Edip Yuksel vs. Ali Sina
Round II
Back
< > Next
| How can you rely on Bukhari who in the
beginning of his collection is not even ashamed of insulting MONKEYS
by reporting that a companion of the prophet saw monkeys stoning an
adulterous monkey to death?"
|
If you want to
discredit Bukhari and other biographers on the basis of the absurdity of
their thinking then why you do not look at the absurdity of Muhammad's
thinking?
Muhammad's
ignorance is obvious from what he wrote in the Quran. He thought that Jews
were transformed into apes and swine. Is that logical? Who is more
ridiculous? Bukhari who thought monkeys practice Sharia or Muhammad who
thought Jews were transformed into monkeys?
2:65
5:60
7:166
But that is not all.
There are numerous ridiculous statements made by Muhammad in the Quran. We
will come to that when we come to the Quran.
| According to your suggested criterion of
sifting the garbage, we should accept this report since it does not
praise Muhammad! Or you have another criterion that you forgot to
communicate to me? You may end up with hundreds of arbitrary
criteria to be able to justify your picks and rejects! |
No this hadith should
not be accepted. It belongs to that category of hadiths that were invented
by Muslims to make their religion look universal. We can see why a zealot
Muslim would fabricate such ludicrous hadith. We can also easily see it is
false because we know monkeys are not as savage as Muslims to stone their
kind. Like all other hadith talking about miracles, this hadith is
irrational and hence should be discarded. But when we read Muhammad took a
bunch of Arabs and cut
their extremities, gouged their eyes and left them to die in the desert
for stealing his camels, we have no reason to doubt this is untrue because
this heinous act is doable
and
it fits the character of Muhammad.
From the Quran, from thousands of hadiths and from the siras we can see
that Muhammad was a violent, unforgiving and ruthless man. There is
nothing extraordinary in this hadith for us to doubt it. It is likely that
this hadith is true.
-
It
is repeated in several sources
-
It is not
contrary to the explicit or implicit teachings of the Quran, in fact
it is in unison with it.
-
It is not
contrary to logic. It is possible to cut the hands and feet of people,
gouge their eyes and leave them die in the desert sun.
-
It is
consistent with the character of Muhammad
-
There is no reason to believe why so many believers would fabricate
such story
-
It is
detailed.
Based on all the
above this hadith is very likely to be true. And since we have thousands
of hadiths like this, it really does not matter even if some of them are
not true. We get the picture of Muhammad when we read all of them.
| How can you invite me to speculate on
Bukhari who confesses of collecting 700,000 hadith and accepting
only about 7000; rejecting 99 percent of them? Don't you see the
exaggeration? Had Muhammad talked every minute of his life after
claiming messengership, his words could have hardly added up to
700,000 hadiths. |
This is not a valid
argument at all. Suppose Bukhari was exaggerating, this does not
invalidate his work. Talking hyperbolically is part of the Persian psyche.
If only you could see the kind of hyperbole they they use in their poetry! The number 7 and its
multiples of ten were the favorite number of the ancient people and we see
Muhammad also using it often. As in the example of police and tips brought
earlier,
sometimes tens of thousands of tips could be reported. The sheer
enormity of the false tips should not invalidate the good ones.
How can you take Bukhari serious who
justifies the abrogation of a Quranic verse after Muhammad's
departure by none other than a holy goat that ate the skin where the
alleged verses issuing the stoning-to-death for adulterers written?
Should we accept that report? In order to add another insult to
Islam you would like to have it. But you cannot have it both ways.
You have to also believe the "holy goat"
|
I haven’t seen this
hadith. It could be false but it is not illogical. Goats are known to eat
papers and books. The only reason you are so shocked is that you think those
writings were revelations from God and if so they could not have been
destroyed. Since your premise is wrong your conclusion is wrong too.
Bukhari had a very different idea of islam than Muhammad. Bukhari
was an ignorant idol worshiper and had no respect to the Quran.
Besides, he sided with the oppressive rulers. For instance, he found
Marwan, the drunk and murderer governor. to be a credible person by
narrating "sahih" hadiths from him, while he declined
accepting any hadith from a brave student of the Quran, Abu Hanifah
who suffered in the jails of Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties for
rejecting to sell his soul! Bukhari was not an objective hadith
collector, he was on the side of murderers and aggressors.
We can write volumes of books listing the contradiction between the
teaching of Bukhari and the Quran, the only book delivered by
Muhammad. Then, how can a sound person claim Bukhari to be a friend
of Muhammad? To me, he was a real enemy of Muhammad (6:112-116),
like St. Paul was the real enemy of Jesus, since he distorted his
message beyond recognition.
Let me little side track here. For instance, Jesus never silenced
women and put them down with xenophobic teachings but St. Paul asked
women to submit to men and hush: (1Ti 2:7-15; 1 Corinthians
14:34-35; 1 Peter 3:7). Jesus never asked for money for preaching
but St. Paul asked for money shamelessly and likened his audience to
flock of sheep to be milked by the holy shepherd! (Who goeth a
warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and
eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth
not of the milk of the flock? 1Co 9:7). He was a successful
Machiavellian (before Machiavelli was born!) as opposed to Jesus who
did not twist the truth to gain people: "To the weak became I
as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all
men, that I might by all means save some." (1 Corinthians
9:22).
How can you trust Bukhari who narrates the LAST HADITH while prophet
Muhammad in his death bed, rejecting the recording of any hadith
through a decleration from the mouth of Omar Bin Khattap and the
acquiescence of all prominent muslims that "Hasbuna kitabullah"
(God's word is enough for us)? |
I think you are
confusing the facts. This hadith that BTW might be apocryphal reports that
Muhammad asked for pen and paper to write something and Omar said Hasbuna
Kitabullah. Muhammad did not say that. It was Omar who said it in defiance
of Muhammad’s order and Muhammad was upset and motioned everyone to
leave the room. I say it might be apocryphal because a) Muhammad could not
write b) it is highly unlikely that Omar would be so disrespectful to him
at the moment of his death and c) even if Omar said such thing others who
were present would have obeyed Muhammad and not Omar. This hadith could
have been invented by a follower of Ali to stain Omar. But whatever it is
it has nothing to do with rejecting the hadith. Muhammad claimed to have
sublime morals 68:4
and ordered the Muslims to follow his “good
example”. 33:21
How would you know about his examples if not through the narrations
left by his companions? The Quran is allegedly the word of God and not a
collection of the examples of Muhammad.
Furthermore,
isn't this story you are telling us a hadith? So you are trying to
discredit the hadiths on the authority of another hadith? And you call
that honesty?
Back
< > Next
Index
to this debate
|
