Does Islam preach forcible conversion?

[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.

[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!

[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

[tabibito]

It is amusing to see you defending the incompetence of rogeu06.

However, if he can recall neither the texts and authors [deleted error], it might have been prudent not to have mentioned those "stacks of books" that he allegedly consulted!

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

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

"Any senior school pupil" is debatable - it is not as though referencing is an academic subject, though it should be. Knowing how to do it and actually doing it are two different things. Again - it is not normal practice to be so assiduous for private study purposes.



Most people simply don't. For private study, it's more trouble than it's worth.

It is amusing to see you defending the incompetence of rogeu06.

However, if he can recall neither the texts and authors and nor what he noted down, it might have been prudent not to have mentioned those "stacks of books" that he allegedly consulted!

[tabibito]

It is not primarily to do with formal academic learning. Any senior school pupil is aware of how to take notes from texts being consulted. It is more a matter of basic common sense.

"Any senior school pupil" is debatable - it is not as though referencing is an academic subject, though it should be. Knowing how to do it and actually doing it are two different things. Again - it is not normal practice to be so assiduous for private study purposes.

if one is interested in a topic [as our mutual friend has indicated with regard to Islam] then when one reads texts of interest, one notes the comments being made along with the author and title from whence they came, so that if, in future, one wishes to return to those comments one knows their source.

Most people simply don't. For private study, it's more trouble than it's worth.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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.

It is not primarily to do with formal academic learning. Any senior school pupil is aware of how to take notes from texts being consulted. It is more a matter of basic common sense.

if one is interested in a topic [as our mutual friend has indicated with regard to Islam] then when one reads texts of interest, one notes the comments being made along with the author and title from whence they came, so that if, in future, one wishes to return to those comments one knows their source.

[tabibito]

I quite agree there are some excellent resources on the net. However, our mutual friend has referred to those "stacks of books" of which he availed himself; yet he apparently never recorded the author or the title from which he obtained specific information. Nor has he been able to recall a single comment [even in a paraphrase] from those "stacks of books" that he allegedly consulted.

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.

One can therefore only surmise that he is severely lacking in his knowledge of research methods [not to mention basic common sense] and further, whatever he might have read [or indeed noted down] he has been unable to produce for this thread.

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."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Fail and flail

Let's go down a rabbit hole. Anything but face the fact your posting on this thread resembles that of a drunk driver sideswiping parked cars along the street while you lurch along.

Perhaps you should try shouting "Squirrel" next.

I mean it is impossible for me to prove that I accessed a university library located roughly a mile away from where I live (as the crow flies -- winding back roads it's a little over two) a couple of decades ago. But given that I (unlike yourself) make no bones over using interwebz sources, there would be no reason for me to claim this if it weren't true. No motive whatsoever and would serve zero purpose.

Personal abuse! I must have touched a nerve!

My comments are to do with your claims concerning your sojourns at a university library and those "stacks of books" that you have allegedly read but cannot recall to mind!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Not to mention - the resources on the net are in no way inferior to those that aren't. Even the worst of them are no worse than the worst that are unavailable on the web.

I quite agree there are some excellent resources on the net. However, our mutual friend has referred to those "stacks of books" of which he availed himself; yet he apparently never recorded the author or the title from which he obtained specific information. Nor has he been able to recall a single comment [even in a paraphrase] from those "stacks of books" that he allegedly consulted.

One can therefore only surmise that he is severely lacking in his knowledge of research methods [not to mention basic common sense] and further, whatever he might have read [or indeed noted down] he has been unable to produce for this thread.

[tabibito]

Fail and flail

Let's go down a rabbit hole. Anything but face the fact your posting on this thread resembles that of a drunk driver sideswiping parked cars along the street while you lurch along.

Perhaps you should try shouting "Squirrel" next.

I mean it is impossible for me to prove that I accessed a university library located roughly a mile away from where I live (as the crow flies -- winding back roads it's a little over two) a couple of decades ago. But given that I (unlike yourself) make no bones over using interwebz sources, there would be no reason for me to claim this if it weren't true. No motive whatsoever and would serve zero purpose.

Not to mention - the resources on the net are in no way inferior to those that aren't. Even the worst of them are no worse than the worst that are unavailable on the web.

[rogue06]

That post seems far more of an attempt to distract than my commenting on your "stacks of books" that you allege to have read; and that from those "stacks of books" you idiotically [and somewhat conveniently] successfully managed to avoid making any record of either their titles or their authors!

Furthermore you have yet to provide a single comment from an accredited Islamicist academic; which suggests that if indeed you did read those "stacks of books" whatever you read passed [without anything to stop it] straight out of your head.

And lastly, I remind you again that simply cherry picking verses out of context and reproducing them tells nobody anything.

All it does is illustrate that you are very good at Googling information that is freely available online.

Fail and flail

Let's go down a rabbit hole. Anything but face the fact your posting on this thread resembles that of a drunk driver sideswiping parked cars along the street while you lurch along.

Perhaps you should try shouting "Squirrel" next.

I mean it is impossible for me to prove that I accessed a university library located roughly a mile away from where I live (as the crow flies -- winding back roads it's a little over two) a couple of decades ago. But given that I (unlike yourself) make no bones over using interwebz sources, there would be no reason for me to claim this if it weren't true. No motive whatsoever and would serve zero purpose.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Still desperately trying to distract attention from all of your hilarious blunders aren't you?

Hoping that you don't have to answer for your bonehead declarations which demonstrate an abysmal level of ignorance on a topic you repeatedly sought to pontificate on and which brought us such gems as these








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.

As Patton famously argued the best defense is a good offense, but face it, your offense is out of ammo and out of gas.

So now I'm waiting for you to regale us with your latest nugget of H_A wisdom exposing a new level of laughable ignorance -- or have you finally decided that you've made a fool enough out of yourself.

At least in this thread.

That post seems far more of an attempt to distract than my commenting on your "stacks of books" that you allege to have read; and that from those "stacks of books" you idiotically [and somewhat conveniently] successfully managed to avoid making any record of either their titles or their authors!

Furthermore you have yet to provide a single comment from an accredited Islamicist academic; which suggests that if indeed you did read those "stacks of books" whatever you read passed [without anything to stop it] straight out of your head.

And lastly, I remind you again that simply cherry picking verses out of context and reproducing them tells nobody anything.

All it does is illustrate that you are very good at Googling information that is freely available online.

[rogue06]

What sort of idiot reads texts and makes notes from those texts but does not bother to make a record of the author and title of each work from which the information is taken?




And the above texts are freely available online.

How very convenient. That also indicates your skills in research leave something to be desired [see my first comment on idiots].

That is immaterial to this exchange

Are you sure you intended to write that?

Still desperately trying to distract attention from all of your hilarious blunders aren't you?

Hoping that you don't have to answer for your bonehead declarations which demonstrate an abysmal level of ignorance on a topic you repeatedly sought to pontificate on and which brought us such gems as these

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.

As Patton famously argued the best defense is a good offense, but face it, your offense is out of ammo and out of gas.

So now I'm waiting for you to regale us with your latest nugget of H_A wisdom exposing a new level of laughable ignorance -- or have you finally decided that you've made a fool enough out of yourself.

At least in this thread.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The information they contained was what I was interested in, providing a bibliographic listing wasn't even on the radar.

What sort of idiot reads texts and makes notes from those texts but does not bother to make a record of the author and title of each work from which the information is taken?

Sīrat Rasūl Allāh ("Life of the Messenger of God") by Ibn Ishaq is quoted from

Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk ("History of the Prophets and Kings") by Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari is quoted from (specifically volumes 9 and 10)

And the above texts are freely available online.

Numerous others are also quoted by I don't mention the source.

How very convenient. That also indicates your skills in research leave something to be desired [see my first comment on idiots].

There are many more I have cited in various discussions about different aspects of Islam on this board.

That is immaterial to this exchange

Most are very well known by Muslims in the manner that Augustine's City of God or Aquinas' Summa Theologica are.

Are you sure you intended to write that?