable response}]
Y - What a ludicrous claim. [{not an acceptable response}] if it can even be honoured with the term "response."

These were for notes for oral discussions/debates with friends and associates where stopping to provide the type of citations that H_A demands from others but gets indignant when the shoe is on the other foot^[1] was not only unnecessary but would be deemed a bit strange to say the least.

More than once my own comments are interspersed within what I was writing down (the last citation in post #127 being a good example):

What happened to some of the missing parts? Would you believe the “my dog ate it,” or a similar schoolboy excuse has been presented? In his book (volume 8, part II, pages 235-36) Ibn Hazm clearly states: “The verses of stoning and breast feeding were in the possession of A’isha in a (Koranic) copy. When Mohammed died and people became busy in the burial preparations, a domesticated animal entered in and ate it.” Mustafa Husayn, who edited and reorganized the book “al-Kash-Shaf” by the Zamakh-Shari, asserts this fact on page 518 of part 3, claiming that Abdulla Ibn Abi Bakr and A’isha herself related this story to him. This same incident is mentioned by Dar-al-Qutni, al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani, on the authority of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, who heard it from Abdulla who had himself heard it from A’isha. So I guess, “my goat ate it” would probably be more correct.

which was another reason, although a minor one, why I didn't write down sources -- because only part of it came from one.

Further, prior to 9/11 there was an apparent lack of Islamic scholarly writings available online in English. That changed as more and more people here wanted to access the hadiths and other works. IOW, what is available in 2023 can hardly be declared to have been available nearly 30 years ago.

But all of this is nothing more than H_A desperate to avert attention away from her japery in this thread. She doesn't want to discuss her wronger than wrong proclamations made from her comfy chair

Islam does not preach forcible conversion.

We do not know what Muhammed said. The Qur'an was written down centuries later.

Around 800 CE biographies of Muhammed came to written and these were carefully preserved. Before that? We have nothing.

The Qur'an is silent on Gabriel's revelations or any supernatural voice. The figure does appear in some verses but there is no mention of that figure being the messenger of supernatural revelations.

Nor were the hadiths ever intended to be considered in such a manner.

Or her fitful attempts to show that Jesus also commanded conversion by the sword that has been a virtual fail factory producing one howler after another, as well as her offering up someone who had the gaslights turned up all the way when he insisted that the notion that Muhammad converted by the sword was made up during the Crusades.

After that performance I really can't blame her for grasping at straws. I'd be humiliated too if I were her.




1. Just one example of the typical hypocrisy from Hypocrite_Again

This is hardly a scholarly exchange! One might opine the cuckoos are calling late this year!

[rogue06]

You do not need to edit my comments in order to defend your pal.


Nor am I the one who boasted of reading

stacks of books

on this topic.



I am also amused that you consider making a note of a text's title and its author to be:

more trouble than it's worth

Typically when I'd go I'd gather up at least half a dozen books to pour through. If enough weren't what I wanted, I'd go back for several more. Multiply that by something like 8 to 10 trips to the library and the description of "stacks of books" is spot on.

Now why are you running away from these? One might think you're behaving cravenly given all of your attempts to distract attention away from them.

Islam does not preach forcible conversion.

We do not know what Muhammed said. The Qur'an was written down centuries later.

Around 800 CE biographies of Muhammed came to written and these were carefully preserved. Before that? We have nothing.

The Qur'an is silent on Gabriel's revelations or any supernatural voice. The figure does appear in some verses but there is no mention of that figure being the messenger of supernatural revelations.

Nor were the hadiths ever intended to be considered in such a manner.

Along with your fitful attempts to show that Jesus also commanded conversion by the sword that has been a virtual fail factory producing one howler after another.

As well as your offering up someone who had the gaslights turned up all the way when he insisted that the notion that Muhammad converted by the sword was made up during the Crusades.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Typically when I'd go I'd gather up at least half a dozen books to pour through. Multiply that by something like 8 to 10 times and the description of "stacks of books" is spot on.

Who cares? You cannot bring a single text to mind. Your boast is therefore rendered irrelevant.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

These were for notes for oral discussions/debates with friends and associates where stopping to provide the type of citations that H_A demands from others but gets indignant when the shoe is on the other foot^[1] was not only unnecessary but would be deemed a bit strange to say the least.

More than once my own comments are interspersed within what I was writing down (the last citation in post #127 being a good example):

What happened to some of the missing parts? Would you believe the “my dog ate it,” or a similar schoolboy excuse has been presented? In his book (volume 8, part II, pages 235-36) Ibn Hazm clearly states: “The verses of stoning and breast feeding were in the possession of A’isha in a (Koranic) copy. When Mohammed died and people became busy in the burial preparations, a domesticated animal entered in and ate it.” Mustafa Husayn, who edited and reorganized the book “al-Kash-Shaf” by the Zamakh-Shari, asserts this fact on page 518 of part 3, claiming that Abdulla Ibn Abi Bakr and A’isha herself related this story to him. This same incident is mentioned by Dar-al-Qutni, al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani, on the authority of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, who heard it from Abdulla who had himself heard it from A’isha. So I guess, “my goat ate it” would probably be more correct.

which was another reason, although a minor one, why I didn't write down sources -- because only part of it came from one.

Further, prior to 9/11 there was an apparent lack of Islamic scholarly writings available online in English. That changed as more and more people here wanted to access the hadiths and other works. IOW, what is available in 2023 can hardly be declared to have been available nearly 30 years ago.

But all of this is nothing more than H_A desperate to avert attention away from her japery in this thread. She doesn't want to discuss her wronger than wrong proclamations made from her comfy chair







Or her fitful attempts to show that Jesus also commanded conversion by the sword that has been a virtual fail factory producing one howler after another, as well as her offering up someone who had the gaslights turned up all the way when he insisted that the notion that Muhammad converted by the sword was made up during the Crusades.

After that performance I really can't blame her for grasping at straws. I'd be humiliated too if I were her.




1. Just one example of the typical hypocrisy from Hypocrite_Again

I've definitely touched a nerve!

[rogue06]

More than once my own comments are interspersed within what I was writing down (the last citation in post #127 being a good example):

What happened to some of the missing parts? Would you believe the “my dog ate it,” or a similar schoolboy excuse has been presented? In his book (volume 8, part II, pages 235-36) Ibn Hazm clearly states: “The verses of stoning and breast feeding were in the possession of A’isha in a (Koranic) copy. When Mohammed died and people became busy in the burial preparations, a domesticated animal entered in and ate it.” Mustafa Husayn, who edited and reorganized the book “al-Kash-Shaf” by the Zamakh-Shari, asserts this fact on page 518 of part 3, claiming that Abdulla Ibn Abi Bakr and A’isha herself related this story to him. This same incident is mentioned by Dar-al-Qutni, al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani, on the authority of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, who heard it from Abdulla who had himself heard it from A’isha. So I guess, “my goat ate it” would probably be more correct.

I'll note that this bit pretty much pulverizes H_A's claim that nothing was written down until centuries later.

I wonder if H_A can comprehend why that is so.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'll note that this bit pretty much pulverizes H_A's claim that nothing was written down until centuries later.

I wonder if H_A can comprehend why that is so.

I am waiting for you to provide some comments from some accredited Islamicist academics.

Oh but I forgot! You never wrote anything down. Or if you did you cannot bring any of it to mind!

[One Bad Pig]

I am waiting for you to provide some comments from some accredited Islamicist academics.

Why the need for "accredited Islamicist academics" when one can get access straight to the translated texts? You handwaved away what was provided in that regard because you can find them online.

Oh but I forgot! You never wrote anything down. Or if you did you cannot bring any of it to mind!

Patently untrue just from what has been posted in this thread. Keep flailing.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Why the need for "accredited Islamicist academics" when one can get access straight to the translated texts?

I will treat that remark with the contempt it decidedly deserves.

Patently untrue just from what has been posted in this thread. Keep flailing.

Oh he's very good at Googling.

But do you not find it odd that despite reading those "stacks of books" he cannot recall to mind one comment made in any of them? He cannot even provide a paraphrase! It seems that what he read was never retained.

[rogue06]

I am waiting for you to provide some comments from some accredited Islamicist academics.

You mean like

How many times do you have to demonstrate that you skimmed at the very best the OP because each of them are cited in the very first post?

Again, this is more evidence of your desperation to change the subject.

For some funny reason you have a need not to discuss your many hilarious claims you made in this thread

Islam does not preach forcible conversion.

We do not know what Muhammed said. The Qur'an was written down centuries later.

Around 800 CE biographies of Muhammed came to written and these were carefully preserved. Before that? We have nothing.

The Qur'an is silent on Gabriel's revelations or any supernatural voice. The figure does appear in some verses but there is no mention of that figure being the messenger of supernatural revelations.

Nor were the hadiths ever intended to be considered in such a manner.

And then, of course, there's been your fitful attempts to show that Jesus also commanded conversion by the sword that has been a virtual fail factory producing one howler after another.

And who could forget you offering up someone who had the gaslights turned up all the way when he insisted that the notion that Muhammad converted by the sword was made up during the Crusades.

Then again, it's pretty clear why you would want to ignore them (even though you were awfully cock sure of yourself when you posted them), although this post makes clear you are still seeking to make a clown out of yourself.

Mission accomplished.

[rogue06]

I've definitely touched a nerve!

All you've done is provided yet another opportunity to demonstrate that you are a fraud who came here posing as an academic historian.

Congrats.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

All you've done is provided yet another opportunity to demonstrate that you are a fraud who came here posing as an academic historian.

Congrats.

Yes. I have most definitely touched a nerve.

[rogue06]

I must deflect and distract so hopefully nobody realizes just how many times I faceplanted in this thread

FIFY

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

FIFY

Where are the texts?

Without context your googled comments have no relevance.

You seem unable to grasp this simple fact.

I did at least provide my citations.

[Sparko]

Where are the texts?

Without context your googled comments have no relevance.

You seem unable to grasp this simple fact.

I did at least provide my citations.

Your citation from a popular article written by a muslim apologist site?