Combating Islam

Friday, July 4, 2025

Part 4: Silencing the Scholars — The Price of Questioning Muhammad

7-part series: “The Untouchable Prophet: How Islam Enforces Total Submission to Muhammad”

In Islam, Thinking Too Hard About the Prophet Can Get You Killed

Religions have long wrestled with uncomfortable questions about their founders. Christian theologians debate Jesus’s humanity. Buddhist scholars dissect Siddhartha’s teachings. Even Jewish sages challenge interpretations of Moses.

But in Islam, the Prophet Muhammad is not up for discussion.
He is to be obeyed, not analyzed.

Any serious attempt to evaluate Muhammad — historically, ethically, or theologically — is treated as subversion. The punishment? Marginalization, excommunication, exile… or execution.

Islam doesn’t just protect Muhammad from slander. It protects him from scrutiny. And even the most devout Muslims have learned this the hard way.

1. The Rule Is Simple: Don’t Touch the Prophet

The Islamic intellectual tradition has many streams — legal, philosophical, mystical. But there's one rule that overrides all others:

You can debate God’s will. You cannot question the Prophet’s words or actions.

Why?

Because Muhammad’s authority is considered:

Absolute (his commands are binding),
Infallible (protected from error via the doctrine of ‘Ismah),
Final (the “Seal of the Prophets” who cannot be superseded).

So if a scholar challenges a hadith where Muhammad does something morally dubious, or questions the historicity of his life, it’s not treated as academic disagreement.

It’s treated as apostasy.

2. Case Studies in Punishment — Real Muslim Intellectuals, Real Repression

Nasr Abu Zayd (Egypt) — Excommunicated for Treating the Qur’an as Literature

A devout Muslim and Quranic scholar.
Argued that the Qur’an should be understood as a text — with human linguistic and cultural context — rather than as a static, eternal command.
Also explored how Hadiths and Prophet narratives were shaped over time.

The Result:

Declared an apostate by Egyptian courts in 1995.
Forced to flee the country.
His marriage was annulled by the state against his will under Islamic law (since an apostate cannot remain married to a Muslim woman).

His crime? Treating Islamic texts — and by extension, Muhammad’s legacy — as open to interpretation.

Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (Sudan) — Executed for Advocating Reform

Proposed a new understanding of Islam based on the Meccan verses of the Qur’an (which are more peaceful and egalitarian), over the more violent Medinan ones.
Essentially, he argued Muhammad’s later life was context-specific, and shouldn't be used as a timeless model.

The Result:

Tried for apostasy in 1985 under Sudanese Islamic law.
Executed by hanging at age 76.

His crime? Suggesting that not all of Muhammad’s example was eternally valid.

Fatima Mernissi (Morocco) — Marginalized for Challenging Hadiths

A Muslim feminist scholar who analyzed Hadiths that justify female subjugation.
Argued that many were fabricated or politically motivated.
Highlighted inconsistencies in reports about Muhammad’s actions toward women.

The Result:

Pushed to the fringes of Islamic academia.
Faced constant accusations of blasphemy and Westernization.

Her crime? Questioning the Prophet’s moral authority on gender roles.

Mohammed Arkoun (Algeria/France) — Ignored for Demythologizing Islam

Attempted to bring critical historiography to the study of early Islam.
Warned against treating Muhammad as beyond human analysis.
Promoted a secular, historical approach to Islamic origins.

The Result:

Largely excluded from mainstream Islamic discourse.
Accused of undermining faith and disrespecting the Prophet.

His crime? Treating Muhammad as a historical figure rather than a sacred symbol.

3. It’s Not About Apostasy — It’s About the Prophet

These scholars weren’t atheists. Most weren’t even trying to leave Islam.

Their core sin was that they refused to:

Blindly accept every Hadith.
Treat Muhammad’s actions as eternally binding.
Censor themselves when the Prophet’s behavior conflicted with modern ethics.

In short, they treated Muhammad as a man — not a moral oracle.

That’s all it takes.

Islamic orthodoxy doesn’t care if you believe in Allah.
It cares whether you submit to Muhammad.

4. Theological Thought-Policing: A Systemic Pattern

This enforcement isn't just cultural — it’s legal and institutional in many Muslim-majority countries.

Blasphemy laws are most often triggered not by insults to God, but by criticism or satire of Muhammad.
Religious universities such as Al-Azhar in Egypt or Qom in Iran serve as gatekeepers of doctrinal purity.
Book bans, fatwas, and death threats routinely target thinkers who re-evaluate Muhammad’s legacy.

The message is unmistakable:

You are free to think — as long as your thoughts do not challenge the Prophet.

5. Even Secular Muslims Are Not Safe

This isn’t limited to academics. Ex-Muslims, reformists, or liberal Muslims who speak publicly about Muhammad’s violence, sexual behavior, or authoritarian rule face:

Character assassination (labeled Islamophobes, heretics, or Zionist agents)
Platform censorship (especially in Muslim countries or in Western media fearing backlash)
Physical threats — sometimes death

In many ways, Islam functions like a regime where Muhammad is the Supreme Leader — and criticism of his person is sedition.

This is not reverence. This is ideological tyranny.

Conclusion: The Prophet Is Off-Limits — Even to the Faithful

Muhammad isn’t just immune from critique by outsiders.
He’s protected even from believers.

In Islam, intellectual integrity ends where the Prophet begins.

You can discuss divine mercy.
You can explore Qur’anic ambiguity.
You can debate legal rulings.

But once you ask:

“Was Muhammad wrong?”
“Did he act unjustly?”
“Should we question this Hadith?”

The door slams shut.

You’re no longer a thinker.
You’re a blasphemer.

Islam doesn’t just shield Muhammad from slander — it shields him from truth.

And in doing so, it silences its most thoughtful voices in the name of sacred conformity.

Next: Part 5 – Sacred Name, Sacred Silence: How Even Uttering 'Muhammad' Is Regulated

The Quran’s Biblical Borrowing

What the Prophets Never Said

Islam claims to affirm and continue the revelations given to Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus. The Quran repeatedly asserts that it confirms previous scriptures:

“This [Quran] confirms what was before it and serves as a detailed explanation of the Scripture.”
— Surah 10:37

“Say, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob… Moses and Jesus… We make no distinction between them.’”
— Surah 2:136

But when we compare what the Quran claims the prophets said with what earlier scriptures actually record, the contradictions become impossible to ignore.

This post lays bare the selective borrowing, textual distortion, and historical rewriting that form the basis of Islam’s claim to prophetic continuity — and shows that the Quran attributes to the prophets words they never said, and doctrines they never taught.

📚 1. Moses: A Lawgiver, Not a Muslim

The Quran presents Moses as a Muslim prophet who preached tawḥīd (strict monotheism) and prepared the way for Islam:

“And Moses said, ‘O my people, if you have believed in Allah, then rely upon Him, if you are Muslims.’”
— Surah 10:84

But the actual Torah (Tanakh) presents a completely different figure:

Uses the name YHWH (Yahweh), never “Allah”
Establishes the Sabbath, animal sacrifices, the Tabernacle, and a priestly system
Gives laws that Islam outright contradicts (e.g., pork forbidden in both, but polytheistic kings and temple systems are absent in Islam)

The core doctrines of Islamic worship (salat, zakat, Ramadan, Mecca, Qibla) are completely missing.

❌ Moses never taught:

Shahada
Prayer toward Mecca
Arabic as sacred language
Pilgrimage to Kaaba
That he was a Muslim

📖 2. David and the Psalms: A Misused Source

The Quran refers to the Zabur, said to be given to David:

“And to David We gave the Zabur.”
— Surah 17:55

But the Psalms (Tehillim) of the Bible:

Are songs, laments, praises, and prophecies — not law codes or Islamic monotheism
Call God by names like Yahweh, Adonai, and El Elyon, not “Allah”
Speak of God’s anointed one (Messiah) in royal, often divine terms (Psalm 2, Psalm 110)

❌ David never said:

“I am a Muslim”
“Worship Allah alone”
“Follow Muhammad”

In fact, the Psalms predict a coming messianic king, not a prophet from Arabia.

✝️ 3. Jesus and the Injil: A Book That Never Existed

The Quran says Jesus was given a scripture:

“We gave him the Injil, in which was guidance and light…”
— Surah 5:46

But this Injil:

Has no historical trace — there is no record of Jesus ever receiving or writing down a book
Is never quoted, cited, or referenced by early Christian writers
Is not the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, which were written by eyewitnesses or their companions

Moreover, the Quranic Jesus:

Denies his divinity (Surah 5:116)
Did not die on the cross (Surah 4:157)
Is not the Son of God (Surah 112)

This contradicts the core message of Jesus in every early Christian source:

“I and the Father are one… Before Abraham was, I AM… The Son of Man will give his life as a ransom for many.”

❌ Jesus never said:

“I am a Muslim”
“Worship Allah”
“Follow a prophet after me from Arabia”

📜 4. The Quranic Rewrite Strategy

The Quran doesn’t quote the prophets. It rewrites their messages.

Its method:

Names real figures from the Bible to appear rooted in history
Strips away their actual teachings and context
Replaces them with Islamic doctrine
Claims the originals were corrupted

But this process is theological appropriation, not confirmation. It’s like:

Taking Socrates,
Having him quote Confucius,
And claiming the original dialogues were forged.

🔥 5. Why This Matters

Islam depends on the claim that it confirms the “original message” of all prophets. But if:

Abraham never built the Kaaba
Moses never preached Islam
David never received a Quranic Zabur
Jesus never denied his divinity or predicted Muhammad

…then Islam is not restoring anything. It’s replacing everything.

🧨 Final Verdict

“Quranic eschatology is deeply indebted to Jewish and Christian sources…”
— Angelika Neuwirth

And so is Quranic theology.

But instead of quoting or preserving what the prophets actually said, the Quran fabricates a parallel narrative, tailored to fit Muhammad’s new religious framework.

The prophets of the Bible never taught Islam — and the Quran's version of their words is not confirmation…

…it’s contradiction.

Thursday, July 3, 2025

Part 3: The Ban on Images — Erasing History to Preserve Myth

7-part series: “The Untouchable Prophet: How Islam Enforces Total Submission to Muhammad”

Why You’re Not Allowed to See Muhammad

In most religions, prophets and sacred figures are depicted in paintings, stained glass, or sculpture — not to mock them, but to commemorate their lives. Religious art offers visual connection, education, and historical remembrance.

But Islam does the opposite.

It bans all visual depictions of Muhammad. Not just cartoons or satirical illustrations — all images. Respectful, reverent, educational, even neutral — none are allowed.

Why? Because the image of Muhammad must remain not just unseen — but unimagined, unexamined, and uncontested. Islam's refusal to allow images of its prophet isn’t merely about avoiding idolatry. It’s about shielding Muhammad’s legacy from scrutiny, controlling the narrative, and reinforcing his untouchable status.

This is historical censorship masquerading as piety.

1. No Images — Not Even Positive Ones

The blanket ban on images of Muhammad is rooted primarily in Sunni Islam, with some variations in Shia practice. Sunni jurisprudence teaches:

All images of animate beings are discouraged — but images of Muhammad are especially forbidden.

This includes:

Paintings
Illustrations in history books
Depictions in film or animation
Statues or carvings
Even respectful artistic renderings

It doesn’t matter if the image is flattering, historically accurate, or purely instructional. The image itself is the crime.

This is not a cultural preference. It’s a prohibition backed by:

Legal precedent
Clerical consensus
Social enforcement

2. The Justification: Fear of Idolatry — Or Fear of Inquiry?

Muslim apologists claim the ban exists to prevent shirk — associating partners with Allah — by stopping Muslims from idolizing the Prophet.

But this justification doesn’t hold up.

Christians and Jews have depicted prophets (including Moses and Jesus) for centuries without falling into idolatry.
Images of other Islamic figures (like Ali or Umar) exist in some Islamic art traditions — but Muhammad remains uniquely off-limits.
Even Islamic calligraphy that represents Muhammad’s name is often abstract and cryptic, lest people imagine his form.

In truth, the real reason isn’t theological. It’s psychological and political.

Allowing people to visualize Muhammad opens the door to:

Artistic interpretation
Historical criticism
Cultural comparison

And that breaks the spell.

A visible Muhammad can be assessed, contextualized, humanized — and questioned. An invisible one remains insulated by myth and shielded from analysis.

The ban isn't about protecting believers from sin. It’s about protecting the Prophet from history.

3. Shia Islam: Slightly More Tolerant, But Still Restrictive

While Sunni Islam bans all images categorically, Shia Islam — especially in Iran — has occasionally allowed respectful depictions of Muhammad and his family in devotional art.

Even so:

These are highly stylized and often feature a glowing face or veil to obscure his features.
They are never naturalistic or historically grounded.
There is no real attempt to portray Muhammad as a man of his time — with all the moral and political baggage that entails.

So while Shia practice is somewhat more lenient, the purpose remains the same: not to depict Muhammad, but to glorify and deify him.

4. Hollywood and the West: Bowing to the Islamic Veto

Western filmmakers, publishers, and artists have largely surrendered to the Islamic demand that Muhammad must never be shown — not even in fiction or satire.

Notable examples:

The Message (1976), a film about Muhammad, shows events from his perspective without ever showing his face.
South Park (2010), after initially showing Muhammad in earlier episodes, had him censored in later appearances after death threats from radical Muslims.
YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook have removed or restricted content showing Muhammad, especially after violent reactions to things like the Danish cartoons or Charlie Hebdo.

This isn't religious sensitivity. It's submission under threat.

Islam has successfully exported its internal blasphemy taboos to secular societies — by force.

5. Ancient Islamic Art Contradicts Modern Orthodoxy

Ironically, early Islamic art did sometimes depict Muhammad. Persian miniatures from the 13th to 16th centuries show him:

Leading prayers
Ascending to heaven (Mi’raj)
Receiving revelations

These depictions were not controversial at the time. Some were even commissioned by Islamic rulers.

So what changed?

As Islamic orthodoxy hardened and political Islam grew more authoritarian, the image ban became absolute. The historical Muhammad — once drawn by Muslim hands — was buried under centuries of religious censorship.

Modern Islam doesn’t just ban images. It retroactively erases the fact that they ever existed.

This isn’t reverence. It’s historical whitewashing.

6. The Real Motive: Controlling the Narrative

Why is Muhammad the only religious figure in the world who cannot be visually represented?

Because Islam needs him to be perfect, sinless, ageless, and unquestionable.

A visible Muhammad can be compared:

To other prophets
To secular leaders
To tyrants, warlords, or even pedophiles

That’s dangerous for Islam — because once you strip away the sacred fog, the actual Muhammad of Islamic sources is deeply human, deeply political, and often morally troubling.

So the solution is simple:
Don’t show him.
Don’t question him.
Just revere him.

Conclusion: A Prophet with No Face — and No Accountability

The Islamic ban on images of Muhammad is not about avoiding idolatry. It’s about enforcing ignorance.

By forbidding people to visualize him, Islam forbids them to understand him — to confront the real man beneath the mythology.

In doing so, it ensures that Muhammad remains:

Untouchable
Unquestionable
Unfalsifiable

This is not religious piety.
This is narrative control through visual erasure.

No face. No flaws. No dissent.

Islam hasn’t just made Muhammad untouchable.
It’s made him invisible — so he can never be examined.

Part 4: Academic Heretics — How Muslim Thinkers Are Punished for Questioning Muhammad?

Wednesday, July 2, 2025

The Qira’at That Didn’t Make the Cut

20 Recitations You’ve Never Heard Of

Islamic tradition holds that the Quran has been perfectly preserved — not just in text, but in pronunciation, sound, and recitation. Muslims proudly cite the "Qira’at" — canonical modes of Quranic recitation — as evidence of divine precision in oral transmission.

But what’s often hidden from the public is this:

Dozens of Qira’at existed in early Islamic history — and most were rejected, lost, or deliberately suppressed.

The Quran was never a single, fixed oral tradition. It was a chaotic cluster of regional recitations, dialectal variations, and competing versions — and what we call "The Quran" today is the outcome of editorial decisions, not divine preservation.

Let’s examine the 20+ Qira’at that didn’t make the cut — and why their existence destroys the myth of a perfectly preserved Quran.

📖 What Are Qira’at?

Qira’at (قراءات) refers to variant methods of reciting the Quran, based on differences in:

Consonants
Vowels
Word forms
Tense
Grammar
Sometimes even meaning

Each Qira’a is traced through a chain of transmitters to a supposed “master reciter” in early Islam — like Nafi‘, Ibn Kathir, Asim, Hamzah, etc.

Today, only seven or ten Qira’at are officially accepted, depending on the school of thought. But early sources show that dozens more existed — and many of them contradict one another in serious ways.

🧨 Why Did So Many Qira’at Disappear?

Simple: they weren’t politically or theologically acceptable.

Under Caliph Uthman (d. 656), variant codices were burned to create a single standard text. Later, Islamic scholars like Ibn Mujahid (d. 936) tried to “canonize” a handful of Qira’at — and exclude the rest.

This wasn't about divine revelation. It was about institutional control.

📜 Examples of Rejected Qira’at

Here are just a few of the Qira’at that didn’t make the canonical list:

Reciter	Issue
Ibn Muwayyis	Accused of corrupting readings; rejected as unreliable
Al-A‘mash	Had many unique readings; often differed from canonical Qira’at
Abu Ja‘far	Originally marginal; only later added to extended canon
Yahya al-Yazidi	Conflicted with more popular reciters; never canonized
Ibn Mahayṣ	Diverged in verse count and syntax
Abu’l-Harith	Had multiple unique deviations, including verse structure
Salim al-Makki	Known for variant basmalah use and divergent grammar
Al-Kisa’i’s students	Had variant forms even from their teacher’s accepted Qira’a

According to early scholars like Ibn al-Jazari, over 50 named Qira’at were circulating — and only a few were eventually selected.

🧪 What Kind of Variations Are We Talking About?

Not mere pronunciation differences — but meaning-altering divergences.

Example 1: Surah 2:222

Hafs: “Allah loves those who purify themselves” (يَتَطَهَّرُونَ)
Ibn Mas‘ud (rejected qira’a): “Allah loves those who fight hard” (يُطَهِّرُونَ)

Example 2: Surah 9:100

Hafs: “and those who follow them with excellence”
Other qira’at: “and those who followed them excellently” — subtle, but shifts who is being praised

Example 3: Surah 3:146

Hafs: “many prophets fought”
Other Qira’a: “many prophets were killed” — major theological impact

These aren’t accents. These are doctrinal divergences.

🔥 Why This Undermines the Preservation Claim

Islamic apologists claim:

“All Qira’at come from Allah.”

But:

Dozens were discarded by human scholars.
Many were mutually contradictory.
Some were declared shadhdh (aberrant), even if they had chains of transmission.

So the obvious question:

❓ If Allah revealed all these Qira’at… why were most burned, banned, or forgotten?

And if the goal was to preserve a single divine message, why allow:

7 official versions in one tradition
10 in another
14 in extended collections
And 20+ more that were valid in early Islam but now forbidden?

This isn’t preservation. It’s human editing.

🧨 Final Verdict

The myth that the Quran was perfectly preserved in “one reading” falls apart when we realize:

Early Islam had dozens of Quranic versions in circulation
Theological and political forces decided which to keep
The “Quran” today is not the unchanged word of God
It is the surviving result of historical filtering

The Qira’at that didn’t make the cut tell us more about how Islam evolved than the ones that did.

📚 Sources for Further Reading

Ibn Mujahid – Kitab al-Sab‘a fi al-Qira’at
Yasin Dutton – Origins of Islamic Law
Shady Hekmat Nasser – The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the Quran
Nicolai Sinai – The Qur’an: A Historical-Critical Introduction
Gerd Puin – Studies on the Sana’a Manuscript