The Qur'an vs. the Hadiths

[Lowpro]

You want people to buy the books you cite before you think they're qualified to disagree with you?

Go to a library then?

 

[A'isha]

Go to a library then?

Indeed.

My link to Dennett's book, for example, goes to the Worldcat entry for it.

 

[A'isha]

You want people to buy the books you cite before you think they're qualified to disagree with you?

I expect people in this discussion to be familiar with the actual scholarly and historical works on the subject, yes.

Just like I do in the Holocaust Denial thread.

 

[crimresearch]

I expect people in this discussion to be familiar with the actual scholarly and historical works on the subject, yes.

Just like I do in the Holocaust Denial thread.

This

 

[Sideroxylon]

Quality posting with some great use of citations, ANTPogo.

 

[tsig]

Go to a library then?

Been there, have the late book fees to prove it.

 

[tsig]

I expect people in this discussion to be familiar with the actual scholarly and historical works on the subject, yes.

Just like I do in the Holocaust Denial thread.

So the only reason I could be against Islam is that I'm not sufficiently educated about it?


Nice Godwin there.

 

[tsig]

Quality posting with some great use of citations, ANTPogo.

You might want to click on the link


http://www.worldcat.org/title/conversion-and-the-poll-tax-in-early-islam/oclc/2290835

It doesn't go anywhere so nice cheerleading.

 

[Sideroxylon]

You might want to click on the link


http://www.worldcat.org/title/conversion-and-the-poll-tax-in-early-islam/oclc/2290835

It doesn't go anywhere so nice cheerleading.

Come on, mate, that's plain nit picking. I am commenting on what I have seen in the thread.

 

[A'isha]

So the only reason I could be against Islam is that I'm not sufficiently educated about it?


Nice Godwin there.

No, it's that if you want to robustly discuss a topic, and especially if you want to make statements in that discussion that are backed up by anything, you really ought to familiarize yourself with the extant body of work.

I used the Holocaust Denial thread example because the issue of certain posters not having read (and refusing to read) actual books on the subject has come up there, and you've participated in that thread so I know you know what I'm referring to.

You might want to click on the link


http://www.worldcat.org/title/conversion-and-the-poll-tax-in-early-islam/oclc/2290835

It doesn't go anywhere so nice cheerleading.

Try this link, then. It's supposed to be the permalink URL to Worldcat's entry on Dennett's book.

You can also just go to www.worldcat.org and type in the title.

 

[tsig]

No, it's that if you want to robustly discuss a topic, and especially if you want to make statements in that discussion that are backed up by anything, you really ought to familiarize yourself with the extant body of work.

I used the Holocaust Denial thread example because the issue of certain posters not having read (and refusing to read) actual books on the subject has come up there, and you've participated in that thread so I know you know what I'm referring to.



Try this link, then. It's supposed to be the permalink URL to Worldcat's entry on Dennett's book.

You can also just go to www.worldcat.org and type in the title.

Right if only I'd studied more about Islam I might understand this:

After the Battle of the Ditch, when the coalition force of Quraish left the battle field, Prophet Muhammad attacked the last of the large Jewish tribes of Medina, the Banu Qurayza. After a 25 days siege, they (Jews) surrender unconditionally. In the end, all 600-700 males of the tribe were killed and the women and children sold into slavery





http://www.faithfreedom.org/article...nu-quraiza-and-khaybar-a-historical-analysis/



Common apologetics, attack the source, it was war, the Jews betrayed him

 

[tsig]

No, it's that if you want to robustly discuss a topic, and especially if you want to make statements in that discussion that are backed up by anything, you really ought to familiarize yourself with the extant body of work.
I used the Holocaust Denial thread example because the issue of certain posters not having read (and refusing to read) actual books on the subject has come up there, and you've participated in that thread so I know you know what I'm referring to.



Try this link, then. It's supposed to be the permalink URL to Worldcat's entry on Dennett's book.

You can also just go to www.worldcat.org and type in the title.

Come on, mate, that's plain nit picking. I am commenting on what I have seen in the thread.

According to ANTpogo you have no right to post in this thread.

 

[Sideroxylon]

According to ANTpogo you have no right to post in this thread.

Have I walked into one of these forum carry over grudge matches?

If I do decide to wade into the actual discussion I will try to support my arguments and bend to evidence that shows I am wrong. In the mean time I am happy to read reasoned and supported argument from anyone.

 

[A'isha]

According to ANTpogo you have no right to post in this thread.

 

[tsig]

Have I walked into one of these forum carry over grudge matches?

If I do decide to wade into the actual discussion I will try to support my arguments and bend to evidence that shows I am wrong. In the mean time I am happy to read reasoned and supported argument from anyone.

No, it's that if you want to robustly discuss a topic, and especially if you want to make statements in that discussion that are backed up by anything, you really ought to familiarize yourself with the extant body of work.

ANTpogo placed the bar by implying that anyone who disagreed with her was ill-informed.

Note cite to relevant body of work.

 

[tsig]

[qimg]http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/clippystraw.jpg[/qimg]

No, it's that if you want to robustly discuss a topic, and especially if you want to make statements in that discussion that are backed up by anything, you really ought to familiarize yourself with the extant body of work.

 

[A'isha]

Please explain how my preference that people familiarize themselves with the body of scholarship on a topic before they engage in a robust discussion of said topic translates into me saying Sideroxylon has no right to post in this thread.

Be sure to show your work.

 

[tsig]

No, it's that if you want to robustly discuss a topic, and especially if you want to make statements in that discussion that are backed up by anything, you really ought to familiarize yourself with the extant body of work.
I used the Holocaust Denial thread example because the issue of certain posters not having read (and refusing to read) actual books on the subject has come up there, and you've participated in that thread so I know you know what I'm referring to.



Try this link, then. It's supposed to be the permalink URL to Worldcat's entry on Dennett's book.

You can also just go to www.worldcat.org and type in the title.

Please explain how my preference that people familiarize themselves with the body of scholarship on a topic before they engage in a robust discussion of said topic translates into me saying Sideroxylon has no right to post in this thread.

Be sure to show your work.

I see if people agree with you no citation is needed otherwise "it's that if you want to robustly discuss a topic, and especially if you want to make statements in that discussion that are backed up by anything, you really ought to familiarize yourself with the extant body of work".

 

[A'isha]

I see if people agree with you no citation is needed otherwise "it's that if you want to robustly discuss a topic, and especially if you want to make statements in that discussion that are backed up by anything, you really ought to familiarize yourself with the extant body of work".

Funny how this attitude of mine never seemed to bother you when I (and others) would dun SnakeTongue, Clayton Moore, and dogzilla about what books they read (or, rather didn't read) about the Holocaust.

But perhaps it's only the vastly complex issue of the history and theology of Islam that can be understood without having to actually read any scholarly works on the subject.

Truthiness is better than knowledge for some people, I guess.

 

[tsig]

Funny how this attitude of mine never seemed to bother you when I (and others) would dun SnakeTongue, Clayton Moore, and dogzilla about what books they read (or, rather didn't read) about the Holocaust.

But perhaps it's only the vastly complex issue of the history and theology of Islam that can be understood without having to actually read any scholarly works on the subject. Truthiness is better than knowledge for some people, I guess.

Right, only ANTpogo has read the right books and done the research and has the right attitude. No one else has ever read the Koran or the Hadiths and come to their own conclusion.