Abu didn't deny it happened and cheered it on - or at least I'm happy to take FD's word for it thats what he did.
The question was about other muslims who deny the 'genocide' - who not even FD can deny exists. His 'answer' is to point to me apparently supporting genocide as a general principle even if I may not believe that Muhammad did it.
How does this make sense? FD is interested in logic in coming up with his claim. The logic that the Quran says x, and muslims are compelled to abide by it.
So it comes down to what the doctrine says, as the basis for what "all muslims" support. Thats the basis for FD's argument.
Yet in this case we are not talking about what the doctrine says. A 'no genocide' muslim denies Muhammad did it in the first place, so what is his doctrine commanding that he support? Certainly not genocide. Yet FD's only answer seems to be "well they'll support it anyway - because thats what gandalf did". Even though gandalf was talking completely outside any Islamic/doctrinal context.
So really FD needs to add an extra step to his logic. For the current logical process is clearly inadquate:
Quote:Muslims believe that Muhammad (tgp) is the best example for all Muslims to follow. The Quran tells them so. So they cannot let something like Muhammad's genocide of the Medina Jews reflect badly on Islam or Muhammad. So, their religion compels them to support Muhammad's genocide.
- he really has to add "they are somehow compelled to also support what they believe Muhammad didn't do".