There is no other sura in the whole koran that says only muslims are to enter mosques or indeed idol worshippers are not allowed in mosques, muslims the world over observe this ruling, yet you are sitting there adamant that this is not a law or a ruling. The only one you are deceiving is yourself.

what a Muslim says or does to be a Muslim are "religious laws". If a Muslim never in his life "disallows" a polytheist from entering a Mosque, is he still a Muslim? Could he be the best of Muslims? Yes. That's what a religious law is, it's either obligatory to fulfill one's religion or it isn't. A similar ruling is that not only do you need to give alms, but SOMEONE has to collect them and distribute them. Does every single Muslim have to distribute the alms? No. Does every single Muslim need to disallow a polytheist from entering a Mosque? You tell me.

Like alms givng is the only law I pointed at.

So what else did you claim was a new religious law that you brought up?

Read the bold in my quote, if I were to tell you you are not allowed to enter a mosque since you are a not a muslim, and it is in my holy book to be recited what on earth does it mean? it is not really a law or a ruling, or it is not really a ruling, muslims can still be muslims if they don't obey that ruling so it's not really a ruling we can ignore it, I have to say this or else what I said about sura 5 being the sura in which the religion was perfected goes out the window so I shall perform semantic, theological and political acrobatics to ensure the koran doesn't contradict islam

What you are failing to comprehend or even acknowledge because it will ruin your whole precept of your belief is this: If the writers of that hadith wanted to convey the message that only the qurra of the koran would be lost, they would have said " a large part of the qurra will be lost in other places" or "a large part of the reciters of the koran will be lost in other places" ..."hence we will lose a large part of the qurra, why did they convey the message " a large part of the koran itself would be lost "

I am afraid that there will be some casualties among the Qurra at other places, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost

Notice it never says a large part of the qurra will be lost but of the quran itself

Yeah when did I even mention that it was a large portion of the recitors and NOT the Qur'an itself that is in question?

Remember:

Large, small, or even a word. The gravity would be the same. Haha, basically you'd like the dialogue to go as follows:

"…a large portion will be lost…"

"large? Exactly how large, because if it's not TOO much we can handle that"

"it's pretty large, bro"

Losing a single word of the Qur'an is infinitely more grievous than losing a memorizer of the Qur'an in battle.

Read your hadiths words are missing verses are missing verses have been altered, if you want to claim those are weak hadiths and the isnad and matn is a fabrication what you have to ask yourself is what do the liars have to gain these are practicing muslims what do they have to gain by lying about their holy scriptures and it became enshrined in Bukhari hadiths.

It is an A4 size page I will more than happy to read it, paste it let us all read your tafsir (have you ever taken into consideration the reason why I asked you the question was because I had already read the tafsir), learning from your tactics this few posts the reason why you will not do it is because you know it is making an irrational argument given the hadiths and the koran itself, in other words it would make you look very foolish to post it. I dare you to post that tafsir let everybody read it.

Ok, here it is again:

<SNIP>

Imagine someody asked me about John 3:16 and I said here "www.google.com" go read. Or someone asked me about killing the amalekites their old and their young and I said here " www.google.com" go read, or someone asked me about Paul and how his messages differ from the original teachings of Jesus and I said here "www.google.com" go read

I don't tell you to google anything, I relay reliable links to you. I only suggest what's reliable.

Links I suspect you have not read this is obvious when they contradict what you purport they say you become embarassed when I post the entire contents of those links to show that you haven't even read them and the amazing thing is instead of saying sorry won't happen again I will try and read the links the next time or better yet I will extract the relevant material from the links since I have lost your confidence in relating reliable links to you, you just continue as usual, find your formula and stick next to it because you know you cannot dissect your links logically with what the koran and the hadiths say, I suspect you were secretly hoping I do not read those links since you can then claim well at least he didn't read them I don't have to answer any questions, but when I post the entire contents of those links and show you your logical fallacies you claim "well I agree with the team that wrote that website" " I didn't really say that" " I agree with what the website says ( even though it contradicts what you initially said it said)

Now if I asked you a question, there's no shame in linking me to a Christian's website.

I suspect when I ask you a question you type "islamic-awareness" and the question in a search engine and paste the links or something close.

I don't do that because I know it is passing the buck, it is dishonest, it is intellectual laziness, suppose you see something in the links and you want to ask me a question on? did I write it is it my point of view? can you discuss it with me? do I understand it? take it up with the author because I cannot be bothered to read it and express it to my audience.

Not so fast

sura 4:24: And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess

Your explanation paraphrasing from memory "God has made it ok to have relations with captives in jihad that oppose God and his apostle"

now you are telling me the verse really means all married women are forbidden unto you for use as servants ( let me guess they get a monthly salary and pension too?)

No married woman, or woman that is pregnant, can be taken as a captive from the attacking party.

Nice choice of words, now suppose a woman was married a few hours ago but you decapitated the head of her husband (father, uncle and relatives too and you took off her maids and sisters to be raped by your mujaheddins ( guess the writers knew they would be pushing it with a sura to condone that one ...ooh my mistake it's covered by the same sura!!)) to the mentality of the people who wrote that sura, since you have killed the married woman's husband she is now no longer married and she is not pregnant (you know this because?), you can now rape her with allah's blessing (forget that you are suppose to wait 3 months before you have sex with a widow according to the law of iddah)

Btw you are still contradicting that sura and your explanation of that sura.

Pls!!! Mohammed had sex with the woman while a man stood guard outside of the tent hours after having her husband decapitated, her father killed, her uncle killed and several relatives killed all sanctioned by Mohammed, and to add insult to injury he later had his allah inspire him with a sura condoning it.

Now you are contradicting your very explanation to get out of an uncomfortable situation, I will be blunt " MOHAMMED RAPED THAT WOMAN AND YOU KNOW IT"

Wow, man, rape? You're officially in competition with Believer over here to see who can slander the Prophet most. There is no lawful rape in Islam. Rapists are stoned.

Spare me your humanistic hopskotch approach to the moral wickedness in your koran focus on your explanation and on that sura "all married women are forbidden unto you to sleep with except women you have caught"

An answer that totally contradicted your stance that the muslims were being killed and starved en mass.

Sure, I admit that the Muslims weren't being killed and starved EN MASS, but it did happen to Muslims in general.

The hadith pls

It looks like you finally read it, after pasting it for you twice I wasn't going to paste it anymore.

Yeah, there's no shame in conceding to a more knowledgeable party. And the understanding Islam team know more than me.

Why are you beating around the bush you showed me a link that was obvious you hadn't read, that contradicted everything you said it said the understanding islam team specifically said the starvation and mass murder was a lie and you had the nerve to refer them as your advocate that the muslims were being starved and killed en mass. Do you realise how ridiculous it makes you look, now you are trying to switch the topic that "yeah I concede to a more knowledgeable party" you therefore concede that you try to deceive and didn't even read your advocate source.

It looks like we are going in circles, the HADITH PLS? ( If you recall this is what I asked you for)

Seerat ar Rasool, the Prophetic Tradition, the Story of the Prophet, where do you think these come from? I don't think I can find them on a Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim because those only record authentic hadiths regarding religion, not history.

Do not insult your audience if hadiths like these can make it into the hundreds of thousands of Bukhari hadith:

"Bukhari volume 54: Book 4/Number 54/ Number 537 "... If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease."

This must be religious right?

Why not ONE hadith showing the killings, starvations of muslims, I reiterate the hadith pls?.

You proceeded to answer the challenge since it is parroted by your imams and mullahs it must be true the onus is on you to show me those hadiths

If you're waiting for a Bukhary/Muslim reference you're not going to find one. When do Bukhari and Muslim ever contain a hadith that doesn't have a jurisprudential ruling behind it?

Read above; on a side note maybe you can show us all the jurisprudence behind dipping flies in your soup.

Your stance even when you are bordering on the ridiculous is impressive ( are you from the school of never admitting you are in error?)

Wow bro, I'm telling you this IS the exegesis for that Surah. I can't find any more online exegesis, why don't you go to your local mosque and ask them about the tafsir of Surah 66 for God's sake?

Keep on passing the buck if you were being honest with yourself you would read every line of that Tafsir and what I commented and logically discuss it.

If you believe a wife gets upset with her husband because he drank honey you are more gullable than I thought

Didn't you read the tafsir, the wives weren't angry because they smelled honey, they were jealous that he had been with another wife and the honey was the indication

Pls read again what you have just said in light of the tafsir the tafsir specifically speaks of a literal taste of honey and allah admonished the prophet for his oath that "he would not drink honey", at no point in the entire tafsir does it mention sexual immorality or even Maria or sleeping with another wife, at least you are seeing the real reason that he had been with another woman. Did you not try and pass off a literal "taste of honey" as the true reason as opposed to being with another woman (sexualised one) in an earlier post?. Let me remind you of what you said:

I am being objective. It wasn't from that one incident with the honey that the wives suddenly became jealous, that was the event that culminated in a building tension in the household. I don't see how you take the tafsir that seems more "logical" (sexualized) over the one that is true

Your tafsir link (your advocate source) talks about a literal taste of honey:

Al-Bukhari also recorded this Hadith in the Book of Divorce; then he said, "Al-Maghafir is a type of sap, and in Ar-Rimth (a type of citrus) its taste is sweet...'' Al-Jawhari said, "The `Urfut is a tree of the shrub variety, which secretes Maghfur

" `I smell Maghafir on you. Have you eaten Maghafir' When he entered upon one of us, she said that to him. He replied (to her),
(No, but I drank honey in the house of Zaynab bint Jahsh, and I will never drink it again.)'' "

You are now contradicting your advocate source by what you now say.

You really are amazing.

Think about this for a second Mohammed was a polygamist he had lots of wives, what possible reason would his wives be jealous/angry that he had been with one of his other wives? please think about this it is a small logical point but the implications reveal what you are desperately trying to hide Mariah was not one of his wives.

(this is the Prophet of God remember).

This little incident should send alarm bells through your conscience how can this man be of God when he acts like this, this is the behaviour of a cheat, a fornicator, an adulterer, and his followers tried to cover it up thats makes them just as culpable.

I am very worried for you if you believe the con man was speaking for God

I just feel sorry for you that you've cursed him so much.

Don't feel sorry for me feel sorry for the 1.2 billion souls, most are completely unaware of the intricacies surrounding that sura and many more like it.

What does praying have to do with this, your tafsir came to it's conclusion using omitted hadiths, in other words it tricked and swindled it's reader by concealment it tells them something and omits others so the reader never sees the bigger picture this is not good from an alledged religion from the Almighty, but then your koran says " allah is the best of deceivers"

Remember how the Unbelievers plotted against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They plot and plan, and God too plans; but the best of planners is God. (Qur'an 8:30).

another translation also says "the unbelievers deceive, and allah also deceives, but the best of deceivers is allah"
If you want to discuss it let us discuss what the transliteration is of the arabic of deceive and plot.

Also, this exegesis isn't some secret you just uncovered, the WHOLE SURAH was revealed around this oath taking. If you're not satisfied, go to a mosque for a proper answer, that's your right.

Who is talking about a secret in the exegesis?, the explanation is a lie and you know it. The oath " I promise never to drink honey again" you indicate is not really a literal oath to do with honey but to do with sleeping with a woman, now you are telling me to take it up with a mosque because it's my right??? am I a muslim? or is it because you couldn't find a tafsir that would cover the charade well enough.