The Cancer within Islam
I’ve been trying to interact with Muslims for quite a while now, but everytime I have, I’ve managed to offend them more than anything.
Why? Whenever I have actually tried to have a civil discussion with a Muslim, I’ve never been disrespectful. I simply stated the facts as I understand them. What makes this even more baffling for me is that in my interactions, I’ve never contested the core Islamic position; namely, that the Qur’an is the pure word of God Almighty and Muhammed is his messenger.
What I have contested however (respectfully when the situation allows for it) is the authenticity of the Hadiths; the sayings and doings of the Prophet Muhammed. What I have found is quite startling; if you contest the idea that the Qur’an is the Word of God, the vast majority of Muslims are willing to debate you, but if you contest the authenticity of the Hadiths, the majority of Muslims are driven into rage and want nothing to do with you.
Why do I hold the position that the Hadiths are illegitimate? For one thing, the Hadiths were never recorded until 200 years after Muhammed died, and were based entirely on hearsay. Secondly, it is historical fact that practically everyone was forging Hadiths. The politicians as well as Islamic scholars in official positions were forging Hadiths to justify their politicial/social agendas, and the people were forgings Hadiths for their own self-interest. Take for example the Hadith that says, “Eating flour cookies makes man stronger.” It is no coincidence that the man who put this Hadith to the public was a merchant who was selling flour cookies.
The forging of Hadiths got to be so bad that even the staunchest supporter of Hadith had to admit that this was a problem. So, the government gathered a group of scholars to seperate the false Hadiths from the authentic ones (while reserving the exclusive privilege to do this mind you). In fact, Al-Buhkari, considered by many to be one of the most authentic sources for Hadith, was said to have chosen some ~2,000 hadiths from a pool of ~300,000.
Supporters of Hadith usually say, “Yeah but Al-Buhkari said that there was so many authentic Hadiths that he couldn’t possibly document them all.” Ok, but that raises the question, “If there were indeed so many authentic Hadiths that you couldn’t possibly document them all, why document them in the first place? Why not instead give the people a way to spot inauthentic Hadiths from the authentic Hadiths?”
It’s quite obvious why. Had they done such a thing, they would’ve severely limited themselves with regards to how they could exploit Hadith to support their agendas. Instead, they merely compiled a bunch of Hadiths to give themselves as much leeway as possible while at the same time appeasing the traditionalist who supports the idea of following Hadith.
To put it bluntly, Al-Buhkari was lying through his teeth when he said that there are so many authentic Hadiths.
The accusation that Muhammed was a pedophile because he married a 6 year old girl and consumated the marriage when the girl was 9 years old is based in Hadith.
Also based in Hadith is the idea that there is prostitution in Islam; supposedly, when at jihad, you’re able to enter into a temporary marriage by giving a woman a piece of clothing. The critics of Islam have rightly called this prostition, but because the Muslim cannot deny the source for religious reasons, he must accept the information as valid and he must defend his religion from a position of severe disadvantage. It is thus no surprise that the Muslim, when confronted with these criticisms, always loses the debate.
Instead of denouncing the source as nothing more than a hypocritical Imam’s justification for engaging in these things, the Muslim is told from his induction into Islam that he must uphold these Hadiths and these scholars in high regard.
I for one say, “May these scholars be thrown into the dust-bin of history and their names forgotten!”