skynightblaze wrote:There is a hadith in Sahih muslim which talks about these verses from chapter 66 being revealed in connection with the incident of honey and not the sex scandal. You selectively are picking this from Sahih muslim.
Where?
I've offered you many choices: Tafsirs of Abbas/Kathir and ALL the six major hadiths collections.
Go ahead...
skynightblaze wrote:under the excuse of claiming the hadith to be of "historical importance" you use the same sources. If ahadith are forged then no hadith can explain history.Its as simple as that but I know for instance that you are light years away from understanding logic.
Another senile comment, to be placed among your pearls of 'logic'. :wacko:
viewtopic.php?p=161924#p161924" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Repeating AGAIN (for the XX time) my stance on historical hadiths:
viewtopic.php?p=159349#p159349" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Rectification: I reject religious law-binding hadiths, as in the Shariah, but always
maintained that those of historic interest are to be judged on their own values.
You seem to have a problem understanding
'ON THEIR OWN VALUE'. Should we be surprised?
Your 'logic' you define and refer to as The Logic. Sound like a pathological case of narcissism...
skynightblaze wrote:So in short I am justified to reject bukhari and muslims on some accounts
What!!! You've argued over and over upon their very authenticity! Just cheery-picking can't do by now.
Be self-logical at least...
So why do you reject the bad breathed honey account to favor an nonexistent 'sexual scandal'?
Are you so fond of the yellow papers that you rather believe them than any other source?
skynightblaze wrote:Ibn Kathir and Ibn Sad report this incident.
Wrong. It's not about sura 66.... Here's the tafsir of Kathir on sura 66, and it's all about honey still.
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option ... Itemid=122" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Where we learn that Hafsa and Aisha conspired about the bad breathed honey (-for it wasn't true-).
Muhammad prohibited honey to himself, thus sura 66.1. Muhammad then took an oath not to visit
his wifes for a month, contemplating divorce, thus sura 66.2-5. Yet NOTHING about a sex scandal.
Confronted to the evidence Ali Sina said that honey was a code name for sex. Which is debunked by
the fact that the brand of honey is mentioned as the Maghfur, or al-Maghafir and the fact that the
plot set out by Hafsa and Aischa wasn't true, leading to a wrong prohibition of honey upon himself.
So, I ask again: From which basic source is this -uncorroborated- 'sex-scandal' of yours comes from?
By basic I mean the tafsirs of Abbas or Kathir, Ibn Ishaq, or ANY of the six majors hadithers.
Give us the proper first hand references, not some gibberish articles...
Try again, con-man.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.