Combating Islam : July 2025

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Final (the “Seal of the Prophets” who cannot be superseded).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

Part 2: Mob Justice and Fatwa Wars — Vigilante Enforcement of the Prophet’s Honor

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

When the Law Isn’t Fast Enough, the Lynch Mob Steps In

The formal Islamic legal system prescribes death for insulting Muhammad. But in many parts of the Muslim world, you don’t need a court ruling to be executed for “blasphemy.” You just need a rumor, a crowd, and a rage-filled Friday sermon.

Whether it’s in the streets of Pakistan, the press offices of Europe, or the fatwa halls of Iran, enforcement of Muhammad’s “untouchable” status often bypasses courts entirely. It takes the form of mob violence, extrajudicial killings, and open calls for assassination — not as anomalies, but as expressions of religious piety.

The result is a global culture of fear, where even perceived criticism of Muhammad can bring death — and even defending the accused can get you killed.

1. Pakistan: Where the Law Ends and the Mob Begins

Section 295-C of Pakistan’s Penal Code states:

“Whoever by words, either spoken or written... defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life…”

In practice, this law functions as both a weapon and a death sentence:

Accusations are routinely fabricated to settle personal disputes, seize land, or target minorities.
Police, lawyers, and judges face threats and assassination for defending the accused.
Mobs often kill before courts can rule.

Notable cases:

Asia Bibi (2009)
A Christian woman accused of insulting Muhammad during an argument over drinking water. Despite zero evidence, she spent 8 years on death row. Two officials who defended her — Punjab Governor Salman Taseer and Minister Shahbaz Bhatti — were assassinated. Her lawyer fled the country.
Mashal Khan (2017)
A journalism student falsely accused of blasphemy. Beaten, stripped, and shot by a mob of fellow students — on university grounds.
Junaid Hafeez (2013–present)
A university lecturer accused of posting blasphemous content online. Imprisoned in solitary confinement for over a decade. His first lawyer was murdered.

This isn’t about fringe radicals. It’s state-supported religious terror.

2. Iran: State-Sanctioned Assassination with Global Reach

In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the death of author Salman Rushdie over his novel The Satanic Verses, which included fictionalized depictions of Muhammad.

“I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author… and all those involved in its publication… are condemned to death.”
— Khomeini’s fatwa, February 14, 1989

This was not an idle religious opinion. It was a state-sanctioned order for murder. And it came with a bounty.

Rushdie went into hiding for decades.
Translators and publishers were attacked — some fatally.
In 2022, Rushdie was stabbed repeatedly onstage in New York — 33 years later.

The fatwa was never rescinded. In fact, Iranian officials have repeatedly reaffirmed it. The Islamic Republic’s message is clear: wherever you are, if you offend Muhammad, you are never safe.

3. The Danish Cartoon Riots: Global Jihad for a Sketch

In 2005, Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons of Muhammad, some satirical.

The reaction?

Over 200 people killed in riots across:
- Afghanistan
- Pakistan
- Nigeria
- Somalia
- Iran
Embassies burned in Damascus, Beirut, and Tehran.
Boycotts, diplomatic crises, and bounties on cartoonists' heads.

Notably:

The paper didn’t blaspheme Allah.
The cartoons didn’t call for violence.
Many simply showed Muhammad holding a bomb-shaped turban — a visual metaphor for jihadism.

That was enough to unleash international fury. Entire governments demanded retractions, and some Islamic clerics circulated fake, more offensive images just to intensify the outrage.

This wasn’t spontaneous. It was organized, religiously sanctioned rage.

4. Charlie Hebdo: The Cost of Satire in France

In 2015, Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine, was attacked by gunmen shouting “Allahu Akbar” — 12 people were murdered, including the editor and cartoonists.

Their crime?

Publishing cartoons of Muhammad.

This wasn’t just an act of terror. It was enforcement of Islamic blasphemy law by bullet — in a secular democracy. And the response from parts of the Muslim world?

Celebrations.
Justifications.
Statements blaming the victims for “provoking” Muslims.

This wasn’t an aberration. It was the global reach of Muhammad’s “untouchable” status — enforced not by debate, but by murder.

5. Even Muslims Aren’t Safe

Muslims who attempt reform, critique the Prophet’s behavior, or question the application of Sharia aren’t spared.

Bangladesh:
- Atheist bloggers were hacked to death in public.
- Targets were listed by name in fatwas and online forums.
Saudi Arabia:
- Raif Badawi, a blogger who questioned religious dogma, was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes.
Egypt:
- Karim Amer, imprisoned for four years for criticizing Islam and Muhammad on his blog.

These aren’t “liberal” societies failing to live up to their ideals. They’re Islamic societies living up to their religious principles — as defined by the untouchability of Muhammad.

6. The Prophet’s Honor as a Global Trigger

Why is it that mocking Jesus, denying the resurrection, or burning Bibles doesn’t lead to global murder sprees?

Because in Islam, the Prophet’s status is not just theological — it’s totalitarian. He is not a man to be believed in. He is a figure to be obeyed, revered, and never questioned.

This is why Muslim outrage is so visceral, so consistent, and so violent. It’s not random. It’s structurally built into the religion’s power dynamics.

The result?

Free speech dies.
Satirists die.
Dissent dies.

And Muhammad lives on — as the untouchable monarch of a faith that pretends to worship God, but actually enforces submission to a man.

Conclusion: Vigilante Sharia Is Not a Bug — It’s a Feature

The defenders of Islam often say, “These mobs do not represent true Islam.”

But Islamic jurisprudence says otherwise.
Fatwas say otherwise.
And the unbroken pattern of violence over Muhammad’s honor — for centuries — says otherwise.

This is not about fringe radicals.

The laws exist.
The clerics endorse them.
The mobs enforce them.
The governments enable them.

When criticism of a man becomes a death sentence — whether by statute or by mob — you are no longer dealing with religion. You are dealing with a cult of personality backed by force.

This is not spirituality.

This is religious tyranny — and Muhammad is the unchallengeable sovereign at its center.

Next: Part 3: Forbidden to Depict — Iconoclasm as Control

Tuesday, July 1, 2025

Canon by Men

How Hadith Science Became a Tool of Control

Muslims are taught that the Hadith — sayings and actions of Muhammad — form the bedrock of Islamic law, second only to the Quran. Billions live under legal systems and theological rules based not on divine scripture, but on narrations recorded centuries after Muhammad’s death.

But what if this so-called science of Hadith wasn’t a neutral academic endeavor?
What if it was a political, sectarian, and authoritarian tool — not to preserve Muhammad’s legacy, but to invent it, control it, and weaponize it?

This post shows that Hadith science was canonized by men, not God — and that it evolved into a powerful means of centralizing authority, suppressing dissent, and manufacturing orthodoxy.

🧩 1. What Are Hadiths — and Where Did They Come From?

Hadiths are reports about what Muhammad allegedly said or did. Each Hadith consists of:

An isnad (chain of transmitters)
A matn (content of the report)

But here’s the problem:

Muhammad never ordered his sayings to be recorded.
His earliest followers discouraged writing Hadiths.
For nearly 200 years, Hadiths were passed orally, with no canonical collection.

✅ Historical Timeline:

Muhammad dies: 632 CE
Hadith collections begin: ~mid-8th century
Sahih Bukhari compiled: ~846 CE
Sahih Muslim compiled: ~875 CE

That’s a gap of over two centuries between the events and the recording.

Would any modern court accept a two-century-old hearsay chain as evidence?

⚠️ 2. The Problem of Fabrication

Hadiths weren’t simply forgotten and then recorded.
They were manipulated, fabricated, and multiplied — often for political, sectarian, or legal agendas.

Even early Muslim scholars admitted this.

📚 Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 938):

"I wrote down from more than one thousand teachers, and I do not quote from more than ten."

📚 Bukhari reportedly examined over 600,000 Hadiths

He accepted around 7,000 total
Less than 1.2% made it into his “Sahih” (and many of those are duplicated)

Even Islamic scholars admit that most Hadiths are false. Yet many still govern daily Islamic life.

👑 3. Who Controlled the Canon — and Why?

Hadith canonization was not neutral. It was:

Sectarian: Competing Sunni, Shia, and Ibadi schools had completely different Hadith corpuses.
Political: Rulers used Hadiths to legitimize themselves — and delegitimize rivals.
Selective: Compilers like Bukhari excluded reports that didn’t fit their theology.

For example:

Shia Muslims reject Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim
Sunni Muslims reject Al-Kafi and other Shia collections
Some early Hadiths about Ali, Aisha, and even Muhammad were suppressed to avoid controversy

What made a Hadith "authentic" wasn’t divine revelation. It was what a scholar in Baghdad or Bukhara believed — or what a caliph allowed.

🧠 4. Hadith Science: Objective Method or Scholarly Illusion?

Muslim apologists praise ‘Ilm al-Hadith (science of Hadith) as a rigorous method for verifying authenticity. But its core method — the isnad system — is deeply flawed.

🚫 Problems with Isnad:

Chains were forged — narrators invented entire isnads to authenticate fake Hadiths
Character judgments were biased — narrators were deemed trustworthy based on ideology or tribal loyalties
No access to actual content — chains say nothing about the truth of the matn

The isnad system is a credibility pyramid built on assumptions, memory, and ideological loyalty — not verifiable truth.

🛠️ 5. Hadith as a Tool of Control

Hadiths became a mechanism for religious and political domination. They:

Legislated Sharia where the Quran was silent
Justified violence, punishments, and misogyny
Suppressed dissent with sayings like:

“Whoever innovates in this religion... is to be rejected” (Bukhari 2697)

Hadiths have been used to:

Ban critical thinking (taqlid over ijtihad)
Subjugate women (“deficient in intelligence and religion” – Bukhari 304)
Condemn apostates (“Kill whoever changes his religion” – Bukhari 3017)
Deny freedom of speech (“Silence is wisdom”)

When rulers or scholars wanted control, they produced Hadiths to silence the opposition.

⚖️ 6. The Final Blow: Contradictions and Theological Chaos

Even within the Sahih collections, contradictions abound.

Topic	Contradiction
Alcohol	Some Hadiths permit it, others condemn it harshly
Creation of the world	2 vs 6 vs 7 days — depending on the report
Human destiny	Free will vs strict predestination
Prophet’s knowledge	Claims omniscience in some Hadiths, ignorance in others
Women’s status	Varied rulings on leadership, intelligence, and worth

If Hadiths were divinely preserved — why are they full of contradictions, fabrications, and sectarian bias?

Answer: Because they weren’t revealed. They were invented, selected, and canonized — by men.

🧨 Final Verdict

The so-called “science” of Hadith is not a science.
It’s a retroactive patchwork — stitched together to fill gaps in the Quran, justify power structures, and enforce conformity.

Canon by men, enforced by fear, and revered by billions — without evidence.

If God wanted to preserve the Prophet’s words, He could have done so.

Instead, we got:

Centuries of hearsay
Millions of contradictory reports
A handful of scholars deciding which to keep and which to burn

The result is not divine guidance.

It’s a man-made canon disguised as revelation.

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

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

In Islam, Insulting Muhammad Is a Crime Beyond Redemption

Blasphemy laws exist in various religions. But in Islam, there’s a sharp and revealing distinction: mocking Allah may be forgiven — mocking Muhammad is not.

This isn’t just a matter of cultural sensitivity or medieval excess. It’s embedded in Islamic law, affirmed by all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, and still enforced — violently — across the Muslim world today. The legal elevation of Muhammad above God Himself is not a distortion of Islam. It is Islam, as codified by its classical jurists.

The result is a system in which Muhammad is the single most protected figure in Islam — legally, culturally, and emotionally. And that protection comes at the price of intellectual freedom, basic human rights, and any pretense of theological integrity.

1. The Fiqh Is Clear: Insult Muhammad, Die

In classical Islamic jurisprudence, blasphemy against the Prophet is a capital crime. This is not a fringe position — it’s the mainstream consensus:

Hanafi School:

A non-Muslim who insults Muhammad must be executed.
A Muslim who insults Muhammad is declared an apostate — and must also be executed.
Repentance is not accepted.

Maliki School:

Blasphemy against Muhammad results in the death penalty.
No repentance is accepted. Even if the blasphemer repents, they are to be killed.
Non-Muslims who insult the Prophet are likewise executed.

Shafi’i School:

Blasphemy is apostasy if committed by a Muslim, and carries the death penalty.
Non-Muslims are punished with death for insulting Muhammad.

Hanbali School:

Same as above. Repentance is irrelevant. The offense is against the honor of the Prophet, not against theology alone.

This doctrine is not based on abstract reasoning — it comes directly from early Islamic sources and legal authorities.

“Whoever insults the Prophet, kill him.”
— Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Sarim al-Maslul, p. 512

“The punishment for insulting the Prophet is death — even if the one insulting him repents.”
— al-Qadi ‘Iyad, al-Shifa bi Ta’rif Huquq al-Mustafa

These rulings aren’t metaphorical or symbolic. They have been used — and continue to be used — as justification for murder.

2. Allah Can Forgive. The Prophet Cannot.

The theological distortion here is staggering.

Islam claims that God is al-Rahman al-Rahim — the Most Merciful, the Most Forgiving. But that divine mercy stops short when it comes to the Prophet’s honor.

Mock God, and you might be forgiven.
Mock Muhammad, and you’re beyond salvation.

This isn’t just a legal stance. It reveals something deeper: the Prophet’s persona has become more sacred than the very source of revelation.

“Blasphemy against God is an offense.
Blasphemy against Muhammad is unforgivable.”
— Legal commentary in Durr al-Mukhtar, Hanafi text

By granting Muhammad absolute immunity from criticism, Islamic law effectively elevates him above God’s own attributes of justice and mercy.

3. Source Texts: Qur’an vs Hadith

The Qur’an itself does not mandate death for blasphemy against Muhammad. In fact, it describes him as being mocked and ridiculed during his lifetime — yet instructed him to remain patient or turn away.

“You will certainly hear much abuse from those who were given the Scripture before you and from the polytheists. But if you are patient and fear Allah — indeed, that is of the matters requiring determination.”
— Qur’an 3:186

“We know that your heart is distressed by what they say. So glorify the praises of your Lord and be of those who prostrate.”
— Qur’an 15:97–98

So where does the bloodthirsty doctrine come from?

Hadith.

The death penalty for blasphemy comes not from divine revelation, but from later reports attributed to Muhammad himself and the actions he allegedly took:

Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf, a poet who mocked Muhammad, was assassinated on the Prophet’s order (Sahih Bukhari 3032).
Asma bint Marwan, who criticized Muhammad in poetry, was allegedly murdered in her sleep by a companion (Ibn Ishaq).
Abu Afak, another poet, same fate.

These killings are treated not as controversial, but as normative — legal precedent for the Ummah.

Islamic law today draws directly from these reports.

4. No Room for Repentance — A Theological Red Flag

The insistence on executing the blasphemer — even if they apologize — is especially telling.

What does it say about Islam’s claimed moral superiority when:

Repentance from murder, theft, or adultery is accepted
—but—
Repentance from insulting Muhammad is not?

This is not justice. It’s political absolutism dressed in religious garb.

It exposes the reality that Muhammad is not just a prophet in Islam — he’s a power center. And power in Islam, like in every authoritarian system, must be protected at all costs.

5. The Real Function: Prophet as Sovereign

At its core, the blasphemy doctrine is not about reverence — it’s about authority.

The enforcement of death for criticism doesn’t defend divine truth. It defends a human’s image. And more than that, it protects a historical power structure that Islam refuses to let go of.

In other words:

Criticism of Muhammad = challenge to Islam’s foundation.
Challenge to Islam’s foundation = threat to Islamic control.
Therefore, criticism must be annihilated.

This is not theology. It’s political theology.

Conclusion: The Prophet Above God

Islam’s blasphemy laws reveal an uncomfortable truth:

Muhammad is not just honored — he is legally untouchable.
Not by divine decree, but by human legal fiat.
Not for defending God, but for shielding the Prophet’s legacy from scrutiny.

In every major Islamic legal tradition:

Muhammad cannot be mocked.
His critics must die.
Repentance means nothing.
And questioning these laws is itself a form of blasphemy.

This isn’t a religion of submission to God.
It’s a religion of submission to one man — dead, but still politically sovereign.

Islam claims “There is no god but Allah.”

But its law says otherwise:

There is no criticism but of God.
Muhammad remains off limits.

Next: Part 2: Mob Justice and Fatwa Wars — Vigilante Enforcement of the Prophet’s Honor