Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

[yeezevee]

The Moggy is hoist on his own petard SNB he cannot deny that he believes in Mohammad but to keep up his deception that he is just an observer not a follower he has to keep running around in circles and trying to justify the nonsense with this and that so called Witnesses who Witnessed absolutely nothing except old Mo having an epileptic fit.

perfect response dear Multiple except that word Moggy , but over all you are right. Irrespective of religions, writing in support of 1000 year old religious books as a book of guidance to humanity in this century is nothing buy erosion of enormous progress that humanity made through rational /logical/scientific exploration.

I hope intelligent people like The Cat and Moghul will keep that in mind in their dialogue in FFI. They must realize that they are are NOT writing in to web sites like Ummah.com or themuslimwoman.com, where you are trying to educate the readers with sugar coated sciptures along with some soft translation/reinterpretation of verses from religious books.

[The Cat]

I hope intelligent people like The Cat and Moghul will keep that in mind in their dialogue in FFI. They must realize that they are are NOT writing in to web sites like Ummah.com or themuslimwoman.com, where you are trying to educate the readers with sugar coated sciptures along with some soft translation/reinterpretation of verses from religious books.

I've said: viewtopic.php?p=161570#p161570

In fact, what we're slowly discovering is that most Islamic religious terminologies have been twisted
out of the Koran (including Zakat, Ruku, etc), indeed corrupting its real message, to fit the Islamic
Pharisees' agenda, building mazhabs as confessions, world apart from the true Koranic religion (DIN).

Addenda: Deen vs Mazhab (or Madh'hab).
viewtopic.php?p=143203#p143203

In short, secular words have been given a religious twist throughout the distorting tafsirs/hadiths...
The kind of 'authenticity' snb desperately defends... much like any Sunnite Mullah for that matter!

Even AB realized that all the translations we have were corrupted by vested interests and didn't meet basic correspondences...
We, Mughal, the Koraners, and myself are proving that nowadays Islam is indeed perverted through vested Pharisaical twists!

Mughal explained himself, in a thread especially dedicated to comments over this one.
viewtopic.php?p=154157#p154157

I am trying to understand the real message of the quran that has been glossed over by mullas on behalf of their rulers. The quran is
free of dogma and ritualism. It does not say pray to Allah, or fast or do hajj or pay zakaah. All this is a big surprise for me. The main
thing in the quran is ruling system, economic system, social system and fundamental humanist values etc. Jihad is all about spreading
humanism. In fact I have posted verses up to 2/195. These verses tell us that there is no such thing as kaba or hajj or fasting or prayer
or zakaah. As I see it it mullas have deliberately misled masses because otherwise they could not justify imperialism.....

I'm more than happy to have someone as knowledgeable in Arabic as Mughal coming to the same conclusion as I did.
In my view (and his and that of the Koraners) the Koran is our best ally, a Trojan Horse, against Muhammadanism !

In Judo, a judoka one must learn how to use his opponent's strength to get him down...

[The Cat]

How does he know that the chapter 66 is talking about honey incident and not the sex scandal? What are the sources used here to make such a claim? AS far as the incident is concerned, what's so special to get upset with Muhammad if he merely drank a bad breathed honey?? Look at the nonsense he brings up to defend Muhammad and quran.!

Let us all see how the deception is truly YOURS...

Now, since you're mastering the tafsirs and hadiths... like none others over here:

On what sources exactly can you state that sura 66 is talking about a sex scandal?
Kathir? Abbas? Bukhari? Muslim? Any other of the 6 main hadithers? Inform us all..

Let's find out who's the deceiver con-man here... Let's everyone see that!

[The Cat]

So again as USUAL it all comes down to Old Mo's "WORD OF HONOUR"..... But it all rests on accepting the WORD of this disgusting individual that he ACTUALLY was given the HEARSAY by Jibril and NO ONE at all WITNESSED or HEARD or can PROVE that Jibril passed the HEARSAY from allah to Old Mo NO ONE....

That's exactly what the 'Meccans' thought and why they rejected him as reported by the Koran itself...
And that's exactly his resolution in face of such adversity and contempt that makes his sincerity sound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahy

According to historian Welch, ''The really powerful factor in Muḥammad's life and the essential clue to his extraordinary success was his unshakable belief from beginning to end that he had been called by God. A conviction such as this, which, once firmly established, does not admit of the slightest doubt, exercises an incalculable influence on others. The certainty with which he came forward as the executor of God's will gave his words and ordinances an authority that proved finally compelling.[5]''

A number of Western historians have addressed the question of whether Muhammad was sincere when he reported receiving revelations. Around a hundred years ago, Thomas Carlyle in his lectures, "On Heroes", vigorously defended Muhammad arguing that one can only accuse him of insincerity if one fails to understand Islam and its worldwide success. [2] Carlyle's view has been increasingly influential ever since and contemporary historians tend to say that as far as can be ascertained Muhammad did believe that he was hearing the word of God.

Your argument is that what Gabriel told Muhammad was only 'hearsay'. That's a valid perspective from an atheist point of view,
no problem here, but you won't reach any believer with such, are they Hindus, Jews, Christians or Muslims, or all their sub-sects.

It comes down to argue over the existence of God. So, in fact, you condemn yourself to a trolling role, with nothing else to say.

[The Cat]

Btw notice how CAT refers to Ibn Ishaq to support his stance. We again have a case of selective picking . He claims that he refers to them as historical sources but these sources become only reliable or historical when it suits his agenda but not otherwise. Quran alone means quran alone. No scripture other than quran has to be referred if you claim quran alone is a book to be followed.

Noops. I've also reported confirming Bukhari. Now, again, I've said that what have historical features must be judged on their own value.
And the Siras/Hadiths/Tafsirs are NO scriptures in the sacred sense. That I've made clear too. Again your deceiving sophistry is shown.

Now, where did I state to be a Koranist? I've said that the Koran was the only sacred book of Islam...

The rest is the figment of your wishful thinking, to add to your logical fallacies as appeal to emotion, etc.
It's another form of your constant -Wrong Premise/False Dilemma/Hasty Generalization- self-called 'logic'.

That is from someone who used logical fallacies on an industrial level, someone who fabricated false testimonies and a self-admitted dishonest person.

False testimonies/logical fallacies/Authenticity
viewtopic.php?p=160616#p160616

Dishonesty
viewtopic.php?p=151241#p151241
Cat -On one hand you defend the very authenticity of the hadiths, on the other one you'd readily give that up if including Koran.
That's honesty, SNB style!

snb -I do this because I see the dishonesty in the first place from the quran alone muslims.

viewtopic.php?p=151280#p151280
Cat -Thanks for admitting your basic dishonesty. Theirs is just a sophist's excuse.

The more one looks at your posts, the more he'll find out that you have nothing to offer but an industry of logical fallacies!

[skynightblaze]

Btw notice how CAT refers to Ibn Ishaq to support his stance. We again have a case of selective picking . He claims that he refers to them as historical sources but these sources become only reliable or historical when it suits his agenda but not otherwise. Quran alone means quran alone. No scripture other than quran has to be referred if you claim quran alone is a book to be followed.

Noops. I've also reported confirming Bukhari. Now, again, I've said that what have historical features must be judged on their own value.
And the Siras/Hadiths/Tafsirs are NO scriptures in the sacred sense. That I've made clear too. Again your deceiving sophistry is shown.

How is anyone wrong if he/she claims that Muhammad was a criminal after reading the ahadith? Forget about they being sacred books or being a book of guidance . Come on speak on charlatan! Using ahadith as a historical source(just like you claim to use them) you should have no problem in accepting that Muhammad was a criminal.

When the ahadith or sira or scriptures support your case you term them as of historical importance but not otherwise.

Now, where did I state to be a Koranist? I've said that the Koran was the only sacred book of Islam...

If rest of the books are corruptions according to you then you cant quote the same to make your point. If you can't understand such a simple logic you really need to go to a kids forum. You are not fit to discuss things here.

The rest is the figment of your wishful thinking, to add to your logical fallacies as appeal to emotion, etc.
It's another form of your constant -Wrong Premise/False Dilemma/Hasty Generalization- self-called 'logic'.

That is from someone who used logical fallacies on an industrial level, someone who fabricated false testimonies and a self-admitted dishonest person.

False testimonies/logical fallacies/Authenticity
viewtopic.php?p=160616#p160616

Dishonesty
viewtopic.php?p=151241#p151241
Cat -On one hand you defend the very authenticity of the hadiths, on the other one you'd readily give that up if including Koran.
That's honesty, SNB style!

snb -I do this because I see the dishonesty in the first place from the quran alone muslims.

viewtopic.php?p=151280#p151280
Cat -Thanks for admitting your basic dishonesty. Theirs is just a sophist's excuse.

The more one looks at your posts, the more he'll find out that you have nothing to offer but an industry of logical fallacies!

I don't pay attention to what you scribble because it hardly makes any sense. You do not even understand what a logical fallacy is so forget about quoting various fallacies. If Logic stays at south pole of the earth then you stay at the north.

There is a logic as to how quran also goes down the drain along with ahadith. There is association between the 2 and unreliability of one automatically invalidates the other one.

[skynightblaze]

How does he know that the chapter 66 is talking about honey incident and not the sex scandal? What are the sources used here to make such a claim? AS far as the incident is concerned, what's so special to get upset with Muhammad if he merely drank a bad breathed honey?? Look at the nonsense he brings up to defend Muhammad and quran.!

Let us all see how the deception is truly YOURS...

Now, since you're mastering the tafsirs and hadiths... like none others over here:

On what sources exactly can you state that sura 66 is talking about a sex scandal?
Kathir? Abbas? Bukhari? Muslim? Any other of the 6 main hadithers? Inform us all..

Let's find out who's the deceiver con-man here... Let's everyone see that!

Here is an article from Khalil Fariel here...

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2217&hilit=maria

and Ofcourse you are the con man here!. Using logic we know which incident suits this issue better.

Ali sina debunks the stupid argument that the incident talks about honey..

http://www.sex-in-islam.com/ali.sina/Ma ... hammad.htm

[skynightblaze]

@CAT

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 because on other threads you claim that ahadith come from a forgery mills of Abbasids. According to you the entire Sahih collection is unreliable and yet on the other hand 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.


Now one may ask me as to how I can deny this hadith from sahih muslim and at the same time I accept ahadith from sahih collections on other threads?.

The answer is .....

My claim was never that every single ahadith of Bukhari and Sahih muslim is true(CAT is requested to show me such a statement from me anytime on this forum) and therefore I am entitled to reject the ahadith provided I am able to logically convince as to why I reject the particular hadith in question. Now I can provide solid logical proof which the above links have already provided above as to why this hadith in Sahih collection is a false. Using logic we can sift through ahadith and determine which one of them is true and which one of them is false.Same can be said about ahadith that talk about Muhammad performing miracles.

So in short I am justified to reject bukhari and muslims on some accounts because I never said that ALL THE SAHIH STUFF IS CORRECT BUT YOU ON THE OTHER HAND CLAIMED THAT EVERY SINGLE HADITH IS A PRODUCT OF ABBASID FORGERY AND THEREFORE YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE IF YOU QUOTE THE SAME!

[The Cat]

Here is an article from Khalil Fariel here... and Ofcourse you are the con man here!. Using logic we know which incident suits this issue better. Ali sina debunks the stupid argument that the incident talks about honey..

I've asked if you had any source from Kathir, Bukhari, Abbas or Muslim. Not more wishful thinking.

Fariel and Ali Sina are no such sources. His B.3.43.648 still gives no account of any 'sexual scandal'.
I've asked for first hand accounts about it from top hadithers/tafsirists. Try again, loser...

How is anyone wrong if he/she claims that Muhammad was a criminal after reading the ahadith?

The fallacy of Presentism debunks your assertion: Muhammad was simply a nomadic Bedouin.

This has been discussed thoroughly, but you've got such a senile memory...

If rest of the books are corruptions according to you then you cant quote the same to make your point.

Someone unable to differentiate between 'authentic' and 'authenticity' can't be expected to understand: ''What have historical features
must be judged on their own value. And the Siras/Hadiths/Tafsirs are NO scriptures in the sacred sense. That I've made clear too.''

If Logic stays at south pole of the earth then you stay at the north. There is a logic as to how quran also goes down the drain along with ahadith. There is association between the 2 and unreliability of one automatically invalidates the other one.

And you call this cranky assertion 'logic'? Please...

[skynightblaze]

Here is an article from Khalil Fariel here... and Ofcourse you are the con man here!. Using logic we know which incident suits this issue better. Ali sina debunks the stupid argument that the incident talks about honey..

I've asked if you had any source from Kathir, Bukhari, Abbas or Muslim. Not more wishful thinking.

Fariel and Ali Sina are no such sources. His B.3.43.648 still gives no account of any 'sexual scandal'.
I've asked for first hand accounts about it from top hadithers/tafsirists. Try again, loser...

Hey troll , if you even had opened those links you wouldn't be arguing here like an idiot . Ibn Kathir and Ibn Sad report this incident. Now if you have got the guts I challenge you to address the arguments in the link you con man .

How is anyone wrong if he/she claims that Muhammad was a criminal after reading the ahadith?

The fallacy of Presentism debunks your assertion: Muhammad was simply a nomadic Bedouin.

This has been discussed thoroughly, but you've got such a senile memory...

oh that magnificient logic of yours

Hey idiot, enough of your shitty argument regarding presentism. You have been smashed out of the park on that idiotic argument of yours in the concerned thread. Mate we already know about your trolling capabilities. Its not necessary for you to show them again and again.Darth and myself have refuted you thoroughly.

If rest of the books are corruptions according to you then you cant quote the same to make your point.

Someone unable to differentiate between 'authentic' and 'authenticity' can't be expected to understand: ''What have historical features
must be judged on their own value. And the Siras/Hadiths/Tafsirs are NO scriptures in the sacred sense. That I've made clear too.''

No other response other than a smiley is apt at this magnanimous stupidity of yours.

If Logic stays at south pole of the earth then you stay at the north. There is a logic as to how quran also goes down the drain along with ahadith. There is association between the 2 and unreliability of one automatically invalidates the other one.

And you call this cranky assertion 'logic'? Please...

You are light years behind as far as logic is concerned. You can't even grasp simple concepts so forget about it as its beyond your thinking level. These arguments are not for you kid. Go and play in the kinder garden where your intellectual level rightly belongs to.

[skynightblaze]

Anyway if actions of Muhammad from the ahadith are not acceptable today then quran and ahadith need to be discarded. Its as simple as that. Today's perspective is more important than any other perspective and hence we are not concerned about how it was seen in the past. If it doesn't match our perspective then thereis no reason why anyone should follow quran because Muhammad was a criminal .

[The Cat]

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...

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'.

viewtopic.php?p=161924#p161924

Repeating AGAIN (for the XX time) my stance on historical hadiths:

viewtopic.php?p=159349#p159349
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...

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?

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

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.

[The Cat]

Hey idiot, enough of your shitty argument regarding presentism. You have been smashed out of the park on that idiotic argument of yours in the concerned thread.

I was sure that your senility would show off, of course without bringing further proofs.

Well, here is where you've been debunked time again over Presentism:
viewtopic.php?p=158347#p158347
viewtopic.php?p=158864#p158864
viewtopic.php?p=159337#p159337

viewtopic.php?p=159476#p159476
viewtopic.php?p=159476#p159476
viewtopic.php?p=159597#p159597

No other response other than a smiley is apt at this magnanimous stupidity of yours.

Anyway if actions of Muhammad from the ahadith are not acceptable today then quran and ahadith need to be discarded. Its as simple as that. Today's perspective is more important than any other perspective and hence we are not concerned about how it was seen in the past. If it doesn't match our perspective then thereis no reason why anyone should follow quran because Muhammad was a criminal .

Wishful thinking mixed with Presentism have to be added to your huge canvas of logical fallacies...

You are light years behind as far as logic is concerned. You can't even grasp simple concepts so forget about it as its beyond your thinking level. These arguments are not for you kid. Go and play in the kinder garden where your intellectual level rightly belongs to.

Do you realize how Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well do not exactly underlining your 'logic'?
All this from someone still not able to differentiate between 'authentic' and 'authenticity', and...
viewtopic.php?p=161778#p161778

Anyway if actions of Muhammad from the ahadith are not acceptable today then quran and ahadith need to be discarded. Its as simple as that. Today's perspective is more important than any other perspective and hence we are not concerned about how it was seen in the past. If it doesn't match our perspective then thereis no reason why anyone should follow quran because Muhammad was a criminal .

Again, Wishful thinking mixed with Presentism must be added to your huge canvas of logical fallacies...

And, once again, the Koran never depicts Muhammad as an all-time role-model (i.e. imam)!
That's the fallacy we own to the tafsirs and hadiths, you otherwise shamelessly endorse.

[skynightblaze]

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...

Here is the proof that would shut your idiotic mouth. You didn;t even bother to examine the links I gave. Proofs are embedded in it. All Tafsir scholars agree with the sex scandal episode.

Spoiler! :

Here is a quote from Ibn Sad..

Tabaqat v. 8 p. 223 Publisher Entesharat-e Farhang va Andisheh Tehran 1382 solar h (2003) Translator Dr. Mohammad Mahdavi Damghani]

Waqidi has informed us that Abu Bakr has narrated that the messenger of Allah (PBUH) had sexual intercourse with Mariyyah in the house of Hafsah. When the messenger came out of the house, Hafsa was sitting at the gate (behind the locked door). She told the prophet, O Messenger of Allah, do you do this in my house and during my turn? The messenger said, control yourself and let me go because I make her haram to me. Hafsa said, I do not accept, unless you swear for me. That Hazrat (his holiness) said, by Allah I will not contact her again. Qasim ibn Muhammad has said that this promise of the Prophet that had forbidden Mariyyah to himself is invalid – it does not become a violation (hormat).

PROOF 2 provided by Khalil Fariel :

Following is what he wrote...

Here, let me bring Ibn Kathir in Arabic. [Note that what follows is only the relevant portion of Ibn Kathir and this is the part which Ibn Kathir’s online English translators skipped]

وقال ابن جرير: حدثنا سعيد بن يحيى، حدثنا أبي، حدثنا محمد بن إسحاق عن الزهري عن عبيد الله بن عبد الله عن ابن عباس قال: قلت لعمر ابن الخطاب: من المرأتان؟ قال: عائشة وحفصة. وكان بدء الحديث في شأن أم إبراهيم مارية القبطية، أصابها النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في بيت حفصة في نوبتها، فوجدت حفصة، فقالت[b]: يا نبي الله لقد جئت إليّ شيئاً ما جئت إلى أحد من أزواجك في يَوْمِي وفي دوري وعلى فراشي، قال: " ألا ترضين أن أحرمها فلا أقربها " ، قالت: بلى فحرمها، وقال لها: " لا تذكري ذلك لأحد " ، فذكرته لعائشة، فأظهره الله عليه، فأنزل الله تعالى: { يٰأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّبِيُّ لِمَ تُحَرِّمُ مَآ أَحَلَّ ٱللَّهُ لَكَ تَبْتَغِي مَرْضَاتَ أَزْوَٰجِكَ } الآيات كلها. [Ibn Kathir on Quran chapter 66 1-5]


The account above reveals of an incident we heard not (from modern day Muslims). Muhammad has been found by Hafsa (one of his wives) in company with Maria-the Copt. It was Hafsa’s turn and the activities occur in Hafsa’s bed. Hafsa’s remonstration is what I bolded in the quote. It can be read as “Hey Messenger of God, how come you are with someone else in my house in my bed on my turn[color=#FF0000]*?” [/color]

This is the instant account given by Ibn Kathir which is not seen in online English version. In fact, Ibn Kathir was not making stuff up but has the backing of almost all Quran interpreters. Quoting all of them will only be a waste of time and effort. But the account given by Ibn Kathir is seen in:

1. Tabari,
2. Al-Razi
3. Zamaqshari
4. Qurtubi
5. Baidawi
6. Al-Shoukani
7. Samarqandi
8. Ibn Juzai
9. Two Jalals (Tafsir Jalalain)

Qurtubi and Al-Shoukani's accounts are more plain and explanatory of the incident. So is Tabari. All in the above Muhammad is being caught by Hafsa while he was love-making or being too intimate with Maria-his-concubine on the day that was belonged to either Hafsa herself or Aisha the Prophet’s child bride.

I will just paste here Al-Shoukani’s Tafsir and give explanation of it because it would be giving somewhat clear picture.

قوله: { يٰأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّبِىُّ لِمَ تُحَرّمُ مَا أَحَلَّ ٱللَّهُ لَكَ } اختلف في سبب نزول الآية على أقوال: الأوّل قول أكثر المفسرين. قال الواحدي: قال المفسرون: كان النبيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم في بيت حفصة، فزارت أباها، فلما رجعت أبصرت مارية في بيتها مع النبيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم، فلم تدخل حتى خرجت مارية ثم دخلت، فلما رأى النبيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم في وجه حفصة الغيرة والكآبة قال لها: لا تخبري عائشة، ولك عليّ أن لا أقربها أبداً، فأخبرت حفصة عائشة، وكانتا متصافيتين، فغضبت عائشة، ولم تزل بالنبيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى حلف أن لا يقرب مارية. فأنزل الله هذه السورة[Al-Shoukani]

[Note: This is not giving the word to word translation but necessarily close to it]:

“The reason for revealing the verses “Oh Prophet why do you forbid that is allowed for you” is disputed. But most Quran interpreters are agreed as stated by Al-Wahidi.: “Prophet was in the house of Hafsa and sent Hafsa for her father (Omar). When Hafsa returned, she found Maria with the prophet so she did not enter the house right away and when she entered, and as Prophet saw the fury in Hafsa’s face, he requested her to not to inform of this to Aisha. He assured Hafsa that he will not access to the slave-girl again. (But Hafsa disclosed it to Aisha who got enraged upon knowing it.) And it is about this oath Allah revealed the verses “Oh prophet why do you forbid yourself which has been made Halal for you”. The entire chapter is revealed in connection to this”

Another interpreter Baidawi’s account differs slightly on whose turn it was. He mentions it as the day (in which Muhammad caught with Maria) was belonging to Aisha and it was the reason for Muhammad appealing Hafsa to not to disclose it to Aisha.

Spoiler! :

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'.

viewtopic.php?p=161924#p161924

Repeating AGAIN (for the XX time) my stance on historical hadiths:

viewtopic.php?p=159349#p159349
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...

I am happy that you can atleast write the spelling of logic. Your intelligence is not beyond that so don't try troubling your brain because it isn;t even capable of grasping simple things. I have answered your argument in the thread in quran and hadith folder where you talk about Dahaha.

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...

This shows how poor you are at grasping what others say. I have always said all the ahadith are not authentic. I said many of the ahadith can be proven as true. How am I am self contradicting myself?

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

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.

That comment from Ali Sina was an intended joke.ARe we supposed to believe that a matter can go to a level of divorce merely if Muhammad drank honey??

What weed do you smoke?? Are you so dumb that you cant even understand such obvious things? I guess the answer is YES! Why would anyone conspire about bad breathed honey?? What;s so special to get upset about it?? Really if you can't even understand such simple things then you are not fit to discuss things .

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...

The articles which you call gibberish mention the first hand sources which you ask for. Again it shows you have no idea what scholarly articles are and you open your foolish mouth even before making a brief study.Those articles are well written and to be frank they are beyond your reach.

Try again, con-man.

Anyone with common sense can see who is a con man here.

[The Cat]

Here is the proof that would shut your idiotic mouth....All Tafsir scholars agree with the sex scandal episode.

Tabaqat, Qurtubi, Shoukani, really.

Twisting again: These are not from the basic sources I've asked, deceiver.

And, again, I've provided the link to the REAL Kathir's tafsir on sura 66, stating it's all about honey.
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option ... Itemid=122

Why would anyone conspire about bad breathed honey?? ARe we supposed to believe that a matter can go to a level of divorce merely if Muhammad drank honey??

Because they LIED about it, forcing Muhammad into an unwarranted oath, prohibiting honey to himself so to please A LIE.

I have always said all the ahadith are not authentic. I said many of the ahadith can be proven as true. How am I am self contradicting myself?

You've always upheld Bukhari and Muslim as overall sahih. But now you reject them both since they don't suit your 'sex scandal'.

[skynightblaze]

Khalil Fariel quoted the original tafsir of Ibn KAthir in Arabic.

This is what he wrote...

If anyone checks Ibn Kathir in Arabic, 2 pages of his interpretation have been omitted in online English translation.

He further translates the untranslated part in IBN KATHIR..

Following is what he wrote...

Here, let me bring Ibn Kathir in Arabic. [Note that what follows is only the relevant portion of Ibn Kathir and this is the part which Ibn Kathir’s online English translators skipped]

وقال ابن جرير: حدثنا سعيد بن يحيى، حدثنا أبي، حدثنا محمد بن إسحاق عن الزهري عن عبيد الله بن عبد الله عن ابن عباس قال: قلت لعمر ابن الخطاب: من المرأتان؟ قال: عائشة وحفصة. وكان بدء الحديث في شأن أم إبراهيم مارية القبطية، أصابها النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في بيت حفصة في نوبتها، فوجدت حفصة، فقالت[b]: يا نبي الله لقد جئت إليّ شيئاً ما جئت إلى أحد من أزواجك في يَوْمِي وفي دوري وعلى فراشي، قال: " ألا ترضين أن أحرمها فلا أقربها " ، قالت: بلى فحرمها، وقال لها: " لا تذكري ذلك لأحد " ، فذكرته لعائشة، فأظهره الله عليه، فأنزل الله تعالى: { يٰأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّبِيُّ لِمَ تُحَرِّمُ مَآ أَحَلَّ ٱللَّهُ لَكَ تَبْتَغِي مَرْضَاتَ أَزْوَٰجِكَ } الآيات كلها. [Ibn Kathir on Quran chapter 66 1-5]


The account above reveals of an incident we heard not (from modern day Muslims). Muhammad has been found by Hafsa (one of his wives) in company with Maria-the Copt. It was Hafsa’s turn and the activities occur in Hafsa’s bed. Hafsa’s remonstration is what I bolded in the quote. It can be read as “Hey Messenger of God, how come you are with someone else in my house in my bed on my turn*?”

This is the instant account given by Ibn Kathir which is not seen in online English version. In fact, Ibn Kathir was not making stuff up but has the backing of almost all Quran interpreters. Quoting all of them will only be a waste of time and effort. But the account given by Ibn Kathir is seen in:

Now not just Ibn Kathir but other tafsir scholars also support Kathir. As far as rejecting Bukhari is concerned I am providing reasoning as to why he shouldn;t be referred in this case. Logic overrules Bukhari in this specific case otherwise prove how I am incorrect logically.

[The Cat]

]Khalil Fariel quoted the original tafsir of Ibn KAthir in Arabic. This is what he wrote...

If anyone checks Ibn Kathir in Arabic, 2 pages of his interpretation have been omitted in online English translation.

He further translates the untranslated part in IBN KATHIR......
Now not just Ibn Kathir but other tafsir scholars also support Kathir.

If this was right, it would certainly be confirmed by Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ishaq or even Abbas.

If not so, as it is, than how are we to be confident about:
1) Where those 2 pages come from (are they genuine, or related to sura 33)?
2) Fariel's traduction being sharp, ie. not motivated by his own wishful desire?

On the two existing versions (sex scandal vs honey)
http://www.quranenglish.com/tafheem_quran/066.htm

Our eminent scholars regard this second version (that of honey) as correct and the first as unreliable. Imam Nasa'i says:
"About honey the Hadith reported from Hadrat 'A'ishah is authentic, and the story of forbidding Hadrat Mariyah for himself
by the Holy Prophet has not been narrated in a reliable way." Qadi 'Iyad says: "The truth is that this verse was sent down
concerning honey and not Mariyah."

Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-'Arabi; also regards the story about honey as correct and the same is the opinion of Imam Nawawi and
Hafiz Badruddiu 'Aini. Ibn Humam writes in Fath al-Qadir "The story of the prohibition of honey has been narrated in Bukhari
and Muslim from Hadrat `A'ishah who was herself a party to it; therefore, it is much more reliable." Hafiz Ibn Kathir says:
"The truth is that this verse was sent down about forbidding honey for himself by the Holy Prophet. "

Once again, as always, your sources are too weak to be of any reliability. Yet you rest your case (as always) on them...

Try again, con-man.

[skynightblaze]

When the Prophet confided a fact unto one of his wives) i.e. Hafsah (and when she afterward divulged it) Hafsah divulged to 'A'ishah what the Prophet (pbuh) told her in confidence (and Allah apprised him thereof) and Allah informed him that Hafsah informed 'A'ishah, (he made known (to her) part thereof) part of what she said to 'A'ishah regarding the leadership of Abu Bakr and 'Umar; and it is said: about seeing Maria the Copt on his own (and passed over part) he did not mention making forbidding Maria the Copt on himself nor what he told her concerning the leadership of Abu Bakr and 'Umar after him, for he did not reproach him for this. (And when he told it her) when the Prophet (pbuh) informed Hafsah about what she said to 'A'ishah (she said) Hafsah said: (Who hath told thee) that I informed 'A'ishah? (He said) the Prophet (pbuh) said: (The Knower, the Aware hath told me) what you divulged to 'A'ishah.

Ibn Abbas attests to it. So you have no ground now . The sources aren;t weak. I will try to find what Khalil is referring to . I trust him anytime than you. Infact every single member of FFI trusts him and not just me..

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMa ... nguageId=2

[skynightblaze]

WE have 2 versions here and we need to use common sense to know which one is true rather than claiming who is reliable and who isnt. The story narrated by Bukhari and some is laughable. The verses in question said that HAfsa told Aisha, a matter of confidence. The prophet drank honey? Is this a matter confidence? Infact quran itself says that honey is good for health so what's the big secret here? ALas if you had common sense then you wouldn't be arguing here in the first place. Do you think that a matter will go to the level of a divorce just because Muhammad drank honey which the wives didn;t like? Thats laughable to be honest Logically we can determine which of the 2 accounts makes more sense. Its obviously the matter of sexual intercourse with MAria that is going to upset wives and this also explains why the matter would reach to a level of divorce.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

1. O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Oh prophet, why do you forbid yourself from drinking honey when it is made lawful for you.