Edip Yuksel vs. Ali Sina
Round II
Back
< > Next
| Quote: Sina |
| That is how I see you and
all other hadith deniers. You do not like what you see in
the hadith. They embarrass you. You find Muhammad torturing
his victims, beheading them, gauging their eyes, raping them
and doing all sorts of despicable acts and all that hurts.
So instead of being honest and admit that you were wrong and
the man whom you worship is a psychopath criminal, you try
to dismiss all the hadiths. You think if you put your head
in the sand and pretend you do not see; the problem will go
away. The despicable lawyers of O.J. Simpson did that and
they won. But does that mean that Mr. Simpson is innocent?
Even if you win this case based on discrediting the evidence
and technicalities, can you still live with your conscience? |
Dear Sina:
Once I was a believer and defender of hadith. However, when I
studied the history of hadith, its collection, procedures of its
collection, and problems with their authenticity and the profound
difference between hadith and the Quran, yes I witnessed this, I
gave up from following hadith and sunnah.
I understand why you want me to drag to a source that I have come to
refute at the cost of my life. You want me to revert back to my old
days and start believing those sources that are mere hearsay. Here
is my answer:
I WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR INVITATION TO DIG INTO A LITERARY GARBAGE AND
CHOOSE AND PICK WHATEVER WE LIKE AMONG THE THOUSANDS Of
CONTRADICTORY AND OCCASIONALLY RIDICULOUS NARRATION.
It appears that you are not able to criticize the Quran without the
help of adding some garbage from collections of hearsay. |
On the contrary! I will show
that the Quran is full of errors and absurdities and it can’t be a book
of revelation unless the revealer was Satan. The reason I want to clarify
the question of hadith is to demonstrate the fallacy of the position of
those who totally deny them. Once that is established I will have no need
for hadith.
| Muslims and non-Muslims, all agree that the
historical authenticity of the Quran is far beyond the authenticity
of hadith. |
It is not true that
everyone agrees that the Quran is more authentic than the hadith. Here is
a study that disagrees with that claim:
http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran1.html
| Thus, your insistence to rely on hadith, by
a biased criterion of "if it says something good about prophet
we will reject it but if it says bad things about him we jump over
and accept it." is unacceptable. It is unfair; it is dishonest. |
I already responded to this in my example
of police and tips from the public. It would be dishonest to disregard all
those tips. No investigator would do such thing unless he is trying to
cover up.
You want us to throw all
the incriminating evidence against Muhammad just because some of those
stories my not be true. The mere fact that some of them are fabricated is
not enough reason to discard all of them. You have to do more than that to
discredit them all. For example let us talk about the motive.
People do not lie unless
there is a motive. What was the motive of those who reported these hadiths?
Sycophantism is a
motive. People lie to endear themselves. They falsely attribute miracles
to their cult leader because they find receptive audience among fellow
believers. This makes them feel important and validates their ego. This is
very typical in cults where the cult leader is elevated superlatively by
his cronies and each tries to fabricate a lie to make the cult leader look
bigger and holier, both during his life time and after his death. A good
example is John
de Ruiter, the self appointed "Messiah" who has orgies with
two young sisters with the consent and gratitude of their parents even
though he is married.
A
few years ago in my neighborhood market, I saw his flyer pinned to the
billboard. It was an invitation to his conferences with these words:
“John
de Ruiter: Master of transformation; living embodiment and teacher of
Truth.”
And;
“Through
the living essence of Truth emanating from his words and from his
presence, John de Ruiter awakens what our hearts most long for…”
Any sane person can see
that this self proclaimed "guru of the gurus" is insane. But
that is not what his followers see. I can bring multitude of examples such
as these where the followers of cults become blind and try to fabricate an
unreal image of their leader. The point here is that such narrations from
the befogged followers of cults should not be taken seriously. So when we
see hadiths that attribute miracles to Muhammad we should discard them or
at least the part containing the miracles. Also attributing miracles to
Muhammad contradicts the Quran.
We see Muhammad shrugging his shoulder when
people ask for miracles. He
said "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?"3:138
Or: "Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- a messenger?" Q.17:93.
We see this denial that he can perform any miracles in many verses of the
Quran (25:7,8
17:
95 ) People called him mad and
possessed and asked “Why do you not bring to us the angels if you are
of the truthful ones? Q15:7
His response was: “We
send not the angels down except for just cause Q.15:8
In another place we read ““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.” Q.13:7
His contention was that even with clear signs people rejected the
prophets so the miracles are useless. Q.3:184
Therefore if the Quran is right then all the
miracles attributed to Muhammad in the hadiths are fabricated.
It is clear why the believers fabricate false
stories to make their cult leader look grand. But why would they lie to
make him look like a villain? We have stories about Muhammad raiding
innocent unarmed people with no warning, massacring and looting them,
enslaving their wives and children and raping them, torturing people to
make them reveal the whereabouts of their treasures, branding their eyes
with hot red iron and then raping their wives on the same day. There are
stories about him beheading in cold blood 750
innocent men who had surrendered to him without a fight when he
blockaded their quarter and diverted the flow of the water to their town.
We have hadiths that say he assassinated his opponents including a 120
year old man and a mother of five small children only because they
composed poetries criticizing them.
These hadiths are confirmed in the books of
history (Siras). They come to us from a variety of sources. They vary in
detail but are consistent in the main theme which is normal when a story
is reported by several people. There are names of the people involved.
They do not seem to be fabrications because of the amount of details.
The main question is WHY? Why would devout
followers who loved their prophet report so many false stories about him
that portray him as a criminal, mass murderer, rapist, pedophile,
assassin, deceiver, and a highway robber?
The motive is important. We can see a clear
motive why people fabricate lies to make their prophet look holy but what
motive could they have to lie about their prophet and make him look so
evil?
We could also overlook such hadiths if they
were just a few. Someone could have been an enemy in disguise and might
have lied. But we have thousands upon thousands of hadiths that tell the
same tale of brutality and portray Muhammad as a criminal. At the same
time we have no other version of the same events. If Muhammad actually did
not raid the innocent populations how they converted to Islam? Do we have
a different version of how Islam expanded? Why would so many devout
believers who waged wars for Islam and gave their lives fabricate so many
falsehoods against their prophet? Why would dedicated scholars such as Ibh
Ishaq, Tabari, Waqidi, Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Hisham, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud,
Malik or others spend an entire life writing books based on nothing but
lies? What happened to the "real" history of Muhammad? How come
not a single version of that was ever written? And all what is survived
are lies? If all these people were liars, where were the truthful scholars
of Islam? How can it be that for 1300 years all the Muslims were lying and
suddenly when they came in contact with the West and were embarrassed to
see their religion is barbaric in comparison to the humanistic values of
the Westerners they discovered that the history of Muhammad that they have
is all lies?
Your position of denial is absurd and
untenable. You are shocked by the sheer inhumanity of Muhammad, but you
are not capable to let go. You try to cling to him desperately but you
mask the truth, lie to yourself and cocooned in your leis you feel safe.
By these denials you are not changing the truth. You are simply
sugarcoating the bitter truth so you can swallow it easier. You are simply
beguiling yourself.
Back
< > Next
Index to this debate
|
