freediver wrote on Aug 6^th, 2019 at 10:04pm:


So is it the general gist or not FD?

Why are you so afraid to answer such a simple question?

Why is it so unreasonable to seek clarification of such a convuluted and nonsensical explanation that you have not once even attempted to clarify?

Not even Frank can explain it, and can only defer to his favourite 'never ever' deflection tactic.

Why do you always feel the need to dodge a question by way of a full paragraph rant of literally nothing? A simple "I'm too scared to answer" would work just as well.

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2019 at 7:44pm:

He's trying to sell you carpet, don't you realise? You are sucked into his mental casbah.
"Ten for that, you must be mad! You are supposed to HAGGLE!!"

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7^th, 2019 at 4:05pm:


There. You finally have your answer, G.

You're done.

I don't want to say I told you so, dear...

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2019 at 7:44pm:


Actually you've mostly spent 36 pages engaging in petty ad-hominems and venting about how outrageous it is to be expected to properly explain and substantiate the most absurd claim imaginable.

You have told so many whoppers in this thread I've lost count. The most blatant was the one where you insisted that you have more evidence than the say-so of one little muslim. Simply grasping the fact that you have not quoted a single other muslim in this entire thread, or cited any other evidence (no, really, not one FD) - puts this to bed. Yet when I point this out to you, you go into rant mode - whole paragraphs at a time. I think the most bizarre one was when you tried to claim that the argument in the OP is not an attempt at logic. But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one and put it down to just plain cluelessness on your part.

Now this latest ham-fisted attempt at an explanation that first popped up on page 30 has not, despite your protests, been adequately clarified at all. Even someone with such deluded and illogical thought processes as yourself should comprehend that insisting that muslims who decide to believe that Muhammad was not a genocidal maniac are actually somehow supporters of a theoretical Muhammad who was a genocidal maniac - makes no freaking sense. Yet you offer no justification beyond the utterly bizarre "it [somehow] puts them in a difficult position" - for seemingly no other reason they hold a minority view within Islam, and therefore, ipso facto, they must insist that "both versions of Muhammad are good men". I've basically given up on inviting you to expand on this brain fart into something that is actually coherent and makes an ounce of sense, and thats why I provided a simple 'yes' or 'no' translation from incomprehensible FD-speak to simple English. I'll try again once more...

I have no idea what you are saying, but it seems to be something vaguely along the lines of arguing that being a minority view somehow makes them less confident of the truth, and therefore makes them feel they have to give some sort of deference to the majority view - the view that they paradoxically reject and despise. Is that the general gist?

Yes or no?

I did not delete anything that was relevant to my question FD. But if it makes you feel better, here is the full quote - from reply# 454:

Quote:


To which the exact same question applies and remains unanswered:

I have no idea what you are saying, but it seems to be something vaguely along the lines of arguing that being a minority view somehow makes them less confident of the truth, and therefore makes them feel they have to give some sort of deference to the majority view - the view that they paradoxically reject and despise. Is that the general gist?

yes or no?

How does it make sense that muslims who reject the idea that Muhammad committed an atrocity, must still somehow support the idea that he committed an atrocity?

Instead of, you know, the obvious conclusion that they reject the atrocity and therefore consider such an idea abhorent and wholly unsupportable?

Why does a minority of a religious group universally feel compelled to 'support' (if thats the right word) the ideas held by the majority about Muhammad? Do you think this is applies to all religious minorities, or just those muslims who don't agree with the orthodox Banu Qurayza narrative?

None of these questions are somehow magically addressed by inserting the first sentence of your entirely incoherent babble of an explanation. It remains incoherent babble with or without it.

freediver wrote on Aug 8^th, 2019 at 12:12pm:


Oh, look. FD's not answering. Again.

freediver wrote on Aug 8^th, 2019 at 12:32pm:


The first sentence? It is not an answer to anything FD, it is a no-brainer statement of the bleeding obvious - dressed up to somehow 'prove' that genocide-denying muslims actually support genocide. Quite inexplicably.

Because it makes a question of historical fact, in which they are the minority among Muslims, the only barrier to them concluding that Muhammad was evil.

Well duh FD! of course that 'question of historical fact' is a barrier to them concluding that Muhammad is evil. I believe Jesus never pulled out an M16 and mowed down 50 thousand Roman soldiers. Therefore "it makes a question of historical fact...the only barrier to me concluding that Jesus was an m16 wielding butcher" See how stupid it sounds? It makes no difference if the view is a majority view or not, the fact is if I believe it I believe it. And there is no logical sense whatsoever in saying that just because my belief - my sincere, strongly held belief - happens to be a minority view within my religion, therefore I must somehow "support" the alternative version held by the majority of my co-religionists.

Does your logic work the other way? Do muslims who do believe the massacre happened have to give due deference to the version of Muhammad idealised by the non-massacre muslims? Or is it dependent on whether their beliefs are the majority view or not? In either case they are both completely illogical and makes no bloody sense!