freediver wrote on Aug 9
th, 2019 at 8:19pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 9
th, 2019 at 9:21am:
Are you going for the record for how many times you can avoid a simple question FD?
Is there anything in my last post that you have actually responded to before FD? Is there any good reason why you continue to go to such lengths to continue avoiding responding to it? Apart from being butt-hurt over whether or not I included a completely irrelevant and not the least bit useful sentence when I quoted you, you are not disputing that the questions I have been asking for the last 2 pages or so have not been answered at all by you, or that they are legitimate ones to ask
I'm going to keep avoiding it until you convince me you are going to stop lying every time I answer a question by spending 5 pages saying I didn't respond, rather than admitting you just aren't satisfied with the response you got.
Are you completely oblivious to what has been going on over 40 pages, or do you have some cunning plan that involves getting me to repeat myself ad infinitum?
To be fair FD, you clearly mislead when you said the sentence I left out explained everything - as explained the last time I tred in vain to get a straight answer out of you. Now I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that this wasn't an out and out lie, but rather you simply having no clue what you are saying, or what particular version of mental gymnastics you are attempting to perform. Of course spending 40 pages trying to convince yourself and me that the mind-numbingly stupid statement of fact in the OP, along with the inane logic that supports it, is somehow legible would be pretty demoralising work. And of course its no surprise that you are now reduced to lashing out with childish hissy fits.
So I'm willing to let all that go through to the keeper.
What I'd prefer is we get back to the topic, instead of every post being a paragraph long whinge about how dare I ask you to explain, so unfair.
So once again...
Regarding this "explanation" of why muslims who reject the historiocity of the banu qurayza masscre must still somehow support the idea of Muhammad committing such a massacre:
Quote: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. They would be saying that the Muhammad that the vast majority believe in is an evil man and they believe in a different version of him, but that puts them in a difficult position, so instead they say both versions of Muhammad are good men and they support the supposed actions of both, but theirs is merely the better Muhammad. That's why you offered up your "academic" support for Muhammad's genocide at the same time as denying it. They all deny it was genocide in some way, and they all continue to support it.
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?