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


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:


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.

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



Mohammed was the best of men.

Ask gandalf,      ...moslems know.

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



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.

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


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

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?

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


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

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


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

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

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.