In Islam—Stack Exchange is not for debates or apologetics, Jon Ericson ♦ writes:
... But this just isn't the place for apologetics or da‘wah. If you insist on aggressively promoting your particular theology, we ask that you find some other site on the internet; there are plenty.
The off-topic-ness of apologetics (defined as "defending religious doctrines") at Islam.SE seems hard to pinpoint. To illustrate, consider these questions:
Some of these directly request an apologetic answer while others require apologetics in order to give a balanced answer (and it's not hard to find more examples at the main site).
For example, it seems misleading (and even dangerous) to e.g. answer Does the Quran allow husbands punish their wives? by "Yes; see Qur'an 4:34" without giving the context. However, giving the context amounts to apologetics. The author of the +6/-0 score answer to this question went into a large amount of additional detail, which is arguably apologetics. To me, this is a clear-cut example of where apologetics is both on-topic and necessary.
However, there's clearly some apologetic styles we should discourage or exclude. E.g., the kind of guesswork you read on some blogs; compilations of cherry-picked information; pseudoscientific claims.
Question: What types of apologetics do we want to discourage?
My impression is that the post style we really want to exclude is "manipulative".
Note: Some types of apologetics seem on-topic at Christianity.SE; they even have an apologetics tag with 85 questions tagged, and tag wiki excerpt: "Defenses of religious positions using reason. This tag should only be used with respect to disagreements with religions other than Christianity."
In an answer to I'm unclear on what qualifies as “Truth”iness and apologetics, and how to deal with it, goldPseudo ♦ wrote:
Apologism, on the other hand, is problematic because it's typically unsolicited: It's less concerned about answering the question than it promotes a theological position. Language is often loaded and in many cases tangential to what was actually asked, if not explicitly opposed to it.
I'm not sure what to make of this handful of undesirable properties of some apologetic posts. Hopefully we can make this more precise.