No Answers To Tongue-Sucking Hadith

No answers to tongue-sucking Hadith.

Muslims offer no satisfactory explanation to the Muhammad’s depraved behaviour with his young grandson. And they admit “it’s not OK to do that.”

Musnad Ahmad 16245—[Mua’wiya said]: I saw the prophet sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire).

To support the work of DCCI https://paypal.me/dcciministries0717

Find us on YouTube and Facebook.

13 thoughts on “No Answers To Tongue-Sucking Hadith

  1. On Ishmael lineage.

    – From early Moslems who believed that Hagar is mother of Arabs:
    Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: … and he gave Hajar as a gift to her. She returned (along with Hajar) and when Ibrahim saw her, he said: How have you returned? She said: With full safety (have I returned). Allah held the hand of that debauch and he gave me a maidservant. Abu Huraira said: O sons of the rain of the sky, she is your mother.
    Book 30, Hadith 5848

    – From the book of Asatir of the Samaritan commentary on Gen 25:16.
    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmaelites
    The Samaritan book Asatir says in chapter VIII: 1. And after the death of Abraham, Ishmael reigned twenty seven years; 2. And all the children of Nebaot ruled for one year in the lifetime of Ishmael; 3. And for thirty years after his death from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates; and they built Mecca.; 4. For thus it is said (in Genesis 25:16): As thou goest towards Ashur before all his brethren he lay. This text has been dated by Gaster to the third century BCE.

    – From Rabbinical Jews, via Metatron:
    http://www.academia.edu/33181802/Seeing_Islam_as_Other_Saw_It
    http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html
    He (Metatron) said to him: Did not the prophet Isaiah say that ‘he saw a chariot with a pair of horsemen etc.(Isa 21:7)? Why did he put the chariot of asses before the chariot of camels when he should rather have said a chariot of camels and [then] a chariot of asses, because when he (Ishmael, i.e. the Arabs) goes forth [to war], he rides upon on a camel, and when the kingdom will arise by his hands he rides upon an ass? [Given that he said the reverse of this], the chariot of asses, since he (the Messiah) rides upon an ass, shows that they (the Ishmaelites, represented by the chariot of camels) are a salvation for Israel, like the salvation of the rider on an ass (i.e. the Messiah). Another exegesis: Rabbi Simon used to say that he heard Rabbi Ishmael [say], when he had heard that the kingdom of Ishmael was approaching.

    Islam liberates the women from a silly primitive culture of the old Arabs and Judeo-Christendom:
    – Indeed, Queen of Sheba was once a queen in Arab world, but how about “thousands” of poor Semitic women who become cheap concubines of a king in the “unlimited polygamy” (1 husband :10,000 wives) under the Semitic culture? Orgy is not sin in Jewish and ancient Arabian culture.

    – Indeed, the pagan Arabians worshiped once three “daughters” of God, but how about a public humiliation for the same pagan women who ought to dance “naked” around Ka’bah for her paganistic rituals?

    – Indeed, Arabians venerated the Black stone by smearing the menstrual fluids of her sexual organ into it in order to gain a blessing, but how about a sexual humiliation for the same Semitic women who can’t refuse if her partners forced her to have a coitus during her monthly menses?

    – Indeed, the pagan wealthy man does not easily kill his daughters for the fear of poverty, but how about the Semitic culture that allows a poor man to “sell” his own daughters (in Jewish culture), even his wives (in Christian tradition), in order to pay his debts as if those women were the whores for a pimp’s money?

    Before Islam:
    – Worse than a Shiite’s culture of Mut’ah, a Semitic woman can sell herself for 7 years, as a sex slave for Semitic man, before then being a free woman again.
    – Similar to Jewish culture, a pagan woman was married without her consent at all, thus the rape is as valid as marriage, there’s no any precondition to wait for the time of “Age of Consent” after her puberty.
    – Similar to Christian culture (even till now), a pagan wife was not given any dowry at all.
    – Similar to Catholicism (even till now), a pagan wife does not have the right to demand a divorcement, let alone the divorcement’s compensation.
    – a hated wife can be divorced by her pagan husband by saying “Talaq”, but she was remarried again on a day when her Iddah approached, and shortly after that she was divorced again to wait another Iddah, and so on and on. Thus, she would be miserably imprisoned within her hellish marriage.
    – Similar to Christian culture (even till now), a pagan wife was not given any inheritance at all.

  2. On Ishmael lineage.

    – From early Moslems who believed that Hagar is mother of Arabs:
    Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: … and he gave Hajar as a gift to her. She returned (along with Hajar) and when Ibrahim saw her, he said: How have you returned? She said: With full safety (have I returned). Allah held the hand of that debauch and he gave me a maidservant. Abu Huraira said: O sons of the rain of the sky, she is your mother.
    Book 30, Hadith 5848

    – From the book of Asatir of the Samaritan commentary on Gen 25:16.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmaelites
    The Samaritan book Asatir says in chapter VIII: 1. And after the death of Abraham, Ishmael reigned twenty seven years; 2. And all the children of Nebaot ruled for one year in the lifetime of Ishmael; 3. And for thirty years after his death from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates; and they built Mecca.; 4. For thus it is said (in Genesis 25:16): As thou goest towards Ashur before all his brethren he lay. This text has been dated by Gaster to the third century BCE.

    – From Rabbinical Jews, via Metatron:
    academia.edu/33181802/Seeing_Islam_as_Other_Saw_It
    christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html
    He (Metatron) said to him: Did not the prophet Isaiah say that ‘he saw a chariot with a pair of horsemen etc.(Isa 21:7)? Why did he put the chariot of asses before the chariot of camels when he should rather have said a chariot of camels and [then] a chariot of asses, because when he (Ishmael, i.e. the Arabs) goes forth [to war], he rides upon on a camel, and when the kingdom will arise by his hands he rides upon an ass? [Given that he said the reverse of this], the chariot of asses, since he (the Messiah) rides upon an ass, shows that they (the Ishmaelites, represented by the chariot of camels) are a salvation for Israel, like the salvation of the rider on an ass (i.e. the Messiah). Another exegesis: Rabbi Simon used to say that he heard Rabbi Ishmael [say], when he had heard that the kingdom of Ishmael was approaching.

    History shows how Islam liberates the women from a silly oppressive, unjust, misogynist, discriminating, primitive culture of old Arabia and Judeo-Christendom.
    – Indeed, Queen of Sheba was once a queen in Arab world, but how about “thousands” of poor Semitic women who become cheap concubines of a king in the “unlimited polygamy” (1 husband :10,000 wives) under the Semitic culture? Orgy is not sin in Jewish and ancient Arabian culture.

    – Indeed, the pagan Arabians worshiped once three “daughters” of God, but how about a public humiliation for the same pagan women who ought to dance “naked” around Ka’bah for her paganistic rituals?

    – Indeed, Arabians venerated the Black stone by smearing the menstrual fluids of her sexual organ into it in order to gain a blessing, but how about a sexual humiliation for the same Semitic women who can’t refuse if her partners forced her to have a coitus during her monthly menses?

    – Indeed, the pagan wealthy man does not easily kill his daughters for the fear of poverty, but how about the Semitic culture that allows a poor man to “sell” his own daughters (in Jewish culture), even his wives (in Christian tradition), in order to pay his debts as if those women were the whores for a pimp’s money?

    Before Islam:
    – Worse than a Shiite’s culture of Mut’ah, a Semitic woman can sell herself for 7 years, as a sex slave for Semitic man, before then being a free woman again.
    – Similar to Jewish culture, a pagan woman was married without her consent at all, thus the rape is as valid as marriage, there’s no any precondition to wait for the time of “Age of Consent” after her puberty.
    – Similar to Christian culture (even till now), a pagan wife was not given any dowry at all.
    – Similar to Catholicism (even till now), a pagan wife does not have the right to demand a divorcement, let alone the divorcement’s compensation.
    – a hated wife can be divorced by her pagan husband by saying “Talaq”, but she was remarried again on a day when her Iddah approached, and shortly after that she was divorced again to wait another Iddah, and so on and on. Thus, she would be miserably imprisoned within her hellish marriage.
    – Similar to Christianity (even till now), there’s no portion of inheritance whatsoever for daughters, wife, mother and sister in the pagan Arabia.

  3. Qur’anic theme of the choice of having and losing the Rewarder.

    The human’s choice toward God’s will resembles a reason of “making” the animal kingdom in this world.

    Why do we not feel pity toward the weak preys of the predators in the jungle? Because it’s very much essential for a jungle to have a “balance of the food chains” in natural law. The same analogy of the jungle can be applied for the Hell. There’s such a regular Hell’s food chains to maintain “natural balance” that should not be pitied.

    The world just acts as a passive participant.
    For the devils, the world becomes as a loyal guardian of devil’s will. For the believers, the world can be a good “reluctant servant” under God’s Law.

    Mainly, due to its insufficiency the world is too miserly, rendering all human’s deeds so empty in vain, making the humans slowly turn like animals, leading the humans to a “natural law” of the Evolution (food chains) to be living practically from a victim or a prey in order to be resurrected as another prey of the predators (devils and demons) in Hell.

    The haters of Qur’an will lose their deeds:
    Q.47, v.9. That is because they hated what Allah revealed, so He rendered their deeds null.

    Those who keep Qur’an in life will be kept by its Owner as well:
    Q.47, v.7. O you who believe, if you support Allah, He will support you and make firm your feet.
    Q.47, v.8. And disbelievers, for them is destruction and He has made their deeds ineffective.

    Each human has to choose who their deed’s Rewarder is. If they keep God’s will, God will keep them as well in the world and Heavens.
    If they lose God, the Evolution mechanism (transformation from being a weak prey to other weak prey endlessly) will keep them intact in Hell’s natural law that should not be pitied.
    Q.47, v.11. That is because Allah is the Protector of those who believe, and because the unbelievers shall have no protector for them.

  4. On Iddah.
    Is a Moslem man having Iddah? Practically yes.

    In Islam, there’s a unique thing that it is permissible for a man to marry a sister of his ex-wife (his sister-in-law), on condition that he must observe a waiting time (i.e. his Iddah) until a completion of his Talaq-ed wife’s waiting time (i.e. her Iddah).
    But, if somehow he has not yet had sex with his divorced wife, then both he and she don’t have Iddah whatsoever.

    Q.4, v.23. Forbidden those to you are: … and two sisters in wedlock at the same time.

    Thus, a woman can’t be taken into a same marriage during the Iddah of her sister.

    No Iddah for both a man and a divorced woman if they have not had sex yet.
    Arabic term “Nikah” is quite broader, it can be applied for a betrothal without sex, per Q.33, v.49.
    Q.33, v.49. O you who believe, When ye marry (Arabic: Nakahtum) believing women, and then ye divorce them before ye have sexual intercourse with them, no `Iddah upon ye in respect of them to observe. So, give them a present, and set them free in a handsome manner.

  5. On eating the sacrifice. By whom?

    Recently, I happened to come across a site where there’s a good theological debate between a Jew and a group of the Trinitarians.

    It is interesting that the Jewish man just points the most easiest and most basic principle of the OT system that is unbelievably made upside down by the errors of Trinitarian’s foolishness.

    In a nutshell, there’s a similar *parable* of eating the sacrifice in the OT Bible, that the One who consumes (eats) the fats and flesh, as well as scents (smells) the aroma of the sacrificial animals (Sin Offering) is God Himself in order to be pleased and forgiving.
    The Jewish repentants and Priests do not eat it at all.

    Now, the foolish Trinitarians who don’t know the basic OT sacrificial system just make a silly error of turning the Forgiver (God) to the sinner (Christians) upside down, namely by a flawed Gospel’s parable of eating the flesh of a sacrificed Lamb (crucifixion of Jesus) by the sinners, not by God.
    Is the sinner a God who eats the sacrifice? No.

    Why would the silly Trinitarian sinners eat a sacrifice (Jesus) whose life (fats and flesh) is supposed to be offered and consumed by God?

    Just as the Jewish sins do not get forgiven by God if they wrongly eat the Sin Offering, so the Trinitarian’s sins can’t either be forgiven if they eat Jesus’ flesh.

  6. In the mindset of the Trinitarians, Jesus’ flesh is eaten by the Trinitarians, so that it is a Thanksgiving, not the Sin Offering.
    Most Trinitarian debaters in the site just got stunned in silence and went away one by one due to an embarrassing fact that their Gospel has the basic OT sacrificial system upside down.

  7. In the Judaist theology, the Rabbis point to the use of “covering” upon both Adam and Eve with a “skin of animal” after they sinned and got naked in Eden, but yet their “outer covering” doesn’t further make their “inner sin” forgiven.
    By same analogy, the Passover Lamb just “shields” or “cover up” the Jews from a wage of sin, i.e. death, whereas actually all Jewish sins remain intact.

    That’s why furthermore the Jews make a clear differentiation between the Sin Offering (Chatat) and a Passover (Pesach).

    Now, an interesting question by the naive Trinitarians: Why does John the Baptist say upon Jesus, that is, “behold the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world”? The answer is, for the Jews, the statement is just a kind of old Hebrew idiom or old Hebrew euphemism for a protection from the death penalty, but not for the forgiveness.
    Here is a proof:
    – Nathan says to David how “God puts away thy sin”, but Nathan’s statement doesn’t mean that God just forgives all David’s sins without making him pay a huge price. David’s sin of secretly marrying Uriah’s wife has a dire consequence that one of David’s sons fornicates with David’s wives in a public orgy.
    2Sam 12
    11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. 13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath *put away thy sin*, thou shalt not die.

    – Jacob’s sins were taken away for his good works of destroying the idols.
    Isa 27:9
    By this therefore shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged; and this is all the fruit to *take away his sin*, when he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones that are beaten in sunder, the groves and images shall not stand up.

  8. Thanks anonymous. That simple explanation also gives a more clearer definition for Arabic word “Kaffara”, it just shields or covers up someone from a penalty, but it does not further grant a forgiveness.

  9. Confession of the NT Bible on Isaiah 53: it is not about a slain Messiah.

    The Jews and Moslem Dawagandists refer to the facts how the NT Bible itself “confesses” by showing a truth that the Messianic reading of Isaiah 53 was a later invention, and something new or unknown, at Jesus’ time.
    Facts:
    – In Matthew 16:22 Peter refuses to let Jesus slain by the Jews, by saying “This shall not be unto thee”. Peter didn’t *ever* know if the prophesy of Isaiah 53 is meant for his Messiah.
    Mt 16:22 shows clearly that the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 was totally unknown during Jesus’ days. There was no Jewish teaching whatsoever on Isaiah 53 that the Messiah was to die.
    Mt 16:22
    Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

    – In John 12:34 the Jews do not *ever* know from their OT Bible (not even from Isaiah 53) that their Christ will somehow die.
    Jn 12:34
    The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?

    – In Luke 24:44-46 the Disciples didn’t *ever* find any OT Bible verse (not even verses of Isaiah 53) where it may tell about the death and resurrection of the Christ on the 3rd Day, because indeed it doesn’t write such a thing at all.
    Thus, Jesus ought to “open” their understanding (subjective interpretations) rather than showing or pointing to the real written texts. Yet Jesus didn’t specifically refer to Isaiah 53.
    Lk 24
    44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

    – Paul also concurs on a point that the Jews never *ever* get taught by God and Prophets throughout the OT Bible (not even in Isaiah 53) to wait and have the slain Messiah, as in his letter 1 Corinthians 2:7-9, even further he termed the subjective interpretation of Christians as the invention of “Mystery”.
    1Cor 2
    7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

    – The Gentile also didn’t know if Isaiah 53 talked specifically about Messiah’s death, per Acts 8:29-32. So, no, the “slain Messiah” interpretation of Isaiah 53 was not *ever* known in those days of Acts.
    Acts 8
    29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

    – Talmud Berakhot 5a interprets Isaiah 53 as the servant who studies the Bible, especially the Torah:
    sefaria.org/Berakhot.5a
    So too, Rava said that Rabbi Sehora said that Rabbi Huna said: Anyone in whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, delights, He oppresses him with suffering, as it is stated: “Yet in whom the Lord delights, He oppresses him with disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in guilt, that he might see his children, lengthen his days, and that the desire of the Lord might prosper by his hand” (Isaiah 53:10). This verse illustrates that in whomever God delights, he afflicts with illness.
    I might have thought that God delights in him even if he does not accept his suffering with love. Therefore the verse teaches: “If his soul would offer itself in guilt.”
    Just as a guilt-offering is brought knowingly, as it is one of the sacrifices offered willingly, without coercion, so too his suffering must be accepted knowingly.
    And if one accepts that suffering with love, what is his reward? As the second part of the verse states: “That he might see his children, lengthen his days.”
    Moreover, in addition to these earthly rewards, his Torah study will endure and his Torah study will be successful, as it is stated: “The purpose of the Lord,” the Torah, the revelation of God’s will, “might prosper by his hand.”
    With regard to the acceptance of affliction with love and what exactly this entails, Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi and Rabbi Aha bar Hanina disagree. One of them said: Afflictions of love are any that do not cause dereliction in the study of Torah, i.e., any which do not afflict his body to the extent that he is unable to study Torah, as it is stated: “Happy is the man whom You afflict, Lord, and teach from Your Torah.”
    Afflictions of love are when You “teach from Your Torah.”

  10. That’s truly such an Eye-opening argument on Isaiah 53.
    By same reason, actually the Jews didn’t ever find the idea of a “cut-off Messiah” from Daniel 9:26,

    nor from a “slain fellow” of Zech 13:7, nor as a “pierced man” of Zech. 12:10, let alone from a crying of “forsaken one” in Psalms 22:1.

    All those subjective interpretations were unknown, just fantasies of the later Christians.

  11. It can be a fantasy, or worse the meaning of Pauline phrase “Mystery or hidden wisdom ordained before the world” is simply dismissing all the known Evangelist references from the Tanakh.
    The worst, it refers to Gnosticism.

  12. It is ironic how the collapse of the Trinitarian house of cards in a slain Messiah entirely begins from Isaiah 53.

    Paul also dismisses all possible Tanachic references for arguing on the slain Messiah in his 1 Cor 2:7-9, by rather referring to such a Gnostic talking point “Mystery, even the hidden wisdom, ordained before the world”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.