Cracks in the facade?


polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 5:56pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:33pm: his is the bit that I struggle with Gandalf. Unfortunately it seems that throughout history, it is the winners of violent engagements who dictate who was or was not acting treacherously. For my part, slaughtering people is NEVER the right thing to do, it is never justifiable, excusable or acceptable. That is my personal world view. I am also cognizant that as a species we will continue to kill (slaughter) each other for as long as our species exists (well unless we actually do discover enlightenment one day - even then, who knows?), also, we the slaughterers will always try to excuse or justify their actions. Some will accept the justification others will reject it. As we see in the modern world we live in, others will also use their rejection of said justification to justify their own acts of barbarity. Phem I take all your points, and you are absolutely right to raise them. Its not a pleasant matter, no one is pretending it is. I'll admit that endless trolling by FD has baited me into some hyperbole at times about the matter - but the truth is I'm not happy with it, nor am I supportive of it - despite what he will claim. I think what we can agree upon is that the episode is not in the least bit unique in the context of history - nor was it considered particularly remarkable throughout most of the years that followed. This will explain why it has rarely been used throughout history a) by Islam's critics to smear Islam or b) Islamists themselves to demonstrate how "bad-ass" Islam is. You are also probably aware of the "example for muslims to follow" argument: that because muslims consider Muhammad's example the very best example to follow, we therefore must go around slaughtering jews and/or prisoners of war. The argument doesn't stack up to any sort of critical analysis. Firstly, none of the Islamic jurist's rulings on the matter of POWs follow this, but rather defer to the Quranic commands of humane treatment and exchange or freedom at the earliest opportunity. Then there's what I already mentioned about Islamists, to my knowledge, never citing this as a great inspiration for them as they carry out their atrocities. So how can this be - you might ask - how can the decisions made by The Prophet not be taken as part of Islamic doctrine - as many muslims consider other actions of The Prophet to be? The answer comes down to common sense - which apparently even the crazy Islamists seem to have grasped. And that is to understand the clear distinction between Muhammad the Holy Prophet, and Muhammad the ruler of a temporal society in a specific place and time. Put simply, what he did that he thought was necessary for the survival of his state, was for that place and time only - and was never intended to be a divine instruction for all muslims to follow in all places and all time. And please don't confuse that with the "don't judge people by today's standards" argument that I'm sure you hear ad-nauseum. This is separate to that. Its saying that Muhammad was a human ruler, and just like any other human ruler, he undoubtedly made mistakes (though as a muslim I will maintain that he was the best of men, and erred less than any other man). And whether or not this episode can be judged a mistake, the point is as a human ruler of a state under severe pressure - he made decisions he deemed appropriate to that situation, and should never be interpreted as doctrine for all muslims in all times and place.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 6:49pm:

Quote: I don't expect anything - you are free to do whatever you wish. The wikipedia articles mentions nothing of these "opportunities to disown" it, and if the first reference to it was in 1979, it is safe to conclude it was made up. [quote]You are only betraying your ignorance of history.

You said it is a universally undrstood norm. That's a bit different from something that happened in the past.


Quote:

Keep telling yourself that. The notion is a complete joke though.

The war was long over Gandalf. It never really began. Muhammed laid siege to the Jewish tribe in their own home. They surrendered unconditionally without a fight. They were already in Muhammed's custody. That is about as far from the field of battle as you can get. It was so far that Muhammed had no intention of slaughtering them until an 'angel' told him to.


Quote:

Unfortunately it seems that throughout history, it is the winners of violent engagements who dictate who was or was not acting treacherously.

This was hardly a violent engagement.


Quote:

I'll admit that endless trolling by FD has baited me into some hyperbole at times about the matter

Like this BS about Muhammed offering to let them go if the "re-pledged" allegiance to his new Islamic state?


Quote:

but the truth is I'm not happy with it, nor am I supportive of it - despite what he will claim

Of course you are not "happy." We can see you squirming, just as you can see me sneering.

Was Muhammed wrong to slaughter all those Jews? If it was wrong, why do you try so many angles to justify it?


Quote:

I think what we can agree upon is that the episode is not in the least bit unique in the context of history - nor was it considered particularly remarkable throughout most of the years that followed. This will explain why it has rarely been used throughout history a) by Islam's critics to smear Islam or b) Islamists themselves to demonstrate how "bad-ass" Islam is.

Crap. That was the whole point of it - to make people fear the new ruler and fall into line. It reads like a mob movie on a grander scale. The slaughter of these Jews was the birth of the first Islamic State.


Quote:

You are also probably aware of the "example for muslims to follow" argument: that because muslims consider Muhammad's example the very best example to follow, we therefore must go around slaughtering jews and/or prisoners of war.

It compels you to justify and support these attrocities. It causes you and your fellow Muslims to reject fundamental human rights on principle. It forces you to make the "Jew as borg" argument that in any non-Muslim context you would instantly recognise as evil.


Quote:

The argument doesn't stack up to any sort of critical analysis. Firstly, none of the Islamic jurist's rulings on the matter of POWs follow this, but rather defer to the Quranic commands of humane treatment and exchange or freedom at the earliest opportunity.

Right, they take the morally superior option of a choice between slavery, forced mass migration, or destitution - so long as Muslims end up with everything - land, goats, women.

Gandalf, you cannot honestly defend this sort of barbarity then act all surprised when modern Muslims do equally horrendous things in the name of Islam.


Quote:

Put simply, what he did that he thought was necessary for the survival of his state, was for that place and time only - and was never intended to be a divine instruction for all muslims to follow in all places and all time.

What if a similar situation was to arise today? Of course the historical jurists are going to focus on the other options, because they were part of a victorious ruling empire, and the last thing they wanted their enemies to do is fight to the death. That is just common sense. But Muhammed demonstrated for them that when the slaughter of innocents does have a practical purpose, it is justified.

It is a similar hypocrisy with robbery. Before his Islamic State, Muhammed was a thief. But as a ruler of a large state, suddenly thievery looks bad. It is a consistent demonstration of moral flexibility in the pursuit of Islamic rule.


Quote:

This is separate to that. Its saying that Muhammad was a human ruler, and just like any other human ruler, he undoubtedly made mistakes (though as a muslim I will maintain that he was the best of men, and erred less than any other man).

Erred less? You are starting to sound like a heretic Gandalf.


Quote:

And whether or not this episode can be judged a mistake

Keep tapdancing Gandalf.


Quote:

the point is as a human ruler of a state under severe pressure

He was not a ruler of a state under pressure. The state did not exist. He was trying to establish absolute rule over the city of Medina so he could continue using it to rob caravans going to and from Mecca, without those pesky Jews interfering. This is the act that sealed the deal for him.


Quote:

he made decisions he deemed appropriate to that situation, and should never be interpreted as doctrine for all muslims in all times and place

Does that mean that as a Muslim, if by some freak of circumstance you found yourself in a similar situation, you should follow the same course of action?[/quote]


polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 7:56pm:

Gandalf chooses to ignore. Funny, I find it rather liberating.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=freediver


freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 8:49am:

gandalf wrote Yesterday at 7:56pm: Gandalf chooses to ignore. Funny, I find it rather liberating.

I admit I am just guessing, but I think this is a more accurate response...

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 8:48am:

Muhammad was a human ruler, and just like any other human ruler, he undoubtedly made mistakes (though as a muslim I will maintain that he was the best of men, and erred less than any other man).

Unlike FD I don't so much see this as a crack, more as a demonstration and acknowledgement of faith.

I do not share your faith though Gandalf and, all due respect, no individual is the best of us. As human's we are all flawed.

It's ok though, I don't agree with the belief's the FD espouses.

For my part, as I have long maintained, organised religion is a bit of a significant human problem. Sadly "belief" is often used as an excuse for the weak willed and irresponsible to commit horrendous acts. This affords other weak willed and irresponsible people the opportunity to blame the entire faith, rather than make an individual responsible for their own actions.

I would have happily addressed the post where it was originally put, however, FD you seem to like to dance around the board to maximise the confusion you sew by expressing your ongoing Cognitive Dissonance....

Tell me, is Ozpol working out therapeutically? It does not appear to be, so I am just a tad concerned that it is a misguided attempt to self medicate...

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 5:56pm:

.....you might ask - how can the decisions made by The Prophet not be taken as part of Islamic doctrine - as many muslims consider other actions of The Prophet to be? The answer comes down to common sense - which apparently even the crazy Islamists seem to have grasped. And that is to understand the clear distinction between Muhammad the Holy Prophet, and Muhammad the ruler of a temporal society in a specific place and time. Put simply, what he did that he thought was necessary for the survival of his state, was for that place and time only - and was never intended to be a divine instruction for all muslims to follow in all places and all time. And please don't confuse that with the "don't judge people by today's standards" argument that I'm sure you hear ad-nauseum. This is separate to that. Its saying that Muhammad was a human ruler, and just like any other human ruler, he undoubtedly made mistakes (though as a muslim I will maintain that he was the best of men, and erred less than any other man). And whether or not this episode can be judged a mistake, the point is as a human ruler of a state under severe pressure - he made decisions he deemed appropriate to that situation, and should never be interpreted as doctrine for all muslims in all times and place.

gandalf,

Allah contradicts you.

According to Allah's very own words,      within the inerrant Koran,       Allah declares that the example of his messenger, Mohammed [i,e, all of Mohammed's conduct],        was to be regarded by every moslem man, as an example, which every moslem man should seek to imitate.



"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah [i.e. Mohammed] a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."
Koran 33.021



".....what [Mohammed] did.....was never intended to be a divine instruction for all muslims to follow in all places and all time."

gandalf,

You are not opposing or contradicting, the very word of Allah, are you ?



gandalf,

Was there any particular behaviour of Mohammed, which could be considered to be un-ISLAMIC,      in your opinion ?????



gandalf,

The Koran does not record, that Allah found fault with Mohammed, EVER!             [if i am wrong,    .....please direct me to a single Koran verse, where Mohammed is ever cautioned or reprimanded, for his behaviour, by Allah.]

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 8:49am:

He was not a ruler of a state under pressure. The state did not exist.

Wrong. The constitution of Medina was signed in 622 - a full two years before the Banu Qurayza were executed. Under the constitution all different groups were declared " ummah wāḥidah" ("one nation").

Yadda wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:26am:

The Koran does not record, that Allah found fault with Mohammed, EVER!             [if i am wrong,    .....please direct me to a single Koran verse, where Mohammed is ever cautioned or reprimanded, for his behaviour, by Allah.]

66:1

O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Quote:

For my part, as I have long maintained, organised religion is a bit of a significant human problem. Sadly "belief" is often used as an excuse for the weak willed and irresponsible to commit horrendous acts. This affords other weak willed and irresponsible people the opportunity to blame the entire faith, rather than make an individual responsible for their own actions.

Is Muhammed one of those irresponsible people?

Gandalf is there a copy of this constitution anywhere?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:37am:

Yadda wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 11:26am: The Koran does not record, that Allah found fault with Mohammed, EVER!             [if i am wrong,    .....please direct me to a single Koran verse, where Mohammed is ever cautioned or reprimanded, for his behaviour, by Allah.] 66:1 O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Conceded.



But,     that particular verse is in no way a reprimand [of Mohammed],     for some un-ISLAMIC conduct, for some conduct which was dis-pleasing to Allah.


Dictionary;
reprimand = = a formal expression of disapproval.




AND AGAIN, I ASK;

gandalf,

Was there any particular behaviour of Mohammed, which could be considered to be un-ISLAMIC,      in your opinion ?????

What exactly was Muhammed prohibiting himself from?

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

What exactly was Muhammed prohibiting himself from?

honey, apparently.

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:38am:

Gandalf is there a copy of this constitution anywhere?

Its a real challenge to find - you have to type some really cryptic words - "constitution of Medina" into this obscure search engine called "google".

Good luck!!

Yadda wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:48am:

gandalf, Was there any particular behaviour of Mohammed, which could be considered to be un-ISLAMIC,      in your opinion ?????

I wouldn't say so - but you need to clarify, does "unislamic" mean "sinful" or simply something that isn't done with Islam specifically in mind? If its the latter, then obviously many of his rulings as a leader of a state - were borne out of earthly necessities, rather than any religious/spiritual duty.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 12:07pm:

Yadda wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 11:48am: gandalf, Was there any particular behaviour of Mohammed, which could be considered to be un-ISLAMIC,      in your opinion ????? I wouldn't say so - but you need to clarify, does "unislamic" mean "sinful" or simply something that isn't done with Islam specifically in mind? If its the latter, then obviously many of his rulings as a leader of a state - were borne out of earthly necessities, rather than any religious/spiritual duty.

Islam is Mohammedanism - everything he did is Islamic by definition. Mohammedanism is Islam.

That's why you cannot begin to find Mohammed at fault or in error. As there is no church in Islam, you cannot even begin to reform that. And this i why every single reform attempt of Islam has meant a return to the 7th century, to the pure, unadulterated Mohammedanism. The infalliability of the Koran means Islam is stuck in 7th century Mohammedanism, its prophet and founder forever beyond criticism or review.

Soren wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 12:23pm:

Islam is Mohammedanism - everything he did is Islamic by definition.

I disagree.

Gandalf, did Muhammed err?

you're doing this deliberately aren't you?

Hows your google the medina constitution project going?

According to wikipedia, there are several different versions and the date is uncertain.

Did Muhammed err?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 5:40pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 12:23pm: Islam is Mohammedanism - everything he did is Islamic by definition. I disagree.

Take Mohammed out of Islam - what is left?

Nothing.

You are a Mohammedan, Gandy.

Gandalf all your talk about reform would be a lot easier to take seriously if you didn't run away from these sorts of questions. Was your intention to make Islam good and not tell anyone about it?

YT tutorials about the real Mohammed, and his beliefs and his values....
[an assessment of ISLAM, Mohammed, etc,     in English, by an Arabic speaker]


41 Muhammad the Sinful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmlqXGqizN0

53 Allah & his Aposle Know Best
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm4BZowsOEw

67 Dilemma of Muhammadan Muslims
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZISKPBtMP4

161 Muhammad & Allah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYw-JeHTwvw

163 Muhammad the Humble
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5VsWJSKwjo

190 Muhammad's Characteristics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BViKF5N27P4


If you have the time, these tutorials are well worth the listen.

http://www.al-rassooli.com/blog/

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 9:40pm:

Gandalf all your talk about reform would be a lot easier to take seriously if you didn't run away from these sorts of questions. Was your intention to make Islam good and not tell anyone about it?

Sorry FD, I'm still reeling over you asking me a question that was so clearly answered in the post that you quoted in the OP - and you even highlighted.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 5:40pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 12:23pm: Islam is Mohammedanism - everything he did is Islamic by definition. I disagree.

What did he do that was un-Islamic?

You conceded the possibility that he erred, which is not something I have seen a Muslim do before. I hope you can appreciate the apparent significance of this. You did not say that he erred - either in the context of the discussion that quote came from or any other context.

But if it helps, I will move on to the next question. I am surprised you did not see this coming, given your ability to tell what I am really saying from my questions.

How did he err?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:37am:

Yadda wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 11:26am: The Koran does not record, that Allah found fault with Mohammed, EVER!             [if i am wrong,    .....please direct me to a single Koran verse, where Mohammed is ever cautioned or reprimanded, for his behaviour, by Allah.] 66:1 O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Was that verse in relation to $Profit Mo getting busted porking his Coptic Christian sex slave Maria by his wives and promising he will not do it again?

When he got caught porking her again Allah was there just in the nick of time to save him with a revelation saying sex slaves are halal.


Quote:

The messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse,but Aisha and Hafsa would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him,then Allah revealed- O Prophet,why did you forbid yourself that which allah has allowed to you. sunnah.com/nasai/36/21

That is the context of 66/1
quran.com/66/1

By that verse we can say Allah the most merciful of those who show mercy approves of muslims having slaves and having sex with them?

Did Maria his Coptic Christian sex slave give $Profit Mo his only son Ibrahim who died before he reached 2 years of age?

Baron there are two contradictory versions of that revelation and scholars are unanimous as to which one is authentic and which one is not. No surprises which one you chose  ::)

Here is Yusuf Ali on the version that is overwhelmingly regarded as authentic:


Quote:

Once it so happened that he stayed longer than usual at the quarters of Zaynab bint Jahsh, for she had received from somewhere some honey which the Holy Prophet liked very much.   'At this', says Aisha, 'I felt jealous, and I, Hafsah, Sawda and Safiyah agreed among ourselves that when he visits us each of us would tell him that a peculiar odour came from his mouth as a result of what he had eaten, for we knew that he was particularly sensitive to offensive smells".  So when his wives hinted at it, he vowed that he would never again use honey.  Thereupon these verses were revealed reminding him that he should not declare to himself unlawful that which Allah had made lawful to him.

I love these 'just in time, as needed', self-serving revelations:



Quote:

Thereupon these verses were revealed reminding him that he should not declare to himself unlawful that which Allah had made lawful to him.

:D :D


From an eternally unchanged book, of course. Allah eternally foresaw that Mohammed will swear off honey to please the ladies and pulled him up straight away when it happened.

The OK to marry his stepson's wife was also revealed just in time to calm the scandalised Arabs. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 2:06pm:

Baron there are two contradictory versions of that revelation and scholars are unanimous as to which one is authentic and which one is not. No surprises which one you chose  ::) Here is Yusuf Ali on the version that is overwhelmingly regarded as authentic:

I chose the one that is graded sahih,the scholars all say sahih ahadith are authentic,i even cited the verse as evidence.

Since when did sahih ahadith become not authentic Gandalf?

If you are quoting yusef ali that would be the quran, what does he say in his translation of 66/1?
quran.com/66/1

You are starting to be like falah in posting uncited nonsense.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 3:54pm:

I chose the one that is graded sahih,the scholars all say sahih ahadith are authentic,i even cited the verse as evidence. Since when did sahih ahadith become not authentic Gandalf?

The version I gave is sahih Baron - I guess your wiki-islam site that you are spoon-fed from didn't mention that. Its from Bukhari, Dawoud and Muslim - the three most sahih sources.

Here you go...


Quote:

The Prophet (ﷺ) used to stay (for a period) in the house of Zainab bint Jahsh (one of the wives of the Prophet ) and he used to drink honey in her house. Hafsa and I decided that when the Prophet (ﷺ) entered upon either of us, she would say, "I smell in you the bad smell of Maghafir (a bad smelling raisin). Have you eaten Maghafir?" When he entered upon one of us, she said that to him. He replied (to her), "No, but I have drunk honey in the house of Zainab bint Jahsh, and I will never drink it again." Then the following verse was revealed: 'O Prophet ! Why do you ban (for you) that which Allah has made lawful for you?. ..(up to) If you two (wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) turn in repentance to Allah.' (66.1-4) The two were `Aisha and Hafsa And also the Statement of Allah: 'And (Remember) when the Prophet (ﷺ) disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives!' (66.3) i.e., his saying, "But I have drunk honey." Hisham said: It also meant his saying, "I will not drink anymore, and I have taken an oath, so do not inform anybody of that."

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/83/68

So Muhammed was getting stuck into his Christian wife's honey pot and his other wives complained about being able to smell it on his breath? And this is not a euphemism for sex, even though she became pregnant by him?

How did Muhammed err Gandalf?

If Allah was so quick to bring Muhammed into line over something as trivial as yielding to his other wives on the issue of eating honey, where was He when Muhammed was accidentally slaughtering hundreds of innocent Jews? Or when Muhammed was accidentally ordering Muslims to execute gays, then trailing off and leaving it a bit vague so they had to figure it out for themselves?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 6:09pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 3:54pm: I chose the one that is graded sahih,the scholars all say sahih ahadith are authentic,i even cited the verse as evidence. Since when did sahih ahadith become not authentic Gandalf? The version I gave is sahih Baron - I guess your wiki-islam site that you are spoon-fed from didn't mention that. Its from Bukhari, Dawoud and Muslim - the three most sahih sources. Here you go... Quote: The Prophet (ﷺ) used to stay (for a period) in the house of Zainab bint Jahsh (one of the wives of the Prophet ) and he used to drink honey in her house. Hafsa and I decided that when the Prophet (ﷺ) entered upon either of us, she would say, "I smell in you the bad smell of Maghafir (a bad smelling raisin). Have you eaten Maghafir?" When he entered upon one of us, she said that to him. He replied (to her), "No, but I have drunk honey in the house of Zainab bint Jahsh, and I will never drink it again." Then the following verse was revealed: 'O Prophet ! Why do you ban (for you) that which Allah has made lawful for you?. ..(up to) If you two (wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) turn in repentance to Allah.' (66.1-4) The two were `Aisha and Hafsa And also the Statement of Allah: 'And (Remember) when the Prophet (ﷺ) disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives!' (66.3) i.e., his saying, "But I have drunk honey." Hisham said: It also meant his saying, "I will not drink anymore, and I have taken an oath, so do not inform anybody of that." http://sunnah.com/bukhari/83/68

All your verse shows is $Profit Mo didn't have a good memory I reckon he was making it up as he went along,my verses explain the context of 66/1 and 66/2 where he promised to not have sex with his Coptic Christian slave.
quran.com/66/2

Bukhari, it's a long verse here is what you need-

Quote:

The $Profit said that he would not go to his wives for one month as he was angry with them when allah admonished him for his oath that he would not approach maria the Coptic sex slave. sunnah.com/bukhari/46/29 I cannot see allah admonishing someone for not eating honey..

So Allah revealed a verse saying why did $Profit Mo forbid himself from having sex with his slave girls when allah has allowed this,it mentioned him seeking the approval of his wives.
66/2 is allah giving $Profit Mo a get out clause for his promise to his wives he would not have sex with his Coptic Christian slave.

When we look at this even further he stayed away from his wives for 29 days while he porked Maria the Coptic Christian sex slave as a way of punishing his wives.
Maria bore the only son for $Profit Mo who was named Ibrahim, he died before he reached 2 years of age.

Sheik Munajid and the Islamic state both approve of muslim men having sex with their slave girls.

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 6:40pm:

even though she became pregnant by him?

Where is that mentioned?

Oops did I say wife? I meant sex slave.

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 6:40pm:

If Allah was so quick to bring Muhammed into line over something as trivial as yielding to his other wives on the issue of eating honey, where was He when Muhammed was accidentally slaughtering hundreds of innocent Jews? Or when Muhammed was accidentally ordering Muslims to execute gays, then trailing off and leaving it a bit vague so they had to figure it out for themselves?

66/1 has nothing to do with honey it's allah helping $Profit Mo's sex life when he was caught by his wives having sex with his Coptic Christian slave girl.

Why did Allah reveal no verses to prevent the sunni-shia split yet was always there when $Profit Mo's sex life needed help.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 6:45pm:

All your verse shows is $Profit Mo didn't have a good memory I reckon he was making it up as he went along

Mo made up the narrations about him that were written 200 years after his death did he?


Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 6:45pm:

my verses explain the context of 66/1 and 66/2 where he promised to not have sex with his Coptic Christian slave. quran.com/66/2

From your own words Baron:


Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 3:54pm:

I chose the one that is graded sahih,the scholars all say sahih ahadith are authentic,i even cited the verse as evidence. Since when did sahih ahadith become not authentic Gandalf?

The hadith (they are not "verses") I quoted is sahih Bukhari, as well as sahih muslim and sahih Abu Dawoud. Scholars unanimously agree that these three ahadith are the most sahih.

Since when did sahih Bukhari become not authentic Baron?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 6:51pm:

66/1 has nothing to do with honey it's allah helping $Profit Mo's sex life when he was caught by his wives having sex with his Coptic Christian slave girl.

No of course not - because its Sahih Bukhari.

Never again will Baron be citing Sahih Bukhari and asking rhetorical questions about Bukhari being the most reliable of the ahadith. Right Baron?

Oh look, Baron explaining to us what is the most trusted Islamic sources for sunnis:


Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 27^th, 2014 at 5:22pm:

[ Gandalf is a muslim. Islamic scripture for Gandalf being from the sunni side of Islam would be the Quran,Sahih al Bukhari,Sahih Muslim and Abu Dawud.

hmmm - which of the two versions came from Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Dawud - and which one did not Baron? I'm curious.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 6:56pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 6:51pm: 66/1 has nothing to do with honey it's allah helping $Profit Mo's sex life when he was caught by his wives having sex with his Coptic Christian slave girl. No of course not - because its Sahih Bukhari. Never again will Baron be citing Sahih Bukhari and asking rhetorical questions about Bukhari being the most reliable of the ahadith. Right Baron?

I did cite bukhari where $Profit stayed away from his wives for 29 days after allah admonished him for promising to stay away from maria to please his wives which is the context of 66/1.

Shall we bring up the thread where you tried to pass off a mistranslation by Muhsin Khan as evidence?

My sh1t is Akbar.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 7:00pm:

Oh look, Baron explaining to us what is the most trusted Islamic sources for sunnis: Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 27th, 2014 at 5:22pm: [ Gandalf is a muslim. Islamic scripture for Gandalf being from the sunni side of Islam would be the Quran,Sahih al Bukhari,Sahih Muslim and Abu Dawud. hmmm - which of the two versions came from Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Dawud - and which one did not Baron? I'm curious.

What did the bukhari hadith I cited say Gandalf, was allah upset with mo for promising his wives he would stay away from maria the Coptic slave, that is the context of 66/1.

It also backs up the sahih hadith about mo porking his sex slave.

There are more than 3 hadith writers in sunni Islam, a sahih hadith is considered genuine,i cited sahih ahadith.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 7:02pm:

I did cite bukhari where $Profit stayed away from his wives for 29 days after allah admonished him for promising to stay away from maria to please his wives which is the context of 66/1.

Soooo Bukhari is reliable?

Or is it only some of Bukhari?


Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 27^th, 2014 at 5:22pm:

Gandalf is a muslim. Islamic scripture for Gandalf being from the sunni side of Islam would be the Quran,Sahih al Bukhari,Sahih Muslim and Abu Dawud.

Please Baron, answer my question, its a relevant one: which of the two versions came from Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Dawud - and which version did not?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 7:05pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 7:00pm: Oh look, Baron explaining to us what is the most trusted Islamic sources for sunnis: Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 27th, 2014 at 5:22pm: [ Gandalf is a muslim. Islamic scripture for Gandalf being from the sunni side of Islam would be the Quran,Sahih al Bukhari,Sahih Muslim and Abu Dawud. hmmm - which of the two versions came from Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Dawud - and which one did not Baron? I'm curious. What did the bukhari hadith I cited say Gandalf, was allah upset with mo for promising his wives he would stay away from maria the Coptic slave, that is the context of 66/1. It also backs up the sahih hadith about mo porking his sex slave. There are more than 3 hadith writers in sunni Islam, a sahih hadith is considered genuine,i cited sahih ahadith.

Sooo you are using Bukhari to disprove Bukhari? Cunning tactic that.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 7:09pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 7:02pm: I did cite bukhari where $Profit stayed away from his wives for 29 days after allah admonished him for promising to stay away from maria to please his wives which is the context of 66/1. Soooo Bukhari is reliable? Or is it only some of Bukhari? Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 27th, 2014 at 5:22pm: Gandalf is a muslim. Islamic scripture for Gandalf being from the sunni side of Islam would be the Quran,Sahih al Bukhari,Sahih Muslim and Abu Dawud. Please Baron, answer my question, its a relevant one: which of the two versions came from Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Dawud - and which version did not?

In that aug 27 post I only used those examples because I was too lazy to include all 13 books on ahadith they have at sunnah.com, there is a limit to how much time I waste on Islam.

How many versions do they have here Gandalf?
www.sunnah.com

A sahih ahadith is a sahih ahdith, if it was not sahih then you could wriggle out of it.

You were in denial about $Profit Mo having sex slaves when you joined this forum,there is no end of nonsense from you.

Sorry to change the topic. How did Muhammed err Gandalf?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 7:14pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 7:05pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 7:00pm: Oh look, Baron explaining to us what is the most trusted Islamic sources for sunnis: Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 27th, 2014 at 5:22pm: [ Gandalf is a muslim. Islamic scripture for Gandalf being from the sunni side of Islam would be the Quran,Sahih al Bukhari,Sahih Muslim and Abu Dawud. hmmm - which of the two versions came from Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Dawud - and which one did not Baron? I'm curious. What did the bukhari hadith I cited say Gandalf, was allah upset with mo for promising his wives he would stay away from maria the Coptic slave, that is the context of 66/1. It also backs up the sahih hadith about mo porking his sex slave. There are more than 3 hadith writers in sunni Islam, a sahih hadith is considered genuine,i cited sahih ahadith. Sooo you are using Bukhari to disprove Bukhari? Cunning tactic that.

Your incident was a separate incident,if it was for honey then why does honey need halal certification when as you claim allah said it's halal.

Gandalf, I think it's time you gave up on this lot.  They aren't going to reform.  They aren't interested in anything other than slamming Islam, Muslims and you and your compatriots.

Their minds are closed and will forever remain closed.  ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 7:44pm:

Gandalf, I think it's time you gave up on this lot.  They aren't going to reform.  They aren't interested in anything other than slamming Islam, Muslims and you and your compatriots. Their minds are closed and will forever remain closed.  ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Which parts of Islam is your mind (if mind is the word I want in your case) open and receptive to, Tits?

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 8:01pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 7:44pm: Gandalf, I think it's time you gave up on this lot.  They aren't going to reform.  They aren't interested in anything other than slamming Islam, Muslims and you and your compatriots. Their minds are closed and will forever remain closed.  ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D Which parts of Islam is your mind (if mind is the word I want in your case) open and receptive to, Tits?

I don't have to have to like Islam Soren.  I just have to tolerate it and it's believers as long as they remain within the law.

You however won't tolerate any believer in Islam!  They scare you by their mere existence Soren!   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 7:44pm:

Gandalf, I think it's time you gave up on this lot.  They aren't going to reform.  They aren't interested in anything other than slamming Islam, Muslims and you and your compatriots. Their minds are closed and will forever remain closed.  ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D

It's all Allah's fault don't blame us for disliking this delusional belief,Muhammad knew people would call bullshit on Islam.

Quote:

Muhsin Khan- Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings (ie they are closed from accepting Allah's guidance),and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment. quran.com/2/7

According to Islam allah created us disbelievers so he could burn our skin off in the hellfire then give our skin back so he can burn it off again.
Allah the most merciful of those who show mercy will burn us for all eternity because we didn't believe in Islam.
Allah sounds like a cruel sadist to me.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

Your incident was a separate incident

Oh really? Can you cite a single Islamic scholar claiming that its referring to him wanting to bang his sex slave - and not the honey story as related by Bukhari?

Baron are you aware that the very scholar who cited this hadith (Imam Nasa'i) himself stated that the honey version is the correct one - and that the sex slave version was unreliable?


Quote:

About honey the Hadith reported from Hadrat 'A'ishah is authentic, and the story of forbidding Hadrat Mariyah for himself by the Holy Prophet has not been narrated in a reliable way

and others:


Quote:

Qadi 'Iyad says: "The truth is that this verse was sent down concerning honey and not Mariyah." Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-'Arabi; also regards the story about honey as correct and the same is the opinion of Imam Nawawi and Hafiz Badruddiu 'Aini. Ibn Humam writes in Fath al-Qadir "The story of the prohibition of honey has been narrated in Bukhari and Muslim from Hadrat `A'ishah who was herself a party to it; therefore, it is much more reliable."

Quote:

Hafiz Ibn Kathir says: "The truth is that this verse was sent down about forbidding honey for himself by the Holy Prophet."

http://quranx.com/Tafsirs/66.1

Baron - do you have a single piece of scholarly evidence that refutes the above - and claims that the sex slave version is the correct one?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 8:18pm:

http://quranx.com/Tafsirs/66.1 Baron - do you have a single piece of scholarly evidence that refutes the above - and claims that the sex slave version is the correct one?

What you have cited backs what I have posted about the context of 66/1 being Mo banging his Coptic slave maria against the wishes of his wives.

They mention it, the fact is muslims never agree on anything in Islam despite allah saying islam was perfected in sura 2/85.

If it is about honey as you claim then why does Capilano honey pay for halal certification in Australia?

Gandalf likes Bukhari,Bukhari said the verse on stoning to death was revealed by allah and for some reason this verse cannot be found in the quran.


Quote:

I am afraid after a long time has passed,people may say "we do not find the verse of stoning to death in the holy book,and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that allah has revealed... sunnah.com/bukhari/86/56

There is a verse that explains what happened to the stoning verse-

Quote:

The verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed,and the paper was with me under my pillow.when the messenger of allah died, we were preoccupied with his death,and a tame sheep came in and ate it. sunnah.com/urn/1262630

The muslims don't accept a tame sheep ate the verse on stoning hadith they have in their texts yet they cannot give any other reason why it is absent from the Quran.

As for the breastfeeding an adult ten times try google for breastfeeding fatwa...lmao at $profit mo
google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=breastfeeding+fatwa

Baron I have cited about 4 leading ahadith scholars who all say 66:1 refers to the honey story - including the one who discovered the hadith ((Imam Nasa'i) - who also said the sex slave story has an unreliable narration. And if anyone would know it would be him agreed?

Can you cite a single scholar who states that 66:1 is actually referring to the sex slave story and not the honey story?

Yes or no.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 8:23pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 8:18pm: http://quranx.com/Tafsirs/66.1 Baron - do you have a single piece of scholarly evidence that refutes the above - and claims that the sex slave version is the correct one? What you have cited backs what I have posted about the context of 66/1 being Mo banging his Coptic slave maria against the wishes of his wives. They mention it, the fact is muslims never agree on anything in Islam despite allah saying islam was perfected in sura 2/85. If it is about honey as you claim then why does Capilano honey pay for halal certification in Australia?

Its a simple question Baron - yes or no.

Quote:

including the one who discovered the hadith

Was it lost or something?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 8:23pm:

What you have cited backs what I have posted about the context of 66/1 being Mo banging his Coptic slave maria against the wishes of his wives.

hmmm.. perhaps you can help me out here then Baron:

Qadi 'Iyad says: "The truth is that this verse was sent down concerning honey and not Mariya

About honey the Hadith reported from Hadrat 'A'ishah is authentic, and the story of forbidding Hadrat Mariyah for himself by the Holy Prophet has not been narrated in a reliable way

how exactly does clearly arguing that verse 66:1 is *NOT* about Mo banging his Coptic slave "back what you have posted" about it being about Mo banging his Coptic slave?

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 9:50pm:

Quote: including the one who discovered the hadith Was it lost or something?

It was "lost" in the sense that it was only known orally, passed down like chinese whispers for over 200 years before anyone bothered to write it down. Ahadith scholars then tried to work out which ones were reliable or otherwise based on the trustworthiness of the chain of narration (isnad). Unfortunately for Baron, this particular hadith was marked down as having an "unreliable" isnad - by the very scholar who recorded it. Small wonder then that every known scholar accepts that 66:1 refers to the honey story, and not the sex slave story - and even less surprise that Baron cannot find a single scholar (keeping in mind that Baron's always using Islamic scholarship to argue his points) to support his position.

I think even you could see the flaws in Baron's argument FD... maybe

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 9:56pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 8:23pm: What you have cited backs what I have posted about the context of 66/1 being Mo banging his Coptic slave maria against the wishes of his wives. hmmm.. perhaps you can help me out here then Baron: Qadi 'Iyad says: "The truth is that this verse was sent down concerning honey and not Mariya About honey the Hadith reported from Hadrat 'A'ishah is authentic, and the story of forbidding Hadrat Mariyah for himself by the Holy Prophet has not been narrated in a reliable way how exactly does clearly arguing that verse 66:1 is *NOT* about Mo banging his Coptic slave "back what you have posted" about it being about Mo banging his Coptic slave?

Qadi Iyad lived around 400 years after Mo died,hardly a great source considering the Quran and ahadith were passed down like a series of chinese whispers over hundreds of years.

Your link mentions 2 incidents one with maria and one with honey with 66/1,if it had nothing to do with maria they would have no reason to mention it.

Why would your wives want you to forbid yourself from honey,i don't know any females who object to honey,i have some pure stuff in the cupboard that is over a decade old that hasn't gone off.
I know Islam is full of nonsense yet I cannot imagine more than 1 woman objecting to someone eating honey.

When we look at Quran 66/1-5 we have mo forbidding sex slaves then having allah saying it's ok to bang them dont'worry about your wives,or was that about eating honey.
Then allah says it's ok to break your oath about banging maria or was that eating honey as well
The prophet tells his wife to keep his banging of maria a secret she tells another wife or are you saying she dobbed him in for eating honey.
Then we have allah saying 2 women plotted with other wives over Mo's banging of his slave or were they plotting over his eating honey.
Then there were threats of divorce and replacing these plotting deviant wives over his banging of maria the Coptic slave for devoutly obedient virgins or was that over eating honey.
quran.com/66/1-5


Are you saying 66/1-5 is about eating honey,why the threats of divorce and replacement with obedient virgins?

Quote:

Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman,whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married. The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them. islamqa.info/en/10382

The wife has no right to object to her husband having sex with his slave,where did that come from Gandalf?

What are the rules for sex slaves in the Islamic state?
google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=isis+sex+slavery+rules

As we see with Islam they preach sex slaves are halal which results in muslims enslaving non muslims and having sex with them.

According to Gandalf 66/1-5 is about eating honey which could lead to divorce yet the wife has no right to complain about her husband banging his female slaves.

You're making a fool of yourself Baron.

You are always only too happy to cite Islamic scholars to "prove" your points about ahadith.

I have cited you four scholars who argue that 66:1-5 refers to the honey story, and that the sex slave narration is unreliable - including the very scholar who recorded the sex slave story. Even the Yusuf Ali notes on 66:1 (the most universally accepted English translation) states that its the honey story.

Can you cite a single Islamic scholar that agrees with you that 66:1-5 is about the sex slave? Yes or no Baron - its an exceedingly simply question.

|dev|null wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 8:03pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 8:01pm: |dev|null wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 7:44pm: Gandalf, I think it's time you gave up on this lot.  They aren't going to reform.  They aren't interested in anything other than slamming Islam, Muslims and you and your compatriots. Their minds are closed and will forever remain closed.  ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D Which parts of Islam is your mind (if mind is the word I want in your case) open and receptive to, Tits? I don't have to have to like Islam Soren.

Well, then you are like me insofar as neither of us likes Islam.  But unlike you you, I am not afraid to say it and to also say why i don't like it.

But that's now a crime: you can dislike it but you mustn't say so or say why.

You are a fool.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 8:16am:

I have cited you four scholars who argue that 66:1-5 refers to the honey story, and that the sex slave narration is unreliable - including the very scholar who recorded the sex slave story. Even the Yusuf Ali notes on 66:1 (the most universally accepted English translation) states that its the honey story. Can you cite a single Islamic scholar that agrees with you that 66:1-5 is about the sex slave? Yes or no Baron - its an exceedingly simply question.

Yusef Ali does not mention honey in his translation of 66/1.
quran.com/66/1

Are muslims claiming allah intervened in Mo's life with threats of divorce and punishing them by not having sex with them for one month over honey,honey does not smell bad so your hadiths are bullshit.

Perhaps honey is a term for something else?

Quote:

The messenger of allah was asked about a man who divorced his wife three times,and she married another who entered upon her,but divorced her before having intercourse with her,whether she was lawful for the former husband. The Profit replied She is not lawful for the first husband until she tastes the honey of the other husband and he tastes her honey sunnah.com/abudawud/13/135

AbuDawud mentions honey in relation to sex that must be inconvenient for you gandalf

I find it amusing muslims have to use books written hundreds of years after the quran with no authority from allah to translate a simple verse like 66/1

I think it was a euphemism for sex.

Everyone take note of Baron's evasion. He cannot answer a simple yes/no question.


Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 9:23am:

Yusef Ali does not mention honey in his translation of 66/1.

I said the notes in his translation you goose  ::)

Its note 5529 if you really must know - I have it right here in front of me.


Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 9:23am:

Are muslims claiming allah intervened in Mo's life with threats of divorce and punishing them by not having sex with them for one month over honey,honey does not smell bad so your hadiths are bullshit.

This is Baron self imploding  ;D

Soren wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 8:56am:

|dev|null wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 8:03pm: Soren wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 8:01pm: |dev|null wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 7:44pm: Gandalf, I think it's time you gave up on this lot.  They aren't going to reform.  They aren't interested in anything other than slamming Islam, Muslims and you and your compatriots. Their minds are closed and will forever remain closed.  ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D Which parts of Islam is your mind (if mind is the word I want in your case) open and receptive to, Tits? I don't have to have to like Islam Soren.  Well, then you are like me insofar as neither of us likes Islam.  But unlike you you, I am not afraid to say it and to also say why i don't like it.

Quoting the poetess again, old boy. I don't like it.

It has something to do with the beards, no?

Abu Dawud mentioned honey in relation to sex how are you going to spin that one Gandalf?

Still waiting for you to spin that one gandalf

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 9:26am:

I think it was a euphemism for sex.

Definitely.

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 9:26am:

I think it was a euphemism for sex.

The two ahadith are contradictory. One talks about a visit to Mary the coptic slave, the other talks about a visit to his wife Zaynab bint Jaysh. Scholars are unanimous in agreement that verse 66:1-5 refers to the latter account, and that the former is an unreliable narration.

I have given Baron the opportunity to provide a shred of scholarly evidence to demonstrate that any Islamic school or scholar agrees with his version. Usually Baron tries to support his prejudiced views with some supposedly reputable Islamic scholar - often the islamqa guy from Saudi Arabia (always with a little spiel about how qualified he is). Now, based on his last post he seems to be attempting to ridicule Islamic scholarship as somehow irrelevant.

Baron's double standards are on display for all to see.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 10:02am:

Can you cite that 5529 from quran.com I cannot see it or do you expect us to take your word for it?

You're a smacking genius Baron - quran.com doesn't contain the footnotes of Yusuf Ali. My book does.

But do you know what I just did right now? I googled "yusuf ali footnote 5529". Here is the very first hit:

http://www.al-islam.org/tahrif/yusufali/

you'll find footnote 5529 about 3/4 way down. (reccommend ctrl+f - "5529")

How pathetic can you get Baron. Feel free to keep embarrassing yourself, its hilarious.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 10:04am:

I have given Baron the opportunity to provide a shred of scholarly evidence to demonstrate that any Islamic school or scholar agrees with his version. Usually Baron tries to support his prejudiced views with some supposedly reputable Islamic scholar - often the islamqa guy from Saudi Arabia (always with a little spiel about how qualified he is). Now, based on his last post he seems to be attempting to ridicule Islamic scholarship as somehow irrelevant. Baron's double standards are on display for all to see.

Gandalf is avoiding the fact abudawud mentions honey in relation to sex,how are you going to spin Muhammad mentioning tasting her honey Gandalf?

What smells worse bee honey or her honey Gandalf?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 10:10am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 10:02am: Can you cite that 5529 from quran.com I cannot see it or do you expect us to take your word for it? You're a smacking genius Baron - quran.com doesn't contain the footnotes of Yusuf Ali. My book does. But do you know what I just did right now? I googled "yusuf ali footnote 5529". Here is the very first hit: http://www.al-islam.org/tahrif/yusufali/ you'll find footnote 5529 about 3/4 way down. (reccommend ctrl+f - "5529") How pathetic can you get Baron. Feel free to keep embarrassing yourself, its hilarious.

how convenient quran.com doesn't have this footnote eh Gandalf.
Why do translators have to put footnotes on translations is the translation insufficient despite allah saying he perfected islam in 5/3.
quran.com/5/3

Why would $Profit Mo stay away from his wives for 29 days and pork maria the Coptic slave during this time if it was about eating honey.
$Profit Mo stayed away from his wives for 29 days to punish them over whinging about his porking of maria.

You still haven't explained why abudawud refers to tasting her honey in relation to sex.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 10:10am:

Gandalf is avoiding the fact abudawud mentions honey in relation to sex

Goodnes Baron - how about thats not the faarking point?

The point is you were trying to argue that 66:1-5 refers to Muhammad wanting to bang a sex slave - remember?

Now you are trying to wriggle out of that.

Here's another question you can slime away from: which hadith does Abu Dawud mention - and only mention? (I'll give you a hint - its *NOT* the sex slave one). Do you think Abu Dawud agreed with absolutely everyone that the sex slave hadith was unreliable? Take your time Baron.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 10:19am:

how convenient quran.com doesn't have this footnote eh Gandalf. Why do translators have to put footnotes on translations is the translation insufficient despite allah saying he perfected islam in 2/85

Wait Baron - are you denying the footnote exists, or ridiculing Yusuf Ali for making the footnote? - make up your mind please.


Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 10:19am:

Why would $Profit Mo stay away from his wives for 29 days and pork maria the Coptic slave during this time if it was about eating honey. $Profit Mo stayed away from his wives for 29 days to punish them over whinging about his porking of maria

Just a guess, but maybe because you are conflating two completely different, and contradictory accounts. You do realise that the Bukhari hadith - you know the one that every Islamic scholar believes to be the context of 66:1-5 - is has nothing to do with any coptic sex slaves right Baron?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 10:20am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 10:10am: Gandalf is avoiding the fact abudawud mentions honey in relation to sex Goodnes Baron - how about thats not the faarking point? The point is you were trying to argue that 66:1-5 refers to Muhammad wanting to bang a sex slave - remember? Now you are trying to wriggle out of that. Here's another question you can slime away from: which hadith does Abu Dawud mention - and only mention? (I'll give you a hint - its *NOT* the sex slave one). Do you think Abu Dawud agreed with absolutely everyone that the sex slave hadith was unreliable? Take your time Baron.

abudawud mentioning honey in relation to sex is a point Gandalf,you are trying to wriggle out of that one everyone can see that.

66/1-5 is about banging his sex slave maria the copt,do you think the threats of divorce were over honey,is that a trivial thing to divorce all your wives and replace them with obedient virgins over honey?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 10:26am:

abudawud mentioning honey in relation to sex is a point Gandalf,you are trying to wriggle out of that one everyone can see that.

Its a point - and an irrelevant one.

But if this is you acknowledging that 66:1-5 does not refer to the coptic sex slave, then we're making progress. If you are now saying that the narration is a metaphor for some of The Prophet's wives being jealous of him having sex with another one of his wives (ie not a coptic sex slave) - then I'm fine with that.

Just so long as you are abandoning your BS about 66:1-5 referring to Muhammad wanting to have sex with a sex slave against the wishes of his wives. So are you abandoning that now Baron?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 10:26am:

6/1-5 is about banging his sex slave maria the copt,do you think the threats of divorce were over honey,is that a trivial thing to divorce all your wives and replace them with obedient virgins over honey?

Wait Baron, its obvious you don't even know the two stories.

Please confirm for me this so I know we're on the same page:

are you aware that the two stories refer to two different women - the Bukhari version refers to  Zanab bint Jahsh - his wife, while the Al-Nasa'i version refers to  Maria al-Qibtiyya - the coptic slave?

Thats a pretty critical point Baron.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 10:40am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 10:26am: abudawud mentioning honey in relation to sex is a point Gandalf,you are trying to wriggle out of that one everyone can see that. Its a point - and an irrelevant one. But if this is you acknowledging that 66:1-5 does not refer to the coptic sex slave, then we're making progress. If you are now saying that the narration is a metaphor for some of The Prophet's wives being jealous of him having sex with another one of his wives (ie not a coptic sex slave) - then I'm fine with that. Just so long as you are abandoning your BS about 66:1-5 referring to Muhammad wanting to have sex with a sex slave against the wishes of his wives. So are you abandoning that now Baron?

It is relevant that abudawud mentioned honey in regards to sex,i see you have tried to dodge that by claiming it's irrelevant.

66/1-5 is about Mo banging his Coptic Christian sex slave, here is an Islamic source that confirms I am right.

Quote:

O Prophet! Why did you prohibit what god has made lawful for you,in terms of your Coptic handmaiden maria... altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?MadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=66&tAyahNo=2&tDisplay=yes&UserPofile=0&LanguageId=2

For some reason the page isn't linking,try this click on tafsirs and go to sura 66 verse 1-5
altafsir.com

That 100% Islamic link says 66/1-5 is about Mo banging his Coptic slave maria I will go with that.

Anyone who clicks on the altafsir link I provided can see they say sura 66 verses 1 to 5 are about Maria the Coptic Christian sex slave Muhammad had.

If you try sura 33 verse 21 does it say to emulate Muhammad in combat,is that what the pious muslims are doing in the Islamic state in taking women as captives.

Gandalf claims he is right,i reckon my sh1t is Akbar,perhaps we need a vote on this.

Baron do you know anything about this particular tafsir? Do even know what a tafsir is?

Do you know how many different tafsirat there are? Have you considered that there are many other tafsirat that disagrees with this tafsir on this particular matter?

What about the opinion of the guy who found and recorded that hadith - does that count?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 10:46am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 10:26am: 6/1-5 is about banging his sex slave maria the copt,do you think the threats of divorce were over honey,is that a trivial thing to divorce all your wives and replace them with obedient virgins over honey? Wait Baron, its obvious you don't even know the two stories. Please confirm for me this so I know we're on the same page: are you aware that the two stories refer to two different women - the Bukhari version refers to  Zanab bint Jahsh - his wife, while the Al-Nasa'i version refers to  Maria al-Qibtiyya - the coptic slave? Thats a pretty critical point Baron.

You keep citing learned Islamic scholars who insist it was not about Maria.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 10:04am:

freediver wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 9:26am: I think it was a euphemism for sex. The two ahadith are contradictory. One talks about a visit to Mary the coptic slave, the other talks about a visit to his wife Zaynab bint Jaysh. Scholars are unanimous in agreement that verse 66:1-5 refers to the latter account, and that the former is an unreliable narration. I have given Baron the opportunity to provide a shred of scholarly evidence to demonstrate that any Islamic school or scholar agrees with his version. Usually Baron tries to support his prejudiced views with some supposedly reputable Islamic scholar - often the islamqa guy from Saudi Arabia (always with a little spiel about how qualified he is). Now, based on his last post he seems to be attempting to ridicule Islamic scholarship as somehow irrelevant. Baron's double standards are on display for all to see.

I think it was a euphemism for sex.


Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 10:19am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 10:10am: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 10:02am: Can you cite that 5529 from quran.com I cannot see it or do you expect us to take your word for it? You're a smacking genius Baron - quran.com doesn't contain the footnotes of Yusuf Ali. My book does. But do you know what I just did right now? I googled "yusuf ali footnote 5529". Here is the very first hit: http://www.al-islam.org/tahrif/yusufali/ you'll find footnote 5529 about 3/4 way down. (reccommend ctrl+f - "5529") How pathetic can you get Baron. Feel free to keep embarrassing yourself, its hilarious. how convenient quran.com doesn't have this footnote eh Gandalf. Why do translators have to put footnotes on translations is the translation insufficient despite allah saying he perfected islam in 5/3. quran.com/5/3 Why would $Profit Mo stay away from his wives for 29 days and pork maria the Coptic slave during this time if it was about eating honey. $Profit Mo stayed away from his wives for 29 days to punish them over whinging about his porking of maria. You still haven't explained why abudawud refers to tasting her honey in relation to sex.

He didn't pork her. It is haram to pork sex slaves. He honeyed her.


Quote:

Here's another question you can slime away from

Don't let him do that Gandalf. I know how you feel about not answering questions.

FD if you can't keep up, best stay out of it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 6:39pm:

Baron do you know anything about this particular tafsir? Do even know what a tafsir is? Do you know how many different tafsirat there are? Have you considered that there are many other tafsirat that disagrees with this tafsir on this particular matter? What about the opinion of the guy who found and recorded that hadith - does that count?

Yes that's why I used altafsir.com,they have a nice reference from Al Azhar University.
When you click on The Tafsirs put in sura 66 verses 1-5 what does it say, if you change schools to sunni/sufi/salafi do they change what it says?
They are the oldest and most used tafsir website on the internet it says so on the bottom of that page.

Getting back to honey even Bukhari can't make up his mind on whether Mo enjoyed the honeypot with Zainab or Hafsa,or did he enjoy the honeypot with both of them.
There are only 12 verses half of them say Mo enjoyed the honeypot at Zainabs house the other half say he enjoyed the honeypot at Hafsa's house.
Is that a serious contradiction can Bukhari make up his mind or did Mo enjoy the honeypot at both their houses?
sunnah.com/search/?q=maghafir

So we have Mo erring once or is it twice over banning honey,according to Bukhari he enjoyed the honeypot at both Zainab and Hafsa's houses.
Then Mo erred again in trying to ban sex slaves.

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 8:40pm:

He didn't pork her. It is haram to pork sex slaves. He honeyed her. Quote: Here's another question you can slime away from Don't let him do that Gandalf. I know how you feel about not answering questions.

Abu Dawud did mention tasting her honey,perhaps Zainab/Hafsa glazed his pork sword with her honey and that was the smell the wives complained about.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 10:25pm:

Yes that's why I used altafsir.com,they have a nice reference from Al Azhar University. When you click on The Tafsirs put in sura 66 verses 1-5 what does it say, if you change schools to sunni/sufi/salafi do they change what it says? They are the oldest and most used tafsir website on the internet it says so on the bottom of that page.

Its one tafsir - out of probably hundreds. It was completed in the 15th century. I wonder how many other tafsir's you had to sift through before you finally found one that gives your version. How about we look at tafsir's that are actually considered the most classic and reliable - like ibn kathir.


Quote:

http://www.islamwb.com/tafsir-ibn-kathir-pdf

Do you think the opinion regarding its authenticity of the scholar who recorded the hadith counts?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 8^th, 2015 at 8:40am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 10:25pm: Yes that's why I used altafsir.com,they have a nice reference from Al Azhar University. When you click on The Tafsirs put in sura 66 verses 1-5 what does it say, if you change schools to sunni/sufi/salafi do they change what it says? They are the oldest and most used tafsir website on the internet it says so on the bottom of that page. Its one tafsir - out of probably hundreds. It was completed in the 15th century. I wonder how many other tafsir's you had to sift through before you finally found one that gives your version. How about we look at tafsir's that are actually considered the most classic and reliable - like ibn kathir. Quote: http://www.islamwb.com/tafsir-ibn-kathir-pdf Do you think the opinion regarding its authenticity of the scholar who recorded the hadith counts?

All the tafsirs at altafsir.com mention Maria the copt for 66/1-5,click on the other schools.

Allah said he perfected Islam is 5/3, for some reason muslims never agree on anything from the Niqab to Islamic terror, so much for the absurd claim allah made with Islam being perfected, the amusing part is they disagree with others on books written hundreds of years after the quran,books which have no claims to be sent by allah.
quran.com/5/3

So what page in the Nasai book is this allegation?

You have dodged the question on why Bukhari said the honey incident happened at Zainab's and Hafsa's house, can Bukhari make his mind up on which wives house Mo enjoyed the honeypot or did it happen at both houses on separate days?

freediver wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 8:40pm:

Quote: Here's another question you can slime away from Don't let him do that Gandalf. I know how you feel about not answering questions.

How do you feel about not answering questions, FD?

Oh. You won't answer. Sorry about that.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 8^th, 2015 at 12:46pm:

All the tafsirs at altafsir.com mention Maria the copt for 66/1-5,click on the other schools.

They are not "schools" Baron. They are tafsirs.

The only other tafsir in altasfir.com is Asbab Al Nuzul which mentions 3 sources - 2 of which are the honey story, one is the sex slave story. The last one (honey story) which is cited as the context of 66:1-5 on authority of Ibn Abbas (a companion of The Prophet) Read it again - there are 3 pages by the way.

Selective much Baron?

Sorry but thats just another fail.

I agree with Gandalf that the correct translation is honey, which is a euphemism for sex.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 8^th, 2015 at 6:59pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 12:46pm: All the tafsirs at altafsir.com mention Maria the copt for 66/1-5,click on the other schools. They are not "schools" Baron. They are tafsirs. The only other tafsir in altasfir.com is Asbab Al Nuzul which mentions 3 sources - 2 of which are the honey story, one is the sex slave story. The last one (honey story) which is cited as the context of 66:1-5 on authority of Ibn Abbas (a companion of The Prophet) Read it again - there are 3 pages by the way. Selective much Baron? Sorry but thats just another fail.

You are the one being selective Gandalf,Bukhari covers the honey incident which he contradicts himself on whether it happened at zainab's house or hafsa's house.
which house did it happen in Gandalf was it zainabs or hafsa's or did the same incident happen twice with different wives?

altafsir.com,click on the tafsirs then what does it say for sura 66 verses 1-5?

Can you cite a single reputable scholar that says muslim men having sex with their slaves is haram?

If honey is halal according to your version of 66/1 then why do Capilano Honey pay for halal certification in Australia?

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 12:45pm:

I agree with Gandalf that the correct translation is honey, which is a euphemism for sex.

Abu Dawud agrees with you FD.


Quote:

The $Profit replied- She is not lawful for the first husband until she tastes the honey of the other husband and he tastes her honey. sunnah.com/abudawud/13/135

That is a sahih hadith,watch the mental gymnastics in spinning that one.

No other verses mention honey smelling bad
sunnah.com/search/?q=honey

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 12:45pm:

I agree with Gandalf that the correct translation is honey, which is a euphemism for sex.

FD the argument is over whether the story is about a coptic sex slave or his wife - not whether its about honey or sex. As I said, if you can't keep up with the debate, best to stay out.


Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 1:06pm:

You are the one being selective Gandalf

Thats interesting Baron - from someone who until now had been claiming that altasfir.com only mentions the coptic slave version (which it doesn't). Did you genuinely not notice it - or did you pretend it wasn't there?

In fact your whole problem here is with selectivity. You won't even acknowledge that most scholars agree that 66:1-5 refers to the honey hadith, not the coptic sex slave hadith - a hadith that had been dismissed as an unreliable narration by the very scholar who found and recorded it. You had to pretend all of that didn't exist and you searched desperately until you thought you finally found a source that lists the sex slave hadith as the only possible context. And yet even that you got wrong - because you either ignored or failed to notice the fact that altafsir offers 4 possible versions - 2 for the sex slave story and 2 for the honey story.

Quote:

FD the argument is over whether the story is about a coptic sex slave or his wife

Was she his only sex slave?

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 7:19pm:

Quote: FD the argument is over whether the story is about a coptic sex slave or his wife Was she his only sex slave?

Mohammed was the best of men.

Ask gandalf,      ...moslems know.

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 7:19pm:

Quote: FD the argument is over whether the story is about a coptic sex slave or his wife Was she his only sex slave?

Muhammad had no sex slaves. I've already pointed out that the hadith is not sound - according to the very scholar who researched and recorded it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 8^th, 2015 at 6:59pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 12:46pm: All the tafsirs at altafsir.com mention Maria the copt for 66/1-5,click on the other schools. They are not "schools" Baron. They are tafsirs. The only other tafsir in altasfir.com is Asbab Al Nuzul which mentions 3 sources - 2 of which are the honey story, one is the sex slave story. The last one (honey story) which is cited as the context of 66:1-5 on authority of Ibn Abbas (a companion of The Prophet) Read it again - there are 3 pages by the way. Selective much Baron? Sorry but thats just another fail.

A semi-literate warlord and trader claims to have received God's final revelation for humanity - but his revelation is so contradictory and incoherent that even the simplest element of it is not open to the intelligence of an average man - they all require 'scholars' to twist and torture each word, each contradiction until there is so much conflicting and parallel interpretation that anyone and everyone who hazards an unaided interpretation is shouted down for getting it COMPLETELY wrong, having cited the wrong authority.  There is no way to rank the authorities, of course, so the arguments and refutations go on for ever.

It is a parody of rationality, a joke. The Koran is a farce of low-brow nonsense. It is utterly incoherent.

It is certainly not divinely inspired - unless the deity is a malvolent idiot.

And as always you miss the point S - deliberately.

Tell me, why are you such a tireless apologist for blatant dishonesty? Is it that you sincerely believe that the ends (telling porky pies) justifies the means (smearing Islam)?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 7:19pm: Quote: FD the argument is over whether the story is about a coptic sex slave or his wife Was she his only sex slave? Muhammad had no sex slaves. I've already pointed out that the hadith is not sound - according to the very scholar who researched and recorded it.

So what is the argument abut again? I am having trouble keeping up.

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 9:30pm:

I am having trouble keeping up.

Correct. About the only thing you have been right about in this thread.

Is Baron wrong for translating it as sex, when it actually translates as honey, which is a euphemism for sex, or is he wrong for saying it is a reference to one of Muhammed's sex slaves, because they did not actually exist?

FD my arguments are laid out painfully clear for all to see. And I couldn't have been more clear on the point you ask about.

Like I said, if you can't keep up, best stay out of it and stop wasting my time.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 7:19pm: Quote: FD the argument is over whether the story is about a coptic sex slave or his wife Was she his only sex slave? Muhammad had no sex slaves. I've already pointed out that the hadith is not sound - according to the very scholar who researched and recorded it.

You have pointed nothing out and lied about Mo having sex slaves,did he capture Rayhanna from the banu qurayza?

If you think you are right you should contact sunnah.com and tell them they are wrong in grading that hadith as a sahih hadith and present your so called evidence and get them to change it
It says $Profit Mo was banging his Coptic Christian sex slave against the wishes of his wives.
sunnah.com/nasai/36/21
Do you think anyone will believe your lies or will they see sunnah.com graded that as a sahih hadith?

I reckon it will be similar to this where you had nine pages of bullshit before you realised you were wrong, you even had to go to ummah.com for advice and they did not back up your bullshit,why was your account disabled Gandalf?
ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1384840429/124#124

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 10^th, 2015 at 1:14pm:

You have pointed nothing out

I pointed out that the coptic sex slave hadith you claim is about 66:1-5 is rated as unreliable by the very scholar who found and recorded it. You may have missed that - I've only mentioned it about 10 times now.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10^th, 2015 at 2:29pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 1:14pm: You have pointed nothing out I pointed out that the coptic sex slave hadith you claim is about 66:1-5 is rated as unreliable by the very scholar who found and recorded it. You may have missed that - I've only mentioned it about 10 times now.

You should go to sunnah.com and tell them, they say it's a sahih hadith.

ah a website says it is -therefore it is.

Speaking of websites - have you manged to find those two tafsirs on altafsir.com that cite the honey hadith as the context for 66:1-5 yet? Or are you still pretending it only mentions the coptic christian one? How would you describe that sort of evasiveness Baron? Dishonest?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 9^th, 2015 at 9:17pm:

And as always you miss the point S - deliberately. Tell me, why are you such a tireless apologist for blatant dishonesty? Is it that you sincerely believe that the ends (telling porky pies) justifies the means (smearing Islam)?

Gandy,

None of these discussions are about honey or sex slaves - these are just the angles of the much more important question - was Mohammed a good man or a bad man.
Are his 'revelations' believable or are they nonsense.

Soren wrote on Jul 10^th, 2015 at 6:04pm:

Gandy, None of these discussions are about honey or sex slaves - these are just the angles of the much more important question - was Mohammed a good man or a bad man. Are his 'revelations' believable or are they nonsense.

If only.

All of you think Muhammad was evil incarnate, and that his revelation is nonsense - especially Baron. If it was just left at that then there would be no issue. But this is just yet another chapter in the long book of "tell the muslim what he believes". Baron's entire raisen d'etre here is to prove that muslims are compelled by the very tenets of Islam to be murderous bastards; and therefore the only true and honest muslims are the murderous bastards, and the rest of us are false muslims. Thats what I object to - to be continually labelled a liar and arrogantly throwing my efforts to stand up for a peaceful and tolerant Islam back in my face. Especially when it is based on blatant lies - as it is here.

Humour me S - go back through Baron's posts and even in a debate about what you clearly dismiss as complete nonsense - you couldn't possibly fail to notice the logical fallacies and downright absurdities he resorts to to prop up a completely untenable position. And when you appreciate the blatant dishonesty of his argument, you'll understand how I find it a bit rich when you jump in and assert that the discussion is not even about those dishonest arguments! Of course its about the dishonesty - and every time you and other slightly more sane people implicitly apologise for such dishonesty, we lose the opportunity for an honest and rational discussion.

Your argument here is just another version of your 'the ends (smearing Islam) justifies the means (telling porky pies).

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10^th, 2015 at 6:48pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:04pm: Gandy, None of these discussions are about honey or sex slaves - these are just the angles of the much more important question - was Mohammed a good man or a bad man. Are his 'revelations' believable or are they nonsense. If only. All of you think Muhammad was evil incarnate, and that his revelation is nonsense - especially Baron. If it was just left at that then there would be no issue. But this is just yet another chapter in the long book of "tell the muslim what he believes". Baron's entire raisen d'etre here is to prove that muslims are compelled by the very tenets of Islam to be murderous bastards; and therefore the only true and honest muslims are the murderous bastards, and the rest of us are false muslims. Thats what I object to - to be continually labelled a liar and arrogantly throwing my efforts to stand up for a peaceful and tolerant Islam back in my face. Especially when it is based on blatant lies - as it is here. Humour me S - go back through Baron's posts and even in a debate about what you clearly dismiss as complete nonsense - you couldn't possibly fail to notice the logical fallacies and downright absurdities he resorts to to prop up a completely untenable position. And when you appreciate the blatant dishonesty of his argument, you'll understand how I find it a bit rich when you jump in and assert that the discussion is not even about those dishonest arguments! Of course its about the dishonesty - and every time you and other slightly more sane people implicitly apologise for such dishonesty, we lose the opportunity for an honest and rational discussion. Your argument here is just another version of your 'the ends (smearing Islam) justifies the means (telling porky pies).

Gandy, I think anyone who takes Islam seriously is an enemy of Western liberal democracy, an enemy of the Enlightenment, an enemy of Western art and literature, an enemy of the Greeco-Roman-Judeo--Christian-secularist line of of thinking that puts the individual rather than the tribe, the ummah to the centre of its philosphical, political and theological efforts.

Islam is the enemy of these individual-centred traditions.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10^th, 2015 at 6:48pm:

[quote author=soren2 link=1436050101/104#104 date=1436515462] All of you think Muhammad was evil incarnate, and that his revelation is nonsense - especially Baron. If it was just left at that then there would be no issue. But this is just yet another chapter in the long book of "tell the muslim what he believes". Baron's entire raisen d'etre here is to prove that muslims are compelled by the very tenets of Islam to be murderous bastards; and therefore the only true and honest muslims are the murderous bastards, and the rest of us are false muslims. Thats what I object to - to be continually labelled a liar and arrogantly throwing my efforts to stand up for a peaceful and tolerant Islam back in my face. Especially when it is based on blatant lies - as it is here. Humour me S - go back through Baron's posts and even in a debate about what you clearly dismiss as complete nonsense - you couldn't possibly fail to notice the logical fallacies and downright absurdities he resorts to to prop up a completely untenable position. And when you appreciate the blatant dishonesty of his argument, you'll understand how I find it a bit rich when you jump in and assert that the discussion is not even about those dishonest arguments! Of course its about the dishonesty - and every time you and other slightly more sane people implicitly apologise for such dishonesty, we lose the opportunity for an honest and rational discussion. Your argument here is just another version of your 'the ends (smearing Islam) justifies the means (telling porky pies).

Can you cite where I have actually said any of what you claim Gandalf?

I see you as being ignorant of your religion, the fact you had to go to ummah.com for help with a mistranslation you tried to pass off as evidence showed your ignorance.

Soren wrote on Jul 10^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

Gandy, I think anyone who takes Islam seriously is an enemy of Western liberal democracy, an enemy of the Enlightenment, an enemy of Western art and literature, an enemy of the Greeco-Roman-Judeo--Christian-secularist line of of thinking that puts the individual rather than the tribe, the ummah to the centre of its philosphical, political and theological efforts.

Again not the point - do I have to explain it all over again? Come on S - you're smarter than that.


Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 10^th, 2015 at 7:33pm:

Can you cite where I have actually said any of what you claim Gandalf?

Sure - citing altafsir.com as if the only tafsir they mention is the one you prefer - when in fact it mentions both. Thats a good start on your dishonesty wouldn't you say?

Soren wrote on Jul 10^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:48pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:04pm: Gandy, None of these discussions are about honey or sex slaves - these are just the angles of the much more important question - was Mohammed a good man or a bad man. Are his 'revelations' believable or are they nonsense. If only. All of you think Muhammad was evil incarnate, and that his revelation is nonsense - especially Baron. If it was just left at that then there would be no issue. But this is just yet another chapter in the long book of "tell the muslim what he believes". Baron's entire raisen d'etre here is to prove that muslims are compelled by the very tenets of Islam to be murderous bastards; and therefore the only true and honest muslims are the murderous bastards, and the rest of us are false muslims. Thats what I object to - to be continually labelled a liar and arrogantly throwing my efforts to stand up for a peaceful and tolerant Islam back in my face. Especially when it is based on blatant lies - as it is here. Humour me S - go back through Baron's posts and even in a debate about what you clearly dismiss as complete nonsense - you couldn't possibly fail to notice the logical fallacies and downright absurdities he resorts to to prop up a completely untenable position. And when you appreciate the blatant dishonesty of his argument, you'll understand how I find it a bit rich when you jump in and assert that the discussion is not even about those dishonest arguments! Of course its about the dishonesty - and every time you and other slightly more sane people implicitly apologise for such dishonesty, we lose the opportunity for an honest and rational discussion. Your argument here is just another version of your 'the ends (smearing Islam) justifies the means (telling porky pies). ...an enemy of Western liberal democracy, an enemy of the Enlightenment, an enemy of Western art and literature, an enemy of the Greeco-Roman-Judeo--Christian-secularist line of of thinking that puts the individual rather than the tribe...

Ee-gad, old chap, you’ve summed up your last ten years on this board.

Freud on Mans Soul, eh?

Good show.

Quote:

All of you think Muhammad was evil incarnate, and that his revelation is nonsense - especially Baron. If it was just left at that then there would be no issue.

Are you trying to kill the debate here Gandalf?


Quote:

Baron's entire raisen d'etre here is to prove that muslims are compelled by the very tenets of Islam to be murderous bastards; and therefore the only true and honest muslims are the murderous bastards, and the rest of us are false muslims.

The more polite term is 'reformer'.


Quote:

Humour me S - go back through Baron's posts and even in a debate about what you clearly dismiss as complete nonsense - you couldn't possibly fail to notice the logical fallacies and downright absurdities he resorts to to prop up a completely untenable position. And when you appreciate the blatant dishonesty of his argument, you'll understand how I find it a bit rich when you jump in and assert that the discussion is not even about those dishonest arguments! Of course its about the dishonesty - and every time you and other slightly more sane people implicitly apologise for such dishonesty, we lose the opportunity for an honest and rational discussion.

Actually Gandalf, you could not run away from the original topic fast enough.


Quote:

Sure - citing altafsir.com as if the only tafsir they mention is the one you prefer

Ah, I see now Baron has been saying things without actually saying them. Sneaky kafir. No wonder I was having trouble keeping up.


Quote:

Thats a good start on your dishonesty wouldn't you say?

So he is dishonest because he said something as if he was lying, without actually lying?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10^th, 2015 at 6:48pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:04pm: Gandy, None of these discussions are about honey or sex slaves - these are just the angles of the much more important question - was Mohammed a good man or a bad man. Are his 'revelations' believable or are they nonsense. If only. All of you think Muhammad was evil incarnate, and that his revelation is nonsense - especially Baron. If it was just left at that then there would be no issue. But this is just yet another chapter in the long book of "tell the muslim what he believes". Baron's entire raisen d'etre here is to prove that muslims are compelled by the very tenets of Islam to be murderous bastards; and therefore the only true and honest muslims are the murderous bastards, and the rest of us are false muslims. Thats what I object to - to be continually labelled a liar and arrogantly throwing my efforts to stand up for a peaceful and tolerant Islam back in my face. Especially when it is based on blatant lies - as it is here. Humour me S - go back through Baron's posts and even in a debate about what you clearly dismiss as complete nonsense - you couldn't possibly fail to notice the logical fallacies and downright absurdities he resorts to to prop up a completely untenable position. And when you appreciate the blatant dishonesty of his argument, you'll understand how I find it a bit rich when you jump in and assert that the discussion is not even about those dishonest arguments! Of course its about the dishonesty - and every time you and other slightly more sane people implicitly apologise for such dishonesty, we lose the opportunity for an honest and rational discussion. Your argument here is just another version of your 'the ends (smearing Islam) justifies the means (telling porky pies).

I have to make a confession here, G. I never would have become a Muslim.apologist if it wasn’t for all the knucklehead porkies. I’m not a Muslim. I’m not even remotely persuaded by Islam. I am, however, quite partial to the old boy’s stated values - the Enlightenment, Western liberalism, the rule of law, human rights, etc, etc, etc. I’m also a fan of that rather old-fashioned empiricist notion of reality. I don’t hold with the latest postmodern belief that porkies are the new truth.

This is where I depart from FD, Y, OB et al. They are quite happy to chirp away about huge porkie pies, but when you expose them, they’re always rather cranky. As a rather passe old modernist, I’d actually like to see the truth dished up, as uncomfortable as it may well be. Not only do FD, Y, OB et al love porkies about the Muselman, they hold it as a right to espouse them. FD calls this Freeeeedom, the old boy calls it intelligence and integrity. Y’s happy to quote a psalm or something out of Leviticus.

It’s for this very reason I became a devout Muslim appeaser. It has nothing to do with Islam itself, it’s all about the Western tradition. FD, Y, OB et al, you see, want this turned into a flag we fight behind - a flag that erodes the very foundation of the Western tradition itself. FD’ s happy to abandon the Western tradition simply to get the Muselman. For Y, it’s about Judgement Day and the impending end of the world.  For the old boy, it’s about keeping the tinted races at bay. You know, white man’s burden. They all want to end the most basic human rights overturned to get the Muselman. They all want the rule of law twisted to exclude the Muselman (and his apologists). They want facts and evidence overturned to present the very opposite of what things say and mean. They change your words around and play dumb. And on a grander scale, they do this with propaganda. The UK Daily Mail is a great source of this sort of misinformation, and they love it.

If I could get into.this, I’d probably be rallying against the Muselman too. Once, FD was in the exact same position as me. He decided to turn his back on Western values and go with the porkies. I can’t bring myself to.make this leap of faith.

I’ve tried too. Every time I get some evidence on how dastardly Islam is, different evidence is presented that puts it in perspective. This is what we, in the West, call telling two sides of a story. To go with the knuckleheads, I’d have to completely ignore the other side, and I’d have to make up porkues to explain my view. I’d have to call others Pakistani Bastards and c nts, I’d have to tell them to go to hell, and I’d have to chase them around twisting their words and demanding answers to ridiculous questions.

It all sounds too hard. If you ask me, being a Muslim apologist is much easier.

Karnal wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 12:45pm:

I’ve tried too. Every time I get some evidence on how dastardly Islam is, different evidence is presented that puts it in perspective. This is what we, in the West, call telling two sides of a story.

Indeed. FD calls it spineless apologism and S calls it nuffin to do wiv nuffin.

Good post.

Karnal wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 12:45pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:48pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:04pm: Gandy, None of these discussions are about honey or sex slaves - these are just the angles of the much more important question - was Mohammed a good man or a bad man. Are his 'revelations' believable or are they nonsense. If only. All of you think Muhammad was evil incarnate, and that his revelation is nonsense - especially Baron. If it was just left at that then there would be no issue. But this is just yet another chapter in the long book of "tell the muslim what he believes". Baron's entire raisen d'etre here is to prove that muslims are compelled by the very tenets of Islam to be murderous bastards; and therefore the only true and honest muslims are the murderous bastards, and the rest of us are false muslims. Thats what I object to - to be continually labelled a liar and arrogantly throwing my efforts to stand up for a peaceful and tolerant Islam back in my face. Especially when it is based on blatant lies - as it is here. Humour me S - go back through Baron's posts and even in a debate about what you clearly dismiss as complete nonsense - you couldn't possibly fail to notice the logical fallacies and downright absurdities he resorts to to prop up a completely untenable position. And when you appreciate the blatant dishonesty of his argument, you'll understand how I find it a bit rich when you jump in and assert that the discussion is not even about those dishonest arguments! Of course its about the dishonesty - and every time you and other slightly more sane people implicitly apologise for such dishonesty, we lose the opportunity for an honest and rational discussion. Your argument here is just another version of your 'the ends (smearing Islam) justifies the means (telling porky pies). I have to make a confession here, G. I never would have become a Muslim.apologist if it wasn’t for all the knucklehead porkies. I’m not a Muslim. I’m not even remotely persuaded by Islam. I am, however, quite partial to the old boy’s stated values - the Enlightenment, Western liberalism, the rule of law, human rights, etc, etc, etc. I’m also a fan of that rather old-fashioned empiricist notion of reality. I don’t hold with the latest postmodern belief that porkies are the new truth. This is where I depart from FD, Y, OB et al. They are quite happy to chirp away about huge porkie pies, but when you expose them, they’re always rather cranky. As a rather passe old modernist, I’d actually like to see the truth dished up, as uncomfortable as it may well be. Not only do FD, Y, OB et al love porkies about the Muselman, they hold it as a right to espouse them. FD calls this Freeeeedom, the old boy calls it intelligence and integrity. Y’s happy to quote a psalm or something out of Leviticus. It’s for this very reason I became a devout Muslim appeaser. It has nothing to do with Islam itself, it’s all about the Western tradition. FD, Y, OB et al, you see, want this turned into a flag we fight behind - a flag that erodes the very foundation of the Western tradition itself. FD’ s happy to abandon the Western tradition simply to get the Muselman. For Y, it’s about Judgement Day and the impending end of the world.  For the old boy, it’s about keeping the tinted races at bay. You know, white man’s burden. They all want to end the most basic human rights overturned to get the Muselman. They all want the rule of law twisted to exclude the Muselman (and his apologists). They want facts and evidence overturned to present the very opposite of what things say and mean. They change your words around and play dumb. And on a grander scale, they do this with propaganda. The UK Daily Mail is a great source of this sort of misinformation, and they love it. If I could get into.this, I’d probably be rallying against the Muselman too. Once, FD was in the exact same position as me. He decided to turn his back on Western values and go with the porkies. I can’t bring myself to.make this leap of faith. I’ve tried too. Every time I get some evidence on how dastardly Islam is, different evidence is presented that puts it in perspective. This is what we, in the West, call telling two sides of a story. To go with the knuckleheads, I’d have to completely ignore the other side, and I’d have to make up porkues to explain my view. I’d have to call others Pakistani Bastards and c nts, I’d have to tell them to go to hell, and I’d have to chase them around twisting their words and demanding answers to ridiculous questions. It all sounds too hard. If you ask me, being a Muslim apologist is much easier.

Well said, Karnal, well said.  What a shame that the Islamophobia so many hold here will forever close their minds to being reasonable about issues.   ::)

freediver wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 9:42am:

Ah, I see now Baron has been saying things without actually saying them. Sneaky kafir. No wonder I was having trouble keeping up.

No, his dishonesty is in what he leaves out. He cites tafsir.com because it cites the version he supports - conveniently ignoring the fact that it also cites the other version and  gives equal weight to both. Remember the bit about you not having a clue what is being discussed?

Quote:

No, his dishonesty is in what he leaves out.

Lying by omission? Sneaky kafir. He is leaving out his lies. No wonder I had trouble keeping up with them. They weren't even there. A bit like Muhammed's sex slaves really.

Is this different from "taking liberties" Gandalf?

How did Muhammed err?

I didn't say he lied FD. Making sh*t up about me again.

My bad. You have been saying things without actually saying them, haven't you Gandalf? He was "blatantly dishonest". By Omission. Which is completely different from "taking liberties," isn't is Gandalf?

How did Muhammed err? I hope you weren't making that bit up.

freediver wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 7:34pm:

He was "blatantly dishonest". By Omission.

Correct.

It is literally impossble to be as one eyed as he is without being dishonest.

taking liberties = being dishonest.


freediver wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 7:34pm:

How did Muhammed err?

I see you haven't got round to reading the thread yet. Never mind, no hurry.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 7:52pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 7:34pm: He was "blatantly dishonest". By Omission. Correct. It is literally impossble to be as one eyed as he is without being dishonest. taking liberties = being dishonest. freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 7:34pm: How did Muhammed err? I see you haven't got round to reading the thread yet. Never mind, no hurry.

You want to do FD slowly, G.

Moslem == a follower of Islam.

Karnal wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 12:45pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:48pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:04pm: Gandy, None of these discussions are about honey or sex slaves - these are just the angles of the much more important question - was Mohammed a good man or a bad man. Are his 'revelations' believable or are they nonsense. If only. All of you think Muhammad was evil incarnate, and that his revelation is nonsense - especially Baron. If it was just left at that then there would be no issue. But this is just yet another chapter in the long book of "tell the muslim what he believes". Baron's entire raisen d'etre here is to prove that muslims are compelled by the very tenets of Islam to be murderous bastards; and therefore the only true and honest muslims are the murderous bastards, and the rest of us are false muslims. Thats what I object to - to be continually labelled a liar and arrogantly throwing my efforts to stand up for a peaceful and tolerant Islam back in my face. Especially when it is based on blatant lies - as it is here. Humour me S - go back through Baron's posts and even in a debate about what you clearly dismiss as complete nonsense - you couldn't possibly fail to notice the logical fallacies and downright absurdities he resorts to to prop up a completely untenable position. And when you appreciate the blatant dishonesty of his argument, you'll understand how I find it a bit rich when you jump in and assert that the discussion is not even about those dishonest arguments! Of course its about the dishonesty - and every time you and other slightly more sane people implicitly apologise for such dishonesty, we lose the opportunity for an honest and rational discussion. Your argument here is just another version of your 'the ends (smearing Islam) justifies the means (telling porky pies). I have to make a confession here, G. I never would have become a Muslim.apologist if it wasn’t for all the knucklehead porkies. I’m not a Muslim. I’m not even remotely persuaded by Islam. I am, however, quite partial to the old boy’s stated values - the Enlightenment, Western liberalism, the rule of law, human rights, etc, etc, etc. I’m also a fan of that rather old-fashioned empiricist notion of reality.

There's the point, the rest is waffle.

Islam and the West look differently at the same reality. The difference is called civilisation, culture. And in this literate, free age, you CAN put civilisations and cultures side by side and make an assessment. And to go even further, you can make an assessment of the grounds on which you will decide between ideologies. People convert in and out of all sorts of convictions.

So what is at the heart of all such discussions is: what are the grounds on which we all stand, as humans, and decide on the merits of competing civilisations? Looking at the teachings of Islam and the Enlightenment, we have no shared ground, no shared and recognised authority that both Muslims and Western secularists accept as an arbiter in their disputes.  This is the basis of the incompatibility of Islam and the West.

So when Muslism act as if they were enlightened and reasonable, they come across as phoney because there is nothing in the rest of Islam that is enlightened or reasonable. Allah is an unfarthomable tyrant. Mohammed is a semi-literate, vindictive and self-serving pussy-hound demanding respect. And what he offers is attractive to a lot of other semi-literate, vindictive and self-serving pussy-hounds demanding submission and respect.

Quote:

It is literally impossble to be as one eyed as he is without being dishonest.

It is even trickier to do this without lying. Sneaky kafir eh?


Quote:

taking liberties = being dishonest.

You would never do this, would you Gandalf?


Quote:

I see you haven't got round to reading the thread yet. Never mind, no hurry.

Which thread Gandalf? How did Muhammed err?

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 8:45pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 12:45pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:48pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:04pm: Gandy, None of these discussions are about honey or sex slaves - these are just the angles of the much more important question - was Mohammed a good man or a bad man. Are his 'revelations' believable or are they nonsense. If only. All of you think Muhammad was evil incarnate, and that his revelation is nonsense - especially Baron. If it was just left at that then there would be no issue. But this is just yet another chapter in the long book of "tell the muslim what he believes". Baron's entire raisen d'etre here is to prove that muslims are compelled by the very tenets of Islam to be murderous bastards; and therefore the only true and honest muslims are the murderous bastards, and the rest of us are false muslims. Thats what I object to - to be continually labelled a liar and arrogantly throwing my efforts to stand up for a peaceful and tolerant Islam back in my face. Especially when it is based on blatant lies - as it is here. Humour me S - go back through Baron's posts and even in a debate about what you clearly dismiss as complete nonsense - you couldn't possibly fail to notice the logical fallacies and downright absurdities he resorts to to prop up a completely untenable position. And when you appreciate the blatant dishonesty of his argument, you'll understand how I find it a bit rich when you jump in and assert that the discussion is not even about those dishonest arguments! Of course its about the dishonesty - and every time you and other slightly more sane people implicitly apologise for such dishonesty, we lose the opportunity for an honest and rational discussion. Your argument here is just another version of your 'the ends (smearing Islam) justifies the means (telling porky pies). I have to make a confession here, G. I never would have become a Muslim.apologist if it wasn’t for all the knucklehead porkies. I’m not a Muslim. I’m not even remotely persuaded by Islam. I am, however, quite partial to the old boy’s stated values - the Enlightenment, Western liberalism, the rule of law, human rights, etc, etc, etc. I’m also a fan of that rather old-fashioned empiricist notion of reality. There's the point, the rest is waffle. Islam and the West look differently at the same reality. The difference is called civilisation, culture. And in this literate, free age, you CAN put civilisations and cultures side by side and make an assessment. And to go even further, you can make an assessment of the grounds on which you will decide between ideologies. People convert in and out of all sorts of convictions. So what is at the heart of all such discussions is: what are the grounds on which we all stand, as humans, and decide on the merits of competing civilisations?

The old boy thinks there are competing civilisations.

Jolly good, OB.

What's the civilisation that relies on porkie pies?

freediver wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 8:47pm:

You would never do this, would you Gandalf?

Strange, FD. I asked you that.

You wouldn't answer.

Google: taqiyya.

I guess FD would call that 'taking liberties'. Very different to being dishonest you know.

Would you "take liberties" with Islam itself Gandalf?

Karnal wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 9:23pm:

The old boy thinks there are competing civilisations. Jolly good, OB. What's the civilisation that relies on porkie pies?

Don't you? Look at history. Greece/Persia, Rome/Carthage, Rome/Germania, Rome/Gaul, Rome/Islam, West/Soviet, Catholics/Protestants, etc, etc.

Ideas matter, PB, you know it. Islam is an idea, some people submit to it, some reject it. The former are pissed off with the latter.

freediver wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 9:57pm:

Would you "take liberties" with Islam itself Gandalf?

To be honest I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase. Sounds pretty vague.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 11:57pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 9:57pm: Would you "take liberties" with Islam itself Gandalf? To be honest I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase. Sounds pretty vague.

Google: taqiyya.

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 9:59pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 9:23pm: The old boy thinks there are competing civilisations. Jolly good, OB. What's the civilisation that relies on porkie pies? Don't you? Look at history. Greece/Persia, Rome/Carthage, Rome/Germania, Rome/Gaul, Rome/Islam, West/Soviet, Catholics/Protestants, etc, etc.

Or Oceania/Eurasia. We are at war with Islam. We have always been at war with Islam. Porkies matter.

Always absolutely never ever.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 11:57pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 9:57pm: Would you "take liberties" with Islam itself Gandalf? To be honest I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase. Sounds pretty vague.

Not the sort of thing you would put an equals sign after?

Karnal wrote on Jul 12^th, 2015 at 2:18am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 11:57pm: freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 9:57pm: Would you "take liberties" with Islam itself Gandalf? To be honest I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase. Sounds pretty vague. Google: taqiyya.

Karnal,

I can help!!!!

Taqiyya - is referring to the moslem religious doctrine, of always engaging in the deceit of infidels [whenever moslems communicate with infidels] - IF THAT DECEIT WILL PROGRESS THE INTERESTS OF MOSLEMS AND ISLAM [AGAINST THOSE INFIDELS].

SEE!  .....it is an easy concept to grasp!


And the implication of what Taqiyya involves ?

I have some examples of how Taqiyya is practised, for you here ----------- >

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1436584284/1#1



Always glad to be of help.

:)

you referred to Baron's blatant cherry picking of the evidence in this particular case as "taking liberties". I call it dishonesty.

Now you are talking about something else - 'taking liberties with Islam' - which could mean absolutely anything without clarification. If you are saying I have been as dishonest as Baron, then I don't know what you refer to.

Quote:

you referred to Baron's blatant cherry picking of the evidence in this particular case as "taking liberties". I call it dishonesty.

There I go again, saying things without actually saying them.


Quote:

Now you are talking about something else - 'taking liberties with Islam' - which could mean absolutely anything without clarification. If you are saying I have been as dishonest as Baron, then I don't know what you refer to.

I wouldn't bother trying to compare levels of dishonesty. Do you think it is OK to take certain liberties in the way Islam is presented to people if it is for a good cause?

How did Muhammed err?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 8:18pm:

http://quranx.com/Tafsirs/66.1 Baron - do you have a single piece of scholarly evidence that refutes the above

Yes,this is the first one I came across
www.altafsir.com

Click on The Tafsirs then enter 66 for sura then verses 1-5.

What is Abu Dawud referring to with taste her honey in this verse,you have avoided this question for some reason?

Quote:

The $Profit Replied- She is not lawful for the first husband until she tastes the honey of the other husband and he tastes her honey sunnah.com/abudawud/13/135

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

Yes,this is the first one I came across www.altafsir.com Click on The Tafsirs then enter 66 for sura then verses 1-5.

Now click on the tafsir drop down menu and choose Asbab Al-Nuzul. It cites 3 out of 4 versions referring to the honey story. Including one in which Ibn Abbas (one of the companions) is quoted as saying this was the correct one for 66:1-5.

Its ok if you genuinely missed it the first time Baron - but now you know that altafsir.com mentions both - and it is in no way saying its definitely only one or the other as you inferred before. 

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

What is Abu Dawud referring to with taste her honey in this verse,you have avoided this question for some reason? Quote: The $Profit Replied- She is not lawful for the first husband until she tastes the honey of the other husband and he tastes her honey sunnah.com/abudawud/13/135

Why are you avoiding this question Gandalf,is it an inconvenient truth?

Actually I addressed it some posts back.

Remember when I said the argument over whether or not honey is a metaphor for sex is completely irrelevant? Please pay attention - you are not going to get any cheap shots about evasive muslims here I'm afraid.

Now speaking of evasion... how about the Asbab Al-Nuzul tafsir now - or Ibn Kathir I referenced earlier? Are you going to acknowledge the existence of those tafsirs - or are you going to keep pretending the verse is definitely 100% about the coptic slave? Would you call such a stance dishonest Baron?

Quote:

Please pay attention - you are not going to get any cheap shots about evasive muslims here I'm afraid.

I certainly hope not. How did Muhammed err?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 12^th, 2015 at 11:31am:

Actually I addressed it some posts back. Remember when I said the argument over whether or not honey is a metaphor for sex is completely irrelevant? Now speaking of evasion... how about the Asbab Al-Nuzul tafsir now -

You did not address you dismissed it as irrelevant because it contradicted your nonsense.
Do you think people reading abu dawud will see honey is a metaphor for sex?

altafsir.com Lists al Jalalayn as well as Ibn Abbas as being about Maria the copt,al wahidi mentions both.

You only have one out of 3 that mentions both incidents, the majority say it was about maria the copt and even your version mentions maria the copt.

You also avoided Bukharis contradiction on whether this happened at Zainab's house or Hafsa's house, which house did it occur in or was bukhari referring to 2 separate incidents?

I have always said muslims cannot agree on anything from the niqab to Islamic terror despite the fact the quran claims islam has been perfected.

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2015 at 11:44am:

I certainly hope not. How did Muhammed err?

By being human - good enough?


Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12^th, 2015 at 11:48am:

ou did not address you dismissed it as irrelevant because it contradicted your nonsense. Do you think people reading abu dawud will see honey is a metaphor for sex?

I addressed it by saying its irrelevant. Not addressing it would be not saying anything. But happy to go with the honey=sex metaphor, it makes not one iota of difference to my point. The issue is not about honey vs sex, the issue is about Hafsah Muhammad's wife vs Mary the sex slave.


Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12^th, 2015 at 11:48am:

You only have one out of 3 that mentions both incidents, the majority say it was about maria the copt and even your version mentions maria the copt.

No, Al Wahidi gives three separate narrations supporting the honey story - one for the coptic slave story.


Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12^th, 2015 at 11:48am:

You also avoided Bukharis contradiction on whether this happened at Zainab's house or Hafsa's house, which house did it occur in or was bukhari referring to 2 separate incidents?

Ah. So tell me Baron - is your argument that 66:1-5 is definitely 100% about Mary the Coptic sex slave based on what altafsir and other "reputable" muslims say - or is it that there is actually a great deal of disagreement? Its about time you adopted a coherent position Baron. Asking a lot though I know.

Now now, G, you and I both know that’s not the right answer.

FD wants you to say that Muhammed was a paedophile killer who tortured thatJew for his gold.and killed 600 prisoners in a day.

Tell FD that, and he’ll never ask you another question again.

Quote:

By being human - good enough?

That was a mistake? What should he have been? A goat?


Quote:

The issue is not about honey vs sex, the issue is about Hafsah Muhammad's wife vs Mary the sex slave.

Was this a real or an imaginary sex slave?

Questions questions. Food for thought, eh?

whats most funny is you got a atheist trying to interpret islam.

What do you think Wally? Did Muhammed err?

wally1 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2015 at 4:44pm:

whats most funny is you got a atheist trying to interpret islam.

You don’t think that’s possible?

Apparently you can't interpret Islam unless you speak God's language.

Arabic.

wally1 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2015 at 4:44pm:

whats most funny is you got a atheist trying to interpret islam.

PMSL at muslims who need ahadith which were written a couple of hundred years after the quran to interpret what should be a simple book.

Does your imaginary friend in the sky allah mention books by abu dawud or bukhari in the quran?

I like this verse-
quran.com/4/82

Is Alcohol allowed or do I have to read some book other than the quran to decide if it's haram
quran.com/16/67

I reckon you need an IQ of less than 80 to be a muslim.

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:

Apparently you can't interpret Islam unless you speak God's language. Arabic.

Is gods language arabic?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 12^th, 2015 at 8:44pm:

wally1 wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 4:44pm: whats most funny is you got a atheist trying to interpret islam. PMSL at muslims who need ahadith which were written a couple of hundred years after the quran to interpret what should be a simple book. Does your imaginary friend in the sky allah mention books by abu dawud or bukhari in the quran? I like this verse- quran.com/4/82 Is Alcohol allowed or do I have to read some book other than the quran to decide if it's haram quran.com/16/67 I reckon you need an IQ of less than 80 to be a muslim.

See i was right about a atheist who doesnt beleive in a creator trying to interpret islamic sciences.

Mohamed was taught the Koran and the sunna. They are interlinked.

Didnt islamqa teach you that?

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2015 at 2:40pm:

Quote: By being human - good enough? That was a mistake? What should he have been? A goat?

You would probably find that goats make some mistakes too...

So, tell me, don't you think humans err?

Oh and still seeking an answer on the "common denominator", I couldn't help but notice FD in your immense confusion you completely failed to come up with a simple one word answer...

It's not really that confusing for you is it?

So, FD, what is the common denominator do you think?

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:

Apparently you can't interpret Islam unless you speak God's language. Arabic.

That is correct FD.



According to the English language translation of the Hadith, Mohammed declared that everything belongs to Allah and his slaves [the moslems], the whole earth!


"While we were in the mosque, Allah's Apostle came out to us and said, "Let us proceed to the Jews."....The Prophet stood up and addressed them, "O Assembly of Jews! Embrace Islam and you will be safe!" The Jews replied, "O Aba-l-Qasim! You have conveyed Allah's message to us." The Prophet said, "That is what I want (from you)." He repeated his first statement for the second time, and they said, "You have conveyed Allah's message, O Aba-l-Qasim." Then he said it for the third time and added, "You should Know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to exile you from this land, so whoever among you owns some property, can sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #009.085.077
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.053.392


n.b.
"the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle"

That Hadith verse sounds a little ominous, doesn't it!



But i have been reliably informed by an Arabic speaker,     that what hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #009.085.077  actually says is;

"While we were in the mosque, Allah's Apostle came out to us and said, "I must proceed to the market."....The Prophet stood up and explained that he needed to buy some Zucinnis for his evening meal. So Allah's Apostle proceeded to the market and bought five Zucinnis from a Jew in the market. And then went home."

See!

See!

There is absolutely nothing at all malicious or threatening, to be found within ISLAM's foundation religious texts,      if you infidels would just read those religious texts in the original Arabic!



.



YT tutorials about the real Mohammed, and his beliefs and his values....
[an assessment of ISLAM, Mohammed, etc,     spoken in English, by an Arabic speaker]


41 Muhammad the Sinful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmlqXGqizN0

53 Allah & his Aposle Know Best
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm4BZowsOEw

67 Dilemma of Muhammadan Muslims
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZISKPBtMP4

161 Muhammad & Allah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYw-JeHTwvw

163 Muhammad the Humble
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5VsWJSKwjo

190 Muhammad's Characteristics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BViKF5N27P4


If you have the time, these tutorials are well worth the listen.

http://www.al-rassooli.com/blog/

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 13^th, 2015 at 9:45am:

Oh and still seeking an answer on the "common denominator", I couldn't help but notice FD in your immense confusion you completely failed to come up with a simple one word answer... It's not really that confusing for you is it? So, FD, what is the common denominator do you think?

FD doesn't answer questions, Phemanderac. He asks them.

Sometimes a question is just a question, you see.

Yadda wrote on Jul 13^th, 2015 at 10:25am:

freediver wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Apparently you can't interpret Islam unless you speak God's language. Arabic. That is correct FD. According to the English language translation of the Hadith, Mohammed declared that everything belongs to Allah and his slaves [the moslems], the whole earth! "While we were in the mosque, Allah's Apostle came out to us and said, "Let us proceed to the Jews."....The Prophet stood up and addressed them, "O Assembly of Jews! Embrace Islam and you will be safe!" The Jews replied, "O Aba-l-Qasim! You have conveyed Allah's message to us." The Prophet said, "That is what I want (from you)." He repeated his first statement for the second time, and they said, "You have conveyed Allah's message, O Aba-l-Qasim." Then he said it for the third time and added, "You should Know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to exile you from this land, so whoever among you owns some property, can sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." " hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #009.085.077 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.053.392 n.b. "the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle" That Hadith verse sounds a little ominous, doesn't it! But i have been reliably informed by an Arabic speaker,     that what hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #009.085.077  actually says is; "While we were in the mosque, Allah's Apostle came out to us and said, "I must proceed to the market."....The Prophet stood up and explained that he needed to buy some Zucinnis for his evening meal. So Allah's Apostle proceeded to the market and bought five Zucinnis from a Jew in the market. And then went home." See! See! There is absolutely nothing at all malicious or threatening, to be found within ISLAM's foundation religious texts,      if you infidels would just read those religious texts in the original Arabic! . YT tutorials about the real Mohammed, and his beliefs and his values.... [an assessment of ISLAM, Mohammed, etc,     spoken in English, by an Arabic speaker] 41 Muhammad the Sinful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmlqXGqizN0 53 Allah & his Aposle Know Best https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm4BZowsOEw 67 Dilemma of Muhammadan Muslims https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZISKPBtMP4 161 Muhammad & Allah https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYw-JeHTwvw 163 Muhammad the Humble https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5VsWJSKwjo 190 Muhammad's Characteristics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BViKF5N27P4 If you have the time, these tutorials are well worth the listen. http://www.al-rassooli.com/blog/

So if God created the earth then what other entity owns it?

So God created the earth and therefore he owns it and runs it.

What on earth do they teach you at church

Phem, is the answer that every Australian currently raping and pillaging their way across the middle east just happens to be a Muslim?


wally1 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2015 at 9:35am:

freediver wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Apparently you can't interpret Islam unless you speak God's language. Arabic. Is gods language arabic?

Apparently. What do you think Wally? Did Muhammed err?

wally1 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2015 at 11:29am:

So if God created the earth then what other entity owns it? So God created the earth and therefore he owns it and runs it. What on earth do they teach you at church

Waleed - a Mohammedan at his full intellectual best.

'By his followers ye should judge him', no?

freediver wrote on Jul 13^th, 2015 at 6:59pm:

Phem, is the answer that every Australian currently raping and pillaging their way across the middle east just happens to be a Muslim? wally1 wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 9:35am: freediver wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Apparently you can't interpret Islam unless you speak God's language. Arabic. Is gods language arabic? Apparently. What do you think Wally? Did Muhammed err?

who am i to judge if a prophet erred?

Soren wrote on Jul 13^th, 2015 at 8:16pm:

wally1 wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 11:29am: So if God created the earth then what other entity owns it? So God created the earth and therefore he owns it and runs it. What on earth do they teach you at church Waleed - a Mohammedan at his full intellectual best. 'By his followers ye should judge him', no?

Im a intellectual?why thank you

wally1 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2015 at 9:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 6:59pm: Phem, is the answer that every Australian currently raping and pillaging their way across the middle east just happens to be a Muslim? wally1 wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 9:35am: freediver wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Apparently you can't interpret Islam unless you speak God's language. Arabic. Is gods language arabic? Apparently. What do you think Wally? Did Muhammed err? who am i to judge if a prophet erred?

Someone who thinks for himself?

Not Gandalf?

Wally?

All of the above?

freediver wrote on Jul 13^th, 2015 at 6:59pm:

Phem, is the answer that every Australian currently raping and pillaging their way across the middle east just happens to be a Muslim?

Nope, but good on you for acknowledging you have no idea.

I certainly hope that you realise though, once you work out the answer you will be far less confused and most likely less inclined to make excuses for people who do horrible things.

Karnal wrote on Jul 13^th, 2015 at 11:24am:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 9:45am: Oh and still seeking an answer on the "common denominator", I couldn't help but notice FD in your immense confusion you completely failed to come up with a simple one word answer... It's not really that confusing for you is it? So, FD, what is the common denominator do you think? FD doesn't answer questions, Phemanderac. He asks them. Sometimes a question is just a question, you see.

Indeed Karnal, perhaps this is because, as FD just demonstrated, he actually does't know the answers...

Sometimes a question is just a question and sometimes an answer is just elusive...

Karnal wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 12:45pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:48pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:04pm: Gandy, None of these discussions are about honey or sex slaves - these are just the angles of the much more important question - was Mohammed a good man or a bad man. Are his 'revelations' believable or are they nonsense. If only. All of you think Muhammad was evil incarnate, and that his revelation is nonsense - especially Baron. If it was just left at that then there would be no issue. But this is just yet another chapter in the long book of "tell the muslim what he believes". Baron's entire raisen d'etre here is to prove that muslims are compelled by the very tenets of Islam to be murderous bastards; and therefore the only true and honest muslims are the murderous bastards, and the rest of us are false muslims. Thats what I object to - to be continually labelled a liar and arrogantly throwing my efforts to stand up for a peaceful and tolerant Islam back in my face. Especially when it is based on blatant lies - as it is here. Humour me S - go back through Baron's posts and even in a debate about what you clearly dismiss as complete nonsense - you couldn't possibly fail to notice the logical fallacies and downright absurdities he resorts to to prop up a completely untenable position. And when you appreciate the blatant dishonesty of his argument, you'll understand how I find it a bit rich when you jump in and assert that the discussion is not even about those dishonest arguments! Of course its about the dishonesty - and every time you and other slightly more sane people implicitly apologise for such dishonesty, we lose the opportunity for an honest and rational discussion. Your argument here is just another version of your 'the ends (smearing Islam) justifies the means (telling porky pies). I have to make a confession here, G. I never would have become a Muslim.apologist if it wasn’t for all the knucklehead porkies. I’m not a Muslim. I’m not even remotely persuaded by Islam. I am, however, quite partial to the old boy’s stated values - the Enlightenment, Western liberalism, the rule of law, human rights, etc, etc, etc. I’m also a fan of that rather old-fashioned empiricist notion of reality. I don’t hold with the latest postmodern belief that porkies are the new truth. This is where I depart from FD, Y, OB et al. They are quite happy to chirp away about huge porkie pies, but when you expose them, they’re always rather cranky. As a rather passe old modernist, I’d actually like to see the truth dished up, as uncomfortable as it may well be. Not only do FD, Y, OB et al love porkies about the Muselman, they hold it as a right to espouse them. FD calls this Freeeeedom, the old boy calls it intelligence and integrity. Y’s happy to quote a psalm or something out of Leviticus. It’s for this very reason I became a devout Muslim appeaser. It has nothing to do with Islam itself, it’s all about the Western tradition. FD, Y, OB et al, you see, want this turned into a flag we fight behind - a flag that erodes the very foundation of the Western tradition itself. FD’ s happy to abandon the Western tradition simply to get the Muselman. For Y, it’s about Judgement Day and the impending end of the world.  For the old boy, it’s about keeping the tinted races at bay. You know, white man’s burden. They all want to end the most basic human rights overturned to get the Muselman. They all want the rule of law twisted to exclude the Muselman (and his apologists). They want facts and evidence overturned to present the very opposite of what things say and mean. They change your words around and play dumb. And on a grander scale, they do this with propaganda. The UK Daily Mail is a great source of this sort of misinformation, and they love it. If I could get into.this, I’d probably be rallying against the Muselman too. Once, FD was in the exact same position as me. He decided to turn his back on Western values and go with the porkies. I can’t bring myself to.make this leap of faith. I’ve tried too. Every time I get some evidence on how dastardly Islam is, different evidence is presented that puts it in perspective. This is what we, in the West, call telling two sides of a story. To go with the knuckleheads, I’d have to completely ignore the other side, and I’d have to make up porkues to explain my view. I’d have to call others Pakistani Bastards and c nts, I’d have to tell them to go to hell, and I’d have to chase them around twisting their words and demanding answers to ridiculous questions. It all sounds too hard. If you ask me, being a Muslim apologist is much easier.

Karnal would you react the same way if everyone suddenly started giving Nazis a hard time?

freediver wrote on Jul 15^th, 2015 at 9:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 12:45pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:48pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:04pm: Gandy, None of these discussions are about honey or sex slaves - these are just the angles of the much more important question - was Mohammed a good man or a bad man. Are his 'revelations' believable or are they nonsense. If only. All of you think Muhammad was evil incarnate, and that his revelation is nonsense - especially Baron. If it was just left at that then there would be no issue. But this is just yet another chapter in the long book of "tell the muslim what he believes". Baron's entire raisen d'etre here is to prove that muslims are compelled by the very tenets of Islam to be murderous bastards; and therefore the only true and honest muslims are the murderous bastards, and the rest of us are false muslims. Thats what I object to - to be continually labelled a liar and arrogantly throwing my efforts to stand up for a peaceful and tolerant Islam back in my face. Especially when it is based on blatant lies - as it is here. Humour me S - go back through Baron's posts and even in a debate about what you clearly dismiss as complete nonsense - you couldn't possibly fail to notice the logical fallacies and downright absurdities he resorts to to prop up a completely untenable position. And when you appreciate the blatant dishonesty of his argument, you'll understand how I find it a bit rich when you jump in and assert that the discussion is not even about those dishonest arguments! Of course its about the dishonesty - and every time you and other slightly more sane people implicitly apologise for such dishonesty, we lose the opportunity for an honest and rational discussion. Your argument here is just another version of your 'the ends (smearing Islam) justifies the means (telling porky pies). I have to make a confession here, G. I never would have become a Muslim.apologist if it wasn’t for all the knucklehead porkies. I’m not a Muslim. I’m not even remotely persuaded by Islam. I am, however, quite partial to the old boy’s stated values - the Enlightenment, Western liberalism, the rule of law, human rights, etc, etc, etc. I’m also a fan of that rather old-fashioned empiricist notion of reality. I don’t hold with the latest postmodern belief that porkies are the new truth. This is where I depart from FD, Y, OB et al. They are quite happy to chirp away about huge porkie pies, but when you expose them, they’re always rather cranky. As a rather passe old modernist, I’d actually like to see the truth dished up, as uncomfortable as it may well be. Not only do FD, Y, OB et al love porkies about the Muselman, they hold it as a right to espouse them. FD calls this Freeeeedom, the old boy calls it intelligence and integrity. Y’s happy to quote a psalm or something out of Leviticus. It’s for this very reason I became a devout Muslim appeaser. It has nothing to do with Islam itself, it’s all about the Western tradition. FD, Y, OB et al, you see, want this turned into a flag we fight behind - a flag that erodes the very foundation of the Western tradition itself. FD’ s happy to abandon the Western tradition simply to get the Muselman. For Y, it’s about Judgement Day and the impending end of the world.  For the old boy, it’s about keeping the tinted races at bay. You know, white man’s burden. They all want to end the most basic human rights overturned to get the Muselman. They all want the rule of law twisted to exclude the Muselman (and his apologists). They want facts and evidence overturned to present the very opposite of what things say and mean. They change your words around and play dumb. And on a grander scale, they do this with propaganda. The UK Daily Mail is a great source of this sort of misinformation, and they love it. If I could get into.this, I’d probably be rallying against the Muselman too. Once, FD was in the exact same position as me. He decided to turn his back on Western values and go with the porkies. I can’t bring myself to.make this leap of faith. I’ve tried too. Every time I get some evidence on how dastardly Islam is, different evidence is presented that puts it in perspective. This is what we, in the West, call telling two sides of a story. To go with the knuckleheads, I’d have to completely ignore the other side, and I’d have to make up porkues to explain my view. I’d have to call others Pakistani Bastards and c nts, I’d have to tell them to go to hell, and I’d have to chase them around twisting their words and demanding answers to ridiculous questions. It all sounds too hard. If you ask me, being a Muslim apologist is much easier. Karnal would you react the same way if everyone suddenly started giving Nazis a hard time?

No.

Nazis were white Europeans. PB likes tinted rough trade.

freediver wrote on Jul 15^th, 2015 at 9:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 12:45pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:48pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:04pm: Gandy, None of these discussions are about honey or sex slaves - these are just the angles of the much more important question - was Mohammed a good man or a bad man. Are his 'revelations' believable or are they nonsense. If only. All of you think Muhammad was evil incarnate, and that his revelation is nonsense - especially Baron. If it was just left at that then there would be no issue. But this is just yet another chapter in the long book of "tell the muslim what he believes". Baron's entire raisen d'etre here is to prove that muslims are compelled by the very tenets of Islam to be murderous bastards; and therefore the only true and honest muslims are the murderous bastards, and the rest of us are false muslims. Thats what I object to - to be continually labelled a liar and arrogantly throwing my efforts to stand up for a peaceful and tolerant Islam back in my face. Especially when it is based on blatant lies - as it is here. Humour me S - go back through Baron's posts and even in a debate about what you clearly dismiss as complete nonsense - you couldn't possibly fail to notice the logical fallacies and downright absurdities he resorts to to prop up a completely untenable position. And when you appreciate the blatant dishonesty of his argument, you'll understand how I find it a bit rich when you jump in and assert that the discussion is not even about those dishonest arguments! Of course its about the dishonesty - and every time you and other slightly more sane people implicitly apologise for such dishonesty, we lose the opportunity for an honest and rational discussion. Your argument here is just another version of your 'the ends (smearing Islam) justifies the means (telling porky pies). I have to make a confession here, G. I never would have become a Muslim.apologist if it wasn’t for all the knucklehead porkies. I’m not a Muslim. I’m not even remotely persuaded by Islam. I am, however, quite partial to the old boy’s stated values - the Enlightenment, Western liberalism, the rule of law, human rights, etc, etc, etc. I’m also a fan of that rather old-fashioned empiricist notion of reality. I don’t hold with the latest postmodern belief that porkies are the new truth. This is where I depart from FD, Y, OB et al. They are quite happy to chirp away about huge porkie pies, but when you expose them, they’re always rather cranky. As a rather passe old modernist, I’d actually like to see the truth dished up, as uncomfortable as it may well be. Not only do FD, Y, OB et al love porkies about the Muselman, they hold it as a right to espouse them. FD calls this Freeeeedom, the old boy calls it intelligence and integrity. Y’s happy to quote a psalm or something out of Leviticus. It’s for this very reason I became a devout Muslim appeaser. It has nothing to do with Islam itself, it’s all about the Western tradition. FD, Y, OB et al, you see, want this turned into a flag we fight behind - a flag that erodes the very foundation of the Western tradition itself. FD’ s happy to abandon the Western tradition simply to get the Muselman. For Y, it’s about Judgement Day and the impending end of the world.  For the old boy, it’s about keeping the tinted races at bay. You know, white man’s burden. They all want to end the most basic human rights overturned to get the Muselman. They all want the rule of law twisted to exclude the Muselman (and his apologists). They want facts and evidence overturned to present the very opposite of what things say and mean. They change your words around and play dumb. And on a grander scale, they do this with propaganda. The UK Daily Mail is a great source of this sort of misinformation, and they love it. If I could get into.this, I’d probably be rallying against the Muselman too. Once, FD was in the exact same position as me. He decided to turn his back on Western values and go with the porkies. I can’t bring myself to.make this leap of faith. I’ve tried too. Every time I get some evidence on how dastardly Islam is, different evidence is presented that puts it in perspective. This is what we, in the West, call telling two sides of a story. To go with the knuckleheads, I’d have to completely ignore the other side, and I’d have to make up porkues to explain my view. I’d have to call others Pakistani Bastards and c nts, I’d have to tell them to go to hell, and I’d have to chase them around twisting their words and demanding answers to ridiculous questions. It all sounds too hard. If you ask me, being a Muslim apologist is much easier. Karnal would you react the same way if everyone suddenly started giving Nazis a hard time?

When you start krapping on about Nazis, by all means.

The old boy’s already standing up for decent white people. He’s so camp that way. Soft cocks and hard cocks, innit.

And I, for one, would fight to the death for his right to be who he truly is under all that makeup.

Incredible - Karnal quite reasonably speaks out against telling lies, and FD's only retort is the trusted old "would you stand up for the nazis" defense.

Would you speak out against lies about the Nazis FD? You once grudgingly conceded that lies against muslims are not helpful - but you still seem oblivious to the link between telling  porkys about a group of people and prejudice and discrimination in our society.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 1:12pm:

Incredible - Karnal quite reasonably speaks out against telling lies, and FD's only retort is the trusted old "would you stand up for the nazis" defense.

Yes, but I think that was just a question.

FD's given up on responses of late. To be honest, I don't think he likes questions very much.

How many lies about Nazis would you have to stumble across before you became an equally dedicated apologist for Nazism?

Was this the first time you ever encountered lies in online forums Karnal?

freediver wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 8:50pm:

How many lies about Nazis would you have to stumble across before you became an equally dedicated apologist for Nazism? Was this the first time you ever encountered lies in online forums Karnal?

What lies would those be, FD?

Take your pick. How about Baron lying by failing to click on the dropdown box and choose the tafsir by Asbab Al-Nuzul? Or me quoting a post by Gandalf that was contradicted by one of his other posts?

If someone lied like that about Nazis, would you feel compelled to become an apologist for Nazism?

Are you saying karnal's an apologist for Islam FD?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 1:12pm:

Incredible - Karnal quite reasonably speaks out against telling lies, and FD's only retort is the trusted old "would you stand up for the nazis" defense. Would you speak out against lies about the Nazis FD?

Gandy, the only parallels to Muslim supremacist ideology in living memory are nazism and stalinism.

There were probably a few in Asia and Africa as well.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 8:26pm:

Are you saying karnal's an apologist for Islam FD?

PB is an apologist for whatever undermines the Western heritage.  You are a stooge for him, an ally only because you are an enemy of his enemy.
When the walls crumble, you will be at each other's throats. If he wins, he will be up you.
And that may or may not have pleasing Islamic traditions for those who like er...,  pleasing Islamic traditions...

freediver wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 8:09pm:

Take your pick. How about Baron lying by failing to click on the dropdown box and choose the tafsir by Asbab Al-Nuzul? Or me quoting a post by Gandalf that was contradicted by one of his other posts? If someone lied like that about Nazis, would you feel compelled to become an apologist for Nazism?

You’ve already asked that, FD. Are you asking questions to avoid giving answers?

I’m curious.

Apologists are curious creatures.

Soren wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 8:34pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 8:26pm: Are you saying karnal's an apologist for Islam FD? PB is an apologist for whatever undermines the Western heritage.

That’s right, old boy. By the Western heritage, you mean leiderhosen, hymns and coats of arms. No beards here, eh?

You deliberately avoid the Western tradition because you’re deeply opposed to it. You can’t stomach the idea of human rights,, freedom of thought and equality before the law, so you resort to camp frippery: The rituals of Christianity without a belief in God, nationalism without any definable nation, "culture" and "values" with an amorphous, ever-shifting moral edifice. Always, absolutely, never ever. The body without organs.

Still, we share our world with you, dear. That’s the glory of Western civilisation. You have a loud a w@nk in a public toilet, and we all pretend you’re taking a sh1t.

And that’s what it means to be civilised.

Karnal wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 9:09pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 8:34pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 8:26pm: Are you saying karnal's an apologist for Islam FD? PB is an apologist for whatever undermines the Western heritage.  That’s right, old boy. By the Western heritage, you mean leiderhosen, hymns and coats of arms. No beards here, eh? You deliberately avoid the Western tradition because you’re deeply opposed to it. You can’t stomach the idea of human rights,, freedom of thought and equality before the law, so you resort to camp frippery: The rituals of Christianity without a belief in God, nationalism without any definable nation, "culture" and "values" with an amorphous, ever-shifting moral edifice. Always, absolutely, never ever. The body without organs.

Succintly put K. I'll note this post for future reference.

Muslims are flocking to the middle east to participate in the latest rape and pillage festival. They are even posting videos of their war crimes on the internet. They are doing this because it is a great recruiting tool to get more fellow Muslims to join in the festivities. The atrocities they commit are eerily similar to the ones committed by Muhammed himself.

Yet Muslims still cannot bring themselves to talk about whether Muhammed might have erred when he did the same thing. Even the self-identified reformers of Islam.

But, FD, you still can’t bring yourself to talk about your porkies. How do we know you’re not telling fibs now?

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 1:51pm:

Yet Muslims still cannot bring themselves to talk about whether Muhammed might have erred when he did the same thing.

Because Muhammad didn't do the same thing. And while this topic has been done to death for several years now, I look forward to FD sneeringly asking me the same sarcastic questions he's asked a million times before and had them answered a million times before.


Karnal wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 2:40pm:

But, FD, you still can’t bring yourself to talk about your porkies.

I'd be happy enough for him to talk about other people's porkies - and at least acknowledge that porkies are at the very least a strong feature of the anti-Islam campaign. If he can acknowledge that, then who knows, he may start to understand the mechanisms of prejudice and bigotry - and how to a very large extent this whole campaign is just plain old prejudice and bigotry - based on porkies.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 6:07pm:

I'd be happy enough for him to talk about other people's porkies - and at least acknowledge that porkies are at the very least a strong feature of the anti-Islam campaign. If he can acknowledge that, then who knows, he may start to understand the mechanisms of prejudice and bigotry - and how to a very large extent this whole campaign is just plain old prejudice and bigotry - based on porkies.

I don't think he's qualified to do that, G. FD's expertise is the moral compass of the Muslims and their apologists.

Quote:

Because Muhammad didn't do the same thing.

Right. Muhammed slaughtered Jewish POWs. IS haven't reached that level of success yet.


Quote:

And while this topic has been done to death for several years now

Would you mind linking to previous topics where we discussed how you think Muhammed erred?


Quote:

I look forward to FD sneeringly asking me the same sarcastic questions he's asked a million times before

Let's get started then. How did Muhammed err?

I'd like to get started too, FD. How do you justify porkies as a form of criticism?

I'm curious.

Doesn't sound like you're too keen to get started.

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 6:23pm:

How did Muhammed err?

By being human.

That was a mistake? What was he supposed to be? A goat?

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 8:23pm:

That was a mistake? What was he supposed to be? A goat?

Questions, questions.

Don't want to answer your question, FD?

What did I say?

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 8:23pm:

That was a mistake? What was he supposed to be? A goat?

Do you want a running commentary on his whole life to demonstrate how he, as a human, was not perfect? Some might think that rather pointless. Or is this just about you wanting me to admit his execution of a group of men for treachery was a mistake? Ah yes, I think thats it. Which is strange, as I'm certain you wouldn't describe it as an "err".

Now you are just being silly Gandalf. You must realise how novel it is to see a Muslim suggest that Muhammed erred. It is entirely reasonable for people to ask for some examples.

Let's start with what you see as his most significant mistakes.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 9:36am:

freediver wrote on Jul 18th, 2015 at 8:23pm: That was a mistake? What was he supposed to be? A goat? Do you want a running commentary on his whole life to demonstrate how he, as a human, was not perfect? Some might think that rather pointless. Or is this just about you wanting me to admit his execution of a group of men for treachery was a mistake? Ah yes, I think thats it. Which is strange, as I'm certain you wouldn't describe it as an "err".

Ask FD about porkie pies, G. See if he answers. He always goes all quiet when I ask.

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 12:08pm:

Now you are just being silly Gandalf. You must realise how novel it is to see a Muslim suggest that Muhammed erred.

Nonsense. Muhammad was a human being, of course he erred. The only being in existence who doesn't err is Allah himself. To say otherwise is tantamount to shirk (attributing equals to God) - the greatest sin in Islam. There is at least one famous Quranic verse of Allah admonishing Muhammad for "erring". Muhammad erring is literally Islamic doctrine - so the idea that its "novel" for muslims to think Muhammad erred is complete and utter nonsense.

Gandalf what do you think is Muhammed's most significant mistake?


Quote:

Nonsense. Muhammad was a human being, of course he erred.

So why did Wally feel it is not his place to have an opinion on the matter?


Quote:

To say otherwise is tantamount to shirk (attributing equals to God) - the greatest sin in Islam.

So Islam compels Muslims to acknowlege the mistakes Muhammed made?


Quote:

There is at least one famous Quranic verse of Allah admonishing Muhammad for "erring".

Is this the honey pot one?


Quote:

Muhammad erring is literally Islamic doctrine - so the idea that its "novel" for muslims to think Muhammad erred is complete and utter nonsense.

Yet you must agree that it is novel to see Muslims suggest this. And even when they do, they run away from it.

Are you telling the truth now, FD? You won’t say.

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 5:49pm:

So why did Wally feel it is not his place to have an opinion on the matter?

Why would you ask me that?


freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 5:49pm:

So Islam compels Muslims to acknowlege the mistakes Muhammed made?

No. Islam compels muslims to acknowledge that Muhammad was not infallible - otherwise we would be associating equals to God.

Quote:

Why would you ask me that?

He wouldn't answer my question. I think he is more representative of Muslims on this point than you are, and you might have some insight into why Muslims won't discuss it. But if it helps, I will make it about you. Why are you so reluctant to talk about how Muhammed erred?


Quote:

No. Islam compels muslims to acknowledge that Muhammad was not infallible - otherwise we would be associating equals to God.

What is the difference Gandalf?

Given that Muslims are now lining up POWs and executing them, just like Muhammed did, don't you think it is important for Muslims to have that talk about how specifically Muhammed was fallible? So far all we have is silly platitudes like "the best of men," "an eternal example for all mankind to follow," and "not infallible, but the only mistake we can talk about is the one God pulled him up on". (Which one was that, BTW?) Otherwise you will have great difficulty arguing that Islam is not responsible for all these atrocities committed in it's name.

FD, who should I ask when you won’t answer the question?

Please don’t say Yadda.

What do you think of Muslims who refuse to answer questions?

We’ve been over this one a few times so you should be up for it.

FD you realise wally is not a muslim right?


freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 6:39pm:

Given that Muslims are now lining up POWs and executing them, just like Muhammed did, don't you think it is important for Muslims to have that talk about how specifically Muhammed was fallible?

Yes FD, I get this entire inquisition is to force an admission from me that executing the Banu Qurayza was a bad thing. The problem is, neither of us believe it was a mistake do we? So why are we even talking about this episode in the context of Muhammad erring?


freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 6:39pm:

So far all we have is silly platitudes like "the best of men," "an eternal example for all mankind to follow," and "not infallible, but the only mistake we can talk about is the one God pulled him up on". (Which one was that, BTW?)

The thing is, you pose these questions as if we have a perfectly clear and unbroken record of his entire life. The truth is he lived over 1400 years ago, and we are relying entirely on biographies and anecdotes (ahadith) - virtually all written by people who were big fans of the prophet. So how many "mistakes" do you think are actually recorded? I can't think of any, though I'm far from anything resembling an expert on ahadith literature. Its possible there are some specific mistakes he made that were recorded, but I can't say I know of any.

And yes, I was talking about Quran 66:1-5.


Quote:

Otherwise you will have great difficulty arguing that Islam is not responsible for all these atrocities committed in it's name.

But again, no one is saying the most controversial actions of The Prophet were "mistakes" are they? This is not about you wanting us to fess up about Muhammad's errors of judgment, you just want us to declare that he was a racist homicidal maniac.

One of the biggest mistake by muslims, imo, is to search for a prophetic example to dictate how they should conduct themselves in every conceivable tiny detail of their life. As I have argued previously (you know those 'reform' posts of mine you never heard of)  the point of Islam is to guide muslims in general ways that give flexibility to adjust to different times and places, not specific and inflexible ways that are only practical in specific and obscure circumstances. Thats how the Quran makes sense - it gives very little in the way of details on specific conduct or laws, but rather deals in universal generalities. And there's a very good reason for that - namely that Islam was never meant just for Arabia in the 7th century. But not only this, and perhaps more significantly, is the fact that the Quran constantly challenges muslims to think critically and work things out for themselves.

Quote:

FD you realise wally is not a muslim right?

His stated reason for not discussing how Muhammed erred is that Muhammed was a prophet.


Quote:

Yes FD, I get this entire inquisition is to force an admission from me that executing the Banu Qurayza was a bad thing.

A mistake, even?


Quote:

The problem is, neither of us believe it was a mistake do we?

Do you think I support the execution of POWs?


Quote:

So why are we even talking about this episode in the context of Muhammad erring?

Because it is the most relevant and important example I can think of. If you recall, I did suggest that you choose the examples.


Quote:

The thing is, you pose these questions as if we have a perfectly clear and unbroken record of his entire life.

There are few people from his era we know more about. If millions of people today use his like as an example to live by, don;t you think that makes it very important to discuss which of those examples people should perhaps not follow because they were mistakes?


Quote:

So how many "mistakes" do you think are actually recorded?

Why do you think I keep asking you about this Gandalf? It is your story, not mine.


Quote:

I can't think of any

Did you not just cite an example?


Quote:

And yes, I was talking about Quran 66:1-5.

Is this a mistake that Muhammed made that you cannot recall?


Quote:

But again, no one is saying the most controversial actions of The Prophet were "mistakes" are they?

To be honest I am having trouble getting any kind of straight answer Gandalf. But be patient, we are only 14 pages in.


Quote:

This is not about you wanting us to fess up about Muhammad's errors of judgment, you just want us to declare that he was a racist homicidal maniac.

I also want to play at wimbledon. But we don't all get what we want, do we?


Quote:

One of the biggest mistake by muslims, imo, is to search for a prophetic example to dictate how they should conduct themselves in every conceivable tiny detail of their life.

So they should stick to the important questions, like who to kill?


Quote:

As I have argued previously (you know those 'reform' posts of mine you never heard of)

Oh I hear about them all the time Gandalf. They are the stuff of legend.


Quote:

But not only this, and perhaps more significantly, is the fact that the Quran constantly challenges muslims to think critically and work things out for themselves.

Like when to kill gays and what mistakes Muhammed made?