Thursday, August 20, 2009

Comment: Sarkozy’s Values & the Honour of Women


Comment: Sarkozy’s Values & the Honour of Women

On the 22nd June 2009 French President Sarkozy announced that the Burqa is incongruous with French values. He said "In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy continued "The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience."[1]

Despite Sarkozy’s political opportunism, his ideological contradictions expose his conscious ignorance, and some may say, out right hatred for the Islamic way of life. Sarkozy who advocates and propagates liberal secularism has forgotten his intellectual heritage. Liberal secularism rests upon the premise of individualism, in other words, viewing the self – the human being – as an abstract entity divorced from social attachments. Two key values are built from this premise, individual freedom and individual rights. According to individual freedom, also explained as freedom of choice, the Burqa shouldn’t be a problem and should be tolerated under French liberal values. So why the contradiction?

Sarkozy is a liberal secular ideologue who doesn’t want to understand or discuss the Islamic way of life. The Islamic way of life is not based upon the false premise of individualism, rather it views the human being as an entity with social links and obligations. This correct view on mankind develops and builds sublime values, which include honouring and protecting women.

In the Sarkozy paradigm these values do not exist hence he wants to fight against their emergence, even if it means contradicting his own ideological beliefs. For example in a liberal secular context, individual freedom allows and, in the case of Sarkozy (his wife is an ex-nudist model), promotes pornography. However pornography has been shown to facilitate rape. According to academic research by Diana E. Russell in her publication ‘Pornography & Rape: A causal model’ she states,

“ My theory about how pornography – violent and non-violent – can cause rape…drawn on the findings of recent research….I believe there are many factors that play a causal role in this crime. I have not attempted here to evaluate the relative importance of these different causal factors, but merely to show the overwhelming evidence that pornography is a major one of them”[2]

In this study journals and academic research were cited which concluded that 56% of rapists implicated pornography in the commission of their offences, 66% of rapists claimed they were incited by pornography and 30 % of college students would rape if they could get away with it.[3]

Sarkozy’s world view would not ban or criminalise pornography. This is because society itself is not considered or taken into account due to the core value of ‘individual freedom’. As a result Sarkozy’s values have contributed to the increase in sexual crimes in France. There are more than 25,000 rapes a year in France alone, and before Sarkozy points the finger at the Muslims or immigrants, 91% of those convicted are of French nationality.[4]

France is not alone in failing to protect and honour women either, in the UK 167 women are raped everyday[5] and in the US a woman is raped every 6 minutes and battered every 15 seconds. [6]

However in Islam, pornography is banned and is viewed as a dishonor to women. Islam protects women by honoring and providing mechanisms in its social model to protect them. The noble Qur'an highlights the immense responsibility men have towards women. The Qur'an says "Men are qawwamoona over women"[7]. The key word here is qawwamoona which comes from words such as qiwaamun meaning means of support, qaama almarata meaning he undertook the support of the woman, qaama alaiha meaning he looked after her, and qaama bihi he supported it. Therefore the Qur'an tells society to look after, protect and honour women.

But Sarkozy would rather flaunt that his wife was an ex-nudist model.

References

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8112821.stm
[2] Diana Russell. Pornography and Rape: A Causal Model, in Feminism and Pornography. Oxford Readings in Feminism. 2000.
[3] Ibid.
[4] http://www.sosfemmes.com/english_rape/rape_statistics.htm
[5] http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10309
[6] Broken Bodies, Shattered Minds: Torture and Ill Treatment of Women, Amnesty International, 2001
[7] Qur'an 4:34

The Debate on Religion & the Logic of Submission


The Debate on Religion & the Logic of Submission
Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

Last month I participated in a ‘Dialogue With Islam’ debate with the well known author and philosopher Dr Nigel Warburton. The subject of the debate was “Is Religion a Force for Good or Evil?” and overall I thought it was a positive experience.

My remit was to present religion, and more specifically Islam, as a force for 'good'. So I started by presenting religion as a social phenomenon, in order that the majority of the humanist/atheist audience, who did not believe in the intellectual foundations of any religion, could appreciate my research. I started by speaking about religion in general and due to the question itself, I steered away from inquiring about God’s existence or the attempt to demonstrate the intellectual compatibility with religion and reason. I focused on understanding religious belief itself and how it relates to world views and their implications on individual and social action. After all this was the topic of discussion.

I assumed that this debate would fuel emotions, so I deliberately focused on academic well researched material rather than relying on my own subjective experiences. Hence I went straight to journals of psychology, sociology and philosophy on the study of religion and religiosity. To my amazement, it was very hard to find current research indicating that religion and its followers were a force for ‘evil’.

As a matter of fact contemporary research has opposite conclusions. According to the research, religion increases happiness, mental health and physical well being. It doesn’t stop there, the research also shows that religion prevents crime, increases rates of philanthropy and altruism. There is so much research out there, so it will have to suffice to give you a few examples.

• In 2001 Schnittker in the “Journal for the scientific study of religion” examined a data set of 2,836 adults from the general population and he found religious involvement had no significant relationship with depression. He also found that religiousness was a buffer against mental distress.

• In 2002 Smith, McCullough and Poll, in their journal “A meta analytic review of the religiousness-depression association: evidence for main effects and stress buffering effects” carried out an analysis of over 200 social studies and found that high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression, drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts

• In 2002 Bryan Johnson and colleagues of the University of Pennsylvania Centre for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society reviewed 498 studies that had been published in peer reviewed journals. They concluded that a large majority of studies showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self esteem, and lower levels of hypertension, depression and criminal delinquency.

• In the Handbook of Religion and Health, edited by Harold Koenig, Michael McCullough and David Larson. The authors reviewed 2,000 published experiments designed to test the relationship between religion and various medical conditions such as heart disease, cancer and depression. The overall results were that religious people tend to live longer and have physically healthier lives. Young people have significantly lower levels of drug and alcohol abuse, criminal delinquency and attempted suicide.

• Even in China an officially non-religious state. A recent study by Paul Badham and Xinzhong Yao for the Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford University, reported that a majority of those felt religious experiences had a positive effect on their lives.

• In 2000, Political Scientist and Professor Robert Putnam surveyed 200 volunteer organisations and it showed that there was a positive correlation between religiosity and membership of volunteer organisations.

• The Index of Global Philanthropy, 2007 states: “Religious people are more charitable than non-religious not only in giving to their own congregations, but also – regardless of income, region, social class, and other demographic variables – significantly more charitable in their secular donations and informal giving.”

I ended my presentation by saying how Islam, using verses from the Qur’an and statements from the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), achieves the above, but most importantly how it achieves a cohesive society (I have written about this at length on this blog, so I will not expand any further).

The disappointing thing for me was the level of argumentation from the Humanist side. It was mainly personal experience with no objective research used as evidence or justification for the claims that were being made. Dr Warburton responded to my disappointment by saying that research doesn’t mean anything, and someone in the audience claimed that there is research to counter my claims. Interestingly, I was waiting for the research and the reason why my effort had been discarded as irrelevant. But I didn’t receive or hear anything, during or after the debate.

Is it not the humanist and atheist traditions that claim people of religion are not objective and do not use reason? Acording to this experience I wouldn't be wrong to find it difficult to appreciate why they can make such a claim.

But I did say it was a positive experience. The reason for this is because I learnt a lot about the mentality of some people who reject religion from a statement that was made by a member of the audience. It went something like this “We do not want to submit, submission is dangerous and backward”. I thought about this for a while and I gave the following response. Since then, I have called it the ‘logic of submission’.

The word logic comes from the Greek word ‘λογική’, and in philosophy, it concerns study of the principles of valid inference and sound reasoning. Logic is very important because its use allows us to effectively present and refute an argument. Now in the context of arguing that submission to God is the way forward, I used the following:

1. Submission to a higher being is more rational than submission to human being
2. Islam requires humans to submit to a higher being
3. Therefore Islam is more rational

I pointed out that the above is almost irrefutable with regards to what it is trying to present. The only way to refute the argument is by dealing with some of the presuppositions. In this case the presuppositions are,

1. A higher being (i.e. God) exists
2. This higher being requires us to submit to it

I continued by saying that we would have to shift the debate to the existence of God and the miracle of the Qur’an, because if it can be proven that God does exist and that the Qur’an is a miracle, in other words, it has come from God, then the humanist should also submit (since the Qur'an tells us to submit to God). However the chair, Dr Mark Vernon, interrupted and reminded me it was not the topic of the debate.

I agreed, but it left me thinking that we Muslims do not have to answer all the questions anymore. Questions such as “Why do you not eat pork?”, “Why do you fast?”, “Why do you pray five times a day?” All that we have to do is just tell people ‘because God said so’ and if people frown or suggest that we are crazy, then we tell them about submission. Because it’s more rational to submit.

If they question us further and scratch the intellectual surface by highlighting our presuppositions, in other words our belief that God exists and that the Qur’an is a miracle, then all we have to do is show them.

And if you need some help, please see the links below:

Does God Exist?
The Miracle of the Qur’an

The So-called Emergency


The So-called Emergency

Saad Hammadi reveals the horrendous stories of torture in custody by law enforcing agencies and finds out the steps and preparations to try the perpetrators of custodial torture and extrajudicial killing
It was at his nephew’s wedding where Ritchil would last be seen sporting a smile on his face to complement his relaxed demeanour. For on his way back from the event on that fateful afternoon of March 18, 2007,

he was abducted by joint forces from Kalibari in Mymensingh. What followed was a brutal and unprecedented instance of torture on Ritchil, a prominent ethnic minority leader, for his staunch opposition to the government’s inconsiderate decision to develop Eco Park at Madhupur, Tangail – a decision which would evict some 25,000 people belonging to the Garo ethnic community.

At the Kakraidh Army Camp, Ritchil was laid down with his eyes blindfolded and his hands and legs tied. His body soon bore innumerable marks of pricking while his limbs were fractured by the beating he was subjected to. The nails from his fingers and toes were pulled out and pliers were used to press his testicles while hot water was poured into his nostrils. Ritchil’s by then disjointed figure was then hung upside down as the merciless beating continued. He vomited a massive amount of blood and fainted several times until his last breath of life in the custody of the joint forces.

These are just some accounts of the horrific pain inflicted upon Ritchil, his wife, Sandha Rani Simsang testifies to the human rights coalition Odhikar. She had learnt of her husband’s tragic fate from a relative who had also been picked up by the joint forces along with Ritchil but was released afterwards.

When Ritchil’s dead body was handed to his family a day later on March 19, 2007, his eyes were taken out, his testicles removed, anus mutilated, the palms of both hands smashed and nails of three fingers of his right hand removed.

Sandha wanted to file a case but the officer in charge of the Madhupur Police Station only allowed her to file a general diary on March 20, 2007. NOT even the family members of Din Islam, a fourth year student at Dhaka University, were spared the gut-wrenching torture or humiliation, until his capture. Islam was among the listed suspects of instigating the student protests and the violence that had ensued, following the army-student brawl during a football match at the DU on August 20, 2007, that also resulted in an army vehicle being torched.

Two days after the unfortunate events at the University, Islam had left for his village home Munshiganj as the government imposed a curfew and declared that all colleges and universities were to be closed.

A hunt for Islam, orchestrated by the joint forces, began from September 7 as his sister’s residence was first raided before his sister along with her husband were physically assaulted. Their mobile phones were seized and the two were then dragged along to Ratanpur, where Islam’s parents resided.

‘They beat my parents up and also tortured my sister-in-law,’ says Islam in his testimony to Odhikar.

‘Another military team raided my maternal aunt’s house at the Sadar Upazila in Munshiganj. They beat her with a stick, so severely that till date, she cannot move properly.’

The joint forces eventually picked Islam up from Puradisi village, where he went to visit his relative. He was blindfolded, handcuffed and taken to Dhaka after short stay at a make-shift army camp at Munshiganj. And then began the brutalities on Islam which saw him helplessly lying on the floor for several days with his hand and feet tied while the soles of his feet would swell up after the constant beatings.

‘The military men made me memorise the court confessions they had devised for me and threatened to have me killed in crossfire if I did not act accordingly.’

And then there is another day, Islam remembers, when some members of Rapid Action Battalion told him to perform his ablution because he was being prepared for ‘crossfire’.

‘I was blindfolded and taken into a car. As it started moving, I was told that if I made my confession according to their will at the court, I would be spared from the crossfire.

‘Although I was detained on September 8, 2007, the official record shows my arrest as being made on September 11, 2007,’ he says.

‘I had served five months in jail and am yet to receive any justice,’ says Islam.

IT WAS 5:00pm in the evening, on June 6, 2007, when SM Akhtar Faruk Mintu, while at a funeral, was told to report to the Shankarpur joint forces camp within 20 minutes of his receiving the message. Mintu, the chairman of Manaharpur Union Prishad in Jessore was soon picked up by the joint forces and interrogated for incidents he claims he wasn’t involved.

At around 12 midnight, an army official came to his room with a stick and beat him so badly that he was bruised and bleeding from his knees down to his soles. After beating him for about five to six minutes, the army person left only for another official to come in and kick him in his groin. Hot water was poured up his nostrils. His legs were broken, his toe nails ripped while boiled eggs were being forced into his anus and his finger nails were cracked with pliers.

When asking about his offence, an answer was not forthcoming as Mintu was left under a tree in a bazaar. He was able to notify a friend who took him to the hospital for treatment. His family have been on the receiving end of constant threats ever since then and are too afraid to file a case against the perpetrators.

ASSOCIATE Professor Selim Reza Newton was among the teachers who participated at the peaceful procession on August 21, 2007 protesting the military camp inside the Dhaka University.

‘Along with the journalism students of Dhaka University, I also participated at the meeting and procession protesting repression on February 14, 2007 violating the state of emergency rules,’ says the associate professor of mass communication and journalism with the Rajshahi University.

His apparent indiscretion saw Professor Newton, along with his three other co-workers, being sentenced to a two-year jail term. The four teachers had to serve the sentence behind bars until the government was compelled to pardon the teachers in the face of massive student protests and public criticism.

'HOW dare you make comments about the navy? Who would protect you if you were to be killed now?’ ASM Nasiruddin Elan, director of human rights coalition Odhikar quotes the director of naval intelligence in Dhaka as saying to him.

Two of the worst cases of violations during that time were the killings of Dulal in Char Fashion and Farid in Tajimuddin upazila, both in Bhola and in custody of the Navy.

Odhikar initiated a fact-finding investigation on the incidents and other human rights violations during the state of emergency in 2007 and Elan played an active role in it. As a result of the reports of the findings, Elan was taken to the naval headquarters on May 3, 2007.

After the navy intelligence director burst out at him, two other persons in plainclothes introduced as men from the DGFI began swearing at Elan.

‘They showed me some of Odhikar’s fact-finding reports and accused the organisation for anti-state activities and labelled me a traitor,’ Elan writes in his testimony.

‘I was warned about working in the middle of a state of emergency. I was asked to stop my human rights duties and advised to focus on agriculture. I was forced to sign on a written statement, having been threatened with death otherwise.’

He was then said to be taken to the DGFI custody but a navy staff came and locked him inside a room until 2:00pm. He was later asked to leave.

Before the scar fades

A university professor, a human rights activist, a student, an ethnic minority leader and a local government representative are among just a few of the cross section of the population to have been unlawfully detained, tortured and even killed in some cases during the state of emergency.

Odhikar, on June 27, organised an unprecedented event titled, ‘Tribunal against Torture’ where five victims and the wife of deceased Choles Ritchil testified to these incidents of torture. The event witnessed by some 120 guests discussed the legal opportunities to try the cases.

Ample opportunities for all the victims to file cases against the perpetrators, under the Penal Code, the Evidence Act and the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh were also identified with the aid of legal experts. The Penal Code, for instance, has provisions for ‘Grievous Hurt’ and provides punishment for anyone who commits such physical abuse in order to extract a statement or confession.

‘Many senior politicians including the present Prime Minister have suffered mental or physical torture while in custody,’ says Barrister Moudud Ahmed, member of parliament and a standing committee member of Bangladesh Nationalist Party, who was detained for 18 months without trial.

‘Those who were responsible should be brought to the books and they should be tried under the law. The present government should immediately take steps to identify those at whose command, the torture had taken place.

‘In this regard, the role of former chief of army staff and the former chief adviser should be investigated and proceedings should also be brought out against them.’

The veteran lawyer, who is willing to fight the cases of torture by the law enforcement agencies during the state of emergency however, says he will not file a case on the torture inflicted upon him during his detention. ‘Who will be the lawyer?’ he replies when asked about his decision.

‘A review committee should be formed under the leadership of a retired justice of the Supreme Court with a secretary or joint secretary of the government and an eminent lawyer to review the torture,’ says Dr Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir, member of parliament and presidium member of the Bangladesh Awami League.

He has already announced that he will file cases against all those people involved in imprisoning him for 20 months on defamatory charges.

‘The people who have used state power to serve their own interests should be brought to books so that no one in future dares to usurp the democratic rights of people,’ he says.

According to legal experts, the first step to trying the perpetrators of torture has to come through filing independent cases.

‘The people will be encouraged to file complaints,’ says Alamgir.

‘The infringement of human rights through torture, detention and extrajudicial killings should be treated as a criminal offence and those responsible should be tried in accordance to the law,’ says advocate Sultana Kamal, former adviser to caretaker government and executive director of human rights organisation Ain O Salish Kendra.

‘A government which is there to bring the perpetrators of war crime to justice should also ensure that those who are perpetrators of torture at different times are brought to books,’ says CR Abrar, president of human rights coalition Odhikar, ‘otherwise, the culture of impunity will continue and the perpetrators will go scot-free.’

Human rights activists believe it is the ideal time for the government to prepare for investigating the tortures. They believe that with the state of emergency ceasing to exist, now that the people are speaking up and the incidents of torture and coercion are being documented, the government should be able to investigate the cases better.

‘The allegations of torture have come from different sections of people including the highest level of the government. We have heard of horrendous stories of torture that have taken place in the last couple of years,’ says Abrar.

He laments the fact that no rules have been framed as yet regarding the conduct of RAB. He also opines that interference of the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence on civil matters should be closed.

A High Court directive in 2003, issued after a petition filed by the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) against the government of Bangladesh, required the law enforcing agencies to inform a detainee’s relatives in the urban area within four hours of his arrest or within eight hours for those in the rural areas.

In addition the court ordered that someone close to the detainee be present to monitor his interrogation. A medical examination was also required prior to the detainee’s interrogation and after his arrest.

‘It is a landmark directive but it has not been implemented,’ regrets Abrar.

To pursue the investigation and trials, it is necessary that those who have been tortured bring in the complaints and that the police accept them, believe legal experts.

However, the limitations, Sultana observes, is the lack of clarity and partiality over the police investigations that involve tortures by the police itself and other law enforcing agencies. In this regard, Sultana believes an independent body to investigate the matter would have been most effective.

Though the government on July 9 passed the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) bill, Abrar is doubtful of its credibility and power.

‘It has not been given the jurisdiction to take action on its own. It can act as a moral force, provided it publicises its recommendations but there isn’t an explicit authority given to the commission to publish reports,’ he explains. ‘Thus the power of the commission has been weakened.’

The appointment of chairman and commissioners of the NHRC is not transparent, Abrar fears. ‘It could have been made through nomination from different sections like eminent citizens of the society.’

Presently a committee has been formed to recommend the names to the president but constitutionally, the president can only act on recommendations from the prime minister, he explains.

The government, however, has not yet taken a step to investigate the perpetrators of torture on civilians during the state of emergency.

‘I have not been asked to take any step,’ says Barrister Shafique Ahmed, the law minister when asked if his ministry is looking into the legal provision to try the tortures by the state agencies during the emergency.

When asked about the opportunities to try the perpetrators of torture, Shafique says, ‘I have not given any thought to it.’

‘The government has announced its intention to find out the authenticity of torture cases and take action against the perpetrators involved in the criminal activities but it has not formed a committee to review the matter yet,’ says Alamgir.

Justice denied
* Filing of independent torture cases inevitable to try the perpetrators: legal experts
* No rules framed on RAB’s conduct: CR Abrar
* DGFI’s interference on civil matters should be prohibited: CR Abrar
* High Court’s landmark directive on torture related issue unimplemented
* Power of National Human Rights Commission constrained
* Gov’t yet to take step to try perpetrators of custodial torture

History Of Hadith

History of Hadith

Muslims are taught that the Prophet Mohammed brought the Quran with him as well as his sayings "Hadith" and actions "Sunna". The Muslims believe that these pillars are inseparable and that Islam cannot stand at all if any of these pillars are taken out.

"Do not accept anything that you have no knowledge of. Surely the hearing, the sight and the mind you are responsible for." (Quran, 17:36)

The above verse does wonders for the students of GOD's religion, it always reminds them what the "criteria" is for accepting and upholding what is peddled to them as "law" from above.

We, as human beings, are commanded by the Lord to use our senses (sight, hearing and mind) so that we may ascertain the truth from the falsehood…Blind following is NOT allowed in the Quran and it is given as a sign of disbelief:

"And the example of those who reject is that who REPEATS 'Yan3iq' only what he hears of calls and sounds. Deaf, dumb, and blind; they do not understand" (Quran 2:171)

In fact, the Quran preaches the opposite to BLIND following and emphasizes on "Thought" and "Contemplation" since that is the only road to true appreciation of the message the Quran has brought.

"If we revealed this Quran to a mountain, you would see it trembling, crumbling, out of reverence for GOD. We cite these examples for the people, that they may THINK." (Quran, 59:21)

History of Hadith:

The word "Hadith" is inseparable from today's Islam and can best be translated as "Sayings" of the Prophet or his companions.

Hadith is accepted as the 2nd source of Islam (the Quran being 1st) and has been well established into an entire science where people spend a lifetime merely studying the "Hadith" and its compilations.

Muslims are taught that the Prophet Mohammed brought the Quran with him as well as his sayings "Hadith" and actions "Sunna". The Muslims believe that these pillars are inseparable and that Islam cannot stand at all if any of these pillars are taken out.

What may come as a surprise to most, is that "Hadith" was not actually compiled and reviewed until over two hundred years after Mohammed's death, first by Imam Bukhari (d. 256/870), then Muslim (d. 261/875), Abu Daud (d. 275/888), Tirmidhi (d. 270/883), Ibn Maja (d. 273/886), and al-Nasa'i (d. 303/915).

In his opening statement, Bukhari (considered to be the #1 source of authentic Hadith) states that out of nearly 600,000 Hadith's which were known to him at the time, he could only record 7,397 as being authentic from the prophet. This is a recognition by the upholders of Hadith that at least 98.76%, of what people are led to believe is the 2nd revelation to the Quran and a major source of Islamic law, is pure lies!.

What people also fail to realize is that the history of Hadith itself has been overlooked and is treated as if the revelations were written down at the time of the Prophet for record keeping. In fact, the record books indicate that there was a BAN on the writing of Hadith ordered by the Prophet himself and upheld for nearly 100 years thereafter.

"The prophet said:'Do not write anything from me EXCEPT QURAN. Whoever wrote, must destroy it" (Muslim, Zuhd 72; Hanbel3/12,21,39)

The above "Hadith" is recognized and accepted by Hadith scholars the world over, however, their justification for the ban is that the prophet feared that the "Hadith" and Quran would be intermingled into one book and this ban was simply a safeguard.

What these same scholars fail to explain is WHY the same ban was still in-place nearly 30 years after the prophet's death and AFTER the Quran was supposedly compiled!

Zayd Ibn Thabit visited the Khalifa Mu'aawiya (more than 30 years after the Prophet's death), and told him a story about the Prophet. Mu'aawiya liked the story and ordered someone to write it down. But Zayd said, "The messenger of God ordered us never to write anything of his Hadith." (Reported by Ibn Hanbal)

According to the history books of Islam, the ban on writing "Hadith" was only lifted some 80 years after the Prophet had passed away by Omar Bin Abdulaziz (the grandson of Omar Bin Al-Khatab). In fact, the irony of the matter is that Omar Bin al-Khatab himself was vehemently opposed to the writing of any religion revelations EXCEPT the Quran:

Omar Bin Al-Khatab is recorded as saying: 'I wanted to write the traditions (Sun'an), and I remembered a people who were before you, they wrote other books to follow and abandoned the book of GOD. And I will never, I swear, replace GOD's book with anything' (Reported by Jami' Al-Bayan 1/67)

As we mentioned before, within a short span of 200 years from the Prophet's death (only 130 years from the lifting of the ban) there were over 600,000 Hadith's floating around at the time of Bukhari which were all attributed to the Prophet. Bukhari himself admitted to spending nearly 40 years studying the Hadith's and could only verify the chain of transmission from 1.24% of the total!.

Problems with Hadith:

Bukhari and those who came after him spent years and years in the research and filtration of Hadith's until it became its own science. Bukhari was quickly followed by Muslim (d. 261/875), Abu Daud (d. 275/888), Tirmidhi (d. 270/883), Ibn Maja (d. 273/886), and Al-Nasa'I (d. 303/915) as the most recognized compilers in this field.

Although it may be a comfort to Muslims reading this to know that a filtration process was undertaken by the above mentioned scholars, it must be clarified as to exactly WHAT this filtration process was:

San'ad (Chain of Transmission)

Bukhari relied upon the self-invented art of "Transmission" for which he states that a "Hadith" may be accepted as authentic or rejected based on WHOM the Hadith is coming from.

Bukhari made a study of the Prophet's companions and established that they were all trustworthy. He then asked about people who came after them, and if the public "hearsay" was that this or that person was reputable, then Bukhari had no problem accepting a "Hadith" transmitted from that source.

To get over the obstacle of "objectivity" and the fact that Hadith was based mainly on "hearsay", Bukhari found a very convenient Hadith (which Islamic scholars still quote) that gives the companions of the prophet and all Hadith narrators super-human abilities which enabled them to memorize word for word the sayings of the prophet without loss or distortion.

Although the above may not sound scientific or even objective to many, it is a factual method which was used to obtain the 2nd source of Islamic law.

-------------------------

While very few outsiders have been able to question the authenticity of the Quran, the Hadith has not been so lucky!.

Many opposing groups and other religions have made it a practice to embarrass Muslims by quoting "dubious" Hadith's which compare a Woman to a Donkey (the Hadith on what stops Prayer) or that the Majority of Women will go to Hell! (Hadith about Isra & Mi'raj).

Muslims typically react to the above accusations by becoming angry and evasive, saying that these people want only to "Slander" the Prophet. What these same Muslims fail to realize is that the "TRUTH" can withstand any amount of questioning and cross-examination.

More Problems with Hadith:

If it were only embarrassment that the Hadith causes, we would not have a problem. The effects of this subjective "hearsay" are far far greater.

Human beings are born with the natural tendency to be inquisitive. Anyone who has children will know that no matter how many times you tell them "no", they will still try to touch a hot pan or play with the dirt to understand WHY they should not. This is a GOD given mechanism that our Lord has bestowed on the human species to let us expand our knowledge and only accept what we understand and know.

When Muslims were ruling an living by the Quran, there was no problem with this natural human tendency for curiosity since the Quran had an answer to every question…Muslims at that time witnessed an intellectual growth unparalleled in the history of Arabia or even the world at that time…

The tendency to question and inquire led Muslim children to grow-up in an atmosphere where NOTHING was off-limits and nothing was taboo. Their questioning simply developed an unlimited appetite for knowledge, which was only fed by discoveries and advancements in just about every field.

Then, a few hundred years after the Quran had fueled an "intellectual" revolution in the Muslim minds…Something began to change…

The widespread introduction of "Hadith" and its popularity with the masses began to slowly create problems with the education of Muslims. Hadith was not even to be compared on the same plain as the Quran due to its inferior language and its basis on "hearsay" and "conjecture".

Propagators of Hadith were nearly always cornered by sincere Muslim students who wanted explanations for obvious contradictions and illogical contents.

We can only assume that the establishment of Hadith as a source of Islamic law was only achieved many centuries after its initial gathering by Bukhari and others ONLY by having it forced on the Muslim masses with a rejection for scrutiny or questioning.

Muslim school children today are taught from a very early age not to question or over analyze their sources for religion as they might be incurring the wrath of GOD and walking the path of Hell.

Student's questions are typically answered with statements like: 'Are you BETTER that the previous generations who fought with the Prophet?', or 'Do you hate the Prophet that you QUESTION his Sunnah?'.

With such a barrage of accusations, young Muslim students learn for early on to simply accept what they are given without thought or questions…And when they are older, they simply repeat to the younger generation what was told to them about going to Hell and disrespecting the Prophet…The cycle goes on!.

The REAL Story:

Although the historical data in itself leaves much to be desired…The real story is far more dangerous than may be expected.

"When our verses are recited for them, those who do not expect to meet us would say, 'Bring a Quran other than this, or change it.' Say (O Muhammad), 'I cannot change it on my own initiative. I simply follow what is revealed to me. I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the retribution of a terrible day.' ...Who is more wicked than one who invents lies about God, or rejects His revelations? The guilty never succeed. Yet, they idolize beside God those who possess no power to harm them or benefit them, and say, 'These are our intercessors with God.' ...such is idol-worship." (Quran, 10:15-18)

The above verse clearly states that the people who's hearts did not believe the message from GOD asked the Prophet to bring a "different" Quran, or even "change" it.

And Mohammed's response was: 'I CANNOT change it, I simply FOLLOW what is revealed to me!'.

The Prophet could not "make-up" his own religion to suite the desires of all those around him….He was COMMANDED to adhere to the Quran and nothing but the Quran.

Yet, it seems that after Mohammed's death, those who's hearts did not really accept the message that he brought started to in-fact "change" the Quran by adding to it.

It seems these people who were spreading false teachings and attributing them to GOD did not heed the Prophet's warning:

"Shall I seek OTHER THAN THE GOD as a source of law, when He has revealed THIS BOOK FULLY DETAILED? ....The word of your Lord is COMPLETE, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words; He is the hearer, the omniscient. Yet, if you obey the majority of people, they will take you away from the path of The God. That is because they follow CONJECTURE, and they fail to think." (Quran, 6:114-116)

The Prophet taught people NOT to seek other than GOD as their source of law since He had revealed a FULLY DETAILED book!.

The Prophet also warned people not to listen to what the MAJORITY have to say, because he knew that they only follow CONJECTURE!.

Yet, despite all these clear warnings, the people after Mohammed could not resist to make false claims that the Quran was NOT detailed, and that it needed a mish-mash of hearsay to interpret.

They claimed that although the Quran was complete (as per GOD's statement), it still did not cover all the areas of jurisprudence that needed covering.

Perhaps they did not reflect upon the following verse:

"And We have sent down the Book to you as a CLARITY FOR EVERYTHING, and a guidance and mercy and good news for those who Submit." (Quran 16:89)

In light of such evidence, it is extremely difficult for any sincere followers of GOD to simply turn their backs to what the Quran has to say and hand their destinies over to people for whom GOD was not enough.

The BEST 'Hadith':

For those who still have a desire to hold onto 'Hadith' after all the evidence presented...there is just ONE Hadith that we deem to be authentic and also encourage all people to goto:

"The GOD has revealed herein the best Hadith; a book that is consistent, and points out both ways. The skins of those who reverence their Lord cringe therefrom, then their skins and their hearts soften up for The GOD's message. Such is The GOD's guidance; He bestows it upon whoever wills. As for those sent astray by The GOD, nothing can guide them." (39:23)

Conclusion:

Idol worship, or associating partners with GOD, is the only unforgivable sin that is mentioned in the Quran. Yet, it seems that for the majority of us, our minds cannot accept GOD Alone!.

"The God DOES NOT FORGIVE that partners be established with Him, but He forgives other than that to whom He wishes" (4/48)

And the ultimate litmus test can only be:

When The God ALONE is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the hereafter shrink with aversion. But when idols are mentioned besides Him, they rejoice (39:45).

Did talking about upholding the Quran Alone bother you?. Or does your heart really believe?.

"They are the ones who examine all words, then follow the best. These are the ones whom GOD has guided; these are the ones who possess intelligence." (39:18)