Originally posted by One Bad Pig
View Post
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
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
-
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
-
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.
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 PostWow. 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.
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 PostAgain, that you allege to have consulted upward of 80+ volumes on this topic,
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostI 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.
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 PostIslam does not preach forcible conversion.Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostWe do not know what Muhammed said. The Qur'an was written down centuries later.Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostAround 800 CE biographies of Muhammed came to written and these were carefully preserved. Before that? We have nothing.Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThe 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 PostNor were the hadiths ever intended to be considered in such a manner.
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 PostThe 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"
"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?
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 PostIslam does not preach forcible conversion.Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostWe do not know what Muhammed said. The Qur'an was written down centuries later.Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostAround 800 CE biographies of Muhammed came to written and these were carefully preserved. Before that? We have nothing.Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThe 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 PostNor 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 PostUnlike 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.
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 PostLike 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.
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.
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 PostI 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."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.
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 PostIt is quite tangential to your acknowledging your several errors of fact in this thread.
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?
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostIslam does not preach forcible conversion.Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostWe do not know what Muhammed said. The Qur'an was written down centuries later.Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostAround 800 CE biographies of Muhammed came to written and these were carefully preserved. Before that? We have nothing.Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThe 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 PostNor were the hadiths ever intended to be considered in such a manner.
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 PostI'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.
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 PostI 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.
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 PostWe 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.
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 PostWithout 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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
212 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
305 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,518 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:49 PM
|
Comment