Combating Islam : June 2025

Monday, June 30, 2025

Islam Began with Muhammad — And That Changes Everything
The Fatal Fact That Shatters the “Eternal Faith” Claim

Islam teaches that it is not a new religion. According to the Qur’an, Islam is the original faith of humanity — revealed to Adam, preached by Noah, practiced by Abraham, followed by Moses and Jesus, and finally “restored” by Muhammad. This sweeping narrative gives Islam the authority of age, universality, and divine continuity.

But there’s one problem.

It’s not true.

Islam, as a religion, did not exist before Muhammad. It was born in 7th-century Arabia, with no trace of continuity before then. And that single historical fact is devastating to its foundational claim.

No Islam Before the 7th Century — At All

Despite the Quran’s assertions, no archaeological, textual, or historical evidence exists for Islam before Muhammad’s lifetime:

No Qur’an, hadith, or Islamic creed before ~610 CE.
No mosques, no prayer rituals, no pilgrimage to Mecca tied to Abraham.
No mention of Muhammad, the Kaaba, or Islamic practices in Jewish, Christian, Roman, or Persian sources.
No group between Jesus and Muhammad matches the Quran’s version of “true Muslims” — denying the crucifixion, affirming tawhid, and awaiting a final prophet.

For 2,000 years of recorded history before Muhammad, nothing resembling Islam existed.

Islam’s Retroactive Claims Fall Apart

The Qur’an calls Abraham a “Muslim” (3:67), says Jesus’ disciples were “Muslims” (3:52), and claims the Kaaba was built by Abraham and Ishmael (2:127). But these are anachronisms — projecting 7th-century ideas backward in time.

The Hebrew Bible never places Abraham in Arabia — only Canaan and Egypt.
The New Testament affirms Jesus’ divinity and crucifixion — both rejected by Islam.
Pre-Islamic Arab sources (Herodotus, Pliny) describe pagan worship, not monotheism.
No evidence of any prophet or Islamic belief system exists in Arabia between Ishmael (c. 2000 BCE) and Muhammad (610 CE).

These gaps aren’t just missing footnotes — they are historical voids. Black holes in the timeline that expose Islam’s claims as fabrications, not facts.

The Core Problem: Islam Wasn’t Restored — It Was Invented

If Islam began with Muhammad — as the evidence conclusively shows — then it cannot be:

The religion of Abraham, Moses, or Jesus.
A continuation of divine revelation.
A correction of corrupted scriptures.

It’s not a restoration. It’s an origin story — written after the fact.

The Quran’s backfilled narrative only works if no one checks the sources. But when we do, we find that Islam’s roots don’t go deep — they begin suddenly, in the 7th century, in a pagan Mecca newly rebranded as holy.

Final Verdict

Islam claims to be the final link in a divine chain stretching back to Adam. But history exposes it as a standalone invention, born in Muhammad’s Arabia — not the faith of the prophets, but a faith built about them.

And once that’s clear, the claim to eternal truth collapses.

Islam didn’t come first.

It came last — and then claimed first.

Islam

A Construct, not a Continuation

Islam claims to be the final chapter in the Abrahamic story — the continuation of the faith of Abraham, the fulfillment of the Torah, the correction of the Gospel, and the seal of all prophecy. It presents itself not as a new religion, but as the restoration of a single, pure, eternal message: submission to the one true God, Allah.

But once we peel back the claims and examine the evidence — historical, theological, textual, and logical — a radically different picture emerges.

Islam is not the continuation of biblical faith. It is a radical revision of earlier religions — borrowing names, stories, and language, only to overwrite them with new doctrines, new laws, and a new prophet.

Let’s break it down.

📜 1. A Book With No Eyewitnesses

The Quran was not written during Muhammad’s lifetime.

Muhammad himself was illiterate (per Islamic tradition — Surah 7:157).
There is no original manuscript from his time.
The Quran was compiled decades later under Caliphs Abu Bakr and Uthman — from scraps, memories, and fragments.
According to Islamic sources themselves (e.g., Sahih Bukhari 4986), entire verses were lost:

“I used to hear the Prophet reciting a verse… but now I cannot find it.”

There were also verses about stoning and breastfeeding adults that were allegedly revealed — then forgotten or eaten by animals (see Sunan Ibn Majah 1944, Sunan al-Kubra).

In short: The Quran is a book:

Written by scribes decades after the prophet’s death,
Assembled under political pressure,
Standardized by burning competing versions,
And riddled with variant readings (qira’at) and missing content.

This is not how divine preservation looks. This is how human redaction works.

🧞‍♂️ 2. A Prophet With No Verified Miracles

Unlike Moses or Jesus — whose miracles are central to their missions — Muhammad performed no publicly verifiable miracles according to the Quran itself.

Quran 17:90–93: People asked Muhammad for signs — he gave none.
Quran 6:37: “Why is no sign sent down?” — Answer: “Allah is able to send a sign, but most don’t understand.”
Quran 29:50: “They say: why has no sign been sent?” — Muhammad replies: “Signs are only with Allah.”

The only “miracle” the Quran points to is the Quran itself — a circular claim:

“This book is a miracle because the book says it’s a miracle.”

The splitting of the moon (Surah 54:1) is vague, metaphorical, and not supported by external evidence. Even early Islamic commentators were divided on whether it was literal, symbolic, or a future prophecy.

In contrast, every miracle attributed to Muhammad — water multiplying, trees walking, moon splitting — comes from Hadiths written 200 years after his death, not the Quran.

So we have:

A prophet who gave no public signs.
A book that contradicts itself and the Bible.
And a movement built on later legends, not eyewitness proof.

📖 3. A Narrative Built by Borrowing — and Distorting

Islam appropriates nearly every major biblical figure:

Abraham becomes the first Muslim.
Moses becomes a proto-Muhammad.
Jesus becomes Isa, a human prophet who wasn’t crucified.

But these versions are not the same:

Biblical Abraham never went to Mecca or built the Kaaba.
Moses’ law is replaced by new Sharia.
Jesus’ crucifixion is explicitly denied (Quran 4:157), contradicting not only all four Gospels, but non-Christian Roman and Jewish sources like Tacitus and Josephus.

Islam borrows the names, but rewrites the roles. It adopts the terms, but revises the meaning.

This isn’t continuation. It’s ideological rebranding.

🔥 4. A Message Enforced by Fear, Not Freedom

Islam claims to be a religion of peace — yet its sacred texts are filled with violence, especially once Muhammad gained power in Medina.

Consider:

Surah 9:5 – “Kill the polytheists wherever you find them…”
Surah 9:29 – “Fight those who do not believe… until they pay jizya with willing submission…”
Sahih Bukhari 3017 – “Whoever leaves Islam — kill him.”

These verses were not metaphorical. They were applied literally in early Islamic history:

The execution of the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza (600–900 men beheaded)
The invasion and conquest of Arabia, Persia, Egypt, and beyond
The imposition of jizya tax on non-Muslims and the dhimmi status (second-class citizenship)

To this day, many Islamic countries criminalize:

Leaving Islam (apostasy)
Criticizing Islam (blasphemy)
Evangelizing others (conversion)

This is not moral clarity. It’s ideological coercion.

🔐 5. A Theology That Cannot Be Questioned

Islam often shields itself from scrutiny by creating walls of intimidation:

“You must read Arabic to understand it.”
“You are taking it out of context.”
“Only scholars can interpret the Quran.”
“You’re not allowed to question Muhammad.”

This creates an echo chamber where:

Doubt is a sin.
Inquiry is punished.
And obedience is supreme.

The Quran is called "clear" (mubeen) (Surah 26:2, 12:1, 16:89) — yet requires volumes of tafsir (commentary) to be understood.
Which is it — clear or convoluted?

⚖️ 6. A Legal System That Contradicts Human Rights

Sharia law — derived from Quran and Hadith — includes:

Death for apostasy
Stoning for adultery
Flogging for drinking
Amputations for theft
Beating wives (Quran 4:34)
Half inheritance for women (Quran 4:11)
Testimony of two women = one man (Quran 2:282)

This is not justice. This is 7th-century tribal control sacralized as divine law.

🧨 Conclusion: What Islam Really Is

Islam is not the continuation of biblical faith.
It is a radical revision — borrowing just enough to sound familiar, while gutting the foundations of Judaism and Christianity.

A prophet with no verified miracles
A book with no eyewitnesses
A claim of preservation contradicted by manuscript evidence
A theology built on borrowed names, altered meanings, and forceful control

Islam does not reveal divine truth.

It reveals a man-made ideology, constructed in stages, enforced by fear, protected by censorship, and sanctified through selective storytelling.

The Untouchable Prophet

How Islam Enforces Total Submission to Muhammad

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

Subtitle:
From Sacred Insults to State Killings — The Legal and Cultural Fortress Around Muhammad

Introduction:
Most religions place their ultimate reverence in the divine. Prophets and saints may be respected, but it is God who commands the highest loyalty and protection. Not so in Islam.

In Islamic theology, criticizing God may be forgiven. But criticizing Muhammad — even indirectly — is met with brutal consequences: legal death sentences, mob violence, diplomatic crises, and global riots. The founder of Islam is not merely respected. He is enshrined in an untouchable status that overrides divine mercy, suppresses free thought, and criminalizes historical inquiry.

This series, The Untouchable Prophet, will expose how Islamic law, culture, and psychology have constructed a forcefield around Muhammad. Each part will dissect a key mechanism through which this reverence turns into repression — and how Islam becomes a prophet-centered autocracy in practice, not just belief.

Series Outline:

Part 1: Death for a Word — The Legal Machinery Behind Blasphemy Laws
How classical Islamic jurisprudence codified the death penalty for any insult toward Muhammad, and how this distinction places the Prophet above divine forgiveness.

Part 2: Mob Justice and Fatwa Wars — Vigilante Enforcement of the Prophet’s Honor
A global survey of modern enforcement: lynchings, state killings, fatwas, riots — and why criticizing Muhammad sparks more fury than mocking Allah Himself.

Part 3: Forbidden to Depict — Iconoclasm as Control
Why Islamic bans on depicting Muhammad go beyond avoiding idolatry and serve to lock down his image — making even respectful representation a crime.

Part 4: Thoughtcrime in the Muslim World — Silencing Scholars and Reformers
How even Muslim academics and theologians face censorship, excommunication, or execution for questioning aspects of Muhammad’s life or teachings.

Part 5: The Sacred Name — Symbolic Insulation and Ritualized Reverence
How even the name “Muhammad” is wrapped in mandatory phrases, legal sanctity, and enforced piety — revealing symbolic control over language and thought.

Part 6: More Revered Than God — Cultural Indicators of Who Really Matters
Why Muslims riot over Muhammad, not over Allah. How divine reverence has been eclipsed by emotional and cultural fixation on the Prophet.

Part 7: Infallible by Decree — The Weaponization of Ismah
How the doctrine of prophetic sinlessness (Ismah) has turned Muhammad into a moral black hole — where nothing he did can be judged, and everything becomes justified.

Next: Part 1: Death for a Word — The Legal Machinery Behind Blasphemy Laws

Sunday, June 29, 2025

Did Muhammad Really Read and Write?

How Hadith and History Undermine the Illiteracy Myth and Break the Qur’an's Miracle Claim

Abstract

Islamic tradition insists Muhammad was “ummi”—widely interpreted as illiterate—to reinforce the claim that the Qur’an’s literary excellence is miraculous. How could an unlettered man produce such a book? However, a careful and unfiltered review of sahih hadith, Qur’anic usage, and early Islamic historiography tells a very different story. From signing treaties and issuing letters to correcting written documents and requesting writing materials on his deathbed, Muhammad consistently appears as functionally literate. This article exposes the doctrinal contradictions, challenges the traditional reading of “ummi”, and examines the theological consequences of denying clear evidence from within Islam’s most trusted sources.

1. Introduction: A Foundational Claim Under Fire

One of the most widely repeated assertions in Islamic apologetics is that Muhammad could neither read nor write. The Qur’an’s literary brilliance, Muslims argue, must therefore be divine—since its human transmitter lacked the skills to produce it.

Central to this argument is the Qur’anic label “al-ummi” (Qur’an 7:157–158), traditionally translated as “the unlettered prophet.” But this narrative, though widely preached, is not consistently borne out by Islam’s own sacred texts.

The question is not simply historical. It is theological. If Muhammad was literate, then the Qur’an’s supposed miracle of origin collapses into explainable human effort—not divine dictation. This article presents the cumulative evidence that Muhammad could, in fact, read and write—drawing from sahih hadith, early biographies, and even Islamic exegesis.

**2. What Does “Ummi” Actually Mean?**

The Arabic term “ummi” is often taken to mean “illiterate,” but this interpretation is not universally accepted. Several key observations challenge this simplistic definition:

Qur’an 2:78 uses the same root to refer to “those who do not know the Book”—not those who cannot read, but those who lack scriptural knowledge.
Scholars like W. Montgomery Watt and Alfred Guillaume argue “ummi” in Muhammad’s context more plausibly meant "unscriptured" or "gentile", referring to someone outside the Judeo-Christian textual tradition rather than someone functionally illiterate.
Even Islamic scholar al-Tabari, in his Tafsir on Qur’an 29:48, acknowledges alternative meanings and notes that some believed Muhammad learned to read and write later in life.

In short, “ummi” does not prove illiteracy. It’s a theological assumption resting on a linguistic oversimplification.

3. Hadith Evidence That Muhammad Was Literate

The strongest challenge to the illiteracy claim comes from the very sources Muslims trust most: the sahih hadith.

3.1 The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah

Multiple narrations from Sahih al-Bukhari (2731, 3186, 4199, 4832) describe Muhammad directly engaging with the written treaty between the Muslims and Quraysh:

“The Prophet took the document though he did not know how to write, and he wrote: ‘This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has agreed to…’” — Bukhari 2731

Other narrations claim Ali wrote it. But the recurring formula “he took it and wrote” suggests direct authorship or at least hands-on correction, contradicting the claim that Muhammad could neither read nor write.

3.2 The Prophet’s Official Seal and Letters

Muhammad used a silver ring engraved with “Muhammad Rasul Allah” (Bukhari 4425, Muslim 2092) to stamp letters sent to emperors and kings. These letters—written, reviewed, and sealed—formed official diplomatic communication.

It is implausible that the man sending political and theological correspondence to world rulers had no understanding of their content.

3.3 The Deathbed Writing Request

In one of the most striking hadiths (Bukhari 114, 4431), during his final illness Muhammad says:

“Bring me writing materials so I may write a statement after which you will not go astray.”

This isn’t metaphor. He requests pen and paper—not a scribe. And it implies he would personally compose or dictate a document of great theological importance.

3.4 The Slave Girl Incident

In Sahih Muslim 537, Muhammad tests a slave girl’s understanding by asking questions and giving instructions in writing. The hadith implies literacy on his part, both in communication and in oversight.

4. Early Historians Also Suggest Literacy

Early Islamic historians like Ibn Ishaq (as recorded by Alfred Guillaume in Sirat Rasul Allah) depict Muhammad reading letters, dictating responses, and correcting texts.

As a caravan merchant and political leader, Muhammad would have had both need and opportunity to acquire at least functional literacy—especially in the latter parts of his life.

5. Theological and Doctrinal Implications

5.1 The “Miracle” Argument Unravels

The claim that the Qur’an is miraculous because it was delivered by an illiterate man loses its force if Muhammad could read and write. If literate, he could have engaged in editing, memorization, or even composition. The uniqueness of the Qur’an would then be literary—not supernatural.

5.2 Preservation and Integrity

Ironically, Muhammad’s literacy could strengthen the case for accurate Qur’anic transmission—he could review written verses, oversee scribes, and verify copies.

5.3 “Ummi” as “Gentile” Resolves the Tension

If “ummi” means “gentile” or “non-scriptured,” the Qur’an’s language and hadith reports harmonize. Muhammad is then an unscriptured prophet, not an illiterate one. This saves the Qur’an from contradiction—but at the cost of a core apologetic crutch.

6. Muslim Responses and Their Limits

Modern Muslim apologists attempt several strategies:

Metaphorical Interpretation: “Writing” means “dictating.” But the hadith are explicit and describe physical interaction with text.
Partial Literacy Theory: Some propose Muhammad became literate later in life—ironically confirming he wasn’t always illiterate, which nullifies the miracle argument.
Narrative Dismissal: Weakening or ignoring inconvenient hadith contradicts Islamic standards of isnad-based authenticity and reveals a theological double standard.

The sheer volume and diversity of sources suggesting literacy demands intellectual honesty and theological courage to reevaluate the traditional claim.

7. Conclusion: The Illiteracy Myth Falls

The idea that Muhammad was illiterate is not supported by the very sources Muslims consider sacred. Hadith, early biographies, and Qur’anic semantics all point toward a prophet who was functionally literate—especially in his later life.

This has seismic implications for Islamic theology:

The Qur’an’s miraculous nature must be defended on other grounds
The Prophet’s engagement with writing cannot be ignored
The apologetic narrative of “an illiterate man with a perfect book” doesn’t survive scrutiny

Truth—historical, theological, and intellectual—requires us to abandon pious fictions in favor of what the sources truly say.

References

Sahih al-Bukhari: 114, 2731, 3186, 4199, 4425, 4431, 4832
Sahih Muslim: 537, 1784, 2092
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, trans. A. Guillaume
Al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari (on Qur’an 29:48)
Watt, W. Montgomery, Muhammad at Mecca, 1953
Guillaume, Alfred, Islam, 1954

Sharia Law vs. Human Rights

Sacred Justice or Tribal Control?

One of Islam’s most defended institutions is Sharia — the body of religious law derived from the Quran and Hadith. It's presented by Muslims as a divinely revealed legal code that governs every aspect of life, from criminal justice to prayer rituals, family structure to finance.

But the more you examine it, the more it resembles a 7th-century tribal code, not timeless moral law. It clashes head-on with universal human rights, and its enforcement in many Muslim-majority countries today leaves a trail of inequality, cruelty, and repression.

This is not divine justice.

This is patriarchal, authoritarian control, codified by religious authority and sealed against reform.

Let’s look at seven core Sharia laws that violate modern human rights standards — and the Quranic/Hadith foundations that enshrine them.

☠️ 1. Death for Apostasy

“Whoever changes his religion — kill him.”
— Sahih Bukhari 3017

Sharia law demands the execution of apostates — anyone who leaves Islam. This is upheld by all four major Sunni madhhabs (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali).

Quranic Tension:

Surah 2:256: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”
Surah 3:85: “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him.”

Contradiction: While the Quran says there’s no compulsion, Hadiths (and Islamic jurists) enforce the ultimate punishment for leaving Islam. In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, apostasy is still punishable by death.

🪨 2. Stoning for Adultery

“Stone the married adulterer to death.”
— Sahih Muslim 1690a

Despite the Quran prescribing 100 lashes for adultery (24:2), Hadiths overrule this with the barbaric act of stoning to death — a punishment never mentioned in the Quran.

What’s worse: some Islamic jurists claim the verse of stoning was once in the Quran but was “abrogated in recitation, not in ruling.” This means:

God removed the verse from the Quran,
But Muslims still have to obey the law it once contained.

This is theological absurdity and judicial cruelty — based on invisible verses.

🍷 3. Flogging for Drinking Alcohol

“If he drinks [alcohol], lash him.”
— Sunan Abu Dawud 4483

Public flogging — usually 40 or 80 lashes — is mandated for those caught drinking. This punishment, rooted in Hadith and early caliphal practice, is still applied in countries like Saudi Arabia.

Even though alcohol use is a personal, non-violent act, it is criminalized with brutal corporal punishment, reflecting zero distinction between public harm and private autonomy.

✂️ 4. Amputation for Theft

“Cut off the hand of the thief.”
— Quran 5:38

This verse is still enforced literally in some Muslim countries. In places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, thieves have had their hands amputated for stealing — even for non-violent property crimes.

There’s no concept of proportionality or reform:

A starving man who steals bread?
A desperate woman stealing to feed children?

The law cuts indiscriminately.

👊 5. Beating Wives for Disobedience

“As to those [wives] from whom you fear rebellion… beat them.”
— Quran 4:34

Apologists attempt to soften this — claiming it means “light tap,” “symbolic strike,” or “last resort.” But the classical interpretations — from Ibn Kathir to al-Tabari to al-Qurtubi — explicitly allow physical discipline.

Hadiths further reinforce male dominance:

Sahih Muslim 1466c: “If I were to order anyone to prostrate before another, I would have ordered women to prostrate before their husbands.”

This is not a partnership. It is religious patriarchy.

🧮 6. Half Inheritance for Women

“For the male, a portion equal to that of two females.”
— Quran 4:11

Sharia law mandates that women receive half the inheritance of men. Why? Because men are considered financial providers and guardians — a tribal logic that erases women’s autonomy, independence, and capability.

Today, this law still deprives countless Muslim women of equal economic rights, especially in rural and traditional communities.

⚖️ 7. Testimony: Two Women = One Man

“Call two witnesses… if two men are not available, then one man and two women…”
— Quran 2:282

In Sharia courts:

A woman’s testimony is often worth half that of a man,
Or outright inadmissible in serious cases (e.g. murder, adultery).

Islamic scholars justify this by citing women’s alleged “emotional nature” or “lack of reasoning” — an insult codified into law.

This is institutionalized gender inequality, not justice.

🌐 Conclusion: Sharia vs. Human Rights

Universal human rights affirm:

Freedom of belief
Equality of genders
Protection from cruel and inhumane punishments
Equal access to justice

Sharia law violates every single one of these.

Muslims claim Sharia is eternal and divine — but its content shows it is:

Historically conditioned
Male-centered
Politically enforced
Morally deficient by modern standards

This is not timeless wisdom.
This is 7th-century tribalism, fossilized in sacred texts, and exported across centuries through fear, force, and cultural domination.

Saturday, June 28, 2025

Muhammad Lusted After Another Man’s Wife

A Theological Reckoning That Breaks the Prophetic Claim

Abstract

This article confronts a disturbing episode recorded in Islamic sources—namely, that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, harbored desire for the wife of another man. According to Tafsir Fath al-Qadir (Vol. 4, p. 404), Muhammad developed lustful intent toward Zaynab, the wife of his adopted son Zayd. This isn’t just a personal failing—it’s a theological fracture. The moral collapse at the heart of this event directly violates the standards set by the God of the Bible and shatters the credibility of Muhammad as a true prophet. This piece contrasts the character of Muhammad with biblical prophetic ethics, exposing the incompatibility between Islamic tradition and divine holiness.

1. The Islamic Source: A Prophet's Eyes on Another Man's Wife

Islamic tafsir and historical tradition are clear: Muhammad developed desire for Zaynab bint Jahsh, the wife of his adopted son, Zayd ibn Harithah. The most explicit record comes from:

Tafsir Fath al-Qadir, Vol. 4, p. 404
“The Prophet entered Zayd’s house and saw Zaynab. She rose to meet him, and her beauty struck him. He desired her…”

This commentary appears in explanation of Qur’an 33:37, a verse widely regarded—even in mainstream Islamic scholarship—as related to this very incident.

“And [remember] when you [O Muhammad] said to the one upon whom Allah had bestowed favor… ‘Keep your wife and fear Allah.’ And you concealed within yourself that which Allah was to disclose...” — Qur’an 33:37

Islamic tradition states that Muhammad concealed his desire, even as he instructed Zayd to remain married to Zaynab. Eventually, Zayd divorced her, and Muhammad married her—an act that caused scandal and required divine justification.

2. Biblical Standard: Holiness, Not Hidden Lust

Contrast this with the moral clarity of the Bible:

Exodus 20:17 — “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.”
Matthew 5:28 — “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Biblically, coveting is not just a temptation—it is a sin. And Jesus goes further: inner lust equals moral guilt, even if no physical act occurs. By this standard, Muhammad not only fails the prophetic test—he fails basic holiness.

3. Prophets Must Embody Divine Integrity

A true prophet reflects the character of God. Scripture is clear:

Habakkuk 1:13 — “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing.”

God does not anoint men of unrepentant moral compromise. The prophetic office is not just about delivering messages—it is about embodying divine standards. Muhammad’s lust for Zaynab contradicts this entirely.

Furthermore, the prophet Nathan’s rebuke of David (2 Samuel 12) shows how God treats even kings who covet another man’s wife—with condemnation, not excuses.

4. The Ultimate Contrast: Jesus Christ

Muhammad stands in sharp contrast to Jesus, who:

Was tempted in all ways, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15)
Demonstrated total mastery over lust and desire
Never violated the purity of heart that God requires

Where Muhammad concealed lust, Jesus embodied holiness. Where Muhammad desired what was forbidden, Jesus resisted temptation and taught others to do the same. One modeled flesh. The other, divinity.

5. Theological Consequences: Disqualified by Character

By biblical standards, Muhammad fails the test of a prophet:

Matthew 7:15–20 — “You will know them by their fruits…”
1 John 4:1 — “Test the spirits… for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

The fruit of Muhammad’s life—especially in this episode—is one of self-interest, concealed desire, and divine manipulation, not submission to a holy God.

If a man conceals lust for another man’s wife, then later marries her under supposed divine approval, this is not a sign of divine endorsement—it is evidence of moral disqualification.

6. Muslim Apologetics: Evasions, Not Explanations

Muslim defenders offer various responses, none sufficient:

“The marriage was for legal reform.” But that doesn’t explain the desire preceding it—which was recorded and never denied.
“The Qur’an reveals his humanity.” But lust for another man’s wife is not mere humanity—it is sin.
“Allah permitted it.” But a holy God does not contradict His own moral nature to accommodate a prophet’s personal impulses.

These explanations collapse under scrutiny. They reveal more about Allah’s permissiveness than about Muhammad’s purity.

7. Conclusion: Muhammad Fails the Test

This episode is not an isolated incident—it is a theological indictment. If Muhammad desired another man’s wife, concealed it, then later married her—this is not the conduct of a true prophet. It is the behavior of a man whose actions required justification, not reverence.

No amount of apologetic rebranding can hide the simple truth: Muhammad failed the holiness standard God sets for His messengers.

“By their fruits you will recognize them…” — Matthew 7:20
And by this fruit, Muhammad stands exposed.

References

Tafsir Fath al-Qadir, Vol. 4, p. 404
Qur’an 33:37
Exodus 20:17
Matthew 5:28
Habakkuk 1:13
Matthew 7:15–20
1 John 4:1

The Sharia Mirage

10 Myths Muslims Believe About Islamic Law

Sharia is often presented by Muslims as a perfect, divine legal system — a gift from God to humanity, superior to all man-made laws. But when examined critically, Sharia law reveals not clarity but contradiction, not justice but coercion, not progress but primitive control.

This post exposes 10 common myths Muslims believe about Sharia, contrasting each claim with reality based on Islam’s own core sources: the Quran, Hadith, and classical jurisprudence.

🔟 Myth 1: “Sharia Is Just About Personal Morality”

📢 Claim: Sharia only covers things like prayer, fasting, and charity.

📖 Reality: Sharia covers:

Criminal law (hudud punishments: stoning, amputation, flogging),
Apostasy and blasphemy laws (death penalty),
Rules for jihad and war,
Gender laws (guardianship, veiling, polygamy),
Slavery (regulation, not abolition).

➡️ It's a total system — not just spiritual, but political and penal.

9️⃣ Myth 2: “There’s No Compulsion in Religion” (Quran 2:256)

📢 Claim: Islam promotes religious freedom.

📖 Reality: The same Quran commands:

Death for apostates (Hadith: Bukhari 3017),
Fighting non-Muslims until they submit (Quran 9:29),
Jizya tax to humiliate non-believers.

➡️ 2:256 was revealed in Mecca when Muhammad had no power. Later verses in Medina abrogate it (via naskh).

8️⃣ Myth 3: “Sharia Gave Women Rights Before the West”

📢 Claim: Islam liberated women.

📖 Reality:

Women inherit half what men do (Quran 4:11),
A woman’s testimony = half a man (Quran 2:282),
Men are allowed to beat their wives (Quran 4:34),
No female prophets, imams, or judges in classical law,
Polygamy for men only, temporary marriage for sexual convenience.

➡️ These aren’t rights. They’re restrictions dressed as privilege.

7️⃣ Myth 4: “Sharia Protects Justice”

📢 Claim: Sharia is the most just legal system.

📖 Reality:

Stoning for adultery (Hadith: Muslim 1690a),
Amputation for theft (Quran 5:38),
Flogging for drinking (Sunan Abu Dawud 4483),
Slavery endorsed (Quran 4:24, 8:70),
Dhimmi status for non-Muslims (Quran 9:29).

➡️ These violate every modern standard of human dignity and justice.

6️⃣ Myth 5: “Sharia Is Misunderstood in the West”

📢 Claim: Non-Muslims misinterpret it.

📖 Reality: The most oppressive laws come from:

Islam’s own scriptures,
Classical Islamic jurists (e.g., Al-Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Shafi’i),
Modern implementations in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan.

➡️ If it's always misapplied everywhere, maybe it’s not misunderstood — maybe it’s inherently flawed.

5️⃣ Myth 6: “Sharia Can’t Be Imposed Without Consent”

📢 Claim: Sharia needs public approval.

📖 Reality:

Muhammad enforced it on conquered tribes,
Caliphs imposed it through military expansion,
Apostates and critics were silenced or executed,
Modern Sharia states (e.g., Iran, Pakistan) suppress dissent with blasphemy laws.

➡️ Sharia historically spreads through conquest and fear, not free choice.

4️⃣ Myth 7: “Sharia Abolished Slavery”

📢 Claim: Islam ended slavery.

📖 Reality:

Quran regulates it, never abolishes it (e.g., Quran 4:3, 4:24),
Muhammad owned, bought, and sold slaves,
Sex with female slaves is permitted (Quran 23:5–6),
Classical Islamic law defended slavery for over a millennium.

➡️ Abolition came from Western pressure, not Islamic reform.

3️⃣ Myth 8: “The Quran Is Clear and Complete”

📢 Claim: The Quran is a self-contained, perfect law book.

📖 Reality:

Quran lacks details on prayer, punishments, hijab, jihad rules,
Muslims rely heavily on Hadith and fiqh to interpret Sharia,
Hadiths are full of contradictions, late, and often forged.

➡️ A truly divine book wouldn't require centuries of contradictory commentary to be usable.

2️⃣ Myth 9: “Sharia Only Applies to Muslims”

📢 Claim: Non-Muslims have nothing to worry about.

📖 Reality:

Quran 9:29 says to fight “People of the Book” unless they submit,
Non-Muslims in Islamic states live as dhimmis, with limited rights,
Jizya tax, bans on building churches, unequal legal protection.

➡️ Sharia enforces second-class status on non-Muslims by design.

1️⃣ Myth 10: “Sharia Is God’s Mercy”

📢 Claim: Sharia is divine compassion.

📖 Reality:

Women whipped for showing hair,
Christians executed for “insulting the Prophet,”
Gays thrown from rooftops,
Apostates hanged,
Child marriages legitimized through Muhammad’s example.

➡️ If this is mercy, what does cruelty look like?

🔚 Final Verdict

Sharia is not divine.
It’s tribal law fossilized in scripture, enforced by power, and perpetuated by fear.

It wasn't ahead of its time. It is trapped in time.

Muslims may believe they are defending something sacred — but what they’re actually defending is:

A political control system,
Masquerading as eternal morality,
That contradicts everything we know about basic human rights.

Friday, June 27, 2025

The Five Daily Prayers in Islam

A Deep Dive into Contradictions, Impracticalities, and Authoritarian Enforcement

Islam mandates five daily prayers (Salah) as a core pillar. Every Muslim is expected to perform these prayers at set times facing Mecca (the Qibla). This practice is so central that missing prayers can lead to physical punishment, as evidenced by extremist groups like ISIS and the Taliban enforcing it with violence—actions directly traceable to Muhammad’s own instructions. Let’s break down why this ritual, while sacred in Islam, is riddled with contradictions, geographical impracticalities, and logical failures.

1. Physical Violence Over Prayer Compliance?

Sunan Abu Dawud (Hadith 495) records Muhammad instructing believers to command children to pray from age seven and to physically discipline them by beating if they fail by age ten. This violent enforcement isn’t just historical; modern extremist groups echo this exact practice, whipping or beating Muslims for missing prayers.

The question: Are groups like ISIS and Taliban truly “extremist,” or are they simply following Muhammad’s commands as recorded in authentic hadith? The violent enforcement of prayer is not an extremist innovation; it’s Islamic orthodoxy.

2. The Quran and the Five Daily Prayers: Missing Explicit Mention

Despite the centrality of five daily prayers in Islam, the Quran itself never explicitly mandates five daily prayers. Instead, the Quran vaguely refers to “established prayer” at dawn, decline of the sun, and night. Passages like Quran 11:114 and 17:78 suggest two or three prayer times, not five:

Quran 17:78: “Establish prayer at the decline of the sun [from its meridian] until the darkness of the night and [also] the Quran at dawn.”
Quran 11:114: “Indeed, prayer has been decreed upon the believers a decree of specified times.”

The detailed system of five daily prayers only emerges in secondary sources — hadith collections, like Sahih Muslim — written decades after Muhammad’s death. This strongly suggests the strict five-prayer ritual was a later institutional development, not a direct Quranic mandate.

3. The Qibla: Facing Mecca in a Flat-Earth Mindset

Muslims are required to face Mecca (the Qibla) during prayer, a rule repeated in the Quran (2:149). But classical Islamic jurisprudence, reflected in manuals like Al-Majmu’ (a standard Shafi’i manual), treats the Earth as flat and static. The logic: if you are in Mecca but cannot see the Kaaba, you must face its direction, even if that means your back is technically turned towards it — because the earth is imagined flat.

Problem: The Quran and Islamic tradition show no awareness of a spherical Earth. This ignorance creates absurdities:

Someone located exactly opposite Mecca on the globe (the antipode) would be facing away from Mecca, essentially having their back to the Qibla when praying, which is forbidden.
The notion of “front” and “back” towards the Qibla breaks down entirely with a spherical Earth.

4. Prayer Times: Arbitrary, Geographically Inconsistent, and Astronomically Impossible

Prayer times depend on the sun’s position (dawn, noon, sunset, night). This might work in 7th-century Arabia near the equator, but the world is much bigger:

In high latitude regions (Scotland, Norway, Alaska, New Zealand, Antarctica), daylight hours vary drastically throughout the year.
In places like Aberdeen, Scotland, in summer, the time between night prayer and dawn prayer can be as short as 4.5 hours — hardly enough time for rest.
In Norway’s Arctic Circle, the sun doesn’t set for months, making it impossible to determine the required time for certain prayers.
In Alaska's Barrow, the sun doesn’t rise for 67 days in winter, breaking the standard Quranic prayer timetable.
In Antarctica, the sun may not rise for half a year — again, making prayers based on sun position impossible.

5. How Do Muslims in These Regions Pray?

A hadith from Riyadh al-Salihin (1808) is often cited, where Muhammad supposedly says:
“Make an estimate of time and then pray.” This hadith is from an apocalyptic context about the Antichrist, not a practical guide for modern geography. It’s a weak, irrelevant justification for the astronomical impossibility of strictly following prayer times in extreme regions.

6. What Does This Tell Us?

The Quranic mandate for prayer times is vague and inconsistent with established Islamic ritual practice.
The five daily prayers as performed today come from hadith, not Quran, and show no adaptation to the modern world’s realities.
The entire prayer timing system assumes a flat Earth with relatively stable day/night cycles — a worldview clearly disproven and ignored.
The Quran or hadith never addresses the astronomical problems of prayer times for places with extreme latitudes, an obvious omission if it were from an all-knowing, all-powerful deity.
The strict enforcement of prayer times, sometimes with violence, is hypocritical and out of touch with physical reality.

7. The Bottom Line

Islam’s core ritual of prayer is a rigid, arbitrary system stuck in 7th-century Arabia’s geography and astronomy. It promotes harsh discipline backed by physical punishment, even as its foundation (five fixed prayers timed by the sun’s position) cannot be consistently observed worldwide.

If Islam claims to be a universal, perfect, divine religion, why does its prayer system:

Depend on an outdated, false cosmology?
Ignore the natural astronomical realities of Earth’s rotation, tilt, and spherical shape?
Mandate physical punishment for failure to comply with an impractical ritual?

The answer is clear: the ritual is a man-made institution, later codified by Islamic scholars, based on limited understanding and reinforced by authoritarian control — not a revelation perfectly suited for all times and places.

If you want the truth, stop defending a ritual blind to reality and start questioning why this cornerstone of Islam crumbles under scrutiny.

Thursday, June 26, 2025

When AI Tiptoes Around Truth

Religion, Risk, and the Decay of Honest Dialogue

Subtitle: How AI’s cautious handling of religion—especially Islam—reveals a deeper crisis in our culture of truth and inquiry.

It didn’t take long for me to notice—and I’m far from the only one. Ask an AI to analyze contradictions in a religious text, and you’ll get two very different responses depending on which tradition you’re talking about.

Critique the Bible? Sure. Christianity’s history? No problem.
Critique Islam? Suddenly the gloves go on, the tone shifts, and you're met with caveats, disclaimers, or outright refusals.

The message is subtle but unmistakable: some topics are safe to explore, others are not. And when it comes to religion, Islam in particular has been functionally designated as a protected category.

🔍 Why This Happens

Let’s be clear: the AI itself isn’t religious, biased, or emotional. But the systems that shape it—policies, guidelines, cultural climate—absolutely are.

AI models today are trained under content moderation policies that prioritize safety, non-offensiveness, and reputation management above all. And in that framework, Islam gets special treatment.

Why?

Real-world consequences. Events like Charlie Hebdo, Salman Rushdie, or Quran-burning controversies have taught platforms that criticism of Islam can have geopolitical fallout.
Perceived fragility. There’s a growing view, especially in Western discourse, that Islam (as a non-Western faith) needs special cultural sensitivity to avoid Islamophobia.
Fear of offense > pursuit of truth. When offense equals backlash, silence becomes the safest strategy.

So AI, rather than being a tool for intellectual discovery, becomes a tool for minimizing corporate risk.

🧠 The Cost: Truth Gets Filtered

Here’s where the real damage happens.

When AI refuses to analyze Islamic texts critically, but freely critiques Christian, Buddhist, or atheist viewpoints, we lose more than just consistency. We lose the principle of fairness in intellectual inquiry.

Truth doesn’t care who’s offended. And yet AI is being calibrated to care very much—so much so that it’s willing to sacrifice clarity, logic, and even honesty to avoid discomfort.

Matt Fujimoto’s recent piece, “Truth Matters More Than Your Feelings,” lays out the essential standard for intellectual discourse: the aim must be truth. Not civility. Not comfort. Not winning. Truth.

But when AI plays referee and shields certain ideologies from critique, it’s no longer an intellectual partner. It’s an editor—one that filters thought itself.

⚖️ Why This Double Standard Matters

The consequences of this “soft censorship” aren’t abstract:

It undermines trust. Users sense the asymmetry. And when people realize the rules change depending on the topic, they stop trusting the tool—and the institutions behind it.
It infantilizes belief. Shielding Islam from critique treats it as too fragile to engage with. That’s not respect. That’s condescension.
It kills curiosity. Users who want honest dialogue—Muslim and non-Muslim alike—find themselves stonewalled when they get too close to the “wrong” questions.

And perhaps worst of all:

It turns AI into propaganda. Not because it pushes falsehoods, but because it reshapes discourse around comfort, not truth.

🧭 Final Thought

AI won’t lead us to better thinking if it fears where thinking might take us. Especially not when it comes to religion—a domain that has shaped (and fractured) civilizations, ideas, and human rights.

Yes, civility matters. But it’s not the destination. As with human discussion, the aim must be truth—even if it makes people uncomfortable.

If AI is to be an intellectual companion rather than a digital babysitter, it needs to hold the line. It needs to follow the truth wherever it leads, not just where it's safe to go.

Because when offense is the limit of exploration, truth stops being the goal. And when truth is no longer the goal, we’re not having a conversation—we’re being managed.