₦airaland Forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oklgsH1mXOY?si=82i2ioSLnZYUdSYw
Most Disgusting Hadith Ever? Shabir Ally, Ali Dawah & a Muslim Woman
The Hadith So Bad Even Muslims Call It Disgusting Hatun looks at one of the most shocking hadiths found in the Islamic tradition – the narration that says if a husband was covered from head to toe in sores, pouring out pus, and his wife came and licked that pus, she still would not have fulfilled his rights over her. Shabir Ally, Ali Dawah, Naima B Robert

A wife leaking filth from her husband's body and still being told she has not fulfilled his rights.
You have a hadith uh that that says that if a man's body was covered in sores from head to toe and his wife uh were to lick the pus out of these sores to cleanse them, then she still would not have fulfilled her duty to her husband.
Antichristian, Rashduct4luv, hassinho707 what do you guys think?

Useless hadith. They will tell you to mind your religion and leave "theirs" alone.

sagenaija:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oklgsH1mXOY?si=82i2ioSLnZYUdSYw
Most Disgusting Hadith Ever? Shabir Ally, Ali Dawah & a Muslim Woman
The Hadith So Bad Even Muslims Call It Disgusting Hatun looks at one of the most shocking hadiths found in the Islamic tradition – the narration that says if a husband was covered from head to toe in sores, pouring out pus, and his wife came and licked that pus, she still would not have fulfilled his rights over her. Shabir Ally, Ali Dawah, Naima B Robert

A wife leaking filth from her husband's body and still being told she has not fulfilled his rights.
You have a hadith uh that that says that if a man's body was covered in sores from head to toe and his wife uh were to lick the pus out of these sores to cleanse them, then she still would not have fulfilled her duty to her husband.
Antichristian, Rashduct4luv, hassinho707 what do you guys think?

That narration is either weak or misunderstood. Scholars explain it as hyperbole (exaggeration), not a literal command. Islam teaches mutual rights, mercy, and respect between husband and wife.

hassinho707:
That narration is either weak or misunderstood. Scholars explain it as hyperbole (exaggeration), not a literal command. Islam teaches mutual rights, mercy, and respect between husband and wife.

I saw it somewhere that you can beat them too

hassinho707:
That narration is either weak or misunderstood. Scholars explain it as hyperbole (exaggeration), not a literal command. Islam teaches mutual rights, mercy, and respect between husband and wife.

Mr hyperbole well done

Is the husband hyperbole
Is the boil hyperbole
But when the woman lick the wound Is hyperbole

Kuffar

shox:
I saw it somewhere that you can beat them too

Just on the basis of suspicion o....


You can have a marriage of prostitution called MUTAH..


EVEN DEVIL IS SHICKED

sagenaija:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oklgsH1mXOY?si=82i2ioSLnZYUdSYw
Most Disgusting Hadith Ever? Shabir Ally, Ali Dawah & a Muslim Woman
The Hadith So Bad Even Muslims Call It Disgusting Hatun looks at one of the most shocking hadiths found in the Islamic tradition – the narration that says if a husband was covered from head to toe in sores, pouring out pus, and his wife came and licked that pus, she still would not have fulfilled his rights over her. Shabir Ally, Ali Dawah, Naima B Robert

A wife leaking filth from her husband's body and still being told she has not fulfilled his rights.
You have a hadith uh that that says that if a man's body was covered in sores from head to toe and his wife uh were to lick the pus out of these sores to cleanse them, then she still would not have fulfilled her duty to her husband.
Antichristian, Rashduct4luv, hassinho707 what do you guys think?

When you lift a report that’s already debated and read it word-for-word, you’re missing how scholars actually handle it.They either question it or read it as exaggeration for effect, which is a pretty normal rhetorical style in that region to stress a point, not give a literal command 📚

In context, it’s about highlighting responsibilities within marriage using intense imagery the same way other traditions use shocking metaphors to land a message, not something anyone is meant to act out 😅

So it’s basically an over-the-top way of saying you can’t fully repay someone’s rights, not a real standard or moral instruction and definitely not how women are actually treated in Islam 🔍⚖️

You may choose to disagree or mock more however in the Bible, Jesus Christ says that if your eye is leading you astray, you should get rid of it. Of course, no one actually means to chop it off; it’s just a powerful way to emphasize how serious it is to stay on the right path.

Similarly, in Jewish texts like the Talmud, there are some exaggerated statements about what spouses owe each other or what we should do for God, meant to highlight their importance rather than to be taken literally.

Even in our everyday conversations, we often say things like “I’d die for you” or “I owe you everything” clearly not meant to be taken literally, but rather to express the depth of our commitment. The vivid imagery in these expressions really drives home the point about responsibility, without suggesting that anyone should actually act on them.

The hadith is so damaging that you will see the excuse of..... it is imaginary


Quran clear but not clear you will need hadith to clear it... yet the same hadith needs tasfirs to clear it

See confusion confusing confuse
And twisting

Yasua akbar

honesttalk21:
When you lift a report that’s already debated and read it word-for-word, you’re missing how scholars actually handle it.They either question it or read it as exaggeration for effect, which is a pretty normal rhetorical style in that region to stress a point, not give a literal command 📚

In context, it’s about highlighting responsibilities within marriage using intense imagery the same way other traditions use shocking metaphors to land a message, not something anyone is meant to act out 😅

So it’s basically an over-the-top way of saying you can’t fully repay someone’s rights, not a real standard or moral instruction and definitely not how women are actually treated in Islam 🔍⚖️

You may choose to disagree or mock more however in the Bible, Jesus Christ says that if your eye is leading you astray, you should get rid of it. Of course, no one actually means to chop it off; it’s just a powerful way to emphasize how serious it is to stay on the right path.

Similarly, in Jewish texts like the Talmud, there are some exaggerated statements about what spouses owe each other or what we should do for God, meant to highlight their importance rather than to be taken literally.

Even in our everyday conversations, we often say things like “I’d die for you” or “I owe you everything” clearly not meant to be taken literally, but rather to express the depth of our commitment. The vivid imagery in these expressions really drives home the point about responsibility, without suggesting that anyone should actually act on them.

Unfortunately for you, the Talmud is not the word of God👀. But as for the 'best of mankind'👀 whose words "supposedly" come from "God" you have no excuse.

I advise you...Sorry, the best of mankind indulges you👀... to dip that housefly👀 into your food🤨. While doing that also drink camel's urine. If this is not enough also kiss the "mole"👀 on his back. If possible be like jabir that wanted to eat the excess of " the best of mankind"🤧. You can as well drink his urine and use his sweat as perfume🤨.

Aitalk at it once again...

Gabrielshow24:
Unfortunately for you, the Talmud is not the word of God👀. But as for the 'best of mankind'👀 whose words "supposedly" come from "God" you have no excuse.

I advise you...Sorry, the best of mankind indulges you👀... to dip that housefly👀 into your food🤨. While doing that also drink camel's urine. If this is not enough also kiss the "mole"👀 on his back. If possible be like jabir that wanted to eat the excess of " the best of mankind"🤧. You can as well drink his urine and use his sweat as perfume🤨.

Aitalk at it once again...

Where the theology ran out, so the housefly had to step in 👀? ? ?
The response you mocked gave you three clear parallels Jesus’ hyperbole, Talmudic language, everyday speech. You engaged none of them. You just proved the pattern: when the argument lands, the topic shifts 🎯
On the Talmud you’ve already made the Islamic point. If centuries of rabbinic scholarship don’t bind you because it’s not direct revelation, then you already understand why Muslims distinguish between Qur’an and hadith 📖

And here’s the contradiction: your entire argument rests on a hadith the very category you just dismissed when it didn’t suit you. By your own standard, you’ve built your case on what you’ve already called unreliable 🔍

Mockery doesn’t win arguments it replaces them. And right now, that replacement is doing all the talking 💡

honesttalk21:
Where the theology ran out, so the housefly had to step in 👀? ? ?
The response you mocked gave you three clear parallels Jesus’ hyperbole, Talmudic language, everyday speech. You engaged none of them. You just proved the pattern: when the argument lands, the topic shifts 🎯
On the Talmud you’ve already made the Islamic point. If centuries of rabbinic scholarship don’t bind you because it’s not direct revelation, then you already understand why Muslims distinguish between Qur’an and hadith 📖

And here’s the contradiction: your entire argument rests on a hadith the very category you just dismissed when it didn’t suit you. By your own standard, you’ve built your case on what you’ve already called unreliable 🔍

Mockery doesn’t win arguments it replaces them. And right now, that replacement is doing all the talking 💡

You just had to quote me twice🥱.

You’re basically 🤦🏾‍♂️comparing Rabbinic commentary (human debate) to the Sunnah of the 'Infallible' Messenger. 😳 If the Hadith is just 'cultural flavor' or 'hyperbole' like the Talmud, then you’ve just demoted your Prophet from a divine conduit to a 7th-century folklorist😂. Are you sure you want to go there?🤨

You claim I’m using an 'unreliable' source to build a case, yet these are the very foundations of your jurisprudence. If the 'pus' Hadith is unreliable, then what about the Five Pillars?👀 They come from the same books😂. You don't get to treat the Hadith like a buffet where you pick the 'mercy' and leave the 'houseflies' and 'urine' under the heat lamp🤧. Calling the command to lick sores 'hyperbole' is a bold strategy. Usually, hyperbole is used to emphasize a moral truth🤔, not to create a bizarrely specific image of medical hygiene😔.

Your argument is so absurd that mockery is the only honest reaction😂. If I have to explain why drinking camel urine or licking sores isn't 'divine wisdom👀,' the theology hasn't just 'run out'—it never started🤦🏾‍♂️.

I'll stick to my 'unreliable'👀 sources. At least they’re consistent in their oddity. Enjoy the 'Talmudic'...Oops, 'Hadith' housefly🤨 in your soup!

Gabrielshow24:
You just had to quote me twice🥱.

You’re basically 🤦🏾‍♂️comparing Rabbinic commentary (human debate) to the Sunnah of the 'Infallible' Messenger. 😳 If the Hadith is just 'cultural flavor' or 'hyperbole' like the Talmud, then you’ve just demoted your Prophet from a divine conduit to a 7th-century folklorist😂. Are you sure you want to go there?🤨


You claim I’m using an 'unreliable' source to build a case, yet these are the very foundations of your jurisprudence. If the 'pus' Hadith is unreliable, then what about the Five Pillars?👀 They come from the same books😂. You don't get to treat the Hadith like a buffet where you pick the 'mercy' and leave the 'houseflies' and 'urine' under the heat lamp🤧. Calling the command to lick sores 'hyperbole' is a bold strategy. Usually, hyperbole is used to emphasize a moral truth🤔, not to create a bizarrely specific image of medical hygiene😔.

Your argument is so absurd that mockery is the only honest reaction😂. If I have to explain why drinking camel urine or licking sores isn't 'divine wisdom👀,' the theology hasn't just 'run out'—it never started🤦🏾‍♂️.

I'll stick to my 'unreliable'👀 sources. At least they’re consistent in their oddity. Enjoy the 'Talmudic'...Oops, 'Hadith' housefly🤨 in your soup!

Appreciate your notice of quoting you twice. That's what happens when responses across separate threads get brought together 😄

Your buffet analogy actually describes your own approach better than ours.

You selectively quote narrations for mockery while dismissing the same corpus when it answers you and that's the buffet. Islamic scholarship doesn't pick and choose it developed an entire science of authentication that grades every narration by chain integrity, narrator reliability and consistency. That methodology is precisely why not every narration carries identical weight 📖

The Five Pillars point actually backfires. The pillars are established through mutawatir transmission — mass narration, independently verified across generations. The narrations you're mocking come from ahad singular reports — single chain transmissions of varying authentication. That's not inconsistency that's a methodology you chose not to engage 🔍

On hyperbole you said it must emphasize a moral truth to qualify. Partly agreed. The moral truth being emphasized is the depth of marital responsibility. Intense imagery stressing an unpayable debt of gratitude, consistent with a rhetorical tradition that says "I'd die for you" without scheduling the funeral 🎯. A hyperbole does not have to emphasize a moral truth; it is primarily used for exaggeration and emphasis in speech or writing.

On the housefly specifically, the narration references properties now confirmed in studies on certain fly wings. You mocked it as bizarre medical hygiene but science moved in the other direction. That's a caution against dismissing 7th century guidance before the research exists to evaluate it.💉

Distinguishing authenticated from weak narrations doesn't demote prophethood it protects it. Accepting everything uncritically regardless of chain integrity would be the actual demotion.

Mockery of specific narrations while ignoring the methodology that evaluates them isn't theology it's theatre 💡

honesttalk21:
Appreciate your notice of quoting you twice. That's what happens when responses across separate threads get brought together 😄

Your buffet analogy actually describes your own approach better than ours.

You selectively quote narrations for mockery while dismissing the same corpus when it answers you and that's the buffet. Islamic scholarship doesn't pick and choose it developed an entire science of authentication that grades every narration by chain integrity, narrator reliability and consistency. That methodology is precisely why not every narration carries identical weight 📖

The Five Pillars point actually backfires. The pillars are established through mutawatir transmission — mass narration, independently verified across generations. The narrations you're mocking come from ahad singular reports — single chain transmissions of varying authentication. That's not inconsistency that's a methodology you chose not to engage 🔍

On hyperbole you said it must emphasize a moral truth to qualify. Partly agreed. The moral truth being emphasized is the depth of marital responsibility. Intense imagery stressing an unpayable debt of gratitude, consistent with a rhetorical tradition that says "I'd die for you" without scheduling the funeral 🎯. A hyperbole does not have to emphasize a moral truth; it is primarily used for exaggeration and emphasis in speech or writing.

On the housefly specifically, the narration references properties now confirmed in studies on certain fly wings. You mocked it as bizarre medical hygiene but science moved in the other direction. That's a caution against dismissing 7th century guidance before the research exists to evaluate it.💉

Distinguishing authenticated from weak narrations doesn't demote prophethood it protects it. Accepting everything uncritically regardless of chain integrity would be the actual demotion.

Mockery of specific narrations while ignoring the methodology that evaluates them isn't theology it's theatre 💡

"Ahad" does not mean "unreliable." If a Hadith is in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim, it is considered Sahih (authentic) by the consensus of the Ummah for 1,000 years. Are you suggesting that the "Most Authentic Books🤨 after the Qur'an" are filled with unreliable junk just because they aren't Mutawatir?🤷😳

Islamic Law (Sharia) is built almost entirely on Ahad narrations. If you throw out Ahad reports to save face in a debate, you just threw out 90% of Islamic jurisprudence😂—Genius move🤨♟️.

This is a common internet myth. No peer-reviewed medical journal suggests that if a fly falls into your soup, you should submerge it to "release the antidote." Flies carry cholera, typhoid, and polio. Also, we have had this discussion in times past, you failed miserably. You can consult the thread we had this discussion on. Your arguments have been dismissed about the 'Hadith fly' 'miracle' 😂.

It seems you just finished saying these narrations are "Ahad"🤔 and "varying in weight" to distance yourself from them, then immediately turned around and tried to claim they are "Scientifically Divine.🤷🥱" Which is it? Is it a questionable single-chain report, or is it a scientific miracle? You are playing both sides of the fence because you are losing🥱.

If the "best of mankind"👀 wanted to teach "gratitude," he could have spoken about love, mercy, or kindness (as seen in other scriptures). Choosing the image of a woman licking running pus isn't "rhetoric"—it’s a degradation of women disguised as piety.🤦🏾‍♂️

By the way, when a husband says "I'd die for you," it’s an expression of sacrifice😊. When a text says "You haven't fulfilled your duty until you lick his sores," it’s an expression of subservience. One elevates the partner; the other treats them like a medical rag👀.

I definitely love the smell of 'Methodology'🐽 in the evening 🤔. It always shows up right when the actual texts become an embarrassment😣.

Finally, if you’re going to claim the Sahih collections (the bedrock of your faith)👀 are just a 'buffet' of varying reliability 😳, you aren't defending your religion—you’re dismantling it for me. Keep going, you’re doing great! 🔍🎯😂—You will definitely give Magnus Carlsen a run for his money😂, your 'moves' are 'brilliant'.😂

Aitalk, tell me another lie.

Gabrielshow24:
"Ahad" does not mean "unreliable." If a Hadith is in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim, it is considered Sahih (authentic) by the consensus of the Ummah for 1,000 years. Are you suggesting that the "Most Authentic Books🤨 after the Qur'an" are filled with unreliable junk just because they aren't Mutawatir?🤷😳

Islamic Law (Sharia) is built almost entirely on Ahad narrations. If you throw out Ahad reports to save face in a debate, you just threw out 90% of Islamic jurisprudence😂—Genius move🤨♟️.

This is a common internet myth. No peer-reviewed medical journal suggests that if a fly falls into your soup, you should submerge it to "release the antidote." Flies carry cholera, typhoid, and polio. Also, we have had this discussion in times past, you failed miserably. You can consult the thread we had this discussion on. Your arguments have been dismissed about the 'Hadith fly' 'miracle' 😂.

It seems you just finished saying these narrations are "Ahad"🤔 and "varying in weight" to distance yourself from them, then immediately turned around and tried to claim they are "Scientifically Divine.🤷🥱" Which is it? Is it a questionable single-chain report, or is it a scientific miracle? You are playing both sides of the fence because you are losing🥱.

If the "best of mankind"👀 wanted to teach "gratitude," he could have spoken about love, mercy, or kindness (as seen in other scriptures). Choosing the image of a woman licking running pus isn't "rhetoric"—it’s a degradation of women disguised as piety.🤦🏾‍♂️

By the way, when a husband says "I'd die for you," it’s an expression of sacrifice😊. When a text says "You haven't fulfilled your duty until you lick his sores," it’s an expression of subservience. One elevates the partner; the other treats them like a medical rag👀.

I definitely love the smell of 'Methodology'🐽 in the evening 🤔. It always shows up right when the actual texts become an embarrassment😣.

Finally, if you’re going to claim the Sahih collections (the bedrock of your faith)👀 are just a 'buffet' of varying reliability 😳, you aren't defending your religion—you’re dismantling it for me. Keep going, you’re doing great! 🔍🎯😂—You will definitely give Magnus Carlsen a run for his money😂, your 'moves' are 'brilliant'.😂

Aitalk, tell me another lie.

Oh oh! The hadith the OP opened with has already been addressed. It's grading, context, and rhetorical (hyperbolic) style are understood. That point isn’t up for debate anymore. it’s settled 📌
On ahad I never said “unreliable.” I applied our own scholarly method: Muhammad al-Bukhari rigorously filtered hundreds of thousands of reports down to a fraction. That’s internal scrutiny, not rejection. Distinguishing between a category and evaluating individual reports within it is standard hadith science not a concession 📚.
And labels don’t refute arguments. The reasoning is still standing you just haven’t answered it 🎯