A Debate between Dr. Pourhassan the Author of 

The Corruption of Moslims' Minds 

and Ali Sina 

Dear Dr. Sina:

Thank you so much again for this opportunity for me to put all my understanding and learning from the Koran into a debate with a worthy adversary.

I read some of your articles and so far I agree with almost everything you said about today’s Islam.  My book also claims today’s Islam has become corrupted by misinterpretation and offers little that encourages the advancement of individuals.  It has become a religion of hate, terror, and inhumanity. The difference between my approach and yours is that you believe the Islam that is practiced today is the product of the teachings of the Koran and therefore you mistakenly (in my opinion) conclude that it is the Koran itself which is incorrect.

You also vilify and malign the prophet Mohammad. In my humble opinion with all due respect this is not necessary. Maligning Mohammad as a sexual or anything else is not going to change the content of the Koran.  Many prophets made mistakes in their lives and yet God forgave them (i.e. prophets Davood, Yosef, and Yones). I respectfully disagree with most of the things you are saying about the prophet Mohammad, however I am not a historian.  Therefore with your permission I would like to go to the heart of the matter.

I will prove to the world of Islam that they have been taught everything backward: from the prayers, to the fasting, and to the fanaticism of killing for God. By debating with you about specific subjects we can learn from each other and progress logically, one step at a time.

Please let us not debate about who Mohammad was. This is not my specialty.  I am an expert in the Koran. Besides, the Koran was not written by Mohammed; it came through him from God.

I am more expert in the Koran than 1000 ayatollahs put together. I say this not because I think I am genius or a great man, but rather because I believe and the Koran has stated that this book is very clear and is easy to understand.

About being clear it says:  

(Koran; 12:1) “These are verses from the clear book (12:1)”

There are more than 35 similar verses.

About being easy to understand it says:

(Koran; 54:17) “ We have made the Koran easy for learning; yet will anyone learn from it?

There are more than 35 similar verses.

Of course the above quotes are not proof to you since you question the validity of the Koran itself but it is a proof to the Ayatollahs and so called religious leaders who claim the opposite.

According to the Koran, Moslems must accept the Bible just like the Koran (except for few minor corrections). And in the Bible, Jesus talks about the huge, terrible injustice the religious leaders have done to their religions.  In  Luke, chapter 11 verse 50-52, this is what Jesus told a religious authority of Jews:

“That the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation – From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple.  Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation – Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge.  You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”

These crucial verses from the holy Bible show that all the points you are making about how religions, especially Islam, have become corrupted is not the fault of the prophets who brought them, but the fault of those who consider themselves leaders of the religions after the prophets.  They change the laws of God that came to us through prophets and pervert them to serve their own needs, no matter what those needs might be.

After going to your site http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/prologue.htm, I realize that you agonize in much the same way as I do. You cannot rationalize all these people believing in a religion that has nothing to offer and yet its followers believe fanatically that it has everything to offer.  The biggest difference between you and me is that you attack the prophet Mohammed’s character to show he was not even a prophet.

I do not do that and have great deal of respect for him. All the stories you quote in your site could be right or could be wrong, why waste our valuable time focusing on the prophet Mohammad. Let's get busy investigating his book that he left for humanity, a book that has caused millions to believe in this faith for 1400 years.

In my opinion you attack today’s Islam rightfully.  However you wrongfully take verses of the Koran out of context (I will show you examples later in the debate.) By doing this you are trying to disparage the Koran.

I also attack today’s Islam and disregard almost everything the current leaders claim. I show the true Koran by not interpreting its words but simply quoting all the verses about a given subject with out any prejudice or without taking verses out of context, and by so doing, I let the readers see clearly the Koran’s teachings for themselves.

In your article you have stated that politicians say “Islam is a religion of peace” just to be politically correct.  I believe going against something just because it is politically correct is the wrong way to find out about the truth. I believe many people want to be politically incorrect just to prove their openness to a given subject.  However, I don’t say this to prove or disprove your point about Islam being a religion of peace. I, too, like to think Islam is a religion of hate. But unlike you I think the Koran is a book of love and I will prove it.

In your response to me you said:
“So as you see I am very much surprised to see that you and I could read the same book and come to opposing conclusions. How is that possible? Naturally one of us is completely off the track. The question is which one of us is so mistaken. “

I believe both you and I agree that the form Islam has taken today has made this religion a religion that violates the human rights of the non-Muslims, denigrates women and breeds terrorists. These are all true but again you are seeing the problem differently than I do.

The problem is not the Koran (and we will let you and your honorable members be the judge whether I am misunderstanding the verses of the Koran that I quote or whether you are taking these verses out of their proper context.)

I will show some clear mistakes in your quotation of the Koran, but first let me also state that I am against any Hadith being the source of guidance. I believe the Koran when it claims to be a complete book for guidance. I would also add that no Hadith is needed to complete the Koran:

About the Koran being a complete book:

“ … We have sent the book down to you to explain everything, and for guidance and mercy … (16:89)”.  “In it [the Koran] every wise matter is set forth (44:3)” – There are more than ten similar verses.

About being against Hadith:

“Some men buy up some HADITH to mislead others from God’s way without having any knowledge …(31:6)". “In what HADITH, then, after (Koran), will they believe? (77:49)". - There are more than twenty-five verses like these.

Do you agree that the above verses clearly support the above statements I made?

You have taken verses out of their context from the Koran in your site as follows: “Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q; 2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (Q; 9:123), slay them (Q; 9:5), fight with them, (Q; 8:65 )”

About Q;2:191

You read this verse and concluded “Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them.”

I read this verse and the verses before it, so I don’t take things out of its context and I understand the following:

That Moslems (meaning those who believe in God and therefore the Koran claims Moses and Jesus and their followers are all Moslems) are allowed to fight with those who would fight them and warns them not to be oppressive in their fight but observe the laws of God (which are explained in Koran clearly and are laws of fairness). It urges Moslems to fight those who oppose them and drive them out of their houses as the opponents drove the Moslems out of their houses.  This is clearly a defensive fight. So when a country goes after people who are terrorists they are following this verse the best.

And now the honorable members of your site and yourself be the judge. I will quote the Koran verse 190 and 191 of chapter 2:

Q2:190

And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely God does not love those who exceed the limits.

Q2:191

And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the sacred mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers

Can anyone rationally make the mistake of thinking the above is urging Moslems to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them? This is only possible if we take “and fight in the way of God” out of its context.

By reading a little of the text before and after these verses you clearly see the Koran is only talking about the situation where the disbelievers are not allowing the believers to exercise their right to believe in God and are trying to kick them out of their houses on the basis of their religion and are killing them on the basis of their beliefs. So in this verse Hitler would be more like the disbelievers and the forces that killed Hitler become more like the believers. Or better example Osama Bin Laden becomes like the disbeliever and USA becomes more like the believers.  Please let me know if I am wrong.

Now all your quotations about killings are similar to the above.  I suggest for your members to read my book “The Corruption of Moslem Minds”, chapter 9, section 3.  I took all the verses that have killing in them or holy war and wrote them all and the verses themselves were clearly showing that killing is allowed only in defense, not offense.  Also I quote you some interesting verses that puts an end to all these speculations of how the Koran promotes violence.

Q;60:8

“God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of your religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice.

Q;60:9

“God only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.

Am I wrong to think that the Koran is a book of peace and love and also allows human to protect themselves against those who want to kill them?

Please look at the following verse and see how loving the Koran is commanding its followers to be:

Q;41:34

 “A good deed and an evil deed are not alike: repel evil with something that is finer, and notice how someone who is separated from you because of enmity will become a bosom friend!

Q41:35

“Yet only those who discipline themselves will attain it; only the very luckiest will achieve it!

My dear friend, we must be fair to these verses. They are clear indications that the Koran is a book that represents a religion of love and not hate.  In the Koran it has been stated more than 70 times that in order for Moslems to go to heaven you must believe in God and do good deeds.  The problems that clergymen have brought to the world of Islam is that they claim we must follow every verse of the Koran as interpreted by them and even the rules that were given to the Arabs 1400 years ago.  This is the problem.  The Koran says those who do not use their minds (unlike you and I) are the disbelievers.  I have written an article that shows the Koran claims that the disbelievers must have evil qualities to qualify as disbelievers just as the believers must have good qualities to prove they are believers.  It is my opinion that you are a believer even though you bash prophet Mohammad, because you are trying to think and use your mind.  Please note the following powerful verses about this:

Q;8:22

“The worst creatures before God are the deaf and dumb, those who do not use their minds."

Q;8:57

“The worst creatures before God are those who disbelieve and do not even want to believe."

See how these two above verses put those Moslems of the world, who blindly go and kill themselves for what they think is God’s path, among the disbelievers.  Believers are those who use their minds, because if you use your mind how could you not believe in God.

In the end I would like to apologize if in my writing I have offended you or anyone.  The last thing I want to do is to lose the opportunity of learning from a scholar like you.  I have no pride. I will accept whatever is fair and just, so please let us continue.

To continue our debate in a most effective way and for the sake of making our debate a great one, take one subject at a time that you think the Koran is wrong about and let me prove to you the opposite. If we are able to do this with one subject then we move on to the next one.

I think everyone who reads about a given religion, puts on their own glasses and they look at that religion through only those glasses. I like to remove my glasses and look at the Koran like it is and judge it with no prejudice. May God help me and everyone to do this.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Nader Pourhassan  

Dear Dr. Pourhassan,

Thank you for your kind response. I can say from the start that our debate will be a fruitful one as I inhale from your words the fragrance of sincerity and the commitment to truth. This is a rare quality and so it is an honor for me to find a gem like you.

I am happy to see that you agree with me that Islam has become a religion of hate, terror and inhumanity. However I want to prove to you that no matter how bad you see today’s Islam, it is far better than what Muhammad brought. Hopefully at the end of this discussion you will agree with me that this tree is rotten from the core and Muhammad was not a messenger of God but a successful cult leader with no divine message. That he was driven by lust of power and hallucinations.

You objected that I vilify and malign Muhammad. You said it is not necessary maligning him as sexual or anything else. My honored friend, I have said that Muhammad was an immoral and unethical person. I said he was a highway robber, a marauding chieftain, an assassin, a mass murderer, a pervert, a pedophile, a narcissist and a schizophrenic. These are not libels. These are charges against him and I will prove to you each and every one of these charges and if you can show that I am mistaken on either one of them I will withdraw that charge and apologize for it. 

Muhammad is the subject of our discussion. He claimed to be a prophet of God and pretended that Allah praises him.

"And surely thou hast sublime morals" (Q. 68:4).

“Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow" (Q. 33:21).

We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures. (Q. 21:107).
Verily this is the word of a most honorable Messenger, (Q. 81.19)

Since these claims are made in the Quran and since the character, honesty and state of the mind of Muhammad are key to giving any credibility to the Quran, we cannot ignore him and his character in our discussion of the Quran.  

Therefore I have to disagree with you when you say that the character of Muhammad should not be discussed. Those above verses are the claims of the Quran. Shouldn’t we analyze those claims?  

If Muhammad was just a mailman bringing to us a book sealed and signed from God and we all could see that the book is actually written and signed by God himself then you would be right. The Character of the mailman would have been irrelevant. However the Quran was not written by God. It was allegedly revealed to Muhammad. Those words came out of the mouth of Muhammad. Therefore we cannot overlook the character of the messenger. What if he was a liar? You take for granted that Muhammad was a truthful messenger of God and that Quran is the book of God even before we have a chance to study that book. The conclusion therefore is pre drawn. That is hardly a logical or a scientific approach.   

Then again if you part from such assumption that Quran is the book revealed by God, what else is left to discuss? Are we to become judges of the words of God? 

Our first task must be to establish whether Quran is from God or not and the first question we have to ask ourselves is whether the messenger is trustworthy or not. After proving to you that the messenger was a liar, I will also prove to you that the content of his message is asinine and it certainly cannot be the message from the creator of this universe.   

Is the Quran clear?  

You quoted a couple of verses of Muhammad claiming that Quran is clear and easy to understand. I am familiar with those claims. However are they true? 

There are many contradictory verses in the Quran that can be quite confusing. This ambiguity has allowed Muslims to have their personalized “divine guidance” based on their own preferences. Those who like tolerance or want to present Islam as a tolerant religion can quote parts of the Quran that advocate tolerance, while the hardliners, the fundamentalists and even the terrorists can quote those parts of the Quran that foment hate and killing of the disbelievers. Therefore ironically everyone can find what he is looking for in that book. And they call this the "miracle" of Quran! 

Let us compare some of the contradictory verses of the Quran:

In Surah 73:10 God tells Mohammad to be patient with his opponents,

"Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously".

While in Surah 2:191 God orders him to kill his opponents,

"kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out."

In Surah 2:256 God tells Mohammad not to impose Islam by force,

"There is no compulsion in religion",

Then again in verse 193 He tells his messenger to kill whoever rejects Islam,

"Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's".

In Surah 29:45 God tells Mohammad to speak nicely to people of the Book (Christians and Jews),

"Argue with people of the book, other than evil doers, only by means of what are better! and say, we believe in what has been sent down to us and sent down to you. Our God is the same as your God, and we are surrendered to Him."

But in Surah 9:29 Allah tells him to fight the people of the Book,

"Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior". 

Muhammad gives no justification for this discrepancy in the Quran and the change in Allah's mood from peaceful to militant and from conciliatory to confrontational. Muslim apologists in the West present selectively the kinder verses of the Quran or what is known as the Early Revelations. While the Muslim clerics preach the violent verses to their Muslim audience and claim that those softer verses of the Quran are abrogated and supplanted by the later revelations that contained the harsher verses. The reason given is, as Al Maudoody puts it: "Mohammad became strong enough to move from the stage of weakness to the stage of Jihad". 

For 13 years Muhammad preached in Mecca but less than 100 people accepted him. Meccans preferred Al Nadr, another storyteller to Muhammad’s boring warnings of hell. His irreverence to their gods angered the people. Eventually he migrated to Medina where he found a more receptive audience. His followers also joined him and he called them immigrants.  At first they were poor and used to work as journeymen in palm plantations of the Jews living in Medina. They used to give some of their food to Muhammad, who often dined on nothing but few dates.  The hardship of life in exile was unbearable to Muhammad. He was not interested in work. He had bigger plans. He started raiding the merchant caravans that were carrying goods from Damascus to Mecca. One of these raids that took place at Badr was a big success and the Prophet made a good fortune thereof. Then he planned other highway robberies and raiding villages. He distributed the booty, among those who took part in the battles and kept 20% for himself. He even made money threatening to kill his captives and released them only after receiving ransom. He assured his followers that if they fall in the battles, they would get more rewards in Paradise. Gradually his fortunes changed. He was no more a weak neglected preacher but a successful marauding chieftain who commanded absolute power over his followers.  With this change of fortune Muhammad's message also changed. Here is a comparison between some early verses he wrote in Mecca while weak and some that he wrote in Medina after becoming powerful. 

Some Muslim scholars have tried to explain this obvious dichotomy.

Dr. M. Khan the translator of Sahih Bukhari and the Quran into English writes:

"Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (Repentance, IX) [the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizya (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are STRONG and have the ability to fight against them. So at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory  "[Introduction to English translation of Sahih Bukhari, p.xxiv.]

Q 9:5 reads: "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them"
So according to Dr. M. Khan in Q. 9:5 Allah ordered Mohammad to cancel all covenants and to fight the pagans, the Jews even the Christians. This is in contrast to what Muhammad wrote earlier.

"Thou wilt find the nearest of them in love to the believers [Muslims} are those who say 'We are Christians'" (Q. 5:82)

Dr. Khan continues:

The "Mujahideen who fight against the enemies of Allah in order that the worship should be all for Allah (alone and not for any other deity) and that the word is Allah's (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and His religion Islam) should be upper most."

So first it was “There is no compulsion in religion” (Q. 2:265) and then

"O who believe! shall I direct you to a commerce that which will save you from a painful torment? That you believe in Allah and His Apostle (Mohammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That will be better for you, if you but knew. If you do so He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into gardens of Eternity - that is the great success" (Q. 61:10-12)

Dr. Sobhy as-Saleh, a contemporary academic, does not see in Q. 2:256 and Q. 9:73 a case of abrogation but a case of delaying or postponing the command to fight the infidels. To support his view he quoted Imam Suyuti the author of Itqan Fi 'Ulum al- Qur'an who wrote:

“The command to fight the infidels was DELAYED UNTIL THE MUSLIMS BECOME STRONG, but when they were weak they were commanded to endure and be patient. [ Sobhy as_Saleh, Mabaheth Fi 'Ulum al- Qur'an, Dar al-'Ilm Lel-Malayeen, Beirut, 1983, p. 269.]

Dr. Sobhy, in a footnote, commends the opinion of a scholar named Zarkashi who said:

"Allah the most high and wise revealed to Mohammad in his weak condition what suited the situation, because of his mercy to him and his followers. For if He gave them the command to fight while they were weak it would have been embarrassing and most difficult, but when the most high made Islam victorious He commanded him with what suited the situation, that is asking the people of the Book to become Muslims or to pay the levied tax, and the infidels to become Muslims or face death. These two options, to fight or to have peace return according to the strength or the weakness of the Muslims."[ibid p. 270]


And Nahas writes:

"the scholars differed concerning Q. 2:256. (There is no compulsion if religion) Some said: 'It has been abrogated [cancelled] for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fought them and did not accept any alternative but their surrender to Islam. The abrogating verse is Q. 9:73 'O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them.' Mohammad asked Allah the permission to fight them and it was granted. Other scholars said Q. 2:256 has not been abrogated, but it had a special application. It was revealed concerning the people of the Book [the Jews and the Christians]; they can not be compelled to embrace Islam if they pay the Jizia (that is head tax on free non-Muslims under Muslim rule). It is only the idol worshippers who are compelled to embrace Islam and upon them Q. 9:73 applies. This is the opinion of Ibn 'Abbas which is the best opinion due to the authenticity of its chain of authority."[ al-Nahas, An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh, p.80. See also Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, A-Nnasikh wal-Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, birute, 1986, p.42.]

Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi writes:

"Fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors (2:190)" On the authority of Ga'far ar-Razi from Rabi' Ibn 'Ons, from 'Abil-'Aliyah who said: This is the first verse that was revealed in the Qur'an about fighting in the Madina. When it was revealed the prophet used to fight those who fight with him and avoid those who avoid him, until Sura 9 was revealed. And so is the opinion of 'Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn 'Aslam who said this verse was cancelled by 9:5 "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them"[ bn Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal- Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, birute, 1986, P.27]

For more on this subject see http://www.debate.domini.org/newton/tolerance.html,

Muhammad demanded from his followers to wage war against people of their own kin. And to justify his killing sprees he said, “oppression is worse than killing”. The following verse was revealed to incite the immigrants to kill their Meccan relatives because they "oppressed" them forcing them to flee Mecca.

Q. 2:191
You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers. 

In fact the Meccans were not sympathetic to Muslims. They mocked and teased them but never killed anyone for accepting Islam. The Meccans were polytheists. Polytheism by its nature is tolerant of other beliefs. Only in Ka’na there were 360 gods, each being the patron protector of a different tribe. Apart from the pagan religions, there were Jews, Christians, Sabeans and Zoroastrians who lived in Hijaz and not only practiced but also preached their religion freely. The reason the Meccans were upset of Muhammad was not because he was teaching an new religion but because he was insulting their (the Meccans) religion and was disrespectful of their beliefs. The reaction of the Meccans was justifiable and normal. 

On the other hand Muhammad could not tolerate anyone making fun of him. What did Muhammad do to those who mocked HIM? He sent assassins to kill them.  

The contradictions in the Quran are not limited to those verses quoted above. This book is full of inconsistencies and errancies.

Here are a few of them:

1. And it just doesn't add up: Sura 4:11-12 and 4:176 state the Qur'anic inheritance law. When a man dies, and is leaving behind three daughters, his two parents and his wife, they will receive the respective shares of 2/3 for the 3 daughters together, 1/3 for the parents together [both according to verse 4:11] and 1/8 for the wife [4:12] which adds up to more than the available estate. A second example: A man leaves only his mother, his wife and two sisters, then they receive 1/3 [mother, 4:11], 1/4 [wife, 4:12] and 2/3 [the two sisters, 4:176], which again adds up to 15/12 of the available property.
2. How many angels were talking to Mary? When the Qur'an speaks about the announciation of the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary, Sura 3:42,45 speaks about (several) angels while it is only one in Sura 19:17-21.
3. Further numerical discrepancies Does Allah's day equal to 1,000 human years (Sura 22:47, 32:5) or 50,000 human years (Sura 70:4)? --- How many gardens are there in paradise? ONE [as stated in 39:73, 41:30, 57:21, 79:41] or MANY [18:31, 22:23, 35:33, 78:32]? --- According to Sura 56:7 there will be THREE distinct groups of people at the Last Judgement, but 90:18-19, 99:6-8, etc. mention only TWO groups. --- There are conflicting views on who takes the souls at death: THE Angel of Death [32:11], THE angels (plural) [47:27] but also "It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death." [39:42]
   Angels have 2, 3, or 4 pairs of wings [35:1]. But Gabriel had 600 wings. [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 455]
4. How many days did Allah need to destroy the people of Aad? One day [54:19] or several days [41:16; 69:6,7]
5. Six or eight days of creation? Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days. But in 41:9-12 the detailed description of the creation procedure adds up to eight days.
6. Quick or Slow Creation? Allah creates the heavens and the earth in six days [7:54] and many Muslims want to be modern and scientific, and make that six eons, but then again, He creates instantaneously [2:117], "Be! And it is".
7. Heavens or Earth? Which was created first? First earth and then heaven [2:29], heaven and after that earth [79:27-30].
8. Calling together or ripping apart? In the process of creation heaven and earth were first apart and are called to come together [41:11], while 21:30 states that they were originally one piece and then ripped apart.
9. What was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]
10. Fully Detailed Or Incomplete? The Qur'an claims for itself to be (fully) detailed, that nothing is left out of the book [6:38, 6:114, 12:111, 16:89 etc.]. However there are plenty of important issues which are left unclear in the Qur'an. This article discusses the confusion found in the quranic statements on wine.
11. To Intercede or Not To Intercede? - That is the Question! The Qur'an makes contradictory statements whether on the Day of Judgment intercession will be possible. No: [2:122-123, 254; 6:51; 82:18-19; etc.]. Yes: [20:109; 34:23; 43:86; 53:26; etc.]. Each position can be further supported by ahadith.
12. Where is Allah and his throne? Allah is nearer than the jugular vein [50:16], but he is also on the throne [57:4] which is upon the water [11:7], and at the same time so far away, that it takes between 1,000 and 50,000 years to reach reach him [32:5, 70:4].
13. The origin of calamity? Is the evil in our life from Satan [38:41], Ourselves [4:79], or Allah [4:78]?
14. How merciful is Allah's mercy? He has prescribed mercy for himself [6:12], yet he does not guide some, even though he could [6:35, 14:4].
15. Will there be inquiry in Paradise? "neither will they question one another" [23:101] but nevertheless they will be "engaging in mutual inquiry" [52:25], "and they will ... question one another" [37:27].
16. Are angels protectors? "NO protector besides Allah" [2:107, 29:22]. But in Sura 41:31 the angels themselves say: "We are your protectors in this life and the Hereafter." And also in other suras is their role described as guarding [13:11, 50:17-18] and protecting [82:10].
17. Is everything devoutly obedient to Allah? That is the claim in 30:26, but dozens of verses speak of the proud disobedience of Satan [7:11, 15:28-31, 17:61, 20:116, 38:71-74, 18:50] as well of many different human beings who reject His commands and His revelations.
18. Does Allah forgive shirk? Shirk is considered the worst of all sins, but the author of the Qur'an seems seems unable to decide if Allah will ever forgive it or not. No [4:48, 116], Yes [4:153, 25:68-71]. Abraham committed this sin of polytheism as he takes moon, sun, stars to be his Lord [6:76-78], yet Muslims believe that all prophets are without any sin.
19. The event of worship of the golden calf: The Israelites repented about worshipping the golden calf BEFORE Moses returned from the mountain [7:149], yet they refused to repent but rather continued to worship the calf until Moses came back [20:91]. Does Aaron share in their guilt? No [20:85-90], yes [20:92, 7:151].
20. Was Jonah cast on the desert shore or was he not? "Then We cast him on a desert shore while he was sick" [37:145] "Had not Grace from his Lord reached him, he would indeed have been cast off on the naked shore while he was reprobate." [68:49]
21. Moses and the Injil? Jesus is born more than 1,000 years after Moses, but in 7:157 Allah speaks to Moses about what is written in the Injil [the book given to Jesus].
22. Can slander of chaste women be forgiven? Yes [24:5], No [24:23].
23. How do we receive the record on Judgment Day? On Judgement day the lost people are given the Record (of their bad deeds): Behind their back [84:10], or in their left hand [69:25].
24. Can angels disobey? No angel is arrogant, they all obey Allah [16:49-50], but: "And behold, we said to the ANGELS: 'Bow down to Adam'. And THEY bowed down, EXCEPT Iblis. He refused and was haughty." [2:34].
25. Three contradictions in 2:97 and 16:101-103 Who brings the revelation from Allah to Muhammad? The ANGEL Gabriel [2:97], or the Holy Spirit [16:102]? The new revelation confirms the old [2:97] or substitutes it [16:101]? The Qur'an is PURE Arabic [16:103] but there are numerous foreign, non-Arabic words in it.
26. The infinite loop problem Sura 26:192,195,196: "It (the Qur'an) is indeed a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds, ... in clear Arabic speech and indeed IT (the Qur'an) is in the writings of the earlier (prophets)." Now, the 'earlier writings' are the Torah and the Injil for example, written in Hebrew and Greek. HOW can an ARABIC Qur'an be contained in books of other languages? Furthermore, it would have to contain this very passage of the Qur'an since the Qur'an is properly contained in them. Hence these earlier writings have to be contained in yet other earlier writings and we are in an infinite loop, which is absurd.
27. "An old woman" and God's character About the story of Lot: "So we delivered him and his family, - all exept an old woman who lingered behind." [Sura 26:170-171] And again: "But we saved him and his family, exept his wife: she was of those who lagged behind. [Sura 7:83]. Either this is a contradiction or if indeed Lot's wife is derogatorily called "an old woman" then this does not show much respect for her as a wife of a prophet.
28. More problems with the story of Lot "And his people gave NO answer but this: They said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!" [Sura 7:82 & 27:56]. Yet: "But his people gave NO answer but this: They said: "Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth." [Sura 29:29]. Obviously these answers are different.
29. The "pleasure" of Allah? Is God's action of punishment or mercy and guidance or misguidance arbitrary?
30. Did Abraham smash the idols? The accounts of Abraham, Suras 19:41-49, 6:74-83 differ quite a bit from Sura 21:51-59. While in Sura 21 Abraham confronts his people strongly, and even destroys the idols, in Sura 19 Abraham shuts up after his father threatens him to stone him for speaking out against the idols. And he seems not only to become silent, but even to leave the area ("turning away from them all").
31. What about Noah's son? According to Sura 21:76, Noah and his family is saved from the flood, and Sura 37:77 confirms that his seed survived. But Sura 11:42-43 reports that Noah's son drowns.
32. Was Noah driven out? "Before them *the people of Noah* rejected (their messenger): They rejected Our servant and said, 'Here is One possessed!' And he was driven out." [Sura 54:9] Now, if he is driven out [expelled from their country] how come they can scoff at him while he is buiding the ark since we read "Forthwith he (starts) constructing the Ark: Every time that the Chiefs of *his people* passed by him, they threw ridicule on him." [Sura 11:38] He cannot be both: Driven out and near enough that they can regularly pass by.
33. Pharaoh's Magicians: Muslims or Rejectors of Faith? Did the Magicians of Pharaoh, Egyptians, become believers in the God of Moses [7:103-126; 20:56-73; S. 26:29-51] or did only Israelites believe in Moses [10:83]?
34. Pharaoh's repentance in the face of death? According to Sura 10:90-92, Pharaoh repented "in the sight of death" and was saved. But Sura 4:18 says that such a thing can't happen.
35. Abrogation? "The words of the Lord are perfect in truth and justice; there is NONE who can change His words." [Sura 6:115] Also see 6:34 and 10:64. But then Allah (Muhammad?) sees the need to exchange some of them for "better ones" [Sura 2:106, 16:101]. And it is not for ignorant people to question Allah because of such practices!
36. Guiding to truth? "Say: 'God - He guides to the truth; and which is worthier to be followed ...?" [Sura 10:35] But how much is left over of this worthiness when we also read: "Allah leads astray whom he pleases, and he guides whom He pleases, ..." [Sura 14:4]. And how do we know in which of Allah's categories of pleasure we fall? How sure can a Muslim be that he is one of those guided right and not one of those led astray?
37. What is the punishment for adultery? Flogging with a 100 stripes (men and women) [24:2], "confine them to houses until death do claim them (lifelong house arrest - for the women) [4:15]. For men: "If they repent and amend, leave them alone" [4:16]. 24:2 contradicts both the procedure for women and men in Sura 4. And why is the punishment for women and men equal in Sura 24 but different in Sura 4?
38. Will Christians enter Paradise or go to Hell? Sura 2:62 and 5:69 say "Yes", Sura 5:72 (just 3 verses later) and 3:85 say "No".
39. God alone or also men? Clear or incomprehensible? The Qur'an is "clear Arabic speech." [16:103] Yet "NONE knows its interpretation, save only Allah." [3:7]. Actually, "men of understanding do grasp it." [3:7]
40. Was Pharaoh Drowned or Saved when chasing Moses and the Israelites? Saved [10:92], drowned [28:40, 17:103, 43:55].
41. When Commanded Pharaoh the Killing of the Sons? When Moses was a Prophet and spoke God's truth to Pharaoh [40:23-25] or when he was still an infant [20:38-39]?
42. When/how are the fates determined? "The night of power is better than a thousand months. The angels and spirit descend therein, by the permission of their Lord, with all decrees." [97:3,4] "Lo! We revealed it on a blessed night." [44:3] To Muslims, the "Night of Power" is a blessed night on which fates are settled and on which everything relating to life, death, etc., which occurs throughout the year is decreed. It is said to be the night on which Allah's decrees for the year are brought down to the earthly plane. In other words, matters of creation are decreed a year at a time. Contradicting this, Sura 57:22 says, "No affliction befalls in the earth or in your selves, but it is in a Book before we create it." This means it is written in the Preserved Tablet, being totally fixed in Allah's knowledge before anyone was created. All of the above is contradicted by "And every man's fate We have fastened to his own neck." This says that man alone is responsible for what he does and what happens to him. [17:13]
43. Wine: Good or bad? Strong drink and ... are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. [5:90, also 2:219]. Yet on the other hand in Paradise are rivers of wine [47:15, also 83:22,25]. How does Satan's handiwork get into Paradise?
44. Good News of Painful Torture? Obviously, annoucing torment and suffering to anyone is bad news, not good news. However, the Qur'an announces the good news of painful torment [3:21, 4:138, 9:3, 9:34, 31:7, 45:8, and 84:24].
45. Will all Muslims go to Hell? According to Sura 19:71 every Muslim will go to Hell (for at least some time), while another passage states that those who die in Jihad will go to Paradise immediately.
46. Will Jesus burn in Hell? Jesus is raised to Allah, [Sura 4:158], near stationed with him [Sura 3:45], worshiped by millions of Christians, yet Sura Sura 21:98 says, that all that are worshiped by men besides Allah will burn in Hell together with those who worship them.
47. Jinns and men created for worship or for Hell? Created only to serve God [Sura 51:56], many of them made for Hell [Sura 7:179].
48. Who is the father of Jesus? A more involved argument that is difficult to summarize in one sentence.
49. Begetting and Self-sufficiency A self-contradiction on account of confused terminology.
50. Could Allah have a son? Sura 39:4 affirms and Sura 6:101 denies this possibility.
51. Did Jesus Die already? Surah 3:144 states that all messengers died before Muhammad. But 4:158 claims that Jesus was raised to God (alive?).
52. One Creator or many? The Qur'an uses twice the phrase that Allah is "the best of creators" [23:14, 37:125]. What other creators are in mind? On the other hand, many verses make clear that Allah alone is "the creator of all things" [e.g. 39:62]. There is nothing left for others to be a creator of.
53. From among all nations or from Abraham's seed? Surah 29:27 states that all prophets came Abraham's seed. But 16:36 claims that Allah raised messengers from among every people.
54. Marrying the wives of adopted sons? It is important that Muslims can marry the divorced wives of adopted sons [Sura 33:37], yet it is forbidden to adopt sons [Sura 33:4-5].
55. Messengers were never sent to other than their own people? So it is claimed in Sura 14:4 and 30:47. However, the Bible and the Qur'an, and the Muslim traditions confirm that Jonah was sent to a different nation.
56. Messengers Amongst the Jinns and Angels? Allah sent only men as messengers [Suras 12:109, 21:7-8, 25:20-21] but there seemingly are messengers from Jinns and Angels [6:130; 11:69,77; 22:75; etc., see article for details].
57. Another eleven contradictions...

Source: 

Are Hadith necessary?  

You wrote “I am against any Hadith being the source of guidance. I believe the Koran when it claims to be a complete book for guidance. I would also add that no Hadith is needed to complete the Koran”  

I agree with you that it is a mistake to take Hadith as a source of guidance. Hadiths were collections of the stories about Muhammad and they are not the revealed words of God. So they should not have been taken as sources of guidance. However they are the sources of information about Muhammad. They are the only history left of the prophet. Although the Hadith should not be taken as the source of guidance, they have historic value. Also understanding the Quran without the clarification of the Hadith is impossible.

There are two categories of Muslims. Those who accept the authenticity of the Quran and the Hadith with no ifs or buts, and those who deny the Hadith, partially or totally and try to reinterpret the Quran in ways completely opposite to its apparent meaning, so that it become acceptable to a reasonable mind. 

For 1200 years Bukhari’s collection of hadith was regarded (and still is by the majority of the Muslims) only second to the Quran. Apart from the Quran, Muslims, especially the Sunnis, regard Hadith as the source of guidance. The Hadiths are stories of the life of Muhammad, collected by scholars in the second and third century after the Hijra. The most famous and revered ones are those of Bukhari and his student Muslim. They are called Sahih (correct, sound or authenticated) because they went through a process of authentication called Ilmul Hadith. However there is a new trend amongst some of the Muslims, especially the submitters, who deny the authenticity of Hadith all together. They would go as far as to call the eminent compilers of the Hadith, such as Bukhari and Muslim, liars and charlatans. The point is that these writers did not invent these stories to deserve such disparaging titles; they simply collected them and preserved them.

The early Muslim scholars accepted a hadith as Sahih only when its authenticity was established on the basis of both Fann-i-Riwaayat (The art of sequence of narration) and Fann-i-Daraayat (The art of logical concordance). Moreover a Hadith should not have contradicted the Sunnah and the Quran. I am not interested and none of us is any more qualified to determine the methodology that was used for accepting or rejecting a Hadith based on Fann-i-Riwaayat. These are old stories. All those who reported them are dead more than a thousand years ago and we have no way to verify their trustworthiness. At this moment the only method left to determine the sihhat (soundness) of a Hadith is Fann-i-Daraayat and its compatibility with the Quran. Asif Iftikhar writes “Therefore, a Hadith can be regarded as a source of religious guidance only `if the basis of that Hadith exists in the Quran or the Sunnah or the established principles of human nature and intellect. Moreover, it should not be contradictory to any of these bases” (from The Authenticity of Hadith)

The same author writes “Imam Ibni Ali Jauzee is reported to have said: 'If you find a Hadith against the dictates of commonsense or contrary to a universal rule, consider it a fabrication; discussions about the trustworthiness of its narrators are needless. Similarly, such Ahadith (plural for Hadith) should be suspected as are beyond comprehension to the extent that they leave no room for any possible explanation. Also, a Hadith in which colossal recompense is promised for a minor deed and a Hadith which is absurd in meaning are suspect.'" 

By examining some of the Hadiths in the light of “commonsense”, and the recommendations of Ibni Ali Jauzee we find many of them, despite being acknowledged as Sahih do not qualify as such and can be rejected. Take the following Hadith for example:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 652
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "While a man was on the way, he found a thorny branch of a tree there on the way and removed it. Allah thanked him for that deed and forgave him."

Here it seems that the recompense outweighs the good deed and if we had to follow the sound advise of Ibni Ali Jauzee, we have to discard this Hadith as false.  Well, this might seem something trivial but the implication is immense. By proving that a hadith that has been classified, as sahih is not sahih, we establish that it is prudent to be suspicious of the authenticity of the rest of the Hadiths classified as sahih too. In fact this proves that despite the fact that 90% of the Muslims believe in Bukhari and in Muslim, and despite the fact that these books were regarded the most infallible books of guidance after the Quran for the last 1200 yeas, they are not trustworthy after all.   

Now, let us take another Hadith and test it with commonsense. Before that we have to define what do we mean by commonsense. I have come to the conclusion that a simple thing like the commonsense, is not common at all and it may have different meaning for a religious person whose senses are jaundiced by his beliefs. 

For example, the commonsense dictates that men and women, generally speaking, are at the same level of intelligence. Of course there are stupid people and intelligent people in both sexes, but this has nothing to do with their gender. No real serious scientific study, not marred by religious preconceptions, has ever demonstrated that there is any significant difference in intelligence between men and women. What has been found is that some part of the brain in women is more advanced than the same parts in men’s brain while in other areas men are more advantageous. This difference is also evident in the comparison between the members of the same sex. Not all men are equal intellectually. Some are more intelligent than others. Yet all men are equal in front of the law. The testimony of Einstein and Joe Bloe, in a court of law has the same weight. Unless Joe Bloe is a certified imbecile his witness is as valid as that of Einstein. 

There is no indication that women are less intelligent than men, and even if there was any, there is no justification for them to not have the same voice and rights in a court of law. Therefore science, fairness and commonsense all acknowledge that men and women should have the same rights. Religious sense on the other hand defies all that and presents its own criteria. Baffling as it may be, some Muslim women are delighted to fight for their inequality and suppression of their rights and call it “liberation”. They think that hijab elevates their statues. Being rebuked, punished and even beaten by their husbands is good for them. They believe that the majority of them will actually go to hell because Muhammad said so. 

So when I talk about commonsense. I am not talking about the sense of a religious fanatic. I am talking about the real genuine commonsense that is supported by “real” science and approved by “real” scientists and philosophers. I put the word “real” between quotation marks because all religions have made their own version of pseudo-science and have their own brand of pseudo-scientists and pseudo-philosophers. (I am referring to Maurice Bucaille and his kind who received money from the Saudi king to write a ridiculous book claiming that the Quran is scientific)

Now let us get to the point and see if there is a Hadith that does not stand up to the challenge of the real commonsense.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 414
…" He (Muhammad) said, "First of all, there was nothing but Allah, and (then He created His Throne). His throne was over the water, and He wrote everything in the Book (in the Heaven) and created the Heavens and the Earth.…”

How this story can make sense? If there was ‘nothing’, how God could have put His throne over the water? Which water?  What was holding that water? There must have been an earth to hold it. Then how is it that he creates the Earth after sitting on the water? How is it that the Heavens and Earth are created after the waters? Don’t you need to have an earth to contain the water? And don't you have to have the heavens to hold the Earth? Beyond the fact that the whole notion expressed in this Hadith is ludicrous, there is also an error in the order of creation. If God created his throne and if he has no beginning where was he sitting during all these times before he created his throne? 

Now let us look objectively and consider what is wrong with this picture! Isn’t the Earth a planet of the solar system, which is an insignificant speck in a vast galaxy that is one of the billions of galaxies of the Universe? Can anyone (including the "genius" Maurice Bucaille who said Quran is scientific and a miracle yet refused to become a Muslim) put these two pictures together and solve this puzzle? 

So we could say that the above Hadith is a fabrication because it contradicts the commonsense and is contrary to the universal rule. Or can we? 

The problem is that despite the fact that the above Hadith is contrary to commonsense. logic and science, it is in conformity with the Quran and as Asif Iftikhar said “a Hadith can be regarded as a source of religious guidance only `if the basis of that Hadith exists in the Quran or the Sunnah”. What if we find something in the Quran that corroborate the above concept of the cosmos expressed in that hadith? See the following for example: 

Q.18:86
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."
89
Then followed he (another) way,
90
Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun.

Obviously Sun rises and sets in ALL places, or actually no place at all. One doesn’t have to go "another way" to find it rising. This gives us the clue that Muhammad really believed that the Earth is flat and the sun moves in the sky rising from one place and setting in another. In the above verses Muhammad is trying to say that this Zul-qaranain traveled from one end of the Earth to the other where he saw both the rising place of the sun and its selling place. In other words he conquered the whole world. 

But how can we be sure this is how Muhammad envisioned the shape of the Earth? The answer can be found in another Hadith. 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421
Narrated Abu Dhar:
The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing." (Q. 6: 38) 

Okay. Here we have a case in Hadith that is confirmed by the Quran, which is again ratified by another Hadith and once more demonstrated in the Quran. Is this Hadith against the science and commonsense? It sure is! However, it is not against the Quran. Therefore the message conveyed by the Hadith is wrong, despite the fact that it is an authenticated Hadith. 

If we have any doubts about what Muhammad really thought of the shape of the Earth, we can safely put them to rest when we read the following verses. 

Q. 78: 6
Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse,
7
And the mountains as pegs?

The “expanse” gives the idea of something flat. The Arabic word used in the Quran is Mehad, (bed). All the beds that I have seen so far were flat, none of them where spherical.  Also the mountains are not pegs keeping the earth from shaking as the prophet used to think.

Don’t these Hadithes, backed by these verses of the Quran, clearly describe a flat Earth, with the Sun rising from one end and setting in the muddy waters on the opposite end? Is there a throne somewhere that the Sun goes under it to get permission? What throne was Muhammad talking about?  When and how the Sun prostrates itself? This concept sounds ridiculous to us; yet in the old ages everyone believed in a flat Earth, floating on waters surrounded by high mountains beyond which one could fall into an endless abyss, etc. and the whole story made perfect sense to those who heard it. 

In fact this story is not an invention of Muhammad. Most of the Prophet’s stories were part of the folklore that he had heard somewhere else. In a book entitled The Oldest Stories in the Word, Theodor H. Gaster has compiled the lore of the Babylonian, the Hittite and the Canaanite people of 3500 years ago. These stories were lost for centuries and finally found and unearthed in the last century. They were deciphered and printed in 1952. The similarities of those old stories and the stories in the Quran, including the above Hadith, are astonishing. They help us understand the origin of the Quran as well as that of the Bible. The Quran has no divine origin, what Muhammad told people were stories he heard from others, old stories that were part of the tradition of the people of his time.
 

Miracles 

There are also many Hadiths attributing miracles to the prophet. What should we make of them? Again as Asif Iftikhar indicated a Hadith that contradicts the Quran cannot be trusted. I suppose this is acceptable by all the Muslims. If there is a controversy between Hadith and the Quran the authority of the Quran overrides the Hadith. 

What the Quran says in respect of the Miracles? It categorically denies them. (See here)  

It is no secret that faith blinds and the believer cannot see anything wrong with the object of his or her belief. This is the reason why while Muslims can see the errors of Christians Jews or Hindus, they are unable to see the absurdities in their own Faith and vice versa..  

Muslims love Muhammad to the extent that they want to dress like him, speak the same language that he spoke, behave the way he behaved and eat the same  food that he ate. This is not an indication of the greatness of Muhammad but the unconditional, fanatical and blind faith of his believers. Followers of all cults eulogize and adulate their leader as a divine being. This is no indication that their leaders are really superior beings. Humans need heroes and fabricate them. Often when these heroes die they assume a mythological status much bigger than when they were alive. After they die their human nature and defects are hidden from the eyes of their adulators and it is easier to deify and idolize them. 

Muslims have not seen Muhammad. They rely entirely on second hand stories about their prophet. Those stories idolize him beyond human reason. Many of those Hadiths are forged, exaggerated by sycophants and are baseless. See for examples the following Hadith that says Muhammad split the moon. 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 208
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The people of Mecca asked Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle. So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram' mountain.  

Also Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 830 ,831, 832 

 Or this one that claims he made water out of nothing.  

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 170
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
I saw Allah's Apostle when the 'Asr prayer was due and the people searched for water to perform ablution but they could not find it. Later on (a pot full of) water for ablution was brought to Allah's Apostle . He put his hand in that pot and ordered the people to perform ablution from it. I saw the water springing out from underneath his fingers till all of them performed the ablution (it was one of the miracles of the Prophet).

Or multiplied the bread. Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 428

Of course when challenged by skeptics of his own time, Muhammad repeatedly denied being able to perform any miracle. He admitted that although other prophets before him were given the power t perform miracles, his only miracle is the Quran.   

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 379
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "There was no prophet among the prophets but was given miracles because of which people had security or had belief, but what I was given was the Divine Inspiration which Allah revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will be more than those of any other prophet on the Day of Resurrection."

There are many verses in the Quran that reaffirm this last Hadith, proving that Muhammad never performed any miracle and found it useless. In the following verse Muhammad is acknowledging that other prophets before him came with miracles or clear signs but still people rejected them, highlighting the futility of miracles as the proof of a revelation. 

Q. 03: 138
They (also) said: "Allah took our promise not to believe in an messenger unless He showed us a sacrifice consumed by Fire (From heaven)." Say: "There came to you messengers before me, with clear Signs and even with what ye ask for: why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?"  if you are truthful?    

All along, the unbelievers asked Muhammad to perform a miracle so that they could believe. 

Q. 17: 90
They say: "We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth,

 All along Muhammad's response to them was:   

Q. 17: 93
Say: "Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- a messenger?" 

People doubted Muhammad because they saw nothing extraordinary or miraculous in him. 

Q. 17: 94
And naught prevented mankind from believing when the guidance came unto them save that they said: Hath Allah sent a mortal as (His) messenger?  

Q. 25: 7
And they say: "What sort of a messenger is this, who eats food, and walks through the streets? Why has not an angel been sent down to him to give admonition with him?

Q. 25: 8
"Or (Why) has not a treasure been bestowed on him, or why has he (not) a garden for enjoyment?" The wicked say: "Ye follow none other than a man bewitched."

But Muhammad kept telling them that he is just an ordinary man not an angel, meaning people should not expect miracles from him! 

Q. 17: 95
Say: Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger. 

The common sense dictates that no one would deny and call a man who performs such mighty miracles like splitting the moon, as believed by all the Muslims a mad man or possessed. But the people who knew him personally actually called him by these names.  

Q. 15: 06
They say: "O thou to whom the Message is being revealed! truly thou art mad (or possessed)!.

People kept asking:  

Q. 15: 07
Why do you not bring to us the angels if you are of the truthful ones? 

And  Muhammad evaded by making his Allah say: 

Q. 15: 08
We send not the angels down except for just cause: if they came (to the ungodly), behold! no respite would they have!  

 The Quraish kept asking for a sign or a miracle to believe and Muhammad kept saying that he cannot perform one as he is only a warner. 

 Q. 13: 07
“And the Unbelievers say: "Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?" But thou art truly a warner, and to every people a guide.” 

There are many more verses  that tell the same story. People asking miracles and him saying I am just a man, just like you, only a warner. A clear proof that Muhammad never performed any miracles is in this verse where it says that people rejected even other messengers who came with miracles and clear signs, therefore ratifying that miracles are not proof.. 

 Q. 3: 184
 Then if they reject thee, so were rejected messengers before thee, who came with Clear Signs, Books of dark prophecies, and the Book of Enlightenment.

In the above verses Muhammad is denying any supernatural power. If he could perform the miracles attributed to him in those Ahadith, what is the meaning of these verses? Wouldn't it be more logical that he brag about his miracles instead of evading the question? In the following verse he clearly rejects miracles as the proof of prophethood comparing them to witchcrafts.

Q. 2: 3
 Their hearts toying as with trifles. The wrong-doers conceal their private counsels, (saying), "Is this (one) more than a man like yourselves? Will ye go to witchcraft with your eyes open?"
 

Muhammad was right! What is the use of miracles anyway? Miracles may be a proof for those who witness them, but mean nothing to others. The holy book of the Christians has the story of Lazarus who was dead and came to life after Jesus called him to life. Even if that story is true, it is of little help to us who did not see that miracle happen. Muhammad was right in emphasizing that the real miracle is his message or the Quran, because that is what really counts. Although this is a valid principle, Quran is no miracle at all. As we saw above it is a book full of errors and inconsistencies.

I do not see Muhammad as a superior human being for two reasons.

a)      Many of Hadiths and verses from the Quran, if right, reveal him as an angry, ruthless, unforgiving, deceitful, and impious man. Acts like looting merchant caravans, killing those who decide to stick to their own faith and not follow him, cursing his enemies, treating women as objects and calling them deficient in intelligence, assassinating cowardly his opponents like a common gangster, and many more acts like these are not precisely spiritual characteristics that I seek in a man I would like to follow and emulate. Muhammad's deeds are far from the deeds of an  "honored messenger" as he claimed to be in Q. 69:40 

b)     Today's modern Muslims, especially those whose standard of ethics is colored by western/humanistic precepts of right and wrong try to distance themselves from those Hadiths that depict Muhammad as a ruthless immoral and unethical gangster. They deny the validity of those Hadiths and everything that portray Muhammad in a negative light. However, if those Hadiths and verses are forged, then the whole validity of Islam crumbles and there is no reason for anyone to believe in a mythological figure whose real life and words is not known.  

So according to the Quran Muhammad did not perform any miracles and all those Hadiths that attribute miracles to him are false. The falsity of those Hadiths can also be proven by logics. The eminent scholar Ali Dashti asked: If Muhammad could really perform miracles, make stones speak, split the moon, multiply the food, visit the Hell and the Heaven in a night, etc as the Quran claims, why he did not perform the logical and useful miracle and did not learn how to read and write? Does it make sense that a man who can see the next world when given a piece of written paper in his own language not be able to read it? Muslims believe that he could look into one’s eyes and read one’s mind. He himself claimed that when he leads the congregational prayer he can see this followers behind him without turning. (1) Yet he could not read a simple letter written in his own language? Among all the miracles that he performed wasn’t this the simplest and the most useful of all? Or why when he was given a poisoned food he ate it? (2)Any man with commonsense would be hesitant eating the food prepared by someone who's relatives and loves ones he has killed. Yet Muhammad not only did not have the divine knowledge to avoid eating such food  but he did not have the commonsense to not eat from a food prepared by one who's lived ones he had just massacred.

Apart from the Quran, there are many Hadiths that also deny any supernatural power or knowledge attributed to Muhammad.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 638
(the wife of the Prophet) Allah's Apostle heard some people quarreling at the door of his dwelling. He came out and said, "I AM ONLY A HUMAN BEING, and opponents come to me (to settle their problems); maybe someone amongst you can present his case more eloquently than the other, whereby I may consider him true and give a verdict in his favor. So, If I give the right of a Muslim to another by mistake, then it is really a portion of (Hell) Fire, he has the option to take or give up (before the Day of resurrection)."

How a man who is aware of this world and the next, who, as his followers say, predicted all the inventions that has happened since, is capable of splitting the moon and perform any miracle cannot trust his own judgment and fears that the eloquence of one party may deceive him and make him err?

Let us examine more Hadiths with our own Fann-i-Daraayat, unclogged from preconceived ideas.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 315
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet said, "At every womb Allah appoints an angel who says, 'O Lord! A drop of semen, O Lord! A clot. O Lord! A little lump of flesh." Then if Allah wishes (to complete) its creation, the angel asks, (O Lord!) Will it be a male or female, a wretched or a blessed, and how much will his provision be? And what will his age be?' So all that is written while the child is still in the mother's womb."

This Hadith resembles to a joke. Just the thought of this little angel that gets in there and stands in front of the womb each time a man become intimate with his wife watching the whole act and supplicating Allah for a drop of semen right on his face, is hilarious. Shall we discard this Hadith as a fabrication? It certainly goes against our commonsense. But wait a minute! This Hadith was not against the commonsense of those who used to narrate it to each other 1200 years ago. It does not make sense to us, but it made perfect sense to them. So who’s commonsense is the standard? A few hundred years ago, the commonsense dictated that the Earth is flat. All the philosophers and prophets agreed. Today it doesn’t? Can we say that these Hadiths that go against our modern commonsense are false now, but they were true then because they were in accordance with the commonsense of the ancient folks? 

The point is that we cannot dismiss the authenticity of a Hadith based on our commonsense. Today’s Muslims have taken for granted that Muhammad was the messenger of God and therefore he could not be wrong. So they reevaluate the Hadiths as time goes by and keep discarding those that their newfound understanding of science proves unsound. This method is highly subjective and biased. Of course it is consistent with defendant’s approach and his defense council who (if unscrupulous) would deliberately hide, deny or dismiss all the evidence that would incriminate their client and present only those that find him an alibi and are in his favor. On the other hand, an unbiased jury would weigh all the evidences; the good and the bad, and pass their verdict after taking into account all the facts. 

To examine the truth of the claim of Muhammad, we have to decide which side we are standing. Are we part of the defense team or are we part of the jury? The majority of Muslims, as you would expect, choose to be part of the defense team. They are not interested to know whether Muhammad was right or he was an impostor. That question does not even arise in their minds. They already “know”, for they were told, that he was the messenger of God and they have accepted it as a fact. Choosing to remain in that position, they naturally would not know the truth and are not in a position to see it. 

Today more educated Muslims find many absurdities in the Hadiths and their first reaction is to deny them. However, since the majority of the Hadiths are nonsensical, the growing consensus is to deny all the Hadiths and vilify the unfortunate Bukhari and Muslim who were revered for over a millennium. This is unfair. Bukhari and Muslim, along with other Muhaditheen (collectors of Hadith) did not invent these Hadiths but recorded them as they were told. It is not right to shoot the messenger if the message in unpleasing. And it is highly unethical to defile these scholars and deny what they painstakingly collected, because what they reported blemish Muhammad. Some of these reports are fabricated and false but many of them are true. Because many of these Hadiths are of dubious nature, we should not rely on them as religious source of guidance but to dismiss them as historic source is committing a grave mistake. These Hadiths are all we have about the life of the Prophet. They narrate the stories of the historic Muhammad. They should not be taken as a substitute to the Quran (assuming that this is a revealed book) but they are the biography of the Prophet. If you deny the Hadiths how can you prove the historicity of the Prophet? If all those stories are false and someone with a diabolic wit has forged all of them, then perhaps someone equally malignant has fabricated the Quran and the whole Islam is nothing but a fanciful tale. Without the Hadiths, we know nothing of Muhammad, his life and his history. Without Hadiths, Muslims have no way to know how to perform their prayers or fast. These are pillars of Islam.   

The Absurdities of the Quran: 

To deny the authenticity of the Hadiths on the ground of their logical absurdity poses another yet bigger problem and that is: what to do with the equally absurd verses of the Quran? Can we dismiss the Quran as fabricated and forged because it is as absurd as are the Hadiths? Certainly this is a line that a Muslim would never cross. So what would they do when confronted with quranic verses that are absurd and nonsensical? 

The common reaction is to reinterpret the verses and find some esoteric meanings for them. 

The desire to reinterpret the Holy Scriptures and assign esoteric meanings to them is born out of the fact that these scriptures are crude and lack meaning. The Iranians, supposedly coming from a more sophisticated culture were first to notice the inadequacy of the Quran and Sufism created by Iranian sages is entirely based on giving esoteric meanings to the revealed book. Sufism is, par exultance, the effort to ‘interiorize’ the quranic revelation, to break away with the purely legalistic religion and experience the mystical significance of the encounter of Muhammad with Allah in the night of Mi’raj, (ascension to Heaven) which to the Sufis was also spiritual in nature. 

Imam Ja’far Sadiq Shiites' seventh Imam, is reported to have said. “Our cause is a secret (siir) within other secret. The secret of something that remains hidden; a secret that only another secret can reveal. It is a secret about a secret that is based on a secret.
[Henri Corbin, Historia de la Filosofia Siglo XXI editores. V.3 p.253] (My translation).

Apart from the fact that when you crack that statment it becomes yet another tautological absurdity, it also contradicts the Quran's repeated claims to be a  "clear book" (5:15)  "easy to understand” (44:58 , 54:22 , 54:32, 54:40) "explained in detail" (6:114), "conveyed clearly", (5:16, 10:15) and with “no doubt” in it (2:1). Nonetheless it justifies the Imamat and Ja’far’s own raison d'être as an Imam. Of course he had to convince the Shiites that Quran is a secret (siir) that needs to be interpreted. And no one could do that except someone vested with authority and Ismat (infallibility). Therefore Imamat became a necessity for the Shiites. The question is what would they do when there were no more Imams? Who would interpret the obtuse secrets of the Quran and the Shariat? The last Imam, Hassan Askari, died without leaving a male heir or his son died at the age of four. The community of the Shiits therefore was left with no one to interpret the secrets of the Quran. The Mullahs did not break the news that there is no more an Imam and the Ummah is left without a leader. They announced that the Imam is hidden. But as time passed and there was no sign of the Imam, the Mullahs claimed that the Imam came out of his short hiding (Qaibat-e Soqra) and has gone into a long hiding (Qaibat-e Kobra) and has left guardians to take care of the Ummah in his absence.  Thus the institution of Guardianship or Velayat was born. Vali is the guardian of the Faith. He is the intermediary between the Imam Qayeb (hidden Imam) and the Ummah. Wherefrom the Ayatollahs of Iran get their authority, Their rule overrides the decision of all nation. However the institution of velayat has no support in the Quran. Few Hadiths that back this claim are dubious and most likely were forged by the Shiites to justify their version of religion.     

The question is why should God send a message of guidance to all the humanity in the form of a secret? What kind of prank is that? How much he wants to toy with us? And then, isn't this in contrast with all those claims that Quran is a clear book and easy to understand? 

As I said above, there are two categories of Muslims. The first are those that defend Muhammad and whatever he did irrespective of any consideration for decency, rightness or justice. They do not deny him marring with a 9-year-old child, assassinating his opponents, massacring his prisoners of war, performing genocide of the Jews of Arabia, raping his war captives, sleeping with the maids of his wives and other his less than admirable deeds. These are known as Muslim fanatics.  The second group, are those that deny all these facts about him and try to twist the evidence to make Muhammad acceptable by modern morality and values. These are revisionists and are called "moderate Muslims". I don’t want to pass judgment, but I certainly admire the honesty of the first group, which the second group lacks. Many so-called moderate Muslims try hard to hide the brutalities of the Quran and present it in a different light. They would quote the earlier verses of the Quran when Muhammad was weak and his preaching was sugary. But they would play down the harsher verses of the Quran that were “revealed” in Medina when the prophet was already a chieftain and did not need to humbug the Quraish, the Jews or the Christians for support. 

Interpreting the Quran with a different meaning than the obvious is another hideout for the Muslims. The majority of the Muslims prefer to live in denial. Denial of the Hadith is easy but to deny the Quran is not something they would like to think about. So reinterpretation is the only option. Muslims try to camouflage the violent and irrational verses of the Quran and reinterpret them in ways that change completely their intended and obvious meaning.

About being against Hadith:

   In support of your claim that the Hadiths should be discarded altogether you stated that the Quran is a complete book and quoted the following verses:

“ … We have sent the book down to you to explain everything, and for guidance and mercy … (16:89)”.  “In it [the Koran] every wise matter is set forth (44:3)” – There are more than ten similar verses.

And: 

“Some men buy up some HADITH to mislead others from God’s way without having any knowledge …(31:6)". “In what HADITH, then, after (Koran), will they believe? (77:49)". - There are more than twenty-five verses like these. 

As we saw the first claim that Quran is complete is false. Quran contains a myriad of contradictions and opposing verses. It is not a clear book at all. It is obtuse and confusing. The evidence of that are hundred of sects that have splintered from it. If that book was clear as it claims then why so many sects and interpretations. You have written a book to prove all the Ayatollahs and the Mullahs have it wrong. Why should so many people err so grievously if the Quran is as clear as you say?

As for your second claim that the Quran says Hadiths are misleading and the believers should only believe in the Quran, I am afraid you are confusing the Hadiths that people used to tell each other during the time of Muhammad before they accepted him as a messenger of God with those that later were collected by Muslims about him. Hadith in Arabic means story. In the above verse Muhammad is telling his contemporaries not to listen to other storytellers and follow what he says. He is trying to eliminate and discredit his competitors. He is not talking about the stories that later were told about him. These stories were not yet told. He could not have dismissed something that did not exist. 

The Submitters 

During the 70s an Egyptian Muslim scholar came up with his brilliant solution that enticeg many educated Muslims and renewed their faith in Islam. His name was Rashed Khalifa. At first he claimed to have found the mathematical miracle of the Quran. This claim was refuted by several thinkers as a "lie-free deception."

However because of this claim he gained respect and fame amongst the Muslims, until he decided to launch his own prophetic carrier, a move that angered the established clergy and finally cost him his life. But his contribution was important as by his complete denial of the Hadith and his serious effort to translate the Quran reinterpreting it in a way that would downplay its harsh and intolerant message, he started a new movement amongst the pseudo-intellectual Muslims who now could cling to the primitive Quran while pretending to promote a gentler Islam that does not advocate killing the apostates and instigating holy wars. His denial of Hadith went as far as denying everything about the history of Muhammad. His followers, known as submitters deny all Muhammad's wars, all his assassinations, and the genocide that he committed against the Jews of Medina, his killings and his robberies. They deny Muhammad's raids of the merchant caravans and unwary villagers but rather say Muhammad's wars were in "self-defense". They deny the age of Ayesha (who was only 9 when the prophet at 54 slept with her) and they deny his licentious lifestyle reported in hundreds of stories narrated by his followers and preserved faithfully for centuries. Their zest to present the Quran as a modern logical book of miracles has made them bend every rule of reason to the extent that they would misrepresent deliberately the Quran and interpret it in the most incongruous ways to rationalize its absurdity. 

One submitter went as far as to assure me that the mistake in the addition of the inheritance in the Quran is not actually a mistake but a misunderstanding and that the share of 1/3 for the parents + 2/3 for the daughters + 1/8 for the wife, which ends up to be more than the patrimony, equals one. He explained that the 1/8 share of the wife must come out of 2/3 share of the daughters. Quran doesn’t say such thing but the believer's zeal to justify the errors of the Quran goes beyond any rational thinking.   

Those who deny the Hadiths use these verses of the Quran to prop up their claims. 

Q. 12: 111
“In their history verily there is a lesson for men of understanding. It is no invented story but a confirmation of the existing (Scripture) and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe.  

And

Q. 31: 6
“And of mankind is he who payeth for mere pastime of discourse, that he may mislead from Allah's way without knowledge, and maketh it the butt of mockery. For such there is a shameful doom”. 

As the above verses reveal, Muhammad was ridiculed by his contemporaries and his Quran was called “non-sense stories” and “idle tales”. So in these verses he is defending his revelation arguing that Quran is not a tale (Hadith) invented by people or a frivolous discourse. He compares his words to the idle tales (Hadiths) of the people of his time and claims that they mislead men while the Quran guides them. 

When Muhammad said these words, Bukhari, Muslim and other Hadith collectors were not yet born. In the above verse, the prophet is rejecting the tales or the Hadiths of the unbelievers not the stories of his own life that were not yet told. But since in referring to the idle stories of his contemporaries he used the word “Hadith”, which in Arabic means story, tale or tradition the zealot deniers of the Hadith have taken it as the proof that Muhammad was against the Hadith. What confusion!

Understanding Quran requires the knowledge of Hadith

My erudite friend, I have no doubt that you have read the Quran and have a good knowledge of it. However please do not belittle the understanding of the Ayatollahs and the Muslim scholars of that book. The Quran is not a book like other books that you could read it by itself and understand it. The Quran was written in an expanse of 23 years. Each verse of that book is “revealed” in conjunction to a specific occasion. We cannot understand that book if we do not know about those occasions. The occasion for the revelation of the quranic verses are called Sha’ne Nozool. You have to know the history of Islam, or at least the history of Muhammad to understand when and why those verses were “revealed”. Without knowing the when and why those verses make no sense. Despite its repeated claim, Quran is not a clear book. Let us take this verse for example: 

If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; But if ye back up each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe,- and furthermore, the angels - will back (him) up.  66.4

Who is Muhammad talking about? Who are these two he is referring to and asking to repent? Please read the entire Surah and tell me whether you understand who is he talking about? This is not clear in the Quran. This can only be understood if you read the Hadith and learn about the Sha’ne Nozool of that Surah. Here is the Hadith that explains that verse:

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 648:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:
I had been eager to ask 'Umar about the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet regarding whom Allah said (in the Qur'an saying): If you two (wives of the Prophet namely Aisha and Hafsa) turn in repentance to Allah your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet likes) (66.4), till performed the Hajj along with 'Umar (and on our way back from Hajj) he went aside (to answer the call of nature) and I also went aside along with him carrying a tumbler of water. When he had answered the call of nature and returned. I poured water on his hands from the tumbler and he performed ablution. I said, "O Chief of the believers! ' Who were the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet to whom Allah said:

'If you two return in repentance (66.4)? He said, "I am astonished at your question, O Ibn 'Abbas. They were Aisha and Hafsa."

Then 'Umar went on relating the narration and said. "I and an Ansari neighbor of mine from Bani Umaiya bin Zaid who used to live in 'Awali Al-Medina, used to visit the Prophet in turns. He used to go one day, and I another day. When I went I would bring him the news of what had happened that day regarding the instructions and orders and when he went, he used to do the same for me. We, the people of quraish, used to have authority over women, but when we came to live with the ansar, we noticed that the ansari women had the upper hand over their men, so our women started acquiring the habits of the ansari women. Once i shouted at my wife and she paid me back in my coin and i disliked that she should answer me back.She said, 'Why do you take it ill that I retort upon you? By Allah, the wives of the Prophet retort upon him, and some of them may not speak with him for the whole day till night.' What she said scared me and I said to her, 'Whoever amongst them does so, will be a great loser.' …  

This is just an example. Without the Hadith Quran remains a confusing book that would make no sense to anyone. In order to understand the Quran, you have to understand the Sha’ne Nozool of the ayat (verses) or you cannot claim to know the Quran.

Furthermore, Salat (prayers) Sawm (fast), Zakat (charity) and Hajj (pilgrimage) are four of the five pillars of Islam. Can you tell me how to perform these essential rituals without referring to the Hadith? Is there any verse in the Quran that tell you how to perform your Salat, Sawm or Hajj?

As you see, despite the fact that you do not like many of the Hadiths, despite the fact that they embarrass you as they reveal Muhammad to be a monster, you cannot get rid of the Hadiths. They are essential to Islam as is the Quran. It is through these Hadiths that we know who was Muhammad, who was his father and who was his mother, how he lived his childhood and what did he do when he grew up. How he started his prophetic carrier and how his religion grew. Those information are not contained in the Quran. They can only be found in the Hadith, Sirat-e Rassoul and other early books of history such as al Waqidi and al Tabari. These books are not the revelations of God. They are written by ordinary men, but without them the Quran becomes meaningless.

Now once again I invite you to read the stories of Safiayh, Juwairiyah, Mariyah and Zeinab and tell me how is it possible for someone who claimed to be the “most honorable messenger” (Q. 81.19)  and “a Mercy for all creatures” (Q. 21:107) behave so dishonorably, so ruthlessly and so criminally?  

Is this the “sublime morals”? (Q. 68:4). Is this “ a good example to follow” (Q. 33:21). 

And once again let me reiterate that I am very honored that you accepted to debate with me. This by itself is a revelation of your sincerity and innate goodness. I have sent invitations to many Islamic scholars and apologists. Professor John Esposito, Professor Karen Armstrong, Professor Michael Sells and professor Yusuf Abdu Rashid are some of them. None of these scholars responded. This only shows that they are afraid of debate. Perhaps you may say these people do not think of my much to want waste their valuable time to debate with me. However this site has a lot of readership. Shouldn’t these people at least come to put me straight to save the good name of Islam? If I am so mistaken why these scholars do not come to shed light and clarify my errors? That is why my friend I have such a deep respect for you and salute you for your courage, integrity and sincerity.   

With kindest regards  

Ali Sina  

1-  

Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 411

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet led us in a prayer and then got up on the pulpit and said, "In your prayer and bowing, I certainly see you from my back as I see you (while looking at you.)"

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 39, Number 4495:

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:

Ibn Shihab said: Jabir ibn Abdullah used to say that a Jewess from the inhabitants of Khaybar poisoned a roasted sheep and presented it to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who took its foreleg and ate from it. A group of his companions also ate with him.

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) then said: Take your hands away (from the food). The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) then sent someone to the Jewess and he called her.

He said to her: Have you poisoned this sheep? The Jewess replied: Who has informed you? He said: This foreleg which I have in my hand has informed me. She said: Yes. He said: What did you intend by it? She said: I thought if you were a prophet, it would not harm you; if you were not a prophet, we should rid ourselves of him (i.e. the Prophet). The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) then forgave her, and did not punish her. But some of his companions who ate it, died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) had himself cupped on his shoulder on account of that which he had eaten from the sheep. AbuHind cupped him with the horn and knife. He was a client of Banu Bayadah from the Ansar.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 713:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to let Ibn Abbas sit beside him, so 'AbdurRahman bin 'Auf said to 'Umar, "We have sons similar to him." 'Umar replied, "(I respect him) because of his status that you know." 'Umar then asked Ibn 'Abbas about the meaning of this Holy Verse:-- "When comes the help of Allah and the conquest of Mecca . . ." (110.1)

Ibn 'Abbas replied, "That indicated the death of Allah's Apostle which Allah informed him of." 'Umar said, "I do not understand of it except what you understand."

Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."

<  back       next  >