>>519246709 (OP)
You guys are falling for a deliberate mistranslation.
Read the actual text of the hadith (Ahmad 3788): ...ููููุณู ุนูููููHIMู ุซูููุงุจู ููููุง ุฃูุฑูู ุณูููุขุชูููู
ู... "...they had no clothes on, and I did not see their private parts..."
1. It says the exact opposite.
The narrator explicitly says he did not see their private parts (ููููุง ุฃูุฑูู - "and I did not see"). People pushing this slander intentionally cut out the word "not" to reverse the meaning.
2. The description isn't sexual, it's alien.
The narrator is describing beings that terrified him. He calls them "tall" and "having little flesh." This is a description of a gaunt, strange, non-human entity (the Haneen), not a "sexual fantasy."
3. The hadith is weak.
Even if you ignore the first two points, this specific narration (Musnad Ahmad 3788) is academically classified as weak (Da'if).
Check the source for yourself. The link here (
https://hadithunlocked.com/ahmad:3788) clearly states its grading at the bottom:
Judgment: Weak Chain (Arnaสพลซแนญ)
Arabic: ุฅุณูุงุฏู ุถุนูู (ุงูุฃุฑูุงุคูุท)
This is the expert opinion of Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut, one of the most respected modern scholars in Hadith verification, who graded it as having a weak chain. A weak hadith isn't a reliable source for anything, let alone a valid basis for an attack.