Home

 Articles

 Op-ed

 Authors

 FAQ

 Leaving Islam
 Library
 Gallery
 Comments
 Debates
  Links
 Forum

 

 

 

 

  

Should Muslims Reject Some Parts of Qur’an too?

(Rebuttal to an Islamist)

 

Syed Kamran Mirza

Syed_mirza@hotmail.com

 

Brother Ahmad Wahid Zaman (AWZ) one educated Islamists recently wrote series of (4 volumes) very lengthy write-ups to undo those irrefutable rebuttals made by me and Mr. Abul  Kasem. Our rebuttals were against Mr. Pervez (another Islamist from Florida) who tried to justify Prophet Muhammad’s polygamous scandalous sex-life style and also his marriage with the child bride Ayesha. But our knowledgeable brother AWZ spent 6 long months, studied many books/references and finally concluded (in his 4 volumes series) that---all those sahih (authentic) hadiths and references that we have used in our write-ups were fraudulent and not so sahih. This is of course a brilliant discovery by AWZ.

According to AWZ—in Islam anything goes negative to the best and peaceful religion of Islam, got to be wrong and should be seen suspiciously. That is, even the sahih (authentic) hadith is not sahih any longer. A hadiths is sahih, as long as, it sings only the glory of Islam. When any Hadiths (even labeled as sahih) says negative things about Islam and Prophet Muhammad—is simply null and void.

As brother AWZ stated:  “Considering all the conditions, it can be safely be said that not all the narrations in the biographies of the Prophet (SA) are authentic and trustworthy even though written by famous Muslim historians or all are garbage. The fabricated and authentic narrations all got their places in those books written by those well-known writers.”

Brother AWZ’s above comments about 4 Giant historical scholars of Islam is simplistic, and hilariously selfish. Let me put it in his (AWZ) own words:  “There are hundreds of books on Sira (biography) of the Prophet Muhammad (SA), his married life and his companions, now available but the ultimate sources to which they are all indebted to, are: 1) Muhammad ibn Ishaq or more correctly Ibn Hisham; 2) Muhammad ibn Sa’d; 3) Muhammad ibn Umar al-Waqidi al-Aslami; 4) Ibn Jarir at-Tabari.”  I wonder what can be done about those “hundreds of books on Sira of the Prophet Muhammad” written by many Islamic pundits who copied hadiths and Islamic history from these four Islamic giants?

Nevertheless, brother AWZ needs to reject some hadiths (interestingly not all) narrated by these above Islamic giants. Now to criticize these above giant scholars of Islam is simply blasphemous in proportion. Had he criticized these famous Islamic scholars residing in any Islamic paradise like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Iran---I am 100% sure, brother AWZ would have received Islamic fatwa of stoning death. Of course, brother AWZ would not mind if anybody quotes any saying of these four Islamic scholars, as long as those quotes are positive in nature. What an Islamic style of debate!

Rejecting authority of ‘Ummul- Mumeenin’  Bibi Ayesha:

Bibi Ayesha (Ummul- Mumeenin) herself narrated numerous very important sahi hadiths which are considered most authentic and are readily believed by all most 100% Mullahs/Maoulanas/Islamists of the whole world.  Bibi Ayesha narrated several sahi hadiths regarding her own marriage with Prophet Muhammad. One such important hadiths is as below:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith
Hadith 5.234            Narrated by Ayesha

“The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.”

But this sahi hadiths matters very little to brother AWZ. Because, AWZ must reject this sahi Hadiths narrated by Ummul-Mumeenin just to save Islamic purity. Question is what those devout mullahs of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, and Afghanistan etc. will do to brother AWZ for rejecting a pure sahi hadith narrated by Ummul-Mumeenin? A pure fatwa for severe Islamic lashings (Durrha mara) for guaranteed.

Rejecting the ahadith of Ummul Mumenin, Bibi Ayesha is the blasphemy of the highest order. No person on earth, living or dead can be more authentic than Bibi Ayesha. Even Muhammad, himself has said in ahadith that Umm Ayesha, Khadija and the wife of a Pharaoh are the best women ever created by Allah. So, if one rejects any hadis uttered by this perfect woman (Bibi Ayesha), he is rejecting Muhammad's own 'character certificate.' In this case AWZ has actually rejected most of the authentic ahadith. This is indeed an incredible feat by such 'hugely' educated western residing Mullah like AWZ.

Based on this sahi hadiths alone, Islamic Sharia decided women’s maturity at 9 (Nine) years. Marriageable age of Muslim woman is 9 years. Please go to Iran (best Islamic paradise on earth) and ask about the age of woman’s maturity! Entire flock of Muslim Mullahs do consider 9 year old girl as matured woman on the basis of Bibi Ayesha’s marriage consummation with the holy prophet of Allah (SBT). Could brother AWZ or any other erudite Islamists deny this factual episode of Islam? My open challenge to brother AWZ:—could you convince all the mullahs of the world to reject all those hadiths that have been well established/rooted (for 1400 years) in the mindsets of all Mullahs of world?

According to AWZ, many hadiths have flaws and contradictions, so some hadiths (all negatives) should be discarded. But Quran is pure, according to AWZ, hence Quran can be trusted in full strength. As brother AWZ says:  How we can believe that several of the Islamic scholars like Imam Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, and Tabari, missed the weakness of this Hadith through Iraqis? To get the answer, we have to recognize the historical fact that the compilation, preservation and authentication of Hadith were not done in a similar way like the Qur’aan was compiled, authenticated and preserved.”

What shall you do with Quranic contradictions?

Brother AWZ considers that some sahi hadiths may not have recorded correctly, and should be considered unauthentic. How about the Quran? Was the Quran recorded and compiled authentically? Holy Quran is riddled with innumerous contradictions, ethical problems and dangerously flawed scientific and political statements.  Let us examine only a few items in Quran. Let me take first the Quranic verse cited by AWZ himself, so that, brother AWZ can not blame for “mistranslation” or “misquote” as most Islamists try to do this technique just to delude the readers. This Quranic verse is from AWZ’s essay:  “Read, in the Name of your Lord who created, created man from a clot, Read, and your Lord is the Most Gracious, Who taught with the pen, taught man what he did not know. (Qur’aan 96:1-5)”.  I am (intentionally) quoting this above verse from AWZ’s essay, so that, AWZ can not blame me for distorting the Quranic verse. Below I am quoting more similar verses from Quran regarding human creation by Allah.

Quran-75:38: Then he becomes a CLOT; then (Allah) shaped and fashioned…   Quran-

 

Quran-96:2: Created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood

 

Bengali translations (by many translators) of this verse of the Quran is read like: “Zamaa’t Raokto theeke Manoosh banieesi”.

 

Man is Created From Clotted blood?: Quran (Allah) is asserting us that He created us from the blood clot. Is it scientifically correct? Will any embryologist agree that humans are created from the blood clot? There are serious scientific problems here. A blood clot can not grow into anything.  Because blood clot is a pure dead mass. This idea came from the Greeks.  Aristotle erroneously believed that humans are originated from the action of male semen upon female menstrual blood, which is absolutely an incorrect assumption. The Quran’s assertion on the clot (alaqa) is completely wrong about human development, since there is absolutely no stage during which the embryo consists of a clot. The only situation in which an embryo might appear like a clot is during a miscarriage, in which case the clotted blood which is seen to emerge (much of which comes from the mother) is solidified and by definition no longer alive. Therefore, if ever an embryo appeared to look like a clot it would never develop any further into a human; it would be a dead mass of bloody miscarriage. Since Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had some thirteen wives it is entirely possible that he would be very familiar with miscarriages.

 

Here is another scientifically flawed Quranic verse for human creation:

Quran-23:14: “Then fashioned We the drop (semen) a CLOT OF CONGEALED BLOOD then fashioned We the clot a little lump (fetus), fashioned We the little lump into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators.”

Modern science tells us that the formation of human embryo is a seamless continuation from conception to birth, hence there are no hard-and-fast boundaries of stages as the Quran described.  The Quran described 4 stages which match exactly with Galenic description of the development of the human embryo (which was proved wrong by modern science).

 

Creation of bones and clothing of bones with flesh: According to modern embryologists including Prof. Moore of Canada, the tissue from which bone originates, known as mesoderm, is the same tissue as that from which muscle (flesh) develops. Thus bone and muscles begin to develop simultaneously, rather than sequentially (as the Quran tells us). Moreover, most of the muscle tissue that we human have is laid down before birth, but bones continue to develop and calcify (strengthen with calcium) right into one’s teenage years.   So it would be more accurate if the Quran had said that muscles started to develop at the same time as bones, but completed their development earlier. The idea that bones are clothed with flesh is not only scientifically completely wrong/false, but was directly copied from the ancient Greek doctor Galen’s hypothesis.

 

Also, the idea of saying: “made into bones and clothed the bones with muscle” came from the technique of making animal statues  (Moorthy)  by a sculptor out of rod and cement or mud. Sculptor usually makes the skeleton (out of rod or stick) first and, then covers it up with cement or mud. This is scarcely a scientific description of embryonic development. It is rather a description of a layman.

 

 

Some blatant and weired Contradictions in Quran:

 

((1)   Quran-2:256: “There is no Compulsion in religion….” 

                 Or,

       Quran-9:29: “Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay the     polltax (jiziya) with the hand of humility.”

 

 

(2) Quran-73:10 "Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously”

or,

Quran-2:191 "kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out"

 

(3) Quran-20:103 “Therefore be patient with what they say, and celebrate (constantly) the praises of thy Lord,”

 or,

Quran- 8: 65 “ O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.”

 

(4) Quran-109:6 "To you be your religion, and to me my religion"

 

or

Quran- 3:85"Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him; in the next world he shall be among the losers."

 

Now one must wonders what are the correct messages that Quran is advocating to it’s followers? How many different faces Quran possesses?

 

Most valid Questions:

 

Brother AWZ was very angry with us (I and Abul Kasem) because we did use some sahi hadiths to defend our points in the Islamic history. He also rebuked us with many vitriolic adjectives and angrily rejected those hadiths because, according to him, hadiths were not collected and recorded properly like Quran. I have showed him only some utterly true and blatant contradictions and scientific flaws in Quran. Quran is loaded with all sorts of contradictions and flaws in scientific and ethical matters. My question to brother AWz is: Should we also reject some parts of Quran?

 

Some afterthoughts:

 

For centuries we used to hear that everything in Islam is a plain truth and nothing but the truth. Now a day, we are hearing that some sahi hadiths may not be correctly recorded. Some erudite Islamists even propagate the idea of totally rejecting all hadiths and go with only Quranic Islam, even though Islam without hadiths is like a pond without water. This attitude of Islamists is a definite positive sign; I mean a very good sign indeed.

 

I thank brother AWZ for his method of correcting Islam by rejecting some of the sahi hadiths. Hopefully, we will put the Islamists and mullahs in dire situation (by critiquing Islam) so that some day in near future—Islamists will start suggesting overhauling holy Qur’an also! Our write ups about Islam are surely paying off. Once again I thank brother AWZ and other mullahs (who are giving second ideas about Islam) whole heartedly for their quest of purifying Islam by rejecting some sahi hadiths. This is obviously a very good change in the mindsets of Islamists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge
 

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.