freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 5:57pm:


The number of military aged males who were allegedly executed. Which I guess betrays the inconvenient part of the story where non-combatants were spared.

Where did the few thousand bit come from?

Aussie wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 6:25pm:


FD's made up so much crap about this tired meme I've lost count. My all time favourite was when he invented the 'sondercommandos' - where the despicable prophet forced some members of the tribe to dig their own graves before being executed. Really subtle allusion to the nazis.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 6:14pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 4:37pm:


So a tribe with a "few hundred members," making it convenient to insist that they really were a mindless collective, somehow produced up to 900 military aged men?

Would you like to give a more specific estimate of what "a few hundred" means?

Do you think that your efforts to deny the genocide at the same time as spewing racist propaganda to justify the genocide somehow differentiates you from modern racists?

A very large mindless collective of just a few hundred people, but with 900 military aged men.

Not that there is anything racist about that.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 6:14pm:


You mean enslaved?

freediver wrote on Feb 18^th, 2017 at 7:07pm:


Ah I see.

Well if it was 200, which some estimates have it, all up it would still be less than 1000 right?

Either way I don't include women and children in the 'mindless collective'. They were basically the property of their menfolk and had no status at all.

Quote:


Genocides require evidence. This is nothing like questioning the single greatest episode of mass murder that happened in the last century, its the most obscure massacre imaginable from 1400 years ago - known only because it made it into Islamic folklore. What is the evidence? Do you even know? I'll tell you - its a single, non-contemporary source from a guy called Ibn Ishaq, who was widely dismissed as an unreliable source by his contemporaries. Yes there are other accounts, but they all stem from him. What about archaelogical evidence? None - the Saudis won't allow any digs in Medina to find any physical evidence. So we are literally left with a single source who is known for his unreliablity.

You claimed before that 'most historians' accepted the massacre happened. I highly doubt that is true, but in any case, the historians who do have never conducted any serious analysis of it - they merely regurgitate what Ishaq wrote as gospel truth. The only serious analysis I have seen is the paper I linked by Arafat, which raises serious questions about the reliability of both Ishaq and his account. Questions that have never been answered by those who argue it happened.

In summary - it is not racist to question an obscure account of a massacre of a few hundred military aged men that happened 1400 years ago, and it is not even racist to argue that such mass-execution of military aged men who took up arms against the state they pledged loyalty to - could be justified.

Do you think maybe this 'apologism' is a little different to some neo-nazi saying Hitler never did anything bad to the jews, in spite of the volumes written about it in the last few decades, and/or saying in any case, slaughtering 6 million men women and children could be justified?

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2017 at 8:35am:


Way to water down you original idiotic claim that my denial of the great earth-shattering "genocide" of a few hundred jewish males 1400 years ago is just as racist as denying the slaughter of 6 million jews within the last century. 

I would say that in terms of actual historical evidence, the holocaust is a liiiiiitle bit different to the single source account of the Banu Qurayza massacre - wouldnt you say? Or are you seriously going to ascend to even new levels of absurdity by claiming that the "uncertainty" in regards to the authenticity of the holocaust is somehow comparable to the uncertainty in regards to the authenticity of the single sourced account of the Banu Qurayza massacre?