Evasive, eh?

Let's try this. Would you like to answer a question, FD?

Islam has the best of both worlds, Muslims who commit violence and Muslims who support violence by saying “I am peaceful but I cannot control my brothers so best you don’t diss Islam” and from that, the threat of violence and the support of violence, the world has to tip toe around the sensibilities of a religion, and only because of its propensity to violence if it feels confronted or criticised.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 1:57pm:


Are you seriously suggesting you would be on here advocating the genocide of Jews if you were not a Muslim?

Is it because you were a Nazi before you were a Muslim?

Quote:


It is relevant to the extent that it demonstrates that your observation that some Muslims deny genocide is irrelevant to the OP.

Quote:


You are very confused Gandalf. If you for example claimed that some Muslims eat cornflakes for breakfast, and that this proves that they oppose genocide, there would not suddenly be an onus on me, as you suggest, to prove that all Muslims who eat cornflakes for breakfast support genocide. I would merely have to show that it is irrelevant, by way of a few examples of Muslims such as yourself who support genocide.

Quote:


This is the case - but only because you keep droning on with an irrelevant point, and complaining that I don't address it, and then when I do address it by pointing out it is irrelevant, you make up absurd lies by claiming I am the one drawing a link between cornflakes and support for genocide.

Quote:


But that is not the claim I made.

Quote:
t.

I explained it in this thread, as well as the previous one. And several dozen earlier ones.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 6:30pm:


Justifying, and even "supporting" the mass execution of entire 7th century armies for something as serious as conspiring with the enemy who were literally laying siege to your homeland - is completely standard fare FD, and not the least bit "Nazi-like". And it can be done effortlessly without even thinking about religion.

Its only when you start verbling up a fake meme about it being about killing jews for being jews, complete with literally shoving words down my throat - does it start taking on the sinister wacist tones you so desperately want to pin on me.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 6:30pm:


Just some completely incoherent nonsense in the form of a sentence, that I doubt you even know what you are trying to say.

Suffice to say, it has absolutely no relevance to the actual point you need to address - ie why do muslims who reject genocide still have to support it. You have zip, zilch nada, sifr that even remotely addresses this - merely repeating the face-palmingly stupid and irrelevant "because...err... gandalf". You are either contending that all genocide denying muslims think like gandalf like a mindless collective, without agency, or you are uttering something beyond useless and obviously not relevant in any way.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 6:30pm:


Fantastic analogy FD! Cornflake eating muslims totally gets right to the point of genocide supporting - in precisely the way that genocide denial does - right? Well except that pointing out that there are muslims who do deny genocide absolutely *DOES* disprove your logic in your OP, which is based solely on the idea that muslims must support what Muhammad actually *DID* - not something they "DON'T* believe he did.

So go on FD, go ahead and point out to me how denying genocide is somehow irrelevant to your OP logic that is *SPECIFICALLY* based on the assumption that the genocide happened, and that all muslims believe it happend (otherwise how could something that didn't happen possibly "reflect badly on Muhammad or Islam"??) If you can somehow achieve this, then your idiotic cornflake analogy might actually make sense.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 6:30pm:


You are either attempting the world record for all-time obtuseness, or you are completely clueless about your own argument. At this stage I'm open to either.

Suggest you read your OP again, and start over. *ALL* muslims support genocide right? Or are you going to come out straight for once and tell us your thread title is BS? Otherwise, if you are not going to come clean and persist with defending the BS claim, you need to understand that *ALL* muslims, means all muslims - genocide believers or deniers. You then need to comprehend your own logic in the OP - that it absolutely hinges on *ALL* muslims adhering to the logic thought processes you clearly outline in the OP. And most importantly - that it makes no sense at all unless it is assumed that all muslims accept that the genocide happened - otherwise it would not be one of the "examples" they would feel compelled to support.

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2019 at 8:59am:


Yes it does FD. If there are a minority of muslims who reject that Muhammad committed genocide, (which you seem to agree there is) then they don't go through the cognitive process you described in you OP. Why would they? Why would they believe that something that they don't even believe happened would reflect badly on Muhammad - and therefore need to be 'supported'? I don't know how many more times I need to explain this to you.

Either you stand by your claim in the thread title, or you come clean and admit it is BS. Either all muslims support genocide or they don't. Which is it?

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2019 at 8:59am:


You haven't. But just for a laugh, why don't you show me the last time you think you did? And this time try and show me you actually addressing it - as opposed to not addressing it with the inane "because... gandalf". Show me where you actually explained *WHY* muslims who deny Muhammad's genocide must still inexplicably support genocide  - even though they are not actually following what the Quran tells them to do. And no, simply showing one person allegedly doing it is obviously not making the case for why any other muslim would do it (as you set out to prove in your OP), let alone demonstrating that they actually do (which is what you are actually required to do - in view of your BS thread title).

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2019 at 8:59am:


It is your argument that 100% of muslims - genocide deniers or otherwise - are as one supporters of genocide. You have only made the case for why genocide believers must support it, since this is supposedly an instance of Muhammad's "example". But for genocide deniers, this is not an instance of Muhammad's example, and therefore the cognitive process you describe in the OP doesn't apply. You now need to explain on what logic these genocide deniers must still support genocide. And no, the inane "because... gandalf", nor the arguably even more inane "Denying genocide is not the same thing as opposing genocide" non sequiturs don't count. They are idiotic.

Basically for your argument to be anywhere remotely coherent (not 'right' - as such an idiotic and baseless statement as the OP can never be 'right' - it is wrong by default, as the burden of proof is squarely on you) - then you need to come up with the same sort of deductive reasoning you came up with in the OP, but this time for muslims who *DON'T* actually consider Muhammad's 'genocide' as an instance of his "example" that must be 'supported' according to Quranic injunction. And by the way, this is not restricted to deniers of Muhammad's genocide, but could include muslims who don't consider such a genocide as within scope of what is meant by Muhammad being a good example. This includes 'Quran-only' muslims, as I have explained before. Since anything outside this scope (according to individual muslims) isn't relevant to the Quranic injunction to consider Muhammad the 'best' [sic] example for mankind. It is no less idiotic than claiming that you must 'support' eating cornflakes in line with the Quranic injunction to support whatever Muhammad did - *IRRESPECTIVE* of whether or not you actually believe Muhammad ever ate cornflakes or not.

Quote:


I expect the vast majority of Muslims deny in one way or another that Muhammad committed genocide. As you conveniently demonstrated for us, that is not the same as actually opposing genocide. Your argument has not progressed beyond demanding I prove a negative. Sticking genocide denial to this argument is no more relevant than sticking conflake consumption to it.

Quote:


Most Muslims, including yourself, deny the genocide by misleadingly revising down the numbers until it falls below some arbitrary criteria. No different to holocaust deniers really. Or some other bald-faced lie such as it was an act of war, they were an army, or only the warriors were killed - all lies you have tried to tell us.

It still reflects badly on Muhammad because even they they play down the numbers, they are still conceding that Muhammad slaughtered Jews. Even if they revised the numbers down to zero, they would still have to contend with the fact that the vast majority of Muslims claim Muhammad did something evil, and they don't want to put themselves in the position where a disagreement over historical fact, in which they are in the minority, is all it takes to paint Muhammad as evil.

I have, of course, explained all these points to you repeatedly in this thread, but you keep repeating the question and ignoring the response.

Quote:


So it is two completely different issues? Thanks for clarifying. Is it time to move on yet, or shall we dwell on this for another 20 pages?