Absurdities in hadith and Muslims’ Denial

Editor’s NoteThis is rather a worthy study, published earlier in 2001, that shows the dilemmas involved in denying the authenticity of Hadith to Muslims. Hadith is an integral part of the Islamic faith, and denying it denies important pillars of Islam, and raises doubts about the Qur’an itself and about the life of Muhammad.

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. They try to reinterpret the Quran contrary to its apparent meaning so that it becomes acceptable to a reasonable mind.

For nearly 1200 years Bukhari’s collections of hadith were regarded (and still are) by the majority of Muslims, only second to the Quran. Apart from the Quran, Muslims, especially the Sunnis consider the Hadith as the source of guidance. Hadith 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 ibn al-Hajjaj. They are called Sahih (correct, sound, authenticated,) because they went through a rigorous process of authentication called Ilmul Hadith.

However, there is a new trend amongst some Muslims, especially the Submitters, to deny the authenticity of hadith altogether. They would go as far as to call these eminent compilers of the hadith, liars and charlatans. This is killing the messenger. The collectors of hadith did not invent these stories to deserve such disparaging insults. They simply collected them, compiled them and gave the chain of narrators that that went all the way back to Muhammad and is companions.

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.

None of us is qualified to determine the accuracy the methodology 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.

The Islamic scholar, 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 ahadith in the light of ‘commonsense’, and taking to heart the recommendations of Ibni Ali Jauzee we find many of them, despite being acknowledged as Sahih do not qualify as such. 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, the recompense outweighs the good deed and if we were to follow the sound advice of Ibni Ali Jauzee, we must discard this Hadith as false.

This may seem something trivial, but the implication is immense. By proving that a hadith that has been categorized as sahih is not sahih, we establish that it is prudent to be suspicious of the authenticity of all the ahadith classified as sahih. In fact this proves that despite the fact that 90% of Muslims believe in the collections of Bukhari and Muslim, and despite the fact that these ahadith are considered to be the soundest guidance after the Quran, they are not trustworthy after all.

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

For example, an unimpaired commonsense says that men and women, are at the same level of intelligence. Of course there are stupid people and intelligent people among 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 difference in intelligence between men and women. What has been found is that some parts of the brain in women is more advanced than the same parts in men’s brain while in other areas men are more advantageous. Any logical person would conclude that men and women should enjoy the same rights.

This difference is also evident in the comparison between the members of the same sex. Not all men are intellectually equal. Some are more intelligent than others. Yet all men are equal in front of the law. The testimony of Einstein and Joe Blow are of the same weight.

There is no indication that women are less intelligent than men, and even if we process the data differently, there is no justification for women not to have the same rights as men do. Science, justice and commonsense all acknowledge that men and women are equal and should have the same rights.

When influenced by spurious doctrines, commonsense is ignored. Islam has a different set of criteria that defies commonsense. Baffling as it is, some Muslim women happily 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 husband is good for them. They believe to have lower intelligence and that the majority of them will go to hell because Muhammad said so.

So when I talk about commonsense. I am not talking about the commonsense of a religious person, but about the commonsense that is supported by “real” science and approved by “real” scientists. 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. What charlatans like Maurice Bucaille and Keith Moore have said about the Quran being scientific is not science. It is sheer nonsense made up to fill their bank accounts.

Let us get see if the following hadith is scientific and acceptable by 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 could Allah put his throne over the water? Which water? What was holding that water? How could Heavens and Earth be created after the waters? Doesn’t water need an earth to contain it, and doesn’t the earth need a heaven to hold it? Beyond the fact that the whole notion expressed in this Hadith is scientific balderdash, there is an error in the order of things created.

Isn’t the Earth a planet of the solar system, which is an insignificant part of a galaxy that is one of the billions of galaxies of the Universe? Can anyone, including Maurice Bucaille who found a lot of “$cience” in the Quran to fill his bank account (yet refused to convert to Islam), tell us which part of this is scientific?

So we can conclude that the above hadith is a fabrication because is against the dictates of commonsense and contrary to a universal rule. Or can we?

The problem is that this hadith 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 corroborates the above absurdity? There is more than one verse that does that. See the following:

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.” Then followed he (another) way, 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. (Q. 18:86, 89, 90)

The Sun rises and sets in ALL places, or to be more precise, in no place at all. One does not 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.

How can we be sure this is what Muhammad thought? 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)

Here we have a case where a hadith is confirmed by the Quran, which is ratified by another hadith and again reiterated the Quran.

Is this hadith against the science and the commonsense? It sure is. However, it is not against the Quran. The message conveyed by the hadith is wrong, despite the fact that it is an authenticated Hadith.

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

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

Expanse” gives the idea of something flat. The Arabic word used in the Quran is mehad, (bed). Beds are made flat. They are not spherical. Furthermore, mountains are not like peg keeping the earth from shaking.

Don’t these ahadith, backed by 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 in the sky that the Sun goes under it to get permission? When and how the Sun prostrates itself? This concept sounds ludicrous. In the ancient times the common folks believed that the earth is, floating on waters, surrounded by high mountains beyond which there an abyss. Muhammad’s depiction of the cosmos made sense to his ignorant followers. But it makes no sense today.

This erroneous vision of the universe is not an invention of Muhammad.  It was part of the folklore of his people.  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. In mid 20th century they were found and unearthed. 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. It helps us understand the origin of the Quran as well as the Bible. The Quran has no divine origin. What Muhammad told were stories he heard from storytellers, old tales that were part of the tradition of the people of his time.


Miracles in Islam

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

What the Quran says in respect to Miracles? It categorically denies them.

According to the Quran Muhammad did not perform any miracles and all those ahadith that report stories about miracles are false. Their falsity also can be proven logically.

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 some of the ahadith suggest, 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 find it difficult to read? Muslims believe that he could look into one’s eyes and reads their mind. He himself claimed that when he leads the congregational prayer he can see his followers behind him without turning. Yet, he could not read a simple letter written in his own language? Among all the miracles that he performed wasn’t reading the most useful of all?

Apart from the Quran, there are many hadiths that also deny any supernatural power or hidden 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 Muslims say, predicted all the inventions that has happened since, is capable of splitting the moon and performing any miracle cannot trust his own judgment fearing 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 preconceptions and prejudice.

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 is a joke. Just the thought of this little angel that gets in there and stands in front of the womb each time a man thrust his wife watching the whole show from inside her vagina, 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 it 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. A few hundred years ago, commonsense dictated that the Earth is flat. All the philosophers and prophets agreed. Today it doesn’t? Can we say that the 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 a hadith as unauthentic based on our commonsense. 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 biased. We can’t discard evidences that show Muhammad was a liar simply because we have accepted him to be truthful.  An unbiased jury would weigh all the evidences; the good and the bad.

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 it’s expected will choose to be part of his defense team. They are not interested to know whether Muhammad was right or he was an impostor. That question does not arise in their minds. They have accepted him as the messenger of God. They approach the subject with prejudice. Their objective is not to find the truth about him but to acquit him.

Today the more educated Muslims find many absurdities in the hadith and deny their authenticity. However, since the majority of the hadiths are nonsensical, the growing consensus is to deny all of them to 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. They meticulously recorded them. It is also unethical to defile these scholars and deny what they painstakingly collected, because what they reported blemish Muhammad.

Some of the hadiths are fabricated, but many of them are true.  You’d not throw away all your money because there are a few counterfeit bills and you can’t tell which is which. Likewise, we must not discard all the hadiths just because a few of them are false.

Although it’s wise for Muslims not to rely on hadith as the infallible source of guidance, they are the only history of Islam.  It’s through them that we know about Muhammad and his life.

If we discard the hadith how can we prove the historicity of the Prophet? If all those stories are false and someone with a diabolic wit has forged them all, then perhaps someone equally malignant has fabricated the Quran and the whole Islam is nothing but a fanciful tale. Without the hadith, we know nothing about Muhammad, his life and his history. Without them, Muslims have no way to know how to perform prayers or fast. These are the pillars of Islam.


Absurdities of Quran

To deny the authenticity of hadith on the ground of their logical absurdity poses a bigger problem. What to do with the equally absurd verses of the Quran? Can we dismiss the Quran because it is just as illogical as the hadith?

This is a line Muslims will never cross. So what do they do when confronted with quranic verses that are illogical? They reinterpret them esoterically.  The desire to interpret the Scriptures and assign esoteric meanings to them is born out of the fact that they are crude and lack meaning.

The Mu’tazelits (early Islamic rationalists) were the first to notice the inadequacy of the Quran and Sufism is entirely based on giving esoteric meanings to the Quran. Sufism is the effort to “interiorize” the Quran, 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, which to the Sufis was also spiritual in nature.

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 don’t deny his marriage to a 9-year-old child, his assassinations, his massacres of his prisoners of war, his genocides, his rapes, his lewdness, and his other less than admirable deeds. He is to them the perfect man, and it is not up to anyone to question his actions.

The second group, are those that deny part or all of these historic facts about Muhammad and twist the evidence to make him acceptable by the modern morality. These are called moderate Muslims. In a nutshell the moderates are the ones who deny the unsavory truth about their prophet, prefer lies to truth and live with their heads stuck in the sands.

I certainly admire the honesty of the first group. 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 Quran when Muhammad was weak and his preaching was sugary. But they would play down the harsher verses that were dictated in Medina.


The Submitters

During 1970s an Egyptian Muslim scholar came up with his brilliant solution that would entice many Muslims and renew their faith in Islam. His name was Rashed Khalifa. At first he claimed to have found a mathematical miracle in the Quran. This claim is refuted by several thinkers as a “lie-free deception.”  Because of this claim he gained respect and fame amongst Muslims, until he decided to launch his own prophetic career, a decision that angered Muslims and cost him his life.

However, Khalifa’s contribution was important. By his complete denial of the Hadith and his serious effort to reinterpret the Quran in a way that would downplay its harsh and intolerant message, he started a new movement amongst the pseudo-intellectuals who could now pretend to promote a gentler Islam that does not advocate killing the apostates and instigating holy wars.

Their denial of the hadith goes as far as denying everything about the history of Muhammad. Their zest to present the Quran as a logical book of miracles has made them bend every rule of reason to. They use the following verses to justify their claim.

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. Q. 12: 111


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. Q. 31: 6

However, these verses do not sanction denying the hadith. Muhammad was ridiculed by his contemporaries and his Quran was called non-sense stories and idle tales. The word story or tale in Arabic is hadith. In these verses Muhammad is defending his claim saying what he is reciting is revelation, not a tale (hadith) invented or a frivolous discourse. He says that the idle tales of the people mislead them while the Quran guides them.  Submiters, like all Muslims are deceivers.  The hadiths that Muhammad is rejecting are the tales of narrated by his competitors, not his own.

You may also like...

No Responses

  1. Bahr says:

    Salaam all,
    It is plainly obvious that the ulema of Ahlul Sunnah and Shiah have abandoned the Quran. This is a true statement. So where do these beliefs of majority muslims come from? One great source is from the collection of Hadith Bukhari, allegedly a collection of writings by a fellow named Bukhari.
    Today, I would like to show you that this fake Hadith Bukhari was not even written by Bukhari.
    They uphold these false hadith instead – hence, disaster the world over. Today, ask any ulema basic questions about the Quran and they will stare at you blankly. They do not know the Quran. Is it any wonder then that the Prophet will one day complain:
    Surah 25.30: “And the Apostle will say: O my Lord! surely my people have run away from the Quran.”
    The ulema only know some information from their fake hadith literature, and that too only in bits and pieces. The ulema say that in their pantheon of fake hadith, the writings of Imam Bukhari ‘is second only to the Quran’. They say that without Bukhari they cannot understand the Quran – a Book which was revealed by God and which God says is ‘made easy to remember’.
    Surah 54.17: And certainly We have made the Quran easy for remembrance, but is there anyone who will TAKE HEED?
    This same verse is repeated in 54:22, 54:32 and 54:40. To enable mankind to take heed of the Quran, God has made the Quran easy to remember. This is actually simple logic. If the Quran is the Book of Guidance for mankind then it must be user-friendly. And it is really easy to remember the Quranic teachings. It just sticks to your head.
    But the ulema insist the Quran cannot be understood without their ‘second only to the Quran’ collection of fake Bukhari hadith. If the ulema have read the Bukhari hadith they would have discovered that there are only enough hadith to cover one-third or less of the Quran. And the ulema do not realise that in the hadith of Bukhari they will come across the following phrase, “No hadith were recorded here”, as Bukhari’s ‘explanation’ for 28 surahs or chapters of the Quran. (See Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6 – Tafsir of the Quran, translation by Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan, University Medina Al Munawwara).
    In other words, Bukhari himself admits that there is no hadith to explain 28 complete surahs or chapters of the Quran. That is 25 percent of the 114 surahs in the Quran. And the remaining hadith are sketchy, ridiculous and do not explain any of the verses of the Quran at all. Continue reading here: http://www.e-bacaan.com/artikeli_debunking.htm
    For really stupid Hadith read here. http://www.hanifdostlar.net/engislam/printed.asp?… http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_th
    For free English book refuting Hadith and understand the Quran for download in PDF format: http://www.box.net/shared/5tgzvctcf5

  2. I-HATE-ISLAM says:

    Do you have any proof of what you are saying? Where is the proof that the hadiths do not reflect what Muhammad said and did? A vast majority of muhammadans believe in the authenticity of the 'prophets sunnah' and the hadiths form a sizable percentage. Do you have proof that whatever Muhammad did or said came from the commands of "the Almighty" or you are simply echoing what Muhammad said?

  3. peace_preacher says:

    Please….understand that these So called HADITHS are attributd to Prophet Muhammed, No1 has any proof that he told it,  so before you point out something….make sure you know about it….
    What Prophet advised was to worship 1 God, ur God, My GOD,…..God of the entire universe.
    He didnt do this by himself..he did coz Almighty commanded him 2 do so….
    Every sort of good things are said in the scriptures……its us who should be blamed coz we understand very little and do so much….
    So back to scriptures of Almighty…and learn good, think good, do good!
    God bless us all 🙂

  4. mitu says:

    you son of bitch come bangladesh i will kill you.

  5. Sanada_10 says:

    Ah, she will post her same argument again if you place the bait. Let me predict that, it is either "tracing religion", "refuted caste", "god this and that" or circular logic from Quran.

  6. Sanada_10 says:

    I also read "do not talk to an ox". It has the same meaning.

  7. Prithvi says:

    Dear Sanada_10,

    I read somewhere – "Do not argue with an idiot, he will bring you down to his level and beat you with his experience".

    Just keep up the good work, the biggest favour is being done on the followers of this evil cult, IF ONLY THEY WOULD UNDERSTAND.
    But I am positive that sooner or later they would begin to realise that all the hollow arguments are melting in front of light of truth.


  8. Prithvi says:


    How does it feel when the tables are turning?
    How does it feel when you start getting the taste of your own medicine? :$

    This self-proclaimed saviour of MANKIND, Muhammad started this cult by stating to everyone that WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS WRONG, NO ONE ASKED HIM FOR ADVICE.
    How did he achieve it, by slicing the throats of INNOCENTS?

    Now we are turning the table and since we are right, we do not need to follow the methodology of Muhammad. And you need to be happy about it. ^_^

  9. Sanada_10 says:

    Adding insult to injury, let's see:

    Auntie, let me put it this way. Hadiths are man made thus it is not divine so when you are trying so hard to persuade everyone here you are actually attacking your own motive. The farthest distance you can get from all of these is the limit of the hadith itself, a man made book. It doesn’t prove divinity of Allah or prophet hood of Muhammad. On the contrary, hadith proves the ignorance of Muhammad regarding his revelations. If you are so adamant to stick that “clear narration” is “truth” or “evidence” then hadith has downed Quran even more because hadith explains many verses in Quran and the explanation is not pretty.

    For example:

    1. Bukhari 4.414:
    … He 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…

    Now, an embarrassed muslim who lives in present day would try so hard to deny the literal meaning of this narration (despite the parenthesis) and put the metaphoric meaning on this one. But this narration is clear. It is talking about the process of creation not the status of Allah. Allah surely didn’t create his own status then went on rambling to another creation process. Beside, what does the water mean? Apparently, Muhammad thought that the water is made to contain the earth not vice versa and it is needed to contain something solid.

    Another one:

    Bukhari 4:416:
    Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "When Allah completed the creation, He wrote in His Book which is with Him on His Throne, "My Mercy overpowers My Anger."

    Ah, it is proven again that the metaphor is not true. Throne in here indicates a particular place. This too:

    Bukhari 4:556:
    …The people will come to me, and I will prostrate myself underneath Allah's Throne. Then I will be addressed: 'O Muhammad! Raise your head; intercede, for your intercession will be accepted, and ask (for anything). for you will be given. "

    And this:

    Bukhari 4:610:
    Narrated Abu Sa`id: The Prophet said, 'People will be struck unconscious on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first to regain consciousness, and behold! There I will see Moses holding one of the pillars of Allah's Throne…

    2. Bukhari 4.421:
    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." (36.38)

    Again, an embarrassed muslim would try hard to conceal the absurdity of Muhammad’s cosmos and put metaphoric meaning. You know, metaphor is jack of all trade. It can do anything to anything, it can be made to agree and disagree with you but in the end it is useless. That’s why Allah forbids muslims to dwell on the metaphoric verses and stick to the clear verses which is the majority (Q 3:7).

    From the narration, we can see that Muhammad thought the sun can rest or, should I say, goes off duty at night. The key here is the inactivity of the sun.

    Ibn Kathir:

    (on its fixed course for a term (appointed). ) (The first view) is that it refers to its fixed course of location, which is beneath the Throne, beyond the earth in that direction. Wherever it goes, it is beneath the Throne, it and all of creation, because the Throne is the roof of creation and it is not a sphere as many astronomers claim. Rather it is a dome supported by legs or pillars, carried by the angels, and it is above the universe, above the heads of people. When the sun is at its zenith at noon, it is in its closest position to Throne, and when it runs in its fourth orbit at the opposite point to its zenith, at midnight, it is in its furthest position from the Throne. At that point it prostrates and asks for permission to rise, as mentioned in the Hadiths.

    3. Bukhari 7.619:
    Narrated Nazi': `Abdullah bin `Umar said, "The Prophet said, 'Fever is from the heat of Hell, so put it out (cool it) with water.' " Nafi` added: `Abdullah used to say, "O Allah! Relieve us from the punishment," (when he suffered from fever).

    Not only that, Muhammad was also a superstitious person guessing wrongly about which one is doing you any good and which one is bad.

    If you're done reading (and avoiding as usual), I suggest you should stop embarrassing yourself with "narrated hadith" as proof of Islam. These 2 don't connect in this context.

  10. Sanada_10 says:

    Have you done it yourself? Don't point your finger on someone else before you check your own religion. Beside, have you read my link about that? Of course you haven't, you are a coward.

    Remember auntie, you are defending Islam and Quran (big issue) here, not man made hadith with unscientific method (small issue). You avoided all errors in Quran and keep shooting at other religions as if it can fix that.

  11. Abdullah ihsan says:

    @ Prithvi

    Again Miss, have you tried tracing the sources of your own religion to find that they are still as pure as they were when taught? I don't know how yu may start, but please ask your religion's experts to tell you what to begin with. 🙂

    Please do so before you judge Islam's clearly narrated hadiths. 🙂

  12. Prithvi says:

    The reason I see is simple. The language used in the Hadith even when translated in English comes out to be precise and clear where as it is exactly the opposite in case of the Quran.
    The clear narration(s) in the Hadith leaves little room for doubt and since no arguments can be presented to justify it, so the best solution is to completely deny it.

    But it is a good start because since the social & political part of Islam, including the Sharia is chiefly based out of the Hadith, without it, Islam would crumble.
    The Quran alone cannot sustain Islam as a religion and if we do arrive at a situation where in the Hadith is rejected by all Muslims worldwide; we can be rest assured that within their hearts, Muslims have left Islam by 50%.

    The rejection which is happening today with the Hadith would then start with the left over scripture, the Quran.
    After all, it is not possible to hide the truth for eternity.


  13. analytical says:

    there r enough verses in quran which are quite absurd.many of them are very hilarious.as muslims claim that quran is from God .then there must not be anything false.but we can see many false things.so,it cant be from God any way.this gentleman mr.Sina has put enough lights on it.so, its high time for muslims to analyse and do there own inquiry without any bias.

  14. analytical says:

    not surprising at all.coz muslims can deny anything.as we all know any sane person can negate and reject muhammed and his stupid ideology called islam.its obviouus that his followers would be stupid enough to accept the things whichare true.muslims are born to be stupid and mis-lead.only God can help them

Leave a Reply