Scientific errors in the Quran: the myth of Embryology!

Scientific errors in the Quran: the myth of Embryology!

There are too many scientific and mathematical errors in the Quran to mention. Due to time constrains I will only investigate and discuss the so-called embryologic-verses in details for now, since it happens to be the most popular ‘scientific miracle’ used to prove the stunning scientific accuracy of the Quran. Islamist Scholars love to claim that this scientific truth on embryology which was revealed to Mohamed over 14 centuries ago was only uncovered recently by scientists with the aid of technological advancement  of the 20th & 21st century. They move on to say, those scientific facts could not have been known at Mohammed’s time, and hence this proves the Quran is the words of god.

hmm it’s a really impressing and touching story, so many Muslims have accepted it blindly as they have accepted their faith in Islam, why would they doubt it, its quite incredible to see the religion that you were brought up with is in agreement with science, it gives people a confidence boost that you’re following a true religion..

Scientist who discovered the embryologic verses:

The first person to reveal those ‘embryological information’ in the Quran is Keith L. Moore (Scientist in anatomy & embryology, and a professor of Anatomy and Associate Dean Basic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto), -yup that same busted scientist who turned out to be an overpayed agent for Suadi. Nevertheless, let’s dismiss this for now, since many Muslims are still unaware of this fact and still refer to his work.

Two questions MUST be asked:

  1. Is the Qur’an the first source to reveal such information on embryology?
  2. Are those information scientifically accurate?

Short answer: Yes, the same information on embryology found in the Quran was already known, and it was known centuries before the Quran, it is mentioned numerous times by many famous ancient scientist such as Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen. Most of the descriptions given by those scientists were proven wrong by modern science, so not only did Mohammed plagerized the work of others, he also copied inaccurate scientific information.

Essay-form answer: In what follows, I will present a list of arguments provided by the Islamic scholars , including the obvious errors in their scientific mythology, and the flaws in their reasoning.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments

Does the Qur’an have any scientific Miracles?

To Muslims: What makes you believe in Islam? Shouldn’t everyone ask themselves this question – what kind of evidence are there to prove the Quran is the words of God? Or is your belief solely based on blind faith?

Muslim scholars claim that one of the most remarkable evidence that proves that the Quran is the words of God are the bunch of scientific verses presented in the Quran, those verses are regarded as miracles because it foresaw modern discoveries in many fields in science such as astronomy, geology and embryology. The fundamentalist Islamic scholars even claim that the Quran miraculously prophesied many invention of modern science and some contemporary scientific breakthroughs such as space travel, aerodynamics, engineering and inter-planetary travel, and elucidation of genetic code etc

 Those ‘scientific miracles’ are probably one of the main factors leading people to accept Islam, it is taught to children since early age in schools in all Muslim countries to make sure the new generations will remain devoted to Islam and hoping that those verses will bridge the gap between religion and secular sciences.

 Muslims worldwide tend to cite alleged scientific miracles in the Qur’an and Hadiths frequently, because they find pride, confidence and satisfaction in those verses, since it convinces them that they’re following a true religion. Numerous web sites, books and videos have been produced that proclaim Islam to be truly a religion of divine origin.

 Here are snapshots taken from some of the top sites dedicted to explain those so-called scientific miracles:


The main question remains: How accurate are those verses? Are those claims creditable? Can we trust the sources of such claims?

Everything described or mentioned in the Qoran perfectly matches the knowledge in the 7th century, people back then had no problem undertsanding or accepting the Quran teachings. Quran did not make any scientific statement that was seen absurd in its time. There is no supernatural force behind Muhammad’s scientific information. The Only modern re-re-interpretation has led to the misleading claims that there are scientific miracles in this book. Those re-interruptions were needed NOT to prove the Quran is of divine origin but to correct the scientific errors in the Quran.

Those claims have been easily debunked by genuine scientist and Arabic linguistics. “While the Muslims argued that advanced scientific knowledge in the Qur’an is a sign of divine origin, the rational thinker points out that the numerous and obvious scientific errors point to a wholly human origin”(Mumin Salih)

 Argument: The Quran should not be looked at as a book of science

 Of course the Quran is not a book of science; it addresses the Muslim faith and way of life. However, within the Quran, there are many verses that describe the ‘wonder’ of God’s creation, some of those scientific verses are very questionable, while others are bluntly wrong, Now if you compare those with what is found in science as final proven fact –magic happens- it does not match! When you ask Muslim scholars they fail to give valid explanations or at least rational arguments. Is it too much to ask?

 Most Muslims refuse to debate this topic (accuracy of the Quranic-Scientific verses), they would say they’re not knowledgeable enough to interrupt the Quranic verses and they suggest people to read the work of creditable scholars. Fine, let it be! Lets look at the intruption given by those ‘Miracle Specialists.

 The Strategy of the ‘Miracle specialist’:

Without any doubt in their minds, the miracle scientists believe that the Quran is Allah’s revelations to Mohammed. Therefore, everything in the Quran must be absolutely accurate. This is their starting point, which they fully believe to be an absolute fact. Everything else in life must give in to maintain the integrity of this absolute belief. When the Quran doesn’t agree with commonsense or logical thinking then these has to be adapted/modified to conform with the Quranic logic. If the Quran disagrees with some scientific principles then a Muslim must dismiss those scientific principles as wrong, even if they appear to be correct in view of the overwhelming evidence. The scientific evidence might change in the future (with Allah’s willing), but the Quran will never change.

True Muslims will have no reservation in challenging the most basic scientific fact, if it is not in line with the Quranic teachings. Their golden rule is that Allah is always right while everything else can be wrong. There is no problem with true Muslims in admitting that even when all the available evidence points to the truth of a scientific fact, but if that fact is not in line with Quranic teachings, it simply does not become a fact at all! Any true Muslim will choose to be with Allah even when it is against the whole world. However, these true Muslims understand that not all Muslims have a perfect faith like theirs; therefore, proving that Quran is in harmony with science is always welcome.

These so-called miracle specialists developed a strategy to solve any incompatibility between Quran and science. The Quran is made of words that cannot be changed while human understanding can be changed. Arabic dictionaries and tafseer (interpretation) books are not divine; therefore, can be changed.

 Muslim Scholar-Dr. Zakir Naik:

 One of the most famous Muslim scholars is Dr. Zakir Naik (a Doctor in medicine & islam), he is a brilliant man who knows both the Quran and bible by heart. However, after reading his articles and listening to his debates, its obvious how misleading he is; his arguments are senseless, his answers were only appealing to Muslims, who rush to clap for him after each sentence without even caring about the creditability of his sources or even questioning the validity of his scientific mythology. Moreover, he uses the Quran as a source of evidence, rather than trying to prove it right. He doesn’t seem to follow the genuine-secular scientific process used to investigate any hypothesis t i.e. he needs to find evidence that supports the Quranic verses, then he should draw a rational conclusion based on the evidence found, rather than starting off from the conclusion that the Quran is the words of god and then trying to squeeze in science to those simple verses using deceiving tactics.

 Muslim scholars resort to using deceiving tactics, fallacies and clever reinterpretation of simple and vague verses to convince others that’s the Quran is of divine origin. One of their most common tactics is manipulating and twisting the meanings of some verses to match what was found in science. The meanings of the some words are deliberately changed or altered; by giving the word a new definition or even a multiple ‘different’ definitions , where ALL those definitions are collectively used to help prove the validity of the Quran. Isn’t that a way tooo deceiving? How come today words are given random new definitions that aren’t found any Arabic dictionary? Plus those new definitions are only used to explain the verses in the Quran; it was never used in the old days nor today. The only motive behind those new definitions is to prove the Quran’s validity.

 “The Quran describes itself as the clear book (alkitab almubeen); in other words, it is written in clear language. In theory, every one with a reasonable understanding of Arabic should be able to understand the Quran.  So, when one finds the Quran to be ambiguous, it must be that either the Quran is not accurate in describing itself as a clear book, therefore not a divine book, or those claims are wrong, which again leads to the conclusion that it is not a divine book!”- (Mumin Salih)

 There are different forms of the Arabic language, the Quran’s language is written using the old standard North Arabic which is the form developed by Quraysh-Tribe (Mohammad’s tribe).  The Arabs of Mecca understood it perfectly, and they never had any difficulty in understanding the meanings of any words or verses. For centuries those definitions were accepted, and nobody doubted the explanations or the interruption of the Quranic verses, not until modern days when sever errors were found in the Quran, so deception is highly necessary to cover it up.

 -In the following post titled (Scientific errors in the Quran: the myth of Embryology), I will provide a detailed example of those deceiving tactics commonly used by Islamic scholars.

 Are you an objective researcher or a biased researcher?

 Most Muslims (and believers in general) are biased researchers; i.e. if the topic being debated is religion they only read sources that matches your own preferences and perspective. This has placed Muslims in an embarrassing situation numerous times, after some of the popular sources used by Muslims were proven to be forged.

 Example:  Moore & Buachaille work are probably one of the most famous studies cited by musmilms, both scientists claimed that they have found  science in the Quran, and confessed that the only explanation is that the Quran must have been revealed from allah (god in Arabic).

 What did Professor Keith Moore {scientist of anatomy and embryology in University of Toronto} say about Islam?

 “It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur’Ãn about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from Allah, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of Allah. [Professor Keith Moore, one of the world’s prominent scientists of anatomy and embryology. University of Toronto, Canada]”

Busting the scam:1) Websites on Islam -proudly list the name of scientists who claim that they have found science in the Quran. This snapshop is taken from the website(, which is dedicated to link science to the Quran-Link:

 Watch this vid: Top Scientists Comments on Scientific Miracles in the Quran

 2) Read the following two articles:-

a- Westerners Find $cience in the Quran!

b- Western Scientists Bribed, Duped into Endorsing "Quranic" Science

3) Connect the dots:

Moore and other scientists confidently stated that the Quran is the word of Allah based on their investigation. Hmmm how come they never converted? Could an OVERPAYED source be trusted?

None of those scientists has converted to Islam and they have all received massive paycheques from the Saudi government. They were payed to squeeze science into some selected verses given to them, of course they will accomplish the task, they twisted the words and its meanings as they pleased -how convenient? Even the worst of venal and greediest scientists have faked their conversion to Islam or given false impressions. All for $$$.

 If they were truly convinced the Quran was the words of god, “then they must be aware of the ‘severe punishments awaiting for the unbelievers. If they really believed that the Quran is a divine revelation then they should know that Allah does not compromise with the unbelievers, unless they also believe their good relations with the Saudis might make Allah forgive them. These two scientists made their claims and disappeared from the stage! They only appeared in Islamic sponsored meetings and refuse any interviews. They can only defend their claims in an Islamic environment when all they hear is praise and complements.’- (Mumin Salih)

Role of the Saudi-Government:

“Islamic movements were aware that Islam and science do not mix well, which is hardly a problem to any true Muslim, who always see Islam to be right and science to be wrong. However, if they want to make the religion more acceptable to others, whether Muslims or non-Muslims there are many questions to be answered. The rescue came from Maurice Bucaille, a French doctor who worked for the Saudi king and wrote a book in the 1970s about the Bible, the Quran and modern science. Oil money seems to have paid well. To the Islamists this is like winning the jackpot.

Saudi Arabia established a generously financed government organization whose purpose is not just solving the incompatibilities between the Quran and science but to go even further and claim that the Quran has many scientific miracles. They recruited Muslim scholars and scientists from around the world and targeted western scientists. This strategy apparently brought much successes.

To this point, I must say that I never met a friend or a colleague who carefully had read Maurice Bucaille book, although they all know about it. But that does not matter. What matters is the fact that a western Christian has admitted that the Quran is scientifically accurate. If a Muslim wrote such a book it would not make such an impact, as the material contained is not the issue, the author is. “- (Mumin Salih)

All Muslims are aware of the work of western scientists who claim they have found science in the Quranm, only handful of them have actually read those books to see if those findings are accurate or if it at least make sense. All what matters to muslims is that non-muslims have also found scinece in the Quran -How? or Why have they studied the Quran are all unneccesary details.

Rational thinking verses Blind Belief in a book full of flaws and errors:

 “To appreciate a Quranic miracle one needs to have an unlimited imagination and a willingness to believe what is against rational thinking.”- (Mumin Salih)

 If the Quran is truly the words of God, why cant Muslim scientists prove it logically with any fraud or dirty tactics. The verses in the Quran are quite simple, there isn’t any outstanding facts that weren’t already known in the 7th century. I cant find just one of those scientific verses that cannot be easily twisted or debunked!

 If the Quran is truly the words of god there should be NO contradictions or errors what so ever. As Avijit Roy puts it: “Islamic scholars should be able to show us at least one scientific principle that is disclosed in the Qur’an without using any mumbo jumbo words and hocus pocus boring tricks of difficulty with confusing translation of  the Qur’an”.

 As the words of a perfect being, the scientific accuracy of the verses should have been of such magnitude and objectivity that there could not be any scope of any dispute about them among humans and all would accept them like the scientific principles found in science text books.

 How can you accept religion solely based on blind faith? If science today has proven there are verses in the Quran that has obvious errors, then its about time to question the validity of the Quran. In this era we are programmed to accept only proven facts, we are also programmed to think critically regarding any topic given. Therefore, obviously there is no place for religion which is very much like an unproved hypothesis.

 That’s the problem with religion, it should be PERFECT if its true, you cannot ignore certain teachings, you cannot pick and choose what matches your own perspective. You should address the whole teachings as one package. Lets say if you reading a book and the author mentions few illogical things and absurd statements, you’ll simply dismiss the whole book and author will be considered unreliable and uncreditable. How about if this author was god?? How can god make such scientific, mathematical, and historical errors? You believe there is magnificent creator, yet you underestimate his powers/abilities? Why?


Many interruptions and arguments used by Islamic scholars are quite convincing if you haven’t read any other sources with different point of views,  you should consider all sides of the debate critically and objectively before drawing any conclusion, only then you’ll notice that the explanations that the Islamic scholars are offering are quite questionable, irrational, silly and deceiving, it simply does not stand a chance against rational scientific analysis and evidence.

“The Quran is a 7th century book that is full with scientific, historical and linguistic errors. It is impossible for any true, dedicated scientist to see any miracles in such a book. It even fails the test of morality when it asks humans to do acts against their instincts. Accepting slavery, treatment of women as inferiors and intolerance to criticism and freethinking are only few of the moral codes of the Quran. The Quran does not only contain one or two scientific errors, it is full with them. A book like this cannot be attributed to Allah. It is not divine but man-made.” (Mumin Salih)


 How Did The Issue of Scientific Miracles Come Up? A Historical Background and rise of ‘Miracle Specialists’-

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

List of questions to Atheists!?

Answering common questions asked to atheists:

Question 1.  ‘Are you a moral relativist or do you believe in absolute morality?  In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?’

Relative morality is standards of right and wrong which is a mere product of time and culture.  I’m a moral relativist and so is everyone, that’s quite evident when you examine how our moral code has changed and evolved since the ancient times up till modern days. During our life span, we had the religious phase or era, where people all over the world were racing to create a religion that will appeal to their people, back then the morality presented in those teachings matched the moral codes of that era, because it was written by people among them who share similar principles and appreciate similar values, so its not surprising that people back then had no problem accepting those religions because its consistent with their worldview, but the main question here are ancient religions consistent with our current worldview??

Nop! – Several civilizations have passed, and our morality has evolved accordingly to the better, our current morality certainly does not match the morality found in ancient religions.

What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike” Alfred North Whitehead

If morals are absolute and are only revealed through god/religion, then can you explain why our morality code today doesn’t match the morality of the religious era? If those holy books are true and divine, then why all religious people feel the need to assess the moral codes in their holy scriptures? And why are believers picking and choosing some teachings that match our current worldview while ignoring the rest? … How did they arrive to such conclusions anyways, the idea that some teachings are outdated and should be dismissed? Didn’t they compare it with the current moral code accepted by all and hence concluded that it just doesn’t fit?… If you think your book is a moral compass, why did you use your own internal compass to judge it & to be able to differentiate between the right and wrong (outdated) teachings??

Clearly religions wasn’t the source of morality, it came from an internal source called- humanity!!

If we haven’t relied on our humanity, and if we haven’t listened to our conscious, we would be a bunch of clueless uncompassionate beasts. All believers would be supremacists, misogynists and sexists. All Christians would practice slavery and stone their children if they disobeyed. All Muslims would stone their women to death if they committed adultery, and all women must be obedient to men because they’re intellectually degraded. All Jews would have no problem cheating, stealing, and killing gentiles…. Why not? All those teachings exist among the other holy scriptures that preaches love, peace and harmony… and they are all the words of a character described as a divine GOOD MORAL GOD, how dare you claim you are a true believer then judge his/her/their teachings?

I really don’t get the hypocrisy of the believers! – They select few teachings that appeals to them while ignoring the rest, then they expect people to judge their religion solely based on the good bits rather than the whole book, which includes insane vile and inhumane teachings. Sorry I think religious people are delusional and biased when it comes to their own religion. They tend to complicate their religion beyond belief, they’re constantly coming up with theories to explain their holy verses, and then at the same time they try to convince you that their books are the words of an all knowing, all loving wise god, pffft!!…. The way I read a religious text is similar to any other book, if something is factually wrong or immoral, I dismiss the book as a whole and the author will be regarded as a non-creditable, non-ethical and a badly informed writer.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Myth: If there is no God, everything is permitted. Only belief in God makes people moral.

Furthermore, if you claim your morals are absolute, communicated to us by a divine power through only one specific righteous religion, then how can you explain those same morals exits among all religions, and it existed before your religion was even ‘revealed’? How people all over the world were able to arrive to similar moral principles? So what makes your religion more right and their religion less right or wrong? ….Moreover, those same morals happen to be followed by all people whether believers OR non-believers. The believers are not all monotheists, there are polytheists, pagan-worshipers and other spiritual believers, for instance there are billions of people who believe in Buddhism, unlike the Abrahamic  religions Buddhists don’t believe in a god figure or godly punishment (hell), another example  is traditional Chinese religion, which is a belief in ancestral spirits. Japanese, Chinese and Buddhists are billions in total, Are all those people immoral? Or is their moral code flawed and unperfected? Is Ghandi, Buddha, Confucius, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, and Galileo to name few immoral? or are they few exceptional moral individuals, and its unlikely to have many people who share such principles and worldview?

“There are 1.2 billion Chinese who have no predominant religion, and 1 billion people in India who are predominantly Hindu. And 65% of Japan’s 127 million people claim to be non-believers. It is laughable to suggest that none of these billions of people are leading meaningful moral lives… There are hundreds of millions of non-believers on the planet living normal, decent, moral lives. They love their children, care about others, obey laws, and try to keep from doing harm to others just like everyone else. In fact, in predominately non-believing countries such as in northern Europe, measures of societal health such as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy, per capita income, education, homicide, suicide, gender equality, and political coercion are better than they are in believing societies.”

Simply, there is no set of morals that are absolute, every culture has its own unique set of morals and values, even though we all have basic common moral codes that are consistent within every culture, but we also disagree on few points. What you may consider to be right may be viewed by other cultures as wrong.


Question 2. Where do you get your morals from?

Note: this question is clearly related to the previous one, I’ll add few bits to it tho:

LOL, I love how most believers assume atheists are immoral or they rather don’t appreciate morality as defined and outlined by our culture and society. To them atheist are immoral, unethical and have criminal tendencies because they no real reason to believe in right and wrong, or even to behave kindly and sacrificially toward others.

Based on their perspective can we assume all crimes are committed by atheist, because they have NO reason to be moral?

The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism.  They base their assumption on the belief that the only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, of course preferably the religion of the speaker or doubter.

So from where atheists get their morals from? Duuh, from the same place believers get it from! We don’t not take our laws from religions, its true several teachings happen to be consistent with our moral code, but our true sense of morality is derived from empathy, social Interaction, and reasoning. As human intelligence and life quality increased, people developed and advanced their means of communication and co-operation, since morality builds and binds. Hence our empathy, social Interaction, and reasoning increased along i.e. our morality evolved with time. When individuals are born, they adapt to the morality of their era, they learn from their upbringing and their surrounding culture.

Live and let Live

Morality is product of Social Evolution and its not divine, it’s evident not only among the human species but also among animals. The most integrated form of societies can be found in the social insects:  ants, bees and termites. Human society is much less strongly integrated but much more complex. ‘Social evolution describes the evolution of societies and civilizations based upon selective traits that are advantageous for the entire society to survive as an entity based in the stressors of the environment that the society was built in. Individual Morals are explained through Learning Cognitive theory, which is a fancy phrase for explaining personal choices in psychological development, through studying human behaviour and understanding the thought processes’.

Sometimes it’s clear that this myth about atheists immorality is not offered in all seriousness, some believers bring up this topic to prove atheists are believers-in- denial, because they don’t really believe that atheists can’t care for others. Instead, they are trying to show that because atheists do care for others, then atheists believe in “non-material” things like love and  thus they’re not really materialists after all. Clearly here believers fail to distinguish between emotions and a belief in super-natural figure.

Religious belief is not self-correcting. It only corrects itself when it does not agree with the current moral or scientific understanding of the world. And even then, it does not so much “correct” as “ignore” whatever dogma violates the current moral/scientific understanding. And it’s always behind, playing catch-up with the secular world.

The theist version of morality is based in coercion. Be ‘good’ or else, and their definition of ‘good’ is rife with other programming such as ‘being faithful, never doubting.’ …’Be good or else’ cannot produce real morality in a person. Morality at gunpoint is not morality, and can only produce a sort of blind obedience based in fear, never any real moral sense such as empathy for others or unclnditional love. Morality born in self-centeredness is at best, an imago, an illusion, of real morality.

Life is much more beautiful when you start to see it with your mind instead of your fears…When you do something good just because it is good and not for fear of losing your way to heaven, this good deed is doubled in size!!


Question 3.  Is absence of proof the proof of absence?

So often science is linked to this question, creationists/believers/thiests ALWAYS argue that the lack of evidence and scientific reasoning does not really mean that god doesn’t exit.

First and foremost, Atheist often rely on science to understand many aspects of our life, however  science is irrelevant to atheism. Just because there isn’t any evidence for the existence of a god, doesn’t mean one automatically trusts any science as an alternative.

Atheists don’t have a monopoly on science, and atheism is NOT based on science, it’s based on the lack of evidence instead of the failure oftestable evidence’ to disprove the existence of a divine power….Testable evidence is all what science is based on, while lack-of-evidence produces a reasonable line of thought called atheism!

Testable evidence is essential to prove or disapprove any given scientific hypothesis, disapproving evidence is even far more important to prove. Since in this case there is NO testable evidence to prove the existence of a creator, then it is nothing but a hypothesis. If you wish, you can still argue that lack of evidence doesn’t disprove the existence of a god, but I personally do not see the logic in believing in a hypothesis that cannot be proven or disproven at all, why bother??

Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, “It is a matter of faith, and above reason.”
– John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

There is NO reason to believe in a god who is clearly a horrible engineer and happen to have human characteristics like jealousy, angry and vengeful..etc….The following quote by Epicurus quote sums it up all for me:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Most atheists entirely reject the concept that ‘absence of proof is not a proof of absence’, which is indeed a very reasonable way of thinking…..However, the way I see it, the concept of god could ONLY be accepted as a “speculative hypothesis” which requires blind faith to believe in, it is speculative because it’s a random unreasonable hypothesis suggested by speculators &/or philosophers who clearly have no scientific background. It also cannot be defined merely as a hypothesis, because a hypothesis is supposed to be a prediction that CAN be tested, if it’s proven correct repeatedly it becomes a valid theory from which we can derive facts from, BUT the ideology of god remains an empty, vague and un-testable hypothesis. Simply there isn’t a shred of evidence supporting the existence of a god!

of course if the idea of god can be accepted as a speculative hypothesis, this of course does not include the concept of heaven/hell/judgment day/after-life/angles/satan which are even much more speculative than the idea of god. ..Frankly all those are fanatic ideas and assumptions promoted in various religions… It’s a pagan-ish concept, adopted by the religious dictators to keep the sheep in line.

Evidence for god verses evidence for religion:

I think one should distinguish between the lack of evidence regarding the existence of god, and the testable evidence that refutes religions as a whole i.e. the teachings presented in holy books.

Diverse fields such as evolution, genetics, biology, archaeology, geology and astronomy, along with the estimated age of the earth and fossils, the age of minerals like oil, and the estimated life span of different species ALL refutes religious texts – which suggests that life on earth was initiated by an eternal force only 6000 years ago, and earth was created in 6 days. (Note unlike the bible the Quran does not state the age of the earth but it does also state that the earth was created in 6 days)….In fact the earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old, which evolved repeatedly to reach the current form. Also how did this god create days before the universe was created?  The length of a day differs from one planet to another, it is determined by the distance of planets from the sun and the orbit of the planets, i.e the length of a day must have been determined after the universe was created. Some believers like to assume that god’s days differs from human days! So why he didn’t bother to make that clear to us in his holy book or at least mention the age of the earth and the universe…how can you make such vague assumption to cover up god’s errors?

The most absurd of all is the idea that all diverse species descend back to only two kinds of each species which survived with Noah, in fact we all descend to a stock of people who lived in Africa, probably 50 or 100 people or even thousands. It has been genetically proven that we do not come from one male and one female ancestor.

There are allot of obvious scientific, mathematical and historic errors in holy books which contradicts simple facts known to us today!

Nevertheless, one can still argue that such evidence can only be used to examine and assess written religious doctrines, however its irrelevant to the hypothesis of god, I kinda understand the agnostic perspective here, that there is no sufficient evidence ‘yet’ to refute or prove the idea of divine power, and hence some people feel safe to ‘believe’ in the hypothesis that god exits. It’s their choice and I’ll respect it…. Personally I really don’t think its logical to believe in a man-made assumption, its completely irrational to do so!

That’s why I am atheist rather than agnostic tho the latter is a far more attractive concept to most people who begun to realize that religions are products of man, because they can still speculate that there will be a better life after death and you’ll get to meet all your loved ones, family and friends, its really a beautiful illusion hard to give up, I wish it is true, tho I prefer to accept reality than live in denial and dream of fantasies. Simply the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even contradicts empirical logic.


Evolution vs. Creationism:

Here is an example of believers who support both religion and evolution. Professor Kenneth Miler (a cell biologist and a professor in Brown university) speaks for evolution and he acknowledges that belief in god is merely a faith that is not testable and cannot be scientifically explained.

Evolution verses Abiogenisis:

I’ve met very few rational believers who have actually read about evolution before attacking it, however the reaction of those who read a little bit on this topic lead me to realize that they’re extremely biased in the way they interrupt such topics, because they tend to ignore all the evidence and cling into one vague argument. Many will come up with such arguments: ‘There is no scientific explanation for the origin of life. If the evolution theory was correct there would be multitudes of new life begin created that could be proved repeatedly under scientific scrutiny. As it exists this has never been observed so therefore I reject it, if you think of it logically”.

The Evolution is NOT a science that studies or explains the origins of life, research about ‘Abiogenisis’ if you’re interested in such studies. Evolution just explains the diversity of life not its origin. In the field of Abiogenisis, there are allot of theories about the origins of life being investigated and various evidence are still being collected on the matter, there is no need to rush or to make up vague assumptions.

This video explain evolution in the simplest way possible

Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may eventually diversify into new species. Ultimately, life is descended from a common ancestry through a long series of these speciation events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3.5 billion years of life on Earth. This is visible in anatomical, genetic and other likenesses between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations. To distinguish from other uses of the word evolution, it is sometimes termed biological evolution, genetic evolution or organic evolution@- (Hall, B. K.; Hallgrímsson, B., eds. 2008)

 First of all, Evolution proves modern life is a product of successive generations that evolved repeatedly with every passing millions of years, modern day species descend to ancestors who lived millions and millions years ago. Every form is a transitional form, because it’s part way between what its distant ancestor was and what its distant offspring will be, so we are transitional forms as well, we’re not the final form of the human species, we continue to evolve, this is quite evident in genetics studies that examines the genetic mutations of individuals all over the world…..Yet creationists claim they’re being rational, and they demand scientist to create life within a year or so to prove evolution, LOL. It takes millions of years to see changes observable to the naked eye.

Every single fossil we have ever found is a transitional fossil. To be more specific we have dozens of transitional fossils relating to human evolution. I can provide you with several examples, however you can actually find this yourself by simply going to wikipedia and typing in ‘human fossils.’

Mirco-evolution verses Macro evolution:

Many believers who have actually read about evolution support micro-evolution while denying macro evolution. Which is really laughable, the only difference between both is TIME, the more times passes by, more changes occur, and the more it becomes observable.

Micro-evolution is not different from macro evolution. If you believe that micro-evolution happens, is it not natural to see that something resembling what happens on a larger time scale?

Micro to macro: Apes to Man- how are bones structure evolved

The Journey of Man: watch this brilliant documentary “that talks about our evolution, our recent history, and how we came to be to the way we are today. It looks at the Y chromosome, that’s passed down from male to male, and tracks the marker mutations to map our ancestors’ journey. It’s how we conquered the Earth in just the last 59,000 years.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Bible unmasked

The Bible unmasked –Bible passages considered immoral by today’s theologians and secularists:


2 Timothy 3:16-17: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”


The immoral god verses the moral modern-man:

I don’t really understand the mentality of the believers, they claim their god is all-good, moral, just and pure, then they rush to defend of the atrocities (as described in the bible)committed by god. If something is true, then it doesn’t need to be defended. Doesn’t the Bible have to be able to stand on its own at some point if it is truly that which possesses greatest authority? Doesn’t that strike any nerve in them, how can this ungodly homo sapiens guided by their own sense of empathy able to elevate to the current principles of morality and justice, which is far more superior and moral than the biblical god? How come we are far more moral, decent, peaceful, and compassionate than this god?

“Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.” – Thomas Paine.

 Nobody can excuse any leader who commits mass murder, nor would anyone excuse the racism or supremacy notion of one group against the others, nor would anyone accept the innocents to be collectively punished for the sins of the guilty few, nor would anyone find murder as a justified punishment  for those who disobey any rule, there are other effective methods which are far more rational and peaceful !!….so why should we excuse the immorality and cruelty of the biblical god? Why should we accept the words of a cruel, vengeful, intolerant, hatful and merciless god? In fact those same features aren’t godly, they are the same features that illustrates the mentality of the people who lived between 1000 BCE and 135 CE (the time span when the bible was written). Those people lead a tribal lifestyle; which is based on the ideological tribal mentality -“you’re either for us or against us”, i.e. they were only loving and understanding towards their own members who hsare the same values and priciples, at the same time they’re intolerant towards outsiders, during the era merciless acts of war and massacres against outsiders was justified, its was regarded as an act of defence needed for the survival of their own people. 

Clearly the biblical god didn’t deliver anything more unique or superior; the bible-writers just re-preached the norms of the people back then, but in a more poetic way. Similarly to the teachings of the Islamic god which reflects the social norms and the mentality of the its writers being the Arabians living in the 7th centenary.

Some believers have also acknowledged this fact; the most famous is Bishop John Shelby Spong: who is a liberal Christian theologian:

Quote by Bishop John Shelby Spong: The problem with the Old and New Testaments is that they are both dated pieces of literature that reflect the values and mores of those who wrote them between 1000 BCE and 135 CE. Many passages in the Old Testament reflect a tribal mentality that portrays God as hating everyone the people of Israel hated. It also portrays God as killing the firstborn male in every household in Egypt on the night of the Passover; justifies the institution of slavery (except for fellow Jews) and defines women as the property of men. Note that even the Ten Commandments exhort us “not covet our neighbor’s house, his wife, his slaves, his ox, his ass, etc.” The neighbor is clearly a male, and the things that we are forbidden to covet are all male possessions. These Hebrew Scriptures, however, also define God as love, justice and as a universal being. In the portrait of the “Servant” in Isaiah 40-55 the Hebrew Scriptures portray human life as capable of giving itself away and even of acting in such a way as to draw the pain out of others, absorb it and return it as love. The New Testament portrays Paul as believing that slavery is good if it is kind. Paul also reveals attitudes toward women that are today deeply embarrassing: “I forbid a woman to have authority over a man.” “Women should keep quiet in church.”

 The following is list of cruel, absurd, primitive and abhorrent verses in the Bible:




More to read:

Posted in Religion | Leave a comment

The Quran Unmasked

The concept of morality and justice is not universal or absolute, what is immoral in one age and time, may at some other time, be considered moral, what we do today is considered moral and acceptable, some of those may be condemned as being immoral later on in the future.

That’s quite evident in the way our moral codes has changed with every passing civilcation.


“What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike.” – Alfred North

There are many controversial issues within in the Arab world and the Muslim world which has its roots in religion. There is a clear division between the mentality and lifestyle of the older generations and the younger generation. The older ones wish to preserve the moral codes, traditions, and cultural norms  which are taken from the ancient Islamic teachings, while the younger generation are trying to elevate into higher standards of morality, justice, and freedom without disrespecting their parents or their conservative societies.

Many believers assume that the controversial issues are cultural issues and not religious, and its only committed by those who are not devoted to their faith. This is such a silly argument, how come such ‘cultural attitudes’ are common among the 1.57 billion Muslim, who live in a diverse land that stretches from china to morocco?? They all have different languages, traditions, values and history, while the only common factor is faith, and such attiudes and norms are influenced by the Islamic teachings. Muslims believe the Quran is the words of god, they belive its perfect, noable and true. For that, some ‘devoted’ people choose to apply those teachings word by word without changing or omitting any verse, and that’s the root of the problem in the Islamic world.

Religion is acting as a barrier towards modernization and liberation. Those are powerful Islamic parties which exits in almost all Muslim countries, they’re demanding their governments to apply the Sharia-law fully without any adjustments or improvements. They want the laws of the 7th century to continue to be applied today; they expect the values norms and culture of the ancient Saudis to be followed today!!  Most Muslims are against it, the majority of the younger generations do support secular national parties, but few of those would actually admit that the Quran’s teaching is not universal or eternal as its verses claims. Simply the way they interpret those teachings and apply it should be private, between oneself and their god or gods. They cannot use the Quran as a political or cultural guide nor can they force it onto others.

Religion’s morality verses Secular Morality: “We have, in fact, two kinds of morality side by side; one which we preach but don’t practice, and another which we practice but seldom preach.” -Bertrand Russel.


Difference between Surahs , hadiths and Islamic narratives:

1) Surahs:  each chapter in the Quran is called Surah, its belived to be the words of god.

2) Hadiths: are traditions and sayings by the prophet Mohammed. There are different forms of hadiths, because those hadiths were passed on orally before being recorded by a man named Bhukari. Not all hadiths is belived to be the words or actions of mohammed. Thefore there are 3 forms of hadiths depending on its accuracy:  Saheeh (is sound), hasan (is good, but still not as good as saheeh and should be used with caution) and da’af (weak, proven to be false).

3)Islamic Narratives and commentaries: are books wriiten about the life of mhammad and his followers, also it provides explaination for the Quranic verse and the hadiths. The most famous and widely-used books are written  Al-Bukar, Ibn kathir and Ibn Sa’ad

Muslims are required (although some do not) to follow both the Qur’an and hadiths. However the Quran has the highest authority, and then comes the Saheeh hadiths and mohammd’s actions. Many msulims tend to refer only to the Quran and the decent hadiths, while ignoring the controversial hadiths claiming its inaccurate or it cannot be true, assuming that it must have been distorted before being recorded. While they cannot make such assumptions about the controversial verses in the Quran they believe the Quran is the words of God passed on to Mohaamed through the angel Gabriel.


Title Unethical/questionable hadiths and surahs (by Peruvian Skies): 

This following is an essay written by an ex-Muslim, posted in the ‘council of ex-muslims’ website, its a collective of absurd and immoral verses and hadiths :

1)      Sex
Allah’s Apostle (Pbuh) said, ” If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relations) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol. 4 Hadith No. 460 & Sahih Muslim Vol. 2 Hadith No. 3368)

Allah’s Messenger (Pbuh) said, ” When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire she must go to him even if she is occupied at the oven.” (Al Tirmidhi Hadith No. 1160 & Ibn Ma’jah Hadith No. 4165)

The man is not obligated to provide for the needs of the wife except once every 4 months, he is also within his rights to withhold sex as punishment. Mohammed himself exercised this right during the controversy over him sleeping with Maria in Hafsa’s bed.

The man is not allowed to force the wife into bed with him (there is a hadith detailing that the man should not approach his wife like an animal), however if the man approaches her with kisses she is not allowed to refuse sex. There is no hadith indicating any type of punishment for those who rape their wives. There is no punishment in Shariah for those who rape their wives and as a result husbands are able to get away with this horrific act. Marital rape will not be accepted as a condition for divorce and as a result a woman has to live with the man who has abused her and will most likely continue abusing her.


2)      Marriage
The prominent Saudi scholar Sheikh `Abdul-Rahman Al-Barrak states:
It is not permissible for a Muslim woman to marry a kafir (non-Muslim), whether he is Jewish, Christian or an atheist because the man has authority over his wife, and it is not permissible for a kafir to have authority over a Muslim woman. There are decisive texts from the Qur?an which refer to the prohibition of such marriage. For example, Allah Almighty says, ?And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al Mushrikun (atheists) till they believe (in Allah Alone)? (Al-Baqarah: 221)
And ?And never will Allah grant to the disbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers? (An-Nisaa?: 141)

Women are not allowed to disobey their husbands (unless he is asking her to commit sin)-
Quran, Pickthall 4:34: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.”

The claims that a man has to use a small stick (miswak) in order to beat his wife are ridiculous. The Quran clear states you are allowed to beat/scourge her, tapping with a stick does not constitute as a beating and does not fit the context of the the sura. Ibn Kathir translates it as a light beating.

Ibn Kathir on ill-conduct of wives-
(As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct,) meaning, the woman from whom you see ill conduct with her husband, such as when she acts as if she is above her husband, disobeys him, ignores him, dislikes him, and so forth. When these signs appear in a woman, her husband should advise her and remind her of Allah’s torment if she disobeys him. Indeed, Allah ordered the wife to obey her husband and prohibited her from disobeying him, because of the enormity of his rights and all that he does for her. The Messenger of Allah said, (If I were to command anyone to prostrate before anyone, I would have commanded the wife to prostrate before her husband, because of the enormity of his right upon her.) Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (If the man asks his wife to come to his bed and she declines, the angels will keep cursing her until the morning.) Muslim recorded it with the wording, (If the wife goes to sleep while ignoring her husband’s bed, the angels will keep cursing her until the morning.) This is why Allah said, (As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them (first)). Allah’s statement, (abandon them in their beds,) `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said “The abandonment refers to not having intercourse with her, to lie on her bed with his back to her.” Several others said similarly. As-Suddi, Ad-Dahhak, `Ikrimah, and Ibn `Abbas, in another narration, added, “Not to speak with her or talk to her.” The Sunan and Musnad compilers recorded that Mu`awiyah bin Haydah Al-Qushayri said, “O Allah’s Messenger! What is the right that the wife of one of us has on him” The Prophet said, (To feed her when you eat, cloth her when you buy clothes for yourself, refrain from striking her face or cursing her, and to not abandon her, except in the house.) Allah’s statement, (beat them) means, if advice and ignoring her in the bed do not produce the desired results, you are allowed to discipline the wife, without severe beating. Muslim recorded that Jabir said that during the Farewell Hajj, the Prophet said; (Fear Allah regarding women, for they are your assistants. You have the right on them that they do not allow any person whom you dislike to step on your mat. However, if they do that, you are allowed to discipline them lightly. They have a right on you that you provide them with their provision and clothes, in a reasonable manner.) Ibn `Abbas and several others said that the Ayah refers to a beating that is not violent. Al-Hasan Al-Basri said that it means, a beating that is not severe.

“She acts as if she is above her husband, disobeys him, ignores him, dislikes him”, these acts are enough to gain you a beating according to Ibn Kathir. These are all normal behaviours that every human should have a right to yet god does not seem to think a women is worthy enough to have them, we are lower than men and we should prostate ourselves to him. How utterly benevolent of god.

Quran (4:3) If you fear that you might not treat the orphans justly, then marry the women that seem good to you: two, or three, or four.4 If you fear that you will not be able to treat them justly, then marry (only) one,5 or marry from among those whom your right hands possess.6 This will make it more likely that you will avoid injustice.

God has allowed men to marry up to 4 wives. The man does not need the first wife’s permission in order to marry another neither does he need to inform her of it (Mohammed himself never informed his previous wives when he married another). This is the worst action a husband could possibly do to hurt his wife and he is not in the wrong for doing so according to god. God has given him every right to hurt his wife and make her feel like nothing. The wife does not get a say nor is this a good enough reason for her to be granted a divorce. Of course there are women who are ok with polygamy but they are far and few in number, most of whom would say no to polygamy under any other circumstances.
Many muslims state that polygamy involving husband with many wives was well practised (yet the evidence for this is little) and Islam came to put a limit on the number of wives out of mercy. If this was the case then why not allow polyandry? That was well-practiced amongst the Beoudians where women would have several husbands, when she became pregnant she would choose a husband to be the father and he is not allowed to say no.

 3)      Degrading statements about women
“A people ruled by a woman will never prosper.”

“I do not shake the hands of women.” (Sahih Malik, Ahmad, Al-Nasai, Al-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah)

“By Allah, the hand of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) never touched another woman (other than his wives). He used to take their pledges verbally only.” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

“O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other women. If you keep your duty (to Allah), then be not soft in speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease (of hypocrisy or evil desire for adultery, etc.) would be moved with desire, but speak in an honorable manner.” (Al-Ahzab 33:32)
“A woman does not travel except with a Mahram.” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)[/quote]

 4) Wives of the prophet
Quran 033.032
PICKTHAL: O ye wives of the Prophet! Ye are not like any other women. If ye keep your duty (to Allah), then be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire (to you), but utter customary speech.  And stay in your houses. Bedizen not yourselves with the bedizenment of the Time of Ignorance. Be regular in prayer, and pay the poor-due, and obey Allah and His messenger. Allah’s wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you, O Folk of the Household, and cleanse you with a thorough cleansing.

 5)  Mohammed
From “The Life of Muhammad” (Sirat Rasul Allah) by Ibn Ishaq:
Suhayli, ii. 79: In the riwaya of Yunus I. I. recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu’lFadl) when she was a baby crawling before him and said, ‘If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.’ But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. ‘Abdu’l-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubab…
Mohammed’s wives were not allowed to remarry after his death. Marrying this child so soon before his death is absolutely vile and cruel.

 6)      Violence
 Here is the tafsir by Ibn Abbas concerning 9:05.

(Then, when the sacred months have passed) then after the day of immolation when the month of Muharram passes, (slay the idolaters) whose treaty is for fifty days (wherever ye find them) whether in the Sacred Precinct or outside it, during the sacred months or at any other time, (and take them (captive)) imprison them, (and besiege them) in their homes, (and prepare for them each ambush) on every road they tread for trade. (But if they repent) from idolatry and believe in Allah (and establish worship) and acknowledge the five daily prayers (and pay the poor-due) acknowledge the payment of the poor-due, (then leave their way free) if they wish to go to the House of Allah. (Lo! Allah is Forgiving) He forgives whoever repents, (Merciful) towards whosoever dies in a state of repentance.

 7)      Torturous punishment
Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:

A group of eight men from the tribe of ‘Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Provide us with some milk.” Allah’s Apostle said, “I recommend that you should join the herd of camels.” So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, “They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.”)

 8)      Slavery
Ibn Kathir’s commentary on the Quran verse-  force not your slave-girls to prostitution:
Among the people of the Jahiliyyah, there were some who, if he had a slave-girl, he would send her out to commit Zina and would charge money for that, which he would take from her every time. When Islam came, Allah forbade the believers to do that?..

Muslims like to use this verse to show the slaves had a choice in whether or not they want to have sex with their master but that is not what the verse actually means. It is referring to actual prostitution.

 9)      Sex with married slaves
Surah 4:24 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.

More Ibn Kathir-
The phrase “and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses” whom Allaah has given to you [al-Ahzaab 33:50] means, it is permissible for you take concubines from among those whom you seized as war booty. He took possession of Safiyyah and Juwayriyah and he freed them and married them; he took possession of Rayhaanah bint Sham’oon al-Nadariyyah and Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibraaheem (peace be upon them both), and they were among his concubines, may Allaah be pleased with them both.
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/500

Sex with captives: “Abu Sai?d al-Khudri said : The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur?anic verse: (Sura 4:24) “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.(1479)” Abu Dawud vol.2 no.2150 p.577

“After the distribution of the spoils of war a man may have intercourse with the female slave after passing one menstrual period, if she is not pregnant. If she is pregnant one should wait till she delivers the child. This is the view held by Malik, al-Shafi?i and Abu Thawr. Abu Hanifah holds that if both the husband and wife are captivated together, their marriage tie still continues; they will not be separated. According to the majority of scholars, they will be separated. Al-Awza-i maintains that their marriage tie will continue till they remain part of the spoils of war. If a man buys them, he may separate them if he desires, and cohabit with the female slave after one menstrual period. (?Awn al-Ma?bud II.213)” Note that Mohammed married Safiyah right after the battle. Abu Dawud vol.2 footnote 1479 p.577-578.

10)   More on slavery
Bukhari – Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah’s Apostle about it and he said, “Do you really do that?” repeating the question thrice, “There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.”

(Indicating slaves were not treated well and can be subjected to harsh treatment)

Abd Dawud – Book 11, Number 2153:
Narrated Ruwayfi’ ibn Thabit al-Ansari:
Should I tell you what I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say on the day of Hunayn: It is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the last day to water what another has sown with his water (meaning intercourse with women who are pregnant); it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to have intercourse with a captive woman till she is free from a menstrual course; and it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to sell spoil till it is divided.

Malik 496:1540
A man went on a journey with the slave-girl of his wife and went into her. The envious wife reported it to Umar who said the husband would be stoned unless the slave girl was owned by him. The wife spoke out to save him: “I had given her as a gift.”

Buhkari – Volume 8, Book 73, Number 68:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Zam’a:
The Prophet forbade laughing at a person who passes wind, and said, “How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?” And Hisham said, “As he beats his slave”

Bukhari – Volume 5, Book 59, Number 637:
Narrated Buraida:
The Prophet sent ‘Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and ‘Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, “Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?” When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, “O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.”

Sex with slaves girls is halal, a master is allowed to beat his slave girl if he/she is disobedient. A slave girl may be beaten if she refuses sex to her master just as a wife may be beaten if she refuses sex with her husband. Both acts are halal.

Salamah was given a captive girl and had not yet “untied her garment” Mohammed took the woman from Salamah and gave her to the Meccans to ransom Muslim prisoners. Abu Dawud vol.2 no.2691 p.749-750.

 11)   No justice
[/quote]Book 38, Number 4348:
 Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
 A blind man had a wife who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.

Slandering the Prophet is enough for a death sentence. Vigilante attacks are approved by the Prophet. No trial is needed to prove the woman’s innocence. The prophet takes the man for his word, he does not do any background checks to make sure the man was telling the truth. So much for a fair trial.

    He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

    He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

    Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.
Abu Dawood.

 12)   Tortured for treasure
Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says “was brought”), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?” He said “Yes”. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has.” So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud
(Ibn Hisham. Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (The Life of The Prophet). English translation in Guillaume (1955), pp. 145,146)

 13)   Left handed people

Sahih Muslim Book 23 Book of Drinks- Kitab al Ashriba

Jabir b. ‘Abdullah reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Do not eat with your left hand, for the Satan eats with his left hand.

Book 023, Number 5008:
Ibn ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: When any one of you intends to eat (meal), he should eat with his right hand. and when he (intends) to drink he should drink with his right hand, for the Satan eats with his left hand and drinks with his left hand.

Mohammed has demonised left-handed people for something they do not choose to do. If a person is forced to write with his\her right hand it can lead to stammering.

14)   Not so scientific
Fatima married her first cousin, Ali. Inbreeding has a higher chance of causing genetic abnormalities, especially consistent inbreeding. By allowing Fatima to marry Ali, Mohammed has made it seem perfectly fine (possibly even encouraged) first cousin marriage.

Problems in Saudi due to inbreeding-
Problems in Pakistan

It is ironic that first cousin marriages are ok yet those who have been suckled by the same person are not allowed to marry-

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 48, Number 828:
Narrated ‘Uqba bin Al-Harith:

I married a woman and later on a woman came and said, “I suckled you both.” So, I went to the Prophet (to ask him about it). He said, “How can you (keep her as a wife) when it has been said (that you were foster brother and sister)? Leave (divorce) her.

15)   Satisfying the Prophet
Sahih Muslim –
Book 008, Number 3454:
Hisham reported on the authority of his father that ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) used to say: Does the woman not feel shy of offering herself to a man? Then Allah the Exalted and Glorious revealed this verse:” You may defer any of them you wish and take to yourself any you wish.” I (‘A’isha said): It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire.

 16)   Marriage is allowed to people of all ages, including those children who have not yet menstruated-

(65:4) The waiting period of those of your women who have lost all expectation of menstruation shall be three months in case you entertain any doubt; and the same shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated. As for pregnant women, their waiting period shall be until the delivery of their burden. Allah will create ease for him who fears Allah.

17)   Confining women to their homes
Muslim (4:2127) – Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission.  Aisha narrates, “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain.” 

18)   Racism

I heard the Apostle say: Whoever wants to see Satan should look at Nabtal!’ He was a black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks?. Allah sent down concerning him: ?To those who annoy the Prophet there is a painful doom.” [9:61] “Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, ?If a black man comes to you his heart is more gross than a donkey’s.’Ishaq 243Tabari II 11
Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham?s descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met Shem?s, the latter would enslave them.Tabari II 21

Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks. Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth. He prayed that the Africans color would change so that their descendants would be slaves to the Arabs and Turks.

19)   Jealousy

The prophet Muhammad saw said ‘A Dayooth will not enter Jannah.’ The Sahabah asked, ‘Who is a Dayooth?’ Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam said, ‘A man who does not care who visits his wife (i.e. men).’

Ibn Al-Qayyim, Rahimahullaah, said:
“And the Dayyouth (the man with no jealousy over the women in his family) is the most vile of Allah’s creation, and Jannah is forbidden for him, (because of his lack of Ghayrah – jealousy).

On this topic, a famous historical incident is mentioned, so that males and females with a sense of honor and enthusiasm may know how the pious predecessors despised a woman unveiling her face before men, although in the following instance it was permissible to unveil the face. During the third century Hijri, the Qaadi (judge) of Rayy and Ahwaaz, Musa bin Ishaaq, sat to adjudicate people’s disputes. Among the litigants was a woman who claimed five hundred dinars Mahr from her husband. The husband denied the claim. The Qaadi said to the husband, “Bring your witnesses.” The husband said, “I have brought them.” The Qaadi said to one of the witnesses, “Look at the wife so you may point her out during testimony.” The witness stood up and said to the woman, “Stand.” Upon this, the husband said, “What do you want from her?” The husband was told, “It is necessary that the witness sees your wife unveiled so that he may know that it is your wife.” The husband detested his wife unveiling her face for the witnesses in public. He screamed, saying, “I make the Qaadi my witness that this Mahr of my wife is an obligation on me, and she must not unveil her face!” When the wife heard this, she thought it was wonderful that her husband disapproved of her unveiling her face before the witnesses, and was protecting her from the sight of people. She too screamed at the Qaadi, “I make you a witness that I have granted my Mahr to him, and have absolved him in this Dunyaa and the Aakhirah!” The Qaadi said to those around him, “Record this as a moral standard.” – Taken from Tarbiyat Al-Awlaaad Fil Islaam

Al-Tabari and other scholars said: Jealousy on the part of women is to be overlooked and they are not to be punished for it because it is part of their nature.

Men are allowed to be jealous and act upon it while a woman’s jealousy is to be overlooked.

20)   Wife beating

“Narrated Ikrima: ‘Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s messenger came, Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes! When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa.” Allah’s messenger said to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that Abdur-Rahman said, “Yes.” The prophet said, “You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow.””
Some justice Mohammed provided her with! That beating alone should be enough for a divorce! Yet he sends her back to have sex with an impotent man! Impotency can strike later in life. Not like it matters, violent abuse should equal automatic divorce!

Mohammed himself has hit Aisha across the chest with his hand-Sahih Muslim #2127:

‘When it was my turn for Allah’s Messenger to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi’. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O ‘Aisha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?

Abu Dawood:2142 – “The Prophet said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.”

Abu Dawood:2141 – “Iyas bin ?Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah?s handmaidens, but when ?Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said : Many women have gone round Muhammad?s family complaining against their husbands. They (men) are not the best among you.” 

That last one takes the piss. Mo gave men permission to beat their wives and then he tells them they are not the best among them!

21)   Women

Sahih Al Bukhari (Part 1, Hadith No. 28): “Women are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds done them).  If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking) she will say, “I have never received any good from you”

Sahih Al Bukhari (Part 7, Hadith No. 113): “The woman is like a rib; if you try to straighten her, she will break. So if you want to get benefit from her, do so while she still has some crookedness.” 

22)   Deficient women

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 2, Book 24, Number 541:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri

Once Allah’s Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle ?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.”

On ‘Id ul Fitr or ‘Id ul Adha Allah’s Apostle (p.b.u.h) went out to the Musalla. After finishing the prayer, he delivered the sermon and ordered the people to give alms. He said, “O people! Give alms.” Then he went towards the women and said. “O women! Give alms, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were you (women).” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is the reason for it?” He replied, “O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious wise man astray.” Then he left. And when he reached his house, Zainab, the wife of Ibn Masud, came and asked permission to enter It was said, “O Allah’s Apostle! It is Zainab.” He asked, ‘Which Zainab?” The reply was that she was the wife of Ibn Mas’ub. He said, “Yes, allow her to enter.” And she was admitted. Then she said, “O Prophet of Allah! Today you ordered people to give alms and I had an ornament and intended to give it as alms, but Ibn Masud said that he and his children deserved it more than anybody else.” The Prophet replied, “Ibn Masud had spoken the truth. Your husband and your children had more right to it than anybody else.”

23)   Outnumbering others by birth

Abu Dawood Book 11, Number 2045:
Narrated Ma’qil ibn Yasar:

A man came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: I have found a woman of rank and beauty, but she does not give birth to children. Should I marry her? He said: No. He came again to him, but he prohibited him. He came to him third time, and he (the Prophet) said: Marry women who are loving and very prolific, for I shall outnumber the peoples by you.

24)   Enslaving an innocent child-

Dawud: Book 11, Number 2126:Narrated Basrah: A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet). The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her (according to the version of al-Hasan). The version of Ibn AbusSari has: You people, flog her, or said: inflict hard punishment on him.

25)  Umar the perv

Sahih Bukhari 8:74:257
“Narrated ‘Aisha:
(the wife of the Prophet) ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab used to say to Allah’s Apostle “Let your wives be veiled” But he did not do so. The wives of the Prophet used to go out to answer the call of nature at night only at Al-Manasi.’ Once Sauda, the daughter of Zam’a went out and she was a tall woman. ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her while he was in a gathering, and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda!” He (‘Umar) said so as he was anxious for some Divine orders regarding the veil (the veiling of women.) So Allah revealed the Verse of veiling. (Al-Hijab; a complete body cover excluding the eyes).

 26)   Women’s pubic region

 Sahih Bukhari:Volume 7, Book 62, Number 173:
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “If you enter (your town) at night (after coming from a journey), do not enter upon your family till the woman whose husband was absent (from the house) shaves her pubic hair and the woman with unkempt hair, combs her hair” Allah’s Apostle further said, “(O Jabir!) Seek to have offspring, seek to have offspring!”

 Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 16:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah:
While we were returning from a Ghazwa (Holy Battle) with the Prophet, I started driving my camel fast, as it was a lazy camel A rider came behind me and pricked my camel with a spear he had with him, and then my camel started running as fast as the best camel you may see. Behold! The rider was the Prophet himself. He said, ‘What makes you in such a hurry?” I replied, I am newly married ” He said, “Did you marry a virgin or a matron? I replied, “A matron.” He said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you may play with her and she with you?” When we were about to enter (Medina), the Prophet said, “Wait so that you may enter (Medina) at night so that the lady of unkempt hair may comb her hair and the one whose husband has been absent may shave her pubic region.
Does anything apart from sex ever enter the prophet’s mind?

27)  Women compared to the devil

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3240:
Jabir reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them: The woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart.

28) Prostitution

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3253:
Rabi’ b. Sabra reported that his father went on an expedition with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) during the Victory of Mecca, and we stayed there for fifteen days (i. e. for thirteen full days and a day and a night), and Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) permitted us to contract temporary marriage with women. So I and another person of my tribe went out, and I was more handsome than he, whereas he was almost ugly. Each one of us had a cloaks, My cloak was worn out, whereas the cloak of my cousin was quite new. As we reached the lower or the upper side of Mecca, we came across a young woman like a young smart long-necked she-camel. We said: Is it possible that one of us may contract temporary marriage with you? She said: What will you give me as a dower? Each one of us spread his cloak. She began to cast a glance on both the persons. My companion also looked at her when she was casting a glance at her side and he said: This cloak of his is worn out, whereas my cloak is quite new. She, however, said twice or thrice: There is no harm in (accepting) this cloak (the old one). So I contracted temporary marriage with her, and I did not come out (of this) until Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) declared it forbidden.
Mohammed allowed prostitution till he changed his mind.

29) Punishment for apostates

Narrated Ikrima: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ” [Sahih Bukhari: Book 52, Hadith 260]

Bukhari, volume 9, #17
“Narrated Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”

30) Attacking the defenceless

Bukhari, volume 9, #57
Narrated Ikrima, “Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s messenger forbade it, saying, “Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).” I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

Bukhari, volume 9, #58
Narrated Abu Bruda, “Abu Musa said…..Behold there was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Muadh asked, “Who is this (man)?” Abu Musa said, “He was a Jew and became a Muslim and hen reverted back to Judaism.” Then Abu Musa requested Muadh to sit down but Muadh said, “I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and his messenger,” and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, “Then we discussed the night prayers …..

Narrated Ibn Aun: I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn ‘Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn ‘Umar was in that army. [Sahih Bukhari: Book 46, Hadith 717]

Sahih Muslim


Book 019, Number 4292:
Ibn ‘Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi’ inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before m”. ing them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi’ said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.

Book 019, Number 4293:
This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Aun and the name of Juwairiya bint al-Harith was mentioned beyond any doubt.

31) Booty

Tabari VIII:38 “The Messenger divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims.”

32) A sword is a sufficient witness

Sunan Abu Dawood
Book 38, Number 4403:
Narrated Ubadah ibn as-Samit:

The tradition mentioned above (No. 4401) has also been transmitted by Ubadah ibn as-Samit through a different chain of narrators.

This version has: The people said to Sa’d ibn Ubadah: AbuThabit, the prescribed punishments have been revealed: if you find a man with your wife, what will you do?

He said: I shall strike them with a sword so much that they become silent (i.e. die). Should I go and gather four witnesses? Until that (time) the need would be fulfilled.

So they went away and gathered with the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! did you not see AbuThabit. He said so-and-so.

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: The sword is a sufficient witness. He then said: No, no, a furious and a jealous man may follow this course.

33) Divorce

YUSUFALI: A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (Men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah; so do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (Themselves as well as others).

Sahih Muslim
Book 009, Number 3493:
Abu al-Sahba’ said to Ibn ‘Abbas: Enlighten us with your information whether the three divorces (pronounced at one and the same time) were not treated as one during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr. He said: It was in fact so, but when during the caliphate of ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) people began to pronounce divorce frequently, he allowed them to do so (to treat pronouncements of three divorces in a single breath as one).

A husband is allowed to divorce the wife simply by saying talaq three times. The wife on the other hand has to prove her case to a court. If the wife wishes to divorce she has to give her dowry back (even if she has been mistreated in the marriage).

The talaq option given to men can be very easily abused and used as blackmail against the wife (if uttered once or twice). Husbands can easily divorce their wives yet women find it very difficult to get their divorces approved in court as she needs a good reason.

Volume 7, Book 63, Number 178:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:
that he had divorced his wife while she was menstruating during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle . ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab asked Allah’s Apostle about that. Allah’s Apostle said, “Order him (your son) to take her back and keep her till she is clean and then to wait till she gets her next period and becomes clean again, whereupon, if he wishes to keep her, he can do so, and if he wishes to divorce her he can divorce her before having sexual intercourse with her; and that is the prescribed period which Allah has fixed for the women meant to be divorced.”

There is a 3 month waiting period for divorce and the husband is free to take her back during that period if he wishes, the wife has no choice in the matter, if the husband decides to take her back she is not allowed to say no.



More: Cruelty in the Quran- There are about 520 cruel verses in the Quran, most of those verses are about hell and how god will punish those who disobey him in the most horrible means possible.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The double standards & hypocrisy of mainstream religions


“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” ~ Stephen F. Roberts



The double standards of the believers are astonishing! It can be divided into two categories as follows:

1) The defence -mechanism: believers tend to be selective in their loyalty to their version of god; they cherry-pick the few decent verses that portrays the good side of good god, while ignoring the hard passages which portrays the evil, vengeful, intolerant and criminal side of god. When anyone points out one of those verses, they flip out, lose their temper and claim its outdated, or taken out of context, or worse many will actually defend it,  saying the crimes and genocides committed  by their holy-figure is justified because they disobeyed his demands & desires!

2) The attack-mechanism: believers tend to criticize the followers of other religions and even bash their books by doing the exact opposite. When judging other’s religions they don’t look at the decent passages that are followed by its believers (which is exactly what they are doing), nah they tend to only look at the hard passages and base their whole judgment solely on it. In this way they feel assured that they’re following the truthful decent religion while others are following the evil flawed religion = pure wisdom + intelligent strategy!

I do understand why the majority of believers tend to apply the first mechanism whether when they’re reading their holy books for themselves or when they debating with other believers or non-believers. I did the exact same thing with my religion, back in my childhood years when I accepted the theory of god. This is quite a natural outcome, when you match the ancient morality of the bible with our modern-day morality, it doesn’t match, so we must cut out allot of verses and passages, to be able to live in a society which has a far more elevated sense of compassion and morality than the ancient morality preached by ancient religions.

For that I do respect moderate believers (95% of my family and friends belong to this category), however I cannot respect their religion, why would I? The vulgar content of their books speaks for itself. Why are we today forced to respect religion as if it’s immune from criticism or any wrong doings? You can’t command respect, or force people to respect your belief system because you think it ought to be respected, I can only respect something that is respectable and deserves to be respected.

Moreover, I especially have zero respect for believers who apply the two mechanisms described above. Actually the far majority of believers do so unfortunately.  Instead of standing for other’s people right to believe, instead of defending each other, and preventing others from criticizing and misunderstanding the way they interrupt their religion, they are the ones leading this war against one another, and then they whine and complain and play the victim-role when others do the exact same thing –Hypocrites!! . Today this is mostly common among Christians, in the way they judge and even attack Muslims.

An example of double standards among believers:

A recent poll ran by EACE said that three quarters of non-Muslims believe that Muslim women are oppressed. Apparently, they look upon the Hijab (head-scarf) as a symbol of oppression.

 As a matter of fact if you compare all the most widely used books of believers, and were asked to range those books from the least cruel to the most cruel based on the frequency of primitive and abhorrent verses and passages, you’ll have the following arrangement: the Muslim book (Quran), the Christian books (New testament & Old testament), and lastly the Jewish books (Torah and Talmud). LOL, out of those believers, the Muslims happen to be the most criticized, when their book happens to be the most decent out of all!! Unlike the other two abrahamic religions, the Muslims preserved the original copy of the Quran, according to their beliefs, they cannot change, alter or omit and verse, yet even though it was never edited, its still far more decent than other religions who have edited their books. The truth can be shocking huh?

You can see for yourself, look them up online, and then locate those verses in your books just to make sure it was translated correctly and it wasn’t taken out of context.

Nevertheless, I don’t think many would actually accomplish this task without being awfully biased and defensive, most probably will just look into other religions’ absurd verses and ignore the ones in their own books claiming such verses are fake and cannot be true because ‘they know their god’ or ‘they know their books well enough’ . I guess deep down they know by doing so they’re endangering their faith. From experience I think most believers avoid reading such passages because they know the consequence of doing so, it will only make their faith weaker – although few will admit it, not even to themselves.

All the followers of the abrahamic religions believe their book was inspired by god. Growing up, I accepted it, I never actually read the whole book, as most people I only listned to our teacher who would of course only select the verses and stories that shows the decent side of god. However, allot of things didn’t make sense, like the principle of free-will and destiny, we are told god has already planned out our life, yet we will be judged for our choices, when supposedly he created us that way. This made me attempt to read the whole thing, the more I read it, the weaker my faith became, eventually I lost my faith in faith completely.

What are we to make of a god who is supposed to be morally perfect and represent a moral ideal when, at the same time, religious holy books makes this god out to be an immoral monster? How can a god that commands mass slaughter, slavery and rape also be the source for morality?

Rejecting the moral perfection of God also entails the possibility that God commits immoral acts. That is a necessary implication of imperfection. A god that acts immorally, though, wouldn’t merit worship. The whole basis for God being worthy of worship stems from the premise that God is perfect and holy. If God is not only imperfect but also immoral and unholy, then why worship it? How come we are far more moral, peaceful, and smarter than the gods described in holy books? A god who sees punishments, torture and genocide as the only solution to solve a problem??

Anyways, to back up my conclusion (the two mechnisms), in the following posts, i’ll  provide some samples of those utterly shocking verses and passages found in the quran, OT & NT bible, torah and talmud.

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Opinion: Religion is a social norm for the weak & simple minded!

“In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in those parts of it as are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue” -Ethan Allen


“Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people’s business.”- Jesse Ventura

-Video: Satire-can be applied to all relgions not just Christianity

In the past religion sustained and enforced morality no doubt, religion was a mean to maintain stability and order, however; today science and technology advanced the tools and means used to preserve law and order.

Morality, humanity, equality, compassion, strength of character and will to power are all the qualities needed to guide us to remain on the right moral path, and they’re far more sensible than some unrealistic fear from punishments and hell.

In the past that sort of exaggerated fear was needed to make sure the vast majority will not commit any kind of crime because there is this powerful figure that sees all and will eventually revenge for any sin-doing. Religion was able to reaffirm collective morals and beliefs in the minds of all members of society. This is important, because if left to their own for a long amount of time, the beliefs and convictions of individuals will weaken in strength, and require reinforcement, religion does the job nicely. However, today with science and technology we got specialized fields dedicated to preserve order and to prevent crime, and if it happens we got genetics and forensics to signal out the outlaws, and law systems to preserve justice etc…. Simply as time passes, civilization progresses, and we find new means to adapt to the changes,  its your choice to move along or get stuck in the Medieval ages –the clock is ticking!!

Those who came before us needed blind faith as a way to face reality and to understand the mysteries of life and death around them, at that time science and knowledge was in its earliest stages. Curiosity and the desire for answers, ultimately lead people to assign causes to things,  through frustration at not knowing, as with Theism. They gave credit to supernatural figures for the existence of anything, for so long they were pleased with that answer; ‘God did it’. This gave much more confidence, hope and meaning to their life

One of the most obvious examples that illustrate the harshness in accepting reality is death. Instinctively we are all fear death; nothing can make us accept the death of our love ones, it will forever remain a scar in our soul as long as we live…Here comes the illusion of religions which makes it so appealing to the emotional human beings –the concept of heaven and after-life. Who wouldn’t want this to be true? A weak person might not be able to deal with the idea of “the end”, and thus will turn to religious belief, denial is far less harsher.When I first started questioning religion, death was the hardest question of all, it was hard to give up the idea of after-life, that’s why I was  identified myself as Agnostic rather than Atheist.

With all respect to believers, religion is a crutch —  Religion is for the weak, helpless, fearful and ignorant individuals.  Frankly that’s the formula that you get when you try to equate religion with reason!! …I don’t mean to be rude, but that’s reality.

The weaker a person is, the more likely they are to be religious because of the comfort and answers it gives to difficult questions, religion can empower an individual, through the false sense of comfort, hope, rewards, second chances ..etc. As the sating  saying goes: “Ignorance is bliss”!  Its much easier to believe in the beautiful lie than to accept the ugly truth.

“When the soulution is simple, God is answering ” Albert Einstein.

“Religion. It’s given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.” Jon Stewart

Religion = Social Norm

Our behaviour is reflection of our principles (such as morality) and priorities. Religion was not divinely or supernaturally inspired and was in fact a product of society. Religion can be perceived as a social norm that sustains and facilates morals, it isn’t by any mean the source of morality. Social norms  is the product of the influence of social pressure that is perceived by the individual (normative beliefs) to perform or not perform a certain behavior.

“For we know today that a religion does not necessarily imply symbols and rites, properly speaking, or temples and priests. This whole exterior apparatus is only the superficial part. Essentially, it is nothing other than a body of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority.”
(1973, p. 51 [excerpt from “Individualism and the Intellectuals”])

” Religion is something eminently social. Religious representations are collective representations which express collective realities; the rites are a manner of acting which take rise in the midst of assembled groups and which are destined to excite, maintain, or recreate certain mental states in these groups. So if the categories are of religious origin, they ought to participate in this nature common to all religious facts; they should be social affairs and the product of collective thought. At least — for in the actual condition of our knowledge of these matters, one should be careful to avoid all radical and exclusive statements — it is allowable to suppose that they are rich in social elements.”
(Thompson, 1982, p. 125 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life]).

‘Religion acted as a source of solidarity and identification for the individuals within a society. Religion provided a meaning for life, it provided authority figures, and most importantly, it reinforced the morals and social norms held collectively by all within a society. Far from dismissing religion as mere fantasy, despite its natural origin, it is a critical part of the social system. Religion provides social control, cohesion, and purpose for people, as well as another means of communication and gathering for individuals to interact and reaffirm social norms.’ ((1999, 2003  L. Joe Dunman)

Religion is a functional source of social cohesion. Religion acts to pull people together (mentally and physically, in the form of relgious services or assemblies). By doing so, religion is able to reaffirm collective morals and beliefs in the minds of all members of society. This is important, because if left to their own for a long amount of time, the beliefs and convictions of individuals will weaken in strength, and require reinforcement. Religion maintains the influence of society — whereas “society” represents the norms and beliefs held in common by a group of individuals.

The era when religions flourished has passed, you can either choose between progress or going back to a primitive stage. In modern day religions are merely organized cults looking for the weak and simple minded. Religion appeals to those who want to feel accepted and loved for no other reason but for exiting, also for those who would like to belong to something massive, all those human needs that can be satisfied easily and quickly by believing in legends and mythical characters rather than working for it….. Stronger individuals are able to move forwards because they’re willing to think, and live outside of the box.

The truth is we all need someone to lean on time to time, you can find real support among your friends and family rather than in imaginary friends. Atheists don’t need an imaginary friend to console themselves with. They have other more effective methods to cope with life, but the trick here those methods are far more challenging both mentality and physically, not many people are up for this challenge, which makes religion far more appealing for the simple minded even at this age and time. …Believing in religion is an excuse not to think, its much easier than questioning the meaning of life, it’s easier to rely on ready-fixed answers rather than asking the hard questions or developing your scheme of thinking searching for reason and logic. It’s easy and comfy to believe in something you have been told and never question anything in life-Its all there in the book. Even if its completely insensible to grasp, you’ll find allot of believers (self-deluisiners) who are ready to come up with creative explanations to defend it. Ironlicaly at the same time they love to claim, its wriiten by divine more who knows it all and is capable of everything, then why are you defending it? Why are al belivers turning into lawayers fighting science and bashing evolution, which happens to be the only reasonable and factual element in our life??

“There is not any thing, which has contributed so much to delude mankind in religious matters, as mistaken apprehensions concerning supernatural inspiration or revelation; not considering that all true religion originates from reason, and can not othe.”-Ethan Allen


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment