A Debate between Dr. Pourhassan the
and Ali Sina
Thank you so much again for
this opportunity for me to put all my understanding and learning from the
Koran into a debate with a worthy adversary.
I read some of your articles
and so far I agree with almost everything you said about today’s
Islam. My book also
claims today’s Islam has become corrupted by misinterpretation and
offers little that encourages the advancement of individuals.
It has become a religion of hate, terror, and inhumanity. The
difference between my approach and yours is that you believe the Islam
that is practiced today is the product of the teachings of the Koran and
therefore you mistakenly (in my opinion) conclude that it is the Koran
itself which is incorrect.
You also vilify and malign
the prophet Mohammad. In my humble opinion with all due respect this is
not necessary. Maligning Mohammad as a sexual or anything else is not
going to change the content of the Koran.
Many prophets made mistakes in their lives and yet God forgave them
(i.e. prophets Davood, Yosef, and Yones). I respectfully disagree with
most of the things you are saying about the prophet Mohammad, however I am
not a historian. Therefore with your permission I would like to go to the
heart of the matter.
I will prove to the world of
Islam that they have been taught everything backward: from the prayers, to
the fasting, and to the fanaticism of killing for God. By debating with
you about specific subjects we can learn from each other and progress
logically, one step at a time.
Please let us not debate
about who Mohammad was. This is not my specialty.
I am an expert in the Koran. Besides, the Koran was not written by
Mohammed; it came through him from God.
I am more expert in the
Koran than 1000 ayatollahs put together. I say this not because I think I
am genius or a great man, but rather because I believe and the Koran has
stated that this book is very clear and is easy to understand.
being clear it says:
12:1) “These are verses from the clear book (12:1)”
are more than 35 similar verses.
being easy to understand it says:
54:17) “ We have made the Koran easy for learning; yet will anyone learn
are more than 35 similar verses.
Of course the above quotes
are not proof to you since you question the validity of the Koran itself
but it is a proof to the Ayatollahs and so called religious leaders who
claim the opposite.
to the Koran, Moslems must accept the Bible just like the Koran (except
for few minor corrections). And in the Bible, Jesus talks about the huge,
terrible injustice the religious leaders have done to their religions.
In Luke, chapter 11
verse 50-52, this is what Jesus told a religious authority of Jews:
the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the
world may be required of this generation – From the blood of Abel to the
blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple.
Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation – Woe
to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge.
You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you
These crucial verses from
the holy Bible show that all the points you are making about how
religions, especially Islam, have become corrupted is not the fault of the
prophets who brought them, but the fault of those who consider themselves
leaders of the religions after the prophets.
They change the laws of God that came to us through prophets and
pervert them to serve their own needs, no matter what those needs might
going to your site http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/prologue.htm,
I realize that
you agonize in much the same way as I do. You cannot rationalize all these
people believing in a religion that has nothing to offer and yet its
followers believe fanatically that it has everything to offer.
The biggest difference between you and me is that you attack the
prophet Mohammed’s character to show he was not even a prophet.
I do not do that and have
great deal of respect for him. All the stories you quote in your site
could be right or could be wrong, why waste our valuable time focusing on
the prophet Mohammad. Let's get busy investigating his book that he left
for humanity, a book that has caused millions to believe in this faith for
In my opinion you attack
today’s Islam rightfully. However
you wrongfully take verses of the Koran out of context (I will show you
examples later in the debate.) By doing this you are trying to disparage
I also attack today’s
Islam and disregard almost everything the current leaders claim. I show
the true Koran by not interpreting its words but simply quoting all the
verses about a given subject with out any prejudice or without taking
verses out of context, and by so doing, I let the readers see clearly the
Koran’s teachings for themselves.
In your article you have
stated that politicians say “Islam is a religion of peace” just to be
politically correct. I
believe going against something just because it is politically correct is
the wrong way to find out about the truth. I believe many people want to
be politically incorrect just to prove their openness to a given subject.
However, I don’t say this to prove or disprove your point about
Islam being a religion of peace. I, too, like to think Islam is a religion
of hate. But unlike you I think the Koran is a book of love and I will
your response to me you said:
“So as you see I am very much
surprised to see that you and I could read the same book and come to
opposing conclusions. How is that possible? Naturally one of us is
completely off the track. The question is which one of us is so mistaken.
I believe both you and I
agree that the form Islam has taken today has made this religion a
religion that violates the human rights of the non-Muslims, denigrates
women and breeds terrorists. These are all true but again you are seeing
the problem differently than I do.
The problem is not the Koran
(and we will let you and your honorable members be the judge whether I am
misunderstanding the verses of the Koran that I quote or whether you are
taking these verses out of their proper context.)
I will show some clear
mistakes in your quotation of the Koran, but first let me also state that
I am against any Hadith being the source of guidance. I believe the Koran
when it claims to be a complete book for guidance. I would also add that
no Hadith is needed to complete the Koran:
the Koran being a complete book:
… We have sent the book down to you to explain everything, and for
guidance and mercy … (16:89)”. “In
it [the Koran] every wise matter is set forth (44:3)” –
There are more than ten similar verses.
being against Hadith:
men buy up some HADITH to mislead others from God’s way without having
any knowledge …(31:6)". “In what HADITH, then, after (Koran),
will they believe? (77:49)".
- There are more than twenty-five verses like these.
Do you agree that the above
verses clearly support the above statements I made?
You have taken verses out of
their context from the Koran in your site as follows: “Quran tells
Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q; 2:191),
murder them and treat them harshly (Q; 9:123),
slay them (Q; 9:5),
fight with them, (Q; 8:65
You read this verse and
concluded “Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they
I read this verse and the
verses before it, so I don’t take things out of its context and I
understand the following:
That Moslems (meaning those
who believe in God and therefore the Koran claims Moses and Jesus and
their followers are all Moslems) are allowed to fight with those who would
fight them and warns them not to be oppressive in their fight but observe
the laws of God (which are explained in Koran clearly and are laws of
fairness). It urges Moslems to fight those who oppose them and drive them
out of their houses as the opponents drove the Moslems out of their
houses. This is clearly a
defensive fight. So when a country goes after people who are terrorists
they are following this verse the best.
And now the honorable
members of your site and yourself be the judge. I will quote the Koran
verse 190 and 191 of chapter 2:
fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, and do not exceed
the limits, surely God does not love those who exceed the limits.
kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they
drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight
with them at the sacred mosque until they fight with you in it, but if
they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the
Can anyone rationally make
the mistake of thinking the above is urging Moslems to kill the
disbelievers wherever they find them? This is only possible if we take
“and fight in the way of God” out of its context.
reading a little of the text before and after these verses you clearly see
the Koran is only talking about the situation where the disbelievers are
not allowing the believers to exercise their right to believe in God and
are trying to kick them out of their houses on the basis of their religion
and are killing them on the basis of their beliefs. So in this verse
Hitler would be more like the disbelievers and the forces that killed
Hitler become more like the believers. Or better example Osama Bin Laden
becomes like the disbeliever and USA becomes more like the believers.
Please let me know if I am wrong.
Now all your quotations
about killings are similar to the above.
I suggest for your members to read my book “The Corruption of
Moslem Minds”, chapter 9, section 3.
I took all the verses that have killing in them or holy war and
wrote them all and the verses themselves were clearly showing that killing
is allowed only in defense, not offense.
Also I quote you some interesting verses that puts an end to all
these speculations of how the Koran promotes violence.
does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on
account of your religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes,
that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves
the doers of justice.
only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of
religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up in your
expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with
them, these are the unjust.
I wrong to think that the Koran is a book of peace and love and also
allows human to protect themselves against those who want to kill them?
look at the following verse and see how loving the Koran is commanding its
followers to be:
good deed and an evil deed are not alike: repel evil with something that
is finer, and notice how someone who is separated from you because of
enmity will become a bosom friend!
only those who discipline themselves will attain it; only the very
luckiest will achieve it!
My dear friend, we must be
fair to these verses. They are clear indications that the Koran is a book
that represents a religion of love and not hate.
In the Koran it has been stated more than 70 times that in order
for Moslems to go to heaven you must believe in God and do good deeds.
The problems that clergymen have brought to the world of Islam is
that they claim we must follow every verse of the Koran as interpreted by
them and even the rules that were given to the Arabs 1400 years ago.
This is the problem. The
Koran says those who do not use their minds (unlike you and I) are the
disbelievers. I have written
an article that shows the Koran claims that the disbelievers must have
evil qualities to qualify as disbelievers just as the believers must have
good qualities to prove they are believers.
It is my opinion that you are a believer even though you bash
prophet Mohammad, because you are trying to think and use your mind.
Please note the following powerful verses about this:
“The worst creatures before God are the deaf and dumb, those
who do not use their minds."
“The worst creatures before God are those who disbelieve and do not even want to believe."
See how these two above
verses put those Moslems of the world, who blindly go and kill themselves
for what they think is God’s path, among the disbelievers.
Believers are those who use their minds, because if you use your
mind how could you not believe in God.
In the end I would like to
apologize if in my writing I have offended you or anyone.
The last thing I want to do is to lose the opportunity of learning
from a scholar like you. I
have no pride. I will accept whatever is fair and just, so please let us
To continue our debate in a
most effective way and for the sake of making our debate a great one, take
one subject at a time that you think the Koran is wrong about and let me
prove to you the opposite. If we are able to do this with one subject then
we move on to the next one.
I think everyone who reads
about a given religion, puts on their own glasses and they look at that
religion through only those glasses. I like to remove my glasses and look
at the Koran like it is and judge it with no prejudice. May God help me
and everyone to do this.
Dear Dr. Pourhassan,
Thank you for your kind
response. I can say from the start that our debate will be a fruitful one
as I inhale from your words the fragrance of sincerity and the commitment
to truth. This is a rare quality and so it is an honor for me to find a
gem like you.
I am happy to see that you
agree with me that Islam has become a religion of hate, terror and
inhumanity. However I want to prove to you that no matter how bad you see
today’s Islam, it is far better than what Muhammad brought. Hopefully at
the end of this discussion you will agree with me that this tree is rotten
from the core and Muhammad was not a messenger of God but a successful
cult leader with no divine message. That he was driven by lust of power
You objected that I vilify
and malign Muhammad. You said it is not necessary maligning him as sexual or anything else. My honored friend,
I have said that Muhammad
was an immoral and unethical person. I said he was a highway robber, a
marauding chieftain, an assassin, a mass murderer, a pervert, a pedophile,
a narcissist and a schizophrenic. These are not libels. These are charges
against him and I will prove to you each and every one of these charges
and if you can show that I am mistaken on either one of them I will
withdraw that charge and apologize for it.
Muhammad is the subject of
our discussion. He claimed to be a prophet of God and pretended that Allah
surely thou hast sublime morals" (Q. 68:4).
in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow" (Q. 33:21).
sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures. (Q. 21:107).
Verily this is the word of a most honorable Messenger, (Q. 81.19)
Since these claims are made
in the Quran and since the character, honesty and state of the mind of
Muhammad are key to giving any credibility to the Quran, we cannot ignore
him and his character in our discussion of the Quran.
Therefore I have to disagree
with you when you say that the character of Muhammad should not be
discussed. Those above verses are the claims of the Quran. Shouldn’t we
analyze those claims?
If Muhammad was just a
mailman bringing to us a book sealed and signed from God and we all could
see that the book is actually written and signed by God himself then you
would be right. The Character of the mailman would have been irrelevant.
However the Quran was not written by God. It was allegedly revealed to
Muhammad. Those words came out of the mouth of Muhammad. Therefore we
cannot overlook the character of the messenger. What if he was a liar? You
take for granted that Muhammad was a truthful messenger of God and that
Quran is the book of God even before we have a chance to study that book.
The conclusion therefore is pre drawn. That is hardly a logical or a
Then again if you part from
such assumption that Quran is the book revealed by God, what else is left
to discuss? Are we to become judges of the words of God?
Our first task must be to
establish whether Quran is from God or not and the first question we have
to ask ourselves is whether the messenger is trustworthy or not. After
proving to you that the messenger was a liar, I will also prove to you
that the content of his message is asinine and it certainly cannot be the
message from the creator of this universe.
the Quran clear?
You quoted a couple of
verses of Muhammad claiming that Quran is clear and easy to understand. I
am familiar with those claims. However are they true?
are many contradictory verses in the Quran that can be quite confusing.
This ambiguity has allowed Muslims to have their personalized “divine
guidance” based on their own preferences. Those who like tolerance or
want to present Islam as a tolerant religion can quote parts of the Quran
that advocate tolerance, while the hardliners, the fundamentalists and
even the terrorists can quote those parts of the Quran that foment hate
and killing of the disbelievers. Therefore ironically everyone can find
what he is looking for in that book. And they call this the
"miracle" of Quran!
us compare some of the contradictory verses of the Quran:
Surah 73:10 God tells Mohammad to be patient with his opponents,
patient with what they say, and part from them courteously".
in Surah 2:191 God orders him to kill his opponents,
them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove
Surah 2:256 God tells Mohammad not to impose Islam by force,
is no compulsion in religion",
again in verse 193 He tells his messenger to kill whoever rejects Islam,
them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's".
Surah 29:45 God tells Mohammad to speak nicely to people of the Book
(Christians and Jews),
with people of the book, other than evil doers, only by means of what
are better! and say, we believe in what has been sent down to us and
sent down to you. Our God is the same as your God, and we are
surrendered to Him."
in Surah 9:29 Allah tells him to fight the people of the Book,
those who do not believe in God and the last day... and fight People of
the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay
tribute by hand, being inferior".
gives no justification for this discrepancy in the Quran and the change in
Allah's mood from peaceful to militant and from conciliatory to
confrontational. Muslim apologists in the West present selectively the
kinder verses of the Quran or what is known as the Early Revelations. While
the Muslim clerics preach the violent verses to their Muslim audience
and claim that those softer verses of the Quran are abrogated and
supplanted by the later revelations that contained the harsher verses. The
reason given is, as Al Maudoody puts it: "Mohammad became strong
enough to move from the stage of weakness to the stage of Jihad".
13 years Muhammad preached in Mecca but less than 100 people accepted him.
Meccans preferred Al Nadr, another storyteller to Muhammad’s boring
warnings of hell. His irreverence to their gods angered the people.
Eventually he migrated to Medina where he found a more receptive audience.
His followers also joined him and he called them immigrants.
At first they were poor and used to work as journeymen in palm
plantations of the Jews living in Medina. They used to give some of their
food to Muhammad, who often dined on nothing but few dates. The
hardship of life in exile was unbearable to Muhammad. He was not
interested in work. He had bigger plans. He started raiding the merchant
caravans that were carrying goods from Damascus to Mecca. One of these
raids that took place at Badr was a big success and the Prophet made a
good fortune thereof. Then he planned other highway robberies and raiding
villages. He distributed the booty, among those who took part in the
battles and kept 20% for himself. He even made money threatening to kill
his captives and released them only after receiving ransom. He assured his
followers that if they fall in the battles, they would get more rewards in
Paradise. Gradually his fortunes changed. He was no more a weak neglected
preacher but a successful marauding chieftain who commanded absolute power
over his followers. With this
change of fortune Muhammad's message also changed. Here is a comparison
between some early verses he wrote in Mecca while weak and some that he
wrote in Medina after becoming powerful.
Meccan Early Verses
Medinan Later verses
is no compulsion in religion
ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find
harshness in you.
patient with what they say, and part from them courteously
will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye
above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off.
you be your religion, and to me my religion"
desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of
him; in the next world he shall be among the losers."
be patient with what they say, and celebrate (constantly) the
praises of thy Lord,
them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they
drove you out
good to men...
the idolaters wherever you find them
it had been thy Lord's Will, they would all have believed, all who
are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind against their will to
them on until there is no more
discord) and religion becomes that of Allah
well know what the infidels say: but you are not to compel them
them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with
shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of
with people of the book, other than evil doers, only by means of
what are better! and say, we believe in what has been sent down to
us and sent down to you. Our God is the same as your God, and we
are surrendered to Him.
those who do not believe in God and the last day... and fight
People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth
(Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior"
who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish
(scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabeans,- any who believe
in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have
their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall
Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ
the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this)
they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's
curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; But turn away from
you who believe! Verily, the Mushrikűn (unbeleivers) are Najasun
(impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Makkah)
after this year, …
thou, with a gracious pardoning....
him is Hell; and he shall be made to drink boiling water.
insult not (Revile not) those whom they call upon besides Allah,
lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus we
made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end they
return to their Lord, and we shall then tell them the truth of all
that they did
If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full)
knowledge Hath come to thee, say: "Come! let us gather
together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women,
ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke
the curse of Allah on those who lie!"
Lord, these are people who do not believe,’ Bear with them and
wish them ‘peace.’ In the end they shall know their folly.
you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you
have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the
We know best what they say; and thou art not one to overawe
them by force.
Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty
amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two
hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the
Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to
kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and
rebellion: He instructs you, that ye may receive admonition.
not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather
than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from
Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves
from them. But Allah cautions you (to fear) Himself; for the final
goal is to Allah.
those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the
Days of Allah:
them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power,
including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the
enemies, of Allah and your enemies.
Muslim scholars have tried to explain this obvious dichotomy.
Dr. M. Khan the translator of Sahih Bukhari and the Quran into English
"Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (Repentance, IX) [the order to
discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to
fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the
Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they
pay the Jizya (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing
submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the
Muslims were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" against
them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to
suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are
STRONG and have the ability to fight against them. So
at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted,
and after that it was made obligatory "[Introduction to
English translation of Sahih Bukhari, p.xxiv.]
9:5 reads: "Slay the idolaters
wherever you find them"
So according to Dr. M. Khan in Q. 9:5 Allah ordered Mohammad to cancel all
covenants and to fight the pagans, the Jews even the Christians. This is
in contrast to what Muhammad wrote earlier.
wilt find the nearest of them in love to the believers [Muslims} are those
who say 'We are Christians'" (Q. 5:82)
The "Mujahideen who fight against the enemies of Allah in order that
the worship should be all for Allah (alone and not for any other deity)
and that the word is Allah's (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but
Allah and His religion Islam) should be upper most."
So first it was “There is no
compulsion in religion” (Q.
2:265) and then
who believe! shall I direct you to a commerce that which will save you
from a painful torment? That you believe in Allah and His Apostle
(Mohammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah with
your wealth and your lives. That will be better for you, if you but knew.
If you do so He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into gardens of
Eternity - that is the great success" (Q.
Sobhy as-Saleh, a contemporary academic, does not see in Q. 2:256 and Q.
9:73 a case of abrogation but a case of delaying or postponing the command
to fight the infidels. To support his view he quoted Imam Suyuti the
author of Itqan Fi 'Ulum al- Qur'an who wrote:
“The command to fight the infidels was DELAYED UNTIL THE MUSLIMS BECOME
STRONG, but when they were weak they were commanded to endure and be
patient. [ Sobhy as_Saleh, Mabaheth Fi 'Ulum al- Qur'an, Dar al-'Ilm
Lel-Malayeen, Beirut, 1983, p. 269.]
Dr. Sobhy, in a footnote, commends the opinion of a scholar named Zarkashi
"Allah the most high and wise revealed to Mohammad in his weak
condition what suited the situation, because of his mercy to him and his
followers. For if He gave them the command to fight while they were weak
it would have been embarrassing and most difficult, but when the most high
made Islam victorious He commanded him with what suited the situation,
that is asking the people of the Book to become Muslims or to pay the
levied tax, and the infidels to become Muslims or face death. These two
options, to fight or to have peace return according to the strength or the
weakness of the Muslims."[ibid p. 270]
And Nahas writes:
"the scholars differed concerning Q. 2:256. (There is no compulsion
if religion) Some said: 'It has been abrogated [cancelled] for the Prophet
compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fought them and did not accept
any alternative but their surrender to Islam. The abrogating verse is Q.
9:73 'O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou
harsh with them.' Mohammad asked Allah the permission to fight them and it
was granted. Other scholars said Q. 2:256 has not been abrogated, but it
had a special application. It was revealed concerning the people of the
Book [the Jews and the Christians]; they can not be compelled to embrace
Islam if they pay the Jizia (that is head tax on free non-Muslims under
Muslim rule). It is only the idol worshippers who are compelled to embrace
Islam and upon them Q. 9:73 applies. This is the opinion of Ibn 'Abbas
which is the best opinion due to the authenticity of its chain of
authority."[ al-Nahas, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, p.80. See also Ibn Hazm
al-Andalusi, A-Nnasikh wal-Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, birute,
Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi writes:
"Fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress
not: God loves not the aggressors (2:190)" On the authority of Ga'far
ar-Razi from Rabi' Ibn 'Ons, from 'Abil-'Aliyah who said: This is the
first verse that was revealed in the Qur'an about fighting in the Madina.
When it was revealed the prophet used to fight those who fight with him
and avoid those who avoid him, until Sura 9 was revealed. And so is the
opinion of 'Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn 'Aslam who said this verse was
cancelled by 9:5 "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them"[ bn
Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal- Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, birute,
For more on this subject see http://www.debate.domini.org/newton/tolerance.html,
demanded from his followers to wage war against people of their own kin.
And to justify his killing sprees he said, “oppression is worse than
killing”. The following verse was revealed to incite the immigrants to
kill their Meccan relatives because they "oppressed" them
forcing them to flee Mecca.
You may kill those who wage war against
you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse
than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack
you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just
retribution for those disbelievers.
fact the Meccans were not sympathetic to Muslims. They mocked and teased
them but never killed anyone for accepting Islam. The Meccans were
polytheists. Polytheism by its nature is tolerant of other beliefs. Only
in Ka’na there were 360 gods, each being the patron protector of a
different tribe. Apart from the pagan religions, there were Jews,
Christians, Sabeans and Zoroastrians who lived in Hijaz and not only
practiced but also preached their religion freely. The reason the Meccans
were upset of Muhammad was not because he was teaching an new religion but
because he was insulting their (the Meccans) religion and was
disrespectful of their beliefs. The reaction of the Meccans was
justifiable and normal.
the other hand Muhammad could not tolerate anyone making fun of him. What
did Muhammad do to those who mocked HIM? He sent assassins to kill them.
contradictions in the Quran are not limited to those verses quoted above.
This book is full of inconsistencies and errancies.
are a few of them:
it just doesn't add up: Sura 4:11-12 and 4:176 state the Qur'anic
inheritance law. When a man dies, and is leaving behind three
daughters, his two parents and his wife, they will receive the
respective shares of 2/3 for the 3 daughters together, 1/3 for the
parents together [both according to verse 4:11] and 1/8 for the wife
[4:12] which adds up to more than the available estate. A second
example: A man leaves only his mother, his wife and two sisters, then
they receive 1/3 [mother, 4:11], 1/4 [wife, 4:12] and 2/3 [the two
sisters, 4:176], which again adds up to 15/12 of the available
many angels were talking to Mary? When the Qur'an speaks about the
announciation of the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary, Sura 3:42,45
speaks about (several) angels while it is only one in Sura
numerical discrepancies Does Allah's day equal to 1,000 human
years (Sura 22:47, 32:5) or 50,000 human years (Sura 70:4)? --- How
many gardens are there in paradise? ONE [as stated in 39:73, 41:30,
57:21, 79:41] or MANY [18:31, 22:23, 35:33, 78:32]? --- According to
Sura 56:7 there will be THREE distinct groups of people at the Last
Judgement, but 90:18-19, 99:6-8, etc. mention only TWO groups. ---
There are conflicting views on who takes the souls at death: THE Angel
of Death [32:11], THE angels (plural) [47:27] but also "It is
Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death." [39:42]
Angels have 2, 3, or 4 pairs of wings [35:1]. But Gabriel had 600
wings. [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 455]
many days did Allah need to destroy the people of Aad? One day
[54:19] or several days [41:16; 69:6,7]
or eight days of creation? Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59
clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth"
in six days. But in 41:9-12 the detailed description of the creation
procedure adds up to eight days.
or Slow Creation? Allah creates the heavens and the earth in six
days [7:54] and many Muslims want to be modern and scientific, and
make that six eons, but then again, He creates instantaneously
[2:117], "Be! And it is".
or Earth? Which was created first? First earth and then heaven
[2:29], heaven and after that earth [79:27-30].
together or ripping apart? In the process of creation heaven and
earth were first apart and are called to come together [41:11], while
21:30 states that they were originally one piece and then ripped
was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45,
25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59,
30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth
[11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]
Detailed Or Incomplete? The Qur'an claims for itself to be (fully)
detailed, that nothing is left out of the book [6:38, 6:114, 12:111,
16:89 etc.]. However there are plenty of important issues which are
left unclear in the Qur'an. This article discusses the confusion found
in the quranic statements on wine.
Intercede or Not To Intercede? - That is the Question! The Qur'an
makes contradictory statements whether on the Day of Judgment
intercession will be possible. No: [2:122-123, 254; 6:51; 82:18-19;
etc.]. Yes: [20:109; 34:23; 43:86; 53:26; etc.]. Each position can be
further supported by ahadith.
is Allah and his throne? Allah is nearer than the jugular vein
[50:16], but he is also on the throne [57:4] which is upon the water
[11:7], and at the same time so far away, that it takes between 1,000
and 50,000 years to reach reach him [32:5, 70:4].
origin of calamity? Is the evil in our life from Satan [38:41],
Ourselves [4:79], or Allah [4:78]?
merciful is Allah's mercy? He has prescribed mercy for himself
[6:12], yet he does not guide some, even though he could [6:35, 14:4].
there be inquiry in Paradise? "neither will they question one
another" [23:101] but nevertheless they will be "engaging in
mutual inquiry" [52:25], "and they will ... question one
angels protectors? "NO protector besides Allah" [2:107,
29:22]. But in Sura 41:31 the angels themselves say: "We are your
protectors in this life and the Hereafter." And also in other
suras is their role described as guarding [13:11, 50:17-18] and
everything devoutly obedient to Allah? That is the claim in 30:26,
but dozens of verses speak of the proud disobedience of Satan [7:11,
15:28-31, 17:61, 20:116, 38:71-74, 18:50] as well of many different
human beings who reject His commands and His revelations.
Allah forgive shirk? Shirk is considered the worst of all sins,
but the author of the Qur'an seems seems unable to decide if Allah
will ever forgive it or not. No [4:48, 116], Yes [4:153, 25:68-71].
Abraham committed this sin of polytheism as he takes moon, sun, stars
to be his Lord [6:76-78], yet Muslims believe that all prophets are
without any sin.
event of worship of the golden calf: The Israelites repented about
worshipping the golden calf BEFORE Moses returned from the mountain
[7:149], yet they refused to repent but rather continued to worship
the calf until Moses came back [20:91]. Does Aaron share in their
guilt? No [20:85-90], yes [20:92, 7:151].
Jonah cast on the desert shore or was he not? "Then We cast
him on a desert shore while he was sick" [37:145] "Had not
Grace from his Lord reached him, he would indeed have been cast off on
the naked shore while he was reprobate." [68:49]
and the Injil? Jesus is born more than 1,000 years after Moses,
but in 7:157 Allah speaks to Moses about what is written in the Injil
[the book given to Jesus].
slander of chaste women be forgiven? Yes [24:5], No [24:23].
do we receive the record on Judgment Day? On Judgement day the
lost people are given the Record (of their bad deeds): Behind their
back [84:10], or in their left hand [69:25].
angels disobey? No angel is arrogant, they all obey Allah
[16:49-50], but: "And behold, we said to the ANGELS: 'Bow down to
Adam'. And THEY bowed down, EXCEPT Iblis. He refused and was
contradictions in 2:97 and 16:101-103 Who brings the revelation
from Allah to Muhammad? The ANGEL Gabriel [2:97], or the Holy Spirit
[16:102]? The new revelation confirms the old [2:97] or substitutes it
[16:101]? The Qur'an is PURE Arabic [16:103] but there are numerous
foreign, non-Arabic words in it.
infinite loop problem Sura 26:192,195,196: "It (the Qur'an)
is indeed a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds, ... in clear
Arabic speech and indeed IT (the Qur'an) is in the writings of the
earlier (prophets)." Now, the 'earlier writings' are the Torah
and the Injil for example, written in Hebrew and Greek. HOW can an
ARABIC Qur'an be contained in books of other languages? Furthermore,
it would have to contain this very passage of the Qur'an since the
Qur'an is properly contained in them. Hence these earlier writings
have to be contained in yet other earlier writings and we are in an
infinite loop, which is absurd.
old woman" and God's character About the story of Lot:
"So we delivered him and his family, - all exept an old woman who
lingered behind." [Sura 26:170-171] And again: "But we saved
him and his family, exept his wife: she was of those who lagged
behind. [Sura 7:83]. Either this is a contradiction or if indeed Lot's
wife is derogatorily called "an old woman" then this does
not show much respect for her as a wife of a prophet.
problems with the story of Lot "And his people gave NO answer
but this: They said, "Drive them out of your city: these are
indeed men who want to be clean and pure!" [Sura 7:82 &
27:56]. Yet: "But his people gave NO answer but this: They said:
"Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth." [Sura
29:29]. Obviously these answers are different.
"pleasure" of Allah? Is God's action of punishment or
mercy and guidance or misguidance arbitrary?
Abraham smash the idols? The accounts of Abraham, Suras 19:41-49,
6:74-83 differ quite a bit from Sura 21:51-59. While in Sura 21
Abraham confronts his people strongly, and even destroys the idols, in
Sura 19 Abraham shuts up after his father threatens him to stone him
for speaking out against the idols. And he seems not only to become
silent, but even to leave the area ("turning away from them
about Noah's son? According to Sura 21:76, Noah and his family is
saved from the flood, and Sura 37:77 confirms that his seed survived.
But Sura 11:42-43 reports that Noah's son drowns.
Noah driven out? "Before them *the people of Noah* rejected
(their messenger): They rejected Our servant and said, 'Here is One
possessed!' And he was driven out." [Sura 54:9] Now, if he is
driven out [expelled from their country] how come they can scoff at
him while he is buiding the ark since we read "Forthwith he
(starts) constructing the Ark: Every time that the Chiefs of *his
people* passed by him, they threw ridicule on him." [Sura 11:38]
He cannot be both: Driven out and near enough that they can regularly
Magicians: Muslims or Rejectors of Faith? Did the Magicians of
Pharaoh, Egyptians, become believers in the God of Moses [7:103-126;
20:56-73; S. 26:29-51] or did only Israelites believe in Moses
repentance in the face of death? According to Sura 10:90-92,
Pharaoh repented "in the sight of death" and was saved. But
Sura 4:18 says that such a thing can't happen.
"The words of the Lord are perfect in truth and justice; there is
NONE who can change His words." [Sura 6:115] Also see 6:34 and
10:64. But then Allah (Muhammad?) sees the need to exchange some of
them for "better ones" [Sura 2:106, 16:101]. And it is not
for ignorant people to question Allah because of such practices!
to truth? "Say: 'God - He guides to the truth; and which is
worthier to be followed ...?" [Sura 10:35] But how much is left
over of this worthiness when we also read: "Allah leads astray
whom he pleases, and he guides whom He pleases, ..." [Sura 14:4].
And how do we know in which of Allah's categories of pleasure we fall?
How sure can a Muslim be that he is one of those guided right and not
one of those led astray?
is the punishment for adultery? Flogging with a 100 stripes (men
and women) [24:2], "confine them to houses until death do claim
them (lifelong house arrest - for the women) [4:15]. For men: "If
they repent and amend, leave them alone" [4:16]. 24:2 contradicts
both the procedure for women and men in Sura 4. And why is the
punishment for women and men equal in Sura 24 but different in Sura 4?
Christians enter Paradise or go to Hell? Sura 2:62 and 5:69 say
"Yes", Sura 5:72 (just 3 verses later) and 3:85 say
alone or also men? Clear or incomprehensible? The Qur'an is
"clear Arabic speech." [16:103] Yet "NONE knows its
interpretation, save only Allah." [3:7]. Actually, "men of
understanding do grasp it." [3:7]
Pharaoh Drowned or Saved when chasing Moses and the Israelites?
Saved [10:92], drowned [28:40, 17:103, 43:55].
Commanded Pharaoh the Killing of the Sons? When Moses was a
Prophet and spoke God's truth to Pharaoh [40:23-25] or when he was
still an infant [20:38-39]?
are the fates determined? "The night of power is better than
a thousand months. The angels and spirit descend therein, by the
permission of their Lord, with all decrees." [97:3,4] "Lo!
We revealed it on a blessed night." [44:3] To Muslims, the
"Night of Power" is a blessed night on which fates are
settled and on which everything relating to life, death, etc., which
occurs throughout the year is decreed. It is said to be the night on
which Allah's decrees for the year are brought down to the earthly
plane. In other words, matters of creation are decreed a year at a
time. Contradicting this, Sura 57:22 says, "No affliction befalls
in the earth or in your selves, but it is in a Book before we create
it." This means it is written in the Preserved Tablet, being
totally fixed in Allah's knowledge before anyone was created. All of
the above is contradicted by "And every man's fate We have
fastened to his own neck." This says that man alone is
responsible for what he does and what happens to him. [17:13]
Good or bad? Strong drink and ... are only an infamy of Satan's
handiwork. [5:90, also 2:219]. Yet on the other hand in Paradise
are rivers of wine [47:15, also 83:22,25]. How does Satan's handiwork
get into Paradise?
News of Painful Torture? Obviously, annoucing torment and
suffering to anyone is bad news, not good news. However, the Qur'an
announces the good news of painful torment [3:21, 4:138, 9:3, 9:34,
31:7, 45:8, and 84:24].
all Muslims go to Hell? According to Sura 19:71 every Muslim will
go to Hell (for at least some time), while another passage states that
those who die in Jihad will go to Paradise immediately.
Jesus burn in Hell? Jesus is raised to Allah, [Sura 4:158], near
stationed with him [Sura 3:45], worshiped by millions of Christians,
yet Sura Sura 21:98 says, that all that are worshiped by men besides
Allah will burn in Hell together with those who worship them.
and men created for worship or for Hell? Created only to
serve God [Sura 51:56], many of them made for Hell [Sura
is the father of Jesus? A more involved argument that is difficult
to summarize in one sentence.
and Self-sufficiency A self-contradiction on account of confused
Allah have a son? Sura 39:4 affirms and Sura 6:101 denies this
Jesus Die already? Surah 3:144 states that all messengers
died before Muhammad. But 4:158 claims that Jesus was raised to God
Creator or many? The Qur'an uses twice the phrase that Allah is
"the best of creators" [23:14, 37:125]. What other creators
are in mind? On the other hand, many verses make clear that Allah
alone is "the creator of all things" [e.g. 39:62]. There is
nothing left for others to be a creator of.
among all nations or from Abraham's seed? Surah 29:27 states that
all prophets came Abraham's seed. But 16:36 claims that Allah raised
messengers from among every people.
the wives of adopted sons? It is important that Muslims can marry
the divorced wives of adopted sons [Sura 33:37], yet it is forbidden
to adopt sons [Sura 33:4-5].
were never sent to other than their own people? So it is claimed
in Sura 14:4 and 30:47. However, the Bible and the Qur'an, and the
Muslim traditions confirm that Jonah was sent to a different nation.
Amongst the Jinns and Angels? Allah sent only men as
messengers [Suras 12:109, 21:7-8, 25:20-21] but there seemingly are
messengers from Jinns and Angels [6:130; 11:69,77; 22:75; etc., see
article for details].
wrote “I am against any Hadith being the source of guidance. I
believe the Koran when it claims to be a complete book for guidance. I
would also add that no Hadith is needed to complete the Koran”
agree with you that it is a mistake to take Hadith as a source of
guidance. Hadiths were collections of the stories about Muhammad and they
are not the revealed words of God. So they should not have been taken as
sources of guidance. However they are the sources of information about
Muhammad. They are the only history left of the prophet. Although the
Hadith should not be taken as the source of guidance, they have historic
value. Also understanding the Quran without the clarification of the
Hadith is impossible.
There are two categories of Muslims. Those who
accept the authenticity of the Quran and the Hadith with no ifs or buts,
and those who deny the Hadith, partially or totally and try to reinterpret
the Quran in ways completely opposite to its apparent meaning, so that it
become acceptable to a reasonable mind.
For 1200 years Bukhari’s collection of
hadith was regarded (and still is by the majority of the Muslims) only
second to the Quran. Apart from the Quran, Muslims, especially the Sunnis,
regard Hadith as the source of guidance. The Hadiths are stories of the
life of Muhammad, collected by scholars in the second and third century
after the Hijra. The most famous and revered ones are those of Bukhari and
his student Muslim. They are called Sahih (correct, sound or
authenticated) because they went through a process of authentication
called Ilmul Hadith. However there is a new trend amongst some of the
Muslims, especially the submitters, who deny the authenticity of Hadith
all together. They would go as far as to call the eminent compilers
of the Hadith, such as Bukhari and Muslim, liars and charlatans. The point
is that these writers did not invent these stories to deserve such
disparaging titles; they simply collected them and preserved them.
The early Muslim scholars accepted a hadith as
Sahih only when its authenticity was established on the basis of both
Fann-i-Riwaayat (The art of sequence of narration) and Fann-i-Daraayat
(The art of logical concordance). Moreover a Hadith should not have
contradicted the Sunnah and the Quran. I am not interested and none of us
is any more qualified to determine the methodology that was used for
accepting or rejecting a Hadith based on Fann-i-Riwaayat. These are old
stories. All those who reported them are dead more than a thousand years
ago and we have no way to verify their trustworthiness. At this moment the
only method left to determine the sihhat (soundness) of a Hadith is
Fann-i-Daraayat and its compatibility with the Quran. Asif Iftikhar writes
“Therefore, a Hadith can be regarded as a source of religious
guidance only `if the basis of that Hadith exists in the Quran or the
Sunnah or the established principles of human nature and intellect.
Moreover, it should not be contradictory to any of these bases”
(from The Authenticity of Hadith)
The same author writes “Imam Ibni Ali Jauzee is reported to have
said: 'If you find a Hadith against the dictates of commonsense or
contrary to a universal rule, consider it a fabrication; discussions about
the trustworthiness of its narrators are needless. Similarly, such Ahadith
(plural for Hadith) should be suspected as are beyond comprehension to the
extent that they leave no room for any possible explanation. Also, a
Hadith in which colossal recompense is promised for a minor deed and a
Hadith which is absurd in meaning are suspect.'"
By examining some of the Hadiths in the light
of “commonsense”, and the recommendations of Ibni Ali Jauzee we find
many of them, despite being acknowledged as Sahih do not qualify as such
and can be rejected. Take the following Hadith for example:
Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 652
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "While a man was on the way, he found a thorny
branch of a tree there on the way and removed it. Allah thanked him for
that deed and forgave him."
Here it seems that the recompense outweighs the good deed and if we had to
follow the sound advise of Ibni Ali Jauzee, we have to discard this Hadith
as false. Well, this might seem something trivial but the
implication is immense. By proving that a hadith that has been classified,
as sahih is not sahih, we establish that it is prudent to be suspicious of
the authenticity of the rest of the Hadiths classified as sahih too. In
fact this proves that despite the fact that 90% of the Muslims believe in
Bukhari and in Muslim, and despite the fact that these books were regarded
the most infallible books of guidance after the Quran for the last 1200
yeas, they are not trustworthy after all.
Now, let us take another Hadith and test it
with commonsense. Before that we have to define what do we mean by
commonsense. I have come to the conclusion that a simple thing like the
commonsense, is not common at all and it may have different meaning for a
religious person whose senses are jaundiced by his beliefs.
For example, the commonsense dictates that men and women, generally
speaking, are at the same level of intelligence. Of course there are
stupid people and intelligent people in both sexes, but this has nothing
to do with their gender. No real serious scientific study, not marred by
religious preconceptions, has ever demonstrated that there is any
significant difference in intelligence between men and women. What has
been found is that some part of the brain in women is more advanced than
the same parts in men’s brain while in other areas men are more
advantageous. This difference is also evident in the comparison between
the members of the same sex. Not all men are equal intellectually. Some
are more intelligent than others. Yet all men are equal in front of the
law. The testimony of Einstein and Joe Bloe, in a court of law has the
same weight. Unless Joe Bloe is a certified imbecile his witness is as
valid as that of Einstein.
There is no indication that women are less
intelligent than men, and even if there was any, there is no justification
for them to not have the same voice and rights in a court of law.
Therefore science, fairness and commonsense all acknowledge that men and
women should have the same rights. Religious sense on the other hand
defies all that and presents its own criteria. Baffling as it may be, some
Muslim women are delighted to fight for their inequality and suppression
of their rights and call it “liberation”. They think that hijab
elevates their statues. Being rebuked, punished and even beaten by their
husbands is good for them. They believe that the majority of them will
actually go to hell because Muhammad said so.
So when I talk about commonsense. I am not
talking about the sense of a religious fanatic. I am talking about the
real genuine commonsense that is supported by “real” science and
approved by “real” scientists and philosophers. I put the word
“real” between quotation marks because all religions have made their
own version of pseudo-science and have their own brand of
pseudo-scientists and pseudo-philosophers. (I am referring to Maurice
Bucaille and his kind who received money from the Saudi king to write a
ridiculous book claiming that the Quran is scientific)
Now let us get to the point and see if there is a Hadith that does not
stand up to the challenge of the real commonsense.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 414
…" He (Muhammad) said, "First of all, there was nothing but
Allah, and (then He created His Throne). His throne was over the water,
and He wrote everything in the Book (in the Heaven) and created the
Heavens and the Earth.…”
How this story can make sense? If there was
‘nothing’, how God could have put His throne over the water? Which
water? What was holding that water? There must have been an earth to
hold it. Then how is it that he creates the Earth after sitting on the
water? How is it that the Heavens and Earth are created after the waters?
Don’t you need to have an earth to contain the water? And don't you have
to have the heavens to hold the Earth? Beyond the fact that the whole
notion expressed in this Hadith is ludicrous, there is also an error in
the order of creation. If God created his throne and if he has no
beginning where was he sitting during all these times before he created
Now let us look objectively and consider what
is wrong with this picture! Isn’t the Earth a planet of the solar
system, which is an insignificant speck in a vast galaxy that is one of the
billions of galaxies of the Universe? Can anyone (including the
"genius" Maurice Bucaille who said Quran is scientific and a
miracle yet refused to become a Muslim) put these two pictures together and
solve this puzzle?
So we could say that the above Hadith is a
fabrication because it contradicts the commonsense and is contrary to the
universal rule. Or can we?
The problem is that despite the fact that the
above Hadith is contrary to commonsense. logic and science, it is in
conformity with the Quran and as Asif Iftikhar said “a Hadith can be
regarded as a source of religious guidance only `if the basis of that
Hadith exists in the Quran or the Sunnah”. What if we find something
in the Quran that corroborate the above concept of the cosmos expressed
in that hadith? See the following for example:
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring
of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain!
(thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with
Then followed he (another) way,
Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a
people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun.
Obviously Sun rises and sets in ALL places, or
actually no place at all. One doesn’t have to go "another way"
to find it rising. This gives us the clue that Muhammad really believed
that the Earth is flat and the sun moves in the sky rising
from one place and setting in another. In the above verses
Muhammad is trying to say that this Zul-qaranain traveled from one end of
the Earth to the other where he saw both the rising place of the sun and
its selling place. In other words he conquered the whole world.
But how can we be sure this is how Muhammad
envisioned the shape of the Earth? The answer can be found in another
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421
Narrated Abu Dhar:
The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at
the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know
better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates
Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and
it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to
prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask
permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will
be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west.
And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the
sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). that is The Decree of
(Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing." (Q.
Okay. Here we have a case in Hadith that is
confirmed by the Quran, which is again ratified by another Hadith and once
more demonstrated in the Quran. Is this Hadith against the science and
commonsense? It sure is! However, it is not against the Quran. Therefore
the message conveyed by the Hadith is wrong, despite the fact that it is
an authenticated Hadith.
If we have any doubts about what Muhammad
really thought of the shape of the Earth, we can safely put them to rest
when we read the following verses.
Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse,
And the mountains as pegs?
The “expanse” gives the idea of something
flat. The Arabic word used in the Quran is Mehad, (bed). All the beds that
I have seen so far were flat, none of them where spherical.
Also the mountains are not pegs keeping the earth from shaking as
the prophet used to think.
Don’t these Hadithes, backed by these verses
of the Quran, clearly describe a flat Earth, with the Sun rising from
one end and setting in the muddy waters on the opposite end? Is there a throne
somewhere that the Sun goes under it to get permission? What throne was
Muhammad talking about? When and how the Sun prostrates itself? This
concept sounds ridiculous to us; yet in the old ages everyone believed in
a flat Earth, floating on waters surrounded by high mountains beyond which
one could fall into an endless abyss, etc. and the whole story made
perfect sense to those who heard it.
In fact this story is not an invention of
Muhammad. Most of the Prophet’s stories were part of the folklore that
he had heard somewhere else. In a book entitled The Oldest Stories in the
Word, Theodor H. Gaster has compiled the lore of the Babylonian, the
Hittite and the Canaanite people of 3500 years ago. These stories were
lost for centuries and finally found and unearthed in the last century.
They were deciphered and printed in 1952. The similarities of those old
stories and the stories in the Quran, including the above Hadith, are
astonishing. They help us understand the origin of the Quran as well as
that of the Bible. The Quran has no divine origin, what Muhammad told
people were stories he heard from others, old stories that were part of
the tradition of the people of his time.
There are also many Hadiths attributing
miracles to the prophet. What should we make of them? Again as Asif
Iftikhar indicated a Hadith that contradicts the Quran cannot be trusted.
I suppose this is acceptable by all the Muslims. If there is a controversy
between Hadith and the Quran the authority of the Quran overrides the
What the Quran says in respect of the
Miracles? It categorically denies them. (See
It is no
secret that faith blinds and the believer cannot see anything wrong with
the object of his or her belief. This is the reason why while Muslims can
see the errors of Christians Jews or Hindus, they are unable to see the
absurdities in their own Faith and vice versa..
love Muhammad to the extent that they want to dress like him, speak the
same language that he spoke, behave the way he behaved and eat the
same food that he ate. This is not an indication of the greatness of
Muhammad but the unconditional, fanatical and blind faith of his
believers. Followers of all cults eulogize and adulate their leader as a
divine being. This is no indication that their leaders are really superior
beings. Humans need heroes and fabricate them. Often when these heroes die
they assume a mythological status much bigger than when they were alive.
After they die their human nature and defects are hidden from the eyes of
their adulators and it is easier to deify and idolize them.
have not seen Muhammad. They rely entirely on second hand stories about
their prophet. Those stories idolize him beyond human reason. Many of
those Hadiths are forged, exaggerated by sycophants and are baseless. See
for examples the following Hadith that says Muhammad split the moon.
Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 208
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The people of Mecca asked Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle. So he
showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram'
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 830 ,831, 832
this one that claims he made water out of nothing.
Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 170
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
I saw Allah's Apostle when the 'Asr prayer was due and the people searched
for water to perform ablution but they could not find it. Later on (a pot
full of) water for ablution was brought to Allah's Apostle . He put his
hand in that pot and ordered the people to perform ablution from it. I saw
the water springing out from underneath his fingers till all of them
performed the ablution (it was one of the miracles of the Prophet).
multiplied the bread. Sahih
Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 428
course when challenged by skeptics of his own time, Muhammad repeatedly
denied being able to perform any miracle. He admitted that although other
prophets before him were given the power t perform miracles, his only
miracle is the Quran.
Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 379
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "There was no prophet among the prophets but was
given miracles because of which people had security or had belief, but
what I was given was the Divine Inspiration which Allah revealed to me. So
I hope that my followers will be more than those of any other prophet on
the Day of Resurrection."
are many verses in the Quran that reaffirm this last Hadith, proving that
Muhammad never performed any miracle and found it useless. In the
following verse Muhammad is acknowledging that other prophets before him
came with miracles or clear signs but still people rejected them,
highlighting the futility of miracles as the proof of a revelation.
They (also) said: "Allah took our promise not to believe in an
messenger unless He showed us a sacrifice consumed by Fire (From
heaven)." Say: "There came to you messengers before me, with
clear Signs and even with what ye ask for: why then did ye slay them, if
ye speak the truth?" if
you are truthful?
All along, the unbelievers
asked Muhammad to perform a miracle so that they could believe.
They say: "We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to
gush forth for us from the earth,
along Muhammad's response to them was:
Say: "Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- a messenger?"
People doubted Muhammad
because they saw nothing extraordinary or miraculous in him.
And naught prevented mankind from believing when the guidance came unto
them save that they said: Hath Allah sent a mortal as (His) messenger?
And they say: "What sort of a messenger is this, who eats food, and
walks through the streets? Why has not an angel been sent down to him to
give admonition with him?
"Or (Why) has not a treasure been bestowed on him, or why has he
(not) a garden for enjoyment?" The wicked say: "Ye follow none
other than a man bewitched."
But Muhammad kept telling
them that he is just an ordinary man not an angel, meaning people should
not expect miracles from him!
Say: Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We
would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a
The common sense dictates
that no one would deny and call a man who performs such mighty miracles
like splitting the moon, as believed by all the Muslims a mad man or
possessed. But the people who knew him personally actually called him by
They say: "O thou to whom the Message is being revealed! truly thou
art mad (or possessed)!.
People kept asking:
Why do you not bring to us the angels if you are of the truthful
evaded by making his Allah say:
We send not the angels down except for just cause: if they came (to the
ungodly), behold! no respite would they have!
The Quraish kept
asking for a sign or a miracle to believe and Muhammad kept saying that he
cannot perform one as he is only a warner.
“And the Unbelievers say: "Why is not a
sign sent down to him from his Lord?" But thou art truly a warner,
and to every people a guide.”
There are many more
verses that tell the same story. People asking miracles and him
saying I am just a man, just like you, only a warner. A clear proof that
Muhammad never performed any miracles is in this verse where it says that
people rejected even other messengers who came with miracles and clear
signs, therefore ratifying that miracles are not proof..
Then if they reject thee, so
were rejected messengers before thee, who came with Clear Signs, Books of
dark prophecies, and the Book of Enlightenment.
In the above verses
Muhammad is denying any supernatural power. If he could perform the
miracles attributed to him in those Ahadith, what is the meaning of these
verses? Wouldn't it be more logical that he brag about his miracles
instead of evading the question? In the following verse he clearly rejects
miracles as the proof of prophethood comparing them to witchcrafts.
Their hearts toying as with
trifles. The wrong-doers conceal their private counsels, (saying),
"Is this (one) more than a man like yourselves? Will ye go to
witchcraft with your eyes open?"
was right! What is the use of miracles anyway? Miracles may be a proof for
those who witness them, but mean nothing to others. The holy book of the
Christians has the story of Lazarus who was dead and came to life after
Jesus called him to life. Even if that story is true, it is of little help
to us who did not see that miracle happen. Muhammad was right in
emphasizing that the real miracle is his message or the Quran, because
that is what really counts. Although this is a valid principle, Quran is
no miracle at all. As we saw above it is a book full of errors and
do not see Muhammad as a superior human being for two reasons.
Many of Hadiths and verses from the Quran, if right, reveal him as
an angry, ruthless, unforgiving, deceitful, and impious man. Acts like
looting merchant caravans, killing those who decide to stick to their own
faith and not follow him, cursing his enemies, treating women as objects
and calling them deficient in intelligence, assassinating cowardly his
opponents like a common gangster, and many more acts like these are not
precisely spiritual characteristics that I seek in a man I would like to
follow and emulate. Muhammad's deeds are far from the deeds of an
"honored messenger" as he claimed to be in Q.
Today's modern Muslims, especially those whose standard of ethics
is colored by western/humanistic precepts of right and wrong try to
distance themselves from those Hadiths that depict Muhammad as a ruthless
immoral and unethical gangster. They deny the validity of those Hadiths
and everything that portray Muhammad in a negative light. However, if
those Hadiths and verses are forged, then the whole validity of Islam
crumbles and there is no reason for anyone to believe in a mythological
figure whose real life and words is not known.
So according to the Quran Muhammad did not
perform any miracles and all those Hadiths that attribute miracles to him are false. The falsity
of those Hadiths can also be proven by
logics. The eminent scholar Ali Dashti asked: If Muhammad could really
perform miracles, make stones speak, split the moon, multiply the food,
visit the Hell and the Heaven in a night, etc as the Quran claims, why he
did not perform the logical and useful miracle and did not learn how to
read and write? Does it make sense that a man who can see the next world
when given a piece of written paper in his own language not be able to
read it? Muslims believe that he could look into one’s eyes and read
one’s mind. He himself claimed that when he leads the congregational
prayer he can see this followers behind him without turning. (1) Yet he could
not read a simple letter written in his own language? Among all the
miracles that he performed wasn’t this the simplest and the most useful
of all? Or why when he was given a poisoned food he ate it? (2)Any
man with commonsense would be hesitant eating the food prepared by someone
who's relatives and loves ones he has killed. Yet Muhammad not only did
not have the divine knowledge to avoid eating such food but he did
not have the commonsense to not eat from a food prepared by one who's
lived ones he had just massacred.
Apart from the Quran, there are many Hadiths
that also deny any supernatural power or knowledge attributed to Muhammad.
Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 638
(the wife of the Prophet) Allah's Apostle heard some people quarreling at
the door of his dwelling. He came out and said, "I AM ONLY A HUMAN
BEING, and opponents come to me (to settle their problems); maybe someone
amongst you can present his case more eloquently than the other, whereby I
may consider him true and give a verdict in his favor. So, If I give the
right of a Muslim to another by mistake, then it is really a portion of
(Hell) Fire, he has the option to take or give up (before the Day of
How a man who is aware of this world and the
next, who, as his followers say, predicted all the inventions that has
happened since, is capable of splitting the moon and perform any miracle
cannot trust his own judgment and fears that the eloquence of one party
may deceive him and make him err?
Let us examine more Hadiths with our own
Fann-i-Daraayat, unclogged from preconceived ideas.
Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 315
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet said, "At every womb Allah appoints an angel who says, 'O
Lord! A drop of semen, O Lord! A clot. O Lord! A little lump of
flesh." Then if Allah wishes (to complete) its creation, the angel
asks, (O Lord!) Will it be a male or female, a wretched or a blessed, and
how much will his provision be? And what will his age be?' So all that is
written while the child is still in the mother's womb."
This Hadith resembles to a joke. Just the
thought of this little angel that gets in there and stands in front of the
womb each time a man become intimate with his wife watching the whole act
and supplicating Allah for a drop of semen right on his face, is
hilarious. Shall we discard this Hadith as a fabrication? It certainly
goes against our commonsense. But wait a minute! This Hadith was not
against the commonsense of those who used to narrate it to each other 1200
years ago. It does not make sense to us, but it made perfect sense to
them. So who’s commonsense is the standard? A few hundred years ago, the
commonsense dictated that the Earth is flat. All the philosophers and
prophets agreed. Today it doesn’t? Can we say that these Hadiths that go
against our modern commonsense are false now, but they were true then
because they were in accordance with the commonsense of the ancient folks?
The point is that we cannot dismiss the
authenticity of a Hadith based on our commonsense. Today’s Muslims have
taken for granted that Muhammad was the messenger of God and therefore he
could not be wrong. So they reevaluate the Hadiths as time goes by and
keep discarding those that their newfound understanding of science proves
unsound. This method is highly subjective and biased. Of course it is
consistent with defendant’s approach and his defense council who (if
unscrupulous) would deliberately hide, deny or dismiss all the evidence
that would incriminate their client and present only those that find him
an alibi and are in his favor. On the other hand, an unbiased jury
would weigh all the evidences; the good and the bad, and pass their
verdict after taking into account all the facts.
To examine the truth of the claim of Muhammad,
we have to decide which side we are standing. Are we part of the defense
team or are we part of the jury? The majority of Muslims, as you would
expect, choose to be part of the defense team. They are not interested to
know whether Muhammad was right or he was an impostor. That question does
not even arise in their minds. They already “know”, for they were
told, that he was the messenger of God and they have accepted it as a
fact. Choosing to remain in that position, they naturally would not know
the truth and are not in a position to see it.
Today more educated Muslims find many
absurdities in the Hadiths and their first reaction is to deny them.
However, since the majority of the Hadiths are nonsensical, the growing
consensus is to deny all the Hadiths and vilify the unfortunate Bukhari
and Muslim who were revered for over a millennium. This is unfair. Bukhari
and Muslim, along with other Muhaditheen (collectors of Hadith) did not
invent these Hadiths but recorded them as they were told. It is not right
to shoot the messenger if the message in unpleasing. And it is highly
unethical to defile these scholars and deny what they painstakingly
collected, because what they reported blemish Muhammad. Some of these
reports are fabricated and false but many of them are true. Because many
of these Hadiths are of dubious nature, we should not rely on them as
religious source of guidance but to dismiss them as historic source is
committing a grave mistake. These Hadiths are all we have about the life
of the Prophet. They narrate the stories of the historic Muhammad. They
should not be taken as a substitute to the Quran (assuming that this is a
revealed book) but they are the biography of the Prophet. If you deny the Hadiths
how can you prove the historicity of the Prophet? If all those stories are
false and someone with a diabolic wit has forged all of them, then perhaps
someone equally malignant has fabricated the Quran and the whole Islam is
nothing but a fanciful tale. Without the Hadiths, we know nothing of
Muhammad, his life and his history. Without Hadiths, Muslims have no
way to know how to perform their prayers or fast. These are pillars of
The Absurdities of the
To deny the authenticity of the Hadiths on the
ground of their logical absurdity poses another yet bigger problem and
that is: what to do with the equally absurd verses of the Quran? Can we
dismiss the Quran as fabricated and forged because it is as absurd as are
the Hadiths? Certainly this is a line that a Muslim would never cross. So
what would they do when confronted with quranic verses that are absurd and
The common reaction is to reinterpret the verses and find some esoteric meanings for them.
The desire to reinterpret the Holy Scriptures
and assign esoteric meanings to them is born out of the fact that these
scriptures are crude and lack meaning. The Iranians, supposedly coming from a more sophisticated
culture were first to notice the inadequacy
of the Quran and Sufism created by Iranian sages is entirely based on giving esoteric meanings to
the revealed book. Sufism is, par exultance, the effort to
‘interiorize’ the quranic revelation, to break away with the purely
legalistic religion and experience the mystical significance of the
encounter of Muhammad with Allah in the night of Mi’raj, (ascension to
Heaven) which to the
Sufis was also spiritual in nature.
Imam Ja’far Sadiq Shiites' seventh Imam, is
have said. “Our cause is a secret (siir) within other secret. The
secret of something that remains hidden; a secret that only another secret
can reveal. It is a secret about a secret that is based on a secret.
[Henri Corbin, Historia de la Filosofia
Siglo XXI editores. V.3 p.253] (My translation).
Apart from the fact that when you crack that statment it becomes yet
another tautological absurdity, it also contradicts the Quran's repeated
claims to be a "clear book" (5:15)
"easy to understand” (44:58
"explained in detail" (6:114), "conveyed
and with “no doubt” in it (2:1).
Nonetheless it justifies the Imamat and Ja’far’s own raison d'ętre as
an Imam. Of course he had to convince the Shiites that Quran is a secret (siir)
that needs to be interpreted. And no one could do that except someone
vested with authority and Ismat (infallibility). Therefore Imamat became a
necessity for the Shiites. The question is what would they do when there
were no more Imams? Who would interpret the obtuse secrets of the Quran
and the Shariat? The last Imam, Hassan Askari, died without leaving a male
heir or his son died at the age of four. The community of the Shiits therefore
was left with no one to interpret the secrets of the Quran. The Mullahs
did not break the news that there is no more an Imam and the Ummah is left
without a leader. They announced that the Imam is hidden. But as time
passed and there was no sign of the Imam, the Mullahs claimed that the
Imam came out of his short hiding (Qaibat-e Soqra) and has gone into a
long hiding (Qaibat-e Kobra) and has left guardians to take care of the
Ummah in his absence. Thus the institution of Guardianship or
Velayat was born. Vali is the guardian of the Faith. He is the intermediary between
the Imam Qayeb (hidden Imam) and the Ummah. Wherefrom the Ayatollahs of
Iran get their authority, Their rule overrides the decision of all nation.
However the institution of velayat has no support in the Quran. Few Hadiths
that back this claim are dubious and most likely were forged by the Shiites to justify their
version of religion.
The question is why should God send a message of guidance to all the
humanity in the form of a secret? What kind of prank is that? How
much he wants to toy with us? And then, isn't this in contrast
with all those claims that Quran is a clear book and easy to
As I said above, there are two categories of
Muslims. The first are those that defend Muhammad and whatever he did
irrespective of any consideration for decency, rightness or justice. They
do not deny him marring with a 9-year-old child, assassinating his
opponents, massacring his prisoners of war, performing genocide of the Jews
of Arabia, raping
his war captives, sleeping with the maids
of his wives and other his less than admirable deeds. These are
known as Muslim fanatics. The second group, are those that deny all
these facts about him and try to twist the evidence to make Muhammad
acceptable by modern morality and values. These are revisionists and are
called "moderate Muslims". I don’t want to pass judgment, but
I certainly admire the honesty of the first group, which the second group
lacks. Many so-called moderate Muslims try hard to hide the brutalities of
the Quran and present it in a different light. They would quote the
earlier verses of the Quran when Muhammad was weak and his preaching was
sugary. But they would play down the harsher verses of the Quran that were
“revealed” in Medina when the prophet was already a chieftain and did
not need to humbug the Quraish, the Jews or the Christians for support.
Interpreting the Quran with a different
meaning than the obvious is another hideout for the Muslims. The
majority of the Muslims prefer to live in denial. Denial of the Hadith is
easy but to deny the Quran is not something they would like to think
about. So reinterpretation is the only option. Muslims try to camouflage
the violent and irrational verses of the Quran and reinterpret them in
ways that change completely their intended and obvious meaning.
About being against Hadith:
In support of your claim that the Hadiths should be discarded altogether
you stated that the Quran is a complete book and quoted the following
… We have sent the book down to you to explain everything, and for
guidance and mercy … (16:89)”. “In
it [the Koran] every wise matter is set forth (44:3)” – There are
more than ten similar verses.
men buy up some HADITH to mislead others from God’s way without having
any knowledge …(31:6)". “In what HADITH, then, after (Koran),
will they believe? (77:49)". - There are more than twenty-five
verses like these.
As we saw the first claim that Quran is
complete is false. Quran contains a myriad of contradictions and opposing
verses. It is not a clear book at all. It is obtuse and confusing. The
evidence of that are hundred of sects that have splintered from it. If that
book was clear as it claims then why so many sects and interpretations.
You have written a book to prove all the Ayatollahs and the Mullahs have
it wrong. Why should so many people err so grievously if the Quran is as
clear as you say?
As for your second claim that the Quran says Hadiths
are misleading and the believers should only believe in the Quran, I am
afraid you are confusing the Hadiths that people used to tell each other
during the time of Muhammad before they accepted him as a messenger of God
with those that later were collected by Muslims about him. Hadith in
Arabic means story. In the above verse Muhammad is telling his
contemporaries not to listen to other storytellers and follow what he
says. He is trying to eliminate and discredit his competitors. He is not
talking about the stories that later were told about him. These stories
were not yet told. He could not have dismissed something that did not exist.
During the 70s an Egyptian Muslim scholar came
up with his brilliant solution that enticeg many educated Muslims and
renewed their faith in Islam. His name was Rashed Khalifa. At first he
claimed to have found the mathematical miracle of the Quran. This claim
was refuted by several thinkers as a "lie-free
However because of this claim he gained
respect and fame amongst the Muslims, until he decided to launch his own
prophetic carrier, a move that angered the established clergy and finally
cost him his life. But his contribution was important as by his complete
denial of the Hadith and his serious effort to translate the Quran
reinterpreting it in a way that would downplay its harsh and intolerant
message, he started a new movement amongst the pseudo-intellectual Muslims
who now could cling to the primitive Quran while pretending to promote a
gentler Islam that does not advocate killing the apostates and instigating
holy wars. His denial of Hadith went as far as denying everything about
the history of Muhammad. His followers, known as submitters deny all
Muhammad's wars, all his assassinations, and the genocide that he
committed against the Jews of Medina, his killings and his robberies. They
deny Muhammad's raids of the merchant caravans and unwary villagers but
rather say Muhammad's wars were in "self-defense". They deny the
age of Ayesha (who was only 9 when the prophet at 54 slept with her) and
they deny his licentious lifestyle reported in hundreds of stories
narrated by his followers and preserved faithfully for centuries. Their
zest to present the Quran as a modern logical book of miracles has made
them bend every rule of reason to the extent that they would misrepresent
deliberately the Quran and interpret it in the most incongruous ways to
rationalize its absurdity.
One submitter went as far as to assure me that
the mistake in the addition of the inheritance in the Quran is not
actually a mistake but a misunderstanding and that the share of 1/3 for
the parents + 2/3 for the daughters + 1/8 for the wife, which ends up to
be more than the patrimony, equals one. He explained that the 1/8 share of
the wife must come out of 2/3 share of the daughters. Quran doesn’t say
such thing but the believer's zeal to justify the errors of the Quran goes
beyond any rational thinking.
Those who deny the Hadiths use these verses of
the Quran to prop up their claims.
“In their history verily there is a lesson for men of understanding. It
is no invented story but a confirmation of the existing (Scripture) and a
detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk
“And of mankind is he who payeth for mere pastime of discourse, that he
may mislead from Allah's way without knowledge, and maketh it the butt of
mockery. For such there is a shameful doom”.
As the above verses reveal, Muhammad was
ridiculed by his contemporaries and his Quran was called “non-sense
stories” and “idle tales”. So in these verses he is defending his
revelation arguing that Quran is not a tale (Hadith) invented by people or
a frivolous discourse. He compares his words to the idle tales (Hadiths)
of the people of his time and claims that they mislead men while the Quran
When Muhammad said these words, Bukhari,
Muslim and other Hadith collectors were not yet born. In the above verse,
the prophet is rejecting the tales or the Hadiths of the unbelievers not
the stories of his own life that were not yet told. But since in referring
to the idle stories of his contemporaries he used the word “Hadith”,
which in Arabic means story, tale or tradition the zealot deniers of the Hadith
have taken it as the proof that Muhammad was against the Hadith. What
Quran requires the knowledge of Hadith
My erudite friend, I have no doubt that you
have read the Quran and have a good knowledge of it. However please do not
belittle the understanding of the Ayatollahs and the Muslim scholars of
that book. The Quran is not a book like other books that you could read it
by itself and understand it. The Quran was written in an expanse of 23
years. Each verse of that book is “revealed” in conjunction to a
specific occasion. We cannot understand that book if we do not know about
those occasions. The occasion for the revelation of the quranic verses are
called Sha’ne Nozool. You have to know the history of Islam, or at least
the history of Muhammad to understand when and why those verses were
“revealed”. Without knowing the when and why those verses make no
sense. Despite its repeated claim, Quran is not a clear book. Let us take
this verse for example:
If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your
hearts are indeed so inclined; But if ye back up each other against him,
truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among
those who believe,- and furthermore, the angels - will back (him) up. 66.4
Who is Muhammad talking about? Who are these
two he is referring to and asking to repent? Please read the entire Surah
and tell me whether you understand who is he talking about? This is not
clear in the Quran. This can only be understood if you read the Hadith and
learn about the Sha’ne Nozool of that Surah. Here is the Hadith that
explains that verse:
3, Book 43, Number 648:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:
I had been eager to ask 'Umar about the two ladies from among the wives of
the Prophet regarding whom Allah said (in the Qur'an saying): If you two
(wives of the Prophet namely Aisha and Hafsa) turn in repentance to Allah
your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet likes)
(66.4), till performed the Hajj along with 'Umar (and on our way back from
Hajj) he went aside (to answer the call of nature) and I also went aside
along with him carrying a tumbler of water. When he had answered the call
of nature and returned. I poured water on his hands from the tumbler and
he performed ablution. I said, "O Chief of the believers! ' Who were
the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet to whom Allah said:
you two return in repentance (66.4)? He said, "I am astonished at
your question, O Ibn 'Abbas. They were Aisha and Hafsa."
'Umar went on relating the narration and said. "I and an Ansari
neighbor of mine from Bani Umaiya bin Zaid who used to live in 'Awali
Al-Medina, used to visit the Prophet in turns. He used to go one day, and
I another day. When I went I would bring him the news of what had happened
that day regarding the instructions and orders and when he went, he used
to do the same for me. We, the people of
quraish, used to have authority over women, but when we came to live with
the ansar, we noticed that the ansari women had the upper hand over their
men, so our women started acquiring the habits of the ansari women. Once i
shouted at my wife and she paid me back in my coin and i disliked that she
should answer me back.She said, 'Why do you take it ill that I
retort upon you? By Allah, the wives of the Prophet retort upon him, and
some of them may not speak with him for the whole day till night.' What
she said scared me and I said to her, 'Whoever amongst them does so, will
be a great loser.' …
This is just an example. Without the Hadith
Quran remains a confusing book that would make no sense to anyone. In
order to understand the Quran, you have to understand the Sha’ne Nozool
of the ayat (verses) or you cannot claim to know the Quran.
Furthermore, Salat (prayers) Sawm (fast),
Zakat (charity) and Hajj (pilgrimage) are four of the five pillars of
Islam. Can you tell me how to perform these essential rituals without
referring to the Hadith? Is there any verse in the Quran that tell you how
to perform your Salat, Sawm or Hajj?
As you see, despite the fact that you do not
like many of the Hadiths, despite the fact that they embarrass you as they
reveal Muhammad to be a monster, you cannot get rid of the Hadiths. They
are essential to Islam as is the Quran. It is through these Hadiths that
we know who was Muhammad, who was his father and who was his mother, how
he lived his childhood and what did he do when he grew up. How he started
his prophetic carrier and how his religion grew. Those information are not
contained in the Quran. They can only be found in the Hadith, Sirat-e
Rassoul and other early books of history such as al Waqidi and al Tabari.
These books are not the revelations of God. They are written by ordinary
men, but without them the Quran becomes meaningless.
Now once again I invite you to read the
stories of Safiayh, Juwairiyah,
Mariyah and Zeinab
and tell me how is it possible for someone who claimed to be the “most
honorable messenger” (Q. 81.19)
and “a Mercy for all creatures” (Q. 21:107)
behave so dishonorably, so ruthlessly and so criminally?
Is this the “sublime morals”? (Q. 68:4).
Is this “ a good example to follow” (Q. 33:21).
And once again let me
reiterate that I am very honored that you accepted to debate with me. This
by itself is a revelation of your sincerity and innate goodness. I have
sent invitations to many Islamic scholars and apologists. Professor John
Esposito, Professor Karen Armstrong, Professor Michael Sells and professor
Yusuf Abdu Rashid are some of them. None of these scholars responded. This
only shows that they are afraid of debate. Perhaps you may say these
people do not think of my much to want waste their valuable time to debate
with me. However this site has a lot of readership. Shouldn’t these
people at least come to put me straight to save the good name of Islam? If
I am so mistaken why these scholars do not come to shed light and clarify
my errors? That is why my friend I have such a deep respect for you and
salute you for your courage, integrity and sincerity.
With kindest regards
Volume 1, Book 8, Number 411
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet led us in a prayer and then got up on the pulpit and
said, "In your prayer and bowing, I certainly see you from my back
as I see you (while looking at you.)"
Sunan Abu Dawud Book
39, Number 4495:
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
Ibn Shihab said: Jabir ibn Abdullah used to say that a Jewess from
the inhabitants of Khaybar poisoned a roasted sheep and presented it to
the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who took its foreleg and ate
from it. A group of his companions also ate with him.
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) then said: Take your hands
away (from the food). The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) then sent
someone to the Jewess and he called her.
He said to her: Have you poisoned this sheep? The Jewess replied: Who
has informed you? He said: This foreleg which I have in my hand has
informed me. She said: Yes. He said: What did you intend by it? She
said: I thought if you were a prophet, it would not harm you; if you
were not a prophet, we should rid ourselves of him (i.e. the Prophet).
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) then forgave her, and did not
punish her. But some of his companions who ate it, died. The Apostle of
Allah (peace_be_upon_him) had himself cupped on his shoulder on account
of that which he had eaten from the sheep. AbuHind cupped him with the
horn and knife. He was a client of Banu Bayadah from the Ansar.
5, Book 59, Number 713:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to let Ibn Abbas sit beside him, so 'AbdurRahman
bin 'Auf said to 'Umar, "We have sons similar to him." 'Umar
replied, "(I respect him) because of his status that you
know." 'Umar then asked Ibn 'Abbas about the meaning of this Holy
Verse:-- "When comes the help of Allah and the conquest of Mecca .
. ." (110.1)
Ibn 'Abbas replied, "That indicated the death of Allah's Apostle
which Allah informed him of." 'Umar said, "I do not understand
of it except what you understand."
Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to
say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at
Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that