Order the new revised and expanded version of Did Muhammad Exist?here.
Comments
mortimersays
Good editorial ‘cartoon’ with a good question. This sort of unanswerable question often comes up when you start analyzing ‘WHAT REALLY HAPPENED’ in foundational Islam. There are so many contradictions in the Standard Islamic Narrative (SIN) that you realize hadiths were written without any concern for accuracy. One notes a similar process today as various Muslims ‘invent’ notions about Islam and about Mohammed … innovations in the narrative that have not been seen until our day … for instance, narratives about a ‘compassionate’, tolerant Mohammed that are NOT FOUND in any old collection of hadiths. Hadiths are STILL being written by modern Muslims! How much greater this process must have been before the instant communication of the internet and the possibility of discovery of the fraudulent hadiths!
The only way one can remain in Islam surrounded by so many contradictory hadiths is to turn off the mind and refuse to think much as this young man in bed with his wife.
When Muslims are trying to solve these contradictions, other Muslims denounce them and angrily claim that they lack faith. Muslims fear to ask probling questions about the myriad contradictions within Islam.
Michael Copelandsays
“By this parable, Muchtar meant that a truly dedicated Muslim no longer thinks but automatically obeys the teachings of Islam. ……
……..
I was not allowed to question any established teaching of Salafi ideology. The Salafists consider any criticism of Islamic texts as redda (apostasy) punishable by death and eternal damnation.
……
I passed through three psychological stages to reach this level of comfort with death: hatred of non-Muslims or dissenting Muslims, suppression of my conscience and acceptance of violence in the service of Allah.”
That’s the problem–Islam does not so much as allow the questioning of Islam, its purported founder, or the origin of its texts.
b.a. freemansays
MC, it would be *really* nice if the so-called quranists could spread their re-interpretation of the quran as peaceful, but unlike mr. hamid says in his article, it is not possible. he apparently does not realize that much of islam is described in the ahadith, not in the quran. for instance, the number of times per day which a muslim must pray, and the preparations for doing so, are only described in hadith collections. similarly, the 5 pillars of islam are only found in the hadith. allah tells us in quran 33:21 that “…in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow…” thus, muhammed is called the al-insan al-kamil (the perfect man) and the uswa hasana (the model of conduct for muslims). the quran tells us virtually nothing of what muhammed did, so muslims *have* to turn to the hadith, which are all short little stories about how muhammed and his sock puppet allah resolved situations in which the original muslims found themselves. islam is essentially a “do what muhammed would do” religion, and the only place to find out *what* he did is the ahadith.
there we find that muhammed was a psychopathic monster. he ran a gang, and gave it a religious twist, because religion was a much bigger deal for folks back then than it is now in the west. in fact, religion is *still* a really big deal for muslims, which is why they respond so well to the salafists, and in the same way that they responded in the 7th century. as mr. hamid points out, even with a secular background, the stew of hatred in the muslim society itself ends up poisoning people’s minds with the gangsta crap. the only reason that the dhimma isn’t enforced any longer is that the turks “reformed” their treatment of the people of the book in 1839 and 1856, prompted by their desire to gain the assistance of the british and the french against the russians. and of course, they didn’t realy mean it; mark twain documented the murders of 5000 christians in damascus in 1861 in his 1869 book, “the innocents abroad.” just because the turkish elites were currying favor with european powers was no reason for the ummah to change its religion … and it did not.
sadly, mr. hamid is not *reforming* islam; he is inventing a new, heretical version of it, if not an entirely new religion, and it is highly unlikely that the ummah will *ever* accept it.
Demscisays
B.a. Freeman, thank you for, say, j́uxtaposing Quran to Ahadith. So, In Quran it says “follow the example of “the messenger of Allah”. Now, in the Quran the NAME Muhammad is mentioned only 4 times. And those 4 times could be about Jesus, as “the praised one”. According to the team and associates of Jay Smith. But by the same token it is now speculated that also the terms “messenger of Allah”, “servant of Allah” which occur a lot in the Quran, may also refer to Jesus. You see, further speculation gives part of the Quran a syro aramaic Christian, Monophysite origine. In which religious doctrine such terms were used for Jesus.
Of course new theories pose their own problems and contradictions, like the question why then was “Issa” also mentioned in the Quran?
But if this is true, remembering your distinctionbetween Quran and Ahadith,, imagine .what conceivably could have happened:
An early Quran told readers to emulate …. Jesus,the Praised one, the messenger of Allah, servant of Allah.
And then, due to misidentification if you will Muslims started to emulate an entirely different,much less holy man. What irony!
gravenimagesays
And the Qur’an is almost as violent as the Hadith. So even if there *were* a basis for a “Qur’an-only” Islam–and there is not–it would be almost as bad as what Islam is now. You might be able to shed stoning and marrying 6-year-old children–good things, of course–but you would still be stuck with wife-beating and violent conquest of all Infidels. Still no bargain…
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
mortimer says
Good editorial ‘cartoon’ with a good question. This sort of unanswerable question often comes up when you start analyzing ‘WHAT REALLY HAPPENED’ in foundational Islam. There are so many contradictions in the Standard Islamic Narrative (SIN) that you realize hadiths were written without any concern for accuracy. One notes a similar process today as various Muslims ‘invent’ notions about Islam and about Mohammed … innovations in the narrative that have not been seen until our day … for instance, narratives about a ‘compassionate’, tolerant Mohammed that are NOT FOUND in any old collection of hadiths. Hadiths are STILL being written by modern Muslims! How much greater this process must have been before the instant communication of the internet and the possibility of discovery of the fraudulent hadiths!
The only way one can remain in Islam surrounded by so many contradictory hadiths is to turn off the mind and refuse to think much as this young man in bed with his wife.
When Muslims are trying to solve these contradictions, other Muslims denounce them and angrily claim that they lack faith. Muslims fear to ask probling questions about the myriad contradictions within Islam.
Michael Copeland says
“By this parable, Muchtar meant that a truly dedicated Muslim no longer thinks but automatically obeys the teachings of Islam. ……
……..
I was not allowed to question any established teaching of Salafi ideology. The Salafists consider any criticism of Islamic texts as redda (apostasy) punishable by death and eternal damnation.
……
I passed through three psychological stages to reach this level of comfort with death: hatred of non-Muslims or dissenting Muslims, suppression of my conscience and acceptance of violence in the service of Allah.”
Tawfik Hamid
https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/The-development-of-a-jihadists-mind
gravenimage says
That’s the problem–Islam does not so much as allow the questioning of Islam, its purported founder, or the origin of its texts.
b.a. freeman says
MC, it would be *really* nice if the so-called quranists could spread their re-interpretation of the quran as peaceful, but unlike mr. hamid says in his article, it is not possible. he apparently does not realize that much of islam is described in the ahadith, not in the quran. for instance, the number of times per day which a muslim must pray, and the preparations for doing so, are only described in hadith collections. similarly, the 5 pillars of islam are only found in the hadith. allah tells us in quran 33:21 that “…in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow…” thus, muhammed is called the al-insan al-kamil (the perfect man) and the uswa hasana (the model of conduct for muslims). the quran tells us virtually nothing of what muhammed did, so muslims *have* to turn to the hadith, which are all short little stories about how muhammed and his sock puppet allah resolved situations in which the original muslims found themselves. islam is essentially a “do what muhammed would do” religion, and the only place to find out *what* he did is the ahadith.
there we find that muhammed was a psychopathic monster. he ran a gang, and gave it a religious twist, because religion was a much bigger deal for folks back then than it is now in the west. in fact, religion is *still* a really big deal for muslims, which is why they respond so well to the salafists, and in the same way that they responded in the 7th century. as mr. hamid points out, even with a secular background, the stew of hatred in the muslim society itself ends up poisoning people’s minds with the gangsta crap. the only reason that the dhimma isn’t enforced any longer is that the turks “reformed” their treatment of the people of the book in 1839 and 1856, prompted by their desire to gain the assistance of the british and the french against the russians. and of course, they didn’t realy mean it; mark twain documented the murders of 5000 christians in damascus in 1861 in his 1869 book, “the innocents abroad.” just because the turkish elites were currying favor with european powers was no reason for the ummah to change its religion … and it did not.
sadly, mr. hamid is not *reforming* islam; he is inventing a new, heretical version of it, if not an entirely new religion, and it is highly unlikely that the ummah will *ever* accept it.
Demsci says
B.a. Freeman, thank you for, say, j́uxtaposing Quran to Ahadith. So, In Quran it says “follow the example of “the messenger of Allah”. Now, in the Quran the NAME Muhammad is mentioned only 4 times. And those 4 times could be about Jesus, as “the praised one”. According to the team and associates of Jay Smith. But by the same token it is now speculated that also the terms “messenger of Allah”, “servant of Allah” which occur a lot in the Quran, may also refer to Jesus. You see, further speculation gives part of the Quran a syro aramaic Christian, Monophysite origine. In which religious doctrine such terms were used for Jesus.
Of course new theories pose their own problems and contradictions, like the question why then was “Issa” also mentioned in the Quran?
But if this is true, remembering your distinctionbetween Quran and Ahadith,, imagine .what conceivably could have happened:
An early Quran told readers to emulate …. Jesus,the Praised one, the messenger of Allah, servant of Allah.
And then, due to misidentification if you will Muslims started to emulate an entirely different,much less holy man. What irony!
gravenimage says
And the Qur’an is almost as violent as the Hadith. So even if there *were* a basis for a “Qur’an-only” Islam–and there is not–it would be almost as bad as what Islam is now. You might be able to shed stoning and marrying 6-year-old children–good things, of course–but you would still be stuck with wife-beating and violent conquest of all Infidels. Still no bargain…