This Is Islam Uncovered: May 2025

Saturday, May 31, 2025

If the Gospel Was Corrupted… Then What Was It?

Why the Qur’an’s Silence on the Injil’s Content Dismantles Islam’s Claims

One of Islam’s most central but least examined contradictions lies in its relationship to the Injil—the Gospel revealed to Jesus.

Muslims commonly claim that the Injil was a real, divine book given by Allah to Jesus, but that it was later corrupted by Christians. This belief underpins their rejection of the New Testament and their insistence that the Qur’an came to "correct" the record.

But this raises a fatal dilemma:

❗ If the Injil was corrupted...
Why doesn’t the Qur’an ever define or describe what its actual, uncorrupted content was?

Despite repeatedly referencing the Injil, the Qur’an never quotes it, summarizes its message, or defines its theological core.

Let’s unpack why this is a devastating problem for Islamic theology.

📜 1. The Qur’an Commands Christians to Judge by the Injil

This alone is enough to expose the contradiction.

“Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.” — Surah 5:47

This is not a reference to a lost or corrupted text—it clearly refers to a present, accessible Gospel that Christians are told to use as authoritative in Muhammad’s time.

If the Gospel was corrupted, then:

Why would Allah command Christians to judge by it?
Why does the Qur’an affirm what they have?

Either the Gospel existed in its true form… or Allah gave a contradictory command.
Either way, Islamic theology collapses.

🤐 2. The Qur’an Never Tells Us What the “True” Gospel Contained

If the Injil was corrupted—what was corrupted?

Why doesn’t the Qur’an include:

A summary of the Injil’s core message?
A restatement of Jesus’ actual teachings?
A correction of specific falsehoods introduced by Christians?

It does none of this.

Instead, the Qur’an:

Speaks vaguely of Jesus being given a “book” (Q 5:46)
Mentions the Injil over a dozen times
But never provides its content

That’s like accusing a journalist of altering a report, but refusing to reveal what the original report actually said.

This isn’t divine precision. It’s deliberate theological vagueness, likely to protect Muhammad from exposing his ignorance of Christian scripture.

⚖️ 3. The Qur’an Repeatedly Affirms the Scriptures of the People of the Book

Surah 3:3 says:

“He has sent down upon you the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.”

But “confirming” a corrupted book is illogical.
And if the Torah and Injil were corrupted, the Qur’an should have rebuked them clearly—yet it never does.

Even worse, Muhammad is told to say:

“If you are in doubt about what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you.” — Q 10:94

What “Book” are they reading?
Obviously, the Torah and Gospel known in the 7th century—which we still have today.

Again: the Qur’an points to these texts as reliable witnesses.

🧩 4. Post-Qur’anic Muslims Invented the “Corruption” Narrative

Early Muslims did not accuse the Torah or Gospel of being corrupted textually. This idea only appears centuries later, as a desperate response to Christian and Jewish critiques.

Early Islamic scholars (like al-Tabari) argued that the Jews and Christians had misinterpreted their texts—not that the texts themselves were forged.

But as Christian apologists began quoting chapter and verse, showing contradictions between the Bible and Qur’an, Muslim scholars were forced to evolve their defense:

“The Bible has been altered!”

But this is nowhere in the Qur’an.

🧨 5. Islam Cannot Define What It Rejects

This is the core weakness:

The Qur’an tells Christians to follow the Gospel.
It affirms its divine origin.
It never identifies what the original Gospel taught.
It never defines the “corruption.”
And it offers no alternate text in its place.

This is not divine clarity—it’s doctrinal incoherence.

The moment a Muslim says, “the Injil was corrupted,” ask:

❓ “What exactly was corrupted? What did the original Injil say?”

If they can’t answer that—if the Qur’an doesn’t answer that—then how can they reject the New Testament with any authority?

🔚 Conclusion: A Theological Trap Without an Exit

The Qur’an wants to claim:

That the Gospel is divine.
That it’s been corrupted.
That the Qur’an confirms it.
That Christians should still use it.
That it has no contradictions with Islam.

These claims are mutually exclusive.
It’s a theological house of cards—built on ambiguity, collapsing under scrutiny.

The Qur’an’s failure to define the Gospel it praises is not just a minor oversight.
It is the fatal flaw that unravels Islam’s claim to continuity with Biblical revelation.

And in the end, it proves the opposite of what it claims:
That Muhammad did not know what the true Gospel was—and that the Qur’an’s references to it are echoes of ignorance, not affirmations of truth.

Friday, May 30, 2025

The Myth of Biblical Corruption

Qur’anic Silence, Historical Fiction

Why the Qur’an Never Claims What Muslims Insist—and How History Exposes the Lie

One of the foundational beliefs in Islamic apologetics is that the Torah and Gospel have been corrupted. Muslims are taught that these scriptures were once genuine revelations but were later altered, distorted, or lost—leaving only the Qur’an as the final, preserved truth.

But here’s the scandal:

❗ The Qur’an itself never makes this claim.
And the historical record doesn’t support it either.

This post exposes the theological invention of biblical corruption—a belief never taught by the Qur’an, unsupported by historical evidence, and fabricated centuries later to shield Islam from contradiction and critique.

📜 1. The Qur’an Affirms the Torah and Gospel—Repeatedly and Without Exception

Let’s begin with the Qur’an’s own words.

“Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light.” — Q 5:44

“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus… and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light, and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah.” — Q 5:46

“Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.” — Q 5:47

These verses don’t merely refer to the Torah and Gospel—they praise them as containing divine light and guidance, and command Jews and Christians to judge by them.

Nowhere in the Qur’an do we find:

A clear, unambiguous declaration that the Torah or Gospel were textually corrupted
A statement that the books available in the 7th century were no longer valid
A description of when, how, or by whom the corruption took place

If the Qur’an truly intended to correct falsified scriptures, it would have had to say so.
It didn’t.

🤐 2. The Qur’an Is Silent Where Muslims Are Loud

The Islamic tradition developed loud accusations of Biblical corruption—yet the Qur’an is completely silent on:

Any historical event of corruption
Any person or group responsible
Any comparison between the “original” and “forged” versions
Any quotation of “false” scripture

Instead, it treats the Torah and Gospel as authoritative, present realities:

“Say: O People of the Book! You have nothing until you uphold the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been sent down to you from your Lord.” — Q 5:68

How could they “uphold” what supposedly no longer existed?

📚 3. Early Muslims Never Claimed the Bible Was Corrupted

Muslim polemicists only began asserting the corruption of the Torah and Gospel after centuries of debate with Jews and Christians.

Early Islamic commentators like:

al-Tabari (d. 923)
al-Razi (d. 1209)
al-Ghazali (d. 1111)

…often acknowledged the integrity of the Biblical texts, accusing Jews and Christians only of misinterpretation, selective reading, or concealment—not textual fabrication.

Even Muhammad himself, according to hadith, interacted with Torah scrolls, placing them on cushions and affirming their value (Abu Dawud 4449).

The actual doctrine of textual corruption (tahrif al-nass) arose later, as a defensive maneuver against mounting evidence that the Bible and Qur’an contradict each other.

🔍 4. The Historical Evidence Is Overwhelming—The Bible Was Not Corrupted

Let’s get specific:

We have thousands of Biblical manuscripts, in multiple languages, dating centuries before Muhammad.
Dead Sea Scrolls (150–50 BC) contain major portions of the Old Testament, virtually identical to today’s Hebrew Bible.
The New Testament is the best-attested text in ancient history, with over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, many from the 2nd–4th centuries AD.
The Qur’an never cites a lost or unknown Gospel—it only assumes the Gospel exists without identifying it.

So if Muhammad was referring to a “true” Gospel and Torah lost before his time, history would know—and it doesn’t.

There is no manuscript evidence, no early Christian testimony, no hint that a different Gospel ever existed and was universally replaced. This is historical fiction.

🧨 5. Islam’s Only Escape Route Destroys Itself

Let’s be clear: Muslims are caught in a dilemma.

If the Torah and Gospel were preserved (as the Qur’an states), then Islam contradicts divine revelation.
If the Torah and Gospel were corrupted (as later Muslims claim), then the Qur’an is wrong for affirming them.

❗ Either way, Islam self-destructs.

The myth of Biblical corruption was invented to escape this contradiction. But the Qur’an provides no theological escape hatch—and the historical record seals the door shut.

🔚 Conclusion: The Qur’an’s Silence Is Deafening

The Qur’an:

Repeatedly affirms the Torah and Gospel
Commands Jews and Christians to follow them
Offers no hint of textual loss or forgery
Points to existing texts in Muhammad’s time as valid

And yet Muslims today insist the Bible was corrupted—a belief with no Qur’anic support, no early Islamic consensus, and no historical basis.

The belief in Biblical corruption is not revealed truth.
It is revisionist theology, retrofitted centuries later to protect a crumbling system from collapse.

Islam cannot win this debate without contradicting its own scripture and denying the evidence of history.

Thursday, May 29, 2025

Hadith Schism

One Prophet, Two Truths?

Why Do Sunni and Shia Islam Have Different “Authentic” Hadiths?

The claim is simple and central:

Muhammad was the final prophet, and his life and sayings are the ultimate example for all Muslims.

But if that’s true, a glaring problem arises:

Why do Sunni and Shia Muslims follow different collections of what the Prophet supposedly said and did—each claiming authenticity?

This isn’t a footnote in Islamic history. It’s a fatal fracture at the heart of Islamic authority.

🔍 SECTION 1: What Are Hadiths, and Why Do They Matter?

The Qur’an is notoriously ambiguous, incomplete, and context-light.

Enter the Hadiths: the reports of Muhammad’s sayings, deeds, and tacit approvals — essentially the second pillar of Islamic law, theology, and daily life.

Sunni Islam depends on six canonical collections — notably Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim — often treated as almost infallible.

Shia Islam rejects those and instead follows its own sources, including Al-Kafi, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, and Tahdhib al-Ahkam — all based on the authority of Imams descended from Ali.

But here’s the core issue:

Each sect believes their own hadiths are true, and the other’s are either corrupted, politicized, or fraudulent.

⚔️ SECTION 2: The Sectarian Split — A Political Divide Masquerading as Theology

After Muhammad’s death, Islam faced a crisis:
Who should lead?

Sunni: Leadership should go to a qualified companion (Abu Bakr → Umar → Uthman → Ali).
Shia: Leadership must remain in the Prophet’s family, starting with Ali.

This split was political first — and later theologized through divergent hadith traditions.

So, hadiths didn’t just record history. They became political weapons — used to validate each sect's legitimacy.

Examples of Contradictions:

Sunni Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim)	Shia Rejection or Counterclaim
“The best of my nation is Abu Bakr…”	Shia hadiths condemn Abu Bakr and Umar as usurpers.
“My companions are like stars…”	Shia texts curse many companions who fought Ali.
A’isha led the Battle of the Camel	Shia hadiths portray A’isha as a rebel against God.

These aren’t just different memories — they’re different realities.

🧠 SECTION 3: The Logical Dilemma — Can Two Opposites Both Be Authentic?

If God revealed one truth through one prophet, how can:

Two contradictory sets of sayings both be sahih (authentic)?
Two hadith traditions condemn each other's heroes?
Sunni Islam revere A’isha and Abu Bakr, while Shia Islam vilify them — and vice versa?

This presents a fatal contradiction:

Either both are wrong, or one is fabricating “God’s truth.”
But if even one of them fabricates hadiths… the entire system collapses.

Because then we must ask:

Who decides which hadith is real? Who audits divine memory?

🕰️ SECTION 4: Historical Chaos — The Hadith Industry of the 8th–9th Centuries

Shockingly, most major hadith collections were compiled 200–250 years after Muhammad died — based on oral reports passed down through politically motivated channels.

During that time:

The Abbasid and Umayyad caliphates patronized scholars aligned with their agendas.
Tens of thousands of fabricated hadiths were in circulation.
Scholars had to sift through forgeries, using chains of transmission (isnad) that are themselves unverifiable.

Even Sunni scholars admit:

“Lying for the sake of Islam was widespread.”
— Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib

And Shia scholars argue that Sunni compilers deliberately excluded hadiths favorable to Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt.

🔄 SECTION 5: Circular Authority — The Theology Breaks Down

Each sect defends its hadiths using its own scholars, own chains, and own criteria.

That’s theological circular reasoning.

Sunnis say Bukhari is authentic because Sunni scholars said so.
Shias say Al-Kafi is reliable because Shia imams said so.

But this only proves that both systems are self-contained echo chambers, not channels of objective divine truth.

How can divine revelation depend on humanly selected, contradictory collections hundreds of years later?

❗SECTION 6: What This Means for Islam as a Whole

If the Prophet’s own sayings and actions are in dispute:

How can any Muslim be sure of the true Sunnah?
How can Shariah be universal if its foundation is sectarian fiction?
Why did God preserve the Qur’an (allegedly) but leave the hadiths in chaos?

This creates a crisis of epistemology:

How do Muslims know what Muhammad really said or did — if anything?

❓ Final Questions for Reflection

If God intended Islam to be a universal religion, why would He allow foundational sources to fracture so radically?
If hadiths are essential, why didn’t God protect them like the Qur’an?
Why would divine truth contradict itself across sectarian lines?
What do these contradictions say about the human origin of the hadith tradition?

🔚 Conclusion

One Prophet. Two versions of his life. Thousands of contradictory hadiths.

The Sunni-Shia hadith divide is not a minor scholastic disagreement.
It’s a smoking crater where Islam’s claim to a unified, preserved revelation was supposed to stand.

If you can’t even agree on what your prophet said,
how can you claim to speak for God?

Is the Concept of Divine Justice Coherent in Islam?

Islamic theology claims that Allah is supremely just—He never wrongs a soul (Qur’an 4:40) and will judge all people fairly. Yet this claim collapses under closer scrutiny, especially when juxtaposed with the doctrines of divine predestination, eternal punishment, and arbitrary guidance/misguidance. These dogmas raise the critical question: Can divine justice in Islam be considered coherent or morally intelligible?

1. Allah “Never Wrongs Anyone”?

Qur’an 4:40 – “Indeed, Allah does not do injustice, [even] as much as an atom’s weight.”

This verse, often cited by apologists, appears straightforward. But many other verses describe Allah acting in ways that, by any rational standard of justice, are arbitrary, selective, or even punitive without cause.

Qur’an 14:4 – “Allah misguides whom He wills and guides whom He wills.”

Qur’an 32:13 – “Had We willed, We could have given every soul its guidance, but the Word from Me will come to pass: ‘I will surely fill Hell with jinn and men all together.’”

If Allah has the ability to guide everyone—but chooses not to—how can it be said that He never wrongs anyone?

2. Arbitrary Misguidance and Predestination

Islamic tradition teaches that every person’s fate is already decreed:

Sahih Muslim 2643a – “Allah created Adam and then touched his back. Out of it He brought forth offspring... some for Paradise and others for Hell.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 6594 – “...a man may do the deeds of the people of Paradise, but then the decree overtakes him and he does the deeds of the people of the Fire.”

How can a God be considered just when He preordains disbelief and then punishes people for what He has caused?

3. Eternal Punishment for Temporal Sins

Even assuming free will, the concept of eternal hellfire for finite sins is morally incoherent:

Qur’an 4:56 – “Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses – We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted, We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment.”

Why should temporary disbelief or sin merit endless punishment? Even in human legal systems, justice implies proportionality. The Qur’an’s model is punitive, not redemptive.

4. The Problem of the Unequal Test

Islamic theology also asserts that life is a test, yet not all people receive the same test:

Some are born in Muslim families, others into hostile environments.
Some never hear the Qur’an at all.
Some are intellectually or emotionally predisposed to believe.

How is this fair? According to Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Q 6:125, Allah opens the hearts of those He wills and constricts others. Where is the justice in holding people accountable for failing a rigged test?

5. Divine Forgiveness Is Selective and Conditional

Qur’an 4:48 – “Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills.”

This introduces another problem: Allah forgives whom He wills. There is no guarantee of forgiveness, even for sincere repentance—unless Allah arbitrarily chooses to grant it.

6. Rejecting Moral Intuition in Favor of Absolute Voluntarism

Islamic theology, especially Ash‘ari thought, embraces a form of divine voluntarism:

Whatever Allah does is “just” by definition—not because it aligns with any external moral standard.
Justice is not a standard God adheres to; it is whatever He decrees.

Al-Ghazali: “There is nothing obligatory on God toward His creatures.”

This theology divorces morality from reason. Under such a system, even arbitrary cruelty can be labeled justice, simply because Allah did it.

Conclusion: Divine Justice or Theological Doublethink?

The Qur’an and Islamic tradition present a God who:

Predestines people for Hell.
Misguides at will.
Punishes eternally for finite sins.
Offers no equal test or transparent standard.
Forgives selectively and arbitrarily.

Yet Muslims are told that He is the Most Just.

This contradiction cannot be resolved by semantics or blind faith. The Islamic concept of justice ultimately defies both human conscience and rational coherence. If Allah’s justice consists of doing whatever He wants without accountability, then the term “justice” has been stripped of all meaning.

Does the Qur’an Contradict Itself on Human Free Will?

One of the most contentious theological debates in Islam is the question of human free will vs. divine predestination. The Qur’an claims to be consistent, internally coherent, and free from contradiction (Q 4:82). But when it comes to the issue of free will, the text presents conflicting messages that suggest both full divine control and full human responsibility—an irreconcilable paradox.

Verses Affirming Human Free Will

The Qur’an often speaks as if humans are responsible for their own actions:

Qur’an 18:29 – "And say, ‘The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills – let him believe; and whoever wills – let him disbelieve.’”

Qur’an 91:7-10 – "And [by] the soul and He who proportioned it and inspired it with its wickedness and righteousness – he has succeeded who purifies it, and he has failed who instills it [with corruption].”

Qur’an 39:41 – "Indeed, We have sent down to you the Book for the people in truth. So whoever is guided – it is for [the benefit of] his soul; and whoever goes astray only goes astray to its detriment.”

These verses clearly frame belief and guidance as human choices, implying responsibility and moral agency.

Verses Denying Human Free Will

Yet, other verses contradict this entirely, placing the control in Allah’s hands alone:

Qur’an 14:4 – "Allah sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills.”

Qur’an 16:93 – "And if Allah had willed, He could have made you [of] one religion, but He misguides whom He wills and guides whom He wills.”

Qur’an 6:125 – "Whomever Allah wills to guide – He opens his heart to Islam; and whomever He wills to misguide – He makes his chest tight and constricted.”

These passages declare that guidance and misguidance are acts of divine will, not individual choice.

Tafsir Confirms Divine Determinism

Classical exegetes confirm the deterministic reading:

🟠 Ibn Kathir on Q 14:4:

"He guides whom He wills and misguides whom He wills, and He is not questioned about what He does.”

🟡 Al-Tabari on Q 6:125:

"The one whom Allah wants to misguide, He makes the truth hateful to his heart.”

These interpretations confirm that guidance is divinely programmed, not earned or chosen.

The Logical Contradiction

If humans are free to choose, then God cannot be the one determining their belief or disbelief.
If God determines belief or disbelief, then holding humans morally accountable becomes incoherent.

You cannot be both entirely responsible for your actions and entirely dependent on God's will for every thought and deed.

This contradiction is not peripheral—it strikes at the heart of Islamic ethics, justice, and soteriology (doctrine of salvation).

Ash'ari Theology Tries (and Fails) to Reconcile It

Sunni orthodoxy, particularly the Ash‘ari school, tries to resolve this with the doctrine of kasb (acquisition). It argues:

Allah creates all actions.
Humans "acquire" the actions by their intention.

But this is a semantic evasion, not a resolution. If God creates both the act and the intent, then human freedom is still illusory.

Al-Ghazali: “There is no act of the servant except that it is created by God.”

So again: why reward or punish people for actions God caused?

Mu’tazilite Alternative: Free Will at a Cost

The Mu‘tazilites, a rationalist school in early Islam, rejected divine determinism and insisted on true human free will.

They argued that justice requires moral responsibility.
They rejected the idea that Allah would create disbelief and then punish for it.

However, they were deemed heretical and sidelined by the mainstream.

Conclusion: A Theological Paradox the Qur’an Cannot Resolve

The Qur’an declares itself free of contradiction (Q 4:82), but on the issue of free will vs. divine control, it presents mutually exclusive doctrines:

Humans choose their path — and are responsible.
Allah determines their path — and holds them accountable anyway.

This contradiction undermines the Qur’an’s claim to consistency, exposes the injustice of its moral system, and casts serious doubt on its divine authorship. A just God cannot both cause disbelief and then punish people for disbelieving.

If the Qur’an Is Perfect and Eternal, Why Was It Revealed in Stages and Subject to Abrogation?

Islamic doctrine upholds the Qur’an as the perfect, eternal, and unchanging word of Allah. It is said to be preserved in the “Preserved Tablet” (al-Lawh al-Mahfuz) (Qur’an 85:21–22) and immune to corruption (Q 15:9). Yet this same Qur’an was revealed over 23 years, in stages, and contains numerous abrogated verses—passages nullified or superseded by later revelations. This tension raises a vital theological question: If the Qur’an is perfect and eternal, why was it revealed incrementally and why does it contain internal contradictions and abrogations?

1. The Qur’an Claims a Staged Revelation

Qur’an 17:106 – “And [it is] a Qur’an which We have separated [by intervals] that you might recite it to the people over a prolonged period.”

Qur’an 25:32 – “And those who disbelieve say, ‘Why was the Qur’an not revealed to him all at once?’ Thus [it is] that We may strengthen thereby your heart.”

These verses admit that the Qur’an was not revealed all at once, but bit by bit. The rationale given is pragmatic: to strengthen Muhammad’s resolve and address situational needs. Yet this pragmatic piecemeal approach seems incompatible with the idea of an eternal, perfect text that transcends time and space.

2. The Doctrine of Abrogation (Naskh)

Qur’an 2:106 – “We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it.”

This verse explicitly introduces naskh, the principle of abrogation, whereby earlier verses are replaced by later ones. Classical scholars like al-Nahhas, al-Suyuti, and al-Zurqani documented dozens of abrogated verses.

Examples of abrogation include:

Q 2:180 (bequest for parents) abrogated by Q 4:11–12 (fixed inheritance laws).
Q 2:219 (gradual prohibition of wine) eventually abrogated by Q 5:90.
Q 8:65 (100 believers can fight 1000) abrogated by Q 8:66 (reduced ratio to 1:2).

Tafsir authorities including al-Nasafi, Ibn Kathir, and al-Shawkani admit to these.

3. A “Perfect” Text That Needs Improvement?

The core issue is logical and theological: if the Qur’an is eternally perfect, how can any verse be replaced by a better one? Does this imply Allah’s earlier instructions were inferior or mistaken?

The classical scholar al-Nahhas in Nasikh wal-Mansukh collected over 100 cases of abrogation. According to al-Suyuti’s Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, some scholars held that as many as 500 verses were abrogated.

How can this be reconciled with claims of divine perfection?

4. The Problem of Historical Contingency

The Qur’an’s staged revelation often addressed immediate political or social needs:

Changing qibla direction (Q 2:142–145).
Allowing temporary treaties, then annulling them (Q 9:5).
Gradual prohibition of alcohol.

This contingency undermines the idea of the Qur’an as timeless guidance. If its revelations were time-bound, situational, and adaptable, how can they simultaneously be universal, final, and eternal?

5. Scholars as the Gatekeepers of Revelation

Since the Qur’an does not explicitly identify which verses are abrogated, Muslims rely on fallible human scholars to determine which verses apply. This introduces uncertainty and doctrinal inconsistency.

For example:

Tafsir al-Jalalayn acknowledges that Q 2:240 was abrogated by Q 2:234.
Ibn Kathir notes that Q 4:15 was abrogated by the hadd punishments in the Sunnah.

If the eternal word of God needs human interpretation to make it coherent or functional, how can it be considered self-sufficient and perfect?

Conclusion: A Text in Need of Editing

The Qur’an is claimed to be unchanging and eternal, yet its own content contradicts this claim:

It was revealed gradually in reaction to earthly events.
It contains dozens (or hundreds) of abrogated verses.
It depends on historical context and human tafsir for application.

This paints a picture not of a timeless, divine text, but of an evolving legal-political document responsive to the needs of Muhammad’s community.

The contradiction is clear: an eternal message should not need revision. If the Qur’an had to be edited, replaced, or clarified over time, then it forfeits the very claims of perfection, coherence, and timelessness on which Islamic theology rests.

Can Islamic Salvation Be Trusted If Allah Guides and Misguides Arbitrarily?

The Qur’an repeatedly asserts that Allah guides whom He wills and misguides whom He wills. This doctrine, rooted in divine volition rather than human agency, raises an unavoidable theological question: Can salvation in Islam be trusted? If guidance depends not on belief, effort, or righteousness—but rather on an unknowable divine whim—then the path to salvation is not a moral journey, but a gamble.

The Core Verses: Divine Will Overrides Human Will

Qur’an 16:93 – "...He misguides whom He wills and guides whom He wills."

Qur’an 6:110 – "We will turn their hearts and their eyes away [from the truth], just as they refused to believe in it the first time."

Qur’an 2:7 – "Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil."

These verses make no room for neutral observers or sincere seekers who are merely mistaken. Instead, the text portrays a preemptive divine action that determines belief and disbelief.

Theological Fatalism: Guidance Is Not Earned

According to classical Sunni theology—especially the Ash‘ari school—human beings do not create their own actions.

Al-Ash‘ari taught that Allah creates both the actions and the will to act.
Imam al-Ghazali stated: "The act of the servant is created by God, yet acquired by the servant.”
Tafsir al-Kabir by Fakhr al-Din al-Razi affirms that guidance is a gift Allah gives only to those He chooses, not something anyone can earn.

This raises an unsettling possibility: Even if you do everything right, you may still be misled—because Allah did not will your salvation.

Is This Mercy or Arbitrary Judgment?

Islamic theology also affirms that Allah is the Most Merciful (Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim). But how does divine mercy align with the idea that:

Some people are created for hell (per hadiths such as Sahih Muslim 2662a).
He seals hearts before people have the chance to believe.
He punishes people for disbelief He Himself caused.

This is not justice. This is divine favoritism cloaked in mystery.

Apologetic Loopholes and Their Collapse

Some Islamic apologists attempt to soften this by arguing:

“People are only misguided after rejecting the truth.”
“Allah’s guidance depends on people’s sincerity.”

However, these claims directly contradict explicit Qur’anic statements where Allah acts first to misguide:

Q 6:110 – He turns hearts and eyes before faith can take root.
Q 14:4 – “He misguides whom He wills and guides whom He wills.” There’s no mention of prior rejection.

The text is not conditional—it is declarative.

Uncertainty of Salvation in Islam

Islam offers no assurance of salvation even for the devout:

Sahih al-Bukhari 6098 – “By Allah, even though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me.”

If Muhammad himself was unsure of his fate, how can any Muslim be confident?

Add to this the idea that Allah may guide or misguide anyone arbitrarily, and you have a deeply insecure spiritual system—one in which all deeds, beliefs, and intentions are meaningless unless pre-approved by divine decree.

Conclusion: A Salvation System Based on Divine Caprice

The Islamic concept of guidance paints a disturbing picture:

Allah controls who believes and who doesn’t.
He seals hearts and blinds eyes before choices are made.
He punishes people for their disbelief—even when He caused it.

This isn’t a system of salvation. It’s a system of predetermined judgment with no transparency, no appeal, and no assurance. In such a scheme, trust in salvation is misplaced—because the one who saves also chooses to damn without explanation.

Why Is Theft Punished by Amputation (Q 5:38) in a Supposedly Just Religion?

Islamic law famously prescribes amputation of the hand for theft, based on a clear Qur’anic command:

Qur’an 5:38 — “[As to] the thief, male or female, cut off their hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in Power.”

This harsh penalty raises serious moral and ethical concerns. Is permanent mutilation a just response to theft, especially in light of modern standards of justice and rehabilitation? How can such a punishment be reconciled with the Qur’an’s frequent references to Allah as “Most Merciful” and “Oft-Forgiving”?

1. Literal and Uncompromising: Classical Tafsir Consensus

Most classical scholars agree this verse is to be taken literally. According to:

Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Q 5:38 is applied to theft of items over a specific value.
Ibn Kathir affirms that both male and female thieves must have their right hands amputated.
Al-Qurtubi goes further, detailing procedures and tools used for amputation.

There is no metaphorical or symbolic interpretation in the mainstream classical tafsir. This makes Q 5:38 one of the most unequivocally violent punishments in the Qur’an.

2. Conditions and Exceptions Do Not Diminish the Severity

Some argue that Islamic jurisprudence imposes strict conditions before amputation is carried out:

The stolen item must exceed a certain value.
The theft must be deliberate and from a secure location.
There must be clear evidence or confession.

While these qualifications limit the application, they do not soften the brutality of the punishment. Once the conditions are met, the sentence is irreversible. No consideration is made for mitigating factors like poverty, desperation, or mental illness.

3. Disproportionate and Irreversible

In modern justice systems, the idea of proportional punishment is a cornerstone of law. Theft is typically punished with fines, imprisonment, or restitution. Amputation, on the other hand:

Irreversibly maims a human being.
Does not allow for rehabilitation.
Removes any opportunity for forgiveness, compensation, or second chances.

This raises the question: Is justice served by causing permanent harm for a non-violent crime?

4. Inconsistent with the Qur’an’s Own Ethical Claims

The Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes Allah’s mercy and compassion:

“My mercy encompasses all things” (Q 7:156)
“Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Q 39:53)

So why is theft—often driven by poverty or desperation—met with permanent physical punishment rather than rehabilitation or restorative justice? The lack of nuance contradicts these broader ethical claims.

5. Abrogation, Disuse, or Reform?

Some modern Islamic thinkers argue that this law is either abrogated, historically contextual, or no longer applicable due to changes in society. Yet most Sunni schools of jurisprudence still regard it as valid hudud (fixed punishment) law.

Indeed, countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran have implemented this law in recent history, often without full due process or fair trials.

6. A Legal System Built on Fear, Not Justice

The Quran frames this punishment as a deterrent: “a punishment by way of example.” But deterrence-based justice is inherently utilitarian and fear-driven, not moral or rehabilitative.

Moreover, the verse does not call for repentance or reform, only retribution. This undermines any notion of divine justice based on compassion, fairness, or human dignity.

Conclusion: A Just Religion or a Brutal Legal Code?

The command to amputate thieves' hands (Q 5:38) presents a fundamental challenge to the claim that Islam is a just and merciful religion. The punishment is:

Disproportionate to the crime.
Irreversible and brutal.
Contradictory to Qur’anic claims of mercy and forgiveness.

If divine justice demands compassion, proportionality, and the possibility of redemption, then the amputation law in Q 5:38 appears more like pre-modern cruelty than timeless divine wisdom.

This raises a deeper question: Can a moral and eternal God prescribe such a law—and still be called just?

Why Do Sunni and Shia Have Different Hadith Collections Claiming Authenticity?

Hadith—the recorded sayings, actions, and approvals of the Prophet Muhammad—are central to Islamic theology, law, and practice. Yet, one of the most profound divides within Islam is the disagreement between Sunni and Shia Muslims over which hadith collections are authentic and authoritative. This disagreement is rooted in early political conflicts, differing theological priorities, and distinct methods of hadith authentication.

In this article, we explore why Sunni and Shia have different hadith collections, the role of early scholars, and examples of their divergent traditions, supported by classical scholarly views.

1. Political and Theological Origins of the Hadith Divergence

The schism began immediately after the Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632 CE, concerning the question of rightful leadership. Sunnis accepted the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali in succession, while Shia held that leadership should have stayed within the Prophet’s family (Ahl al-Bayt), starting with Ali ibn Abi Talib.

This split shaped early hadith transmission. Narrators aligned with either faction passed down different sets of traditions, inherently colored by their political and theological loyalties.

2. Differing Methodologies of Authentication

Sunni Approach

Sunni scholars developed rigorous standards for hadith authentication focused on the reliability and continuity of the chain of narrators (isnad) without explicit preference for political allegiance unless it affected moral integrity.

Imam al-Bukhari (d. 870 CE), author of Sahih al-Bukhari, applied extremely strict criteria—such as requiring direct meeting between narrators—to compile what he considered the most authentic collection.
Imam Muslim (d. 875 CE) similarly compiled Sahih Muslim with strict isnad verification.

These works excluded narrators considered unreliable due to memory faults, dishonesty, or weak transmission, but political bias was a secondary factor.

Shia Approach

Shia hadith collectors emphasized the spiritual authority and theological reliability of narrators linked to the Ahl al-Bayt.

Muhammad ibn Ya’qub al-Kulayni (d. 941 CE) compiled Al-Kafi, the foundational Shia hadith text, prioritizing narrators close to Ali and the Imams.
Al-Shaykh al-Saduq (d. 991 CE) and Al-Shaykh al-Tusi (d. 1067 CE) further refined Shia collections with emphasis on theological soundness grounded in the Imams’ teachings.

This approach led to rejecting many Sunni narrators seen as hostile to Ali or the Ahl al-Bayt, and elevating traditions transmitted within the Prophet’s family.

3. Canonical Collections and Their Differences

Sunni Canonical Works	Shia Canonical Works
Sahih al-Bukhari	Al-Kafi (al-Kulayni)
Sahih Muslim	Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih (Ibn Babawayh)
Sunan Abu Dawood	Tahdhib al-Ahkam (al-Tusi)
Sunan al-Tirmidhi	Al-Istibsar (al-Tusi)

Sunni Muslims accept the Kutub al-Sittah (“six books”) as the primary hadith sources. Shia Muslims accept the Four Books (Al-Kafi, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, Tahdhib al-Ahkam, and Al-Istibsar) as authoritative.

4. Early Scholars’ Views on Sectarian Narrations

Several early hadith scholars recognized the problem of sectarian bias in narrations:

Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi (d. 933 CE), a prominent Sunni muhaddith, acknowledged that some narrations could be fabrications by various sects to promote their political agendas. He warned of narrations “added by groups to support their claims.”
Al-Daraqutni (d. 995 CE), another Sunni scholar, critiqued hadith fabrications and sectarian influence but upheld the Sunni corpus overall.
Al-Shafi‘i (d. 820 CE) himself acknowledged the difficulty in verifying hadiths but emphasized adherence to sound methodology.

On the Shia side:

Al-Kulayni (d. 941 CE) justified limiting narrators to those loyal to the Ahl al-Bayt to preserve authentic teachings, arguing that true knowledge flows only through the Prophet’s family.
Al-Shaykh al-Tusi (d. 1067 CE) worked to preserve and authenticate narrations that reflected Shia doctrine.

5. Examples of Conflicting Narrations

On Leadership and Legitimacy

Sunni hadith often praise Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman as rightly guided caliphs.
Shia collections emphasize hadiths where the Prophet Muhammad is reported to have appointed Ali as his successor or praised the Imams’ infallibility (e.g., the Hadith al-Thaqalayn).

On Practices and Rituals

The Shia concept of Taqiyya (permissible concealment of faith under persecution) is supported by Shia hadith but absent or downplayed in Sunni collections.
Differences in prayer practices (such as combining prayers) also derive from differing hadith bases.

6. The Role of Hadith Criticism and Sectarianism

Sectarian conflict led both sides to scrutinize hadith narrators for political and theological allegiance, not only memory or character:

Sunni critics labeled many Shia narrators as unreliable because of their support for Ali.
Shia critics dismissed Sunni narrators aligned with the first three caliphs.

This inherently subjective selection contributed to two parallel, often incompatible, bodies of hadith literature.

Conclusion

The different hadith collections in Sunni and Shia Islam are the result of complex historical, political, and theological developments after the Prophet Muhammad’s death. The divergence in authentication criteria and the prioritization of narrators aligned with each community’s conception of legitimate authority have institutionalized sectarian differences.

Understanding these differences is key to grasping the broader theological and legal divides within Islam today.

What Is “Islam”?

Submission to God or a 7th-Century Invention?

Unpacking the Qur’anic Use of “Islam” and the Collapse of an Anachronistic Claim

Muslim apologists frequently argue that “Islam” simply means submission to God, and that all true prophets—from Adam to Jesus—were therefore “Muslims.” On this basis, Islam is presented not as a new religion, but as the original, eternal faith of all prophets, culminating with Muhammad.

But does this argument hold up under scrutiny?

This article dismantles the confusion between linguistic meaning and theological identity, exposing how Islam retroactively rewrites history to justify its exclusive truth claim. Is “Islam” a timeless path of submission—or a 7th-century religion that tries to project itself backward onto all previous revelations?

Let’s break it down.

🧠 1. Semantic Sleight of Hand: “Islam” Means Submission—But to What?

Yes, the Arabic word “Islam” derives from the root s-l-m, meaning peace or submission. But words do not exist in a vacuum.

In Qur’anic usage, “Islam” quickly becomes not just an abstract disposition toward God, but a specific religious identity, tied to the message Muhammad brought:

“The religion before Allah is Islam (al-Islam).” — Q 3:19

“Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted.” — Q 3:85

These verses are not philosophical generalities about spiritual surrender. They make exclusive claims that God only recognizes one path—the religion called Islam as delivered by Muhammad.

To pretend that this usage simply means “generic submission to God” is a category error, a conflation of linguistic meaning with religious identity.

📜 2. Did Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Really Preach “Islam”?

Muslims often cite Qur’anic verses that claim:

“Abraham was not a Jew or a Christian, but a Muslim.” — Q 3:67

This is a massive anachronism—a historical distortion that imposes a later concept onto earlier eras. It would be just as absurd to say:

“Plato was not a Catholic or a Buddhist. He was a Protestant.”

The term “Muslim” in Islamic theology refers to someone who accepts Muhammad’s prophethood and the Qur’an. This is how it functions today and how it is used doctrinally. To call Abraham or Jesus a “Muslim” is not a claim of general piety—it is a claim that they taught Islam.

But there's no evidence for this:

There are no texts or traditions linking Abraham, Moses, or Jesus to the five pillars, Qur’anic revelations, or Muhammad’s teachings.
The historical Jesus explicitly taught a New Covenant, referred to God as Father, and emphasized grace and adoption, all of which are foreign or denied in Islam.
Jewish and Christian scriptures consistently reject the core claims of Islamic theology: the denial of Jesus’ sonship, crucifixion, and deity.

In short, these figures did not teach Islam, either in form or in content. Calling them Muslims is theological colonization.

🕰️ 3. The Historical Emergence of “Islam” as a Religion

Contrary to Islamic claims, “Islam” as we know it did not exist before the 7th century. The earliest evidence of Islam as an organized religion:

Appears only after Muhammad’s death.
Evolved gradually over two to three centuries, as the Qur’an, hadith, and legal schools were compiled.
Shows heavy influence from Judaic, Christian, Zoroastrian, and tribal Arabian traditions.

In fact, the term “Islam” is never used in Jewish or Christian sources before the rise of the Islamic empire. There is no pre-Islamic usage of “Muslim” as an identity or community label.

The idea that Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus all preached “Islam” is a retroactive theological claim, not a historical reality.

🧨 4. Why This Matters: The Collapse of Islam’s Core Narrative

Islam claims to be the final confirmation of a single divine message preached by all prophets. This only works if all previous prophets:

Preached a message identical to that of Muhammad.
Founded communities that could rightly be called “Muslims.”
Brought scriptures that never contradicted the Qur’an.

But none of these claims hold up:

The Bible and Torah are fundamentally at odds with the Qur’an.
The teachings of Jesus are irreconcilable with Islamic theology.
There is no evidence that any prophet before Muhammad used the Qur’anic concept of “Islam.”

The entire continuity narrative collapses under its own weight.

🧩 5. The Qur’an Itself Betrays This Invention

Even within the Qur’an, contradictions emerge:

It claims to confirm previous scriptures (Q 2:41, 5:48), yet contradicts them.
It claims all prophets taught the same religion, yet provides no evidence of this teaching.
It denies basic theological features of Judaism and Christianity, yet expects to be seen as their fulfillment.

If the message was always “Islam,” then where is the evidence in the texts that came before? Why don’t the Torah and Gospel mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an?

🔚 Conclusion: The Word Game That Collapsed a Religion

Calling Islam “submission” and all prophets “Muslims” may sound clever, but it’s a linguistic illusion. The religion of Islam—as a historically specific revelation through Muhammad—did not exist until the 7th century.

It is not the religion of Abraham.
It is not the gospel of Jesus.
And it is not confirmed by history or scripture.

Islam’s attempt to universalize itself by retrofitting all of human history under its banner is not an act of submission to truth—it’s an act of revisionism.

The word “Islam” may mean submission.
But the religion called Islam is something far more recent—and far more fragile under scrutiny.

Wednesday, May 28, 2025

If Hadiths Are So Unreliable, How Can Islamic Law and Theology Be Certain?

A Deep Dive Into Islam’s Shaky Foundations

“A building is only as strong as its foundation. If the foundation is sand, the structure will collapse — no matter how tall the minaret.”

❓ The Central Question

Islam claims to be:

A complete and final religion,
Preserved perfectly,
With clear guidance for every aspect of life.

Yet Islamic theology, Sharia law, and even understanding of the Qur’an itself depend heavily on hadiths — the recorded sayings and actions of Muhammad.

The problem?

Muslim scholars themselves admit the hadith corpus is riddled with fabrications, contradictions, and late inventions.

So how can any law, theology, or belief system built on such a source claim certainty?

🧩 The Role of Hadith in Islam

Let’s be clear: without hadiths, most of Islam collapses.
Key doctrines and practices not clearly detailed in the Qur’an include:

The five daily prayers (times, positions, words)
Zakat (almsgiving) calculation and structure
Hajj rituals
Hijab requirements
Stoning for adultery
Death penalty for apostasy
Doctrine of abrogation
Meaning of unclear Qur'anic verses

All of these come not from the Qur’an, but from hadiths.

So if hadiths are even partially unreliable…

Then Islamic law and theology stand on an unstable platform.

⚠️ The Crisis of Authenticity

Muslim scholars themselves admit the hadith problem:

Over 600,000 hadiths were in circulation.
Bukhari accepted fewer than 1% as authentic.
Many hadiths were forged for political, sectarian, or personal gain.
Even “Sahih” collections contain contradictions and narrations from questionable sources.

For example:

Bukhari (Volume 4, Book 52, Hadith 260) says Muhammad said: "If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."
But Qur’an 2:256 says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”

Which one is authoritative? Which one reflects Islam’s real position?

🔄 The Tafsir Trap

Muslims often say:

“The Qur’an is perfect. The hadiths just explain it.”

But this is false.

Hadiths don’t merely explain the Qur’an. They often:

Contradict it,
Add to it, and
Override it.

Example:

The Qur’an does not mention stoning for adultery.
But hadiths demand stoning, and classical Islamic law enforces it.

So Islamic theology is not based on Qur’an alone, but on a patchwork of post-Qur'anic narrations, compiled over centuries — many from unknown or dubious chains of transmission.

🤔 The “Science” of Hadith — Or Religious Gatekeeping?

Muslim scholars developed a complex system of isnad (chain of transmission) and matn (content) analysis to classify hadiths. But this system has huge problems:

It assumes the narrators were truthful (often blindly).
It cannot verify the exact words or context of Muhammad.
It contradicts itself: scholars disagree on the same hadith’s authenticity.
It was developed centuries after Muhammad, long after many hadiths were already forged.

Worst of all?

The “science” was created to preserve hadiths — not to question whether the whole hadith project was valid in the first place.

🚨 Theological Domino Effect

If the hadiths are uncertain, then:

The Sunnah becomes questionable.
Sharia law loses its legal and moral authority.
Islamic rituals become innovations without divine mandate.
Islamic theology, including heaven, hell, signs of the Hour, and angels — much of which comes from hadith — becomes speculative.

This creates a theological disaster:

A supposedly "perfect" religion based on uncertain, fallible texts.

How can any thinking person accept this without cognitive dissonance?

🎭 The Double Standard

Muslims attack the Bible for being:

Transmitted by fallible men,
Compiled over time,
With multiple versions.

Yet their entire hadith corpus suffers from:

Worse historical gaps,
Fabrication, even by early Muslims,
Contradictory content across major collections,
And no hadiths written during Muhammad’s lifetime.

Why the double standard?

If fallibility discredits the Bible, then Islam’s reliance on hadith should be far more disqualifying.

⚖️ Final Verdict

A religion cannot claim certainty based on texts it admits are uncertain.

And a law claiming to govern human souls and societies must not rest on hearsay, centuries removed from its origin.

If hadiths are unreliable — and they are — then Islamic law, theology, and claims to divine perfection collapse under their own contradictions.

Islam’s foundation is not solid rock. It is crumbling sand.