polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 11:44am:



You are giggling with embarrassment at being nailed, gandalf.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2018 at 7:08pm:


Count with me FD - from the aforementioned source:

1. "Wellhausen proposed that the Nadīr, Qurayza, and Qaynuqā were in fact the Jewish groups in the document"

2. "Watt explained the absence of the three tribes as indicating that the document was redacted in the form preserved in the Sīra only a󰀀er the elimination of the Qurayza in 927."

3. "Others maintain that Muham-mad had separate nonbelligerency treaties with the three tribes and so had no need to include them here."

Thats 2 sources arguing that the Qurayza were in a version of the COM (Watt's, as previously discussed, whole argument is that it was redacted to remove the Qurayza from the Treaty - therefore they were originally in it) - plus "others" (plural) who maintain there were separate nonbeligerency treaties with the jews, including the Qurayza.

Or in other words, more than one.

Quote:


As far as I know he is the only one. And I pursue it for one simple reason - you lied about it. pure and simple. You took a specific claim from a wikipedia article, that Bernard Lewis said such and such and you twisted that into "historians (plural) said such and such. Reverting to your standard "it can't be a lie because who knows, maybe someone else other than Lewis said it too" - doesn't make it not a lie.

What a pathetic game you play here - one that you have played before. Blatantly falsify a source (wikipedia in this case) to claim it says something that it doesn't - then try the old 'prove a negative' rouse to wriggle out of it when you get sprung.

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 8:24am:


Well done FD, now can see the contradiction with this latest statement to the original:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10^th, 2018 at 2:51pm:


So you've moved from 'you base it all on one historian speculating... to 'you base it on several historians speculating...".

So, we'll mark that down as you making some progress. Well done.


freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 8:24am:


Not very good. After all, you'd think wikipedia would have at least mentioned it, instead of citing only one. Not to mention the fact that if you really knew, you would have produced the other sources by now.

So listen to your own logic: "I'll pick out a particular quote from wikipedia, it  specifically says a single person made the claim, but instead I'll pretend its "historians" (plural) who said it." When caught out on it, your defense is literally "yeah but I reckon sometime, somewhere others said it, even though I have no clue who or when".

FD can you explain to me how this is not lying?

freediver wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:15pm:


Interesting. So do you often respond to someone citing multiple sources to back up their claim by saying "you only cited *A* historian" - and then argue that its "beside the point" that in fact I cited more than one?

freediver wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 6:15pm:


When you refer to a single citation of Bernard Lewis as "historians" plural, it is not being anal to call you out on that lie FD.

The truth is, this plural thing is a favourite ploy of yours - it obviously makes your BS claims sound more compelling if you pretend its multiple people backing up your claim. You famously did it with the "muslims (plural) claim [something incriminating and sinister]" - when you saw no one except me saying it. Clearly you believe it boosts your case if you can pretend that multiple muslims said something incriminating, do get the whole 'mindless collective' effect. You also used exactly the same defense as you are using now - the old "you can't prove that no one else didn't say it" ruse. The only real question here is do you actually buy this absurd logical fallacy of insisting that until someone "proves a negative", your BS claim is legit.

Quote:


When you took wikipedia paraphrasing Bernard Lewis saying the Treaty of Medina was likely a unilateral proclamation, rather than an agreement - and claimed it was "historians" plural who said it.

Or are you now denying you did this? Does this mean you are acknowledging it is a dishonest thing to do and you are now claiming you would never do such a dishonest thing? Or are you still maintaining that lying about what a source said is not dishonest or wrong in any wayt - b based on the speculation that maybe somewhere sometime someone else did actually say it too?

freediver wrote on Oct 16^th, 2018 at 8:09am:


Ah, so having a bob each way I see. "I didn't do it, but if I did it wouldn't be wrong" - is that where we are at?

freediver wrote on Oct 16^th, 2018 at 9:18am:


LOL no I didn't FD. I literally said the exact opposite:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 1:41pm:


By the way this is not a "trivial" misrepresentation of what I said.

freediver wrote on Oct 16^th, 2018 at 9:18am:


Good point FD. Catching you out on your dishonestly in claiming multiple historians made the claim that only Bernard Lewis made, is "only arguing the minutiae".

I think you are deflecting from the fact that you took that wiki citation and lied about it. You know, the usual story with you.

you took a wikipedia quote that paraphrased Bernard Lewis making the claim that the Treaty of Medina was not so much an agreement but a unilateral proclamation, and you said that "historians" (plural) had made that claim.

Why would I make that up? We both know thats exactly what you did.

Even more absurdly, you have spent pages defending this by saying there's nothing wrong with it because I don't know that multiple historians didn't make that claim.

So you're literally saying there was nothing wrong with you attributing a plurality of historians to a claim you heard attributed to one historian (on the absurd "go prove a negative" false logic) - while at the same time implying that you never actually did that.

Or in other words, just another day in the FD wibble wabble wibble wabble routine.