Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Does Islam preach forcible conversion?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    You are going to extreme lengths to avoid the actual subject matter of this thread. It is patently obvious to all that you goofed. Hard. And all you've got is a vigorous attempt to put the person who pointed out your goof on the defensive, somehow, someway. I may have to bookmark this thread as a testament to your ineptitude.
    This thread is already bursting at the seams with bookmarked posts from H_A.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

      Of course you are free to do as you will but purely as a matter of interest, do you have any comprehension of the complexity surrounding the early years for the transmission of the Qur'an? Entire books as well as papers are devoted to that topic.

      The traditional and pious view is that the revelation was complete during the lifetime of the Prophet and its fragments recorded and compiled in the early post-Prophetic period by the Caliph Uthman between 650 and 656 CE. However, many Orientalist and Islamicist scholars have disputed this interpretation, noting the lack of direct source material and a reliance on Muslim historical accounts written long afterwards. It is evident that there remain difficulties in gaining any access to this early period of Islam due to the fact that early sources are scant and are often distorted; a problem also noted by Muslim scholars. Furthermore most of the early traditions are oral and therefore cannot be verified historically.

      From a paper by Angelika Neuwirth "Qur'an and History — a Disputed Relationship: Some Reflections on Qur'anic History and History in the Qur'an", Journal of Qur'anic Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1 [2003], pp. 1-18.

      My emphasis.

      We should, therefore, distinguish between a process of canonisation which took place successively and the act of the collection and redaction of the text, which was intended as ne varietur, 'not to be changed'. However the detailed circumstances of that latter venture, which in Islamic tradition is associated with the third caliph Uthman, the initiative to publish an authoritative corpus, a mushaf, marks the dividing line between the new textus receptus, a text claiming to be the definite corpus of the Prophet's recitations, and those textual forms that preceded it, texts that were transmitted orally and/or in writing by diverse transmitters, and thus had taken different shapes as to the sequence of the individual suras, and perhaps in terms of quantity as well. The 'pre-canonical text' thus would appear as a highly conjectural construct, could we not assume a strong oral tradition to have warranted a faithful transmission of the texts, however little is known about its agents.

      In most of current Qur'anic studies, however, the redaction of the text is viewed as identical with canonisation, the whole endeavour being dated usually some 150 years after the death of the Prophet. Canonisation is, therefore, in these studies considered as having far more crucial consequences than were hitherto attached to the collection of the Qur'an: canonisation in current scholarship figures as a dividing line between 'what we can know about the genesis of the Qur'an' and 'what we cannot know', the pre-canonical text being considered as completely veiled.


      Early Muslim reports also indicate that the Companions to Muhammed had different versions of the Qur'an and some reports give the purported variants in their codices.

      In other words the issue is not nearly as simplistic and "cut and dried" as our resident "expert" would like to suggest.
      The different versions is the result of none being complete, not that they were contradictory.

      And remember the story about the domestic animal eating part of his child bride's copy resulting in the loss of a surah? Do you realize how that little incident utterly demolishes one of your asinine declarations?

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


      I mean, Aisha was incredibly young when Muhammad married her and consummated his marriage, but I don't think she was still alive "centuries later"

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Wow. The nerve I hit was especially raw wasn't it? smiley snicker.gif

        Were you stomping a foot in petulant anger when you typed that?

        Could you possibly make it more obvious that you realize that you not only stepped in it, you proceeded to do a flamenco dance in it?

        Anything to distract and deflect from the one-right-after-the-other series of flubs and bungling based on the fact that once again you sought to pontificate on a topic you are wholly ignorant about. This thread is a monument to your invincible arrogant ignorance.

        Anything to avoid trying to support your easily debunked nonsense.

        What a poser.

        What a clown.

        What an absolute joke.

        I probably should post what caused H_A to get so upset and desperate to deflect



        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

        You cited the names of various academics and some quotes from them. Yet gave no context.
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post


        First you sneer that I never provided any academic sources, amply demonstrating that you never even bothered to read the OP before dismissing it. Something you've repeatedly shown a habit of doing (remember how you dismissed what I wrote about the non-pagan history of Christmas as ridiculous although you never read it?).

        Now, after I listed off nearly a dozen either cited or directly quoted you come back with this excuse.

        As the singular naughty swine so amply stated, if you actually believed this lame dodge then

        Since attempting to ignore her gaffes hasn't worked, she's switching to hand-waving. It should be trivially easy to expose uncontextualized comments (by providing context) and cherry-picked verses (by showing contrary ones), especially given that they are from "easily available online texts."


        But for some funny reason you utterly fail to do that but instead merely claim that I must be taking them out of context.

        Well then, lift your hindquarters out of that comfy chair that you pontificate from and demonstrate it. After all, again...

        It should be trivially easy to expose uncontextualized comments (by providing context) and cherry-picked verses (by showing contrary ones), especially given that they are from "easily available online texts."


        So stop with the pitiful flail and fail routine and get to work.

        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        Again, that you allege to have consulted upward of 80+ volumes on this topic,
        I gave no numbers of how many volumes I consulted but rather wrote that I'd grab a half dozen off the shelf during each visit. Often they were some of the same books since I'd be looking up a number of different aspect of Islam (researching the claim that one is supposed to spread Islam forcibly if people don't want to convert was just one of several subjects I was exploring). Since I tend to reshelf my own books (libraries typically don't like that because most people just stick them anywhere), I knew where on the shelves many of them sat and I'd pluck them off the shelf as I passed by on my way to my seat.

        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        I continue to remain markedly surprised that you cannot call to mind one title or author or any comment[s] made in any of those volumes.
        Only some of the titles. Several I cited. Many of the others I've cited in different threads but don't here because they're irrelevant to this discussion. I even noted that but you showed no interest so I didn't bother after that.

        Further, the fact that I provide numerous citations and quotes puts the lie to your assertion that I "cannot call to mind any comment[s] made in any of those volumes" as you pretend.

        And of course, if you believe that I am providing an over-simplistic view supported by out-of-context quotations, then get off your butt and as OBP notes

        It should be trivially easy to expose uncontextualized comments (by providing context) and cherry-picked verses (by showing contrary ones), especially given that they are from "easily available online texts."


        In fact, at this point it is reasonable to believe that you tried only to discover that you were, yet again, wrong. But rather than admit it, you just keep throwing out the same baseless accusation.

        Flail and fail.

        Of course, since it is apparent that you cannot support your claim maybe you should address some of your earlier doozies, namely



        [BOX]
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        Islam does not preach forcible conversion.
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        We do not know what Muhammed said. The Qur'an was written down centuries later.
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        Around 800 CE biographies of Muhammed came to written and these were carefully preserved. Before that? We have nothing.
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        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.
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        Nor were the hadiths ever intended to be considered in such a manner.
        Or maybe more attempts to show that Jesus also commanded conversion by the sword that have been a regular laugh riot so far.

        At the very least please find another source who will do something like your last one and insist that the notion that Islam was spread at the point of the sword was nothing but some myth that the Crusaders came up with.





        As well as note that she's definitely ignoring this

        It should be trivially easy to expose uncontextualized comments (by providing context) and cherry-picked verses (by showing contrary ones), especially given that they are from "easily available online texts."


        I wonder why


        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          The different versions is the result of none being complete, not that they were contradictory.

          And remember the story about the domestic animal eating part of his child bride's copy resulting in the loss of a surah? Do you realize how that little incident utterly demolishes one of your asinine declarations?

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


          I mean, Aisha was incredibly young when Muhammad married her and consummated his marriage, but I don't think she was still alive "centuries later"
          What is your expert opinion on the isnād-cum-matn method when assessing Sunni traditions? What new insights can you bring regarding the opinions of [for example] Wansbrough Goldziher, or Burton?

          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

            What is your expert opinion on the isnād-cum-matn method when assessing Sunni traditions? What new insights can you bring regarding the opinions of [for example] Wansbrough Goldziher, or Burton?
            Unlike you I'm not a poser pretending to be something I'm not O faux academic historian.

            My Latin sucks but shouldn't that be matn cum isnād, since matn is the saying whereas isnād is the list of those who provided the saying (or action)? As I said, my Latin sucks so you might have it right.

            Anywho, wanting a reliable source (or even multiple sources providing the same information) seems only logical.

            Burton provided invaluable information for the time whereas Wansbrough was an Islamic apologist writing what was often called revisionist history. Goldziher, I'm not familiar with.

            Now are you through trying to play gotcha (kind of funny since you are hardly in a position to "grade" my responses)?

            Are you FINALLY going to put your big girl panties on and defend some of your more outrageous declarations such as

            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            Islam does not preach forcible conversion.
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            We do not know what Muhammed said. The Qur'an was written down centuries later.
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            Around 800 CE biographies of Muhammed came to written and these were carefully preserved. Before that? We have nothing.
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            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.
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            Nor were the hadiths ever intended to be considered in such a manner.

            Or maybe more attempts to show that Jesus also commanded conversion by the sword that have been a regular laugh riot so far.

            At the very least please find another source who will do something like your last one and insist that the notion that Islam was spread at the point of the sword was nothing but some myth that the Crusaders came up with.



            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Unlike you I'm not a poser pretending to be something I'm not O faux academic historian.

              My Latin sucks but shouldn't that be matn cum isnād, since matn is the saying whereas isnād is the list of those who provided the saying (or action)? As I said, my Latin sucks so you might have it right.

              Anywho, wanting a reliable source (or even multiple sources providing the same information) seems only logical.

              Burton provided invaluable information for the time whereas Wansbrough was an Islamic apologist writing what was often called revisionist history. Goldziher, I'm not familiar with.

              Now are you through trying to play gotcha (kind of funny since you are hardly in a position to "grade" my responses)?

              Are you FINALLY going to put your big girl panties on and defend some of your more outrageous declarations such as






              Or maybe more attempts to show that Jesus also commanded conversion by the sword that have been a regular laugh riot so far.

              At the very least please find another source who will do something like your last one and insist that the notion that Islam was spread at the point of the sword was nothing but some myth that the Crusaders came up with.

              I am all astonishment!

              Given that you allegedly spent hours in a university library consulting numerous volumes and, so one assumes, making copious notes although failing to record from which text and author you obtained them, not to mention your assertion that: [My emphasis]

              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Like you, if I get interested in something I go at it like a starving dog with a bone. In my case, I got interested in Islam back in the early 90s [...] But when you go deep it does not take long to see that much of what is told Westerners (such as Islam means Peace B.S.) is not very accurate, and I quickly lost interest in it -- but not in studying it.


              It seems you have no informed comment to make on some of the more detailed issues, as well some randomly selected examples of various academic opinion.

              As Alice might remark "Curiouser and curiouser".

              Edit: From where did you obtain the information that Wansbrough

              was an Islamic apologist


              And what precise

              invaluable information


              did Burton provide?
              Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 01-30-2023, 08:10 AM.
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                Of course you are free to do as you will but purely as a matter of interest, do you have any comprehension of the complexity surrounding the early years for the transmission of the Qur'an? Entire books as well as papers are devoted to that topic.
                I do, in fact. It can be an interesting read. Because Muslims insist on the perfection of the Qur'an, they're more interested in destroying than studying anything that deviates from its current form.
                The traditional and pious view is that the revelation was complete during the lifetime of the Prophet and its fragments recorded and compiled in the early post-Prophetic period by the Caliph Uthman between 650 and 656 CE. However, many Orientalist and Islamicist scholars have disputed this interpretation, noting the lack of direct source material and a reliance on Muslim historical accounts written long afterwards. It is evident that there remain difficulties in gaining any access to this early period of Islam due to the fact that early sources are scant and are often distorted; a problem also noted by Muslim scholars. Furthermore most of the early traditions are oral and therefore cannot be verified historically.

                From a paper by Angelika Neuwirth "Qur'an and History — a Disputed Relationship: Some Reflections on Qur'anic History and History in the Qur'an", Journal of Qur'anic Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1 [2003], pp. 1-18.

                My emphasis.

                We should, therefore, distinguish between a process of canonisation which took place successively and the act of the collection and redaction of the text, which was intended as ne varietur, 'not to be changed'. However the detailed circumstances of that latter venture, which in Islamic tradition is associated with the third caliph Uthman, the initiative to publish an authoritative corpus, a mushaf, marks the dividing line between the new textus receptus, a text claiming to be the definite corpus of the Prophet's recitations, and those textual forms that preceded it, texts that were transmitted orally and/or in writing by diverse transmitters, and thus had taken different shapes as to the sequence of the individual suras, and perhaps in terms of quantity as well. The 'pre-canonical text' thus would appear as a highly conjectural construct, could we not assume a strong oral tradition to have warranted a faithful transmission of the texts, however little is known about its agents.

                In most of current Qur'anic studies, however, the redaction of the text is viewed as identical with canonisation, the whole endeavour being dated usually some 150 years after the death of the Prophet. Canonisation is, therefore, in these studies considered as having far more crucial consequences than were hitherto attached to the collection of the Qur'an: canonisation in current scholarship figures as a dividing line between 'what we can know about the genesis of the Qur'an' and 'what we cannot know', the pre-canonical text being considered as completely veiled.


                Early Muslim reports also indicate that the Companions to Muhammed had different versions of the Qur'an and some reports give the purported variants in their codices.

                In other words the issue is not nearly as simplistic and "cut and dried" as our resident "expert" would like to suggest.
                Ah, there's your other typical dodge - prove you knows stuff by waxing eloquent on some tangential topic. Your dodges are so wonderfully transparent.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  I do, in fact. It can be an interesting read. Because Muslims insist on the perfection of the Qur'an, they're more interested in destroying than studying anything that deviates from its current form.

                  Ah, there's your other typical dodge - prove you knows stuff by waxing eloquent on some tangential topic. Your dodges are so wonderfully transparent.
                  I hardly think the composition and transmission of the Qur'an is a "tangential topic". You of course, may disagree.
                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                    I hardly think the composition and transmission of the Qur'an is a "tangential topic". You of course, may disagree.
                    It is quite tangential to your acknowledging your several errors of fact in this thread.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      It is quite tangential to your acknowledging your several errors of fact in this thread.
                      What specific errors? I acknowledged my oversight re the revelations coming from Gabriel.

                      Meanwhile we await the self-appointed expert to respond to my comments re Wansbrough and Burton.
                      Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 01-31-2023, 04:04 PM.
                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                        I am all astonishment!

                        Given that you allegedly spent hours in a university library consulting numerous volumes and, so one assumes, making copious notes although failing to record from which text and author you obtained them, not to mention your assertion that: [My emphasis]



                        It seems you have no informed comment to make on some of the more detailed issues, as well some randomly selected examples of various academic opinion.

                        As Alice might remark "Curiouser and curiouser".

                        Edit: From where did you obtain the information that Wansbrough

                        was an Islamic apologist


                        And what precise

                        invaluable information


                        did Burton provide?
                        I've answered dozens of your questions and all you keep doing is keep on demanding more and more answers for more and more and more questions all the while cravenly refusing to explain, defend, or even acknowledge these despite being asked about repeatedly

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Islam does not preach forcible conversion.
                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        We do not know what Muhammed said. The Qur'an was written down centuries later.
                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Around 800 CE biographies of Muhammed came to written and these were carefully preserved. Before that? We have nothing.
                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        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.
                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Nor were the hadiths ever intended to be considered in such a manner.
                        Or maybe more attempts to show that Jesus also commanded conversion by the sword that have been a regular laugh riot so far.

                        At the very least please find another source who will do something like your last one and insist that the notion that Islam was spread at the point of the sword was nothing but some myth that the Crusaders came up with.


                        What you are doing here is so transparent that others have begun to call you out on it.




                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          I've answered dozens of your questions and all you keep doing is keep on demanding more and more answers for more and more and more questions all the while cravenly refusing to explain, defend, or even acknowledge these despite being asked about repeatedly







                          Or maybe more attempts to show that Jesus also commanded conversion by the sword that have been a regular laugh riot so far.

                          At the very least please find another source who will do something like your last one and insist that the notion that Islam was spread at the point of the sword was nothing but some myth that the Crusaders came up with.


                          What you are doing here is so transparent that others have begun to call you out on it.


                          It appears you cannot explain your comment that Wansbrough:

                          was an Islamic apologist


                          And you are entirely unable to bring to mind precisely what:

                          invaluable information


                          was provided by Burton.

                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            I do, in fact. It can be an interesting read. Because Muslims insist on the perfection of the Qur'an, they're more interested in destroying than studying anything that deviates from its current form.
                            The gathering of the texts by Uthman and his subsequent destruction of them after his copy was produced is an especially interesting topic. Apparently there was a requirement that the there had to be at least two copies of something for it to get recorded into Uthman's "Medina codex" which is one reason that a significant proportion of it was lost.

                            That would include the part concerning A’isha's copy being partially consumed by a domestic animal so that a portion of a surah pertaining to stoning and breast feeding was lost -- which incidentally demonstrates the falseness of one of H_A's proclamations, namely

                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            We do not know what Muhammed said. The Qur'an was written down centuries later.


                            But at least one exception was made. According to perhaps the greatest Islamic scholar of his time, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, in his Al-Itqān fi ‘Ulum Al-Qur’an (The Perfect Guide to the Sciences of the Qur'an, and usually called the Itqan), even though the final verse of the 9th surah, At-Tawbah (the Repentance) was found only with Khuzayma Ibn Thabit, one of Muhammad's companions, it was decided to "record it because the apostle of God made the testimony of Khuzayma equal to the testimony of two men."

                            And we've had a few good threads regarding the belief that the earthly qu'ran is a perfect copy of a heavenly version (Umm al-Kitabhe) brought down by Gabriel (along with a similar belief that it has remained exactly the same in every detail as it was when Muhammad first related it some 1400 years ago, but that's an entirely different issue).



                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                              It appears you cannot explain your comment that Wansbrough:

                              was an Islamic apologist


                              And you are entirely unable to bring to mind precisely what:

                              invaluable information


                              was provided by Burton.
                              Without any difficulty -- right after you finally address your previous claims

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Without any difficulty -- right after you finally address your previous claims
                                Apparently a condition that was too much

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X