Scientists have the ability to be wrong:

Originally posted by lemon lime
Free will was still on the table if fear of death wasn't a problem for you.

Clearly Muslim missionaries did not project "fear of death" and they did not convert everybody. The evidence does not support the claim that "conversion or death" was what went on in most situations. You need to show where other religions were wiped out and explain why Islam coexists with other religions all around the world. If you think it was "spread by the sword" and according to the principle of "conversion or death" then you have to explain why those not converted were not put to death in all but relatively rare cases.

Originally posted by FMF
Clearly Muslim missionaries did not project "fear of death" and they did not convert everybody. The evidence does not support the claim that "conversion or death" was what went on in most situations. You need to show where other religions were wiped out and explain why Islam coexists with other religions all around the world. If you think it was "spread by the s ...[text shortened]... have to explain why those not converted were not put to death in all but relatively rare cases.

I've already explained why most were not put to death. And judging from the historical perspective you provided, the historian in question appears to have a more favorable opinion of Islam, and painted a rosier picture of it than some historians might have.

It's been nice chatting with you... we should it sometimes do again sometime. 😵

Originally posted by lemon lime
I've already explained why most were not put to death.

Why were people who did not convert allowed to live if the religion was supposedly spread in a 'convert or die' way?

Originally posted by lemon lime
And judging from the historical perspective you provided, the historian in question appears to have a more favorable opinion of Islam, and painted a rosier picture of it than some historians might have.

Is Ira Lapidus wrong, then?

Originally posted by FMF
Is Ira Lapidus wrong, then?

Does Ira Lapidus have the ability to be wrong?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Does Ira Lapidus have the ability to be wrong?

Sure. But simply claiming that she "painted a rosier picture of it than some historians might have" is not much of a rebuttal, is it? I don't think so. It comes across as a bit of waffle. 😉

Originally posted by lemon lime

["Wars start over such certainty"] is where the comedy ends and cognitive dissonance begins, because now he's made the sort of inflammatory remark (based on prejudicial thinking) that are known to have started wars. What's worse is that there is (an implied) threat of (potential) violence against theists, because the implication of war clearly paints some extreme danger associated with all religions (perhaps calling for extreme measures in order to eliminate that danger?) Hate speech has always been a precursor for jazzing people up to go to war.

Here, earlier on this thread, you drew this link between the sentence "Wars start over such [religious] certainty" and "hate speech". If people claim that Islam has always been spread through a 'convert or be killed' approach, despite the fact that this cannot be substantiated historically, would you also draw a link between the repetitive making of this claim and "hate speech" in a case such as this?

Originally posted by FMF
[b]["Wars start over such certainty"] is where the comedy ends and cognitive dissonance begins, because now he's made the sort of inflammatory remark (based on prejudicial thinking) that are known to have started wars. What's worse is that there is (an implied) threat of (potential) violence against theists, because the implication of war clearly paints some ext ...[text shortened]... raw a link between the repetitive making of this claim and "hate speech" in a case such as this?

Take a look at this book link, there is a reference to 'why I am not a Muslim' in one of the preface pages:

http://www.islam-watch.org/books/islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery.pdf

I get the feeling there are a lot of Islam apologists out there who try to tone down the forced conversion claims.

And I didn't mention the atrocities of Christianity because I wanted to make the statement shorter. We all know about those, Inquisitions, Crusades, burnings and the like. And if you don't think such certainties can't lead to war, just look at ISIS today or the Crusades a thousand years ago.

BTW, the bit about Muslims living side by side of Christians and Jews didn't hold up where I lived.

I lived in Jerusalem for most of the 1990's and at the beginning of my time there the percentage of Christians living in Bethlehem was around 20 odd percent. By the year 2000, it was TWO percent. That was the result of persistent pressure on them by the Muslim population.

Try to find a Christian in Bethlehem now. Good luck.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I get the feeling there are a lot of Islam apologists out there who try to tone down the forced conversion claims.

Do you see me as an "Islam apologist"?

Have I not rejected the theology enough for your liking? Have I not condemned Islam-related terrorism and criminality enough for your liking?

If, in fact, Islam generally wasn't spread by the sword and if 'conversion or death' was the exception and not the rule, is it still wrong "to tone down the forced conversion claims"?

Originally posted by sonhouse
BTW, the bit about Muslims living side by side of Christians and Jews didn't hold up where I lived.

I appreciate that there are politically infused demographic pressures in places like Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Muslims have been shipped out of areas to make way for Israelis too. But how many Jews and Muslims were forced to convert to Islam ~ or be killed ~ where you lived in the 1990s? Isn't that what we're talking about?

And take these countries: Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco. Are there any non-Muslims living in these countries? Of course there are. How many have been executed for not converting to Islam by [a] the state, in each case, and [ b] non-state actors in, say, the last 100 years?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I believe sonhouse was trying to make the point that less and less Christians were living in Bethlehem and the population of Muslims were growing because the Muslims were making it uncomfortable for Christians to remain there. He was just pointing out that it would be much harder to find a Christian living there now than in the past.

“The discrimination is concealed,” he says, “and that makes it more dangerous.”

Baboun, however, noticeably bristles when asked about relations between Christians and Muslims in her city.

“When we talk about the Christian-Muslim relationship in Palestine we talk about a very healthy relationship,” she says. “When we talk about the relations of Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land, and in Bethlehem, and in Palestine, we have to talk about people who have one main identity: Palestinian. That is why even sometimes I feel uneasy from the question, as if there are problems.”

Not so, says Qumsieh, who refers to Christian leaders as “cowards,” more concerned with presenting a united Palestinian front against Israel than with facing their own internal problems.

“If somebody claims that there is no discrimination, he is a liar,” he says. “[The mayor] said everything is okay. Of course. In her position she can’t say anything else.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/are-bethlehems-christians-losing-grip-on-their-city/#!

Originally posted by lemon lime
Voluntary conversion was always the first step, and the implied threat of forced conversion would usually work to prevent someone from not wanting to join.

You're apparently being pretty specific and detailed here. In which years, and in which countries/areas, and after which wars/conquests are you claiming this happened in the way you describe? How many were converted, how many were executed for not converting, and how many were not executed despite not converting?

Originally posted by FMF
You're apparently being pretty specific and detailed here. In which years, and in which countries/areas, and after which wars/conquests are you claiming this happened in the way you describe? How many were converted, how many were executed for not converting, and how many were not executed despite not converting?

Techniques of conversion are described in the Koran, have been used in the past and are presently being employed by ISIS. I don't need to read all of history to know what the Koran says, and if I want to know how ISIS goes about recruitment and forcibly making converts I read the news. You would need to live in a sound proof bubble with no access to books, radio, television, internet, news papers, etc. in order for you to not know about any of this...

Or, you could be a victim of your own willful ignorance, and refuse to look at or listen to anything that would allow you to know. So which is it? Are you a complete shut in with no access to the outside world, or a victim of self imposed circumstances?