What is the Quran? A Book or a Revelation?

Why does the Quran call itself a "book" when it was not a book but then became a book?

This is nagging me at the moment. 

To be honest I have only come to even ask this question since I left brand 'Islam'. It never occurred to me once as a practicing Muslim.

I wish I had kept my Arabic. I spent 6 years studying it in the Middle East in my 20s but got married in late 20s and once you have to start earning money and raising kids, you stop speaking, reading and learning and before you know it, your language skills have pretty much vanished!

I digress.

If I had kept my Arabic up then maybe I could answer this question in more detail. But I can't. So I'm doing my best with the tools I have. (And surely this is all Allah can expect of us otherwise He sounds like He doesn't know His own creation.)

What I was taught about the Quran.

I was not born a Muslim. I converted in my very early twenties.

Looking back I think I know why, although I can't be sure. This gave me a unique perspective into Islam. I wasn't tied to cultural understandings of Islam. I did however after a few years of getting confused by reading lots of books decide to follow a Sheikh - a teacher or guru that guides you through all aspects of Islam, this worldly and other worldly.

I then spent a good 15 years studying and living Islam intensely according to an orthodox understanding. By this I mean I followed one of the four madhabs, studied aqeeda, the Quran and upheld the principles of the Ahle Sunna - the Sunnis.

I had teachers from the following countries over those years who all came from the traditionalist, orthodox Sunni understanding of Islam: Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. I also studied Shia Islam under some Shia in Medina in Saudi Arabia as well as in Iran (but I never became Shia - only wanted to get their point of view as I was asking questions at one point about Ali and the split).

So I think I have a good understanding of what most mainstream Muslims are taught.

We are taught that Muhammad received revelations from Allah through Gabriel. That this happened for some 20 years or so and during this time these revelations were memorized and recorded by Muslims. It was not until the 2nd Caliph, Umar that the different verses written down were collected and formed into a book. There are mentions of Umar ordering copies of the Quran being burnt under his leadership, but that's a topic you can find answers to yourself, should you wish.

The orthodox Muslim view of the Quran is clear - it was an oral transmission - which only became a book later.

In fact, Arabs take great pride in this. They love to wax lyrical about the fact that Islam is really an oral tradition; passed from generation to generation keeping the sacred bond between God and his chosen people. Sounds suspiciously like another religion in the neighbourhood.

So, it is incontestable that the Quran was never ever a book - it was a series of recitations that have become known as "ayat" or verses that have then been brought together and later canonized as an "approved" book to be used by the masses.

In conclusion, "Islam" confirms that the Quran was not a book.

So, why does the Quran call itself a book???

Yes, why? Like what the f@Ck akhi!? 

And I am not just making this up. The Quran doesn't call itself "book" only once. This is just a selection:

“A book revealed unto you, so that your heart be not in any difficulty on that account, (so that) with it you may warn (the sinful) and teach the believers”. (7:2).

“This Qur’an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah, on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that were sent before it, and a full explanation of the book, wherein there is not doubt from the Lord of the worlds”. (10:37)

“And We sent down the book to you for the express purpose that you should make clear to them those things in which they differ, and so that it should be a guide and mercy to those who believe”. (16:64).

“We have revealed for you (O men) a book in which there is a message for you, will you then not understand”. (21:10).

“These are the verses of the book that make things clear”. (26:2).

“... A book which We have sent down unto you with full of blessings so that they may meditate on its signs and that man of understanding may receive admonition”. (38:29).

“Verily We have revealed the book to you in truth for instructing mankind. He that receives guidance benefits his own soul, but he that strays injures his own soul”. (39:41).

 Are you confused? Yes; this was my life everyday for about 2 years until I decided to entertain other possibilities.

 
So let's just agree on one thing before we continue.

The Quran clearly refers to itself as a book yet we are taught by Islamic history that the Quran was a recitation. 

(For the record another interpretation of the word Quran is something like "collection" which would make sense in the context of collecting together all the written verses. If this were the case, then it should again raise questions as to what the Quran really is for Muslims - something I am coming onto.)

So, we have a contradiction.

Now this is what my Muslim head would have responded with a year or so ago:

"Allah knows all things and is beyond time and space. He works in mysterious ways. He meant these revelations to become a book and knew they would become a book so refers to it as a "book". Simple." It's quite easy to find answers.

This is what my head tells me now:

"Islam, as it was spreading, came up against other forces. For ex.  the Persians, the Jews and Christians. They had to defeat all of them militarily and theologically.

We need to understand Islam in context. It was shaped by certain outside forces very much as Trump's America is today in 2018. It uses "another" or "the other" to give it shape, meaning and purpose. Islam was no different.

'Islam' had a Prophet but it didn't have a book. 

You see where I am going with this don't you?

Look, remember this is just a theory. A stab in the dark. But why else would the Quran call itself a book it it wasn't always meant to be a book?

Does that not seem perfectly reasonable? Seems not outside the realms of possibility to me.

If you believe the Quran is the word of God, accurately recorded as it was relayed to Muhammad, then OK, I respect your right to believe that. I did. But this makes no sense. You have to admit it at least smells a few days past the sell by date, no?

I believe the idea that the Quran is, was or is meant to be a book was added in by the early Muslims after Muhammad. 

It's that simple.

They needed a book to match up to the local rivals, which would better their book, and hey ho presto, the Quran goes from becoming recorded recitations to a book!

This is where possibly the understanding of the Quran fundamentally changes in nature. Is this the point where the message all goes wrong?

If you approach the Quran as the eternal, literal word of Allah, the Almighty Creator, captured in a book to become the reference point for all mankind until the end of time, you have nowhere to go in terms of your understanding of what the Quran is. You are locked.

However, if you approach the Quran as a collection of oral recitations, as written versions of Muhammad telling his followers the words he heard in his head (or from an angel or whatever he likes) and simply as capturing his personal experience of God - we have something completely different in our hands. It no longer is this all-holy rule book that binds all mankind to some sort of eternal covenant with God - again sounds very much like a neighbouring religion.

What use is a religion that teaches you to have a personal experience with God?

None.

Any good religion knows you need a book and some scholars to interpret the book.

It's a theory anyway. Whatever the Quran is, it isn't what most Muslims believe it to be.

Apostasy in Islam - What does the Quran Really Say?

مرتد‎ murtadd - one who turns away.

So, I read a lot of history, especially early Muslim history not only about Arabia but also in neighbouring lands. This helps gives context to what was happening in Islam - it did not appear and grow in a vacuum. Everything early Islam did was in a context, in comparison to something else or against something else.

The punishment for apostasy is not something I ever really looked into. I knew there were opinions that said those who leave Islam should be killed, but to me it always seemed to be the Islam of the jihadis and Salafis. 

So I never took it seriously - you are taught from day one that Islam teaches there is "no compulsion in religion" - so I brushed it aside as militant nonsense that the true teachings of the faith would never allow.

It has only been in the last few weeks that the question of apostasy and its punishment has become a bit of a topic in my mind - mainly due to Twitter as ex-Muslims seem to be obsessed with it and the alt-right love it because it gives them a seemingly easy peasy way to prove that Muslims are mad.

Now, what I'm about to say in this blog could be wrong, it also could be right. I have no idea. What I want to do though is show how when you look at specific topics in Islam, they tend to make no sense or point to serious contradictions and flaws.

Let me also stress that this blog in no way whatsoever wishes to apologise for Islam's stance on apostasy - I totally accept that mainstream Sunni Islam accepts killing apostates is allowed and as an apostate myself, I therefore can be killed. 

What I am trying to do is show Muslims and non-Muslims alike, how when you peel away and look at things in Islam with some common sense, you can find perfectly easy explanations for much of the madness that has come to define shariah and therefore Muslims' beliefs and lives.

So, first - does Islam say you should kill apostates?

Well, obviously we can't ask anyone called 'Islam' but what we can do is look at some texts that the layman and scholars may go to in order to find an answer to this. 

Take note of this point: Muslims do not use heart or head when asking themselves if something is allowed/good/bad/haram/halal - they ask a book, a scholar or a website, a legal precedent. This in itself is perhaps the most serious flaw in Islam and how it is practised - not a shred of common sense.

So, let me show you what I found when I opened up the book I used as my guide for 10+ years as a Shafi'i Muslim - The Reliance of the Traveller.

Apostasy from Islam - Ridda

This is pretty clearly saying as someone who has left Islam, I "deserve" to be killed.

Now interestingly when I read this (o8.3), I went into Muslim apologist mode  - i.e. if a freeman only the Caliph or his representative may kill them. "Ah," I thought, "as there is no Caliph or representative, this is a defunct law forever." Well yes that might be right, but what if a Caliph did come back? Then I am in trouble! Plus when this fatwa was written, all they knew was the Caliph; there was no alternative. Plus why the hell does a freeman only get the privilege of being murdered by the Caliph? Poor slaves.

They were using the political paradigms and language of the time to reflect the social order at that time - not a language that speaks to mankind forever, like the Quran is claimed to be.

So, based on this and numerous fatwa you can find in all schools of Sunni & Shia law, it would be foolish of anyone to argue that Islam does not condone the killing of apostates. 

Some Muslims may abhor the idea, as did/do I and all of my friends and family do, but some would love it, inc. many people I have met over the past 19 years.

I have to say, when I read those pages above the hairs on my body all stood up and a cold shiver went over me. It is honestly a very scary feeling to realise that friends of yours who take these books literally, may think I deserve to be killed. 

I know none of them would ever want it or do it, but if it happened, they would console themselves by saying, "well he kinda deserved it." 

:) motherfuckers.

Having now been able to use my brain for the past 3 years or so, I thought I should approach this whole question of killing apostates in the same way I did with dogs.

The first question I had was - does the Quran say you can kill apostates?

I have done my best here and I have trawled forums, articles and fatwas and I have drawn a blank in terms of a clear Quranic instruction that says apostates must be killed. 

These are the closest I can find:

a) “Say to those who remained behind of the bedouins, “You will be called to [face] a people of great military might; you may fight them, or they will become Muslims. So if you obey, Allah will give you a good reward; but if you turn away as you turned away before, He will punish you with a painful punishment.” (48:16)

b) "As for them, they will go on fighting with you till they succeed in turning you away from your faith, if they can. Whosoever renounces his faith and dies a renegade, all his works shall be fruitless both in this world and in the hereafter. All such people deserve the fire and shall abide in there forever.” (2:217)

c) "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."[4:89]

There are others ayats people use as "clear evidence" but they are so weak and tenuous in their inference that they can not be taken seriously as evidence, well for a Muslim anyway. An outsider may look at some ayats of the Quran or select English translations of them and feel that it is clear - unfortunately this is not how the Quran is approached by Muslims on the whole so it wont win any arguments with them.

It is this very reason that most Muslims hate jihadi types - because they take ayats of the Quran and apply whatever meaning they want to suit their terms.

These ayats above however, if I were arguing that the Quran calls for killing apostates, I believe could be used to give some sort of credence or backup to the sharia rulings.

Now let's look at these ayats a bit closer.

a) this ayat is talking about the Bedouin Arabs who fought and then ran away - thus the words "as you turned before." So this is not about apostasy - its about leaving the field of battle. OK if you want to say that makes you a non-Muslim or whatever then fine, but all you've done is fit the Quran to your argument. This ayat therefore is discounted.

b) the ayat says anyone who turns away from their faith (see differing translations) deserves hell. There is no command for anyone to send them to hell. It says that's their punishment in the afterlife, not in this world. This ayat therefore is discounted.

c) this ayat perhaps can be the strongest to uphold the position that apostates can be killed according to Quran. So rather than just take it as black and white according to the words, I read into it a bit more. This ayat was revealed as a warning to Muhammad not to let the hypocrites (the deserters from the battle of Uhud) into camp and be trusted. Their desertion caused a rift and these verses were sent to give guidance on how to deal with it. (You need to read 4:88 and 4:89 to give it proper context). It clearly says not to make friends with them until they give up all the bad shit they're doing, like deserting. The above translation is a bit poor, this one is much cleaner -

"But take not friends
From their ranks
Until they flee from what is forbidden
But if they turn renegades
Seize them and slay them...."

So Allah is commanding Muhammad to be careful with them. The ayat is not talking about all Muslims forever but about the hypocrites at this specific time who had done this specific action which had caused a tiff among Muslims.

Therefore when it talks of them turning renegade, it makes no sense in terms of being a command to kill any Muslim who decides their not Muslim anymore from that day until the end of time. How it does make sense is in a military/social order sense where if they (the hypocrites)  abandon their treaty or pact, they become renegades and can be killed (read 4:90 again to give you the full meaning).

Which you could argue is just as bad as killing apostates but then we have countries such as the USA, etc who also use the death penalty for treason in 2018.

Yet again, this ayat therefore is discounted.

So in all three ayats we have found no clear, rational or obvious evidence of the Quran stating that apostates should be killed. When looking at each one we can clearly see the reasons those ayats were 'sent down' (the context) and who the audience were.

So why does Islam say apostates should be killed?

Exactly! And this is something Muslims should be asking themselves as opposed to their mullah, Sheikh, Imam or whatever. All they'll do is open a book and follow a law laid down by an Arab or Persian 1,200 years ago!

As with Islam's crazy position on dogs, Islam's crazy position on those that leave the religion are pretty much based on hadith. 

The Quranic evidence is clearly not there other than some weak inferences and creative word play - which scholars have been doing for centuries to justify their salaries and position in Muslim society. You need to remember that scholars were paid by the state much of the time - if they weren't paid then sometimes their lives depended on a certain "interpretation" of an ayat or hadith.

So, as we have seen again and again it all comes back to hadith...and you don't have to look far to find these hadith on apostasy - plenty full, which again should arouse suspicion.

One I think is enough to give us a flavour:

“Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

(That's one of the nicer ones by the way.)

Now, this is where Muslims need to make a call.

1) Either you accept these hadith as true and the basis for the laws you live your life/death against, or....

2) You accept that these hadith must be wrong as Muhammad could not possibly say and command such things.

If you chose 1, then OK, I wish you a lot of luck because your religion is a complete mess full of bizarre, immoral, disgusting and perverse laws which can not possibly be any fulfillment of a final moral code for mankind until Judgement Day.

If you chose 2, then you need to start looking at the hadith literature again and start understanding how it all came about, who the actors were, the time, place and how it has essentially been abused by those in power resulting in the contradictory mess called 'Islam' we see before us today.

A theory on Apostasy laws in the Sharia

As with all the hadith on dogs I eventually, over the course of a few years, went with choice number 2. 

As with the hadith on dogs I believe these hadith on apostasy were made up too.  Fabricated.

For example, the hadiths on dogs clearly show that there must have been some reason for wanting to keep dogs at bay - some say it was because of disease, others that it was an anti-Zoroastrian policy created after conquering Persia, some say it could be as simple as Abu Hurarya, the cat loving hadith transmitter, who just wanted dogs kept away from his lovely life in the palaces of Damascus.

Who knows? But they all seem a lot more logical than God sending us a Prophet to warn us that dog saliva is bad for us. Muslims who believe this is some sort of miraculous favour/secret given to us by His final Prophet really need to question what sort of conception of God they have - it sounds too human, too much like Mum & Dad taking care of baby.

Based on my recent reading of history books, I think exactly the same process has happened with apostasy. Muslims in power had to deal with an issue and used Muhammad's words to implement policy. This is simple state management combined with propaganda.

Very soon after Muhammad died, Muslims rebelled against Abu Bakr - many also left Islam. After Abu Bakr, again Muslims rebelled against Umar, after Umar against Uthman, after  Uthman against Ali, .....against Hassan, .....against Muawiya.....and the list goes on and on and one and on. So leaving Islam was something quite common in those first 0.000001-200 years after Muhammad's death.

How do you think those early Caliphs inc. the wicked Umayyads could have kept control of their riches, lands and people if the Quran teaches "no compulsion"?

They had to find some way of threatening people - making them fear the Caliph. Making it God & His Prophet saying that they can't leave their religion or rebel against the state. Go do a bit of reading about the evils of al-Hajjaj and what he did when he was in control of certain regions - shocking. Muslims were rebelling all over the Peninsula; even Companions were murdered for not agreeing with Umayyad (state) policy.

Also very soon after the death of Muhammad, his Caliphs were spreading Islam by the sword. Arabia was taken (full of Christians and Jews) as well as Persia which had Zoroastrians.

What were the local populace asked to do? 1) Either become Muslim or 2) keep their faith and pay taxes or 3) on many occasions, be put to the sword.

Now, Islam is very easy to enter. You say a few words and boom bang bing you're in the club. So it is very easy to imagine hordes of Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians all saying upon the arrival of their new conquerors, "Yes, no problem, we convert. Allahu akbar."

They are then safe and pay no tax! But did they really become Muslims?

And this is why I mentioned history right at the start of this blog - go do some research yourself and you'll find many stories of people 'converting' then once things had settled down, gone back their old religions! This must have really pissed off the state and those in control. No state likes to lose taxes, does it?

Again, how do you stop this happening if you are in power? Well, you invent hadith that the Prophet said if you leave Islam, you're dead - and next to that have your Quran experts find new interpretations of ayats or even simpler, change the Quran.

Simple. 

And this ladies and gentlemen is the story of what has become Islam. 

Manipulated from the very start to keep power and now so far removed from what it might have ever been that we have no clue what the Quran is or who Muhammad was.

Well, that's my theory anyway. What's yours? 

Losing My Religion: From Rejecting to Hadith to the Quran

The process of coming to consider myself as no longer part of "Islam" has taken a few years. 

To say it was psychologically traumatic is an understatement. It was agonising. Torturous. It has only been over the last few months that I have felt what can only be described as a sense of freedom.

Not only was I once wed to Islam, I also followed a Sheikh, with a tariqa which made the break even more tough. But that's another topic for another time.

As I've outlined so far, the whole question over dogs in Islam led me to understand the role of hadith in our understanding and approach to Islam. By examining how hadith were used to come up with crazy rulings about dogs and their place (and meaning) in this world, I came to see the weakness in all hadith. In short, it's a mix of Chinese Whispers combined with tall tales combined with lies and fabrications for political use.

By this point I had in my heart come to understand that hadith are a load of nonsense - they simply can not be how Allah would want us to form our approach to life until the end of time. Not only did it result in bizarre rulings against dogs but even stranger rulings such as breaking your wudhu (ablutions) when you touched your wife (I was a strict Shafi'i) and numerous other dumb rulings I followed.

So I rejected hadith. However, I still clung to the Quran. I still told myself, that all was OK as the Quran was still the word of God, preserved and was all that we needed.

Looking back, I simply could not deal with what was happening to me. My world was collapsing. I started to even question if how I was praying was actually how the Prophet & Companions used to pray. If the movements, etc. are all based on hadith and hearsay, then the chances are its not right. 

On a mental level I did not expect this and did not want it. I wanted to just close my eyes and carry on as I was. For fuck's sake I've raised kids as strict Muslims, my wife is Muslim - this is not possible!

Every day was traumatic. Every prayer. Every time I took ghusl. Every time I attended Friday prayers and had to listen to a khutbah in Arabic of which I understood 10%. Every time I went to sleep. It was always there, eating at me - jabbing me in my sides.

After time, the Quran started to worry me. I have always had issues with the Quran. I never converted to Islam because of the Quran - to be honest it bored me. I would read it and the words would go in one ear and out the other. What I connected with was Muhammad, or who I thought he was.

So I revisited loads of old nagging questions I had from the Quran about its preservation, when and how it was compiled, why versions of it were burnt, what the point was in reading it in Arabic, why it spoke about slaves and beating wives and all the descriptions of hell....and how it was so peaceful and amazing on one hand, and on the other so cruel.

I researched a lot, with a new objectivity to try and work out what the Quran exactly was/is.

I initially came to the conclusion that the Quran was never meant to actually be a guiding book for all time - that it was a spoken revelation that was recorded as a recording, not as a holy book. But then the Quran talks of itself of a holy book which contradicts that idea. And even if I was right and the Quran was only meant as a recording then the fact it has become this holy book shows that what is 'Islam' is not what I believe it to be.

Some of the myths of the Quran I came to dispel, which totally contradicted what I was taught from my Sheikh and scholars I studied under in places inc. Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, include:

1/ The Quran is a word for word preserved document. There is now evidence showing this very clearly not the case. The early Qurans used no dots/dashes, etc. which has allowed for discrepancies to enter the Quran meaning we don't know whether the version we have today really is authentic. Abdullah Sameer used to preach the Quran online and has come to the same conclusion.

2/ The Quran is in pure, beautiful Arabic - it's a lot of Arabic but also uses lots of loan words from Aramaic and lots of borrowed words from Judaism and Christianity. Even the word "Jahannam" (hell) is not Arabic - check Hassan Radwan's blog on this. On top of this, in some places the language really is not beautiful....also beauty is completely subjective!!! Just because the Arabs say its the most beautiful Arabic language in the world does not mean it is. In places it's a jumbled mess and even has words with absolutely no meaning.

3/  The Quran should allow for different 'interpretations'. One of the things I used to do to defend the Quran was say that the different meanings and understandings of it is something merciful and beautiful. But when those interpretations lead to legalised rape, slavery, robbery, murder, looting, etc. then surely this makes no sense as a religion? It doesn't work. If the Quran came as a "clear" sign to mankind, then it's really let us all down I think.

4/ The Quran introduces mankind to Allah. Now this was a surprise for me. I was always under the impression that Muhammad brought us "Allah" but in fact Al Lah was a well established Arabic name for God which had been around for donkeys years. It meant The Most High and he was seen the as 'top God', i.e. the highest. Which blew my mind.

5/ The Quran clears up stories of the past. As a Muslim you are taught that Islam was sent to fix the errors of the pesky Christians and naughty Jews. So this explains why there is so much about Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc. Looking at the stories closer though a lot of them just seem to be rehashed versions of old Jewish tales, Christian stories and local legends around the Kaaba. I never ever quite understood the whole idea that Jesus didn't die on the cross and was taken to heaven by Allah as a bit off-key. When you're in it, you can see this. When you're out it's obvious.

There are numerous issues with the Quran on all sorts of levels. Not only is it a mess as a book but even more messy is what has become the Muslims' understanding of what the Quran is. It's treated like a living holy being by Muslims - they'd kill to protect its honour. They do.

I don't now understand how and why God would expect mankind to be able to find any sort of guidance in what is known as "the Quran". It can lead one person to blissful states of ecstatic oneness with the Divine and another to chop of people's heads shouting "God is Great". That's not clear guidance for mankind - that's chaos.

I don't know what the Quran is anymore. It could be anything. I can't know. But what I do know, through analysis and reason, is that I can't rely on it to explain the universe to me or my relationship with God, if He's there.

The Puppy and the Prophet Muhammad

As a Muslim I never knew about this hadith about dogs.

Check it out.

A'isha reported that Gabriel (peace be upon him) made a promise with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) to come at a definite hour; that hour came but he did not visit him. And there was in his hand (in the hand of Allah's Apostle) a staff. He threw it from his hand and said:

Never has Allah or His messengers (angels) ever broken their promise. Then he cast a glance (and by chance) found a puppy under his cot and said: 'A'isha, when did this dog enter here? 

She said: By Allah, I don't know He then commanded and it was turned out. Then Gabriel came and Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said to him: You promised me and I waited for you, but you did not come, whereupon he said: It was the dog in your house which prevented me (to come), for we (angels) do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.

حَدَّثَنِي سُوَيْدُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ أَبِي حَازِمٍ، عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ بْنِ عَبْدِ، الرَّحْمَنِ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ وَاعَدَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم جِبْرِيلُ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ فِي سَاعَةٍ يَأْتِيهِ فِيهَا فَجَاءَتْ تِلْكَ السَّاعَةُ وَلَمْ يَأْتِهِ وَفِي يَدِهِ عَصًا فَأَلْقَاهَا مِنْ يَدِهِ وَقَالَ ‏"‏ مَا يُخْلِفُ اللَّهُ وَعْدَهُ وَلاَ رُسُلُهُ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ ثُمَّ الْتَفَتَ فَإِذَا جِرْوُ كَلْبٍ تَحْتَ سَرِيرِهِ فَقَالَ ‏"‏ يَا عَائِشَةُ مَتَى دَخَلَ هَذَا الْكَلْبُ هَا هُنَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَتْ وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَيْتُ ‏.‏ فَأَمَرَ بِهِ فَأُخْرِجَ فَجَاءَ جِبْرِيلُ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ وَاعَدْتَنِي فَجَلَسْتُ لَكَ فَلَمْ تَأْتِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ مَنَعَنِي الْكَلْبُ الَّذِي كَانَ فِي بَيْتِكَ إِنَّا لاَ نَدْخُلُ بَيْتًا فِيهِ كَلْبٌ وَلاَ صُورَةٌ ‏.‏

Reference     : Sahih Muslim 2104 a
In-book reference     : Book 37, Hadith 126
USC-MSA web (English) reference     : Book 24, Hadith 5246

Now, my previous Muslim mind was conditioned to believe that Aisha said these words and that this is a true story. That this was a way of teaching Muhammad and a way of teaching us, his followers. I would not have questioned it.

But, this hadith is full of serious holes and serious questions.

Firstly, Aisha did not say these words. Someone said to Bukhari, that somebody said that he heard from someone who heard from Aisha that.....and so the story continues. (Sorry I didn't want to try and spell the Arabic names into English - I'm lazy!)

So it's a story. A tale. Whether Aisha said it or not who can know? But these are not even words of the Prophet - they're Aisha's words of his words and if you look in Bukhari you will find different versions of this hadith with different bits missing or new details added. This clearly shows the Chinese Whispers effect in terms of what Bukhari ended up with.

Secondly, hold on................. the Prophet threw his staff from his hand? That does not sound like the Prophet according to other hadith and according to history in which Muhammad is painted as a master of patience. Surely throwing your walking stick away in a tantrum because an angel broke a promise to you is not Prophet-like behaviour? Which makes me believe this never happened.

Thirdly, you're telling me the Prophet of God, in receipt of revelation and waiting to commune with the Angel Gabriel, who is hyper-aware and tuned into all dimensions of space and time, didn't realise there was a puppy under his cot? LOL. If you have ever spent 3 mins. with a puppy you will know this is plain absurd and makes a mockery of Muhammad ("unless the puppy was asleep?" but come on...that's making excuses because you have to - apologetics). This is not a hadith - this is nonsense someone made up for some stupid reason!

Fourthly, let's just think about what happened here - a meeting between Gabriel and the Prophet of God was postponed because of a puppy and a picture? If he was a Prophet then why the hell did he have a picture in the house anyway or allow it to be there? And how the hell can an angel with a divine mission be put off by a puppy? A puppy? You are an angel from God, who has ALL power, so how can a puppy "prevent" you?

Come on!? This does not make sense - that makes Islam look dumb. Why aren't Muslims calling this shit out? All we get are people making stuff up about this hadith not being about the house but about your heart, and the dog represents the lower self, the ego. No, sorry - you're making excuses where you can't. It sounds nice but that's crap. Why not just say that instead of a weird story with silent puppies hiding under cots?

Fifthly, did the Prophet really make appointments with Gabriel? We were always taught that Gabriel gave Muhammad revelation randomly, from Allah, not by appointment. I don't get it.

I don't get it because none of this makes any sense that's why. Either the hadith is a total lie or the Prophet did say those things. Either way, it's not good is it?

Dogs are cool - no God would want anyone not to have a dog. If it does, it can not be God. That sounds more like something an idiot human would want or think up.

Dogs in Islam: Applying Logic & Reason to Hadith and Fiqh

The Shafi'i Madhab and Dogs

I'm trying to my best to so far through my blogs to lay out the path I went down in terms of losing my belief in Islam. 

It took a few years and it all started with trying to understand hadith, so that's why I am focusing on it so much at the moment in my current musings.

If you come from a traditional Sunni madhab teaching, life can be fairly strict when it comes to dos and donts. You are told that by following one of the madhabs that you are safe - that the Imams have done all the hard work for us in terms of understanding the hadith and Quran, and translating this into laws, i.e. the Shariah.

From this we have seen the Islamic science of fiqh arise - fiqh (jurisprudence) is obsessed with interpreting Islam to make laws for people to follow.

As a Sunni, you follow the fiqh of a school - Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali and Maliki. It dictates everything you do from how you pray to how you fast to how you can invest your money.

I was a strict Shafi'i. So strict I even visited his grave in Cairo and asked to be blessed with knowledge of Shafi'i fiqh! Well, that didn't quite work out!

As a result of being a strict Shafi'i I followed what the school of law taught, pretty much to the dot as I believed I was obeying God in doing so. I was told I would not fall foul of false interpretations or falling foul of those who may twist the religion for their own devices, such as the Salafis/Wahabbis (who all tend to be angry so use it for angry means).

Reliance of the Traveller

As a Shafi'i, the book I would always turn to when looking into matters of fiqh was 'Reliance of the Traveller', which is a Shafi'i book of laws by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (with the English translated by Sheikh Nuh Ha Min Keller - now he's someone I would like to blog about as I have spent time with his people in Jordan and the UK).

So in the early days of wanting a dog I turned to this book and this is what I found:

Filth means:

1) urine 2) excrement 3) blood 4) pus 5) vomit 6) wine 7) any liquid intoxicant 8) dogs and pigs and so on. (See page 95 if you have a copy).

At first I just accepted this. I assumed Imam Shafi'i and his school knew what they were doing.

It must be so clear that dogs are bad in Islam and I must be blind for not seeing it. If they are the 8th most filthy thing according to the Shafi'i school then damn!!! That's bad!

Then just to kill off any hopes of ever having a dog a few pages later it states that....

"Something that becomes impure by contact with something from dogs or swine does not become pure except by being washed seven times , one of which must be with purifying earth mixed with purifying water...."

'No chance of me doing that every time I touch a dog,' I thought, so I stopped thinking about getting a dog for a while. But not for long.

This whole dog thing still nagged at me! It made no sense and contradicted reality!

This led me down the rabbit's hole of hadith and Islamic history and the corruption that has become "Islam". Or Sunni Islam at least. Although the Shia are no better.

The Four Madhabs are State Sanctioned Islam

To cut a very long story short, and to condense years of reading into a few sentences, I believe the schools of law, the madhabs, were something the State invented, financed and manipulated. They were an official version of Islam sanctioned by those in power.

You also need to ask yourself what happened to all the other Imams that once had students and could give fatwas and who had their own understandings of Islam. Where did they go? The official line is, "Oh well the other four madhabs were so strong and well reasoned that the others died out over time." Bullshit. They were made to be "unofficial" and were extinguished over time as otherwise we would have their books, etc.

A History of Extinguishing Ideas

And this is a theme of Islam from the very beginning that Muslims look through and really start needing to look at in more detail. Right from the death of Muhammad his followers were infighting, non-stop till today.

Ideas had to constantly be extinguished by those in power in Islam, with some rare exceptions. From the time of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Hassan, the Ummayids, the Abbasids, etc, etc. there are numerous examples of having to fight, kill and try to extinguish and idea or its adherents. For God's sake, they slaughtered the Prophet's Grandson at Karbala!

Wake up! Something has been wrong with Islam from the beginning because it's been controlled by those who want to tell their version of things. The same is just as true today in government and politics. Lots of Sunnis now look to Imam Ghazali as a saviour of Islam yet his works were being burnt at one time. Islam has a long history of burning books, including Quran and Hadith.

Look how splintered Islam is - the Sunni/Shia divide actually hides a much more complex picture of Islam. From the start, the community has been divided as the message was never clear or succinct. It's been made to seem that way by generations afterwards. It's evolved and looks nothing like it ever was or did.

Hadith Have Tied Sunni Islam's Hands Behind its Back

The four schools of law approach of Sunni Islam has basically tied Islam's hands behind its back. The madhabs were established on the back of hadith and Quran. It was all a reaction to what was happening in Islam both within and without. It was the Ahle Hadith who raised the banner of hadith and called Muslims to only stick to them to understand the law. In reaction to this we saw the State support the schools to combat this way of thinking.

The hadith were made to be important - remember, hadith were not used for law making for some 200 years or so after the Prophet's death. It is well documented that many Muslims used reasoning and local customs for their laws rather than hadith. This whole idea of a set religion with clear rules that were handed down from the Prophet is rubbish. The reality is he came with a simple message that in the early days people adopted and life pretty much stayed the same. Over time Islam was turned into a tool of the State and from there we have all the modern day inventions and rituals that have come to be called "Islam".

Hadith, and using them as a basis for law, is blatantly a ploy. First you make it orthodox to follow the hadith, then you control which hadith are OK and then you control the people who are able to interpret the hadiths! Sounds very suspicious to me.

The schools of law were a vessel for achieving this aim, in the process also creating a new profession within Islam that has to this day clung to its positions of power and privilege within Muslim societies.

In short, I look on the schools of law as as stupid waste of time. It's a load of nonsense that makes people's lives complicated and distances them from God and from reality. The schools of law passed their stupid laws on dogs because they were all engaged in debates over 'questions of the day'. As they all had to abide by the Sahih hadith of Bukhari, they naturally used the either stupid or fake hadith about dogs in there to justify their positions...then stick to them to prove their scholastic abilities. All the while destroying man's bond with creation. Just stupid.

This is what I mean when I say Sunni Islam has had its hands tied behind its back for so long. Its been forced into this false paradigm of orthodoxy when in fact its anything but orthodox - its fudged.

For generations Muslims now have to abide by the rulings of men made 1,000 years ago? Really?

The Salafi Approach to Hadith

As a madhabi Muslim, and a Sufi at that, I was taught to hate Salafis for their approach to the schools of law. They rejected them as unnecessary. We believed they were crucial in saving the religion from their crazy hands. One of the Salafi's main criticisms of the Imams of fiqh was in their approach to and use of hadith. Now, I never really paid much attention to this in detail as I assumed they were wrong to even dare question the Imams.

So, after 19 years of really being a Salafi-hater, it opened my eyes when I came across a You Tube video of Bilal Philips talking about the fiqh of dogs.

I used to hate this man with a passion. He was everything I did not like in Islam. However, as he was talking about dogs, I had to listen...and if you're a Muslim so should you.



He makes some fantastic points which help start to strip away the layers of nonsense covering hadith and fiqh rulings.

For one, he uses the hadith in which it states that using a dog for hunting and guarding livestock are permissible and applies logic and reason to argue that is must therefore also be possible to keep dogs say if you're blind, or to protect your life. However, he stops at this point as he seems to identify having dogs with "Western culture", whereas in reality all cultures have a deep bond with dogs, even the Arabs pre-Islam.

He shows how this hadith has been completely manipulated by the schools of law and the following scholars to essentially ban people from having dogs other than for obscure reasons.

The next excellent point he makes is regarding the need to ritually cleanse anything a dog has licked, i.e. its saliva being dirty. The hadith itself says that if a dog licks a bowl you wish to eat from, then to purify it. Most Muslims due to this hadith, and the rulings from the madhabs based on this hadith, conclude that if a dog licks literally anything then you have to scrub it 7 times including once with earth. Philips makes a simple point that this hadith only relates to something you eat from - it has nothing to do with a dog licking your foot, your clothing or anything else! So why and how did the Imams of the madhabs not see this?

The reason is that the madhabs have to refer to hadith for law - not logic, reason, custom, common sense, science or anything else. If you are stuck with a load of nonsense from which you have to interpret laws, it's no wonder the laws will also be nonsense.

My view on Salafis has completely changed - I still think they are dangerous crazies, but I respect the fact they have looked at some of these schools of law and some of their teachings and called bullshit on them. However, they don't offer anything better as all they advocate is allowing the layman to use hadith themselves to make up laws, which is what results in Al-Qaeda and its offshoots.

One final point, why the hell would God send mankind a religion that needed mankind to turn to scholars in order to understand it and practice it? It's makes no sense - I find this very idea blasphemous. Everyone can access God directly - there is no intercession needed. Islam, if it is a religion, should be simple - it's been turned into Frankenstein on steroids with a turban on top.

If you follow a madhab, you are the blind following the blind. Seriously, go do some research and listen to some difficult questions. Following a madhab is killing any connection to God.

Hadith on Dogs - The Isnad

Hopefully over the coming months/years I will be able to explain in finer detail some of the conclusions I've drawn about hadith.

It's such a massive topic and because it is so central to a Muslim's life, especially if you are a traditional Sunni, it's something the takes time and can't simply be unpicked in one blog post.

Hadith and the Last Revealed Religion

I have many issues with hadith as a result of looking into it all. For one, I never ever questioned how on earth hadith had become such an integral part of the religion when in fact it has no legal basis in the religion. The Quran doesn't say that the lives of all mankind for the rest of eternity should be guided by the sayings of the Prophet, well especially not in the form of hadith literature we have now.

The whole idea of shariah law and therefore how Muslims live their lives and believe what they believe has essentially been decided by some Arab despots over 1,000 years ago who decided they needed to standardise what had become "Islam" in the face of existential threats, i.e. the Shia, Christians, etc.

Basically, Muslims have been hoodwinked into believing that we have to follow the hadith - well, that's bullshit frankly. The Prophet himself it is said even said his sayings should not be written down. But they were...which technically means Muslims were being very naughty...but that's OK because they're good Muslims, doing what's best for us all.

Hadith -  Who Controls Them?

Another massive issue I have with hadith now, which I never thought about as a Muslim, is that you are told that unless you know Arabic, have studied Islamic sciences and received permission from a scholar ("ijaza") then you can't approach the hadith - basically, you are not clever enough to read a hadith and know its full meaning(s).

I used to think this made sense because it stops people such as Wahhabis and more literal Muslims taking a hadith and attributing their own meanings to it. But now looking at, basically hadith and the approach to hadith is protected as is any profession in the world and as is any sort of academic science. It's its own little bubble - hadith is untouchable in Islam. It's controlled.

This all makes no sense when you look at Islam at the last revealed religion for all mankind - how is someone speaking Khmer in Cambodia supposed to follow this religion? Well, basically the only way is to believe what someone else has said and how someone else interprets a hadith, which may or may not be the truth.

And this brings me nicely to the topic of this blog and hadith. It is all based on what someone else said.

Hadith - Sayings of the Prophet? or of others?

Let me give you some context - as a Muslim when you are told a hadith it either goes, "The Prophet said...." or "A hadith of the Prophet states....".

Once you start to know a bit more then people may start to use the names of the companion of the Prophet who remembered and conveyed the hadith. For example, "Abu Hurairah narrated that the Prophet said that..."

Basically, it stops there. So when you are learning about Islam, most of the time people either quote the Quran or a hadith. The hadith is always read in the manner I mentioned, which makes you believe that the Prophet actually said those words. My God - you're amazed at the time - amazed at how these words have been preserved for 1,400 years.

If you learn more about Islam and hadith, you start to learn about the chains of narration or "Isnad". These chains are basically said to give a hadith its credentials - the idea being that the people who recall the hadith are all upright, practising Muslims with zero ego or personal intentions in mind.

Once I started to read the hadith about dogs I started to look more into these chains...and what I found really perplexed me. It wasn't what I had imagined and it seemed really quite weak.

The Isnad - Reliable Chains of Transmission

So, let's explore some of these chains to see what I mean. I've simply picked 2 hadith from Sunnah.com's Bukhari collection about "dogs" to illustrate my point.

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو طَاهِرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ سَالِمٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ رَافِعًا صَوْتَهُ يَأْمُرُ بِقَتْلِ الْكِلاَبِ وَكَانَتِ الْكِلاَبُ تُقْتَلُ إِلاَّ كَلْبَ صَيْدٍ أَوْ مَاشِيَةٍ ‏.‏

In this hadith in the English version you simply get:

It was narrated from Salim that his father said:

“I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) raising his voice and commanding that dogs be killed, and dogs were killed, except for hunting dogs or dogs kept for herding livestock.”

But actually, this is NOT the hadith. This is the end of the hadith. The actual hadith says:

Abu Taher related, that Ibn Wahab related that he heard from Yusuf, who got it from Ibn Shihab, who got it from Salim, who heard his father say, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) raising his voice and commanding that dogs be killed, and dogs were killed, except for hunting dogs or dogs kept for herding livestock.”

حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ مُوسَى الرَّازِيُّ، ح وَحَدَّثَنَا الرَّبِيعُ بْنُ نَافِعٍ أَبُو تَوْبَةَ، وَعَلِيُّ بْنُ بَحْرٍ، قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا عِيسَى، وَقَالَ، إِبْرَاهِيمُ أَخْبَرَنَا عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ، عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَهَى عَنْ ثَمَنِ الْكَلْبِ وَالسِّنَّوْرِ ‏.‏

Again the English is shown as....

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:

The Prophet (ﷺ) forbade payment for dog and cat.

However, the hadith actually says:

Ibrahim bin Musa ar-Razi related he heard Rabi'i bin Nafi Abu Tusa and Ali bin Bahr say they heard Isa say he heard from Ibrahim say he heard from Al-ams, who from Abu Sufyan heard from Jabir bin Abdullah that the Prophet forbade payment for dog and cat.

Hadith are not the words of the Prophet. 

Actually, hadith are technically not the words of the Prophet Muhammad - they are the words of whoever the first person in the chain of transmission is - the rest we have to totally put down to faith. You have to trust each and every person in that chain and you have to trust this across thousands of hadith.


Now you need to remember that these hadith were supposedly collected by Bukhari himself. A Persian who became a scholar and then travelled the Arab world to collect hadith and then to sort out the false (some 700,000 apparently) from the true (now the basis of much of Sunni Islam).

So, when you read the hadith above you need to recognise that Bukhari was basically being told a story - in the first hadith by someone called Abu Taher, and in the second by Ibrahim bun Musa ar-Razi. They both then would have told Bukhari what he recorded, i.e. "I heard from so and so that he heard from so and so that he heard that so and so that he heard so and so say that....."

Every single hadith follows this very same pattern. Now it was this that really opened my mind and started the very slow process of unraveling Islam.

Historical Context of Bukhari

There are lots of topics that relate to hadith that really need to be covered in any sort of objective analysis. For one, historical context is for me perhaps THE most crucial of all. Muslims really need to pick up history books to see what was going on at the time in the world at the time of Bukhari.

Fake hadith were rife. On top of that those in power used Islam and especially hadith for their own purposes - i.e. to stay in power with an air of legitimacy. If you believe Bukhari was in some sort of bubble, happily roaming the Arab world collecting hadith with no interference then frankly you need to sit down and re-evaluate yourself. One only needs to look now at how "those who know" such as researchers, scientists and theologians are bought by those with power and an agenda - you seriously think the world was any different 1200 years ago?

Bukhari was on someone's payroll and no matter how pious he may have been, I can not reconcile how this foreigner essentially came to create what has become the second most important book to Muslims - one that controls almost everything they do, say, think or believe.

[Check out Sherif Gaber's video on Bukhari - I don't agree with all he says but I do agree with the vast majority of the conclusions he comes to.]

 

The Isnad - Protecting the Words of the Prophet?

Anyway, back to the main point of this particular blog - the isnad. As a Muslim I just accepted what I was taught - Bukhari did all the hard work by checking the chains to make sure all was in order. "OK," I thought, "well, they are all Muslims so none of them would lie and surely this is a protected religion so this must be God's way of protecting Islam by keeping it word of mouth and personal."

Now I realise I was being more than a little naive. Again, history really helped me look at the isnad a bit differently.

In short, the whole concept of a reliable chain of transmission is based on the premise that those in the chain are reliable. Well, as a student of history I can safely state that Muslims have, are and will always have among them that lie, cheat, steal and rob from others (as all religions have). Muslims are not some holy tribe of righteous people - it's the same then as it is now and if you believe otherwise, then you have not read any Islamic history and you have also not read the Quran.

Why does the Quran on many occassions warn about those who say they believe yet do not believe??? Why does it specifically warn the Prophet about those around him - i.e. his companions - and not to trust all of them? So if you believe in the Quran, you must also believe that some of the Prophet's companions were liars and cheats.

And they were - you do no have to look far for such stories. There are many companions who although they embraced Islam were never really in it for real - they were not afraid to abuse anything about it, whether it be a hadith or anything else.

Islamic History - Fighting Companions of the Prophet

 

Some very basic examples from Islamic history should spell out to anyone with an objective intention that Muslims were not some lovey-dovey commune of brothers looking out for one another. They hated each other and they fought each other.

After the death of the Prophet it is known that Ali would not give allegiance to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr (the 1st Caliph) ordered Umar (who became the 2nd Caliph) to go to Ali's house and demand allegiance from his household. Umar threatened to burn the house down with Fatima (the Prophet's daughter) in it. Fatima actually miscarried as a result of this incident.

So, how on earth is this demonstrating any sense of holiness among the companions of the Prophet? It makes the idea sound stupid!

Years later the companions were killing each other. Uthman was murdered by Muslims fed up with his reign which then along with lots of other reasons led to the Battle of the Camel and then shortly after at the Battle of Siffin - both of which saw Companions killing Companions.

This idea of a golden age of Islam during the time of the companions is a complete myth - a fabricated story with no resemblance to reality. It's fake - it serves a purpose - the [Sunni] state.

 How can we rely on hadith then if we know, for sure, that even the first generation of Muslims disagreed, fought and killed each other over what the Prophet said? How then can we possibly trust all those that come after them in the chain of transmission - the isnad?

Well, we can't. If the companions could not be relied on, we can't rely on anyone. Although some hadith very well may be true, and some may be a little bit true, we can't escape the fact that the whole lot it essentially unreliable because they are all based on unreliable people - unreliable people who we have very little knowledge of other than what is recorded in state sanctioned books on hadith science, etc.

Mix the fallible nature of mankind, with the needs of state, power and politics and you have a totally useless basis for any religion. It's full of forgeries, ridiculous stories, half-baked anecdotes and plenty of lies. And to think that much of the Sunni world looks to this for guidance!

Why then?

Hadith were collected at the time they were collected because of what was happening at that time. Whether it was a way of the state controlling what orthodoxy meant, or whether it was a way of mimicking Christian's sayings of Jesus to prove Islam superior, or whatever else - it was shaped by the time and the environment.

If you're Muslim and reading this, ask yourself why hadith collections only appear 200 years after the Prophet - 200 years. Do you have any idea what happened in 1818? I bet you can't name one historical incident yet you are relying on a Persian sitting down in front of over 100,000 people memorising Arabic hadith with their chains of narration and then sorting right from wrong 200 years after they were said?

Isnads are weak - by their very nature they are not something we as people can base our lives on (in this world or the next).

It is these isnads, their agendas and their fake stories that have robbed Muslims across generations from having dogs. They have deprived adherents of a religion (which is supposedly one that is organic, natural and in touch with creation) from one of the very best experiences of being a human being - that of sharing an describable bond with another creation of God.

How can Islam teach that dogs are bad? Well it simply doesn't. Islam essentially tied itself to hadith, making them fundamental to understanding what God wants from us. And when the hadith are basically saying that dogs are bad, Islam has nowhere to go as it would undermine almost all of Islam.

You just need to read some of the hadith about dogs to realise someone somewhere made this shit up for a purpose. Whether it was an anti-Persian/anti-Zoroastrian thing after that part of the world was conquered (they loved dogs) or whether some Caliph at one point needed an excuse to round up and kill all the local wild dogs - who knows? What we do know is that they are fake - no Prophet gets sent to all mankind to tell them not to keep dogs. Why the hell did God create them then?

Basically the hadith on dogs make no sense - they add nothing to life and they contradict life.

Dogs are not the problem - hadith are. Hadith killed the message of the Prophet - that's my conclusion.

Why can't Muslims touch dogs?

As a Muslim something you learn very early is that you don't touch dogs. 

You just don't do it. 

They're dirty.

If you are like I was and inclined to wonder why Islam considers them dirty, then you'll probably come across all the hadith I mentioned in my first blog (and as a Muslim at that point probably stop any questioning because 'the Prophet clearly said it') and then you'll come across forums, blogs, videos and all sorts of online fatwas essentially saying the same thing in differing shades.

Now don't get me wrong, there are plenty of Muslims who see through the whole dog issue, but they aren't many.

The vast majority of practising Muslims stay away from dogs - you believe they are filthy, that you will not be able to read prayers, that angels will leave your side and all sorts.

I came across this video of Dr Zakir Naik who answers the oft asked question, "Why can't Muslims touch dogs?"

Have a watch....then let's think it through and you'll start to see where my issues with what has become to be known as 'Islam' began and why I had to get to grips with hadith literature and the schools of Sunni law (fiqh).


So, as you saw he is asked the question by an audibly shaken and upset young lady who has a dog and is being told it is a sin and that she has even left the fold of Islam!

Firstly, let's give it up for the Doc for at least clarifying that if you have a dog it doesn't make you an unbeliever. Or did he?

Let's look at his answer with regards to not keeping or touch dogs.

He clearly states, and remember people will take his opinion as fact, that keeping a dog other than for hunting or protecting your house (if it lives outside) is not allowed. It is "prohibited".

He could not be clearer could he?

As I really felt quite puzzled about these sorts of answers when I first started thinking about wanting a dog, I asked myself, "based on what though?" What is this no-dogs policy based on? It certainly isn't the Quran which tells us the story of the Sleepers in the Cave and their faithful dog. So, it's based totally on hadith. Hadith such as...

 “Whoever keeps a dog, a qiraat from his good deeds will be deducted every day, except a dog for farming or herding livestock.” 
Al-Bukhaari (2145) narrated from Abu Hurayrah 

 ...and....

“Whoever keeps a dog that is not a dog for hunting, herding livestock or farming, two qiraats will be deducted from his reward each day.” 
Muslim (2978) narrated from Abu Hurayrah

Wait what?

Yes, both narrated from Abu Huraryrah but one found its way into Bukhari's hadith and the other into Muslim's hadith, but one says a dog owner will be deducted one qiraat and the other two?

Isn't this a complete contradiction?

And furthermore doesn't this show how utterly unreliable hadith are as a source of law? You are taught that the hadith have been trustworthy and reliable but how can this be so when you have such a blatant contradiction?

Some people are able to find excuses and reasoning, but who are they and what do they really know? Look at this as an example from Islam QA.

"And it was said that that at first the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that one qiraat would be deducted, then the punishment was increased after that, so he said that two qiraats would be deducted in order to put people off from keeping dogs even more."

Said by who? Come on seriously? Yet another thing we as Muslims have to rely on in terms of "he said to so and so who said to so and so who said to so and so", just like hadith. I can't accept that any longer. And also this is completely stupid because it would mean people were disobeying the Prophet during his lifetime - and if his companions, followers and the first generation of Muslims did not obey his commands, meaning he had to repeat himself and double punishments, then doesn't that make a mockery of this idea that the first Muslims were somehow righteous and pure and the best of all Muslims?

Also this is just the most basic and simple example of getting rid of the problem of the utter contradiction between the two hadith - the hadith might very well be true but the fact that there are two versions show someone fiddled their numbers (probably upwards) to make the keeping of dog double trouble. But as a 'believer', you believe - you totally believe and accept. It's classic group think.

The real problem this points to are the hadith.

How they were collated, by who, who for, why, when and the almighty mess that Islam has created, especially the Ahle Sunnah (Sunnis), due to this blind following of hadith? It's ruined Islam - it's made it something it never was meant to be.

If you are a Muslim I sincerely plead you to look at hadith collection and look at it objectively, in context, using history, common sense, etc. Do not just accept what you are being told. It's full of holes. It's full on unreliable people. It's full of lies. It has human error written all over it.  It's tainted by power and politics. Hadith are a scandal, not in themselves, but for what the scholars and the Ummah have allowed them to become. Anyone can defend any crazy cause now off the back of a hadith - it's designed to be capitalized upon by those in the power, whether at the time of Muawiyah or in current day Saudi Arabia. 

Hadith have led Muslims astray!


Dr Naik's answer is a perfect example of this - how can this be Islam, the religion of The Creator of the Universe?  If anything Islam has removed human beings from experiencing God's creation and the love that comes with having a dog. Any dog owner will tell you its unique and special and they have been saying this since forever!

How does Dr Naik rationalise Islam's stance on dogs? Simple, the hadith say you can only have one for hunting or protection (who the hell keeps cattle and sheep now? or goes hunting?) and on top of that the Prophet also tells us the saliva is dirty.

Ah the saliva! Yes of course. And for good measure Dr Naik, a Doctor, adds in some science to prove that dogs saliva can give us diseases such as hydrophobia. Scary shit - no wonder the Prophet said stay away. But real science has shown that actually a dog's mouth is no better or worse than ours - it all comes down to things like diet, cleanliness, etc. 

Also ask yourself how many people with dogs you know who have ever caught a disease. He says in the video that if you pet a dog, you do so on the head because the dog's tongue can not reach it. 

:)

Did he make that up on the spot? It's not very intelligent. Anyone who has a dog knows they lick their paws and legs and then run their ears, head and pretty much all over their body. So, it's actually really bad advice if you believe that their saliva is filthy.

So sorry, but this whole saliva thing is bullshit - again it's based on the hadith of a dog licking a vessel and the Prophet saying it should be cleaned with dirt 3 times.  Dr Naik again bamboozles his audience by stating that science has shown that nothing cleans off the dog's bacteria more effectively than dirt. Whatever. You think all those Prophets who were shepherds were panicking about all this? I don't.

And did you notice the very subtle language he used when discussing the questioner's Muslim credentials? He said "...you have to agree with the Prophet who said it's prohibited to keep dogs because.....", in other words, if she did not believe that the Prophet made this ruling and if she also disagrees with it, she is not a Muslim. Unbelievable.