None of the things you were being moderated for are arguments. They’re assertions. Whole different animal.
But they use that phrase that irks you, “safe haven,” to describe the basis for the choice (as here, for example, in a Jerusalem Post headline talking about Sharansky talking about France).
Yeah, sorry. I do think the earliest caliphs and those who codified the Qur’an have a lot to answer for, and there’s a *prima facie *case for condemning some of the earliest Muslim rulers as “crazy cult leaders.”
But no, obviously that hasn’t been universal. At some point Mohammed was just a familiar part of tradition. But I suggest he became an unassailable part of tradition because of a strategy of force and suppression maintained by fanatics.
(Much like some other “good shepherds.”)
Personally, I am tickled that his kneejerk answer to a mod telling him to stop misrepresenting what other posters say is to misrepresent the mod note itself. That’s dedication to one’s art and no mistake !
I have made no decision based on approval or disapproval of your arguments.
I told you to stop misrepresenting what other posters had said.
If misrepresenting other posters is your argument, then find a better argument.
[ /Moderating ]