Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You intrigue me, as a psychiatric case, that is. Any bipolar in your family? The rapid fire posts of yours (most are yours I believe) are indicative of a manic person. It would explain a lot, in which case I would apologize to you.

You obviously have a lot of free time. Are you employed or rather, employable? I can not reply extensive answers throughout the day as you do. I have other responsibilities. But I will later. Way too much bs to expose in your posts.

Why does that matter?

Are you also interested in my cooking skills?

ha ha, I was about to say kettle, meet pot.

Because I was asked to be a witness in a case with a woman very much like you on Twitter. She posted manically and was very emotional. Ultimately she violated Twitter rules apparently and did something she should not have done. An investigation was done and it turned out that she was in a psychiatric institution and apparently she is bipolar.

I post during down time, when my kids go to school, at kiss n ride, after the family is asleep. You and your friend post all day, throughout the day, long, extensive diatribes, you follow me on threads about Islam, and, hell, you even argued with the moderator of the site. Classic cases of psychiatric issues.

Different PP from the one you're abusing. It's obvious that you out-post everyone here: you post all day AND much of the night. The time stamps on your posts make this obvious. I suspect we all have obligations like families and jobs, so your whinging about your own life isn't winning you any sympathy or whatever you think you're accomplishing with that.

Calling PP a psychiatric case - no words. You lose credibility and make yourself look unstable every single time you fabricate stuff about her and others.

If you fabricate things about PP, what are we supposed to think about your honesty recIslam?

Re the moderator, you're the one who went whinging to the site moderator, which is embarrassing for you IMO.

Stop using bold. It doesn't make your posts any more likely to be accurate or credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Lets play this back…

Concubinage - you said Islam exclusively endorsed female prisoners of war and that Christianity and other religions did not tolerate concubinage. I proved you wrong with scriptures as proof. The Old Testament frequently spoke of concubinage and regulated it.

Compelling conversion - you said if nonMuslims do not convert, Islam mandates they be killed or pay jizya. You said jizya was exploitive. I proved you wrong with Quranic verses. You said jizya translated to mean "subdued" as if it was intended to humiliate the nonMuslims. I explained the real Arabic translation was to "submit," since the jizya was a contract acknowledging or acquiescing to the Islamic State as governing authority.

....

It's fair to say that you presented lots of inaccuracies in your effort to vilify Islam. Even when presented with scriptural proofs, you simply shifted, dodged, and moved on to a different subject.

And this leads me to why you are so hell bent on revisting the immigration/ converstion issue. You think it's something you can finally prove me wrong on and you are hanging your hat on that topic coming back….how old are you?

No! Why do you try to rewrite the record like this? Why on earth? Do you really think nobody remembers what happened yesterday? Do you really think everybody will simply accept your revision/spin of events in which we all participated? Let's call this what it is: you lie.

Yes, you claimed Christianity endorses concubinage. Then multiple posts proved you wrong, by showing how Christianity forbids concubinage.

You claimed jizya is a sweet deal for non-Muslims. Multiple posters proved you wrong on that. Some PPs (not me) produced evidence of non-Muslim submission to Muslim overlords, where the non-Muslims agreed not to build new houses of worship et cetera. Muslim sources discussed trashing non-Muslim houses of worship and making non-Muslims ride side-saddle. Another post compared the 2-3 tax on Muslims to the wide latitude Muslims have for taxing non-Muslims, and how this often ranged from 20-30% and went as high as 80%. You never even addressed the polytheists, so don't pretend you did.

I haven't posted on freeing Muslim concubines, and I need to do other things, so I'll let that other PP repeat everything she's already said to you....

I wasn't the PP asking about immigrants, although I bet I know why she brought it up. That digression shows your fundamental dishonesty. For pages you argued the indefensible, that 25,000 is larger than 100,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What I like about Islam is that I do not have to pray to a saint or prophet or messenger to get to God, I pray to God directly. There is no concept of Trinity. And I like that at my mosque there is diversity, African Americans, Bosnians, Arabs, Americans.

Stop repeating this distortion. Several PPs have already explained to you that non-Catholic denominations don't pray to saints, and that Catholics see saints as intercessors not as demi-gods with their own powers. We all understand that Islam is big on there being only one God, and that Islam denies Jesus' divinity, and this is your right and doesn't trouble me. However, you don't have a right to keep distorting Christian view on saints.

Also, it's a giggle that you think there's no diversity in any faith besides your own. Really? LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Here you go:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml
Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom under certain circumstances. It divides slaves with the right to freedom into various classes:

The mukatab: a slave who has the contractual right to buy their freedom over time
The mudabbar: a slave who will be freed when their owner dies (this might not happen if the owner's estate was too small)
The umm walid, a female slave who had borne her owner a child

Here's what is TRUE Islam - what is in the Quran. The Hadith may be valuable in providing context or details, but only on issues that were already mentioned in the Quran. The hadith can not be relied on exclusively. There are many people, particularly from the Arab region that do not practice true Islam. For example, the Sharia in some countries states the woman must return her dowry upon divorce. This directly conflicts with the Quran. If a woman is guilty of fornication, they may stone her. However, the Quran does not authorize death for such a crime. There are many other examples like these. So you can see that the Quran is not being followed properly in some states. So why should their behavior represent the hundreds of millions of Muslims who practice Islam the way it was intended to be practiced? It reflects poorly on those of us who do practice what the Quran says and it reflects poorly on Islam. This is what I am objecting to.

Do you understand that the very link from bbc you posted says umm walads are freed after their master's death? You may want to check things you reference a bit more closely. They make you look awkward.

But OK, you want to be literal, let's be literal.

Post a reference from the Quran specifically stating that umm walads are freed when they get pregnant. Not a verse enjoining kindness to slaves. The verse commanding that a pregnant concubine is freed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think your education has largely been self study, possibly due to your arrogance and ego. In doing so, you denied yourself the rich body of knowledge that comes with scholarly insight. I also suspect you do not read or understand Quranic arabic. If you did, you would not make such amateur mistakes as misinterpreting the word "Jizya" literally for "subdued" in it's historical context. You're a googling queen and a wikipedia master and that's all you are with a huge chip on your shoulder.

The same scholarly insight that tells you the only collection of authentic ahadith is under lock and key in Saudi Arabia, yet-unreleased in the world?

Thanks, I'll pass. There is already a palm-reading woman in my neighborhood, I might as well ask her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Tell me -- what do you think people should have done in those times with the large numbers of women who were left alone and behind after their husbands, fathers, uncles were killed in war? How would women have supported themselves?

Women have supported themselves before Islam and during Islam just fine. I think a really good way not to create large numbers of women left behind would have been not to kill their husbands, fathers and uncles. But hey, if you think the only way to take care of them was to usurp their right to their bodies, who am I to argue?

(There ARE ways of taking care of women without sleeping with them, you know.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Lets play this back…

Concubinage - you said Islam exclusively endorsed female prisoners of war and that Christianity and other religions did not tolerate concubinage. I proved you wrong with scriptures as proof. The Old Testament frequently spoke of concubinage and regulated it.

Ain't me, don't care what Old Testament says.

Anonymous wrote:
Compelling conversion - you said if nonMuslims do not convert, Islam mandates they be killed or pay jizya. You said jizya was exploitive. I proved you wrong with Quranic verses. You said jizya translated to mean "subdued" as if it was intended to humiliate the nonMuslims. I explained the real Arabic translation was to "submit," since the jizya was a contract acknowledging or acquiescing to the Islamic State as governing authority.

Submit and subdued are the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:
Child custody - you said a woman automatically loses her children upon divorce if she is a nonMuslim. Not necessarily. I proved you wrong by showing you the Quran stipulates both parties need to work things out amicably and do what is best for the child.

The Quran is addressed to Muslims. If you want to show me a sharia reference giving custody to a non-Muslim parent ever, please do.

Anonymous wrote:
Muhammad being a pedophile - you or whoever made this statement because you insisted her married Aisha at age 9. I do not agree with this age but rather than arguing her age, I showed you that early marriages in 600 AD was common. In fact, the wealthier the family, the earlier the age of marriage.

Ain't me, don't care what he did.

Anonymous wrote:
Freedom from slavery - you said that concubines who got pregnant were not freed. I pulled the sharia law (which you put far more emphasis on than I do) to show you proof that a pregnant slave acquired her freedom.

You didn't. You didn't provide any sources that a pregnant slave acquired her freedom. I pulled multiple sources showing their freedom came after their master dies. I find a particular bit of delicious irony that one of these sources came from the link YOU posted.

Anonymous wrote:
It's fair to say that you presented lots of inaccuracies in your effort to vilify Islam. Even when presented with scriptural proofs, you simply shifted, dodged, and moved on to a different subject.

And this leads me to why you are so hell bent on revisting the immigration/ converstion issue. You think it's something you can finally prove me wrong on and you are hanging your hat on that topic coming back….how old are you?

Because you goofed and refused to acknowledge it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because I was asked to be a witness in a case with a woman very much like you on Twitter. She posted manically and was very emotional. Ultimately she violated Twitter rules apparently and did something she should not have done. An investigation was done and it turned out that she was in a psychiatric institution and apparently she is bipolar.

I post during down time, when my kids go to school, at kiss n ride, after the family is asleep. You and your friend post all day, throughout the day, long, extensive diatribes, you follow me on threads about Islam, and, hell, you even argued with the moderator of the site. Classic cases of psychiatric issues.

You're on twitter too? What, with your busy schedule?

It doesn't matter when and why people post. What matters is whether their sources are good. You're just mad this isn't turning into a dawah session you had in mind. And you're losing your cool by getting personal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Freedom from slavery - you said that concubines who got pregnant were not freed. I pulled the sharia law (which you put far more emphasis on than I do) to show you proof that a pregnant slave acquired her freedom.

You pulled the sharia law....from bbc? For real?

And you call ME a googling queen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This Canadian Muslim scholar, Dr. Jamal Badawi, explains Jizya tax better than anyone I know and explains why Jizya is less burdensome than being a Muslim and having to pay Muslim taxes. Muslim taxes include 1) zakat 2) sadaqa 3 ) Eid ul Fitr. He has an accent but overall he's easy to understand and the video is only 5 min long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iSdCCBlHJ8

And this scholar is an American, so no accent and very easy to understand in a 10 min video. He also explains the jizya and cites a couple of famous historians: http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2014/05/hamza-yusuf-explaining-concept-of.html

How can Badawi argue jizya is less burdensome than Muslim taxes if jizya has never been fixed to a percentage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Here you go:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml
Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom under certain circumstances. It divides slaves with the right to freedom into various classes:

The mukatab: a slave who has the contractual right to buy their freedom over time
The mudabbar: a slave who will be freed when their owner dies (this might not happen if the owner's estate was too small)
The umm walid, a female slave who had borne her owner a child

This is from the bbc link YOU posted - mind you, no one put a gun to your head and made you quote THAT:

"Concubinage was not unique to Islam; the Bible records that King Solomon and King David both had concubines, and it is recorded in other cultures too.

Being a concubine did have some benefits: if a slave woman gave birth to her owner's child, her status improved dramatically - she could not be sold or given away, and when her owner died she became free. The child was also free and would inherit from their father as any other children."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml#h7

[Anonymous]

Different PP here.

OP, speaking of insanity, what is the definition of "insanity"? It's repeatedly doing things you know don't work.

In this instance, it's your endless attempts to spin arguments you've lost. "Spin" is a generous adjective here. You keep posting so-called summaries that carefully reframe issues to make it seem like you won the debate. You lost many of these debates. When I say you lost the debates, I'm not challenging your right to your own personal version of Islam: I'm saying that what you post here frequently goes against the Quran and/or against shariah and hadith. I have to say, as a bystander with reasonable cognitive capacities, that the other poster seems to have won almost all the points.

I simply cannot understand why you think reframing debates you lost makes any sense. Do you think nobody here can go back three pages and read the exchanges for themselves? Do you think it wouldn't occur to anybody to challenge your misleading summaries of debates we actually participated in or followed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You intrigue me, as a psychiatric case, that is. Any bipolar in your family? The rapid fire posts of yours (most are yours I believe) are indicative of a manic person. It would explain a lot, in which case I would apologize to you.

You obviously have a lot of free time. Are you employed or rather, employable? I can not reply extensive answers throughout the day as you do. I have other responsibilities. But I will later. Way too much bs to expose in your posts.

Why does that matter?

Are you also interested in my cooking skills?

ha ha, I was about to say kettle, meet pot.

Because I was asked to be a witness in a case with a woman very much like you on Twitter. She posted manically and was very emotional. Ultimately she violated Twitter rules apparently and did something she should not have done. An investigation was done and it turned out that she was in a psychiatric institution and apparently she is bipolar.

I post during down time, when my kids go to school, at kiss n ride, after the family is asleep. You and your friend post all day, throughout the day, long, extensive diatribes, you follow me on threads about Islam, and, hell, you even argued with the moderator of the site. Classic cases of psychiatric issues.

Different PP from the one you're abusing. It's obvious that you out-post everyone here: you post all day AND much of the night. The time stamps on your posts make this obvious. I suspect we all have obligations like families and jobs, so your whinging about your own life isn't winning you any sympathy or whatever you think you're accomplishing with that.

Calling PP a psychiatric case - no words. You lose credibility and make yourself look unstable every single time you fabricate stuff about her and others.

If you fabricate things about PP, what are we supposed to think about your honesty recIslam?

Re the moderator, you're the one who went whinging to the site moderator, which is embarrassing for you IMO.

Stop using bold. It doesn't make your posts any more likely to be accurate or credible.

Yep. Well I started the thread, I should have a right to post to it, no? You and your posse follow me around, from thread to thread, to trash any positive points I try to make about my religion, and you do it again and again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lets play this back…

Concubinage - you said Islam exclusively endorsed female prisoners of war and that Christianity and other religions did not tolerate concubinage. I proved you wrong with scriptures as proof. The Old Testament frequently spoke of concubinage and regulated it.

Compelling conversion - you said if nonMuslims do not convert, Islam mandates they be killed or pay jizya. You said jizya was exploitive. I proved you wrong with Quranic verses. You said jizya translated to mean "subdued" as if it was intended to humiliate the nonMuslims. I explained the real Arabic translation was to "submit," since the jizya was a contract acknowledging or acquiescing to the Islamic State as governing authority.

....

It's fair to say that you presented lots of inaccuracies in your effort to vilify Islam. Even when presented with scriptural proofs, you simply shifted, dodged, and moved on to a different subject.

And this leads me to why you are so hell bent on revisting the immigration/ converstion issue. You think it's something you can finally prove me wrong on and you are hanging your hat on that topic coming back….how old are you?

No! Why do you try to rewrite the record like this? Why on earth? Do you really think nobody remembers what happened yesterday? Do you really think everybody will simply accept your revision/spin of events in which we all participated? Let's call this what it is: you lie.

Yes, you claimed Christianity endorses concubinage. Then multiple posts proved you wrong, by showing how Christianity forbids concubinage.

This will not be addressed here, only in the concubinage thread


You claimed jizya is a sweet deal for non-Muslims. Multiple posters proved you wrong on that. Some PPs (not me) produced evidence of non-Muslim submission to Muslim overlords, where the non-Muslims agreed not to build new houses of worship et cetera. Muslim sources discussed trashing non-Muslim houses of worship and making non-Muslims ride side-saddle. Another post compared the 2-3 tax on Muslims to the wide latitude Muslims have for taxing non-Muslims, and how this often ranged from 20-30% and went as high as 80%. You never even addressed the polytheists, so don't pretend you did.

You can't use what people do or what Muslim countries do as clear evidence of what Islam prescribes. It's simply illogical because people are not infallible. But it's the reasoning you rely on over and over again.

I haven't posted on freeing Muslim concubines, and I need to do other things, so I'll let that other PP repeat everything she's already said to you....

I wasn't the PP asking about immigrants, although I bet I know why she brought it up. That digression shows your fundamental dishonesty. For pages you argued the indefensible, that 25,000 is larger than 100,000.

This will be addressed at a future time, not on this thread though. This thread is about compelling conversions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here you go:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml
Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom under certain circumstances. It divides slaves with the right to freedom into various classes:

The mukatab: a slave who has the contractual right to buy their freedom over time
The mudabbar: a slave who will be freed when their owner dies (this might not happen if the owner's estate was too small)
The umm walid, a female slave who had borne her owner a child

Here's what is TRUE Islam - what is in the Quran. The Hadith may be valuable in providing context or details, but only on issues that were already mentioned in the Quran. The hadith can not be relied on exclusively. There are many people, particularly from the Arab region that do not practice true Islam. For example, the Sharia in some countries states the woman must return her dowry upon divorce. This directly conflicts with the Quran. If a woman is guilty of fornication, they may stone her. However, the Quran does not authorize death for such a crime. There are many other examples like these. So you can see that the Quran is not being followed properly in some states. So why should their behavior represent the hundreds of millions of Muslims who practice Islam the way it was intended to be practiced? It reflects poorly on those of us who do practice what the Quran says and it reflects poorly on Islam. This is what I am objecting to.

Do you understand that the very link from bbc you posted says umm walads are freed after their master's death? You may want to check things you reference a bit more closely. They make you look awkward.

I do believe you have comprehension challenges. No matter. I have time to explain to you again. Read again. There were three categories listed of how freedom may be obtained and here they are AGAIN (pay clsoe attention to the third category):
The mukatab: a slave who has the contractual right to buy their freedom over time
The mudabbar: a slave who will be freed when their owner dies (this might not happen if the owner's estate was too small)
The umm walid: a female slave who had borne her owner a child


Post a reference from the Quran specifically stating that umm walads are freed when they get pregnant. Not a verse enjoining kindness to slaves. The verse commanding that a pregnant concubine is freed.

Already did that. Quranic verses were provided that showed compassion and kindness was ordered by God. The above was quoted from Sharia. Ahh...Don't tell me...you changed your mind and don't want any authority from the Sharia now.