8th Aralık 2008



The issue about women has had the most additions to the established religion. Women were lowered to the level of a slave, of a servant employed in household affairs and a sex instrument at the disposal of her husband, justified in the light of concocted hadiths and sectarian interpretations and viewpoints. The majority of the fair sex, unable to make any distinction between what is truly revealed and what is fabricated, continued to trudge along the path designated by men who went on preaching the words reported to have been told by the Prophet to the effect that paradise lay under the feet of mothers. We shall presently see how sincere their approach to womankind has been.




















The basic target has been to render a woman a slave of her husband, making her unconditionally loyal to him. Subservience to one’s husband was considered to be a devotional act.

Were I to ordain prostration to human beings I would have decreed that women should prostrate themselves before their husbands because of the debt they owe them. (Tirmizi, Rada, Abu Davud, Nikah, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Musnad, Ibn Maja, Nikah)

Even though her husband’s body be smeared from head to foot with pus and the wife cleans it by licking him, yet her debt to him would still remain unsettled. (Ibn Hajar al Haytami, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Musnad)

O women! Were you ever to realize the debt you owe your husbands you would not hesitate to wipe the dust off their feet by rubbing your cheeks on them. (Hafýz Zahabi, Great Sins)

Women’s devotion and intellect are defective. (Sahihi Bukhari)

You curse much and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have seen no creatures lacking in intelligence and devotion except you who can tempt man. (Muslim, Iman, Ibn Maja, Fiten)

The mentality that makes a woman captive of her man makes her destined for hell and defective in devotional attitude, conflicting thereby with the explicit remarks contrary to the Quran.

A good woman is like a magpie among one hundred crows.
(Sahihi Bukhari )

O womankind! Give alms and repent. I have observed that the majority of the inmates of hell consist of women.
(Muslim, Iman, Ibn Maja, Fiten)


In addition to the hadiths that condemn her, the admission of woman to paradise depends on her husband’s satisfaction and approval.

If a woman dies, she may go to paradise if her husband happens to be satisfied with her. (Riyazus Salihin)

The laudable woman is she who endures her husband’s frivolities and occasional unfaithfulness, thanks to which she will be admitted to paradise. (Religious Information for Women)

Such observations often encountered in the books of Muslim, Bukhari, Týrmizi, Muvatta and Shiite sources, have their roots from the periods of the Omayyads and Abbasids. No such vilification of woman exists in the Quran. The eligibility for heaven according to the Quran depends on the devotion exhibited by a person regardless of the sex involved.

49/13 – O people! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of God is the most righteous.
49 The Rooms, 13

As we can see, the Quran makes no distinction between nations, tribes and sexes. Yet, woman has been considered as an instrument likely to lead a man to hell.

There are four things that invalidate a man’s prayer: a black dog, a donkey, a pig and a woman. (Sahihi Muslim, Salat, Tirmizi Salat, Abu Davud, Salat)

There are three things that are inauspicious: a woman, a house and a horse. (Abu Davud, Týb, Muslim, Salam, Bukhari, Nikah)



Imam Sharani and Imam Ghazzali, two of the foremost representatives of the mentality that sees women as inauspicious, agents who invalidate one’s prayer, have bequeathed the following mine of information to future generations.

A man may have lost his teeth and become ugly while his wife happens to be young and very beautiful. It is possible that such a woman, who may have gone out to the market or to other places where she may have been invited, sees handsome men and upon her return home is reluctant to be responsive to her husband’s amorous advances. This is the result of the visit of a woman to markets and social gatherings to say the least. (Imam Sharani,Ubudul Kubra)

May God’s curse be upon those whose profession is tattooing and who have their bodies tattooed, and upon those who have the hair on their cheeks removed and their teeth re-fashioned. (Sahihi Bukhari)

Those who wear wigs, pluck their eyebrows, make or have tattoos on their bodies are cursed. (Abu Davud, Tarajul)

If a woman wears a wig, has her arms and face tattooed or uses beauty spots or has her face and eyebrows plucked by tweezers and changes her appearance, she is cursed. (Imam Sharani, Ubudul-Kubra)

According to a hadith the companions and disciples of the Prophet had the shutters of the house tightly closed to prevent their wives from seeing men passing by and used to beat those who peered outside. (Imam Ghazzali- Ihya u Ulumiddin)

See that your women remain somewhat hungry without going too far, and deprive them of beautiful apparel. For if they have their bellies full and are dolled up, they are sure to be tempted by outside attractions. Whereas, if they are somewhat hungry and not so well dressed, they will stay at home. (Ibnul Jawzi, Mawzuat, Suyuti, Leali, Ibn Arrak, Tanzihushsharia)

Don’t let your women put on smart dresses, since if they are dolled up, their hearts will leave home. (Imam Ghazzali- Kimyayý Saadet, Ibn Abi Shayha, Musannaf)

A woman who has to go out shall abide by the following principles once she has obtained the consent of her husband:

1- To be dressed dowdily,
2- To behave as if she is not actually out.
3- To bow her head and be careful not to look at the face of strangers.
4- To avoid crowds.
5- To avoid places frequented by men.
6- To prefer deserted side-streets.
7- To finish her work quickly and return home.
(Imam Ghazzali, Ihyayý Ulumiddin)


Those, who through such absurd injunctions, tried to project their jealousies over others and transformed them into religious commands , gave Islam an area open to attacks. Here are a few more remarks about women, decreed by Imam Ghazzali:

A woman has seven properties:

1- She is like an ape with her strong desire to get all dressed up;
2- She is like a dog as she is loath to be poor;
3- She is like a snake because of her overbearing pride both to her husband and to others;
4- She is like a rat when she sells household goods;
5- She is like a scorpion as she is a backbiter;
6- She is like a fox as she sets up traps for men;
7- She is like a sheep as she obeys her husband. (
Imam Ghazzali, Ihyayý Ulumuddin)

The ideal woman is the one of the sheepish kind! The woman deprived of all freedom is not even allowed to go on pilgrimage. The woman is not allowed to go a distance of more than 90 km (55 miles) without the accompaniment of her next of male kin (father, uncle, brother, husband). Under the circumstances a woman who cannot persuade a next of kin to accompany her cannot even fulfill her binding duty of hajj. God has made no distinction of sex in this binding duty. A woman’s performing her prayer in the mosque came to be prohibited by fabricated hadiths since she would then have to go out. Thus a woman’s prayer at home is indicated to be more meritorious than the prayer she would have performed in the mosque.

9/71 – The believing, men and women, are allies of one another.
9 Repentance, 71

How do they expect that the man and the woman will establish this alliance, given the fact that even their speaking to each other is forbidden? The continuation of the verse mentions that those who will bring about this alliance will be rewarded by God’s mercy. If the said mercy has been withheld in communities alleging to be Muslims, it may be due to their disobedience in this respect.

Among the Hanafis even the voice of the woman must be hushed so that the man may not listen to it. (Fýkhus Siyra)

You are allowed to speak only with your mahrem (husband, father, nephew…). (Ibn Kathir)



With the segregation of men and women, women became isolated, and were not allowed to have male friends, so much so, in fact, that even conversations between women were to be conducted in whispers to prevent men from hearing their voices. However, in case of an emergency, a woman was allowed to address men only if she had filled her mouth with pebbles.

She was not allowed to perform her prayer when menstruating, nor could she read the Quran or keep the fast during her period. The Quran merely mentions that one should not have sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman. If God had desired that she should not recite the Quran or keep the fast, He certainly would have made it explicit.

2/22 – They ask you about menstruation. Say: “It is harmful. So keep away from women during menstruation, and do not approach them until they are relieved of it.” (2 The Cow, 222)

As we can see, the Quran gives every detail that a person requires. Yet, women’s acts have been restricted by segregating them, by preventing them from performing the Friday prayer. The restrictions imposed on them, which do not exist in the Quran, are considered abominations. The concoctions went as far as fabricating hadiths that declared anyone complying with a woman’s word would perish. Such an idea is utterly against the philosophy of the Quran.

Do not take counsel from women; oppose them, for opposition to womankind brings prosperity. (Suyuti, Leali, Ibn Arrak, Tanzihush Sharia)

Whoever obeys his wife, God will throw him into hell.
(Ibn Arrak II, 215)


There is nothing in the Quran to suggest that certain offices are prohibited to women; consequently, they may rise to the position of president, caliph, judge, imam or muezzin (caller to prayer). Everything is permitted unless explicitly prohibited by the Quran. Freedom is the principle while prohibition is an exception; moreover if there are any exceptions, they are explicitly stated in the verses of the Quran. Thus, there are no obstacles for women who desire to attain the above positions.

A community headed by a woman is a doomed community.
(Ibn Hanbal Musnad, Tirmizi-Fitan Nesai- Kudat, Bukhari Fiten)

The opponents of Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, who had taken command of the situation during the Jamal incident, must have concocted this fabricated hadith. Süleyman Ateþ makes the following comment: “The hadith in question must be alluding to Aisha. However, had the Prophet said something like it, Aisha would not have been given the mission in question, and Talha and Zubayra would not have tolerated this. The authenticity of this hadith that contradicts the Quran is dubious” (Süleyman Ateþ, Commentary of the Quran).

Those who invent hadiths to support their own political views also ignore the description of the Queen of Sheba. Verses 22 and 44 of Sura The Ant mention the community ruled by a woman. We observe her described as an intelligent and wise woman prudent in that she does not take risks in exposing her community to precarious situations. There is not a single suggestion in the Quran to the effect that a woman cannot be a ruler.

Don’t teach women how to read or write. Let them be trained in sewing and see that they recite the Sura The Light.
(Ibnul Jawzi-Mawzuat)


If a man calls his wife to bed and the wife refuses, the angels curse her till the early hours of the morning. (Bukhari)

The men worried about being refused fabricated this hadith that alluded to the Prophet. Women deprived of their right to divorce came thus under men’s oppression.

If a woman obtains a divorce, she will not savor the scent of heaven.
(Religious Information for Women)

In the Quran expressions like ‘Divorced Women’ (see 2 The Cow, 228-241) may have both meanings: namely, a woman who has obtained a divorce or one who has been divorced. Considering that there is no explicit prescription in the Quran making the act of divorce exclusive to men, women should, in principle, enjoy the same right.

Another hadith says:

God will not answer the prayer of a woman who dabs on perfume before entering the mosque, unless she goes home and cleanses herself by total ritual ablution of her body. (Avnul Mabul)

Men putting on perfume is commendable while women doing so are stamped with having committed a sinful act. The rationale is that men are aroused by beautiful scents. The fact that women may also feel the same sensation does not occur to them. Furthermore, why was this not foreseen in the Quran?

Unless the place where a woman had been sitting cools off, it must not be occupied by a man. (Religious Information for Women)

This hadith generates many complications in modern urban life as one can readily see.



It all begins in the stories about Adam and Eve. Nowhere in the Quran do we come across anything about the temptation of Adam by Eve. If we read inbetween the lines of 7 The Purgatory, 11 and 28, we can see that both Adam and Eve had been tempted by Satan. Moreover, the legend that Eve had been created from Adam’s rib is not mentioned anywhere in the Quran.

Another unjustified claim often made about the Quran is that it addresses men solely. Ninety percent of the verses address both sexes. There are also verses that address only men or women. Anyone who seriously reads the Quran will see that the Quran addresses the general public and not a single sex.

33/35 – For Muslim men and women; for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who remember God a great deal, for them has been prepared forgiveness and great rewards. 33 The Parties, 35

Although the greater part of the Quran addresses the general public, there are also verses that address women and men separately.



One must be reminded of the fact that Islam extends over a great space of time and embraces a vast portion of the earth’s geography that enjoys varying climates. There are communities of people ranging from the smallest of tribes to the greatest of empires, dealing in such a wide range of activities so that agricultural pursuits alternate with industrial ventures in diverse social and political milieus and cultural backgrounds, of different customs. The universality of the Quran befitting every situation, differing customs, conditions and milieus has been achieved thanks to the vastness of its latitude. So far we have covered the attempts at the creation and the perpetuation of an ‘Arabic Islam’ in which the turban, the robe with long sleeves reaching down to the ankles and the wearing of a beard were some of the conspicuous characteristics; these attempts had untoward effects on the spread of Islam. The elbowroom that the Quran has conceded to mankind allows the people of different cultural backgrounds to wear their customary apparel. The same holds true for polygamy. Polygamy is not prohibited in the Quran; however, it is not especially promoted and encouraged.

Different cultural backgrounds had different practices. In communities where a great many of the male population died in battle and the balance between the male and female population was disrupted, polygamy had become indispensable. In agricultural societies where crowded families wielded immense power, polygamy had been the solution to lighten the burden of women in household affairs, and there were times when the wives went to look for consorts for their husbands. In Islam, the intention to marry is expressed by both sides and the woman does enjoy the right to divorce her husband. In other words, in cases where there are matrimonial disputes in a family, the wife is free, according to the Quran, to ask for a divorce. The so-called prohibition for the woman to have recourse to divorce, or the supremacy of the decision of her family on that issue has nothing to do with the Quran, but are merely traditional practices. Polygamy was not only a product of Eastern cultural background since it has also found favor in the West under certain conditions. In the wake of the two world wars such a solution was sought, and an article that appeared in the Daily Mail had suggested polygamy as the only solution on the grounds that there had been a considerable rise in the female population. In 1949 the people in Bonn, to be precise, women’s associations, had applied to the authorities concerned demanding that the institution of polygamy be incorporated into the constitution. The European authoress Annie Besant, who made an assessment of the plight of the Western post-war cultural and social situation, writes as follows: “Monogamy no longer exists in the West. What prevails at present is an irresponsible state of polygamy. When a man has had enough of his mistress, he abandons her, after which the abandoned woman gradually falls prey to the state of a prostitute. Her plight is much worse than the state of the woman who happens to be one of the wives of a single husband. If we take into consideration this state of affairs, we must own that we Westerners are far from being justified in condemning the institution of polygamy. Rather than being defiled, seeking a refuge, deprived of all affection and care, abandoned with her illegitimate children, dispossessed of all rights of inheritance and submitting in servility to the pleasure of any chance encounter, to enjoy the honor of being one of the lawful wives of a man and live in his household is far better.”



As we have already pointed out, polygamy is not an obligation; it is left to the husband’s discretion, although in certain communities it is even encouraged by the female spouse. The Quran prohibits solely the consumption of dead animals, blood, pork, and, last but not least, animals slaughtered in the name of some being other than God. All other edible material is allowed. For instance, dog meat is a favorite dish in China. The ways and manners differ according to the geographical and social status of a community. However, what is considered to be lawful should not be interpreted as a devotional act. This important point has often been misconceived by the communities whose ways differ from each other. So long as the Quran has not explicitly stated that a given thing or act is prohibited, the said thing or act is lawful; it is not against Islam. For instance, going to a wedding party in Hawaii wearing shorts, painting one’s face with various colors like American Indians, belching or passing gas may be deemed normal in certain cultures. Muslims living among these communities may live up to their standards without being accused of non-compliance. The Quran is neutral in this respect. The Quran speaks neither in favor of nor against such acts. Just as it is irrelevant to attribute to the religion such injunctions as “Islam commands you to eat dog meat,” or “Islam commands you to go to a wedding party in shorts,” it is equally irrelevant to say “Polygamy is sanctioned by Islam.” The act favored and ordered by Islam and the act that is free just because it is not forbidden are two different things.

Under normal conditions in peacetime, we observe a quasi equality between the male and female populations. This is a sign that polygamy is an exception. The Quran states that monogamy should be observed if a husband is not sure of being partial to any one of his wives.

4/3 – But if you fear you cannot treat them with equality, marry only one. 4 The Women, 3

Polygamy is foreseen in the Quran. However, it is neither recommended nor forbidden. Man is free to choose. He may or may not take more than one wife. The Quran addresses, as we have mentioned at the beginning of the present book, mankind, people with different cultures, in different periods of history, in time of peace and of war, the agricultural and industrial communities, the big states as well as the small insular inhabitants. The Islam preached in the Quran is not exclusive to a single civilization, a single industrial community, a single place where peace reigns. The Omayyads and Abbasids contrived to introduce foreign elements into Islam and succeeded to implant their local tribal customs as if they were dictates of Islam (like growing a beard, wearing a robe with full sleeves and long skirts, wearing a turban and living a polygamous life) since there was nothing against such practices. Today one is free to shave and wear trousers, wear a necktie and prefer monogamy without offending Islam in any way whatsoever. In these there is nothing offensive against Islam. On the other hand, recognizing the uniqueness of God, helping the poor, keeping the fast are the prescriptions of the Quran and were part of the injunctions that both the Omayyads and Abbasids had had to observe, and require contemporary Muslims and the future Muslim generations to abide by them.



The wives of the Prophet and the stories about them are not mentioned in the Quran. The story of the Prophet’s marriage with a nine year old girl is again a fabrication of the hadiths. 99% of the stories told about the Prophet’s wives have their origin in the hadiths. They may be correct or not. One fact is certain though; they are not reliable.

33/52 – No other women are lawful for you after this. 33 The Parties, 52

Prior to the revelation of this verse, what had been lawful for the public at large was also lawful for the Prophet. This verse, however, introduced a restraint for the Prophet, a restraint not applicable to other men. The wives of the Prophet, like all other women, married him by their own free will. The Prophet, following the customs of the time, contracted marriages without infringing on the injunctions of the Quran. Whatever we are supposed to know is there in the Quran. Any further concern by us is irrelevant. The message of the Quran revealed to the Prophet is the religion transmitted to us through him. The private life of the Prophet may be evaluated by going back to the times and conditions that prevailed in his era. We are not in a position to pass judgment by having recorded reported hadiths. In point of fact, one of the useless and vain discussions on the issue has been the result of the servile obedience and unshakeable acceptance of the fabricated hadiths.



Nowhere in the Quran is it mentioned that two women are equivalent to one man as a witness. For instance, the testimony of four witnesses is required to prove adultery, and in the Quran no discrimination is made between male and female witnesses, only the number of witnesses is mentioned. However, there is a misunderstood instance described in Sura The Cow, 282, related to time loans. According to this verse, the loan received must be evidenced by a written document, and the presence of witnesses during its execution is required. This is a commercial contract that should not harm the scribe or the witnesses. It is a well-known fact that when material interests are at play, people are reluctant to give testimony. The Quran charges this heavy duty to two men. Take note that only two men are mentioned. A phrase such as ‘or four women’ does not appear. Thus, a woman who rarely deals in commercial affairs, and is weaker in the face of likely pressures and oppressions is protected. Should two men be unavailable and only one is accessible, then the required number would be one man and two women. In this way, the obligation to bear testimony is realized, and should an untoward situation occur later, an encounter between a man and a woman is avoided. Let us assume that a dispute arose about the amount of the loan. The woman, who will have to face one man failing to agree on the amount in question, cannot avoid experiencing stress and pressure. Whereas if there are two women in the picture, they can put up a bold face against the man and the ill-intentioned witnesses will be in a difficulty to put pressure on the women. This practice, which protects women from undue pressure, has been wrongly interpreted and made a generality of this particular case. Except for this particular instance, there is no other discrimination elsewhere in the Quran. Had this been a general principle, God would have made it explicit simply by stating that the testimony of one male witness corresponds to the testimony of two female witnesses.

We have to take note of the statement that runs: “Do not injure either the scribe or the witness. Otherwise you risk swerving from the right path.” The pressure both the witness and the scribe labor under may be imagined and the rationale of the verse can be better understood.


One other verse misinterpreted happens to be Verse 34 of Sura The Women. We would like to quote here from two authors. “This verse does not allude to the incontestable superiority of man,” says Yaþar Nuri Öztürk. “The reference is made to the difference between men’s and women’s respective constitutions. Yet, most of the commentators that have had recourse to willful misinterpretation of the Quranic verses to serve their own ends explained away the expression ‘qawwam’ mentioned in the Quran to mean overlordship, justifying in this way man’s despotism. The term ‘fadribu’ mentioned in the Quran has been reduced to having a single meaning while it actually has more than one. Approaches that aimed to vilify woman in every instance could not have done otherwise. ‘Fadribu,’ having as its root darb has more than 30 meanings, of which the most important are ‘to strike,’ ‘to beat,’ ‘to exit,’ ‘to go out,’ ‘to take a walk’ (see Ibn Mansur, Lisan ul Arab, under the entry for darb). Under the circumstances, ‘fadribu’ may assume the following meanings: 1- To send out; 2- To force out from somewhere; 3- To beat. The first two are certainly more rational and compatible with human psychology and law.” Edip Yüksel’s comment on this misinterpretation is as follows: “While the words ‘errijalu kavvamune alennisai’ should be interpreted as ‘men watch over women’ or ‘men are responsible for women’s upkeep,’ all the commentaries in Turkish that I have come across have interpreted it to assume the meaning of sovereignty over women. Why do our commentaries attach such discordant meanings as “master, lord” to the Arabic word ‘qawwam’ instead of attaching to it meanings like “watching over, sustaining, maintaining.” The root of the word ‘qawwam,’ is ‘qwm.’ You may go over all the verses where the derivatives of this root are used, and you will fail to find an expression meaning overlord or master. When the expression ‘badehum’ in the verse in question is addressed only to men using the pronoun hum, the meaning that comes out will be ‘Some men are superior to other men.’ However, this meaning is at odds with the context. On the other hand, if the pronoun hum is addressed to a mixed group of men and women, then we have ‘God has made some men and some women superior to other men and women.’ Another acceptable rendering would be ‘God endowed everyone with different merits and characteristics.’ The word ‘idribuhanna’ in Sura The Women has been translated as ‘beat those women.’ Before dwelling on this particular expression, I should like to bring to your attention an assessment of the matrimonial relations in the Quran. The following is said in 30 The Romans, 21: ‘And among His signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between you. Verily in that are signs for those who think.’ Thus, the objective in marriage is love and mercy. The word ‘daraba’ in Arabic has an infinite number of meanings; namely: to mint, to go on strike, to beat, to hold, to play. For instance the word ‘idrib’ means to go out. The Arabic-speaking people in North Africa still use this word in this sense. While looking for the exact meaning of a word in a given context we must be fastidious and use our common sense. For example if ‘daraba’ mentioned in 13 The Thunder, 17 had been translated as ’to beat’ instead of ’to explain,’ an absurd meaning would come out of it and the result would be ‘God beats truth and falsehood in this way.’ On the other hand, the word ‘nushuz’ in Verse 34 of Sura The Women has been translated as a disobedient, brawling woman. The word actually has a wider range of significance covering such meanings as flirting, licentiousness, illicit sexual relations. As a matter of fact when we inquire into its meaning in the given context, the second meaning seems to be more appropriate. Verse 34 of Sura The Women teaches the husband how to treat his unfaithful wife. It falls upon the husband to admonish his wife in the first place. If the woman continues to flirt with others, the husband will separate their bed. And if even this does not help and the woman begins to enter into adulterous relationships, then the husband will send her out. To beat a woman that infringes on the marriage contract would not be a solution. To part with her should be the solution even if this be painful.



In the distribution of the estate, money etc. of a deceased person, the written will takes precedence. The fundamentalist Islamist dared to modify this explicit statement of the Quran and asserted the principle “No will has been foreseen for inheritors.” According to the Quran, the will takes precedence, followed by the debts of the deceased. In 5 The Feast, 106 and 2 The Cow, 180, we can observe the advice given regarding the execution of the will. On the other hand, in 4 The Women, 11-12 it is ordained that the sharing of inheritance takes place after settling the provisions foreseen in the will and the outstanding debts. While studying inheritance falling to the shares of men and women within the general framework of the Quran, we should do well to understand the flow of money and economic relations involved in the Quran. According to the Quran, during the enactment of the marriage contract, a man gives a certain sum of money (either in cash, gold etc.). (This money is given to the wife and not to her parents.) As the sum in question has not been determined, the woman who will be abandoning her home and may become destitute may also ask to be given a home or a car, etc. If they mutually agree on the consideration, the marriage contract takes effect. In case the woman’s own wealth is enough to support her, she may opt for a ring or a gift of some sort. The Quran ordains that this consideration be duly given. However, the consideration in question must be agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, the man assumes the responsibility to take charge of the support of his wife and offspring. In the case of a divorce, the support of the children and, if the mother is nursing her child, the upkeep of the female spouse also falls to the man. Thus the woman receives not only the consideration agreed upon, but also the allowance to support herself and her children. In case the widow’s assets are not sufficient to support her, then every god-fearing believer has the charge of contributing to her living (2 The Cow, 241). As one can readily see, the money of the man charged with many responsibilities is continually divided. And God has apportioned for the male child an inheritance twice as much as He has dispensed for the female child (4 The Women 11). Details of inheritance can be seen in Verses 11, 12, and 176 of The Women (both parents inherit one sixth of the estate in equal shares).

Now, other considerations may be brought forth in our day stating that there are women who earn a living nowadays, some are even wealthy, etc. Let us remember that the first principle is what is bequeathed in the will.



4/32 – You shall not covet the equalities bestowed upon each other by God. Men have a share in what they earn, and women have theirs in what they earn. 4 The Women, 32

We can see that both men and women have their respective superiorities, neither of them being superior to the other in an absolute sense. To say that man is superior to woman in every respect or to claim an absolute equality between the sexes is irrational. 2 The Cow, 32 beautifully indicates the mutually complementary character of the sexes. “For God well knows what He has created.” Omniscient God has arranged everything according to His perfect order. This order has been secured, sometimes by the imposition of a provision and sometimes by the purposeful absence of it. The adaptability of the provisions of the Quran according to the time, the culture and the community owes its unity to the prevailing conditions to this flexibility. The traditionalist mentality that has failed to conceive this miraculous approach of the Quran has had the audacity to impose restrictions absent in the Quran.




4/124 – If any do deeds of righteousness, be they male or female, while believing, they will enter heaven and not the least injustice will be done to them. 4 The Women, 124

16/97 – Whosoever works righteousness, whether man or woman, while believing, we will surely grant them a happy life in this world, and we will surely pay them their recompense for their righteous works.
16 The Ant, 97

The real life according to the Quran is the life of the hereafter. The life of this world is but a short journey whose ultimate end is the life hereafter. The superiority among human beings is achieved by good deeds and no distinction or discrimination is made in favor of the male population as compared to the female population.


posted in ENGLISH ISLAM | 0 Comments

8th Aralık 2008



In Chapter 2 of this book we saw that the Quran was a self-sufficient source for Islam and that there was no need for any additional source. In this chapter we shall be studying the way the hadiths were collected and assembled. The hadiths were not dictated by the Prophet and were not intended to be shaped into book form. Consequently, it cannot constitute a companion volume to the Quran. With reference to their self-contradictory and illogical character, and their inconsistency with the Quran, we shall refer you to Chapters 6, 7 and 8.
















The literal meaning of hadith is ‘word.’ It means primarily a communication or narrative in general whether religious or not, and it has the particular meaning of a record of actions or sayings of the Prophet and his companions; while the word Sunna means ‘path followed, trodden path, custom.’ According to the usual explanation, Muhammad’s sunna comprises his deeds and sayings as well as his unspoken approval. (For the use of the concept of sunna, see Chapter 16.) The sunna that the Quran refers to will also be examined in this chapter. The words hadith and sunna are often used interchangeably in nearly all publications since patterns of behavior are expressed in words. For instance, Dr. Subbi es Salih, from the University of Lebanon, explains this in the following manner: “The experts on traditions have acknowledged that hadith and sunna have been interchangeably used in books. Both concepts refer to a word, an act, a statement or an attribute of the Prophet.” This is also applicable to the present book.

We propose to go back to the days of the Prophet before starting to examine the hadiths and return to our own day. The hadith scholars themselves admit that the Prophet did not allow scribes to take down his sayings. Two authoritative books on hadiths, Muslim and Musnad by Ýbni Hanbal, founder of the Hanbali religious sect, make the following comment: “Take down nothing other than the verses revealed. Anyone that may have written any of my sayings, let him destroy it” (Muslim, Sahih-i Muslim Kitab-ý Zühd, Hanbal, Musnad). The hadith quoted by Darimi is as follows: “The companions of the Prophet asked him permission to take down his sayings. They were refused” (Darimi, es-Sunen). The hadith transmitted by Alm Hatib is as follows: “While we were engrossed copying the hadiths, the Prophet came and asked what we were doing. We are copying your sayings, we replied. Is your intention to create a book other than God’s Book? People that preceded you swerved from the straight path because they dared write books other than God’s Book” (Al Hatib, Takyid). And Tirmizi had this to say: “We asked permission to copy the sayings of God’s messenger, but he refused to give it” (Tirmizi, es-Sünen, K. Ilm).

In books on hadiths and in books claiming to be the source of the established religion, it is explicitly acknowledged that the Prophet had prohibited the copying of his sayings, and the reason was to prevent the mixing up of the verses of the Quran with his own sayings. According to the traditionalists, the hadiths should have as much authority as the Quran; they are suggested to be the source of religion as much as the Quran. If this is so, in fact, how come then the Prophet prohibited the copying of his sayings? Why did he tolerate gaps that were likely to occur in the revealed religion, the adulteration of his sayings during the process of their transcription, or the omission of his words? The Quran speaks of copying with the use of pen, of committing to paper one’s will and debts owed. This being the case, is it possible that the Prophet should prohibit the transcription of his sayings were they to be considered another source of Islam? Had he forestalled the copying of a source of religion, wouldn’t he have been instrumental in causing Islam to remain incomplete? As we shall be seeing in the forthcoming pages, the number of contrived traditions is considerable. Had the hadiths constituted another source of Islam, the Prophet would certainly have dictated them and spared the interpolation of an infinite number of sayings reported to have been uttered by him. As far as the source of Islam is concerned, we well know that the Quran is self-sufficient. The first person who was aware of this fact was the Prophet himself. Committing traditions to paper was far from being his wish. The Prophet, who was well advised in every respect, had banned the copying of his sayings as he knew that the human character was inclined to idolize prophets and was liable to sow dissension. Today, we are in a position to appreciate once more the foresight of the Prophet. The very fact that he had forbidden the transmission of his sayings is enough to convince those who are wary.



Ahmed Emin draws the following chart to represent the garbling of traditions transmitted: “Were we to make an expository display of the hadiths, we would be confronted with a pyramid, the summit illustrating the period of God’s messenger. As we go down we observe the gradual expansion toward the base. Yet, the ideal should have been the reverse; for, the companions of the Prophet best knew what the Prophet uttered. As they were to pass away, the number of those who knew the words uttered by the Prophet would decrease and the pyramid would have changed its position and turned upside down. Yet, we observe that the number of hadiths is even greater under the Omayyads than during the lifetime of the Prophet” (Ahmed Emin, Duhaul Islam). According to some scholars there are over two million hadiths. Two of the most reliable books on hadiths are the one of Bukhari and the one of Muslim. The hadiths contained in the former are reported to have been selected from among 600,000 and in the latter this number is 300,000. The one of Davud contains hadiths selected from among 500,000, the one of Malik Muvatta, founder of a religious sect, contains hadiths selected from among 100,000 and the one of Musnad contains hadiths selected from among 750,000. Given the fact that the prophethood of the Prophet lasted for about 23 years, the number of days he would have acted as prophet would have been 23 x 365 = 8395. If two million is the number representing the totality of the hadiths, the number of hadiths per day would be 200. The result to be obtained after 200 years after the death of the Prophet would be inconceivably misleading. It is alleged that the authors of hadiths used to know them by heart and that they had selected from among them those that had appeared the most reliable to them. In order to declare the exact number of hadiths that someone had in store, he should have written them somewhere and counted; whereas no one can possibly assert that he has in his repertory 600,000 hadiths.



Supposing for an instant that the claim was admitted, the situation would be even more frightful. Muslim declares that he has not included in his book every one of the hadiths alleged to be authentic (Muslim). According to his argument the hadiths are a source of Islam; yet, he leaves out some, though acknowledged to be genuine. According to this logic, Islam would be riddled with loopholes. Given that we cannot be sure of the fact that a hadith left out by Muslim is not omitted by another compiler, this account of traditionalist logic declares itself to be incomplete. Bukhari who announced that the hadiths are a source for Islam, included in his book only 6000-7000 hadiths although he had in his store 600,000, i.e. 1%. The rest, 99% of the whole, did not gain admission, either because he deemed them not trustworthy or irrelevant. Had the hadiths been a source of Islam, we would have been at the mercy of Bukhari and his skill of selection. Had the hadiths been useful, assuming that the 99% left out did not include what was essential, the mentality of those who acknowledge the hadiths to be a source of Islam would have to admit the fact the Islam would irretrievably be lacking in many respects. Given the fact that Bukhari is no more and that there is no one who claims that he has in store the said 99% of the hadiths that Bukhari asserted to have in his repertory which he did not commit to paper or transmit through other means, we should have been considered members of a patchy religion.

Let us try to make an assessment of the 600,000 hadiths in Bukhari’s bundle. Let us assume that Bukhari had nothing else to do in life except deal with hadiths; that he did not sleep, that every one of the hadiths was authentic and that he spared two hours to check whether a particular hadith was authentic or not, testing the dependability of the transmitters chain. The space of time in question would be 130 years. If we consider that there were instances of checking the authenticity of a given hadith by setting off on a journey that sometimes took days, Bukhari’s carrying out this test would take thousands of years. In brief, we can safely assert that Bukhari’s testing the authenticity of the hadiths and his sorting them out is illogical.

The Quran is an established text. We cannot say the same thing for the hadiths. There is no end to unconfirmed reports. As no established text existed, the compilation of hadiths was liable to be mixed with alien elements. We must be grateful to God Who has not put us in a condition in which we would be in need of a source another than the Quran. And thanks to Him we are now the members of a perfect religion. We must divest ourselves from every element alien to Islam, getting rid of hadiths that sow dissension and of hadiths unjustifiably attributed to the Prophet, claiming predominance over the Quran and be illumined by the dazzling light of the Quran, the perfect finished work.



The attitude of the Prophet toward the copying of his sayings was also adopted by the Four Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Omar, Osman and Ali) who succeeded him. We shall see in Chapter 11 how the caliphs put a ban on the copying of hadiths and had those committed to paper burned. At first sight, there is nothing surprising in the fact that those who had witnessed events during the lifetime of Muhammad narrated what they had heard and seen to each other. The fact that the companions of the Prophet cross-examined people who claimed to have heard the Prophet say this and that, requiring them to produce a witness, their prohibition to commit to paper the sayings of the Prophet during conversations held in which he was a part, are evidences that show the Prophet’s caution was also maintained by his followers. The four caliphs also had followed suit and prohibited the writing of hadiths despite the fact that they knew many of the sayings of the Prophet, in the wake of his demise. If there is anyone to say the contrary, why not ask him to produce a compilation dating from that date?

Harevi said: “Neither the companions of the Prophet, nor those followers in point of time, the ones that lived after Muhammad was dead, but had conversed with at least one of his companions wrote any of his sayings. They just transmitted them by word of mouth. There is no exception of this outside of one or two instances. Being afraid of their sinking into oblivion, Omar bin Abdulaziz, in a letter addressed to Abu Bakr al-Hazm, wanted him to try to research traditions and have them copied.” The Caliph Yazid bin Abdulmalik who succeeded him after the latter’s decease dismissed Abu Bakr al-Hazim and his collaborators from this job after the death of Omar bin Abdulaziz. Afterward, Caliph Hisham is accepted to have been the first compiler of hadiths of Ez-Zurhi. Mahmud Abu Rayye, who tells these developments in detail, mentions the pressure exerted. “The tabiyyun (those who lived after Muhammad was dead but had conversed with at least one his companions) who were given the task of collecting the hadiths assumed the duty under coercion. The fact that the companions of the Prophet had not undertaken such a task daunted them. ’We felt uneasy as we committed the traditions to paper, but the administrators forced us to this’” said Az Zuhri (Mahmut Abu Rayye, Clarification of Sunna). Ghazzali said that the second generation after Muhammad looked askance at the copying of hadiths, merely advising their memorization (Ghazzali, Iha-yý Ulum-iddin). The first period in which the hadiths were studied individually was the time of the Abbasids. This study, Muvatta, made available toward the end of the second century after the Hijrah belongs to Maliki, the founder of the religious sect Maliki. Ibn Ferhun, on his book entitled Ed dibae al Muzahhab, says that Malik had collected some 10,000 hadiths, revising them on a yearly basis, that very few had been left at the end, and that had he lived a few years more he would have dismissed them altogether. Musnad comes next, the work of Ibn Hanbal, founder of the religious sect ‘Hanbal.’ In the work of Hanbal who died in 241 after the Hijrah, we observe the inclusion of many sayings without a serious approach, and without differentiating between the authentic traditions and the inauthentic ones, based on the ongoing rumors at the time.

Up until the arrival of Bukhari, no effort was spent to sift the traditions classifying them according to their degrees of authenticity. It was Bukhari first who initiated the classification of hadiths according to their degrees of authenticity. However, this study failed to bring it to fruition. The dates of decease of the prominent researchers on hadiths are as follows: Bukhari, 256 A.H.; Muslim, 261 A.H.; Ibn Mace, 273 A.H.; Abu Davud, 275 A.H.; Tirmizi, 279 A.H.; Nesei, 303 A.H. The Shiites have a different collection. The Sunnis and the Shiites refute each other’s compilation. The formation into book form of the collected sayings of Muhammad according to the Shiites is of a later date. The dates of decease of the prominent researchers on the hadiths are as follows: Kulani, 329 A.H.; Babuvay, 381 A.H.; Jafar Muhammad Tusi, 411 A.H.; Al Murtaza, 436 A.H.

If a given statement of Mahmud II, Ottoman Sultan, had not been recorded in a history book and had come down to us by hearsay, how far could we rely on its authenticity? Who would have relied on it to be the authentic utterance of the Sultan, claiming that his words had come down following the direct line in a chain? The time that elapsed since the death of Mahmut II who died in 1839 AD up to now is much shorter than the space of time that separates the death of the Prophet from the date when the first compilation of the hadiths in the form of a book appeared. The time that elapsed between the date of the passing away of the Prophet and some famous books of hadiths was twice as long as this interval of time. For reasons we shall be stating in Chapter 5, at the time of the prominent transmitters of hadiths tens of thousands of hadiths had already been concocted in a way that a sifting was impossible. The fact that these compilations contain innumerable traditions contradictory and conflicting with the Quran, logic and other hadiths, was the method they used show once again the disastrous results of the quest for sources other than the Quran. The simile of the pyramid we mentioned above had been inflated by pseudo-hadiths already. Instead of following the path of the Prophet and of the caliphs and raising objections to the copying of the hadiths, they committed to paper an infinite number of hadiths whose authorship they falsely attributed to the Prophet, giving great harm to the world of Islam along with uttered slandering and abusive statements on behalf and for the love of the Prophet. The pretext of the Christians who deified Christ has been the love they had for him. However, neither the convincing arguments of the transmitters of the hadiths, nor the alleged reasons of Christians could justify their ends.



The word sahaba is used for all Muslim individuals who had the privilege of seeing the Prophet, even from a distance. This definition of Bukhari has received general acceptance. In the well-known hadith compilations, the honesty, the reliability of the memory, and the faith of persons who claim to have heard a certain saying of Muhammad reported were questioned to check the veracity of the allegation or for rejection of testimony. Yet, no one’s lifetime would suffice for the examination as to honesty, reliability of memory and checking of other qualifications of reporters up until the third century AH.

Abu Shame said: “Views on transmitters of hadiths present great diversity; while a particular transmitter is the most reliable one among others for some, for others he happens to be the most accomplished liar.” For instance, he may be a trustworthy transmitter according to Ikrim and Bukhari, but a perjurer for Muslim. This instance may be multiplied. Among these the most striking example may be Bukhari’s refusal to include in his compilation any of the traditions transmitted by Abu Hanifa as he declared him to be one of the most unreliable of transmitters. The founder of the foremost representative and revered figure of traditional Islam happens to be unreliable according to the most prominent compiler of hadiths. The contradictory accounts encountered about hadiths, subject of controversy, among members of the board of examiners, abounds, and are as many as those existing between the hadiths themselves. We refrain from going into detail, as it is useless and may be tiresome.

All these hadiths were first attributed to the companions of the Prophet as the last link in the chain of information, to be eventually traced back to the Prophet. Persons, who came after the companions, also became a bone of contention even though they were ultimately questioned. Nowhere in the Quran do we encounter a passage where it is said that every person who saw the Prophet is a reliable person. Quite the reverse is the case, many of those who confessed to be confirmed Muslims were censured. The Quran states also that the hypocrites had infiltrated the community of true believers. It is said that not even the Prophet knew all of the double-dealers (9 Repentance, 101). One cannot imagine how the hadith imams may have distinguished them, given the fact that not even the Prophet could tell them apart. How can they assert that what they accepted as reliable was, in fact, not worthy of confidence? Can one claim that these people knew what the Prophet did not know, 200 hundred years after his death? The clashes and accusations of infidelity among some of the companions are evidence that the self-styled companions also may not have been trustworthy after all. The mentality that hypothesizes the fact that a companion should be considered ipso facto a reliable source is liable to err. As G.H.A. Juynboll has pointed out, if the assumption that the companions are trustworthy people is challenged, the logic behind the structure of hadiths would go on the rocks. We shall be dealing with this issue when we take up the case of contrivers of hadiths.



The unreliability of hadiths transmitted may be illustrated with a game played among children. Suppose a sentence of ten words is to be transmitted from one ear to the next along a chain of ten students and try to evaluate the result by checking if the initial word spoken in the first ear is exactly the same as the one announced by the tenth in the chain. The transmission of hadiths took place in the course of a space of time of 200 years. And the communication was made over hill and dale by hearsay. Even though we were blindfolded to the reasons for the concoction of hadiths and to assume the chain to have been perfect, and acknowledging the good will of the transmitters, the end results should still be considered doubtful.

A large majority of the public, uninformed of the true state of affairs, believes that the hadiths are the unadulterated sayings of Muhammad as uttered by him. Even the transmitters of hadiths are uncertain of this. A great number of the compilers and Bukhari himself are of the opinion that it is enough to keep the meaning of a transmitted hadith rather than literally committing it to one’s memory. This led to the interpolation of individual opinions into the transmitted sayings of Muhammad; the opinions of those unwilling to confess to themselves their inability to understand them. Given the fact that not every transmitter had an infallible memory capable to implant in his mind all that had been transmitted, he had to rest satisfied with what remained in store, resulting in variant semantic points of view. In spite of this, Bukhari as well as Abu Hanifa and Shafi, heads of the two leading religious sects, have deemed the semantic consideration and hearsay evidence sufficient in their assessment of the true meaning of a hadith.

It is generally accepted by transmitters of the hadiths that the largest congregation the Prophet had addressed in his lifetime was when he delivered his farewell sermon, and it is estimated that more than one hundred thousand people attended it. Yet the sermon, to which more than one hundred thousand people bore testimony, appeared different in written texts according to the reporters; this may demonstrate the production of multiple conflicting interpretations and variants in the hadiths each alleged to have directly originated from the Prophet.

It was said that not the literal rendering of a hadith but its meaning could be transmitted; yet, when there was something omitted in the sentence claimed to have been uttered by the Prophet, the interpretations had been liable to variations. When Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, heard from Abu Hurayra, who had attributed to the Prophet the words: “House, woman and horse may bring bad luck,” she said: “I swear by Almighty God that the Prophet uttered no such thing.” This conviction was widespread during the time of pre-Islamic Arabian paganism but had a different wording: “If there is bad luck, one must look for it in one’s woman, horse or house.” As one can see, this saying attributed to Aisha may be interpreted differently according its wording and context.

All these considerations played a role in the controversies provoked among the transmitters of the hadiths. Many hadiths reported by Muslim were unfounded according to Bukhari and vice-versa. Whereas, among the hadiths transmitted by the founders of the four orthodox religious sects, no distinction was made about their degree of authenticity. The four imams founded their sects disregarding the criteria of the authors of Kutub-ý Sitte (6 renowned hadith books). Of these, Abu Hanifa, the founder of the most prominent of the four sects, blind to his poor knowledge of hadiths, and dodging the hadiths, gave preeminence to his own views for which he was censured by the Imams and was declared an unreliable person by Bukhari.



We saw that the companions of the Prophet were considered infallible, and that without distinction they were judged to be honest people, worthy to be taken at their word. When the books of hadiths began to be committed to paper, neither a companion of the Prophet nor anyone who had seen any of his companions was alive. From the time of the Prophet to the copying of the hadiths six or seven generations had gone by, so that when one transmitted the hadiths he had to go six or seven generations back. Bukhari was the first person who took up this task systematically and the hadiths began to be transmitted without tracing their origin to a particular person. Given the fact that Bukhari lived in the 200s AH, keeping in mind the chain of transmitters of the traditions without any preset system is illogical. Kasým Ahmad, who criticized the transmission of the hadiths, quotes in his book Hadiths and Islam the following names:

1- The Prophet
2- Omar Ibn Hattab
3- Ibn Vakkas
4- Ibn Ibrahim at Taimi
5- Yahya Ibn- Said al Ansari
6- Sufyan
7- Abdullah Ibn Zubeyr
8- Bukhari1- The Prophet
2- Aisha
3- Urvan Ibn Zubayr
4- Ibn Shiab
5- Ukail
6- Al Baith
7- Yahya Ibn Bukhair
8- Bukhari

When the hadiths began to be transmitted, even the link that succeeded the link that had followed the generation after Muhammad had passed away. In other words, persons who could check the reliability of transmitters had already died. Assuming, though illogically, that all the companions were indeed truthful, considering that a good many people of the generation that followed the companions’ age had died when the copying of the hadiths began, the checking of their reliability would still be impossible. Therefore, the criteria that the transmitters had adopted are unfounded and in vain.

On the other hand, it is also impossible to control the reliability of those who were living at the time. For, during the copying of the hadiths, Muslims were scattered over a vast geography. It was not practical for the copiers to reach the last links of transmitters by camel. Moreover, one could never be certain that those who might have reached them were reliable. A short visit and interview would not suffice to reveal the character of a man. How can a phenomenon like religion, which must be based on sound principles, be founded on such subjective criteria?

We see in the hadith ,iImams the sectarian mentality in superman’s garb. This hero is supposed to have in his memory hundreds of thousands of hadiths and be able to conjure them up at any given moment deciding on their veracity. There are people whom he had never set eyes on, persons who had already died when he came into the world; yet, he was confidant that they must have been honest and reliable. He had also the power to establish contact with people on camel back and cover distances that not with a helicopter at his command could he have covered such territory. He also had the genius to distinguish the honest and reliable from the unreliable and dishonest. Yet, these were the qualities attributed to the Imams, transmitters of hadiths. We pass over in silence the legend of spiritual supremacy.



The transmitter of a hadith who rests content with the assumption that all reporters in the chain of transmitters were honest people, without feeling the need to question them, accepts it as correctly transmitted. Such hadiths are called ahad. The most reliable hadiths that comprise these ahad hadiths belong in particular to Bukhari and Muslim and the six books called Kutub-ý sitte. The traditionalist Islamist holds onto his weapon of excommunication in order to have his convictions accepted and declares that anybody who questions the truth of a hadith is declared an outcast. One should bear in mind that both Bukhari and Muslim had repudiated each other’s arguments in the compilation of their respective books. However, traditionalists consider a divine grace the disagreement between learned men on tenuous arguments, while our different opinions will likely send us to hell. The Shiites do not accept any hadith book compiled by the Sunnis. The objections, raised by Al-Mu’tazila, and the Kharidjites, members of the earliest of the religious orders of Islam, to the copying of hadiths and their acceptance as a religious source, the announcement of some theologians (Kelamcýlar) that the hadiths are but suppositions, the controversies of Shafi in Basra because of his recourse to sources other than the Quran, and the quotations of the responses of Al- Murdjia, extreme opponent of Kharidjites, in books on hadiths are examples for the objections raised against the compilation of the hadiths. Those who question the defenders of Islam as put forward in the Quran and challenge the argument that the hadiths should not be considered as a source of Islam, by asking: “Do you consider yourselves pioneers in disseminating such a message, since up until now no one has come up with such a claim?” are ignorant of the events we have mentioned. Ever since their dawn, the hadiths have been an object of strong reservations as to their validity as a source of Islam. However, the central authority hushed up the counter arguments. We are neither the pioneers in this, nor is the claim new. The Islam of the Quran existed from the very beginning without the addition of hadiths. The hadiths were a late attachment and served as something equal to the Quran.



As we saw in Chapter 3, the Quran is a self-sufficient, detailed, explicit book that contains everything that a Muslim should know. The Quran has no need for hadiths. When we are faced with a question that puzzles us, we must look for it in all the verses of the Quran related to the issue and learn all about it. To assess the Quran within the framework of adulterated hadiths is to mystify and pervert it. In order to hear the voice of the Quran without interferences, we must turn our ears solely to the Quran.25/33 – There is not an example they advance to which We do not give you the truth and the best commentary. 25 The Distinguisher, 33

God declares that He provides the best commentary. God’s revelations are complete in themselves without the need for recourse to other commentaries.

The hadiths related to the occasion in which a particular revelation had come down (esbabý nuzul) seem to be even more numerous than other hadiths. The commentaries on the Quran in circulation are replete with hadiths – which have not been subjected to any sifting process as to their authenticity – and interspersed with old Jewish legends. The fact that the reasons given for the revelation in connection with a particular occasion vary considerably among various commentaries and are adulterated with irrelevant stories demonstrates the extent of distortions involved. Ibn Hanbal, a traditionalist and founder of a sect himself said: “There is not a single hadith related to the occasion (esbabý nuzul) on which a particular hadith was revealed.”

The main problem is the confinement of intellects by established religious sects. This is still more relevant when we think about the variety of irrational interpolations. Interpreters of the Quran based on sectarian approaches tried not to deviate from the path indicated by their sects and consequently made false constructions. The infinite variety of contradictory hadiths on the occasions in which revelations were made has been a rich source of exploitation by sectarian commentators. As a matter of fact, several transmitters, to suit their own ends, had coined the majority of these hadiths during their compilation.

In the ‘Introduction’ of Elmalý Hamdi Yazýr’s commentary, there is a private understanding of his with the official authority. In Chapter 5 of this ‘understanding’ it is said that the commentary is in conformity with the body of creeds of the madhab (sect) Hanafiya and of the Sunnis. The ‘ideological commentary,’ according to Mehmet Aydýn, or the ‘sectarian commentary’ we prefer to use, is apparent from the very start of Elmalýlý’s work. No matter how wide his knowledge may be, how far can a commentary produced by those whose intellects are hinged on a sect not sanctioned by God, be dependable? The efforts of those who have tried to interpret the Quran in the light of the hadiths served no purpose other than to lead the seekers of truth down a blind alley; the seekers may have been imams or sheikhs, and the causative agents, hadiths or the occasions when the revelations were made.



The greatest trouble caused to the commentaries on the Quran based on the hadiths related to the occasions on which the revelations were made has been their use by the impious to equate them with Islam. The book of Salman Rushdi’s is an example of this. According to contrived hadiths it is alleged that one day, as the Prophet was engrossed in the recitation of the Quran, Satan penetrated his soul and caused him to praise the divinities Lat, Menat and Uzza and made him utter complimentary words about them; and persuaded Muhammad to recognize these divinities as intercessors with God. Ibn-i Kutayba also confirms this in his hadith book entitled Tevilu Muhtelifi’l Hadis.According to the hadiths, however, the Prophet declared what he had uttered did not originate from him but were the words of Satan. We have witnessed the public censure leveled at Salman Rushdi and Homeini’s anathema that paved the way to diplomatic crises. Nevertheless, no one put the blame on those who had reserved a place for these hadiths, the real culprit.


We observe that there is an escalation of Quran commentaries in the market filled with legends and stories about the occasions on which the revelations had occurred. This approach has made the impression that the verses revealed were restricted to single cases and were confined to a given time bracket. This attitude casts a shadow on the universality and the timeless quality of the Quran. 81 The Rolling, 27, repudiates this approach: “This is a reminder for all the worlds.” And 2 The Cow, 185 states: “…in which was sent down as a guidance for the people.” On the other hand, God gave the reasons for the revelations of particular verses in the Quran when He thought it relevant. For instance, the verses introduced by the phrase ‘They ask you so and so, tell them that….” And when He chooses not to mention anything, it follows that we need not know the whys and wherefores of the revelation in question. Those who considered the Quran insufficient, have regretfully felt the need to have recourse to adulterated commentaries and have caused interferences in the resonant voice of the Quran. One thousand four hundred years ago, the Quran displayed in its vast array of revelations the mysteries lying behind natural phenomena including the roundness of the earth, the movements of the sun and the earth, the barrier between two bodies of flowing water mixing with each other; scientific phenomena discovered only in the course of the last century. The commentators who intended to expound the meaning of the Quran indulged in ridiculous fantasies like the following commentary by Ibn Kathir of Sura The Cow, 29 and Sura The Pen, 1.

“When God desired to create that which He wanted to create, He produced vapor out of thin water. The vapor rose above the surface of the water and He called this rising thing sky meaning heights. Then He solidified the water transforming it into a single mass; afterward He tore it to pieces and within two days, on Sunday and Monday, shaping them into seven unities. The earth He created resting on a fish, the very fish mentioned as Nun in the Sura The Pen. The fish was in the water and the water rested upon rocks; while the rocks stood on a large stone where no vegetation flourished. An angel carried the stone; the angel was upon a rock, which is the wind. The rock is the same rock mentioned by Luqmaan as in the following passage: ‘There was neither the sky nor the earth, the fish moved and the earth shook, mountains came to be implanted on them.’”



Reference is made to Verse 185 of Sura The Purgatory; ‘hadith’ means ‘word’ in Arabic. As a matter of fact, it made allusion to the hadiths (words, sayings) that were to be ascribed to Muhammad with a view to disparaging the integrity of the uniqueness of the Quran. The transmitters of the hadiths might have used other synonyms to express the same thing such as agval (words), ahbar (news, messages) or hikma (wise saying); the tacit consensus among the transmitters of the hadiths on the use of this word is one of the miracles of the Quran.

12/111 – It is not a word (hadith) invented, but a confirmation of what was sent before it, a detailed exposition of all things and a guide and a mercy to any such as believe. 12 Joseph, 111

In this verse, the fact that the Quran is not a word invented, and that it is a detailed exposition of all things is stressed; a fact to which the traditionalists have remained blind. The Quran states that the Quran is not a fabricated word (hadith).

18/6 – Following after them in grief, if they believe not in this word (hadith). 18 The Cave, 6

What is meant by the expression ‘in this word’ is the Quran. The verse indicates that the lack of faith in the Quran will sadden Muhammad. The Prophet never told anybody to take down his sayings. Had his sayings constituted a source for Islam, he would have had his sayings copied and would have been in distress to see his words fall on deaf ears. The only hadith (word) that the Prophet fought for was the Quran. The Quran makes no reference to any hadith other than itself. Had the words of the Prophet been a second source of Islam next to the Quran, this would have been declared in more than one verse of the Quran. There is not a single verse on the issue and the use made of the word ‘hadith’ in the Quran is strong evidence of the adulteration of the concept of hadith.

45/6 – These are God’s signs that We recite to you truthfully. In which word (hadith) other than God and His signs do they believe?
45 Kneeling, 6

Such is the question asked by God. The meaning that is obtained from the answer that comes out of the behaviour of the traditional defenders of Islam and the imitators of Sunni and Shii madhabs, is:: “We believe in Bukhari, Muslim, the sayings of the Twelve Imams, Abu Davud and b. Mace.”

4/87 – And whose word (hadith) can be truer than God’s?
4 The Women, 87

52/34 – Let them produce a word (hadith) like this, if they are truthful. 52 The Mount, 34

Claiming that in the famous book of hadiths of Abu Davud it is pointed out that the Prophet was entrusted with the Quran and similar hadiths, they try to engage in a rescue operation to save the sayings of the Prophet. However, this wish fulfillment falls short of the mark. For the sayings of Muhammad cannot be equated with the Quran, let alone the fact that the bulk of the sayings ascribed to the Prophet is larger than the Quran. Moreover, the hadiths, representative of the traditionalist mind, conflict with the above verse.

31/6 – Among the people, there are those who spread frivolous words (hadiths) to mislead others from the way of God, and take it in vain. For such there will be a humiliating penalty. 31 Luqmaan, 6

In verse 7 of the same sura we read: “When our signs are rehearsed to such a one, he turns away in arrogance, as if he heard them not as if his ears are deaf announce to him a grievous penalty.” If those who turn a deaf ear to the sayings of the Quran because of their sectarian fanaticism were to read these verses not merely for the pleasure of the built-in melody of the recital but to try to understand the meaning, they will surely be in a position to understand better what we are trying to clarify. The word hadith with reference to the Prophet is used in the Quran on two instances:33/53 – “Enter not the Prophet’s houses until leave is given you for a meal …and when you have taken your meal; disperse without tarrying, lost in a hadith (word).” 33 The Parties, 53

66/3 – When the Prophet disclosed a hadith in confidence to one of his consorts, and she then divulged it, and God made it known to him… 66 Prohibition, 3

The use made here of the word hadith is not related in some way or another to Sunni and Shiite sectarian opinions. The fact that the word hadith in these verses is used merely to refer to the sayings of Muhammad are of great importance for our discussion. God, the prescient, uses the word hadith not in a Sunni and Shiite religious context, but to refer to the Prophet’s own words. Moreover, in both instances, the word hadith is use in a bad sense. On the other hand, the word sunna is used in the Quran in the combination – sunnatallah meaning ‘the way of God.’ (We shall see this in Chapter 16.)

The word idjma (general agreement in opinion and decision of legalists) and its derivatives, considered to be another source of Islam, again has a negative connotation. This is evidence that the Quran also repudiates ijma just like in the case of sunna and hadith. (For the derivatives of ijma, see 3 The Family of Imran, 157; 3 The Family of Imran, 173; 7 The Purgatory, 48; 10 Jonah, 58; 10 Jonah, 71; 12 Joseph, 19; 17 The Children of Israel, 88; 20 Taha 60; 20 Taha 64; 22 The Pilgrimage, 73; 26 The Poets, 38; 26 The Poets, 39; 26 The Poets, 56; 28 The History, 78; 43 Vanity, 32; 54 The Moon, 44; 54 The Moon, 45; 70 The Heights, 18; 104 The Backbiter, 2.)



There is no doubt that there are tens of thousands of hadiths ascribed to the Prophet. Those that contradict the Quran, that introduce additional provisions, and that are self-evidently illogical and unreasonable are surely pure inventions. The hadiths that introduce new things into Islam are evidently the result of a manipulation conflicting with the verses of the Quran that confirm the fact that Quran is an accomplished work that comprises all that a man needs to understand. The remaining hadiths may be authentic provided they do not clash with the Quran. We stress the probability of their authenticity by using ‘may.’ On the other hand, we can identify, up to a certain extent, the authentic ones, without being one hundred percent sure. For those that are authentic and those that are invented originate from the pens of the same authors and date from the same time. A little after 200 AH Bukhari, Muslim and others tried to probe into the hadiths to find out the authentic ones, however without success. Now that we are in 1400 AH, we cannot possibly cope with this task. A saying in perfect accord with the Quran belonging to a Muslim may well have been thought to have been said by the Prophet. We shall see in Chapter 5 the counterfeiters who concocted hadiths in the belief that their action would serve the interest of Islam. These hadiths may well be the sayings of the so-called good-willed people. “Wherever you come across a beautiful saying, don’t be afraid to ascribe it to the Prophet” was often used as an expression by the transmitters and collectors of hadiths. This fact and the probabilities make up our viewpoint. We must beware of recognizing an anonymous saying in perfect conformity with the Quran having no validity in fact and ascribing it to the Prophet. If we are to abide by word of the Prophet, this word must be the Quran He transmitted to mankind. The word pronounced in the Quran is God’s own word although spoken through a man. By complying with the message carried by the Prophet, we shall have conformed ourselves both to the Prophet and to the Quran.



We have tried to describe the attitude of the Prophet in the present Chapter. We shall deal with the outlook on hadiths of the Four Caliphs in Chapter 11. What must be the reason for our desire for going over this with a fine-tooth comb in trying to detect the authentic hadiths while the Prophet, and afterward, the Four Caliphs, had prohibited the transmission of hadiths and even caused them to be burned? Satisfactory information related to the Prophet is already contained in the Quran. Moreover, to dissect them is an impossible task. Having studied the reasons exposed in Chapter 37 the additions brought in Islam, you can see better our defensive argument on the issue. Even though a particular hadith happens to be in perfect accord with the Quran, there still is the likelihood of our falsely ascribing it to the Prophet. For not every word that fits the Quran’s message is the Prophet’s word. The Quran is the Book that guides man to the straight path. Whoever may have said a word in support of it has surely spoken the truth. Some will accuse us for failing to pay due respect to the Prophet. Nevertheless, those who speak of a spell cast on the Prophet, invent absurd suppositions on his sexual life and place the earth on a fish are the ones lacking in respect. How can one trust in the words of these people? To turn a deaf ear to the hadiths is the consequence of respect and love for the Prophet, a confirmation of the fact that God only has the exclusivity of Islam. Just like in the case of Christ, for whose love people went as far as to declare him God, there have been those who have said that they loved the Prophet, but afterward said that he had been under a spell. The prophets desire that we believe in God; they hate to be deified.

The acts of the followers of prophets should be in perfect conformity with the revealed religion. They are displeased with praise as practiced by certain fawning Christians.


posted in ENGLISH ISLAM | 1 Comment

8th Aralık 2008



There have been in the past instances of idolization of prophets and saints, concoctions of manuals and divisions among the devotees into factions against the explicit warning of God’s admonitions.

The objection raised by the clergy to printing and translating the Bible is an example of the biased approach of fanaticism. “It is true that by the invention of printing, the number of books marked a tremendous increase, contributing to the education of the public at large; however, it is also a fact that differences of opinions and dissensions among the public followed a similar trend. Men were henceforth asking questions and calling to doubt the tenets inculcated into their brains. They read, understood and prayed in their own tongues. Under the circumstances there was no more need to consult priests to be enlightened on religious issues. This was naturally to the detriment of the clergy. In order to keep them immune, the religious precepts should be the exclusivity of the clergy.” It was the clergy that had forestalled and retarded the development of sciences. The division into factions and sects of the clergy led to untold bloodshed. The public who tried to pray in its own tongue was subjected to the ordeal of excommunication, of granting of indulgences, of papal inquisitions to combat so-called heresies.






The Suras The Cattle, 154, and The Purgatory, 145 are in the same vein. Despite the fact that the Jews had in their hands the revelation that had been sent down to them through Moses, they created additional authorities under the names of Mishna and Gamara. The fanatics of Judaism had much in common with those of Islam.

5/44 – Surely we have sent down the Torah, having guidance and light. By it did the prophets who submitted themselves (to God) judge for the Jews and the rabbis and the doctors of law, because they were required to guard the Book of God and they were witnesses…
5 The Feast, 44

5/47 – The people of the Gospel shall judge in accordance with God’s revelations therein. And those who do not judge in accordance with what God has revealed are transgressors. 5 The Feast, 47



The oldest New Testament in our hands today is a Latin translation. This Gospel, originally revealed in Aramaic, is no more. We do not know what the original words were that found their equivalent in Latin as ‘Father’ and ‘Son.’ However, even in the Latin version we observe that these words are used not only for Christ but also for the whole of mankind. Every one of God’s creatures is referred to as Son and God, Father.

45 – So that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.
Bible – Matthew 5:45

17 – “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Bible – John 20:17

The expressions ‘son’ and ‘father’ are but metaphorical expressions.

35 – Jesus heard that they had cast him out and having found him he said: “Do you believe in the son of man?” New International Bible, John 9:35

35 – Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and when He had found him, He said to him, “Do you believe in the Son of God?” The New King James Version, John 9:35

We invite you to pay attention to the transformation of the expression ‘Son of Man’ mentioned in the first Gospel into ‘Son of God’ in the King James Version. In the following verse in the Gospel according to Matthew it is interesting to note the adulteration of the expression ‘father’:

And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Bible- Matthew, 23:9



We observe that no man is to be called ‘father’ on earth since the only father is the One who is in heaven. ‘Father’ is the biological begetter of man. It is our belief that the expression translated with the word ‘father’ here must have corresponded to a word that connoted the Creator. However, the translations are not to blame in the first place, since an impartial observer must have interpreted the expression, taking into consideration its metaphorical meaning.

The interpreters of Catholic and Orthodox sects are of the opinion that the name ‘son’ is metaphorically used for believers and in the true sense for Jesus. This debatable issue is rendered still more difficult since the original Gospel is not available, whereas the Quran is there in its original form. Therefore, it easy to sort out what is foreign to the God’s revelation. We must be reminded here of the fact that the church was the clergy. The tribunal that decided to put Christ to death consisted of rabbis. The greatest injury inflicted to the revealed religions has been by certain rabbis, priests and imams.

9/31 – They take their rabbis and their monks to be their lords in derogation of God. 9 Repentance, 31

9/34 – There are indeed many among the rabbis and priests, who in falsehood devour the substance of people and hinder then from the way of God. 9 Repentence, 34

It is a pity that the Muslims listen to these words as if a fairy story were being told. These stories are in fact parables told to set an example for the future of mankind. The clergy had been ascribed the attribute of divine authority while in Islam imams assumed the divine authority having the power to issue fatwas, ijtihads and sectarian decrees! Just like in the case of Christianity that does not fail to find pretexts for justifying the ways that the Catholic and Orthodox clergy have adopted, so have the Islam of traditionalists. Desmond Tutu, the Nobel Prize winning priest from South Africa, has the following to say about how the Church exploits religion for material ends. “When the missionaries came over to Africa we had our lands and they had their Bible. Then they told us to close our eyes and pray. When we opened our eyes, however, we saw that the Bible was in our hands and the land was in their possession.”

There are examples to follow in all these for the Jews and the Christians as well as for the Muslims. The followers of these three religions cannot truly understand their religion unless they shove away the sects and their chiefs. What is preached today is neither the religion of the original Bible, nor of the Torah, nor of the Quran. The dictates of the sects, the saints and rabbis have replaced them. What was human was disguised in a holy garb, so that the holy was coupled with human interpolations. Another perversion in religions has been to mystify the manifest truths of the scriptures by willful shifting of the meanings of words.

5/13 – They alter the words from their places and neglect a portion of that whereof they were reminded. 5 The Feast, 13

2/75 – Seeing that a party of them heard the words of God, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it. 2 The Cow, 75




An instance of the alterations made in the Torah and the Gospels is the misinterpretation of passages that made allusions to the advent of Muhammad.

7 – And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures (Himada) of all nations shall come in and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord of Hosts. 8 – The silver is mine and the gold is mine, declares the Lord of Hosts. 9 – The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the Lord of Hosts. And in this place I will give peace (shalom), declares the Lord of Hosts. Haggai 2:7-9

The Hebrew word ‘himada’ mentioned under Verse 7 of Haggai stems from the same root as H M D. in the Arabic language which is the root of the name ‘Muhammad’ carrying more or less the same meaning. Thus the name of the Prophet or the meaning of his name is mentioned with reference to a glorious event that was to take place in future. The advent of Muhammad that succeeded the Bible and addressed his message announcing God’s existence for billions of years was that glorious event. The word shalom (peace) in Verse 9 also comes from the same root as the word Islam.

15 – If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
16 – And I will ask the Father and He will give you another Helper (Paraclete) to be with you forever Bible – John 14:15-16

7 – Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper (Paraclete) will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.

8 – And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment. John 16:7-8

20 – He confessed and did not deny, but confessed: “I am not the Christ.”

21 – And they asked him: “What then? Are you Elija?” He said: “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered: “No.” John 1:20-21




According to the quotations above, it is clear that another prophet was expected. The history has not witnessed any other person who assumed the qualities of a prophet other than Muhammad. The fact that the words peryclitos and Muhammad have the same connotation must not be interpreted as pure coincidence. Prof. Maurice Bucaille has criticized the interpretation according to which the word paraclete meant the Holy Spirit (Gabriel) and contended that the word paraclete made allusion to a prophet whose advent had been foretold. The point, according to him, is not a question of inspiration by the Holy Spirit, but has the connotation, as in Greek, of spreading among men. The Greek words aquo and laleo can be interpreted as having to do with physical bodies having the organs of hearing and speech, which cannot be ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he says, the paraclete in the Gospel according to St. John refers to a physical being like Christ himself endowed with the senses of hearing and speaking. The Greek text definitely requires this. He is convinced that Christ had foretold the advent of a prophet that was to succeed him, a person endowed with the sense of hearing and speech through which he would be communicating God’s message to mankind. The available texts’ treatment of the Holy Spirit seem to have been altered on purpose with a view to changing the meaning inherent in the message that heralded the advent of a prophet after Jesus Christ. This was due to the wishes of the clergy to see Christ as the last of the prophets.




15 – Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 – You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?
17 – So every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 – A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 – Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 – Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. Matthew 7:15-20

Nowhere in any of the gospels it is said that no other prophet will come. The following criteria is given in the gospel: “Examine the fruit and distinguish the one who is a liar.” If no other prophet had been predicted to come after Jesus Christ, he might have said “Whoever comes after me claiming to be a prophet, he is a liar.” The method that Jesus suggested to tell the true and false prophets apart is sufficient proof of the advent of a prophet after Jesus. This fact should constitute acceptable evidence for the Christians. Somebody who came after Jesus, who believed in one God, who put his trust in God, who loved Him and was instrumental in establishing societies that had got rid of their idols, could not be any person other than Muhammad.

Despite all these explicit evidences and signs in the Old Testament and the New Testament, rabbis and Christian clergy have vied with one another to hush them up.;The viewpoints of the Catholic or Orthodox churches, the Pope in Rome and the archbishops whose names are not mentioned in any one of the gospels seem to be more authoritative than the scriptures for the majority of the Christian population.

We vent our anger at popes and archbishops, the Catholic and Orthodox sects; yet, we have a natural affection for the Sunni and Shii sects, the hadiths and the sectarian imams!


posted in ENGLISH ISLAM | 0 Comments

8th Aralık 2008



There have been no controversial points between sectarians on the questions of God’s unity, compassion, omnipotence, the hereafter and fundamental creeds, exceptions being made of certain heretics in the minority who exalted Ali, son-in-law of Muhammad, or of the incarnation of God in sheikhs. Yet there has been a wide divergence of opinions between the religion propounded in the Quran and the religion preached by sectarians on the issue of God as the unique lawgiver. According to the Quran, the only lawgiver is God, and the Quran embraces the totality of God’s commandments to the believers. The sectarians, however, first dared to represent Muhammad as God’s assistant in the establishment of Islam, later adding the Prophet’s companions, then the sectarian imams and certain sheikhs who were to assume the garb of reference sources. They contributed to the creation of a religious code outside the scope of the Quran. This sounded a discordant note in terms of religious practices. Whether a given act was lawful or not depended on the approval or disapproval of an imam whose opinion was equated with the word of the Quran. For example, God forbade the drinking of blood, the eating of dead animals, adultery and homicide. The sectarian imams added to this list of prohibitions, the consumption of mussels, the chiseling of statues, men’s wearing gold trinkets. The majority of these were supposedly based on hadiths. Thus God’s authority to impose prohibitions was shared by mortals.






ü DAWN PRAYER (Salat Al-Fadjr)

ü EVENING PRAYER (Salat Al-Isha)

















One of the great scandals that took place had to do with faith. Two groups of opponents emerged. According to one, the Quran was a product of creation, while for the other it was eternal. This clash of opinions gave rise to no inconsiderable antagonism between the parties. The Sunnis arrived at a conclusion, according to which the Quran had existed from eternity. The Sunni view that transformed the Quran, the only source of Islam, into one of the numerous reference sources of religion, that dared cancel Quranic verses claiming that on which they had been written were eaten by a goat, displayed its illogicality by attributing the Quran to eternal existence.

Irrelevant additions were made to Islam, those making the additions convinced that they were authorized to perfect it. Among such absurd contentions was, for instance, the question as to whether God’s compassion and grace had existed per se from eternity in God and with God or were created afterward.

Comments made in hadiths that gave the impression that God was not omnipotent caused problems for the various sects but the controversies were eventually ended.. The general public, followers of these sects, has certainly no idea of such hadiths, among which ‘God’s feeling the cold of His finger on the back of the Prophet’ and ‘God’s lighting up paradise by uncovering His calf’ are not only funny but also exceedingly preposterous. Such ‘religious’ considerations have provided the unbelievers with stuff for ridiculing the religion.

The interpolation in the religion of such concepts as ‘agony in the grave,’ and descriptions of hell and paradise outside the context of the Quran and the taking them for a part of the religion should be considered heretical approaches with respect to the hereafter. We must dispose of such unfounded creeds remaining outside the Quran.



Correct interpretation of the prayer commanded to the faithful is of great importance for the Islam of the Quran. The traditionalist mentality conceives that what is preached in the Quran is not sufficient to understand its due performance. This concern of traditionalists demonstrates that they are ignorant of what religion is. One should take care to accept certain principles for oneself and try to conceive it in that framework. Once the source of religion is made clear in the mind, we should try to understand the way to pray, how to keep the fast etc. with reference to it. In other words the way prayer must be performed will be conceived in the light of the knowledge one will draw from that source. One should not attempt to formulate the source in the image of one’s own mind. If one sees any discrepancy between what is practiced and what is actually preached in the Quran, one should do well to understand what is stated in the Quran and not try to change its contents.

Prayer has been described to its minutest detail in the Quran. Yet, this failed to satisfy the commentators who felt themselves compelled to add further details. However, we do not claim that certain things are unlawful. For instance, reciting the Sura Fatiha, the first Sura, the opening chapter of the Quran, in every prayer is not a binding duty, yet doing so is commendable. The error lies in the fact that this obligation was introduced later on and that the Quran did not contain it.

To say that a particular act has not been explicitly stated for the performance of the prayer does not mean that that act is against the Quran. The only thing is that one should know that it is not ordained by God. For instance, the error is not in reciting the verse Fatiha as such, but in saying that its recital whenever one gets up during the prayer is ordained by God. We advise you to pay attention to our comments on this issue as we proceed. Now, the following are the steps one should follow in the performance of the ritual prayer:



Ablution is mentioned in the Quran only as a prerequisite to precede the performance of prayer. Otherwise, there is no requirement for being in ritual purity when one steps in a mosque, for reciting the Quran and for any worship other than salat, the ritual ordained in the Quran. The following two verses mention the ablution one performs before the prayer and the total ritual ablution necessitated after sexual contact. Whatever we are expected to know are then contained in the following two verses.

5/6 – O you who believe, when you rise up for prayer, wash your face and your hands up to the elbows, and rub your head, and your feet till the heels. And if you are in a state of ceremonial impurity (junub) due to sexual contact, then purify yourself. And if you are sick or on a journey, or one of you comes from the privy, or you have had contact with women and you cannot find water, you shall observe tayammum (dry ablution), by touching the soil, then rubbing your face and hands. God desires not to place a burden on you but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may give thanks.
5 The Feast, 6

4/43 – O you who believe! Go not near prayer when you are intoxicated till you know what you say. Nor after sexual contact without bathing. If you are ill, or on a journey, or come from the privy, or contacted women, and you cannot find water, you shall observe tayammum (dry ablution), by touching soil, then rubbing your face and hands. God is Pardoner, Forgiver. 4 The Women, 43


1) Reason for performing ablution before the prayer and for the total ritual ablution.

We can deduce from the contents of the above verses that both kinds of ablutions are required before performing the salat (ritual prayer), 5 Sura The Feast, 6 states that ablution must be performed before prayers and in 4 The Women, 43 it is made clear that a person who had sexual contact should not perform the prayer unless he/she washed his/her entire body.


2) When to perform the ablution

At the end of each of the above verses it is indicated how to proceed when water necessary for performing the ablution is not available. The state that annuls the canonical purity is made clear: when one has just relieved nature and returning from the gait (Arabic word meaning pit) used for a water-closet or privy; we have avoided using the word ‘bathroom’ where one can perform things other than merely relieving nature. No other act or state can necessitate the renewal of ablution such as bleeding or eating of camel flesh.


3) When to perform the ghusl (total ritual ablution)

Contacting women (coition), the state of junup (denoting in Arabic the state of one who has had a sexual relation) necessitates the entire washing of the body before one can perform the prayer. In no other state is one commanded to take a bath. The word “junub” whose root is “janp” means “togetherness, proximity,” that is sexual contact.


4) How to perform the ablution

In the beginning of Sura 5 The Feast, 6 the manner of performing ablution is described. In the text, the imperative “wash” is followed by direct objects “face and hands up to the elbows,” and the imperative “rub” is followed by direct objects “the head and feet down until the heels.” Were someone to say to you “Wash the bathroom and the kitchen and wipe the hall and the entrance,” you would surely understand that the entrance must be wiped and not washed. Yet, for some reason or other all the Sunnis interpreted the ‘rubbing’ act that preceded the direct object ‘feet’ as ‘washing ’ rather than ‘wiping.’ Nor can we deduce from the order in which the direct objects are quoted the rubbing act as an interim act and that it is reserved solely for the head. For, in the sequence, we have first the face and hands, which is followed by the head before going down to the feet. Therefore the imperative ‘wash’ cannot possible apply to feet. The conventional practice is due to the interpretation of fabricated hadiths. Among the Shiites, for instance, the feet are rubbed by hand according to their hadiths. It is not our aim to refute the hadiths by reference to other hadiths, but to show the contradiction between the sects. Süleyman Ateþ, who draws attention to the fact that many a companion used to rub their feet during the performance of ablution, gives an account of the Arabic version of the act as follows: “God Almighty has commanded us to wash two principal body parts: the face and the arms. The imperative ‘wash’ is followed by direct objects ‘the face and the arms.’ He ordered that the two body parts be rubbed; namely, the head and the feet down to the heels. It follows that the face and the arms are to be washed. Likewise, the two direct objects of the imperative ‘rub’ are the head and the feet. These are then the two body parts to be rubbed. There is a fine point that supports this. The first of the two direct objects following the imperative ‘wash’ refers to a single body part while the second one indicates a pair (i.e. two hands). Likewise, the first of the two direct objects that follow the imperative ‘rub’ refers to a pair (i.e. two feet)” (Süleyman Ateþ, Encyclopedia of the Quran, Vol. 1, Ablution).

While performing the ablution, the face and the arms up until the elbows are washed; the head and the feet up to the heels are wiped. That is all. However, anyone who chooses so may rinse his mouth, wipe the nape of his neck, wash his feet including the heels, while reciting verses or special devotional lines. One thing is certain, all these are not binding. God has made clear the manner the ablution is to be performed.


5) The total ablution (for ceremonial impurity)

We already made it clear that this total ablution is required after sexual contact. Two Arabic words explain what we are supposed to do. In Sura 5 The Feast the word ‘tahara’ means to be cleansed and in Sura 4 The Women the word ‘ghusl’ means to wash. There are no detailed accounts of what one is to do, no such imperatives as ‘wash this part and that part of your body up to this and that level.’ ‘Rinse your mouth three times and clean your nose by inhaling water into your nostrils and blowing it out three times,’ ‘Do not leave a speck of your body unwashed, pour water first over your right shoulder then over your left one.’ Given the fact there are no such indications, one should understand from the verb gasala, merely to wash. The word tahara is cleansing. Anyone who takes a bath is considered to have performed the total ablution. Even a child would understand what the command ‘Wash!’ means. And yet grown people are at a loss to interpret the command, without realizing the fact that their lack of understanding results from their own incapacity to comprehend the bare reality. To compensate for their shortcomings, they blame the Quran and accuse it of insufficiency while referring to books wherein such details are supplied to supplement it.


6) What to do when water is not available

Under normal conditions, the scarcity of water is not a daily occurrence. When exceptionally no water is available, man is told to perform the ablution by tayammum, i.e. rubbing one’s hands with earth and applying them on one’s face and hands.



In Sura 2 The Cow, 144, 149, 150, Muslims are commanded to turn toward Mescidi Haram (Mecca) while performing the prayer. If a performer of prayer cannot properly determine which way to turn, he may still perform his prayer knowing of the omnipresence of God (2 The Cow, 115).



There is no particular prescription for the clothes to wear during the performance of the prayer (salat). A person performing the prayer individually may wear anything. When daily prayers are performed in congregation, a person must wear his/her beautiful apparel (see 7 Purgatory, 31) From 2 The Cow, 125 and 22 The Pilgrimage, 26 it is understood that the place where prayer is performed must be kept clean.



In 4 The Women, 103 it is said: “Prayers are commanded for believers at stated times.” Salat (prayer) is a worship during which the individual is in the presence of God. There is no doubt about the fact that the Quran has indicated the exact times when one is to perform one’s prayer. We are referring to those binding prayers as ordained by God. Salat (ritual prayer) is a praiseworthy prayer. It is a way of turning oneself toward God and remembering Him. In this sense it is a prayer that can be performed any time; however, not every prayer that one can perform is binding. For instance, if he/she so feels, a man/woman may perform salat even at midnight although this is not required of him/her. There is no doubt that the Prophet and his companions did perform prayers at times other than the appointed times. Nevertheless, the traditionalist mentality, ignoring the fact that the only source of religion was the Quran, conceived and declared that some of these prayers were binding, others being sunna. Instead of reverting to the Quran, they preferred to emulate the companions of the Prophet and of those near him. According to the Sunnis the number of times that a man shall perform the salat is 5; namely, before the break of dawn, at noon, in the afternoon, in the evening and at night. On the other hand, for the Shiites this number is three. In former times this number had been two or three among the Kharidjis.

The prayers that have not been explicitly indicated in the Quran may well have been performed by the Prophet himself, the Caliphs or the Shiis. It is certainly commendable that one prays outside the appointed hours, but they should not be considered as binding. The error is partly due to the misinterpretation of hadiths. Now we are going to discuss the names and the hours of performance of salats as declared “binding” in the Quran.



DAWN PRAYER (Salat Al-Fadjr)

The Arabic word salat means ‘to establish a link (with one’s Creator).’ Used together with the word ‘ikama’ for performing the ritual prayer. The dawn prayer is mentioned in Sura 24 The Light, 58 with the name al-fadjr. The word al-fadjr means the time from daybreak until the rise of the sun. The time is referred to in the following Sura:

11/114 – And keep up prayer at the two extremities of the day at the approach of the night. Surely good deeds take away evil deeds.
11 Hud, 114

The Arabic word nahari means day and layl night; tarafayn nahari means the two extremities of the day. On the other hand taraf means side, end, extremity, contiguity. What is meant then is the dawn and the sunset which comprise the early morning and the evening prayers. To make it clearer the expression ‘zulafan minal-layl’ (at the approach of the night) is used to signify the time portion in which night is bordering on the day.

The dawn prayer is mentioned in Sura 24 The Light, 58 in which also the time of prayer is indicated. The time is also referred to in Sura Hud, 114. In other words the time for the morning prayer is the time that extends from the first rays of the day until the rise of the sun.




It is mentioned in Sura 24 The Light, 58 that the word isha means the time extending from sunset until the darkness sets in. The same word is also mentioned in the 12th sura, verse 16, and the 79th sura verse 46.

24/58 – O you who believe! Permission must be requested by your dependants and those who have not yet reached the age of puberty. On three occasions: before dawn prayer, at noon when you change your clothes and after the evening prayer. These are your three times of undress. 24 The Light, 58

Some translators interpreted the evening prayer as late-night prayer. The reason may have been the disrobing of persons when they are back home from the last prayer of the day they have performed. However, the word “isha” means clearly the evening time. Therefore the expressions “night prayer” or “late-night prayer” are not correct.

The times for the dawn prayer and the evening prayer are foreseen in Sura 11 Hud, 114. When one of the prayers is performed at dawn the other will be the prayer performed symmetrically in the evening. The time of the evening prayer is the approach of the night, too. Moreover, there is another verse that refers to the time of the evening prayer:

17/78 – You shall observe prayer at the decline of the sun till the darkness of the night and the recital of the Quran at dawn. Surely the recital of the Quran at dawn is witnessed. 17 The Children of Israel, 78

The expression the “declining of the sun” (duluk ul-shams) means, of course, the sunset. So the time extending from sunset until the darkness sets in is the time during which one can perform one’s prayer. It is interesting to note that the time of dawn is also stressed along with the evening prayer in the continuation of the verse. The reciting of the Quran at dawn also seems to be considered important.

The times indicated for prayers are inherent in the names of the prayers, i.e. the dawn prayer and the evening prayer. Moreover, the times for prayers are foreseen in 11 Hud, 114. In 24 The Light, 58 the fact that the dawn prayer is the first prayer and the evening prayer is the last prayer is implied.




It is stated in the Quran:

2/238 – Guard the prayers and the middle (the most excellent) prayer and stand up truly obedient to Allah. 2 The Cow, 238

There are no other verses indicating the times for prayers other than the verses in which the times for the dawn prayer and the evening prayer are indicated, and the above verse. With the one being at one side, the other at the other side of the day, the salat al wusta must take place between these prayers. Given the fact that in all cultures the day is the time that man wakes up and the night is for the night rest, this salat is to be performed during the day. (In 17 The Children of Israel, 79, the midnight prayer was commanded only to the Prophet.)

According to another view, the word wusta also means “the most excellent” and does not refer to a salat particularly, but to keeping the prayers and performing them in the most excellent manner. The word wusta is also mentioned in the following suras: 2 The Cow, 143; 5 The Feast, 89; 68 The Pen, 28 and 100 The Gallopers, 5. An examination of it in these contexts will reveal the true meaning of the expression.

As one can see, there is no mention of salat performed five times a day. Nor is it made clear what is to be recited during the performance of prayer, while bowing or prostrating. Even we do not encounter any indication in the hadiths whether a prayer should be long or short. Many particulars came to be formed by the private opinions of the sectarians. There are a great number of hadiths about the Prophet’s performing prayers of long and short duration. The sectarians have limited the act that had been left to the discretion of the individual and compelled their imitators to act likewise. It is clear in the Quran that there are no particular verses dictated by the Quran to be recited during certain phases of the prayer, whether standing, bowing or seated. As a matter of fact, had the hadiths been correctly interpreted, the conclusion would not have differed. The sects have overcrowded the requirements of prayers with their own inventions.

On the other hand, one cannot derive from the hadiths the traditional five times of the prayer. There are some hadiths proving the Prophet keeping the number of times to three. The Shiites for instance, who perform the salat three times a day, relate the fact to their own body of hadiths. The Shiite attempt at combining the five times into three may have originated from the idea of a compromise of the two schools. Nowhere in the Quran do we come across an expression for combining the prayers. It is clear that the binding prayers are those ordered in the Quran. What makes a prayer performed on time is its being executed at the apportioned time and not the number of bowings or prayers recited in the course of it. Like the Shiites, the Sunni sects Shafi, Maliki and Hanbali have tolerated the combining of the prayer times. Some thought that this should be left to the discretion of the individual, and for some, to certain special circumstances.

However; for, anybody who feels like performing it more than a certain number of prayers, may well go ahead. The determination of the number of prayer times at five is the suggestion of the Sunni sects. Had the number been really 5, the fact should have explicitly been stated in the Quran. Considering that in Sura 17 The Children of Israel, 79 a special midnight prayer had been commanded for the Prophet only, if God so desired He would certainly have laid down the times of prayers to five. The conventional performance of prayers at other times, like in the afternoon and late at night, the exact time of which is uncertain, has ended by imposing them as binding with a view to putting into an order the acts of remembering God and repeating His name. To make the times of these prayers a binding duty is unacceptable.

30/17 – So glory be to Allah when you enter the evening and when you enter the morning.

30/18 – And to Him be praise in the heavens and the earth, and at the time of noon. 30 The Romans, 17-18



The minimum number or prayers has been indicated; however, but the number of prayers that can be performed is not limited. It may be five or more. Those who witnessed the performances of the Prophet’s companions at other times as well (for instance, in the afternoon and at night) ended by declaring them also binding. Were we to deduce from the habits of certain people the number of times one should pray, there would be many more salats supposedly commanded like the evvabin, kushluk and kusuf prayers. In conclusion, the number of times is stated in the Quran and it must be considered a principle. God has left no missing part in His Book.

As a matter of fact, the pilgrims perform the salat three times a day. Considering that minute particulars are stated in the Quran about the requirements for the performance of the ritual (including what a person who had to have his hair trimmed should do), why is there no mention of anything anywhere in the Quran about the shortening of the number of prayers during the pilgrimage? Had the number commanded been five, why is it not stated so?



The fact that the number of times of the salat foreseen to be performed was not five and the traditional performance of the supplemental prayers in the afternoon and at night were not binding had already been advocated by the Kharidjies and the members of the religious school, Mutezila. Those who tried to prove that the number of times that salat was to be performed in the course of a day was five had also concocted a fabricated hadith according to which, as we have already said, the Prophet, during his ascension to the presence of the Almighty, receives the message that the number of prayers is fifty. Whereupon, the Prophet, on his way back, runs across Moses who finds the number too high and advises him to refer to God so that He may make a reduction in the said number. Upon request, God reduces the number. But Moses, still not satisfied with the result, asks him to go and renew his plea, which he does. After many such comings and goings the number is reduced to five, at which the Prophet is reluctant to go any further despite the fact that Moses insists on it. According to this hadith, it appears that God is incapable of assessing the potential of man and the Prophet is an ignoramus, while Moses proves to be his advisor and the regulator of God’s schemes and the savior of the Muslim community. The conclusive evidence of the number 5 is based therefore on this fabricated hadith. The fact that there are hadiths dating prior to the ascent to heaven of the Prophet that say that the number of prayer times was but two, one in the dawn and one at evening (see Bukhari) is evidence that the number had been augmented following the ascent. If that had been the case and the number was two, why then does the Quran not mention that the number had been brought up to five afterward? One might assert only that the ‘middle prayer’ had been added afterward as stated in Sura The Cow, 238. Why are the afternoon and night prayers not clearly indicated in the Quran?



Salat is performed with a view to remembering God (20 Taha, 14). However, it is performed in stated times and on a clean state, i.e. having performed ablution. It is a prayer performed even when there is a war going on.

4/102 – When you are with them, and stand to lead them in prayer, let one party of them stand up with you, taking their arms with them; when they finish their prostrations, let them take their position in the rear. And let the other party come up which has not yet prayed and let them pray with you… 4 The Women, 102

It appears that salat existed even from the time of Abraham (14 Abraham, 40). Even the heathen people who had captured the Kaaba, where Abraham used to pray, performed the ritual prayer, though in a strayed fashion (8 The Spoils of War, 35). The habit to pray had been abandoned afterward because of the lust of past generations.19/59 – But after them there followed a posterity who missed prayers and followed after lusts; soon, then, will they face destruction.
19 Mary, 59

The salat involves three main acts: namely, kýyam (standing up), ruku (bowing) and suju (prostration). Although there is no mention in the Quran about the obligation to recite it while performing the salat, we are told that the Quran is described as a remembrance (zikr) of God. This is an indication that in performing the salat the Quran is our guide. His compassion, beneficence, grace, creation of hell and paradise, among other things, and omniscience are all mentioned in the Quran. In performing the salat we are not obliged to recite the Quran in the Arabic language. While there is not even the mention of the obligation to recite the verses of the Quran, how are we to deduce that what is to be recited should be in Arabic, since a person who keeps on repeating words he has learned by memory is unable to concentrate on the words his lips pronounce? In this way, the automatic repetition of verses in a language other than one’s own risk having their meaning lost. You may have witnessed many performers of the salat confess to have been thinking about other things while their lips kept repeating the words learned by heart.4/43 – O you who believe! Approach not prayers while intoxicated until you can understand all that you say… 4 The Women, 43

The above verse indicates the importance of a clear mind during the salat in which God’s name is to be pronounced and the individual is obliged to understand what he is saying. If understanding is important, how can a man, who speaks no Arabic, understand what he is reciting? What difference can there be between a person whose mind is clear reciting verses the meaning of which he does not understand and the intoxicated whose mind is clouded?

The Quran commands man to ask for help from God with patience (2 The Cow, 45). How can a man who performs his salat not, in his vernacular, ask for help from God? Do those who are against the performance of salat in one’s own tongue not prevent the fulfilment of this command? All the minor formal details in the performance of the salat may be duly obeyed, but real communication of the individual between him and his God is thus hampered due to Arabophilia. To summarize:

1) During the salat one praises God, therefore one’s consciousness must be clear (20 Taha, 14).
2) Salat requires pious reverence and awe (23 The Believers, 2).
3) Salat restrains a person from evil deeds (29 The Spider, 45).

Praying in one’s vernacular is essential for the establishment of communication between the individual and his Creator. If you accept the fact that not everybody can learn the Arabic language, praying in one’s tongue becomes indispensable.

72/18 – The places of worship are for God, so invoke not any one along with God. 72 Jinn, 18

It is worth remembering that help is asked only from God and not from prophets, from so-called awliya (saints) and from the departed.



There is no concept of rakat in the Quran. Had God so wanted He would have indicated the number of rakats during the salat. Rakat is the unit of prayer consisting of kýyam (standing), ruku (bowing) and suju (prostrating). Now the number of times expected to be repeated during a salat are in general practice as follows: at the Morning Prayer, two rakats, at the noon prayer, four rakats and at the evening prayer, three rakats. These numbers may also be interpreted to mean ‘any number of times a person wishes to perform.’ It is clear that these numbers have again been set down by sectarians as a binding duty. The companions and the Prophet himself may have performed a definite number of rakats, especially during congregational prayers just to render the ritual uniform so as to avoid confusion. Likewise, certain acts during prayer like raising one’s hands to one’s ears before starting the prayer, saluting by turning one’s head to the right and to the left, and in certain sectarian practices, to slap one’s knees to indicate the end of the salat are in this category. These acts may be performed, as there is nothing against them in the Quran. But to transform them into binding requirements is wrong. A person may perform a salat consisting of ten rakats in three minutes while another may perform a salat consisting of just one rakat for hours on end. There is no reason indicated for the importance of the number of rakats. God has not compelled us to count the number of rakats during the prayer.

Some have deduced from the indication that there is nothing wrong with shortening the duration of salat during wartime as mentioned in Verses 101, 102, 103 of Sura The Women that the salat should be performed at least in two rakats. “Given the fact that a shortened prayer consists of one rakat, the entire prayer should be of two rakats.” They bring as evidence to this the following facts: as the Prophet led two congregations, two rakats were performed in all. We are of the opinion that shortening of prayer does not entail the reduction of the number of rakats but of the duration of the prayer. A salat of one rakat may last hours while a salat of two rakats may take less than a minute. The shortening does not refer to the reduction in the number of rakats but in the duration of the prayer. In war the damage that the enemy may inflict is related not to the number of rakats but to the duration of the prayer. As we have already noted there is no mention of rakats in the Quran. The reason why we reckon a prayer in terms of rakats must be due to our conventional habits. The expression ‘la junahoun’ in the Quran in Sura 4 The Women, 103 translated as ‘There is no blame’ is also used elsewhere to dispel the anxiety of Muslims. For instance, in Sura 2 The Cow, 198 the same expression is used to indicate that the pilgrims may freely circle Safa and Marva. Even in the absence of this verse there would have been no obstacle for the circling by the Muslims of these areas. Likewise, with reference to the shortening of the salat, the question is to indicate that there is no inconvenience in doing so. Otherwise, there is no verse indicating the duration. It may be that Muslims have felt uneasy to have performed the salat shorter in wartime and that they were comforted by this expression. In Sura 2 The Cow, 198 also the expression ‘la junahun’ is used meaning that it is no sin to seek the bounty of the Lord.

Logically speaking the number of rakats cannot possibly contribute to the essence of salat. The name of God is not recited more when the number of rakats is more. A person may spend longer time during a rakat and repeat the name of God as many times as he thinks fit. Those, who limited the number of rakats, thought that the same salat must not be repeated more than once they thus limited the times that God’s name was to be recited. So, God has left to the discretion of the individual to choose the number of rakats he will perform.



The prayers recited during the salat must be not too loud nor said to oneself.

17/110 – Do not utter your salat (prayers) too loudly, nor secretly; you shall use a moderate tone. 17 The Children of Israel, 110



The verses that refer to this salat are as follows:

62/9 – O you who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday (the day of Congregation) hasten earnestly to the remembrance of God and leave off business that is best for you if you but knew!

62/10 – And when the prayer is finished then you may spread through the land and seek of the bounty of God. And continue to remember God frequently that you may succeed.

62/11 – When some of them come across a business deal, or some entertainment, they rush to it and leave you standing! Say “What God possesses is far better than entertainment or the business. God is the best provider. “ 62 The Congregation, 9-11

From the above we understand that:

1 – Friday, (the day of congregation) is the day of assembly and when the call to prayer is heard man must abandon his work and proceed to perform the congregational prayer;

2 – It is clear that the time set for it is during the working hours, between the morning (fajr) and the evening (isha) prayers.

3 – Upon the conclusion of the prayer everybody goes back to his work; so it is not a holiday.

4 – It must be performed in congregation, unlike the other salats that can be performed individually.

5 – No distinction is made for man or woman. (Not even in the hadiths can one come across such a prohibition.) The Ommayads and Abbasids invented the rumor that the Friday prayer is for men only.



Verses 101, 102 and 103 of the Sura The Women describe the prayer to be performed during a war.

In such an eventuality, while one group performs the prayer, another group will be on the watch. The praying individuals shall not abandon their weapons (weapons may be set aside during torrential rains, sickness, wounding); at the end of the prayer the name of God is pronounced.



2/239 – If you fear to pray while walking or riding, but when you are in security, remember God in the manner He has taught you, which you knew not before. 2 The Cow, 239

This shows clearly that the prayer must be made at the appointed times regardless of the circumstance.



Although there is no particular prescription for the performance of salat before the coffin of a dead person, in Verse 84 of Sura The Repentance it is indicated that no salat must be performed for traitors who betrayed Muhammad. Therefore we must deduce that salat may be performed at the funerals for persons who did not betray Muhammad.



There is no prescribed call to prayer in the Quran. Whenever a congregational service is to be held, as in the case of Friday prayer, it is only too natural that a call be proclaimed (62 The Congregation, 9). As the manner the call is to be made has not been described, the call may be made either in one’s own tongue or in Arabic, whether by human (man or woman) voice or through loudspeakers.

There is no mention of call to prayer dictated by the Prophet following a revelation. According to the hadiths, those who came to pray too early complained of having been obliged to abandon work and the latecomers of having missed the congregational performance. Various suggestions were made to find a middle course. Following a dream (see Abu Davud as Sunan), the human voice gained precedence. According to another hadith, Bilal has added on his own initiative, the words ‘As-salatu hayrun Minan Nawm’ (prayer is more favorable than sleep) to the call to prayer for the dawn prayer. It follows from this that the call to prayer could be executed according to circumstances, as it was not a binding duty commanded by the Quran. We have been saying that whatever is not dictated by the Quran is left to the discretion of the individual. The reason why we have thought it advisable to remind our readers of this fact since traditionalist Islamists have maintained that the call to prayer cannot be in the vernacular but must be in the Arabic language. Actually this is the expression of their own idea (true or not) without any foundation in religion. Something is certain; the call to prayer has not been revealed and is left to the discretion of the individual.



103 – Once you complete your salat (prayer), you shall remember God while standing, sitting or lying down on your side. 4 The Women, 103

God should also be remembered after the performance of salat. As foreseen in the Sura The Women, 103, individuals have developed the habit of remaining seated after the conclusion of the prayer to remember God. This is all very well. But we must remember this is not a binding duty and we are free to remember God also in other postures.



The Quran describes the contribution for God’s approval using various expressions, such as alms, charity or “feeding of the poor” (74 The Hidden, 44); “who strive with their goods” (4 The Women, 95).

Although we have been told to use part of our assets for the benefit of the poor, nowhere in the Quran do we come across the prescription of a definite amount like 1/40. It was the sects that had determined this rate. However, this corresponded to cash in gold or silver. According to the assets involving camels, sheep etc. the rates differed. For instance the rate of the crop was 1/10. If the water you use to irrigate your field was brought from somewhere else the rate fell to 1/20. All these rates are not mentioned in the Quran. It is worth while to make a note of the fact that the said rates are irrational. Why should a person who is a possessor of gold and silver give 1/40 of his assets while a farmer gives 1/10 of his assets? Are farmers richer than the possessor of accumulated wealth? Or is farming a more lucrative source of income than commerce? How are the rates for possessors of camels and sheep evaluated, and in what do these differ?

The word infak is mentioned in the Quran, which means both to spend for God’s sake and for spendings destined for other purposes:

8/36 – The unbelievers spend (infak) their wealth to hinder from the path of God and so will they continue to spend. 8 The Spoils of War, 36

On the other hand, the word sadaqa (alms, charity) is used only for spendings made for God’s sake.

9/103 – Of their goods take alms (sadaqa) that you may cleanse and purify (zaka) them 9 Repentance, 103

Here the Arabic words sadaqa and zaka seem to be synonyms, spendings made in the path of God signifying purification. While we can equate the sadaka (charity) with zekat (alms), we can also interpret the zekat in broader terms. In this sense, zekat would mean a purification to which all our potentialities would contribute. An individual can make donations of all his assets and perform thereby the duty commanded to him while he can at the same time perform this duty by enabling others to benefit from his store of knowledge. The Quran makes the following statement about the persons to whom one may donate one’s assets.

2/177 – For your relatives, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask and for the ransom of slaves. 2 The Cow, 177

2/115 – They ask you what they should spend (infak). Say: “Whatever you spend that is good, is for parents and relatives and orphans and those in want and for wayfarers, and whatever you do that is good. God knows it well.” 2 The Cow, 115

2/173 – For those in need, who are engaged in the service of God, who are not able to move about in the land. The unaware may think that they are rich due to their dignified appearance. You can know them from their faces, they beg not importunately. God is surely cognisant of good things that you spend (infak). 2 The Cow, 173

9/60 – Alms (sadaqa) shall go to the poor, the needy, the workers who collect them, those hearts that have been recently reconciled, those in bondage, those in debt, in the cause of God, and to the wayfarer. Such is God’s commandment. God is all-knowing and most wise.
9 Repentance, 60

The persons to receive alms are indicated. The amount or the rate is not mentioned with a mathematical proportion in the Quran, but it is said:

2/219 – And they ask you what they should spend (infak). Say “What you denote.” God thus clarifies His signs, in order that you may consider.
2 The Cow, 219

In the Quran the portion to be spent as alms (zekat) is not expressed in ratios, like 1/40, 1/10, etc. In some translated versions the expression used is “excess,” and “beyond your needs.” In the Arabic version the word used is afw, of which the literal meaning is “pardon, forgiving.” What is actually meant however is donation. Those who are interested in further possible significations of this word are referred to the following verses: 2 The Cow, 187; 3 The Family of Imran, 152-155; 5 The Feast, 95-10;, 9 Repentance, 43; 42 Consultation, 40; 64 Mutual Blaming, 14.

The Quran condemns stinginess and commands that we give to our kind what He has made a gift of to us for His sake. The Quran makes private property lawful but commands man to use his intelligence to bring about social balance by freely giving away what He has provided us with. The Quran teaches us that the poor have rights to our assets (Sura 70 The Heights, 24-25) and that by giving to them a portion of our assets we purify (zekat) ourselves.

16/7 – God has favored some of you over others in the means of subsistence. But those who have been favored with more do not give of their means to their dependents so that they may become equal with them. Do they deny God’s beneficence? 16 The Honey Bees, 7

9/34 – O you who believe! There are indeed many among the rabbis and priests who in falsehood devour the substance of people and hinder them from the way of God. 9 Repentance, 34

The person who will dispose of his assets for God’s sake shall not forget that the real owner of his assets is God. He will bear in mind all the verses to this effect in the Quran and perform this devotional act. As one can deduce from the above quoted verses, this donation will continue until everybody becomes socially equal to each other.

Is it worthwhile to note that we should take care that our charities are not intercepted by swindler religionists. In this devotional scheme everybody will make his contribution suiting his relative standing.

65/7 – Let the man of means spend according to his means: and the man whose resources are restricted let him spend according to what God has given him. God puts no burden on any person beyond what He has given him. 65 Divorce, 7

God ordains that our spending in the way of contributions may be both open and concealed, although He prefers the latter alternative.

13/22 – And spend of what We have given them, secretly or openly.
13 The Thunder, 22

2/271 – If you give alms openly, it is well. But if you do it secretly and give to the poor, that is better. 2 The Cow, 271

However a man giving alms must not show off.

2/262 – Those who spend their substance in the cause of God and follow not up their gifts with reminders of their generosity or with injury, for them their reward is with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

263 – Kind words and the covering of faults are better than charity that hurts. God is Rich, Kind.

264 – O you who believe! Cancel not your charity by reminders of your generosity or by injury, like those who spend their substance only to show off, but believe neither in God nor in the Last Day.
2 The Cow, 262-263-264

Fabricators of principles have laid down a rule according to which in order that alms are given, an asset must have remained for at least a year in the possession of a person. Most of the rich people, owners of holdings, never let their riches lie idle but keep them running. Considerations like ‘debtors are not supposed to give alms,’ or ‘no alms should be given from raw material used in the production process’ are not valid, for holding owners and factory owners who produce on a credit basis will not be obliged to give any alms while the housewife who has on her arms golden bracelets will have to give away 1/40 of them and the farmer 1/10 of his harvest. According to another interpretation of traditionalists, no alms are supposed to be given for transportation means. That means a person owning a luxury car will be exempted from alms while the farmer who gathers 10 kg of tomatoes will have to give away one kg. All this remains outside the context of the Quran.

3/92 – By no means shall you attain righteousness unless you give of that which you love and whatever you give God is fully aware thereof.
3 The Family of Imran, 92


The following verses contain everything about the prescribed fast:

2/183 – O you who believe! Fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you. That you may learn self-restraint.

2/184 –For a fixed number of days, Iif one is ill or traveling, an equal number of other days may be substituted. Those who have difficulty to do it should compensate by feeding a poor person. But it is better for person who gives more of his own free will,. And it is better for you that you fast, if you only knew.

2/185 – Ramadan is the month in which the Quran was sent down, as guidance to man, also as clear proof and a standard. Those of you who witness this month shall fast. Those who are ill or traveling may substitute the same number of other days. God wishes convenience, not hardship for you, so that you may complete prescribed period, and to glorify God for guiding you, and be grateful.

2/187 – Permitted to you on the night of the fasts is the approach to your wives, they are your garments and you are their garments. God knows what you used to do secretly among yourselves; but he turned to you and forgave you. So now approach to them, and seek what God has ordained for you. Eat and drink until you can discern a white thread from a black thread by the dawn. Then complete your fast till the night appears. 2 The Cow, 183, 184, 185, 187


To summarize:

1. Fasting is a binding duty (2 The Cow, 183).

2. Fasting is kept in the month of Ramadan (2 The Cow, 185); Ramadan is the month in which the Quran was revealed. Ramadan is a calendar month. The whole thing may be calculated by observation of the movements of the moon. However, today we do not have to observe the phases of the moon since they are observed with modern instruments.

3. Those who cannot keep the fast for reasons of health or travel may break their fast and compensate for it later (2 The Cow, 184). It is worth mentioning here that there is no evidence in the Quran about a man’s obligation to fast for 61 days should he break his fast without justification. This is an fabricated story concocted by hadiths and sects. There are certain cases, however, in which a fast must be kept as a retribution;.namely, with reference to certain shortcomings in the performance of the Hajj (2 The Cow, 196), like the two months fasting for having caused, by mistake, the death of a believer, and for having failed to emancipate a believing slave (4 The Women, 92). In Sura 5 The Feast, 89 it is foreseen for those who have broken their oath to keep the fast as an expiation; the same thing is mentioned in Sura 5 The Feast, 95 with reference to those who kill game while on pilgrimage. In Sura 58 The Female Disputant, 4, two months of successive fasting has been foreseen for those who put down their wives by calling them their mothers or sisters. One can see that for the expiation of certain offenses fasting is ordained. Had there been a punishment for breaking one’s fast on purpose, the Quran would have mentioned it. Moreover, among the offenses mentioned above, the probability of the occurrence of some is infinitesimal.

4. The individuals who would have difficulty in keeping the fast are commanded to effect redemption by feeding a poor man. Certain sectarians tried to restrict the state of ‘difficulty in keeping the fast’ to such excuses as old age or incurable diseases. Such interpretations are again interpolations in God’s commands. Had God so desired He would have made such a restriction Himself. Muslims are expected to assess their situations keeping in mind God’s proximity to them and will remember that fasting is better as laid down in Sura 2 The Cow, 185.

5. The time to begin fasting is daybreak. The indication is the discernment by the eye of a white thread from a black one; the simile is said to have its origin in the semblance of the horizon as a thread. The end of the fasting is the end of the day as stated in Sura The Cow, 187.

6. Husbands may approach their wives at night time during the month of Ramadan (2 The Cow, 187). Fasting without eating or drinking anything and being abstinent in sexual intercourse are commanded upon us during the time in the course of which the fasting is a binding duty. Bleeding, vomiting, swearing, quarreling reported to invalidate a fast have no justifiable grounds, they are fabrications.



The Hajj is described in the following verses: 2 The Cow, 158, 189, 196, 198, 199, 200 and 203; 3 The Family of Imran, 97; 5 The Feast, 1, 2, 95, 96, 97; 9 Repentance, 3; 22 The Pilgrimage, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29.To summarize:

1 – Hajj is the pilgrimage to the Kaaba. According to the Quran men and women have to perform the Hajj at least once in the course of their lifetime provided they are able to do so. (3 Ali Imran, 97). Those who can afford it are commanded to go on pilgrimage. Sectarians tried to restrict the meaning of ‘affording’. This is unacceptable; for, had He wanted to do so God would have made that restriction. The verb ‘to afford’ may have more than one meaning, such as ‘not to be a slave’, ‘to be rich enough to bear the cost involved’ and last but not least ‘to be in good health.’ Yet all these meanings are rather subjective. Individuals are to decide whether they are in a position to perform the pilgrimage by appealing to their conscience.

2 – The Hajj is a ritual dating back to the time of Abraham (22 The Pilgrimage, 26, 27).

3 – In Sura 2 The Cow 197 it is said that the months of pilgrimage are well known. Attention must be drawn to the fact that the word ‘months’ is in plural. Yet, in our day, the pilgrims restrict the time during which they will perform the pilgrimage and create stampedes with serious consequences. The pilgrimage is a custom known since Abraham. When one speaks of spring, the months of March, April and May come to mind, for instance. The said months of pilgrimage were also the months during which fighting was banned. Tribes around the Kaaba observed this ban. Even the heathens that succeeded Abraham kept observing this custom with a few exceptions and considered themselves as the protector of the Kaaba. They viewed those months as months when their trade would thrive. We can deduce from the contents of Sura 8 The Spoils of War, 34-35 that they considered themselves guardians as well. The fact that the sacred months mentioned in Sura 2 The Cow, 194 (after two verses, the Hajj is mentioned), the fact that fighting in the sacred months is a great offense mentioned in Sura 2 The Cow 217 in which it also is made clear that hindering from God’s way and denying Him and the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out are still graver with God, the fact that in the Sura 5 The Feast, 2 pilgrimage is mentioned, together with the Sacred Month, and the fact that in Verse 97 of the same sura, the Sacred Month and the Kaaba are mentioned together make it clear that the Sacred Months are the months during which the Hajj is performed.

In Sura 9 Repentance, 2-36 we read that the months in question are four successive months and in Sura 2 The Cow, 189 that the said months are lunar months. All this points to the fact that the pilgrimage can be performed in the course of four successive months during which fighting is banned. The first of these months is called in Arabic ‘Dhu-l-Hijjah’ which means the ‘month of pilgrimage.’ The names of the following months, respectively, are ‘Muharram, Safar and Rabiulawal.’ The word Rabiulawal is a compound word made up of the word rabiul (four) and awal (first) which is followed by the month called Rabiulahir which means the succeeding four. Rabiulawal owes its name to its being the fourth and last of the Sacred Months. Considering that the first month of the lunar calendar is Muharram, the month called Rabiulahir is the fourth month of the lunar calendar. This explains why the name of this month is the ‘succeeding fourth one.’ If one fails to see that the month Rabiulawal is the fourth of the Sacred Months, one cannot see clearly why the month Rabiulahir is the ‘succeeding’ fourth. This proves once more that the beginning of the Sacred Months is Dhu-li Hijjah and the last is the month of Rabiulawal. Thus, the pilgrimage is a devotional act performed in the space of time of four months.

4 – Quarreling, the perpetration of evil deeds and sexual relations are forbidden during the Hajj (2 The Cow, 197),

5 – During the Hajj the individual is forbidden certain things that are lawful (like sexual intercourse). . Ihram means, in fact, that the individual abstains from certain things (like sexual contact) during the pilgrimage. However, the word refers today to the garment that the pilgrim wears during the Hajj. The Quran has no such connotation. One other thing that is prohibited during the Ihram is hunting; Sura 5 The Feast, 95 mentions that the pilgrims shall not kill game. However, this is restricted to hunting on land. Pilgrims may go fishing. To whomever kills game intentionally, the compensation is the like of what he kills from the cattle, as two just persons will judge, as an offering to be brought to the Kaaba, or the compensation is the feeding of the poor or the equivalent in fasting (5 The Feast, 95).

6 – In case an individual infringes on the law that prohibits the land hunt, he has to offer a sacrifice the kind of which is to be determined by two persons. He may also compensate for his offence by keeping the fast or feeding the poor (5 The Feast, 95).

7- Umra means ‘visit.’ The hajj is performed at a prescribed date while umra may take place at any time. In Sura 2 The Cow, 196 we read ‘Accomplish the pilgrimage and the visit for God.’ In other words, the event must not be an occasion of political propaganda, exploitation of personal interests, etc. Following the conclusion of the ritual of pilgrimage the pilgrim makes sacrifices and is commanded not to shave his heads until the offering reaches its destination. The individuals who are sick or have an ailment of the head may effect compensation by fasting or giving alms or sacrificing. And when he is secure, whoever profits by combining the visit with the pilgrimage should take whatever offering is easy to obtain. If he cannot afford it, he should fast three days during the Hajj and seven days on his return. This is for those whose household is not in the Sacred Mosque (2 The Cow, 196).

8 – The sacrifice requires the pronunciation of the name of God. A portion of the meat of the slaughtered animal is eaten by the person making the sacrifice, and the rest is distributed among the poor (22 The Pilgrimage, 28). During the ritual one must purify oneself from all pollution, and vows made must have been performed (22 Hajj, 29). Sura 22 The Pilgrimage, 29 says that the individual should accomplish his needful acts of cleansing. The Hajj being the place of encounter of huge crowds, the hygienic rules must be observed. Sura 48 The Victory, 27 may be evaluated in this light wherein it is said that the faithful will enter the Sacred Mosque, if God pleases, in security, head shaved and hair cut short. The circling of the Kaaba will be accomplished in a cleansed state (22 The Pilgrimage, 29). On the other hand, the place where the pilgrimage ritual is to take place must be kept clean and in a pure state (22 The Pilgrimage, 26).

9 – When one comes down from Mount Arafat to Mesai Haram, God will be praised (2 The Cow, 198).

10 – Then pardon will be asked for from God (2 The Cow, 199).

11 – Following the completion of the ritual, God will be praised with heart and soul (2 The Cow, 200).

12 – God will be praised during the appointed days. But if anyone hastens to leave in two days, there is no blame on him. And whoever wants can stay longer (2 The Cow, 203).

13 – Sura 2 The Cow, 159 says that the Safa and Marwah are truly among the signs of God; so whoever makes a pilgrimage to the House or pays a visit to it, there is no blame on him if he goes round them. Yet, the sectarians have fabricated the running between the two hills and made it appear as a binding duty. The elderly and the disabled are compelled to do this despite the fact that this is not mentioned in the Quran. The transportation of the elderly on stretchers serves to benefit the stretcher-bearers. However, although this is not commanded, there is no blame for those who would prefer to do it as the Quran suggests.

14 – There is no such thing as the stoning of Satan. The execution of the duty of pilgrimage in the space of time that is spread over four months, the recognition of the fact that shuttling between Safa and Marwah is not compulsory will make the ritual of pilgrimage a safe and secure act during which thousands of people will not lose their lives. This has been a cause of the death of multitudes. Strange rituals performed around the Black Stone also are not indicated in the Quran. On the other hand, contrary to what has been said by commentators, a woman may well go on the Hajj by herself, a person may use perfume and wear any appearal with or without seams. The zamzam water, caps and prayer rugs that the pilgrims on their return are said to be obliged to bring home have no foundation. http://www.quranic.org/quran_article/36/faith_prayer_alms_fasting_and_pilgrimage.htm

posted in ENGLISH ISLAM | 1 Comment

8th Aralık 2008



Once the Quran came to be deemed not self-sufficient and the need was felt to supplement it with hadiths and ijtihads, the rise of numerous sects was inevitable. The four sects prevalent today of the Sunni and Shii sects have had the largest followers among many that have emerged in history.

According to one hadith a man’s calf should be covered, according to another it might be uncovered; according to a commentary of a hadith bleeding would render a man canonically unclean, according to another, touching a woman’s hand would have the same effect. Those who were responsible for corrupting religion by reverting to sources other than the Quran tried to come to a settlement of such issues by having recourse to sects. In this way, the Islam of the Quran was transformed to the Islam of the sectarians. On the other hand, it so happened that the founder of a sect took into his head to enjoin the covering of a man’s body from the waist down to his knees based on a certain hadith, while another denied the authenticity of it. The founder of another sect thinks otherwise and disregards such a prohibition. The fact is that a given hadith was liable to be interpreted differently, but not the Quran since it is the unique source of Islam.














Sectarian chiefs (imams) reverted to different hadiths from which they tried to derive conclusions and lay down rules in their capacity as lawgivers in subjects left to man’s discretion. The result was the emergence of a new religious composition. In terms of approach, this new structure was no different than Catholicism or Orthodoxy. There have been people who have been of the idea that these sectarian imams had always had the best intentions and there was no end to their sacrifices in the name of religion; consequently, they turned a blind eye to the actual state of affairs and ignored the criticism leveled at them. These sectarian imams who had been given almost absolute authority had been free to issue decrees, laying down or repealing rules at their discretion, and consequently declared an infinite number of things lawful and unlawful, greater in number than what the Quran contained. The names given to the prominent sects were: Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki, Hanbali and Shii.

6/159 – As for those who divide their religion and break it up into sects, they do not belong with you. He will then inform them of everything they had done. 6 The Cattle, 159


For instance, the person who refuses to perform the prayer is flogged according to the Hanafi sect, but is killed according to the Hanbali, Shafi and Maliki sects. The latter three sects commit a heinous crime, the greatest sin according to the Hanafi sect, while cruelty is attributed to the Hanafi sect that flogged but abstained from murdering the culprit according to the other sects. In accordance with the mentality that divides the religion, God will sort out the Muslims depending on their sects and judge the flogging of the Hanafi and approve his act, while He will do the same thing with regard to the murder of the Shafi and mark it with approval. The person refusing to perform the prayer killed by a Hanafi will be sent to hell, but if he is killed by a Shafi, the act will be one deserving the reward in paradise. No matter what the number of followers of such paradoxical religious concepts is, how can one of a sound mind consider them seriously? The approach that preferred to imitate rather than cogitate and declared the Quran incomprehensible by the layman has immersed the public into abysmal ignorance. Can God have revealed the religion and made it exclusive to these sectarians? Yet, He addresses humanity saying ‘O people!’ and makes no reference to the Four Imams.

Despite the verses of the Quran that say there is no compulsion in religion and that contain no provision for those who do not perform the act of worship required of them, why do the imams, at their discretion, pronounce their respective judgments, all of which are admissible, though incompatible?

There are people who claim that differences between the sects are insignificant, that the Hanafi sect suits better the town dweller, while the Shafi sect suits better the villagers! With such inept remarks, they lured people to fancy apish manners. The sects have taken different shapes and moved away from the basic tenets of the Quran and almost become dissimilar creeds. The sectarian imam interprets the hadith he chooses at his discretion, according to his own view of life and supersedes the Quran and the hadiths. Dissent from the true and unique religion of the Quran is only too apparent in their attitude.

3/105 – Be not like those who are divided amongst themselves and fall into disputations after receiving clear signs. 3 The Family of Imran, 105



If those seeking salvation in division seriously read the Quran rather than the fabricated hadiths, they will see for themselves that division into factions and the setting up of sects that differ in what is lawful or not is but damnation.

Another fabricated hadith runs as follows: “If one tries to acquire correct and sound views but commits an error, he acquires merit in God’s sight, and if one who tries hard to acquire correct and sound views proves to be right in his judgment his merit in God’s sight is doubled.” This invented hadith enabled one to interpolate into the religion one’s own opinion and gave the impression that someone who strove hard to acquire correct and sound views gained the blessing of God even though he may have erred in his attempt. Based on this claimed hadith, the sectarian imams had been free to interpolate into the religion their own views and ideas under the guise of ray (opinion), kýyas (analogy), jtihad (initiative) or fatwa (legal viewpoint) on legal matters. The words, the great majority of which had been wrongly attributed to the Prophet and to the Prophet’s companions and taken for God’s own word like the Quran and the thousands of additions made by sectarian imams who had deemed themselves authorized to formulate their judgments about the words spoken before them and to impose them as religion, make up the history of present-day Islam. In other words, the Quran + the hadith decided upon at his own discretion by the sectarian imam + the commentaries of the Quran by the sectarian imam + the deductions by the sectarian imams through analogy and ijtihad (initiatives) + the deductions by the sectarian imams according to their evaluation of the companions of the Prophet + the fatwas decreed on events that occurred afterward make up Islam. This was the equation created. The traditionalism, the sectarianism and the religion based on hadiths into which were added the fatwas and ijtihads pronounced by the imams who had succeeded the first imams who embraced their points of view have made up what Islam is conceived to be at present. The controversial points such as whether or not the cologne would cleanse one or not, and if it were sprinkled on one should one renew one’s ablution, or if a cigarette should be declared to be lawful or unlawful formed the basis of later additions, each sect adopting a different viewpoint.

Another alleged hadith was the one that foresaw the division of the Muslim community into seventy-three factions of which only one was to be admitted to paradise, the rest going to hell. The person who had announced this was no other than Muaviya (Darimi, Siyer). This hadith allowed each one of the sects to consider itself the future dwellers of paradise and to condemn the others to eternal punishment in hell. This so-called hadith enabled the Sunnis to condemn the Shiites as reprobates and the future inferno dwellers and the Shiites to convict the Sunnis as reprobates and the future inferno dwellers. Conversely, the imitators of the four principal sects styled as Sunni ended by interpreting and explaining away their mutual accusations in a reconciliatory manner and decided that the followers of the four sects might be eligible for paradise while the Shiites were outcasts. In reality, having judged the Quran not sufficient enough, each party takes its own imam for its guide and follows the imam’s injunctions as if they were the revelations of God.



Yaþar Nuri Öztürk explains in his book, Islam in the Quran, the damages caused by sectarianism: “One of the ways to tell lies in the name of God has been to transform the sects into religions. When each of the sects has become a religion on its own and each of the sectarian imams has turned into a prophet that admits no censure, the establishment of the proportion and divine contribution in the prevalent religion becomes impossible for the masses and a chaos results under the guise of religion. Despite the lapse of hundreds of years in between, nobody dares to bring a change in these tabooed interpretations. This is nothing but cruelty and defamation of God. Because of this cruelty, when the true Islam scholars and honest officials in charge of the religious practice attemptto explain the religion in its true garb, they encounter difficulties and are met by accusations. The remedy to this would be an iconoclastic approach, leaving God the unique authority. This is because pure religion is the exclusivity of God (39 The Throngs, 3). Those who do not feel at home in the face of this exclusivity and dare to share God’s authority are reprobates.”



Yaþar Nuri Öztürk, realizing the obstacle created by the Islam of sects to the Islam professed in the Quran, has described the devastation caused by sects by giving concrete examples in his book, Naked Warning (Çýplak Uyarý), in a chapter entitled Chaos of the Religious Anthology Ascribed to God, said: “The restlessness is due to the mixing of God’s religion with the anthology of religion created by men. God’s religion is the one revealed by God Himself in His book, explicit and detailed and about which there is no doubt. The messenger of the Book is Muhammad. This is the Islam of the Quran. The authors of the anthology of religion are copartners and have created a compilation challenging the uniqueness of the fountainhead of Islam. The books are more than one, the leaders are more than one and the communities are more than one. It is like a corporation. Instead of the unity and harmony existing in religion as such, there exist but chaos and discord in this anthology. All the resulting desultoriness originates from lack of unity and the plurality of its authors. There is an absolute lack of authority in the anthology. ‘According to the opinion of…’ has been the phrase of introduction in many instances. God’s will, having been dodged, the consequence has been but a turmoil in which sects, factions, groups, parties, religious orders, etc. have had their part to play. In these, two persons of the same denomination who act with the same intention are judged differently according to their respective groups, one being condemned, the other declared not guilty of the act they performed.”



The masses happen to be the followers of a given sect without being aware of their true aspect and let themselves be instructed what the books on ‘Islamic catechism’ provide them with. For instance, the great majority of Turkish population claims to belong to the Hanafi sect. Yet, as they are ignorant of the fact that the filling or crowning of teeth is prohibited by their sect, they have their teeth filled or crowned. Under the circumstances, their ablution and consequently their prayer becomes null and void according to the viewpoint of their Hanafi sect. Clichés and threats have rendered the sectarianism into some sort of chauvinism and racism. Not to belong to the Sunni sect has been almost equated with heathenism. The same thing holds true as regards the Shiites and Alawis. Their approach to the Sunni is similar. The only alternative that is avoided by the masses who should be enlightened on this issue is the refutation of all the sects and the return to the unique source of Islam: the Quran!

The founders of the sects interpreted the Quran and the hadiths according to their idiosyncrasies, made a selection of the Quranic verses and hadiths transmitted peculiar to their characters, laid down rules under the guise of ra’y (opinion) and ijtihad (initiative) in the domains left to the discretion of the individual, and ended by establishing supremacy over the Quran and the hadiths. The exercise of this power received bitter censure not only from those who deemed the Quran self-sufficient, but also from the hadith imams who came after the sectarian imams we keep on criticizing. One of the major issues they contested was the prevalence of the personal opinions and viewpoints of the sectarian imams. Certain transmitters of the hadiths leveled criticism at the sectarian imams accusing them of inventing hadiths that best suited their own opinions. The criticism of accusing Hanafi, founder of the largest sect, of unreliability by Bukhari, the most renowned among the authors of hadith books, is an example of the depreciation of the sectarians by the authors of hadith books. The consequence has been present-day Islam, which is far from being the Islam of the Quran, not even the Islam based on an infinite number of invented hadiths. The Islam practiced today is the system established by sectarian imams. During the period when they established their sects there was neither a Bukhari nor a Muslim. Nor had the hadiths been sorted out according to the likelihood of their authenticity. In other words, the sects had been formed at a time when there was no trace yet of the Kutub-u Sitte (the six renowned books of hadiths). By this we try to stress the fact that the percentage of the invented hadiths was much higher than a good many hadith books. It is sad to observe that the great majority of people believe their sect to be tantamount to Islam and are unaware of the fact that it is at variance in many respects with the injunctions contained in the Quran. The Quran laid down explicit rules in certain domains leaving others to the discretion of the individual allowing the religion to conform to the time and milieu in question. The sects, on the other hand, believing that there had been gaps left by God in His revelation, ventured to intervene and tried to fill up the so-called gaps, bringing religion to clash with many a situation and even with human conditions.



Idjma (consensus) also is mentioned as one of the sources outside of the Quran. The Sunnis define idjma as the consensus on a given issue reached by all the scholars. Yet, what we are going to observe presently is at odds with the arguments. Although idjma may be adopted as a fact among the Sunnisects, if we take a look at the history of Islam there is hardly any issue outside the purview of the Quran on which consensus has not been reached. For instance on such issues as the prohibition to perform prayer for menstruating women, the fact that the number of prayers should be five in the course of the day, the barring of the way for women to rise to the position of the head of state, the stoning to death of the married committing adultery there is consensus among all the Sunni sects. But this viewpoint belongs to the Sunnis exclusively; for, according to the Kharidjis a menstruating woman may perform her prayers, a woman may rise to the position of the head of state, the number of prayers may be less than five, the adultress shall not be stoned to death.,These views had already been expressed from the very start of the foundation of the sect. This illustrates once again that the Quran, which does not contain prescriptions on such issues, should be adopted as the only reliable source. So long as one was not satisfied with what the Quran lays down explicitly, the rise of a plurality of sects was inevitable. Although under the heading of Sunna they try to show the unity of sects, the readers will presently see for themselves that the situation is not as it is alleged and that the lawful and the unlawful differ according to most of them.


Those whose intentions have been to deceive people have invented hadiths that praised their sectarian imams while depreciating their opponents, the imams of other sects. To consolidate the link of the followers to the sectarian imams, stories are told about the scholarship and devotion of the founders of the sects. The most incredible cock-and-bull story we have heard has been Abu Hanifa’s vision of God in his dreams more than one hundred times. In order to attach people to their own creeds they had recourse to such hyperboles. It is difficult however to tell if the author of such invented stories had been the founders themselves or their students or followers.

We are of the opinion that those who at present style themselves Hanafis are far from being linked to Abu Hanifa. Abu Hanifa was nicknamed Ahl-i Ray (authorized to pronounce legal opinions). This was a consequence of his laying down rules that the Quran did not contain. All the hadith scholars, especially Shafi, and later, Bukhari took exception to this attitude that disregarded the hadiths. Yet, the Hanafi sect today is entirely based on hadiths. They try to base every viewpoint of the Hanafi sect on a hadith. Nevertheless, according to historical records the reason for the murder of Abu Hanifa was his qualification as “lawgiver.” The Hanafi sect has been transmitted to us under the sovereignty of the powers that be who had assassinated Abu Hanifa. As a matter of fact, Abu Yusuf, acknowledged as the number 2 figure to succeed Abu Hanifa (the person who had ventured to kill somebody who disliked squash, as this was against the Sunna) became the authority that issued fatwas attached to the group that had killed Abu Hanifa. The preaching of his master’s views under the rule of the powers that be – murderers of the master – that had raised him to his actual office was certainly tainted with ideological prejudices and sectarianism. One of the reasons is the concoction of hadiths by sectarians with a view to justifying their own viewpoints. Most of the hadith books were written after the establishment of sects. Whatever Abu Hanifa’s views may have been, the sect called Hanafi we have been commenting on is the one that is being applied at present.




A careful survey would show that the foundations of the Sunni ideas and the religion based on hadiths had been laid by Imam Shafi, founder of the Shafi sect. After Shafi, except for certain cases about which there is explicit injunction in the Quran, a provision of the canonical law had to be based on one or more hadiths (Montgomery Watt, What is Islam?). The same opinion is expressed by Ýlhami Güler in the following way: “One must not forget that the core of the history of Islamic thought expressed in the Kutub-i Sitte and especially in Bukhari’s work to which has been attributed an epistemological worth almost equal to the Quran, largely consists in Shafi’s reducing the Sunna to ‘gayrý metluv vahiy’. The hadith culture, which up until Shafi, had been differently interpreted and depended on, verbal intellect had come to be expressed in written form after Shafi and assumed a dogmatic quality and an importance almost equal to the Quran (First Quran Symposium, Arkun Tarihiyyatu’l-Fikril’l-Arabi). Osman Taþtan described the manner by which the foundations of the Sunna conception of today had been laid down by Imam Shafi: “Shafi’s emergence changed the situation. Shafi, separated the Prophet’s Sunna from the community’s Sunna and raised the latter in legal terms to a level equal to the Quran. The idea was to show the highest respect to the prophethood of Muhammad and contribute to it. Actually, this put an unbridgeable gap between the Prophet and the community. In this way the Sunna had been mixed with the revelation in a melting pot. The last thing to do would be to merge the sayings of the Prophet’s companions with them. These theoretical approaches had widened the scope of the revelation that came to be extended to cover first the Sunna and then the sayings of the companions. This meant extending the divine revelation to cover human words (First Quran Symposium).” We did not want to reserve a wide space for the history of sects in the present book. Anybody who examines the history of sects may see for himself the attacks on the Hanafi sect by Shafi and the fact that the sects Maliki, Hanbali and Shafi are not branches of one single sect called Sunni, but are sects on their own. The table we shall be giving presently will make clear the wide differences between them. These sects, which originally were separate from each other, had come to be gathered under one heading by the contribution of Imam Ghazzali, rector of the Nýzamýya Madrasa under the influence of political authority. The revelation was one contained in the Quran before it was divided into conflicting sects. The objective was to acquire extraneous sources and try to challenge the divine authority.

3/103 – Hold on firmly together to the rope of God, and be not divided among yourselves. 3 Family of Imran, 103



We shall observe in the table below the conflicts between the sects and the way God’s Islam came to be differently conceived. We have spared here the intrinsic differences between the sects themselves. Just to give you an instance, it is acknowledged that there was wide divergence between Abu Hanifa’s opinions and the ideas of his followers; Abu Yusuf, Muhammad…. In our table we limit ourselves to the variations between various sects. Those who believe in what has been transmitted by their ancestors but willing to know the core of their creed should, after examining the tables given below, come to a decision before getting rid of all of them and return to the only revelation contained in the Quran.


Hanafi Maliki Shafi Hanbali

1. Skin of a dead animal
unlawful lawful unlawful lawful

2. Flesh of beasts fed on dirt
– lawful – unlawful

3. Eel
lawful – – unlawful

4. Man’s wearing red
abominable lawful unlawful abominable

5. Man’s wearing yellow
unlawful lawful unlawful unlawful

6. Playing ud, recorder, drum, etc. abominable lawful lawful unlawful

7. Crow flesh unlawful lawful unlawful unlawful

8. Horse flesh unlawful lawful – –

9. Mussels
unlawful lawful – –

10. Oysters
unlawful lawful – –

11. Lobsters
unlawful lawful – –

12. Swallows lawful lawful unlawful unlawful

13. Eagles
unlawful lawful unlawful unlawful

14. Bats unlawful abominable unlawful unlawful

15. Ablution before circumambulation in pilgrimage
duty (wacip) binding duty binding duty binding duty

16. Rehearsing of Fatiha in the first two rekats during prayer.
duty binding duty binding duty binding duty

17. Tasbih in kneeling and prostrating
sunna – sunna duty

18. Rehearsing suras after the fatiha during the first two rekats
duty permissible sunna sunna

19.Rehearsing basmala before the fatiha
sunna abominable binding duty duty

20. Interval between feet during prayer in the standing position
3 inches 16 inches 8 inches 16 inches

21. Vitr prayer
duty sunna sunna sunna

22. Man who touches a boy becomes canonically unclean
no yes no no

23. Does greeting during prayer make one canonically unclean?
yes no – –

24. Interval allowed from the person during prayer.
40 fathoms 1 fathom 3 fathoms 3 fathoms

25. To utter words other than the prayer during prayer annuls it
yes no no no

26. Using a wrong word during the prayer annuls it
yes no no no

27. Sighing during the prayer annuls it
yes no yes yes

28. Is the urine of beasts whose flesh is edible clean? yes no yes no

29. Is the sperm of edible beasts clean?
yes yes no no

30. Number of binding duties in ablution
4 7 6 7

31. Is there an obligatory order of acts during ablution?
no no yes yes

32. Must acts performed during ablution follow an unbroken succession?
no yes no yes

33. Number of sunnas of ablution
17 8 30 20

34. Is the use of miswak sunna?
yes no yes yes

35. Washing hands, face and arms three times sunna?
yes no yes yes

36. Is the three times anointing the head during ablution a sunna?
no no yes yes

37. Is the rubbing of ears inside & outside a sunna?
yes yes yes no

38. How many times must the ears be rubbed during ablution?
once once three times once

39. The number of acts that annul one’s ablution
12 3 5 8

40. Does touching one’s sexual organ annul the ablution?
no yes yes yes

41. Does laughter during pray (salat) annul the ablution
yes no no no

42. Do eating camel flesh and washing the body of the dead annul the ablution?
no no no yes

43. Does uncertainty annul the ablution?
no no no yes

44. Does bleeding annuls the ablution?
yes no no yes

45. Is expression of intention necessary before ablution?
yes no no no

46. Number of reasons for total ablution (gasala)
7 4 5 6

47. Number of binding duties related to total ablution
11 5 3 –

48. Person not performing the pray because of neglect or idleness
is jailed& killed if killed if killed if
beaten& he doesn’t he doesn’t he doesn’t
killed repent repent in repent in 3 days 3 days

49. If the words are not rehearsed successively will call for prayer (ezan) be valid
yes yes no no

50. Can a person who doesn’t speak Arabic rehearse the words of ezan in his tongue?
no yes no yes

51..Must formal resolve be expressed in ezan?
no yes no yes

52. Is greeting permissible during the ezan?
no no no yes

53. Must one rehearse the Fatiha at every prayer? Is it a binding duty?
yes no no no

54.Is salam a binding duty at the end of every prayer?
no to one to one to both
direction only direction only directions

55. Parts of a man that should be covered?
From navel privy parts & from navel from navel
to the knee buttocks to the knee to the knee

56. Portion of a corpse for ritual cleaning before burial
2/3 ½ a portion a portion

57. Must water enter the mouth and nostrils during ritual washing of the corpse
no yes yes no

58. Should person who died during hajj (pilgrimage) be incensed
with perfume and face covered?
yes yes no no

59. Who will conduct the salat performed in honor of the dead?
sultan- person next of person
head of state that the dead kin that the dead
had indicated had indicated

60. Special proscription for the time of performance of salat in honor of the dead?
5 3 every time 3

61 Can body be buried at a location other than the one where death occurred?
yes yes no no

62. Should intention to fast be expressed by word of mouth
yes yes no yes

63. Should a person renew his intention to fast every day in Ramadan?
yes no yes yes

64. Does bleeding annul fasting?
no no no yes

65. Chattel a person owes that bars zakat giving?
all assets gold&silver no all assets
except for grains prescription

66. Should a man or woman give zakat on their jewelry?
yes no no no

67. Should zakat be given on cash?
yes yes yes no

68. Rate of zakat on metals?
1/5 1/5 1/40 1/40

69. No. of conditions related to zakat to be given on traded assets
4 5 6 2

70. Should zakat be given on any valuable thing unearthed?
yes no no yes

71. Should zakat be given on honey produced?
yes no no yes

72.Should zakat be given on land devoted to pious foundations?
yes yes no no

73.Should zakat be given on land rented or held in tenure to be cultivated ?
no yes yes yes

74. Should zakat be given on olives?
yes yes no yes

75.Should zakat be given on cattle fed on foddle or worked in the field?
no yes no no

76. Age of sheep and goat at which they are liable for zekat?
For sheep 1 For sheep 1 For sheep 1 For sheep 1/2
For goat 1 For goat 1 For goat 2 For goat 2

77. Can a woman go to hajj unaccompanied by her husband?
no yes yes no

78. Can a person unable to go on hajj appoint a proxy?
yes no yes yes

79. Number of requirements for hajj?
2 4 5 4

80. Is it permissible that the stone hurled at Satan does not fall on the jamra during pilgrimage?
yes no no no

81. Is it permissible to give food to a poor who is not a Muslim?
yes no no no

82. Is it unlawful to sit on silk, to lean against it or to use it as tapestry?
no yes yes yes

83. Is it permissible for a boy to wear silk?
no no yes yes

84. Is it permissible to use a cup ornamented with silver while taking
ablution or drink from?
yes no no no

85. Is trimming the beard unlawful?
yes yes no yes

86. Is backgammon unlawful?
no yes yes yes

87. Is chess unlawful?
yes yes no yes

88. Should the debts of a dead be paid?
no yes yes no

89. What portion of things unearthed in one’s own land are due to the state?
1/5 0 0 0

90. Is the usurper cultivator of land the owner of the produce he obtains?
yes yes yes no

91. Time within which a contract can be modified or terminated?
3 days according 3 days according to
to the need contract

92. Beast sexually assaulted
killed not killed not killed should be
flesh nor flesh edible flesh edible killed


93. Number of times the cudgel shall be applied to inflict punishment to a drinker of wine or other inebriating substance?
80 80 40 80

94.Will a person stinking or vomiting wine be punished with a cudgel?
no yes no no

95. Can the estate of a religious apostate killed be given to his inheritor?
yes no no no

96. Should a woman renegade be killed?
no yes yes yes

97. Should letting some die by abandoning, imprisoning and leaving him to starve be considered as premeditated murder?
no yes yes yes

98. Can a woman act as a judge?
yes no no no

99. Is a dog a clean animal?
no no yes yes

100. Should a muezzin be paid for his act?
no yes yes no


posted in ENGLISH ISLAM | 0 Comments

7th Aralık 2008



What is Islam? This must be the first and foremost question that comes to anyone’s mind when they hear the word “Islam”, especially for the first time.

“Islam” is an Arabic word which literally means “Submission”.

A person may “Submit” to many things around him/her on a daily basis (money, power, people, family, fear, etc..). Yet in the context of religion, it is Submission to the system of the One GOD.

Islam = Submission to God.

Therefore any who follow this natural instinct of submitting to God are called “Muslims”.

Who is Allah?

Many people believe that the god of the Muslims (Submitters) is a GOD named ‘Allah’ who is unique to the Arabs.

“Allah” is simply Arabic for ‘The GOD”. The GOD of Submission is described as the ‘Lord of the Universe’ who Has created heavens & earth, and who Has created mankind and all that we perceive. He is a GOD of good, love, and justice…

“GOD advocates justice, charity, and regarding the relatives. And He forbids evil, vice, and transgression. He enlightens you, that you may take heed.” (Quran 16:90)

He is One GOD, with no partners, no equals, and no son.

Who is Mohammed?

A Prophet of GOD appeared in the Arabian Peninsula 1,400 years ago announcing a miraculous moment for mankind…GOD had chosen a new Prophet after nearly 600-years since the departure of Jesus Christ.

The description given to this new prophet was “Mohammed”, which means “Most Praised”.

This new Prophet re-delivered the laws of GOD to help bring mankind back into the light and away from evil and darkness…Through ‘inspiration’ he was given the words of the last testament to mankind, The Quran.

What is the Quran?

The ‘Quran’ is the “Book of Reading” which was delivered by His last Prophet to mankind 1,400 years ago. It contains a repeat of all the laws given through Abraham, Moses, and Jesus…It is a ‘culmination’ of all the previous messages and a beacon and light to guide all mankind.

The Quran is split into 114 chapters (also called ‘Suras’ in Arabic). These chapters contain a mixture of ‘law, history, prophecy, and science’. According to the words of the Book, it is the LAW which is the main purpose of its revelation:

“He sent down to you the scripture, containing law giving verses, which constitute the essence of the book-as well as similar/multiple-meaning verses…” (Quran – Chapter 3, verse 7)

The last testament OVERRIDES all previous scriptures and sets the standard for a new world order.

How do we know there is One GOD?.

The answer to this question is simpler than you may think. If you had a house and I came into it, you would tell me to leave because it is YOUR house (i.e. you would claim it as your own). You would probably even produce documents to prove it is yours, so I would have no option but to accept the fact that it is your house.

The Universe, Earth and all around it follow the same premise (i.e. they are like the house). The One who claims ownership to them MUST BE the owner if no one else can come forward and make the same claim:

“Have they found gods on earth who can create?. If there were in them other gods beside GOD, there would have been chaos. Glory be to GOD; the Lord with absolute authority. He is high above their claims.” (Quran 21:21-22)

This is the same claim that came with all the Prophets, from Abraham to Moses to Jesus “Here Oh Israel, Your Lord is ONE GOD”.

What is the ‘proof’ of Prophethood?

Messengers & Prophets have been constantly sent to humanity since the very beginning of our creation.

Noah, Abraham, Lot, Hud, Salih, Shuaib, Jonah, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, Ismail, Moses, Aron, and Jesus are just some of the Messengers that GOD has sent to make His claim on the Earth and all who live in it.

The 1st requirement for an emissary of GOD is for the person to be an ‘exemplary example’ for mankind, and the last Prophet of GOD was certainly such as testified by the scripture:

‘Those who follow the messenger, the gentile Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the Torah and the Gospel;- he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure);He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honor him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper.’ ” (7:157)

“You have indeed in the Messenger of GOD a good example for any one whose hope is in GOD and the Final Day, and remembers GOD frequently.” (33:21)

“No prophet could be false to his trust. If any person is so false, He shall, on the Day of Judgment, restore what he misappropriated; then shall every soul receive its due,- whatever it earned,- and none shall be dealt with unjustly.” (3:161)

“And you (Mohammed) are of a great character” (68:4)

The 2nd requirement is that Messengers do not come empty handed, they were supplied with PROOF so that no one would doubt that they spoke with the authority from GOD.

Some of these messengers were given ‘unique’ gifts to show the people. Joseph knew the interpretation of dreams, Moses had a staff which produced great miracles, Jesus was given the ability to heal the sick and even resurrect the dead.

Other such as Abraham, David, Moses, Aron, Jesus & Mohammed all came with divine scriptures which contained information that no man could know. These scriptures talked about GOD, the creation of the universe, the different creatures in existence, man’s purpose of Earth, the laws, death, the resurrection, and Judgment.

Why have more than one Messenger or Scripture?

This is the first question that occurs to people when they hear of all the different messengers and all the scriptures they revealed to mankind.

If we were a sensible race of beings, then GOD would not have done that. But unfortunately such is not the case. Human beings have a history and a tendency to reject, fight, and corrupt any message sent to them:

“We have permitted the enemies of every prophet-human and alien devils- to inspire in each other fancy words, in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications.” (Quran 6:112)

This arrogance usually ends-up with the Messenger either dead or his message rejected. Then after he has been killed or rejected, the people start to say: ‘maybe he was a Messenger’. Then slowly but surely they start to elevate him using a ‘distorted’ message until he is no longer a man, but becomes at par with god Himself.

Will there be more Messengers?

Prophets are defined by the scripture as ‘those who receive the revelation’:

“The people used to be one community, then GOD sent the prophets as bearers of good news, as well as warners. He sent down with them the scripture, bearing the truth, to judge among the people in their disputes…” (Quran 2/213)

The bad news is: ‘There will be no more Prophets bringing any new scripture’.

“Muhammad was not the father of any man among you. He was a messenger of GOD and the final prophet. GOD is fully aware of all things.” (Quran 33/40)

The good news: ‘There will ALWAYS be messengers” to remind the people of GOD.

“To each community is a messenger. After their messenger comes, they are judged equitably, without the least injustice.” (Quran 10:47)

Why is the Last revelation so different?

Since all the previous scriptures have been distorted/tainted (Torah, Psalms, Gospel), what makes the latest revelation any more different?.

The ‘key’ difference to the last scripture is the ‘way it is structured’!.

As we mentioned before, the last revaluation contains various elements (law, prophecy, science, history), which have all been ‘INTERMINGLED’ within each other.

For example, a chapter which starts off talking about the universe, would suddenly shift to giving a law, then shift back to history or to prophecy.

This structure has two effects:

It makes the last testament near impossible to distort as taking out one law requires sifting through many non-related verses;

It makes understanding the law only possible with EFFORT.

Why are we here?.

This is possibly the ‘most important’ question which many people & religions simply try to ignore or skip.

Some think we are here to simply ‘worship’ GOD and carry-out His bidding (as slaves) in return for GOD sparing us the agony of hell.

Some think we are here because our parents sinned (Adam & Eve) and thus need to accept this or that person for our ‘salvation’…

What is more serious than all those statements is the one that few are willing to believe: ‘we are here for a CRIME committed by us before coming to Earth’!.

Yes, we were all existing BEFORE this life:

“Recall that your Lord summoned all the descendants of Adam, and had them bear witness for themselves: ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They all said, ‘Yes. We bear witness.’ Thus, you cannot say on the Day of Resurrection, ‘We were not aware of this.’ Nor can you say, ‘It was our parents who practiced idolatry, and we simply followed in their footsteps. Will You punish us because of what others have innovated?. We thus explain the revelations, that they may redeem themselves.” (7:172-174)

As bizarre as it may sound, this is exactly why we are all here…Earth is nothing but one giant ‘prison’ where redemption is only possible once we prove that we are capable of coming back to the heavenly community.

“Know that this worldly life is no more than play and diversion, and boasting among you, and hoarding of money and children. It is like abundant rain that produces plants and pleases the disbelievers. But then the plants turn into useless hay, and are blown away by the wind. In the Hereafter there is either severe retribution, or forgiveness from GOD and approval. This worldly life is no more than a temporary illusion.” (57:20)

Know that you have not been created in ‘vein’, nor is this part of some great cosmic joke, nor is GOD out to punish anyone who does not deserve the retribution…We are here only due to GOD’s mercy in giving us ONE LAST CHANCE to come-back to Him and attain forgiveness for all the things we have done…Wake-up and seize the opportunity before you miss your last and only chance!.

The only way for redemption is to show that we are capable of listening to the laws of the Almighty and implementing them in our life here on Earth…We must all be able to ‘serve & obey’ GOD Alone, and not serve our ‘egos, leaders, humans, wealth, power, etc..’ (we go back to the issue of Submission).

“Those who say: ‘Our Lord is GOD’, then they Straighten themselves, they shall have no fear nor will they grieve” (46:13)

And ‘how’ do we ‘Straighten Ourselves’?.

If you take nothing else from the Scripture, then let it be the CORE of the revelation, the ‘Straight Path’ which leads us back to GOD:

The Straight Path (Quran 6:151-153):

1. You shall not incorporate anything besides Him (GOD).

2. You shall honor your parents.

3. You shall not kill your unborn children from fear of poverty-We provide for you and for them.

4. You shall not commit sins, obvious or hidden.

5. You shall not kill – GOD has made life sacred – except in the course of justice.

6. You shall not touch the orphans’ money except in the most righteous manner, until they reach maturity.

7. You shall give full weight and full measure when you trade, equitably.

8. You shall be absolutely just when you bear witness, even against your relatives.

9. You shall fulfill your oaths made to GOD. http://free-minds.org/node/15

posted in ENGLISH ISLAM | 0 Comments

7th Aralık 2008



“…O people of the Scripture, let us come to a common agreement between us and between you; that 1) we do not serve except God, and 2) do not set up anything at all with Him, and 3) that none of us takes each other as patrons besides God….” (The Message 3:64)

This website has been created for all people who have a desire to allow God into their lives and follow His path alone…

This website invites all people of various beliefs (Sunni, Shia, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Bahai, Agnostic, Humanist, and even Atheists) to come and examine for themselves the system of Submission/Islam which is based on God Alone.

Many of you may outwardly be content with your current faith or that which you inherited from your parents and community…but to some out there, there will always be a tugging at the back of their mind that ‘there is something more’, and that ‘some things don’t always make sense’…

If you are one of those people, then open your eyes, put on your thinking cap, and welcome to an open examination of the system of Submission/Islam which very few know about…


The system of God “Islam/Submission” has been taught to us through God and His messenger and is fully outlined in the final Book of God (The Qur’an) which was revealed centuries ago…

The Qur’an claims legitimacy for itself and within itself, allowing NO room for self-made priests, or religious leaders, who have distorted and misquoted the Book of God to give themselves authority and partnership with the Almighty…

“’Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this Scripture fully detailed?’” Those to whom We have given the Scripture know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt.” (The Message 6:114 )

“Say: ‘Which is the greatest testimony?’ Say: ‘God is witness between me and you, and He has inspired to me this Qur’an that I may warn you with it and whomever it reaches, that you bear witness that along with God are other gods!’ Say: ‘I do not bear witness!’ Say: ‘He is only One god, and I am innocent of what you set up!’” (The Message 6:19)

“And We have come to them with a Scripture which We have detailed with knowledge; a guide and a mercy to those who believe.” (The Message 7:52)

“We have revealed to you the Scripture with truth that you may judge between the people by that which God has shown you, and do not be an advocate for the treacherous. ” (The Message 4:105)

“And the Day We send to every nation a witness against them from themselves, and We have brought you as a witness against these. And We have sent down to you the Scripture as a clarification for all things, and a guide and mercy and good tidings to those who have surrendered.” (The Message 16:89)

“And We have sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present of the Scripture and superseding it. So judge between them by what God has sent down, and do not follow their desires from what has come to you of the truth. For each of you We have made laws, and a structure; and had God willed, He would have made you all one nation, but He tests you with what He has given you; so strive to do good. To God you will return all of you, and He will inform you regarding that in which you dispute.” (The Message 5:48)


The gravest crime the self-appointed scholars who claimed to be Muslim made was to give authority to the traditions (Sunna) and the books of Sayings (Hadith) ALONGSIDE the authority of God and His messenger. They believe that it was God who authorized such action by commanding the people to ‘obey God, and obey the messenger’…

“Whoever obeys the messenger has obeyed God; and whoever turns away, We have not sent you as a guardian over them.” (The Message 4:80)

What is so sadly neglected is that the most critical aspects of the messenger’s life have been recorded and captured in the most detailed manner…not in the books of Hadith or tradition…but in the Holy Book itself. The questions that he was asked, and the answers (inspired by God) that he gave:

“They ask you about intoxicants and gambling. Say: ‘In them is great harm, and a benefit for mankind; but their harm is greater than their benefit.’ And they ask you how much are they to give, Say: ‘The excess.’ It is thus that God clarifies for you the revelations that you may think.” (The Message 2:219)

“And they ask you concerning the Spirit. Say: ‘The Spirit is from the command on my Lord, and the knowledge you were given was but very little.'” (The Message 17:85)

The list of questions and answers goes on throughout the Book of God…This is the life of the Messenger, and this is the ‘obedience’ of the messenger…Without ‘obeying the messenger’, we would inadvertently ignore nearly 1/3 of the Book of God which deals with his most authentic narrations authorized and inspired by God which we have been commanded to follow…

Nor does he speak from personal desire. It is a divine inspiration.” (The Message 53:3-4)


In comparing the teachings of Islam as derived from the Book of God to the practices taught and enforced by the popular Sunni and Shia faiths (1.2 Bn followers), we find that the list is quite extensive, with some of the highlights as follows:

§ In Islam, the requirement to be a Muslim is to simply accept and live according to the ‘Straight Path’ (6:151-153), Vs. the Sunni or Shia 5-pillars which come from unauthorized books…

§ In Islam, abolishing Slavery is taught to be an act of righteousness (90:12-13), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings which encourages slavery under war…

§ In Islam, women are never forbidden from praying or fasting during Menstruation (2:222), nor is there a specific dress code (i.e. the Headscarf) imposed on them beyond modesty, Vs. the Sunni and Shia which teach the undermining of women and forcing them to cover their hair and avoid praying or fasting at certain times…

§ In Islam, a man or women may leave a Will, after settlement of debt (4:12), Vs. Sunnis who refuse to accept wills if there are any direct descendants…

§ In Islam, Monogamy is the basis for normal relationships, while polygamy is only allowed in cases involving marrying the mothers of orphans under the man’s guardianship (4:3), Vs. Sunnis where a man may be a polygamist simply if he can afford to, and Shia which allow sex for pleasure (Mut’a)…

§ In Islam, Divorce is enforceable only after a two-phase period, and it may be made nullified if the couple reconcile before the end of this period (65:1, 65:4), Vs. Sunni teachings that destroy families by allowing a divorce to occur on the spot with no waiting period and no nullification…

§ In Islam, Thieves do not have their hands cut-off, but are made to work until they return that which is stolen (12:76), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings which brutally amputate the hands causing disability…

§ In Islam, no one is allowed to be killed or Stoned for adultery (24:2), Vs. Sunni and Shia laws of stoning married adulterers to death…

§ In Islam, absolute Freedom of Faith is allowed (2:256, 10:99; 18:29; 88:21-22), Vs. Sunni and Shia requiring apostates to be killed and rejecting the practice of other faiths…

§ In Islam, people are acknowledged as being diverse and each is to be respected for his/her level of spiritual growth. A Submitter ‘Muslim’ must work to attain the status of Faithful ‘Mumin’ (49:14), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings that all followers of their religion must think, act, and even look the same (cult syndrome)…

§ In Islam, War can only be declared in cases of self-defence – no offensives (2:190), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings allowing raids and attacks on any people who are considered non-Muslim by their standards…

§ In Islam, Pilgrimage is a centre for gathering of nations and for all to witness the benefits of being together (22:27-28), Vs. Sunni and Shia bringing in polytheistic rituals and superstition (touching of black stone, circling 7 times, etc..)…

§ In Islam, a Year is a luni-solar count made of 365-days (17:12, 9:36), with all the seasons fitting-in-place Vs. Sunnis teaching it to be a lunar one based on 354 days which creates confusion of seasons and time…

§ In Islam, males and females are not required to be Circumcised (32:7), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings requiring all males to be circumcised and females in some cases…

§ In Islam, music, statues, gold and silk are all Lawful(7:32-33, 16:116), Vs. Sunni beliefs forbidding silk & gold for men, and forbidding music & statues for all…

§ In Islam, rule of Government is under the constitution of the Qur’an through consultation and free-speech (5:48, 42:38). Vs. Sunni teachings which allow the rise of dictators or monarchs, and Shia teachings which uphold self-appointed religious leaders based on genealogy.

Therefore, the clearest difference is that Islam is a monotheistic, clear, consistent, dynamic, progressive, balanced system…a system that eliminates conjectures, hearsay, fairy tales and contradictions…therefore it eliminates hardship, confusion, chaos, and division. It is a system which puts more accent on the usage of intellect, reason, pondering over God, His Creation, meaning of life, pondering over everything…While the sects represent superstition, unfair treatment for non-cult members, inequality of the sexes, oppression of human rights, inability to contribute to human progress, amputations or physical violence, regression of ideas and thoughts to primitive levels of barbarism, and most importantly setting-up partners with the One True God and thus promoting polytheism.


For the Sunnis and Shia who are shocked by the words they have been reading, we invite you to seek God Alone with your heart and your mind and to give-up all the previous wasted years of idolatry and polytheism that you have unknowingly been party to…For our Lord tells us that it is never too late to seek His forgiveness:

“Say: ‘O My servants who transgressed against themselves, do not despair of God’s mercy. For God forgives all sins. He is the Forgiver, the Merciful.'” (The Message 39:53)

But be warned, while only God knows the fate of an individual, by simply turning away without verifying what has been said here can bring the gravest of consequences:

“And who is more wicked than one who is reminded of his Lord’s verses but he turned away from them, and he forgot what his hands had done. We have made veils upon their hearts from understanding them, and a deafness in their ears. And if you invite them to the guidance, they will never be guided.” (The Message 18:57)


“And when God Alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter are filled with aversion; and when others are mentioned beside Him, they rejoice!” (The Message 39:45)


This is what it all boils down to, a “what’s in it for me” outlook that is very human and very natural…Well, the answers that may sway you to ‘God Alone’ and let you abandon your current faith, whatever the costs may be, are as follows…

“And if the town’s people had only believed and been aware, then We would have opened for them blessings from the sky and the land; but they denied, so We took them for what they used to earn.” (The Message 7:96)

§ Islam guarantees victory (30:47, 22:38-39, 47-7).

§ Islam guarantees prosperity and abundance (7:96, 41:30-31).

§ Islam guarantees maximum freedom for the people – freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom to travel, and freedom of economy (2:256, 10:99, 88:21-22).

§ Islam guarantees human rights for all the people, regardless of their race, color, creed, social status, financial situation, or political affiliation (5:8, 49:13).

§ Islam guarantees a political system that is based on consultation and the freedom for open expression (42:38).

§ Islam guarantees a society that upholds and maintains the highest standards of moral behavior.

§ Islam guarantees a maximum regard for people’s lives and properties.

§ Islam guarantees prevalence of love, courtesy, peace, and mutual respect among the people, and with other world communities (3:110, 60:8-9).

§ Islam guarantees environmental protection as a result of deterring pollution through conservation and prohibition of wasteful practices (30:41).

If you are convinced that a dignified, prosperous, righteous, logical, and practical way of life is your desire, then Islam is for you. You can begin to change your life immediately by putting-aside all that you have been raised to believe in and objectively taking a fresh-start by reading-up on the topics we discussed and many more in the words of God in His Book, and discover for yourself with no prejudice or interference.

“That is because God was not to change anything He bestowed to a people, unless they change what is in themselves. God is Hearer, Knowledgeable.” (The Message 8:53)

GOD ALONESAY NO TO ANYTHING ELSE http://free-minds.org/

posted in ENGLISH ISLAM | 0 Comments

7th Aralık 2008



I seek refuge in God from Satan the rejected

In the name of God ,Most Gracious Most Merciful

And preach with this (Quran) to those who reverence the summoning before their Lord – they have none beside Him as a Lord and Master, nor an intercessor – that they may attain salvation. [6:51]


[39:43-44] Have they invented intercessors to mediate between them and GOD? Say, “What if they do not possess any power, nor understanding?” Say, “All INTERCESSION belongs to GOD.” To Him belongs all sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, then to Him you will be returned.

Intercession is one of Satan’s most effective trick to entice people into idol worship . To believe that someone possesses a partnership with God in anything is setting up a god besides Him . And this is what the myth of intercession is about . To believe that God will share his authority of intercession with powerless beings (like Muhammed, Jesus , Saints ) . The Quran has repeatedly declared that all intercession belongs to God but “the human being is the most argumentative creature.”

[39:44] Say, “All intercession belongs to GOD.” To Him belongs all sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, then to Him you will be returned.

[6:70] You shall disregard those who take their religion in vain, as if it is a social function, and are totally absorbed in this worldly life. Remind with this (Quran), lest a soul may suffer the consequences of its evil earnings. It has none beside GOD as a Lord and Master, nor an INTERCESSOR. If it could offer any kind of ransom, it would not be accepted. They suffer the consequences of the evil works they earn; they have incurred hellish drinks, and a painful retribution because of their disbelief.


Kind of . The Quran tells us that on the Day of Judgement ,for example ,if a father would request God to forgive his son then God would forgive him only if the intercession coincides with His will .i.e. God will only forgive him if he is really deserves His forgiveness and not only because his father requested so . Thus “intercession” will take place on the Day of Judgement ,but it will be utterly useless.

[34:23] INTERCESSION with Him will be in vain, unless it coincides with His will…

[74:48] The INTERCESSION of the INTERCESSORS will never help them.

[20:109] On that day, INTERCESSION will be useless, except for those permitted by the Most Gracious, and whose utterances conform to His will.

[2:255] GOD: there is no other god besides Him, the Living, the Eternal. Never a moment of unawareness or slumber overtakes Him. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. Who could INTERCEDE with Him, except in accordance with His will? He knows their past, and their future. No one attains any knowledge, except as He wills. His dominion encompasses the heavens and the earth, and ruling them never burdens Him. He is the Most High, the Great.


[10:18] THEY WORSHIP BESIDE GOD IDOLS that possess no power to harm them or benefit them, and they say, “THESE ARE OUR INTERCESSORS AT GOD!” Say, “Are you informing GOD of something He does not know in the heavens or the earth?” Be He glorified. He is the Most High; far above needing partners.

Did God require Muhammed’s advice when he created the heavens and the earth ? Did Muhammed have any share in your creation ? Did Muhammed had any share in deciding your Destiny ? Did God require Muhammed as a partner to to shape your life in this world ? The answer is NO. Why then would God require Muhammed as a partner ,as a god besides the only God , to decide your life in the Hereafter ?!!

[32:4] GOD is the One who created the heavens and the earth, and everything between them in six days, then assumed all authority. You have none beside Him as Lord, nor do you have an INTERCESSOR. Would you not take heed?

[34:22] Say, “Implore the idols you have set up beside GOD. They do not possess as much as a single atom in the heavens, or the earth. They possess no partnership therein, nor does He permit them to be His assistants.”

[10:18] …He is the Most High; far above needing partners.

Are God AND Muhammed the masters of the Day of Judgement OR is God alone the Master ?

[1:3-4] Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Master of the Day of Judgment.


Muhammedans claim that Muhammed will intercede for them on the DOJ . Christians claim Jesus will save them . But the Quran tells us that no one, including the prophets and messengers, ever had any power to intercede ,nor will they have on the DOJ . Do you think God will give them the power of intercession and say “choose your favourites”?

[4:123] It is not in accordance with your wishes, or the wishes of the people of the scripture: anyone who commits evil pays for it, and will have no helper or supporter against GOD.

You think the messengers will help you ? But who will help the messengers ? Quran tells us that the messengers have to much to worry about themselves :

[21:28] He knows their future and their past. They (messengers) do not INTERCEDE, except for those already accepted by Him, and they are worried about their own necks.

[17:57] Even the idols that they implore are seeking the ways and means towards their Lord. They pray for His mercy, and fear His retribution. Surely, the retribution of your Lord is dreadful.

[39:43-44] Have they invented INTERCESSORS to mediate between them and GOD? Say, “What if they do not possess any power, nor understanding?” Say, “All INTERCESSION belongs to GOD.” To Him belongs all sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, then to Him you will be returned.

The Quran tells us that messengers had implored God to save their relatives and loved ones , but God would not guide the wicked , nor would he let them roam the Paradise just because the messengers ,His slaves, requested so . They get what they deserve .


[11:45-46] Noah implored his Lord: “My Lord, my son is a member of my family, and Your promise is the truth. You are the wisest of the wise.” He(God) said, “O Noah, he is not of your family. It is unrighteous to ask Me for something you do not know. I enlighten you, lest you be like the ignorant.”

[11:47] He said, “My Lord, I seek refuge in You, lest I implore You again for something I do not know. Unless You forgive me, and have mercy on me, I will be with the losers.”

Abraham could not help his father . Abraham implored God to forgive his father :

[19:47] He (Abraham) said, “Peace be upon you (father). I will implore my Lord to forgive you; He has been Most Kind to me.

But when he was told that his father is an enemy of God and will not be forgiven ,he disowned him .

[9:114] The only reason Abraham asked forgiveness for his father was that he had promised him to do so. But as soon as he realized that he was an enemy of GOD, he disowned him. Abraham was extremely kind, clement.

Christians claim that Jesus will save them . But on the DOJ ,instead of requesting God to forgive them ,he leaves the judgement, to God ,where it belongs .

[5:118] “If You punish them, they are Your constituents. If You forgive them, You are the Almighty, Most Wise.”


Muhammed could not help his uncle Abu Lahab . He was old that his uncle and aunty are destined for Hell .

[111:1-5] Condemned are the works of Abee Lahab, and he is condemned. His money and whatever he has accomplished will never help him. He has incurred the blazing Hell. Also his wife, who led the persecution. She will be (resurrected) with a rope of thorns around her neck.


[80:5-7] As for the rich man. You gave him your attention. Even though YOU COULD NOT GUARANTEE HIS SALVATION.


On the DOJ instead of requesting God to forgive his people , Muhammed will complain that his people have deserted the Quran (and not Hadith) .

[25:30] The messenger said, “My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran.”

You thought Muhammed would protest at God’s judgement to help you ?!


Forget Muhammed’s intercession . God has clearly stated in verse 53:26 that even the angels do not possess any power to intercede !!! You believe in God ??

[53:26] Not even the angels in heaven possess authority to INTERCEDE. The only ones permitted by GOD are those who act in accordance with His will and His approval.


[36:23] “Shall I set up beside Him gods? If the Most Gracious willed any harm for me, their INTERCESSION cannot help me one bit, nor can they rescue me.

[17:56] Say, “Implore whatever idols you have set up beside Him.” They have no power to relieve your afflictions, nor can they prevent them.

[2:254] O you who believe, you shall give to charity from the provisions we have given to you, before a day comes where there is no trade, no nepotism, and no INTERCESSION. The disbelievers are the unjust.

If God willed any harm for you ,no intercession can help you against Him . Muhammed, Jesus ,prophets , saints ,angels ,all are powerless against God’s will and all of them submit to God ,willingly or unwillingly . And as the above verse tells us , believing in intercessors besides God is setting up gods besides Him . But only on the DOJ will the idol worshippers realize that …

[7:53] …”The messengers of our Lord have brought the truth. Are there any INTERCESSORS to INTERCEDE on our behalf? Would you send us back, so that we change our behavior, and do better works than what we did?”

Too late . As the verse continues …

…They have lost their souls, and THEIR OWN INNOVATIONS HAVE CAUSED THEIR DOOM.

[6:94] “You have come back to us as individuals, just as we created you the first time, and you have left behind what we provided for you. We do not see with you the INTERCESSORS that you idolized and claimed that they will help you. All ties among you have been severed; the idols you set up have abandoned you.” (By Fahad) http://free-minds.org/intercession

posted in ENGLISH ISLAM | 0 Comments

7th Aralık 2008




In the previous study, a basic and straightforward logical analysis was conducted on the Quranic verses relating to The GOD’s will. Various logical propositions and their present and past tense occurrences were examined. The conclusion derived from the analysis is that we each have the freedom to choose the path to take but have no control over what outcome this path will lead to.

When scientists study the universe, the more they understand of it, the more questions arise. I found the same to be true for the Quran. I will try here to answer some of the questions that arose out of the previous study, namely:

– Is freedom of choice unique to humans?

– What is the trust mentioned in 33:72?

– What is the forbidden tree?

As always, only The GOD knows the absolute true answer to those questions as well as all other questions. We will remember the 100% true interpretation only on judgment day (see 7:53). Thus, I am simply hoping that The GOD guides me to get closer to the straight path.

Is Freedom of Choice Unique to Humans?

After developing a clearer understanding of human freedom of choice from the Quran, this is one of the first questions that came to my mind: “is this freedom of choice unique to humans?” What can we understand from the Quran in that regards?

Verses such as 2:34 indicate that angels have freedom of choice. In this case, to prostrate or not to prostrate:

And when We said to the angels: “Prostrate to Adam.” So they prostrated except Iblis, he refused and became arrogant, and he was from the rejecters. [2:34]

The jinn also have freedom of choice as indicated by verse 72:11:

“And that we from us (the jinn) are the correct/righteous, and from us are other/lesser than that, we were on fragmented ways.” [72:11]

So the jinn too can choose their way, either the correct/righteous way or the wrong way. In fact, perhaps everything in the skies and the earth has freedom of choice as implied by the following verse:

We displayed/presented the trust on the skies/space and the earth, and the mountains, so they refused that they bear it, and they were cautious/afraid from it, and the human bore it, that he truly was unjust/oppressive, ignorant [33:72]

It seems that everything in the skies and the earth, including mountains, could have chosen to accept or refuse the “trust” so they already had freedom of choice.

What is the Trust? (Part 1)

Some people have speculated that the trust (“Amana”) mentioned in verse 33:72 is free will. As we saw earlier, humans have freedom to choose which path to take, but it seems that other creatures, including the humans, had freedom of choice from before the “trust” was presented. So clearly this cannot be the “trust” that the humans accepted. So let’s clear our minds from any preconceived ideas about what the trust is and listen to what is said in the Quran.

We displayed/presented the trust on the skies/space and the earth, and the mountains, so they refused that they bear it, and they were cautious/afraid from it, and the human bore it, that he truly was unjust/oppressive, ignorant [33:72]

This verse raises an interesting issue and resolving it could give us an important first clue about the trust. How can the skies/space, the earth, and even the mountains have freedom of choice to refuse or accept the trust? It seems that what we normally perceive as a lifeless thing, such as the mountains, has a “hidden” side that we are unaware of. The hidden side of those creatures had access to information that made them cautious/afraid from accepting the trust.

Another clue is that trust (“amana”) is closely related to a concept called “a’hd” or covenant/contract. This is clear from verses such as 23:8 and 70:32.

And those whom to their trusts and their covenant they are protecting/observing [23:8]

I believe that a covenant is the contract/promise that results, for example, from accepting a trust. What is the covenant that the descendants of Adam have with The GOD? The answer is clearly given in the following verses:

Did I not make a covenant to you, Adam’s descendants, that you do not serve the devil, he truly is for you a clear/evident enemy, and that you serve Me, that is a straight path? [36:60-61]

The contract/covenant that we committed to when we accepted the trust is to not serve the devil and serve The GOD alone. But when did we make this covenant and why do we, in this life, not remember that we committed to this beforehand? Perhaps, we too have a “hidden” side that we are unaware of, just like we are unaware of the mountains’ hidden side.

Another concept that “a’hd” and thus “amana” are closely related to is “mythaq” or pledge. For example, see 2:27, 13:20, and 13:25:

Those who fulfill/complete the covenant to The GOD, and do not break/undo the pledge/binding. [13:20]

While the “a’hd” or covenant applies to all people, the “mythaq” or pledge seems to be a subset that applies to certain people. Also, while we may not remember the covenant, we certainly know about the pledge since we implicitly gave it in this life. For example, here is the “mythaq” of people who are given the book:

And as The GOD took/received the pledge (“mythaq”) of those who were given The Book, to clarify/show/explain it to the people, and do not hide/conceal it, so they discarded/rejected it behind their backs and bought/exchanged with it a small price, so how bad is what they buy/exchange? [3:187]

Once the Quran was given to a certain group, they too became “those who were given the book” and by accepting the Quran, they accepted the pledge in verse 3:187. In order not to break this pledge, they should try to clarify/show/explain it to the people (such as what I am trying to do right now). Did the people who were given the Quran fulfill their pledge? Or did many of them practically discarded the book of The GOD and exchanged it for something less worthy such as the book of Bukhari? If so, then the majority is breaching the pledge (“mythaq”), thereby breaking the covenant (“a’hd”) and violating the trust (“amana”). Indeed, what bad exchange!

Another question that arises out of 33:72 and 36:60-61 is that the covenant resulting from the trust, “not serving an enemy and serving The GOD”, sounds straightforward and logical, so why did everybody refuse to bear the trust except the human? Does the fact that we are now unaware of the “hidden” side of things, including our own hidden side, have something to do with it? Was this constraint part of the trust? It seems that the trust is not merely a privilege but may have significant constraints associated with it.

The story of Adam can help shed some light on this because Adam too made a covenant with The GOD and he too forgot about it:

And We had entrusted/made a covenant to Adam from before so he forgot, and We did not find decisiveness/determination in him. [20:115]

The story of Adam is recited in several places in the Quran such as: 2:30-39, 7:10-25, 15:26-40, 17:61-65, 18:50, 20:115-124, and 38:69-85. The following is the story as told in Chapter 20:

And as We said to the angels: “Prostrate to Adam.” So they prostrated except Iblis refused/hated. [20:116]

So We said: “Adam, that is an enemy for you and your spouse, so let him not bring you both out from the Paradise, so you will be miserable/unhappy.” [20:117]

“In it for you, that you do not be hungry, nor exposed” [20:118]

“And that you do not be thirsty in it, nor heat stricken ” [20:119]

So the devil inspired and talked to him, he said: “O Adam, do I guide you to the immortality’s/eternity’s tree, and possession/kingdom that does not wear out?” [20:120]

Perhaps another clue about the trust can be found in the forbidden tree that Iblis fabricated a nice sounding lie about to lure them into eating from.

What is the Forbidden Tree?

A better understanding of the effect of the tree would help in understanding its meaning.

Traditionally, it is thought that Adam and spouse became naked or their private parts showed when they ate from the tree and that is why they expressed shame. This interpretation doesn’t make logical sense because The Creator knows “the creation”. In other words, The GOD created them and their private parts and knows what they look like naked. Let us continue with the subsequent verse in Chapter 20:

So they ate from it, so their physical bodies (“saw’a-tahoma”) appeared to them, and they started to stick on them from the Paradise’s leaves, and Adam disobeyed his Lord, so he was misguided/failed. [20:121]

Some people have interpreted (“saw’a-tahoma”) as “evil intentions”. Obviously, it doesn’t make sense that they would try to cover their “evil intentions” with the paradise’s leaves. This is again confirmed in Chapter 7:

“And you Adam, reside you and your mate/spouse the Paradise, so you eat from it where/when you willed, and do not approach/near this tree, so you will become from the unjust/oppressive.” [7:19]

So the devil suggested to them to show to them what was hidden/concealed from them of their physical body (“saw’a-tahoma”), and he said: “Your Lord did not prevent you from this tree except that you become two angels or you become from the eternals” [7:20]

And he made oath to them: “I am to you from the advisors/counselors.” [7:21]

So he lured/attracted and lowered them, with deceit/temptation/arrogance so when they tasted/experienced the tree, their physical body (“saw’a-tahoma”) appeared to them, and they started to stick on them from the Paradise’s leaves, and their Lord called them: “Did I not forbid/prevent you from that tree, and I said to you that the devil is for you an evident enemy?” [7:22]

The Sunni clergy were and continue to be heavily influenced by Paulian (the rogue Nazarene sect that hijacked the name of Christ) and Talmudic traditions and thus they interpreted the Arabic word (“saw’a”) as “private parts”. However, that interpretation is not consistent with the following verse:

So The GOD sent a crow digging in the earth, to show him how to cover his brother’s physical body (“saw’a”), he said: “Oh my calamity, have I been unable to be like that crow, so I cover/bury my brother’s physical body (“saw’a”)?” So he became from the remorseful. [5:31]

Clearly the crow showed the son of Adam how to cover/bury his murdered brother’s physical body, not how to cover/bury his private parts or his evil intentions. Therefore, I believe that it is not shame of nakedness but the surprise of seeing their “physical” selves that prompted them to try to cover themselves.

This may confirm that we have a dual nature, “sensed/physical” and “hidden”. In this world, the “physical” side is apparent while the other side is hidden from us. Perhaps in heaven, it was the other way around, until eating from the tree made the “physical” side apparent to Adam and spouse.

In the same way that when Iblis disobeyed the Lord’s command he became a jinn and lost touch with the “angel” side, when Adam and spouse ate from the tree they lost touch with the “hidden” side.

Also, according to verses such as 69:17 and 89:22, the angels will come with our Lord on judgment day. Perhaps that is why the devil tempted Adam and mate using the lie of the tree having the power to turn them into two angels. Maybe Adam and spouse thought that this way they would escape being judged on judgment day.

Why Don’t We Remember Accepting the Trust?

There are many verses in the Quran indicating that there is a hidden side to the universe that we are part of (see 32:17, 7:27, 69:38-39, 50:22, 21:97, 30:7).

They know (what is) apparent/visible from the low life, and they, about the ending, are unaware/oblivious [30:7]

In fact, the “hidden” side of the universe provides access to information that may enable other creatures to make choices that are in line with The GOD’s natural system. It seems from verse 8:48 that even the devil, who unlike us, has access to this hidden side doesn’t dare to do actions that violate The GOD’s natural system, he merely suggests/tells others to do so.

And when the devil decorated/beautified for them their works/deeds, and he said: “No defeater/conqueror from the people for you today and that I am a savior/rescuer for you.” So when the two groups saw each other, he returned/withdrew on his two heels, and he said: “That I am innocent/renouncing/separating from you, I see/understand what you do not see/understand, I fear The GOD, and The GOD (is) strong (severe) in the punishment.” [8:48]

As we saw earlier, the fact that we can’t detect or see the hidden side of the universe may explain why we don’t remember accepting the trust. Could this be why we are constantly asked to remember in the Quran and the Quran itself is described as a reminder?

It seems that the people who will go to heaven will remember that the provisions provided for them were also provided in their previous existence as indicated in 2:25:

And announce good news to those who have faith and did/made the correct/righteous deeds, that to them are treed gardens the rivers flow from beneath it. Whenever they were provided from it a fruit of provision, they said: “This is what we were provided from before.” And they were given with it similar, and for them in it are purified mates/pairs and they are in it immortally/eternally. [2:25]

Also it seems that on the day where people see the greatest disaster they will remember, as indicated by verses such as 7:53, 79:34-35, and 89:23.

So if/when the greatest/biggest calamity/disaster came. That day/time the human/mankind remembers what he strived/endeavored. [79:34-35]

And on that day hell was brought. On that day the human/mankind remembers, and from where is for him the remembrance/reminder? [89:23]

Why would the bringing of hell remind people? Have we all seen hell before? If so, since hell is not here yet, how could we have seen a future outcome? The following verse may provide an indication:

And when your Lord said to the angels: “That I am making/creating/putting in the earth a successor/appointee/leader/replacement (“khalifa”).” They said: “Do you make/put in it, who corrupts in it and sheds the bloods, and/(while) we praise/glorify with Your praise and we (continue to admit Your) holiness/sanctity to You.” He said: “I know what you do not know.” [2:30]

It seems from the Quran that perhaps some creatures such as the angels are able to see some of the future outcomes. Verses such as 37:8 confirm that those in the highest group/elite (“al-mala’a al-a’ala”) may have at least some ability to see future outcomes. In verse 2:30, they were able to see that a successor/appointee in the earth would corrupt in it and kill senselessly. In fact, the angels seem to be so confident about the future outcomes of that action that they question The GOD’s decision.

Who is the Khalifa?

The word “khalifa” comes from the root “KhaLaF”, which has some of the following connotations that are relevant to verse 2:30:

Successor (7:169, 19:59, …)

Appointee/leader (43:60, 24:55, …)

Different (30:22, 16:13, …)

Replacement (7:150, 6:133, 11:57, …)

The clear answer to who the “khalifa” really is can be found in verses such as 6:165 and 35:39:

And He is who made you the earth’s successors/appointees/ leaders/ replacement (“khalaif”), and He raised some of you above some by degrees, to test you in what He gave you, indeed your Lord is quick in the punishment and He is forgiving, merciful. [6:165]

Also verse 7:10, which like 2:30 also comes right before the story of Adam confirms that humankind is the empowered successor/appointee/leader/replacement in the earth:

And We had empowered you in the earth, and We made for you in it livelihood/sustenance, little (is) what you thank/be grateful. [7:10]

Thus it is humankind (us) who is the earth’s “khalifa”. This is a unique feature of humankind that makes us different and may help us in getting closer to what the trust is.

What is the Trust? (Part 2)

Before we continue, it is worth noting that the angels are not part of the skies and the earth as indicated by 16:49:

And to The GOD prostrates what is in the skies/space and what is in the earth from a walker/creeper/crawler, and the angels, and they are not being arrogant. [16:49]

Consequently, we can deduce that the angels were not among the creatures that were offered the trust in 33:72. On the other hand, The GOD told the angels alone about putting a successor/appointee/leader/ replacement (“khalifa”) on earth. So, was being a test for the angels part of the trust? As we saw, one of the connotations of “khalifa” is “replacement”, so perhaps humankind was to replace the angels as leaders of the earth. This may explain the following reaction from the angels:

…They said: “Do you make/put in it, who corrupts in it and sheds the bloods, and/(while) we praise/glorify with Your praise and we (continue to admit Your) holiness/sanctity to You.”… [2:30]

So now, back to our original question. Perhaps one of the ways to approach the ‘trust’ is to think about what makes us different from other creatures since we are the only ones who accepted the trust. From the Quran, we can find several features that are unique to humankind:

As we saw above, humankind is the earth’s successor/appointee/leader/replacement (“khalifa”).

Our Lord taught Adam all the names (see 2:31).

As we saw earlier, we are currently unaware/ignorant of the “hidden” side of the universe.

Also, humankind may be part of a test for the angels.

Also another feature that maybe unique to the human is that The GOD’s spirit was blown into the human (see 32:9, 15:29, 38:72). However, so far I couldn’t find more evidence to confirm whether this is a unique feature of humankind or not.

Hence the trust may entail all of those features that are unique to humankind. Another important clue about the trust can be found at the end of 33:72:

We displayed/presented the trust on the skies/space and the earth, and the mountains, so they refused that they bear it, and they were cautious/afraid from it, and the human bore it, that he truly was unjust/oppressive, ignorant [33:72]

Why is the human called unjust/oppressive and ignorant for accepting the trust? Accepting the first two privileges (the “khalifa” and “knowledge of all the names”) does not seem like a bad decision. However, accepting those privileges along with the constraint of not having access to the “hidden” side that as we saw earlier provides crucial information helping other creatures make choices that are in line with The GOD’s natural system does seem risky. This is especially an unjust/oppressive and ignorant decision, given that it was known in advance that any “khalifa” would corrupt in the earth. Also, it is a known fact that The GOD’s punishment is severe (see verses such as 8:48) and that The GOD will punish the hypocrites and takers of partners as indicated in 33:73 immediately following the verse about the trust.

I believe that this is maybe why everybody in the skies and the earth did not want to bear the trust and why the human is called unjust/oppressive and ignorant for accepting it.

Now add an angel who became a vengeful jinn that is bent on diverting us from the only path that leads to heaven among a very large number of paths that all lead to hell and the outlook for humankind does seem gloomy indeed. Also, while still in the highest group/elite and perhaps was able to see some future outcomes, this vengeful jinn confidently said that the majority of the humans will follow him (see 7:17).

In summary, the trust entails being a successor/appointee/leader/replacement in the earth while knowing the names but being unaware of the “hidden” side of the universe.

How Can We Fulfill the Trust?

Verses 2:27 and 13:25 talk about the people who break the covenant and thereby corrupt in the earth as the angels in verse 2:30 knew the “khalifa” would:

Those who break The GOD’s covenant (“a’hd”) from after its binding/pledging, and they cut/sever what The GOD ordered connected, and they corrupt in the earth, those are the losers. [2:27]

Since we now know that being a “khalifa” maybe the major component of the trust, it seems that to fulfill the Trust, we must not corrupt in the earth. In turn, in order not to corrupt in the earth, we must fulfill The GOD’s covenant and not cut what The GOD ordered connected as indicated by 2:27.

As we saw earlier, this is The GOD’s covenant that we must not break:

Did I not entrust/make a covenant (“a’hd”) to you, Adam’s descendants, that you do not serve the devil, he truly is for you a clear/evident enemy, and that you serve Me, that is a straight path? [36:60-61]

Our purpose in life is to fulfill this covenant with The GOD:

And I did not create the Jinns and the humankind except to serve Me. [51:56]

To fulfill the covenant and thus accomplish our purpose in life to serve The GOD alone, everything we do in life should be for The GOD (see 6:162-163):

Say: “That my “Salat” and my methods, and my life, and my death, (is) to the Lord of the universes. No partner to Him, and with that I was ordered/commanded, and I am first (of) the Muslims.” [6:162-163]

See also 20:14:

“I am The GOD; there is no other god but Me. So you shall serve Me, and establish the “Salat” for My Remembrance.” [20:14]

So it seems that “Salat” is closely related to fulfilling our covenant and our purpose in life. So the next question is how does Salat relate to our covenant?

How Do Salat and Zakat Relate to Our Covenant?

Verses 9:1-13 confirm that both “Salat and Zakat” concepts are related to the “covenant” concept. Those who broke their covenant with the faithful are to bring forth Salat and Zakat to be forgiven. Verses 9:11 and 9:12 indicate two opposite paths (courses of action) that the people who fought to kill the faithful after making a covenant with them can take:

Path 1:

“If they repent, and they uphold the “Salat”, and they bring forth the “Zakat”, then they are your brothers in the system, and We explain the revelations for a people who know. ” [9:11]

Path 2:

“And if they break their oaths after their covenant, and they distort your system, then you may kill the chiefs of rejection. Their oaths are nothing to them, perhaps they will cease.” [9:12]

Thus, the opposite of “breaking their oaths after their covenant, and distorting your system” is “upholding the Salat, and bringing forth the Zakat”. This means that “Salat” is equivalent to “committing to their oaths and covenant” and “Zakat” is equivalent to “purifying the system from their deliberate distortions”.

In our case, here are our covenant and pledge with The GOD, which as we saw earlier are connected:

Did I not entrust/make a covenant (“a’hd”) to you, Adam’s descendants, that you do not serve the devil, he truly is for you a clear/evident enemy, and that you serve Me, that is a straight path? [36:60-61]

And as The GOD took/received the pledge (“mythaq”) of those who were given The Book, to clarify/show/explain it to the people, and do not hide/conceal it, so they discarded/rejected it behind their backs and bought/exchanged with it a small price, so how bad is what they buy/exchange? [3:187]

From other verses in the Quran, we can see that Salat’s purpose is:

Remembering The GOD (20:14) by remembering His favor and the pledge (“mythaq”) that we made with Him (5:7) and “hearing and obeying” Him (i.e. prostration/”sujood”).

Fulfilling our pledge by reciting the book (29:45, 17:78) and explaining it (3:187), including explaining its application to our system of laws and community.

Verses 4:101-103 describe the shortening of Salat in case of fear by performing only process number 1 above and ending the Salat with the “sujood”.

Now it is clear that Salat helps us in serving The GOD by connecting our covenant and pledge with their actual fulfillment in our system while Zakat helps us in not serving the devil by purifying our system from his distortions.

The “Salat” puts those who have faith in contrast to the rejecters. The rejecters betray/break their covenant, cut what The GOD ordered connected (see 2:27, 13:25), and disconnect their words from their deeds (see 26:226-227). On the other hand, those who have faith connect their covenant and pledge (words) with the fulfillment of their covenant and pledge (deeds) by upholding the Allegiance/Connection Assembly = “Salat” (see 13:19-22).

Purifying our system from the devil’s distortions (“Zakat”) is done by convincing people to reject the devil’s lies as clear from Chapter 80:

How do you know? He may “yazaka”. [80:3]

Thus, everyone who wants to give Purification (“Zakat”) is required to make an effort to purify others by exposing the devil’s lies, such as the Hadiths, that distort our system.

Those who if We empowered them in the earth they upheld the Allegiance/Connection Assembly (“Salat”) and brought purification (“Zakat”) and they ordered/commanded with the kindness, and they forbade disguised-obscenity, and to The GOD (are) the matters’ end (results). [22:41]

Conclusion And Directions For Future Research

That it truly is an honorable messenger’s utterance [69:40]

That it truly is an honorable messenger’s utterance [81:19]

And We had connected for them the utterance, perhaps they remember [28:51]

Interestingly, we are finding that the concepts we covered so far from the Quran such as Free Choice, Trust, Covenant, Pledge, Forbidden Tree, Khalifa, Salat, Zakat, our purpose in life, and serving The GOD are all interconnected as was indicated in 28:51.

Here is the verse immediately following verse 33:72 that talks about the trust:

For The GOD to punish the (male and female) hypocrites, and the (male and female) sharers/takers of partners (with The GOD), and for The GOD to forgive the (male and female) who have faith, and The GOD was forgiving, merciful. [33:73]

Remember the test that we are going through in this low life:

Did the people assume/suppose that they be left to say “we had faith” and they are not being tested? And We had tested those who were before them, so The GOD will know those who were truthful, and He will know the liars/deniers/falsifiers. [29:2-3]

And The GOD will know those who have faith, and He will know the hypocrites. [29:11]

Perhaps the test of this low life is an assessment of whether we will betray or observe the trust. Also, continue to read the story of Adam in chapter 20:

Then His Lord chose/purified him, so He forgave him, and guided. [20:122]

He said: “You descend/drop from it all together, some of you to some an enemy, so when guidance from Me comes to you, so who followed My guidance, so he does not become misguided nor become miserable/unhappy. [20:123]

“And who objected/turned away from My remembrance/reminder, so then for him is a narrow/tight/weak life/livelihood, and We gather him on the Resurrection Day blind/confused” [20:124]

What is that “guidance” 20:123 that we are to follow?

“This is the book, no doubt, in it guidance for the prudent/forethoughtful.” [2:2]

The Quran helps us with the our purpose in life by, for example, talking about the outcomes that we are going to face in the afterlife and providing knowledge that help us connect all the information we have together to determine our purpose in life. It is simply a reminder to help us choose the right path that will lead to a desirable outcome in the afterlife and warn us about the other paths and the miserable outcome that they will certainly lead to.

As I mentioned in the introduction, when scientists study the universe, the more they understand of it, the more questions arise and I found the same to be true for the Quran. One word that was repeated many times in this article is “why”. Children have this natural instinct to keep asking “why”. Unfortunately, many education systems, especially in Sunni and Shia nations, have been an agent for suppressing this inquisitive nature so that by the time the child grows into an adult, they are a tamed blind follower. A more natural education system that attempts to harness this inquisitive nature to promote the revival of scientific discovery and civilization is desperately needed. Meanwhile, please coach your children to continue to ask “why”.

Remember our purpose in life:

And I did not create the Jinns and the humankind except to serve Me. [51:56]


And had your Lord willed He would have made the people one nation, and they still/continue differing/disagreeing. [11:118]

Except who your Lord had mercy upon and for that He created them, and your Lord’s word/expression (is) completed: “I will fill Hell from the Jinns and the people all together.” [11:119]

By putting 51:56 and 11:118-119 together, we can see that despite all people differences/disagreements, what unites those who our Lord has mercy on is the serving of The GOD alone. So even though we may occasionally disagree on some Quranic interpretations, what is really important is that we agree to serve The GOD alone and not the devil and his lies.

Many new questions arose while writing this article, for example:

Now that we understand from the Quran that the universe has a sensed/physical side and a “hidden” side, what more can we find out about that “hidden” side from the Quran?

How do our findings relate to new scientific theories that try to explain the universe such as string theory, m-theory, and f-theory? All those theories suggest that there are indeed “hidden” dimensions in the universe.

Also, what else can we find out about the straight path?

Did I not entrust/make a covenant to you, Adam’s descendants, that you do not serve the devil, he truly is for you a clear/evident enemy, and that you serve Me, that is a straight path? [36:60-61]

Those are just some more questions that I am putting out for people to think about and I will try to answer some of them in the near future, except if The GOD wills and perhaps my Lord guides me to what is nearer in rationality.


“This is the book, no doubt, in it guidance for the prudent/forethoughtful.” [2:2]

Tomorrow, I will try to improve my understanding of the Quran and the universe, except if The GOD wills and perhaps my Lord guides me to what is nearer in rationality. This article reflects my personal interpretation of the Quranic verses as of December 31st, 2002. Please be humble by following the example set by the angels in 2:32, verify all information within for yourself as commanded in 17:36, and remember that simply “none” is the prudent/forethoughtful answer to 45:6. http://free-minds.org/thetrust

posted in ENGLISH ISLAM | 0 Comments

7th Aralık 2008



Many people in the past and probably each one of us have asked this question at one point or another. The question is whether human beings are predestined or possess free will. The answer to this question could have profound consequences on how we approach this life and indeed on the very meaning of life. This question has perplexed people and has been on their mind since inhabiting this earth. I believe that, with The God’s help, we can use the Quran to shed light on this issue and get closer to the truth.


Like most people, I too have been thinking about the question of free will and predestination for a long time. A step forward came when something about verses 18:23-24 made me pause:

Do not say to something, I am doing this tomorrow. Except if The God wills, and remember/mention your Lord if you forget, and say: “Perhaps my Lord guides me to what is nearer in rationality” [18:23-24]

The reason why those verses made me pause is that although I have read them many times in the past, I suddenly realized that, along with most of the Muslims, Sunnis, and Shia in the world, I have not been saying what verse 18:24 is instructing me to say.

What we have been saying about our future actions is “if The God Willed” (In sha’a Allah) instead of “except if The God wills (Illa an yasha’a Allah) and perhaps my Lord guides me to what is nearer in rationality.”

Now on the surface, some might see this as a subtle difference that is immaterial. However, from my experience, the language of the Quran is logically precise and there are in fact significant differences between the two sayings:

Linguistically, one is in the past tense while the other is in the present tense.

Logically speaking, one is a conditional proposition while the other is an exception proposition.

Based on this initial observation, I examined the Quranic verses that contain the word “sha’a” or any of its derivatives as relating to The God’s will. I specifically started to look at the logical structure of the verses and noted that the word “sha’a” and its derivatives are always accompanied by specific logical propositions.

Interestingly, a distinct pattern started to emerge, but at the same time a problem cropped up when attempting to describe this pattern in English. Clearly distinct logical Arabic propositions were rendered indistinct in English, and were all generally translated by different interpreters as hypothetical IF statements. Unlike the logically precise Arabic of the Quran, English has no easy means of distinguishing a hypothetical IF-condition from a counterfactual IF-condition. Here is an example of each:

Hypothetical conditional example (IF statement in English): I don’t know whether or not x occurred, but if x occurred/occurs, then y will occur.

Counterfactual conditional example: I know that x did not occur, but if x had occurred, then y would have occurred.

The most efficient way to overcome this hurdle was to deploy the Arabic logical propositions “as-is” from the Quran for propositions for which no English equivalent was available instead of trying to translate them and perhaps lose the distinct meaning in the process. The different types of logical propositions associated with the various forms of “sha’a” are described in the following section, including the past tense and future tense occurrences of those propositions.


Seven distinct types of logical propositions are associated with the various forms of The God “sha’a/yasha’a” (willed/wills) were found:


Logic: I don’t know whether or not x occurred, but if x occurred/occurs, then y will occur.

Those are equivalent to the English IF conditional. The “IN” or “IThA” propositions indicate that the sha’a decision x is uncertain, therefore the outcome y or its complement y’ are also uncertain. In this case, we have no idea about which outcome, y or y’ (not y) will result. Since the “IN” and “IThA” propositions are equivalent to the English IF proposition, I will use the translation directly.


The God might remove what is inflicting you, enrich you, make you secure, and make you victorious (See 6:41, 9:28, 12:99, 25:10, 48:27)

But (only) Him you call, so He removes/uncovers what you call for, IF He willed, and you forget what you share/take as partners (with The God). [6:41]

We can see that both y and y’ are uncertain and we don’t know which outcome will happen. In this case, y = “The God removes what you call for” and equally possible is y’ = “The God doesn’t remove what you call for”.

The God might bring punishment to you (see 11:33)

He said: “But The God brings it to you, IF He willed and you are not disabling/frustrating.” [11:33]

In this case, y = “The God brings it (punishment) to you” and equally possible is y’ = “The God doesn’t bring it (punishment) to you”.

The God might take the inspiration/transmission away from the Prophet (see 17:86)

And IF We willed We will take away/eliminate what We inspired/transmitted to you, then you do not find for you with it against Us a guardian/protector. [17:86]

y = “The God takes the inspiration/transmission from you (the Prophet)” and equally possible is y’ = “The God doesn’t take the inspiration/transmission from you (the Prophet)”.

The God might make me righteous or patient

This particular proposition is distinctive because relating to righteousness and patience I couldn’t find it anywhere in the Quran spoken directly by The God in the past tense. In all past tense occurrences, it is people who said this proposition as we see in 18:69, 28:27, and 37:102:

He said: “That I, I want, that I marry you to one of my two daughters these, on that you hire me yourself for eight debates (years), so if you completed ten, so it is from you, and I do not want to make hardship/difficulty on you, you will find me, IF The God willed from the correct/righteous.” [28:27]

He Said: “You will find me IF The God willed patient, and I will not disobey from you an order/command.” [18:69]

So when he reached the struggle/endeavor with him, he said: “My son, I see/understand in the sleep/dream that I sacrifice you, so look/wonder about/consider what you see/understand.” He said: “You my father, make/do what you are being ordered/commanded, so you will find me, IF The God willed from the patient.” [37:102]

So here we have people who have chosen a certain path and are hoping that other people (who have no control over their choice) will find the outcome of this choice favorable (righteousness or patience).

y = “The outcome of my actions will be that I will be righteous/patient” and equally possible is y’ = “The outcome of my actions will be that I will not be righteous/patient”.

The God might have made us (the descendants of Israel) guided

They said: “Call for us your Lord so He clarifies to us what it is, that the cows looked alike/are unverifiable, to us and we IF The God willed are guided.” [2:70]

The only occurrence in the Quran where the “IN” logical operator is used with “sha’a” as related to guidance is in verse 2:70. Moreover, “sha’a” (willed) is in the past tense. Note however, that it is not The God or any of the messengers who say this statement. It is the descendants of Israel who argued with Moses when they were commanded to slaughter a cow. Compare this to what Moses said, for example, in 26:62 and 28:22:

He (Moses) said: “No but truly with me is my Lord, He will guide me.” [26:62]

And when he (Moses) aimed/turned towards Madyan, he said: “Perhaps my Lord guides me to the straightness road.” [28:22]

Also look at what Abraham said in 6:79, 26:78, 37:99, 43:27:

When he saw the moon rising, he said, “Maybe this is my Lord! Unless my Lord guides me, I will surely be one of the stray people” [6:79]

When it comes to guidance, unlike the descendents of Israel, both Abraham and Moses, did not say “in sha’a Allah” (If The God willed). The God’s messengers probably knew better. However, I will wait until I gather more evidence before making any conclusions, so I ask the reader to bear with me while we continue the analysis.


The God may do away with or wipe off people (see 4:133, 6:133, 14:19, 34:9, 35:16)

And your Lord, The Rich, The Owner of Mercy, IF He wills He wipes you off, and makes a successor/leader from after you, what He wills, as He created you from another nation’s descendants. [6:133]

We can see that both y and y’ are uncertain and we don’t know which action The God is going to take. In this case, y = “The God wipes you off” and equally possible is y’ = “The God doesn’t wipe you off”. The use of the present tense may indicate that the action that The God will take is not predestined.

The God may have mercy on or torture you

Your Lord is more knowledgeable of you, IF He wills He has mercy upon you, and IF He wills He tortures you, and We did not send you a guardian/protector/keeper on them. [17:54]

In this case, action y = “The God has mercy on you” and equally possible is y’ = “The God tortures you”. This particular verse’s use of “IN” is distinct in that both y and y’ are stated.

The God may drown people or make the wind stop

And if We will We drown/sink them, so (there be) no cries for help/assistances for them, and nor they be rescued/saved. [36:43]

If He wills He stops/quietens the wind/breeze, so they continue/remain still/fixed in place on its back/surface, that truly in that (are) evidences/signs to every/each patient/endurer, thankful/grateful. [42:33]

In this case, action y = “The God stops the wind/drowns them” and equally possible is y’ = “The God doesn’t stop the wind/doesn’t drown them”.


Logic: I know that x did not occur, but if x had occurred, then y would have occurred.

The LW proposition excludes a specific outcome from the set of all possible outcomes. In other words, the only possible outcome is y’ (not y). Appropriately, this form of logic excludes the outcome without excluding the fact that The God could have made this outcome possible.


The God did not make their hearing and sight go away and the shade motionless (see 2:20, 25:45)

Do you not see to your Lord how He extended/spread the shade? And LW He willed, He would have made it still/motionless, then We made/put the sun on it as a proof/evidence. [25:45]

In this example, we see that the counterfactual y = “the shade would be made still” while the actual is y’ = “The shade is not still”.

We are certain that outcome y will not occur because of the use of the counterfactual conditional. The use of the past tense indicates that the exclusion of the counterfactual outcome from the set of possible outcomes has already been decided by The God in the past (i.e. it is predestined).

The God did not cause believers/those who have faith hardship/destruction (see 2:220, 4:90, 7:155):

…and LW The God willed, He would have empowered them on you, so they would have fought/killed you …[4:90]

In this case, y = “He would have empowered them on you” while the actual is y’ = “He didn’t empower them on you.”

People are not all guided, fight among themselves, and will not be one nation (see 2:253, 5:48, 6:35, 6:149, 10:99, 11:118, 13:31, 16:9, 16:93, 32:13, 42:8)

…and LW The God willed He would have gathered/collected them on the guidance, so do not be from the ignorant/lowly [6:35]

In this example, y = “The God would have gathered everybody on the guidance” while the actual is y’ = “not everybody is on the guidance”.

It is predestined that not all people will be guided. This is seen in the use of the “LW” counterfactual conditional with the past tense to exclude the outcome that everybody will be guided from the set of possible outcomes.

…and LW The God willed, He would have made you one nation, but to test you in what He gave you, so race/surpass to the good deeds, to God is your return altogether, so He informs you with what you were differing/disagreeing in [5:48]

Here y = “The God would have made us one nation” while the actual is y’ = “we are not one nation.”

The use of the past tense here indicates that The God excluded this outcome in the past and that even trying to unify all of humanity under one nation is in vain and goes against The God’s natural system.

People will take partners with the God (see 6:107, 6:148, 16:35, 43:20)

And LW The God willed, they would not have shared/taken partners (with The God), and We did not make you a protector/observer on them, and you are not on them a guardian. [6:107]

y = “Nobody would have taken partners (with The God)” while the actual is y’ = “they took partners with The God.”

Interestingly, in the hereafter, the people who took partners acknowledge the fact that the outcome for them specifically already unfolded (see 6:148 and 16:35). While those who are still living in this low life are called liars for doing the same (see 43:20) since they still have a chance to take a different path that may lead to a different outcome. Again, the significance of this will be discussed in more details later after gathering all the evidence.

People who take partners with The God will fabricate and follow religious lies (see 6:112, 6:137)

And like that their partners (with The God) decorated/beautified to many of the takers of partners (with The God) killing/murdering their children, to make them be destroyed/perished, and to confuse/mix on them their religion, and LW The God willed they would not have done it, so leave them, and what they are fabricating [6:137]

y = “Nobody would fabricate religious lies” while the actual is y’ = “people who take partners (with The God) will fabricate religious lies.”

As we can see, it is predestined and thus inevitable that those who take partners (prophets, idols, mullahs, clerics, mystics, etc.) with The God will fabricate religious lies. So no one should be surprised by the abundance of religious lies such as Hadiths.

The Quran was recited on the Prophet (see 10:16)

Say: “LW God willed I would not (have) read/recited it on you, and He would not (have) informed you of it. I had stayed/remained amongst you a life time from before it, so do you not reason/understand?” [10:16]

y = “The Quran wouldn’t have been recited on the Prophet” while the actual is y’ = “the Quran was recited on the Prophet.”

The God will not send to every village a warner (see 25:51)

And LW We willed, We would have sent in every village/urban city a warner/giver of notice [25:51]

y = “The God would have sent to every village a warner” while the actual is y’ = “The God will not send to every village a warner.”

The God will not make the people who separated from The God’s verses/evidences rise (see 7:176)

And read/recite on them whom We gave/brought him Our verses/evidences, so he broke away/separated from it, so the devil followed him, so he was from the misguided. And LW We willed, We would have risen/honored him with it, but he (wanted to) perpetuate/immortalize/eternalize the earth, and he followed his fantasy, so his example is like the example of the dog, if you burden/load on it, it pants, and if you leave it, it pants, that is the example of the nation of those who lied/denied/falsified with Our verses/evidences, so narrate/relay the narration, perhaps they think. [7:175-176]

y = “The people who separated from The God’s verses/evidences would be risen/honored” while the actual is y’ = “The people who separated from The God’s verses/evidences will not be risen/honored.”

Let me stop at those verses, because I believe that they hold the explanation to what is happening to many of the so-called Muslim nations today. As in the example given in those verses, the majority of the people in those nations have indeed separated themselves from The God’s verses. They allowed the so-called scholars and their Hadiths to come between them and The God’s verses. Due to the fact that The God uses LW (i.e. outcome y is not available) and the past tense (i.e. y’ is predestined), it is a physical impossibility for such nations to rise and they will remain debased and humiliated.


The God does not strike, cover their hearts, erase their eyesight, or transform them (the criminals) (see 7:100, 36:66-67)

Or did He not guide to those inheriting the earth after its people, that LW We will, We struck/marked them because of their crimes, and We stamp/cover/seal on their hearts/minds, so they do not hear/listen? [7:100]

The counterfactual y = “The God would have struck them and stamped their hearts” while the actual is y’ = “The God does not struck them or stamp their hearts.”

The use of the present tense may indicate that The God makes the counterfactual action y currently unavailable.

The God does not make from people angels (see 43:60)

And LW We will, We would have made from you angels in the earth who are in succession/leadership. [43:60]

The counterfactual y = “The God would have made from you angels” while the actual is y’ = “The God does not make from you angels”.

Contrast this to what the disbelievers/rejecters say in 23:24 and 41:14:

So said the nobles/assembly from those who disbelieved/rejected from his nation: “That is not except a human similar to you he wants to make himself more preferred/favored over you, and LW The God willed He would have descended angels, we did not hear with that in our fathers/forefathers, the primitives.” [23:24]

Note that the disbelievers use the past tense instead of the present tense that The God correctly used in 43:60. It is becoming increasingly apparent that we should not use the past and the present tense haphazardly when uttering anything about The God’s will.

The God does not get victory directly from those who fought the Messenger

… and LW The God wills He would have gotten victory from them, but to test some of you with others, and those who were killed in The God’s way, He will never/not misguide their deeds. [47:4]

y = “The God would have gotten victory directly from them” while the actual is y’ = “The God does not get victory directly from them”.

The God does not show the hypocrites to the Prophet

And LW We will, We would have shown them to you, so you would have known them by their marks/identifications/expressions, and you will know them through their style of speech/word/opinion, and The God knows your deeds. [47:30]

y = “The God would have shown them to you (the Prophet)” while the actual is y’ = “The God does not show the hypocrites to you (the Prophet).”

The God does not make your plants crumbs or your water salty

LW We will, We would have made it debris/crumbs, so you continued/remained regretting/wondering. [56:65]

LW We will, We made it salty and bitter, so if only you thank/be grateful. [56:70]

y = “The God would have made it debris/crumbs/salty” while the actual is y’ = “The God does not make it debris/crumbs/salty”


Logic: I know that “what” y occurred is/was a result of x.

In this case, what y is/was the effect of The God’s will.


The God assembled human beings in whatever shape He willed

In any shape/picture what He willed/intended He assembled/composed you (the human) [82:8]

In this example, outcome y = “What is the human assembled shape/picture” was simply the effect of The God’s will.

The God created whatever outcome He willed

And if only when you entered your treed garden, you said: ‘What The God willed! No strength/power except by The God,’ if you see me, I am less/fewer than you in property/possession/wealth and children [18:39]

In this example, outcome y = “What outcome resulted (the garden is fruitful or barren)” was simply the effect of The God’s will.

This verse is instructing us to say “ma sha’a Allah” about the outcomes that already unfolded. Since sha’a is in the past tense, it seems that the outcomes of our actions are predetermined and even though we are free to choose which path to take, we have no control over the outcome that this path leads to.


The God creates, rules, be kind to, eliminates, does, hurries, increases in creation, and selects what He wills (see 3:40, 3:47, 5:1, 5:17, 6:133, 12:100, 13:39, 14:27, 17:18, 22:5, 24:45, 28:68, 30:54, 35:1, 39:4, 42:27, 42:49, 42:51).

The God affirms/strengthens those who believed/had faith with the word/opinion the affirmed/strengthened in the low life and the ending, and The God misguides the unjust/oppressive, and The God makes/does what He wills. [14:27]

In this case, the actions y = “strengthening those who believed/had faith and misguiding the unjust/oppressive (what The God does)” is simply the effect of The God’s present will.

The God inspires what He wills (see 42:51)

And it was not to a human that The God converses/speaks to him, except by inspiration/transmission or from behind a divider/partition, or He sends a messenger so he (the messenger) is inspired what He wills with His permission, that He truly is high/elevated, wise/judicious. [42:51]

y = “What the messenger is inspired” is the simply the effect of The God’s present will. Let me stop here because this verse clearly negates that the Quran has been eternally around since the beginning of creation as some sects claim. The verb “yasha’a” is in the present tense, implying that what the messenger is being inspired has not been predestined by The God long time ago but is being decided by The God at the time the Quran was revealed.


Logic: I know that “how” y occurs is a result of x.

In this case, how y occurs is the effect of The God’s will.


I couldn’t find any examples of “KYF” used with The God “sha’a” in the past tense.


The God forms and spends how (“KYF”) He wills (see 3:6, 5:64, 30:48)

He is who pictures/forms you in the wombs/uteruses how He wills, no god except He, The Glorious/Mighty, The Wise/Judicious. [3:6]

In this example, y = “How our specific form in the wombs is pictured” is simply the effect of The God’s present will.

Note the difference between 3:6 and 82:8 that we saw above in the past tense example of “MA”. Verse 3:6 talks about how people are shaped in the womb while 82:8 talked about what shape the human was assembled in. “How” babies are shaped in the womb is a present ongoing action while “what” shape humankind was assembled in (for example we have a head, two arms, two feet, attached to a torso) is a past, predestined outcome. It is getting clearer and clearer that there is a distinct pattern for the use of the present tense and the past tense as relating to The God’s will.


Logic: I know that “who” y occurs to is a result of x.


Although, as we will see later, there are some past tense occurrences associated with the “ILA MN” (except whom) logical expression, I couldn’t find any past tense occurrence in the Quran associated with the simple “MN” (whom) logical expression and The God’s will. This may imply that specifically “who” y occurs to is not predestined in the past.


The God gives favor, kingship, knowledge, wisdom, victory, purification, permission, and power to whomever He wills (see 2:90, 2:247, 2:251, 2:261, 2:269, 3:13, 3:26, 3:73, 3:179, 4:49, 5:54, 6:83, 7:128, 10:107, 12:76, 14:11, 24:21, 30:5, 53:26, 57:21, 57:29, 59:6, 62:4)

Hegives the wisdom to whom He wills, and who is given the wisdom, so he had been given much goodness/wealth, and none mentions/remembers except those with intelligence. [2:269]

In this example, y = “Who The God gives the wisdom to” is simply the effect of The God’s present will. The fact that the present tense is used indicates that the action of giving wisdom to a specific person is not predestined and is being determined in the present. At the end of the verse, The God is giving a hint on how one could possibly be from those who are given this wisdom.

The God was not to leave the believers on what you are on it until He distinguishes/separates the bad/malicious from the good, and The God was not to show/inform you on the unseen, and but The God chooses from His messengers, whom He wills, so believe/have faith in The God and His messengers, and if you believe/have faith and be forethoughtful, so for you is a great reward. [3:179]

Here y = “Who The God chooses from His messengers” is simply the effect of The God’s present will at the time.

O, you who believed/had faith, do not follow the devil’s foot steps, and who follows the devil’s foot steps, he orders/commands with the sinful and the atrocious, and where it not for The God’s grace/favor/blessing on you and His mercy, there would not be anyone from you who purified/corrected ever, but The God purifies/corrects whom He wills, and The God is hearing/listening, knowledgeable. [24:21]

y = “Who The God purifies/corrects” is simply the effect of The God’s present will.

The God extends provision to whom He wills (see 2:212, 3:27, 3:37, 13:26, 17:30, 24:38, 28:82, 29:62, 30:37, 34:36, 34:39, 39:52, 42:12, 42:19)

Say: “Truly my Lord spreads/extends the provision to whom He wills, and He is capable but most of the people do not know.” [34:36]

In this case, y = “Who The God extends the provision to” is simply the effect of The God’s present will.

Compare the cause and effect expression “MN” that The God is asking us to use against the counterfactual conditional “LW” used instead by the disbelievers in 36:47.

And if it was said to them: “Spend from what The God provided for you.” Those who disbelieved said to those who believed/had faith: “Do we feed whom LW The God wills He fed him? That truly you are in except clear/evident misguidance.” [36:47]

It is clear that what we say about The God’s will reveals our true convictions, even something as small as saying “LW” instead of “MN”.

The God descends the soul on whom He wills (see 16:2, 40:15)

He descends the angels with the soul/spirit from His order/command on whom He wills from His servants, that warn/give notice, that there is no god except Me, so be forethoughtful of Me. [16:2]

In this example, y = “Who The God descends the soul/spirit on” is simply the effect of The God’s present will.

The God guides, misguides, and makes listen whom He wills (see 2:142, 2:213, 2:272, 6:39, 6:88, 7:155, 10:25, 13:27, 14:4, 16:93, 24:35, 24:46, 28:56, 35:8, 35:22, 39:23, 42:13, 42:52, 73:31)

The ignorant/foolish from the people will say: “What turned them away from their direction, which they were on?” Say: “To The God are the sunrise/east and the sunset/west, He guides whom He wills to a straight path.” [2:142]

And those who lied/denied with Our verses/signs/evidences are deaf and mute in the darknesses; whom The God wills He misguides him/her, and whom He wills, He makes him/her on a straight path [6:39]

In the above examples, y = “Who The God guides to a straight/direct path” is simply the effect of The God’s present will. Notice the hints that The God gives above about those who are not guided.

As we saw earlier the use of the “LW” counterfactual conditional with the past tense excludes the outcome that everybody will be guided from the set of possible outcomes. On the other hand, the specific of “who” exactly will be guided is not predestined. This is clearly seen here through the consistent use of the present tense of “sha’a” together with the logical expression “MN” as relating to guidance to specific people.

Except for what the descendants of Israel say in verse 2:70 that we saw earlier, all the occurrences that I found of The God’s will in the Quran as relating to guidance is in the present tense. As we saw above, this implies that “who” specifically The God guides is not predestined and is dependent on which path one presently chooses.

So why did the descendants of Israel say: “in sha’a Allah we are guided”? They are implying that they are predestined to be either guided or misguided and therefore are not taking responsibility for their freedom of choice. Little did they know that what they said in verse 2:70 would be demonstrated as insincere thousands of years later by this simple logical analysis of the Quran. In fact, what the descendants of Israel said resembles a lot what the people of Pharaoh said in 43:49, for example, by asking Moses to pray to The God for them and the plural form of the verb “guide”.

The God forgives, singles out with mercy, tortures, and saves whom He wills (see 2:105, 2:284, 3:74, 3:129, 4:48, 4:116, 5:18, 5:40, 7:156, 9:15, 9:27, 12:56, 12:110, 21:9, 29:21, 42:8, 48:14, 48:25)

He singles out/specializes with His mercy whom He wills, and The God is owner of the great grace/favor. [3:74]

In this example, y = “Who The God singles out with His mercy” is simply the effect of The God’s present will (again, implying that it is not predestined).

Indeed The God does not forgive setting up partners/sharers with Him, and He forgives what is other than that, to whom He wills, and who sets up partners/sharers with The God, he fabricated a great sin/crime. [4:48]

Here y = “Who The God forgives for other than setting up partners/sharers with Him” is simply the effect of The God’s present will.

The God strikes with lightning and rain whom He wills (see 13:13, 24:43, 30:48)

The God is who sends the winds so it agitates clouds, so He spreads/extends it in the sky how He wills, and He makes it pieces, so you see the rain appears/emerges from in between it, so when He strikes with it whom He wills from His worshippers/slaves, then they are announcing good news/cheerful [30:48]

Here y = “Who The God strikes with the rain” is simply the effect of The God’s present will.

The God gives boys/girls and makes infertile who He wills (see 42:49, 42:50)

To The God is the sky’s/space’s and the earth’s ownership/kingdom, He creates what He wills, He grants/presents to whom He wills females, and He grants/presents to whom He wills the males. [42:49]

In this case, y = “Who The God grants female/male children to” is simply the effect of The God’s present will.


Logic: I know that “when” y occurs is a result of x.


These are the only two verses in the Quran that I could find where the logical proposition “IThA” is used with The God willing something in the past tense (see 76:28, 80:22):

We created them and We strengthened/supported their bone structure/ties and joints/(strengths), and WHEN We willed, We replaced their equivalent by a replacement [76:28]

Then WHEN He willed He revived/resurrected him [80:22]

y = “When The God replace/resurrect them ” is simply the effect of The God’s past will.


Verse 42:29 is the only verse where “IThA” is used with The God wills in the present tense:

And from His verses/evidences/signs are the skies’/space’s and the earth’s creation, and what He scattered/distributed in them from a walker/creeper/crawler, and He is on gathering/collecting them WHEN He wills capable. [42:29]

y = “When The God gathers the walker/creeper/crawler” is simply the effect of The God’s present will.


Logic: I don’t know whether or not x occurred, but if x occurred/occurs, then y will be exempted.


Default: They will be shocked/ frightened.
“ILA MN” Exception: Who The God might cause not to be shocked/ frightened.

And a day/time it was blown in the horn, so frightened/panicked were those in the skies/space and those in the earth, except who The God willed, and all came to Him degraded/manipulated [27:87]

And it was blown in the horn, so shocked were those in the skies/space and the earth, except who The God willed, then it was blown in it another, so then they are getting up/standing still, looking [39:68]

In the above examples, y = “Who The God might cause not to be shocked/frightened” were exempted as a result of The God’s will.

Default: They will abide immortal in hell/heaven.
“ILA MA” Exception: What The God might cause not to abide immortal in hell/heaven.

…The fire is your residence, you are immortally in it except what The God willed, that your Lord is wise/judicious, knowledgeable. [6:128]

Immortally/eternally in it as long as the skies/space and the earth continued/lasted, except what your Lord willed, that your Lord is a maker/doer, of what He wants. And but those who were made happy/fortunate, so they are in the Paradise, immortally/eternally in it, as long as the skies/space and the earth continued/lasted, except what your Lord willed, a gift/grant not cut/broken/(interrupted). [11:107-108]

In the above examples, y = “What The God might cause not to reside immortally/eternally in heaven/hell” were exempted as a result of The God’s will.

Default: I (the Prophet) do not possess outcomes of benefit or harm to myself.
“ILA MA” Exception: What outcomes The God might cause to be benefit or harm.

Say: “I do not own/possess benefit/usefulness and nor harm to myself, except what God The willed, and had I been knowing the hidden, I would have increased from the good/wealth, and the bad/evil/harm would not have touched me, that I am except a warner/giver of notice and an announcer of good news to a nation believing.” [7:188]

The above verse indicates that knowledge of the hidden would have enabled one to use information about the future to increase wealth and avoid harm.

Say: “I do not own/possess to myself harm and nor benefit/usefulness except, what The God willed, to every/each nation/generation is a term/time, if their term/time came, so they do not delay/lag behind an hour, and nor advance/precede [10:49]

In the above examples, y = “What outcomes of benefit or harm I have” were exempted as a result of The God’s will.

Default: Do not forget.
“ILA MA” Exception: What The God might cause you to forget.

We will make you read, so do not forget. Except what The God willed, that He truly knows the declared/publicized and what hides. [87:6-7]

In this example, y = “What The God might cause you to forget” was exempted as a result of The God’s will.

Default: They do not comprehend/envelope a thing from His knowledge.
“ILA BiMA” Exception: With what The God let them comprehend.

… , and they do not comprehend/envelope with a thing from His knowledge, except with what He willed. …[2:255]

In this example, y = “What thing they comprehend from His knowledge” was exempted as a result of The God’s will.


All the present tense examples of the hypothetical exception that I found use the “ILA AN” proposition. Although the exception y is not given, the default is understood to be the complement of y (i.e. y’).

Default: I do not fear partners that you made (with The God).
“ILA AN” Exception: Except if The God wills other than the default.

And his nation disputed with him, he said: “Do you argue/dispute with me in The God and He had guided me, and I do not fear what you share/make partners (with The God), except that my Lord wills a thing, …” [6:80]

Default: They were not to believe.
“ILA AN” Exception: Except if The God wills other than the default.

And had We descended to them the angels, and the dead talked to them, and We gathered on them every thing in front, they were not to believe, except that The God wills, but most of them are being ignorant [6:111]

Default: We will not return to your false religion/system.
“ILA AN” Exception: Except if The God wills other than the default.

“We had fabricated on The God lies/falsification, if we returned in your creed/system after The God saved/rescued us from it, and it is not for us to return in it except that The God, our Lord, wills, …” [7:89]

Default: Joseph would not have been able to take his brother within the king’s religion/system.
“ILA AN” Exception: Except if The God wills other than the default.

So he began with their bags/containers, before his brother’s bag/container, then he brought it out from his brother’s bag/container, like that, We plotted for Joseph, he was not to take his brother in the king’s religion/system, except that The God wills, We raise whom We will stages/degrees, and above each owner of knowledge is one more knowledgeable. [12:76]

Default: They do not mention/remember.
“ILA AN” Exception: Except if The God wills other than the default.

And they do not mention/remember except that The God wills, … [74:56]

Default: You do not will an outcome to occur.
“ILA AN” Exception: Except if The God wills other than the default.

And you do not will except that The God wills, that truly The God was knowledgeable, wise/judicious. [76:30]

And you do not will except that The God wills, Lord of the universes. [81:29]

Those two verses confirm what we have been consistently finding throughout our analysis. We cannot “will” an outcome that we desire to happen. We are only free to choose a path that might lead to a desirable outcome or not. Therefore, we have the freedom to choose which path to take but no control over the outcome that results from choosing this path.

Default: I will do something tomorrow/in the future.
“ILA AN” Exception: Except if The God wills other than the default.

Do not say to something, I am doing this tomorrow. Except if The God wills, and remember/mention your Lord if you forget, and say: “Perhaps my Lord guides me to what is nearer in rationality” [18:23-24]

It is now clear that the default is that The God will let us choose our actions. The exception is that The God might interfere by, for example, making the path that we chose unavailable. Here is an example to illustrate what I mean:

A man decides to drive to a place to commit a sin (path a). He goes out to his car and the minute he starts it, the engine blows up. Unable to go, he gets mad and stays home instead (path b). Path “a” is made unavailable by The God’s will.

The default is that The God lets people choose which path to take but may make that path unavailable. However, The God knows the outcome of this choice and all other possible choices ahead of them, even the outcomes of the paths that they left behind and didn’t choose as indicated by verse 2:255:

…He knows what is between their hands and what is behind them,… [2:255]

Thus verses 18:23-24 clearly explain what we should say about the actions that we decide to do in the future. We should say: “ila an yasha’a Allah and perhaps my Lord guides me to what is nearer in rationality”.


The analysis ended with the same verses 18:23-24 that started this mission. However, now after examining the various logical propositions and their present and past tense occurrences, we have a much better picture of the underlying pattern. Do the majority of people belonging to the sects say what is in 18:23-24 about their future actions? The answer is no, they say “in sha’a Allah” instead. According to the Quran’s consistent use of the present and past tense and the logical propositions, they are wrongly saying that the path that they decide to take is predestined and they have no freedom to decide which path to choose. It is not surprising that this sentence is heavily abused and people often use it to escape the responsibility of choosing the correct path. We can only say “in sha’a Allah” about outcomes but not about the paths that we choose (i.e. our own actions). For example, we can say “in sha’a Allah” the outcome of our action will be safety (see 12:99). We should also say “ma sha’a Allah” about outcomes that are unfolding in front of us (see 18:39).

The use of certain propositions and the past and present tense as relating to The God’s will is not haphazard. The past tense is consistently used for outcomes that we have no control over. This is due to the fact that The God decided those outcomes in the past (perhaps even at the beginning of creation in some examples) and consequently they are predestined. On the other hand, the present tense is used for The God’s actions that are happening in the present and may be dependant on which path one chooses.

We can also conclude that each person has the freedom to choose the path to take but have no control over what outcome this path will lead to. The God knows all the possible paths, the outcome of the path he/she chooses, and the outcomes of all the other paths that were not chosen.

All the future outcomes converge into two major possible outcomes: Heaven or Hell. Thus, when we make choices that matter in our lives, we are in fact only selecting between heaven and hell. For those who chose the path to hell, all the other things that they chose to do will not matter and are wasted (see 25:23). If we were able to see the future, then we would all choose the path that leads to the outcome of heaven. Thus, I believe that the path that we will choose is not predetermined (known in advance) due to our own ignorance of the future. Hence, as foretold in the Quran (7:53), those who take the path leading to the outcome of hell will want to go back and choose a different path (now that they know the future).

Only The God is The Creator and we don’t create anything. We don’t create outcomes or paths (choices). We only get to choose between some paths (choices). The God presently guides whom he wills to the straight path that leads to heaven. The God’s guidance is conditional and depends on what choices we make. For example, if one chooses to forget The God, then The God will make him/her forget him/herself (see 59:19). Also, the Quran contains guidance, but only for those who are forethoughtful of The Creator and try to plan ahead for the day of their account by Him (see 2:2).

In summary, what we say reflects our convictions. Therefore, I should say: “if The God willed (in sha’a Allah)” about future outcomes and “what The God willed (ma sha’a Allah)” about past outcomes. However, when it comes to my own future actions/decisions I should say: “Except if The God wills (ila an yasha’a Allah) and perhaps my Lord guides me to what is nearer in rationality”.

To understand this conclusion, one must know the difference between decisions and outcomes. A simple example might help. Consider this, each of us is moving up on a tree. We have freedom of choice at the nodes to decide which branch to take, but we have no control over the branches. So for example, we can’t go back and select a different branch if we don’t like what we find on that branch. A decision is simply a node (i.e. a point) on the tree where two or more branches emanate, while an outcome is simply a branch. The God created and sees the tree, the whole forest, and us.

I believe that this is a perfectly designed test. Here is what the purpose of the test could be:

Did the people assume/suppose that they be left to say “We believed/had faith” and they are not being tested? And We had tested those who were before them, so The God will know those who were truthful, and He will know the liars/deniers/falsifiers. [29:2-3]

This leads me to the one verse that I have not been able to think of any possible explanation for until now. The verse I am talking about is the one where The God is asking Moses about what is in his hand:

“And what is that with your hand, Moses?” [20:17]

Why is The God, The Knowledgeable, asking Moses such a simple question? Moses’ reply and our newly found understanding of “Free Choice” provided some insight that finally helped me solve this mystery.

He said: “It is my cane, I lean on/support myself on it, and I move/shake with it on my sheep, and I have in it other needs/purposes.” [20:18]

Note that Moses did not say: “this is my cane, it is made of wood”. Moses must have understood very well that The God knows what the cane is and what it is made of. Moses knows that the question is not about the cane but about what he chooses to do with it. The question reveals that Moses and people in general are free to choose which path to take. They can use the resources that The God gave them (the cane) to do good (for example, self support and moving sheep) or to do evil (for example, beating others). This is also evident from verses such as 6:165 and 27:40:

And He is who made you the earth’s successors/leaders, and He raised some of you above some by degrees, to test you in what He gave you, indeed your Lord is quick in the punishment and He is forgiving, merciful. [6:165]

When I started this article, I had no idea where this study was going to lead to. This is very exciting but at the same time a little unnerving. It is a little unnerving because for a very brief moment, I asked myself: what if I found a logical inconsistency? I put my faith in The God and proceeded with the analysis knowing that The Quran gives us the following self-reference criteria:

Do they not consider the Quran with care? Had it been from anyone other than The God, it would contain many inconsistencies. [4:82]

Indeed, I did not find any inconsistencies in the Quran. The above analysis confirms that even logical expressions and present and past tense forms of “sha’a” that are dispersed throughout the Quran have been used with amazing consistency. Moreover, as we saw above their use is systematically conveying a coherent message. However, I must caution the reader that while I was conducting the analysis, I did find many inconsistencies in the English translations of the Quran such as present tense verbs being translated into the past tense and many other inconsistencies that would have made the logical analysis impossible without access to the original Arabic Quran. Therefore, translations of the Quran (including my own) do not pass the test for self-reference.

The Quran can be considered as a powerful knowledge base with its own uniform ontology. To try to understand this knowledge, we need to use a logical analysis approach. It is unfortunate that the clergy and their hadith books have separated the various sects from the Quran to such an extent that even the most straightforward logical analysis such as the one presented here has been rarely conducted. Instead, the majority has been trying to interpret the consistent God-given truth encapsulated in the Quran with inconsistent man-made lies.

The Quran explains everything we need to understand our purpose in life logically and consistently. Although, using the Quran we already came closer to the truth in the area of free will and predestination than any previous attempt, we still have a lot of ground to cover. For example:

Is freedom of choice unique to humans?

What is the trust mentioned in 33:72?

What is the forbidden tree?

Those are just some questions that I am putting out so that rational thinking people from diverse disciplines can come together and help improve our understanding of the universe in light of the Quran. I will try to answer some of those questions in the near future, except if The God wills and perhaps my Lord guides me to what is nearer in rationality.


“This is the book, no doubt, in it guidance for the prudent/forethoughtful.” [2:2]

Tomorrow, I will try to improve my understanding of the Quran and the universe, except if The God wills and perhaps my Lord guides me to what is nearer in rationality. This article reflects my personal interpretation of the Quranic verses as of November 30th, 2002. Please be humble by following the example set by the angels in 2:32, verify all information within for yourself as commanded in 17:36, and remember that simply “none” is the prudent/forethoughtful answer to 45:6. http://free-minds.org/freechoice

posted in ENGLISH ISLAM | 0 Comments

7th Aralık 2008



All Muslims believe in the Quran.

Even the worst of them promote the Quran on their websites and in their lives.

Yet, they do not follow “GOD Alone”!.

Even Quranic based websites…Do not follow “GOD Alone”.

You see, GOD does not live inside the Quran…It is merely a “medium” of communication that He uses to talk to us.

The Sunnis and Shia and Submitter and others believe they took their religion from GOD through the Quran…

The Sunnis say GOD told them to follow the “Messenger” and to “take what he gives them”.

The Shia say that GOD told them to follow “Ahlul Bait” and their descendents.

The Submitters say GOD told them to follow “19” and the writings of Rashad Khalifa.

The fact of the matter is:

GOD never told these people ANYTHING!!!

They invented lies and attributed them to GOD…

They even started forcing people to accept their lies and branding those who disagree as “Apostate and Rejecter”.

Following GOD Alone simply means: Following GOD Alone.

Yes, its that simple!.

No tricks, no catches, no loopholes…

The Quran is NOT GOD, nor are human beings or even the Angels…

GOD can only be represented by Himself.

We open our heart to His guidance and ask Him to show us the right from wrong.

He speaks to us through His words in the Quran, and we LISTEN rather than talk and force meanings.

When GOD tells us to fast, we ask Him to explain to us through His words where, when and how.

When GOD asks us to pay charity…We ask Him ALONE for guidance.

“You ALONE we worship, you ALONE we seek” (Quran 1:5)

If we cannot find it clearly written in the Quran, then GOD never said it!.

That is as easy as it gets…

We have found that our lives and souls have been liberated by this approach, and that we are able to serve Him the way He should be served…

Put your faith in GOD Alone and He will guide you:

“Say: ‘Does any of your idols guide to the truth?’ Say: ‘GOD guides to the truth. Is one who guides to the truth more worthy of being followed?, or one who does not guide except after he is guided? What is wrong with your judgment?” (Quran 10:35)

This website will not guide you. Nor can it do anything for you. We can only be “instruments” if the Lord chooses to guide you…

Praise be to Him who initiated the heavens and the Earth… http://free-minds.org/god

posted in ENGLISH ISLAM | 0 Comments

7th Aralık 2008



Say: “Obey GOD and obey the messenger.” But if they turn away, then he is only responsible for his obligation, and you are responsible for your obligations. And if you obey him, you will be guided. The messenger is only required to DELIVER CLEARLY. [Quran, 24:54]

The title of this article is based on one of the most favorite quotes from the Quran that the traditionalists like to isolate and take totally out of context. Even though there are quite a few verses in the Quran which mention things such as:

“Obey Allah and obey His messenger.”

“He who obeys Allah and His messenger does so for his own soul.”

“Those who are enemies of Allah and His messenger.”, etc.

Part of the problem, I believe, is that sometimes we as GOD Alone/Quran Alone believers can make the same mistake as the traditional muslims, namely “isolating” the Quran to a specific time and place.

The traditional muslims do this by quoting those few verses out of context and saying that we are to follow the ways, customs, traditions and mannerisms of the prophet who had lived over 1,400 years ago.

Some GOD Alone believers will put forth the argument that the messenger is no longer with us, that he did his duty when he relayed the Quran to the people and we now have GOD’s eternal message which is sufficient for us as guidance.

Although this is entirely correct, I don’t believe we are approaching the argument from the correct angle when we put forth this type of argument/rebuttal. Sometimes, putting forth that argument can make us almost as guilty as the traditional muslims, by isolating the Quran in some fashion to a specific time and place.

The Quran is not static. It is eternal and it is dynamic. We have to treat it as such and we have to present it to humanity in similar fashion. GW, I would like to present my argument to the traditional muslim world who insist on following hadith and who try to justify hadith by quoting the Quran where it says “Obey Allah and obey His messenger.”


First and foremost, we have to ask “Which Messenger?” GOD says to obey the messenger, but He never specified which messenger when He could have. Muhammad is mentioned by name in the Quran, but no where in the Quran we are told to obey, follow and support “GOD and Muhammad”.

There are many messengers mentioned in the Quran by name and their are others that are not mentioned by name. But Which messenger is GOD telling us to obey and follow? There’s Jesus. He was a messenger of GOD. Then there’s Moses and his brother Aaron. We also have Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Saleh, Hud, Lot, etc.

Ask a traditional muslim which messenger to follow and they will without fail say it is Muhammad because he was the one to whom the Quran was revealed. But to me that’s a very weak argument and has no Quranic validation. Why Muhammad above all the other messengers sent by GOD, when according to GOD’s Book.

“The messenger believes in what was sent down to him from his Lord. And the believers, all who believe in GOD, and His angels, and His scriptures, and His messengers; we do not differentiate between ANY of His messengers; and they said “We hear and we obey, forgive us O Lord, and to you is our destiny.” [2:285]


The traditional muslims would have you believe that 33:21 requires us to follow hadith.

“Indeed, in the messenger of GOD a good example has been set for you for he who seeks GOD and the Last Day and thinks constantly about GOD.” [33:21]

First of all, this verse clearly points out that the example of the messenger is for one who constantly ponders on GOD and the Last Day. Most importantly, I feel compelled to point out the faultiness of this logic.

If 33:21 requires for us to follow the hadith of Muhammad, then, by this logic, we should also follow the hadith of prophet Abraham according to 60:4.

“There has been a good example set for you BY ABRAHAM and those with him, when they said to their people: “We are innocent from you and what you serve besides GOD. We have rejected you, and it appears that there shall be animosity and hatred between us and you until you believe in GOD alone.” Except for the saying of Abraham to his father: “I will ask forgiveness for you, but I do not possess any power to protect you from GOD.” “Our Lord, we have put our trust in You, and we turn to You, and to You is the final destiny.” [60:4]

This verse clearly tells us that an excellent example has been set for us by Abraham, just as 33:21 does. According to sunni logic, we should also be following the hadith of Abraham as well. Where is the hadith attributed to Abraham?


The traditional muslims speak of Prophet Muhammad as if he’s still roaming among us. They will make statements such as “Refer all issues to GOD and His messenger”. They also mention his name in their “ritual” prayer as if he can hear them. And when they say Sallalaahu alayhi wasalaam (peace and blessings be upon him), it is as if they are speaking in the present tense.

How can we refer our problems to Muhammad? And how can we obey him, support him and follow him?

“O you who believe, be aware of GOD and give up what is left of the financial interest if you are truly believers.” [2:278]

“And if you will not do this, then take notice of a war from GOD and His messenger; but if you repent, then you will have back your principle money, you will not be wronged nor will you wrong.” [2:279]

I can clearly understand GOD waging war on the transgressors, but I cannot see how a messenger who is no longer alive can also wage war on transgressors. To believe that Prophet Muhammad can somehow still wage war in our day and time is to make him more than human. And this relationship between the traditional muslim world and Muhammad resembles the relationship between Christians and the Messiah Jesus in that they treat their respective messengers as if they are either still alive or that they can somehow see us and see everything we do or say. Last I checked in the Quran, those were abilities possessed only by GOD.

In order for GOD and His messenger to wage war on the transgressors, I would have to believe that this messenger is alive and able to wage a war. Hence, it cannot be Muhammad.


So far, we’ve covered the fallacies of differentiating between the messengers and we’ve addressed the inability of the deceased to be a contemporary guide. We’ve also addressed the faulty logic of the sunni’s to follow hadith of Muhammad according to 33:21, when we do not follow hadith of Abraham according to 60:4. We must also address the issue of a people even recieving a messenger to begin with.

“And for every nation is a messenger; So when their messenger comes, the matter is decreed between them with justice, and they are not wronged.” [10:47]

“And We have sent a messenger to every nation: ‘You shall serve GOD and avoid evil.’ Some of them were guided by GOD, and some of them deserved to be misguided. So travel in the land, and see how the punishment was of those who denied.” [16:36]

The above two verses from the Quran clearly state that GOD sends a “Messenger” to all people, to every nation. Moreover, 16:36 clearly states what “Message” these messengers will bring, namely that you shall “SERVE GOD ALONE and AVOID EVIL.”

GOD also informs us that He sends a messenger to a people who is of them and speaks the same language as them.

“And We have not sent any messenger except in the language of his people, so he may clarify to them. But GOD misguides whom He wills, and He guides whom He wills. And He is The Noble, The Wise.” [14:4]

So clearly this messenger that has to obeyed and followed must come in a language that the people understand, so that he can clarify the message.

Technicaly speaking, even the spoken Arabic of 7th century Arabia is not the same as the spoken Arabic of present day Saudi Arabia. To me this makes it clear that the two important things are that the messenger comes in the language of the people and that the MESSAGE ITSELF is what is really important and not the words or language used to convey that message.

Many people all over the world are totally clueless when it comes to the Arabic Language. You even have some who have no idea whatsoever who Muhammad is, never heard of the Quran and have no idea what Islam is and is not. Is GOD going to punish these people for something they do not know?

“Whoever is guided is guided for himself, and whoever is misguided is for his own loss. And no person shall carry the load of another, and We were not to punish until We send a messenger.” [17:15]


In order to accurately answer this question, the difference between Nabiyy (prophet) and Rasul (messenger) must be pointed out. We need to determine if Muhammad was indeed the LAST prophet OR the LAST messenger. I would like to first point a verse that seems to be a source of confusion and misinterpretation.

“GOD took a covenant from the prophets, saying, “I will give you the scripture and wisdom. Afterwards, a messenger will come to CONFIRM all existing scriptures. You shall believe in him and support him.” He said, “Do you agree with this, and pledge to fullfill this covenant?” They said, “We agree.” He said, “You have thus borne witness, and I bear witness along with you.” [3:81]

The question and viewpoint many seem to have after reading this verse is that if this messenger makes confirmation of what was sent before him, then what need is their for MORE MESSENGERS?

Actually, when one pays close attention to this verse in detail, you will notice that this verse does not suggest at all the finality of PROPHETHOOD or of MESSENGERSHIP. This verse says that a MESSENGER will come to CONFIRM PREVIOUS SCRIPTURE. That has nothing to do with, nor does it have the same meaning of wnding or concluding messengership. The key word in this verse is “MuSadeeqaan” from Sadeeq which has the meaning of Authenticate, Confirm, Verify, Provide the Truth of, etc. The three letter roots of this word are Saad – Daal – Qaf.

GOD uses this same word, (muSadeeq), the same way He does in 3:81 in other verses. Here are a few of them:

2:41, 89, 91, 97




46:12, 30

Please keep in mind as well that GOD said “A” messenger will come to verify/confirm previous scripture. He NEVER said the FINAL messenger will come to verify previous scripture.

Therefore, the big question now is, can we expect more messengers and warners, or is it over and done with?

My answer to that question would be YES, we can expect more messengers to continue to warn the people of the Final Hour. Here’s why:

“Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is a messenger of GOD and the Seal of the Prophets. And GOD is fully aware of all things.” [33:40]

In this verse, GOD refers to Muhammad as Rasul “AND” as “Seal of the Prophets”. He uses the word “WA” in this verse which means “And” in the Arabic Language. For GOD to refer to Muhammad as both of these things in one line and to use the word “And” strongly suggests that there is a difference between the two according to GOD.

GOD DOES NOT use the definate article in this verse when He referred to Muhammad as rasul (messenger). But HE DOES use the definate article when He refers to Muhammad as “Khatim Il-nabiyyeen” (THE seal of the prophets). In the Arabic Language, whenever the definate article is not used in conjunction with a word, it simply means one of something, or “A” something, (ktab means A book, where as Il-ktab means “THE” book).

GOD called Muhammad TWO entirely different things in 33:40. He called him rasul, (which means “A” messenger without the use of the definate article IL), and He also called him “THE” seal of the prophets. The definate article “IL” IS used in this case.

This concretely means that PROPHETHOOD, not messengership, has been concluded. No more prophets are to come. However, this says absolutely nothing about the finality of messengers/messengership.


I believe that finality/sealing of prophethood means finality of SCRIPTURE to come from GOD. 33:40 and 5:3 are the keys to understanding this. GOD said Muhammad was the conclusion/sealing of prophets in 33:40. In 5:3 GOD said something to the believers of this final prophet which provides the key to what He meant in 33:40.

“Today I have PERFECTED your system for you, and COMPLETED My blessings upon you, and I have accepted Surrender as the system for you.” [5:3]

So, if He perfected our system and completed His favors and blessings on us and has ALSO CONCLUDED prophethood, then what need of messengers then? Why didn’t He conclude messengers/messengership as well?

Because there will ALWAYS be a need of warners and reminders for the people of serving GOD alone and preparing themselves for the Day of Reckoning. A messenger DOES NOT need to come with a new scripture. He warns and reminds the people with scripture that GOD has already revealed.

The most important reason that GOD did not conclude/seal off messengers and messengership is because He didn’t say “The Message” of the Quran should no longer be given to the people. We have to give “The Message” to the rest of Humanity until we are raised up to meet our Lord. If we sincerely, compassionately and honestly promote the message of serving GOD alone, which is the message of the Quran, and invite others to the Quran, and invite them to true monotheism, then indeed that would make us “Messengers of GOD”.


If Muhammad is not the one who is to fulfill the duties we just spoke of in our present day and time, then who is it?

Well, obviously it is one who comes with the Quran to the people. This is the message that is being delivered to the people. Muhammad was the final Prophet, but he was not the final messenger. Also, there will be no more scripture, but a messenger doesn’t have to come with divine revelation. A messenger reminds the people with what they already have.

“And those who rejected will be driven to Hell in groups. When they reach it, and its gates are opened, its guards will say to them: ‘Did you not receive messengers FROM AMONG YOU, who recited to you the revelations of your Lord, and warned you about meeting this day?’ They will answer: ‘Indeed, but the promise of retribution was destined to be upon the rejectors.’ ” [39:71]

So you see, a messenger does not have to receive scripture to recite what is already with the people and to warn them of the Day of Terrible Regret.

The Duites/functions of messengers are are explained in GODs book in the following verses:



6:48 13:40 14:4 16:35 18:56 21:25 24:54 29:18 36:17 42:48 64:12 98:2

So when GOD says “Obey GOD and obey His messenger”, my two questions are, who is that messenger and what is the message that he/she brings.

I believe these verses from the Quran tells us who that messenger is.

Abraham implored his Lord:

“Our Lord, and let us surrender to you and from our progeny a nation surrendering to you, and show us our rights and forgive us; You are the Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [2:128]

“Our Lord, and send amongst them a messenger FROM AMONG THEMSELVES, that he may recite to them Your revelations and teach them the scripture and the wisdom, and purify them. You are the Noble, the Wise.” [2:129]

How would I recognize that person? By the message he/she brings. And What is that message? The message that is contained in the Quran. And that message is the message of true Monotheism.

“So We sent a messenger to them from amongst them: ‘SERVE GOD, YOU HAVE NO OTHER GOD BESIDES HIM. Will you not take heed?’ ” [23:32]

That is the message of the Quran. That’s the message that I follow, support and obey. Therefore I will follow and support those that represent that message. In essence, those that truly represent The Quran.

GOD Alone/Quran Alone.


In 3:7, GOD tells us that there are two types of verses in the Quran; The Mutashabihatun, (Allegorical verses which can have more than one meaning/interpretation). Then there are the Mukhamatun, (CLEAR and LAW-GIVING verses), which have NO ambiguity about them and need NO explanation whatsoever. These are the verses that lay it out CLEARLY and CONCRETELY what is lawful and what is forbidden, (honor and respect your parents, do not eat flesh of swine, do not fornicate, do not come near adultery, do not cheat the orphans from their dividends, etc.) Quite sytematically, GOD calls these verse the “essence/foundation” of the scripture, because they contain the laws and prohibitions and are thus very important for our salvation.

GOD deliberately and systematically chose to give His Laws and Prohibitions in the clear (mukhamat) verses so that we cannot say we do not understand these laws and prohibitions and therefore we will not obey them. GOD did not put the laws, commandments and prohibitions in His revelation in the form of riddles and guess-work, and will then proceed to punish us for not understanding or picking up on these riddles and thus, not obeying/establishing them.

Now, let’s talk about the CLEAR and LAW-GIVING verses of the Quran…

All throughout the Quran, when GOD decrees a law or prohibition, He precedes the commandment by calling to the believers, or to the people of the book, or sometimes to mankind in general. He starts the injunction with either “Ya aayahul ‘alaytheena amanu” (Oh you who believe), or “Ya ahl il-kitab” (Oh people of the scripture), or “Ya Nnaas” (Oh mankind).

Nowhere, NOWHERE, in the Quran does GOD EVER issue a decree to the believers, or to the followers of the scripture, or to man in general to follow hadith and sunnah of Muhammad. If it is so important, if it is absolutely necessary for our salvation, if we are in need of it for our guidance, if GOD had decreed that the believers follow hadith and sunnah, HE WOULD HAVE “CLEARLY” SAID SO in the CLEAR and LAW-GIVING verses which address the believers and followers of the scripture.

None of GOD’s decrees, commandments, laws and prohibitions are ambiguous, in the form of riddles and left to us to guess and figure it out. Moreover, NOWHERE n the Quran is the word hadith attached to the word prophet, or to the word messenger, or to the name Muhammad. And ALL of these words are mentioned in the Quran numerous times, but NEVER together or in connection to each other. And nowhere in the Quran does GOD ever say “Oh you who believe, you must establish the sunna and follow the hadith”, or “Oh followers of the scripture, you must establish the sunna and follow hadith” and neither does He say follow the hadith and sunnah of Muhammad, or of the prophet, or of the messenger.

Unless the commandment can be pointed out in the Quran for believers to follow hadith and sunnah, the traditionalists HAVE NO ARGUMENT!! Anything that they try come up with concerning the super-human memories of the narrators, their honesty, isnaad, science of hadith,etc. are 100% moot.

This completely makes NULL and VOID the entire hadith and sunnah doctrine. Unless, of course, someone can point out the “LAW” or “COMMANDMENT” of establishing hadith and sunnah in the mukhamat (Law-Giving) verses of the Quran.

“GOD cites the example of a man who has partners that dispute with each other, and a man who has given to deling with only one man. ARE THEY THE SAME? Praise be to GOD; most of them do not know.” [39:29]

There is no god but GOD. He is One and has no partners or associates. http://free-minds.org/conflict

posted in ENGLISH ISLAM | 0 Comments

7th Aralık 2008



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)


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) http://free-minds.org/hadithmyth

posted in ENGLISH ISLAM | 0 Comments