freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 8:56pm:


Rubbish. We have someone claiming 200 years after the fact that some guy told him that some guy told him that some guy told him (x a few more isnads) - all through word of mouth - that someone claims to be from the tribe that was executed by Muhammad.

By the way, I was wrong - Ibn Ishaq was was writing about 100 years after the event. So in fact we have zero contemporary sources for the event. Not to mention zero archaeological evidence, zero physical evidence of any kind - and zero credibility in the "sources" that wrote about it. But of course in FD world thats rock solid proof.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 6:59pm:


Gee I don't know FD - maybe to justify slaughtering jews and/or POWs? You do realise that over 90% of ahadiths were deemed to be fake by the very guy who compiled the so called 'sahih' (authentic) collection of ahadith right?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 6:59pm:


Justify your fairy tales however way you like FD - doesn't change the fact that you lied about me justifying sex slavery.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 7:20pm:


about me justifying sex slavery.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 7:20pm:


ah history for dummies it is then...

a "source" is a written document of some kind. Thats what history is FD, written accounts. A "contemporary source" is a document that was written contemperaneously (ie written at the time the events it describes were taking place).

The hadith you refer to was written over 200 years after the event it describes. It claims to contain a chain of oral transmissions going back to the events of the Banu Qurayza, in which someone is alleged to be witness. As far as history is concerned, that hadith is a secondary source, and a pretty dodgy one at that by today's scholarly standards.

This is how silly your argument is FD: its just like if I took a piece of paper and wrote on it that I heard from some guy who heard from some guy who heard from some guy etc etc - going back for 200 years (for that is literally what a hadith is) - that someone claimed to dine at Captain Bligh's banquet at government house in Sydney - and hailing that is a "contemporary source" on the history of the Rum Rebellion. You would say thats ridiculous right? Well that is 100% identical to what you are trying to do here with this hadith. No difference whatsoever.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2017 at 6:56pm:


Here's what we call a logical fallacy FD - the assumption that "enslaving the women" is a synonym for sex slavery. I have always maintained that under Islam it is not. You even quoted me describing the slavery as protective custody for people who couldn't fend for themselves. You would have to be pretty sick in the head to equate protective custody with sex slavery - but I know you love to project these sick fantasies on to muslims.

So yes, you are lying to say that I have ever justified sex slavery.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2017 at 6:56pm:


No FD, the Quran was entirely written contemporaneously. The parchments were kept for several decades before they were compiled into book form.

And besides, the Quran is not considered an historical source by muslims - it is quite literally the direct word of God. Ahadith on the other hand are documents written by man - about a man. Historical documents in any sense of the word. Muslims have never claimed otherwise.

Aussie wrote on May 7^th, 2017 at 7:06pm:


The Quran is, and always has been written and sits in heaven (according to Islamic beliefs).

God recited what was already written to Muhammad through the angel Gybriel.

Quote:


In Islam's case it is. And to justify this treatment, you cited the slaughter of every adult male in the tribe. Yet you also claim that you have also believed that slaughter never happened. How does that work Gandalf? You appear to be avoiding this point.

Quote:


The reality of Islam is quite different to your fantasy Gandalf. We even have modern Aussie Muslim converts insisting that sex is a man's right and a woman's responsibility.

Quote:


Yes I thought that was particularly good example of your self delusion and your efforts to rewrite history when it comes to Muhammad's genocidal tendencies.

Quote:


Yet that is exactly what you do Gandalf. Did Muhammad ever describe it as protective custody? Or did you make that one up yourself?

Quote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran

After Muhammad would receive revelations he would later recite it to his companions, who also memorized it or wrote it down. Before the Quran was commonly available in written form, speaking it from memory prevailed as the mode of teaching it to others. The practice of memorizing the whole Quran is still practiced among Muslims. Millions of people have memorized the entire Quran in its original Arabic. This fact, taken in the context of 7th-century Arabia, was not an extraordinary feat. People of that time had a penchant for recited poetry and had developed their skills in memorization to a remarkable degree. Events and competitions that featured the recitation of elaborate poetry were of great interest.[6]
People questioned the nature and modes of Muhammad’s revelations. The Meccans of Muhammad judged the Quranic revelation based on their understanding of ‘inspiration’. For them, poetry was closely connected to inspiration from a higher spiritual source. For this reason when Muhammad began preaching and reciting the Quran, the Meccans accused him of being a poet (21.5) or a ‘poet possessed’(37.36).[7]
Due to the fact that the Quran was revealed in disjointed verses and chapters, a point came when it needed to be gathered into a coherent whole text. There are disagreements among both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars as to when the Quran was compiled. Some believe Muhammad compiled it before he died, while others believe it was collected by either Ali ibn Abu Talib or Abu Bakr.

The society during the time of Muhammad was predominantly oral and for this reason he would recite the Quranic verses to his Companions and instruct them to memorize it. Due to this, people question whether the Quran was ever written and collected during the time of Muhammad.

What do you think the reality was for female slaves captured in Muhammad's raids?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2017 at 8:04pm:


The world according to you.

Just because I disagree with this assertion doesn't make me a liar FD.