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. 

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



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!   

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


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:


and others:

Quote:


Quote:


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?

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:


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


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

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


Its a simple question Baron - yes or no.

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


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?

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


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?

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.