For 2018, I am counting down the 365 worst hadiths, ranked from least worst to absolute worst. This is our journey so far:
HOTD 200: Muhammad: Don’t steal what I stole!
In this magnificent hadith, Muhammad highlights one of the major sins in Islam: ghulul (stealing from war spoils), which Muhammad says results in Hell.
This is like a mob boss telling his deputies not to steal from the money they rob.
It’s all so laughably immoral. Muhammad’s actions—and thus Islamic law—are in violation of every international treaty addressing war booty.
IslamQA explains why war booty is not stealing:
Stealing means taking property by stealth and unlawfully from its proper place. This is something completely different, for the wealth of jihad, the spoils of war and the booty, are taken from the kuffar by right. We are given permission to do so by shari’ah and it is allowed for us to do this as Allah says: “So enjoy what you have gotten of booty in war, lawful and good.” [al-Anfaal 8:69] And the Prophet ﷺ used to do this in his wars and his jihad against the kuffar, when he confiscated their property and wealth.
What makes Muhammad such a tragic character is that he doesn’t see the obvious: That HE is the great sinner, the great villain, in his own story.
Or maybe he knows:
Narrated Abdah bin Abi Lubabah:
Ibn Yasaf told me that he asked Aishah, the wife of the Prophet ﷺ, “What supplication did the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say the most before he died?” She said, “The supplication that he said the most was: �?O Allah, I seek refuge with You from the evil of what I have done, and from the evil of what I have not done yet.’”
HOTD 199: Muhammad says he's special because Allah lets him—and no other prophet—have war booty
It is so strange when a man boasts of what makes him uniquely evil.
This hadith was one of the early cracks in the wall for me. The hadith didn’t convey to me that Muhammad was unique—but that he was false.
A false prophet, but a true warlord.
• HOTD #199: Sahih Muslim 521a (1163)
HOTD 198: Muhammad forbids attacking non-Muslims…in the early morning
One of the great euphemisms of Muhammad and his Companions is “inviting people to Islam.”
Typically, when you RSVP “no” to an invitation, you are not killed by the inviter.
In the early years of Muhammad’s attacks on non-Muslims, Muhammad would “invite” non-Muslims to Islam before attacking them. (This appears to have been abandoned in later years. See HOTD 291.)
Muhammad’s army would show up for the attack, and they would check if the tribe converted to Islam by listening for the adhan (Islamic call to prayer).
And if no adhan, Muhammad's army would attack the people.
This particular hadith makes reference to Muhammad’s attack on the Jews of Khaibar (HOTD 297), an example of blatant offensive jihad.
• HOTD #198: Sahih al-Bukhari 2943
HOTD 197: Muhammad: Let me “invite you to Islam.” If you decline my invitation, then I will kill you or extort you
In this noble hadith, Muhammad establishes the three-choice doctrine for polytheists, which is later applied to People of the Book (Jews and Christians) in Quran 9:29.
Muhammad gives polytheists three choices in life: convert, die, or pay the jizya. The only purpose Allah gives for jizya is that non-Muslims be saghirun (literally: made small, i.e. humiliated, disgraced).
In today’s hadith, when Muhammad says “offer them three options” before fighting them, he is giving the polytheists four options by subdividing the convert option, 1) convert and move to Medina, 2) convert and stay put, 3) pay the jizya, 4) die.
As Muhammad says:
I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people until they say: “There is no god but Allah.” And whoever says it, then he will save his life and wealth from me except in cases where Islamic laws apply, and his reckoning will be with Allah. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1399)
So don’t blame Muhammad for this evil. He’s just following orders.
• HOTD #197: Sahih Muslim 1731b (4522)
HOTD 196: Muhammad says Allah will blind you if you look up during prayer. 1400 years later and it’s never happened
I have looked up at the sky so many times during salat—and yet I somehow still have 20/20 vision.
Well, I guess every muhaddith was wrong. It must be a metaphor for blah, blah, blah…
It should be noted that this threat of blindness is only for salat. Consensus among the ulama is that Allah is fine with gazing up during duas outside of prayer.
• HOTD #196: Sahih al-Bukhari 750
See also Ibn Uthaymin’s commentary in Sharh al-Mumti 3/226-227. See also Islam QA fatwa 119756: Ruling on lifting the gaze to heaven when offering supplication following the obligatory prayer.
HOTD 195: Muhammad explains the best-case scenario for a non-Muslim: You will be in Hell wearing shoes of fire that will cause your brain to boil
In this glorious hadith, Muhammad explains the best case scenario for a non-Muslim, all of whom go to Hell for eternity. He is specifically referring to his uncle Abu Talib, who defended and protected Muhammad but still refused to convert to Islam.
Abu Talib is only getting this minimum punishment because of Muhammad’s intercession (Muslim 210). And in this best-case scenario, Muhammad explains:
”He will think that no one else is being punished as severely as he, but he will be the least severely punished of them." (Muslim 213b)
So let’s say Allah mercifully applies the best-case scenario to Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela. If he’s lucky, he will be wearing shoes of fire with his brain boiling for eternity.
In comparison, let’s look at what awaits Haseem Amir and Faizan Mehmood. The two ran a child sex abuse ring in Kasur, Pakistan, in which at least 280 kids were filmed being raped. The videos were used for child porn and to extort the kids’ families.
In Islam, all Muslims eventually go to Paradise, and all sins except disbelief are forgiven. So here is what awaits the Muslims Amir and Mehmood, the mass pedophile rapists who extorted their victims' families:
The lowest of the people of Paradise in status will be a man whose face Allah will tum away from the Fire and tum his face towards Paradise. …Allah, the Most High, will remind him to ask for such-and-such, and when he has finished wishing, Allah will say, “That will be yours and ten times as much.” Then he will enter his house and his two wives from among the wide-eyed houris will enter upon him and will say, “Praise be to Allah Who has created you for us and created us for you.” And he will say, “No one has been given the like of that which I have been given.” (Muslim 188)
So the Nobel Peace Prize winner has his brains boiling for eternity, while the pedophile mass rapists each have two virgin houris in Paradise and ten times more than they ask for.
And Allah is Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim, Al-Muqsit.
• HOTD #195: Sahih Muslim 211, 212 (514, 515)
HOTD 194: Muhammad says the evil eye is the second leading cause of death among Muslims
The evil eye is when a person looks enviously at another person and, in doing that, causes the person physical harm or death.
The evil eye is extremely dangerous—especially to attractive and rich people—as it can kill the person being envied.
That is why it is important to recite Sura al-Falaq (113), of which Muhammad says, “You will never recite anything more precious before Allah." (See HOTD 339). In al-Falaq, we ask Allah for:
Protection from evil witches who cast spells on us by making rope knots and blowing on them
Protection from the evil eye
In today’s important hadith, Muhammad explains that the evil eye can overtake the Divine Decree, causing death, while of course not actually overtaking the Divine Decree, since that is impossible.
I feel for Muhammad. It must have been a tough balancing act for him—incorporating paganism into Islam while professing to reject paganism.
HOTD 193: Muhammad explains the cure for the evil eye: The envier takes a bath and his used bath water is collected and poured over the victim
The evil eye is when a person looks enviously at another person and, in doing that, causes the person physical harm or death.
As shown in HOTD 194, the evil eye is extremely dangerous and is the second leading cause of death among Muslims.
The evil eye can also kill animals:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “The evil eye sends a man to his grave and a camel to the cooking pot.”
Thus the evil eye can affect not only the person being envied, but also the person’s living “possessions” (e.g., wife, kids, slaves, camels) that trigger the envy.
However, there is a cure!
There are two treatments for the evil eye. In today’s hadith, Muhammad explains the first: The envier does ghusl (bathe), and the envier’s used bath water is then poured over his victim.
The second treatment is ruqyah (Islamic incantation):
Umm Salamah narrated that the Prophet ﷺ saw in her house a girl whose face had a black spot. He said, “She is under the effect of an evil eye, so treat her with a ruqyah.” (Bukhari 5739)
So there are two options:
Allah can’t do math (HOTD 206 suppl.) and uses as His messenger a sex-slave owner (Nasa'i 1126) who says the evil eye can kill humans and camels (Abu Nu'aym, Hilyat al-Awliya 7/90) and that the evil eye is the second leading cause of death among Muslims (HOTD 194) and can be cured with dirty bath water
Islam is false
HOTD 192 supplement: Muhammad says a stone the weight of 7 pregnant camels would take 70 years to fall to bottom of Hell
This hadith gives further detail on the stone that someone threw into Hell in HOTD 192. The stone weighs as much as seven pregnant camels, or more than 7,000 pounds.
It must be the same stone because the stone that Muhammad heard also took 70 years to fall. (That it's the same stone assumes there is atmospheric drag in Hell. Otherwise, as Galileo explained, the size and weight of an object do not impact the speed at which it falls, generally speaking, and then Muhammad would be stupid for mentioning the stone’s weight.)
It’s a good laughable sahih hadith to have in your back pocket that I have not seen translated into English.
HOTD 191: Muhammad on integration: “Be sincere to the Muslim, and disassociate from the non-Muslim”
A key Islamic principle is that genuine friendships with non-Muslims are forbidden.
O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as awliyaa’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but awliyaa’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as awliyaa’), then surely, he is one of them. (Quran 5:51)
O you who believe! Take not as bitaanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends) those outside your religion since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. (Quran 3:118)
Muhammad makes it clear that one should not even associate with non-Muslims, much less befriend them:
Narrated Abu Sa'id al-Khudri:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Do not keep company with anyone but a believer, and do not let anyone eat your food but one who is pious.”
I was in France in 2016 when the Nice truck attack occurred. On the news programs, commentator after commentator, Muslim and non-Muslim, were discussing how France has failed to integrate immigrants.
It was surreal because not once did I hear a commentator mention that Islam—not select scapegoat imams, but Islam itself—may actually be hostile to the integration that France is being blamed for not achieving.
“Disassociate from the infidel.” “Do not keep company with anyone but a believer.”
HOTD 190: Muhammad says Allah hates people and tells Gabriel to hate them too. Gabriel then spreads Allah’s hate for the people through heaven and earth
I never could believe that Allah actually hates people.
But the Quran and Hadith specifically says He does.
…And whoever disbelieves – upon him will be (the consequence of) his disbelief. And the disbelief of the disbelievers does not increase them in the sight of their Lord except in hatred. … (Quran 35:39)
Indeed, those who disbelieve will be addressed (when entering Hell), "The hatred of Allah for you was even greater (in the worldly life) than your hatred of yourselves (this Day in Hell), when you were invited to faith, but you disbelieved." (Quran 40:10)
And it’s even worse than Allah hating people. He actually creates people specifically for Hell (Muslim 2262a, b), who He will hate on Earth and in the afterlife, and who He will torture for eternity.
It’s like a father having a child so he can rape her every day.
• HOTD #190: Sahih Muslim 2637a (6705)
HOTD 189: Muhammad says Islam demands “enmity for the sake of Allah” and “hatred for the sake of Allah”
Al-wala wa al-bara (loyalty and disavowal) is a basic principle of Islam. A Muslim is to love what Allah loves and hate what Allah hates.
Ibn Taymiyya writes:
The declaration of faith, ʺThere is no god but Allah,ʺ requires you to love only for the sake of Allah, to hate only for the sake of Allah, to ally yourself only for the sake of Allah, to declare enmity only for the sake of Allah. It requires you to love what Allah loves and to hate what Allah hates.
Allah believes Muslims should hate non-Muslims, not just their disbelief, but the people themselves.
There is for you an excellent example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: “We are clear of you and of whatever you worship besides Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever until you believe in Allah alone.” (Quran 60.4)
Regarding non-Muslims, Allah repeatedly states in the Quran that He maqt hates them (35:39, 40:10), that He la yuhibbu does not love them (3:32, 22:38, 30:45), and that they are His aduww enemy (2:98, 8:60, 41:28, 60:1).
In discussing hatred in Islam, Shaykh Abdur-Rahman Muhiyuddin, a mufti of the Prophet's Mosque, states, "You must hate kufr and its people."
And so every Muslim needs to do their part in hating non-Muslims, thus heeding Muhammad's belief that the “strongest bonds of faith” include enmity and hatred for others.
HOTD 188: Muhammad tells a woman—beaten to the point her skin is green—to have sex with her wife-beating husband. Aisha says “I have not seen any woman suffer as much as the believing women”
In this noble hadith on women's rights in Islam, a woman comes to complain about her wife-beating husband.
Aisha sees the woman’s bruised green skin and says, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women,” which of course implies that non-Muslim women are treated better than Muslim women.
The beaten woman states that her husband is impotent. The husband protests, saying that he is not impotent and that his wife is nushuz disobedient—which per Quran 4:34 merits a beating—and that she wants a divorce in order to remarry her first husband.
Muhammad expresses complete indifference to the woman’s beaten state. He does not admonish the wife-beater in any way, indicating that the wife's bruising was on the beat-your-wife-lightly™ spectrum.
Then Muhammad, demonstrating a remarkable lack of intelligence, says the man cannot be impotent because he has two sons from another wife.
Muhammad’s logic is that if a man was not impotent years before, then he cannot be impotent now. Yes really.
Allah created a rule that a woman cannot remarry a prior husband without first marrying and having sex with someone else. (Quran 2:230—Of course the same rule doesn’t apply to the man).
And so Muhammad advises the woman to have sex with her impotent, wife-beating husband, which would allow her to go back to her first husband (assuming she can get a divorce from the wife-beater).
And there you have the wisdom and humanity of Muhammad.
• HOTD #188: Sahih al-Bukhari 5825
HOTD 187: Muhammad lets his 9 year-old wife—who he deflowered—still play with dolls with her friends
This hadith occurs after Aisha moved in with her dolls to Muhammad's house at age nine and Muhammad started having sex with her.
It was narrated from Aisha that the Prophet ﷺ married her when she was seven years old (note: most hadiths say “six years old”) and she was taken to him as a bride when she was nine years old, and she took her dolls with her. He died when she was eighteen years old. (Muslim 1422c)
I am unaware of any hadith that suggests Aisha was pubescent (i.e., had begun menstruating) when Muhammad first had sex with her. Nor am I aware of any classical scholar who believes that.
In contrast, the scholar al-Khattabi believes that Aisha only became pubescent after age 14, a view which Ibn Hajar says "is possible" and then seemingly supports at the end of his commentary on Bukhari 6130.
It certainly seems that Ibn Hajar doesn't believe Aisha was pubescent at age nine, otherwise he would have flatly rejected al-Khattabi's premise that she was prepubescent at age 14.
Ibn Hajar writes on Bukhari 6130:
Abu Dawud (4932) and al-Nasa’i (8901) have narrated from Aisha that she said, “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ returned from the campaign to Tabuk, or Khaibar…” Here she mentioned the hadith in which the curtain attached to her door was lifted away. She said, “Then the side of the curtain over the dolls of Aisha was uncovered. He said, �?What is this, O Aisha?’ She said, �?My dolls.’ She then said, �?Then he saw amongst them a winged horse that was tied up.’ He said, �?What is this?’ I said, �?A horse.’ He said, �?A horse with two wings?’ I said, �?Didn’t you hear that Solomon had horses with wings?’ Then he laughed.”
Al-Khattabi said: From this hadith it is understood that playing with dolls is unlike the amusement from other images concerning which the threat of punishment is mentioned. The only reason why permission in this case was given to Aisha is because she had not yet reached the age of puberty.
I (Ibn Hajar) say: As to whether this was the case, it is not certain, but it is possible, because Aisha was a fourteen year old girl at the time of the Battle of Khaibar–either having reached that age or passed it or approaching it.
As for the campaign to Tabuk (age 16-17), she had by then definitely reached the age of puberty. Therefore, the strongest view is that of those who said it was in Khaibar, thus harmonizing with what al-Khattabi said, as that is superior to inconsonance.
The schools of Islamic jurisprudence are unanimous that a man may have sex with his prepubescent wife.
A girl is compelled to have sex with her husband either a) at age nine (Hanbali), or b) when the girl is of sufficient size that she can tolerate sex without physical harm (Shafii, Maliki, Hanafi), which can be before or after age nine.
It should be noted that it was also the regular practice of Muhammad’s Companions to have sex with prepubescent sex slaves. (HOTD 265 comment)
“This day I have perfected for you your religion.”
HOTD 186: Muhammad says urine is #1 reason for punishment in the grave
Of all the reasons for which the Creator of the Universe would punish someone in the grave, urine is #1. Yes, urine.
The logic is that urine is najis (impure) and thus if any urine is on your body or clothes, Allah rejects your prayers. And apparently improper cleaning of urine is such a severe problem and Allah has rejected so many prayers because of it—urine is the #1 reason for punishment in the grave.
I am not aware of any hadith in which Muhammad states what the specific punishment in the grave will be for those who get urine on themselves.
The nearest I can think of is the punishment in the grave for another group with deficient salat: those who study the Quran but neglect their prayers. This is what happens to them:
(Muhammad recounts in a true dream): "We came across a man who was lying down, with another man standing over him, holding a big rock. He threw the rock at the man's head, smashing it. The rock rolled away, and the one who had thrown it followed it, and picked it up. By the time he came back to the man, his head had been restored to its former state. Then he (the one who had thrown the rock) did the same as he had done before…"
(The two people in Muhammad's true dream explain to him): “The first man you came across, whose head was being smashed with the rock, is the man who studies the Qur’an then he neither recites it nor acts upon it, and he goes to sleep, neglecting the obligatory prayers.”
So if during al-Barzakh (the time between death and the Day of the Resurrection), you’re in your grave and someone is endlessly smashing your head with a rock or some other barbaric torture—and you lived a life of kindness, generosity and diligent prayer—know that you probably got urine on yourself.
But what if you spill on yourself the camel urine you’re drinking? Don’t worry. While human urine is najis (impure), camel urine is tahir (pure).
Because that's the wisdom of the Creator of the Universe.
HOTD 185: Muhammad explains Islamic culture
In this noble hadith, Muhammad explains that in Islam there are only three worthwhile entertainments:
Just kidding! It’s actually:
Shooting arrows (jihad)
Training your horse (jihad)
Having sex with your wife (making jihadis)
Muhammad does his best to make “Islamic culture” an oxymoron.
HOTD 184: Meet Munkar and Nakir: the two angels who interrogate you in the grave. They give Muslims a spacious and bright 11,000 sq ft grave. They give Hypocrites and non-Muslims a grave that crushes their ribs
Munkar and Nakir are the two angels assigned by Allah to interrogate everyone who dies. They ask questions solely related to the person’s religion.
While the more complete Musnad Ahmad 18534 states that the negative stuff applies to an infidel kafir, Tirmidhi 1071 states that it also applies to a hypocrite munafiq (outwardly a Muslim but secretly sympathetic to kufr).
Thanks to these two hadiths, according to Muhammad, we know exactly what happened to Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela, a non-Muslim, when he died in 2013:
Angels with black faces came to earth with a sackcloth in which to put Nelson Mandela’s soul (In contrast, a Muslim’s soul is carried in a white silk shroud (Nasa’i 1834) by white-faced angels)
The Angel of Death told the Nobel Peace Prize winner: “O evil soul, come forth to the wrath of Allah and His anger”
Nelson Mandela’s soul then came out of his body, “cutting his veins and nerves, like a skewer passing through wet wool,” into the sackcloth
His soul in the sackcloth had “a stench like the foulest stench of a dead body on the face of the earth.” (In contrast, a Muslim’s soul smells “like the finest musk on the face of the earth”)
The black-faced angels carried his soul from earth to the heavens, with other angels asking: “Who is this evil soul?” These other angels called Nelson Mandela “by the worst names by which he was known in this world”
In a bizarre ritual, Nelson Mandela’s soul was then brought to the lowest heaven just so that it could be rejected from there
Allah then commanded that his soul be returned to earth, and his soul was put back into his body on earth
The angels Munkar and Nakir then came and made Nelson Mandela sit up, and asked him three questions: (1) Who is your Lord? (2) What is your religion? (3) Who is this man who was sent among you? (i.e., Muhammad), his answers to which the angels already knew
Then a voice called out from heaven: “Prepare for him a bed from Hell and clothe him from Hell, and open for him a gate to Hell.”
The hot winds of Hell then hit Nelson Mandela, and Munkar and Nakir caused his grave to constrict and compress him so tightly that his ribs interlocked
Then “a man with an ugly face and ugly clothes, and a foul stench,” who represents the Nobel Peace Prize winner’s evil deeds, came and told him: “Receive the bad news, this is the day you were promised.”
Mandela “will continue to be tormented therein until Allah raises him from that resting-place of his.” After this non-stop torment, he will be raised on the Day of Resurrection and sent to Hell for eternity.
And Allah is Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim.
HOTD 183: Muhammad says if you ask an improper question, Allah will make Sharia harsher for everyone. And you will be the greatest sinner. (Message: Don’t ask questions!)
Con artists hate questions because questions can expose the con. Muhammad did an excellent job in stifling questions.
In another hadith, Muhammad establishes the guiding principle that Companions should not ask him challenging questions. His Companions have to just shut up and obey.
The Prophet ﷺ said, “Leave me as I have left you (i.e., do not ask me questions that go beyond what I’ve already told you). For those who came before you were doomed because of their questions and differences with their Prophets. If I forbid you from doing something, then abstain from it. And if I command you to do something, then do of it as much as you can." (Bukhari 7288)
Muhammad cleverly associates asking questions—which should be harmless—with opposing a Prophet.
His Companions were so afraid to ask him questions that they were excited when an outsider would visit Muhammad, because that person would ask questions the Companions were afraid to ask (Tirmidhi 619). In one instance, they even asked someone to ask Muhammad the harmless question they were afraid to pose (Tirmidhi 3203).
And now with today’s hadith, Muhammad brings his stifling of questions to an extreme. He says that—if just one Muslim asks the wrong question—Allah will change Sharia, His eternal law for all of humanity. And He will change it by making it even stricter.
Muhammad says Allah will actually make things haram—for everyone—for simply asking about whether they are haram. This is over-the-top stupid and capricious for a Creator of the Universe.
But it’s not just stupid and capricious. It incriminates Umar bin al-Khattab, Islam’s second caliph. Umar did exactly what Muhammad says makes a Muslim “the greatest sinner.” Umar kept on asking questions about the lawfulness of wine, which resulted in Allah making wine completely haram.
Narrated Amr bin Shurahbil from Umar bin al-Khattab:
Before the prohibition of wine was revealed, Umar supplicated, “O Allah, give us a clear ruling on wine.” Then the verse which is in al-Baqarah (2:219) was revealed: “They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, �?In them is a great sin ...’" Umar was summoned, and it was recited to him. He said, “O Allah, give us a clear ruling on wine,” and the verse which is in Surat al-Nisa (4:43) was revealed: “O you who believe, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated...” When the lqimah for prayer was called, the caller of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ would call out, “Do not approach the prayer while intoxicated.” Umar was summoned, and it was recited to him. He said, “O Allah, give us a clear ruling on wine,” and this verse (al-Ma’idah 5:91) was revealed: “So, will you not desist?" Umar said, “We desisted.”
You just have to laugh.
HOTD 182: Muhammad warns that Allah will turn you into a monkey or pig if you deny predestination. But wait…Allah predestined you to deny it!
Allah is an expert at transmutation. In HOTD 244, Muhammad explains: “Snakes are transmuted jinn, just as monkeys and pigs were transmuted Israelites.�? This references Allah turning Israelites into monkeys and pigs in Quran 5:60.
In today’s mind-bending hadith, Muhammad explains the punishment for denying al-Qadar, or the Divine Decree, which punishment includes transmuting people into animals.
Al-Qari explains the wording of the hadith:
It is said that the meaning of al-Khasf is to be swallowed by the earth, as occurred with Korah and his treasures. As for al-Kaskh, it is the transformation into monkeys, pigs and others, as occurred with people of David and Jesus. … Qadhf, that is, pelting with stones, as occurred with the people of Lut.
In Islam, everything that will ever happen (at least until the Day of Resurrection) is recorded by Allah in a book called al-Lawh al-Mahfuz, the Preserved Tablet, sometimes translated as the Book of Decrees.
Allah did this fifty thousand years before He created the heavens and earth (Muslim 2653).
Abd al-Rahman al-Mahmoud defines al-Qadar:
What is meant by al-Qadar is that Allah has decreed all things from eternity and knows that they will happen at times that are known to Him, and in specific ways, and that He has written that and willed it, and they happen according to what He has decreed.
In Islam, there is no free will. Everything has already been predestined by Allah—including whether Allah is sending you to Paradise or Hell (Muslim 2662b (6768)).
How is Muhammad so blind to not see the irony in Allah punishing a person for denying predestination? Allah Himself predestined that person to deny it!
What kind of sick god would punish a person for something the god made him do?
Hint: Muhammad's hand puppet.
HOTD 181: Hajj Part I: Muhammad copies the pagan Hajj rituals of running between the hills and shaving the head
Muhammad copies the pagan Hajj in its entirety.
Historian al-Shahrastani writes:
They (pagan Arabs) performed Hajj at the House, as well as Umrah, and they would enter Ihram. …They circumambulated seven times around the House, rubbed the (Black) Stone, and performed Sa'i between al-Marwah and al-Safa. …They offered Hadaya (sacrificial animals) and threw stones at the Jamarat (pillars).
Al-Shahrastani, Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, 3/92
In today’s hadith, we address two specific pagan Hajj rituals:
Running between the hills of al-Safa and al-Marwah
Shaving the head
1. Running between the hills of al-Safa and al-Marwah
The Pagan Story:
The pagans had two idols: Isaf (a man) and Na’ila (a woman). These idols were brought by Amr bin Luhayy from Greater Syria to Mecca in the 4th century AD. Isaf was placed on al-Safa and Na’ila on al-Marwah. (Al-Milal wa al-Nihal 3/77-78).
The pagan legend given to the idols is that they are two lovers who went to Mecca to perform Hajj. There they found themselves alone in the Kabah. They had sex there and were transformed into stone as punishment. (Ibn al-Kalbi, Book of Idols, 7). The pagans then began a Hajj ritual of running between the two idols separated from each other on top of the hills of al-Safa and al-Marwah.
While in today’s hadith, it mentions the idols being by the sea shore, it is consensus that the idols were actually on top of the two hills (see discussion in Fath al-Bari 3/500).
Narrated Amir al-Sha'bi:
There was an idol of al-Safa named Isaf and an idol of al-Marwah named Na’ila. The people of the Jahiliyya (Period of Ignorance) would perform Sa'i between them. And when Islam came, they found fault with them, saying, “This was only done by the people of the Jahiliyya for their idols.” And they withheld performing Sa'i between them. Then Allah, Most High, revealed the verse: “Verily, al-Safa and al-Marwah are of the symbols of Allah…”
Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari 3/500. Classed sahih by Ibn Hajar.
Muhammad appropriates the Genesis (21:8-21) story of Hagar and Ishmael unable to find water after being expelled by Abraham in Beersheba, Israel. Muhammad moves the locale 1,200 km south to Mecca. In Muhammad’s account, Hagar decides that the best way to find water is to run back and forth between the tops of two hills (al-Marwah and al-Safa) looking for help. She does this seven times. Then the angel Gabriel comes and hits al-Safa with his heel, causing water to gush out from the Zamzam well. (Bukhari 3364, 3365)
But then why is it not recorded in the Torah that Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael traveled to Mecca?
And if Muhammad’s story were true, why is the Quranic verse so lukewarm about running between the hills?:
So it is not a sin on him who performs Hajj or Umrah of the House to perform the going (Tawaf) between them (al-Safa and al-Marwah). And whoever does good voluntarily, then verily, Allah is All-Recognizer, All-Knower.’” (Quran 2:158)
The narrator in today’s hadith (see full hadith) makes a very good point that based on the wording—“it is not a sin (to do the sa'i)”, then it should not be sinful to forgo it. Why would Allah describe a wajib required ritual as “not a sin (to do it)”? Allah also has a lukewarm endorsement "whoever does good voluntarily."
I believe the reason is obvious. It is because Muhammad doesn’t actually believe in running between the hills—but rather sees it as a useful tool for getting buy-in into Islam from pagans.
2. Shaving the head
Muhammad never created a backstory for shaving the head during Hajj. In the Quran, Muhammad records Allah saying:
Certainly Allah has showed to His Messenger the vision in truth. You will surely enter the Sacred Mosque, if Allah wills, in safety, with your heads shaved and [hair] shortened, without fear… (Quran 48:27)
So the Quran affirms the pagan practice of head shaving, despite there being no religious tradition of Jews or Christians shaving their heads, and in fact, the Hebrew Bible always speaks condemningly toward hair shaving and cutting, identifying it as a pagan practice (Lev. 19:27, Deut. 14:1, Jer. 16:6, 10-13).
• HOTD #181: Sahih Muslim 1277a (3079)
HOTD 180: Hajj Part II: Muhammad copies the pagan Hajj practice of circumambulating the House of Saturn—oops, I mean House of Allah—seven times
Muhammad copies the pagan Hajj in its entirety.
He copies the concept of the Hajj itself, as well Umrah. He copies entering Ihram. He copies circumambulating the Kabah. He copies running between the hills of al-Marwah and al-Safa. He copies shaving the head. He copies throwing stones at the pillars. He copies veneration of the Black Stone.
In fact, seemingly Muhammad’s only significant change was to make it less fun. Where before, most Arabs would circumambulate the Kabah naked, Muhammad changed it to semi-naked.
We all know the apologetics of this. It is that all of these pagan practices—despite never being mentioned in the Bible—were originally sanctioned by Abraham.
But there was no Jewish or Christian equivalent to these practices. There is also no evidence from the Bible that Abraham—or any prophet—ever traveled to Mecca, much less built the Kabah and performed pagan rituals there. (In fact, there is no mention at all of the Kabah.)
Alfred Guillaume writes:
"But there is no historical evidence for the assertion that Abraham or Ishmael was ever in Mecca, and if there had been such a tradition it would have to be explained how all memory of the Old Semitic name Ishmael (which was not in its true Arabian form in Arabian inscriptions and written correctly with an initial consonant Y) came to be lost. The form in the Quran is taken either from Greek or Syriac sources."
Alfred Guillaume, Islam (London: Cassell, 1963), p. 61-62
So if Abraham and Ishmael didn’t build the Kabah, who did?
12th century Muslim historian al-Shahrastani explains the origin of the Kabah per the pagan Arabs:
”The sacred house of Allah is none other than the House of Saturn, and its first builder constructed it based on the observed risings and favorable conjunctions of celestial bodies. He called it ‘House of Saturn,’ and due to its name, its duration is associated with permanence and it is met with reverence. This is because Saturn signifies permanence and long duration, more so than do other celestial bodies.”
10th century Muslim historian al-Masudi writes that, per pagan Arabs, the Kabah was one of seven sacred houses built to represent the seven moving celestial bodies (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn):
”The sacred house (Kabah) is the House of Saturn…The sacred house (Kabah) is one of the seven exalted houses named after the celestial bodies, that is, the illuminated and the five.”
13th century Muslim historian al-Watwat adds that Arabs eventually abandoned star-worship in favor of idolatry, leading to Muhammad’s time:
“Most Arabic tribes were originally star-worshippers, Sabeans. The people of Saba worshipped the Sun, the tribes of Asad and Kaminah the moon, etc. At a later period they all sunk into idolatry, and in the time of Muhammad, the idols round the Kaaba amounted to 360.”
As noted by al-Shahrastani, prior to Islam the pagan Arabs would circumambulate the Kabah seven times. Considering that the Kabah was originally the House of Saturn and one of seven temples devoted to the seven moving celestial bodies, it is likely that the seven circumambulations represent the seven moving celestial bodies.
On the seven circumambulations of the Kabah, 19th century scholar William Muir writes:
"The seven circuits of the Kaaba were probably emblematical of the revolutions of the planetary bodies; and it is remarkable that a similar rite was practiced at other idol fanes in Arabia.”
20th century scholar Samuel Zwemer writes:
He (the pilgrim) then runs around the Ka'aba seven times — thrice very rapidly and four times very slowly — in imitation of the motions of the planets.
Ultimately, there are two options. The first is simple and sensible. The second is convoluted and implausible.
The Hajj is pagan, or
The Hajj and its rituals are Abrahamic even though there is no mention of them in the Bible. Pagan Arabs chose to adopt every one of Abraham’s Hajj rituals—including head-shaving, condemned as a pagan practice in the Bible—but reject every one of Abraham’s religious tenets. And in a remarkable coincidence, the seven Abrahamic circumambulations mimic the movement of the seven visible celestial bodies, which the pagans originally worshipped
• HOTD #180: Sahih Muslim 1219b (2955)
HOTD 179: Muhammad oversells Hajj: 100,000 sins are forgiven when you shave your head. 49 murders are forgiven when you stone the pillars. Says Hajj prayers are as great as freeing an Arab (!) slave
And today we see Muhammad oversell his newly rebranded product.
Muhammad says for every strand of your hair you shave, Allah credits you a hasanah (good deed point) and erases a sin.
The average person has 100,000 hairs on his head, so Allah gives you 100,000 points for shaving your head (possibly 1,000,000 points if Allah is applying His formula of ten points per good deed).
Another way of thinking about this is that just one Hajj head-shaving is equivalent to killing at least 1,000 geckos (HOTD 354).
Muhammad also says Allah will forgive a major sin among al-Mubiqat (Islam’s seven deadly sins, see HOTD 302) for each stone you throw in the “Stoning of the Devil” ritual.
During Hajj, you throw 49 stones at the pillars (70 if you stay an extra day). Allah will thus forgive 49 deadly sins during Hajj, which would include 49 murders—or if you prefer, 49 instances of fleeing the battlefield, 49 acts of sorcery, 49 interest payments in your savings account, etc., or any combination thereof.
So if you murdered 50 or more people, be sure to stay the extra day.
Muhammad also says that the two rakahs (prayer cycles) you recite after circumambulating the Kabah is equivalent to freeing an Arab slave, obviously superior to freeing a black slave.
Muhammad has the remarkable ability to incorporate evil into even the most wholesome actions—like freeing a slave—as he introduces anti-kafirism, sexism, and racism into emancipation. (See HOTD 209 comment.)
To Allah, all people are not equal. It is superior to free Muslims. It is superior to free males. And it is superior to free Arabs (Abu Dawud 5077 “The descendants of Isma'il” refers to Arabs).
Imagine if a white person says a great religious deed is “like freeing a white slave.” People would be justifiably appalled. When the Arab Muhammad says a great religious deed is like freeing an Arab slave, the same standard should apply.
HOTD 178: Muhammad says Indian aloeswood cures pleurisy and six (!) other diseases. Okay, let’s do a double blind clinical study on it. If untrue, Muhammad is a false prophet
Today's hadith focuses on Indian aloeswood. According to Muhammad, it cures seven diseases, a very bold claim.
So which seven diseases? We don’t know. Muhammad is recorded as listing only two: pleurisy (pain in the side of the chest caused by inflammation of the pleura) and tonsillitis.
Muhammad says to cure pleurisy, you must put aloeswood “in the side of your mouth.�? (Bukhari 5692). This is flawless medical logic since pleurisy is in the side of the chest. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There is no scientific study that shows aloeswood cures anything, much less pleurisy.
Interestingly, even in the 14th century, doctors knew aloeswood treatment was bogus.
In his book, The Prophetic Medicine, 14th century Islamic scholar Ibn al-Qayyim defends Muhammad’s aloewood therapy from unbelieving doctors who, Ibn al-Qayyim says, incorrectly rely on “what is proven by experimentation�? rather than “what is sent down of the divine revelation.�?
It's fascinating to me that Islam was already hostile to science in the 1300's.
I recommend reading the book's section on Indian aloeswood (Ibn al-Qayyim, The Prophetic Medicine, 456-458). Ibn al-Qayyim is humorously defensive and says of doctors who deny the benefits of aloeswood:
“Yet the hearts of mankind have a built-in degree of ignorance and injustice, except for those whom Allah has endowed with the light of correct Faith and enlightened their hearts with true guidance.�?
Stupid and pretentious doctors. Thinking they’re so smart with their “proven by experimentation.�? ;)
On a serious note, Muhammad claims to be the Messenger of Allah. As such, he should be held to the highest standard of truthfulness of any human in the world.
And yet we hold Muhammad to the lowest standard of any human being. We demand more integrity and truthfulness from a random neighbor than we do the Messenger of Allah.
Ignoring issues of morality—Muhammad owning sex slaves and deflowering a nine year old girl—Muhammad makes demonstrably false statements like (a) aloeswood cures pleurisy, (b) ajwa dates cure poison (HOTD 259), (c) a child resembles the parent whose sexual discharge was more abundant (HOTD 218), and (d) humans were once 90 feet tall (Bukhari 3326).
At what point do Muslims hold Muhammad accountable for his false statements?
HOTD 177: Muhammad says the Muslims who invade India are guaranteed Heaven. One of history’s worst massacres ensues
I recommend the Apostate Prophet’s excellent YouTube video: The Islamic Conquest of India Prophecy (Ghazwa e-Hind), which discusses this hadith.
In today’s hadith, Muhammad states that there are two groups who are guaranteed Paradise:
The group that invades India
The group that will be with Isa bin Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary)
The Muslim invasion of India—championed by Muhammad—is one of history’s worst human massacres. Sami Aldeeb’s article, Islamic Invasion of India: The Greatest Genocide in History, is an excellent summary of one of humanity’s worst atrocities.
A frequently cited source is K.S. Lal, who states that the Indian population declined by 30 million from 1000 AD to 1800 AD from 200 million to 170 million, because of “killings, deportations and dissemination caused by Mahmud al-Ghazni’s invasions and the activities of his successors.” (K.S. Lal, Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, 89)
So who is the hadith’s “group that invades India,” considering that the invasion occurred over centuries?
The hadith does not mention a specific group or time, and most likely, all Muslim invaders over the 1000+ year period of invasions (from at least Muawiyah in the 7th century to Aurangzeb in the 18th century) are blessed by Allah for their contributions to invading India.
Because of the hadith's mention of the second coming of Jesus, some scholars also suggest that the Indian invasion will be an end of times event to occur under the Mahdi, a descendant of Muhammad who will rule the Muslim ummah for seven years immediately preceding the End of the World.
But IslamQA is likely correct when it writes:
There is nothing to indicate that there will be another invasion of India that will occur at the end of time, close to the onset of the Hour or during the time of ‘Eesaa (peace be upon him), as was suggested by some scholars. Rather what appears to be the case is that what is referred to in the hadith is what actually happened. The hadith of Thawbaan does not mention the connection between the two groups; rather each group has its own time, although both of them may share the same virtue. (IslamQA fatwa 148529)
Regarding “the group that will be with Jesus, son of Mary,” it is unanimously held by the ulama (high Islamic scholars) as referring to the End of the World prophecy in which Jesus will return to the Earth and order everyone to convert to Islam or die.
Sheikh Hassan Abu al-Ashbal states:
”And the second group is in the land of al-Sham (Greater Syria) with Jesus, son of Mary. They will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya, and they will call with the call of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.” (Sharh Sahih Muslim audio, 22/84)
Upon Jesus’ second coming (see Bukhari 2222), Jesus will have a group of Muslims help him:
“Break the cross” (abolish Christianity)
“Kill the pigs” (an exaggerated rebuke to Christians who eat pig meat)
“Abolish the jizya” (remove the jizya extortion tax option and give non-Muslims only two choices in life: convert to Islam or die)
As Ibn Kathir writes, “He (Jesus) will accept nothing except Islam or the sword.”
See also IslamQA’s What is narrated in the Sunnah about the invasion of India.
HOTD 176: Umar is afraid of the future—a future without stoning + the forgotten Verse of Stoning
In the Quran, there once was a verse of stoning in Surah al-Azhab.
There are many hadiths, originating from four different Companions, giving the exact words of the verse as below (sometimes with a few additional words):
“The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, then stone them both.”
Imam Malik explains:
"The words, 'The old man and the old woman,' that is to say, 'a man who has been married and a woman who has been married,' stone them both."
Question: So this verse isn’t in the Quran now. Why?
Answer: Because its recitation was abrogated, but not its ruling.
There are three abrogation categories, the last two being especially stupid, particularly in conjunction with each other. See IslamQA fatwa 105746 for a discussion of the three abrogation categories:
Abrogating both the ruling and recitation
Abrogating the ruling but not the recitation (this is the one people are most familiar with)
Abrogating the recitation but not the ruling (this is where the verse of stoning falls)
This means that Allah doesn’t want to change the ruling of the verse of stoning. He just wants it out of the Mushaf, the printed and recited Quran.
"He meant the Verse of stoning, 'The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, then stone them both,' and this is one whose recitation was abrogated while its ruling remained."
Ibn Hajar writes:
"'And I am afraid that they will go astray and forsake an obligation that Allah revealed,' that is, the mentioned Verse whose recitation was abrogated while its ruling remained. And what Umar feared occurred. A group—perhaps most—of the Khawarij and some of the Mu’tazilah rejected stoning."
This hadith greatly undermined my belief in Islam—but not for the reason it should have. While the barbaric inhumanity of stoning and of Umar himself should have been my main problems, instead, my main problem was this:
It is stupid, no, beyond stupid, that Allah would:
Reveal a verse
Kick the verse out of the Quran
Say that everything about the verse is still totally valid
And simultaneously keep cancelled invalid verses in the Quran
So Allah keeps cancelled verses in the Quran while removing non-cancelled verses.
It’s just so stupid and obviously the result of Muhammad’s ineptitude, rather than Allah's wisdom.
See also IslamQA’s "Soorat al-Ahzaab was as long as Soorat al-Baqarah, then most of it was abrogated."
HOTD 175: Umar divorces new wife when he discovers she has some grey hair. Says “A mat in a house is better than a woman who cannot bear children”
In this noble hadith, Umar has sex with his new wife. Presumably because she wasn't wearing head covering, Umar discovers she has salt and pepper hair.
Umar, astutely (/s) realizing his new wife must be infertile because of her grey hair, divorces her. He lovingly (/s) tells her: "A mat in a house is better than a woman who cannot bear children.”
Umar recognizes that his new wife wants very much to have children, but he explains that he must nevertheless divorce her because Muhammad said: “Marry one who is loving and fertile, for I will boast of your great numbers before the nations on the Day of Resurrection.”
Umar's moniker is al-Faruq, which means "the one who distinguishes between right and wrong."
And embraces wrong.
HOTD 174: Muhammad says all animals hear dead humans speak in their coffins
In this glorious hadith, we learn so much.
We learn that dead humans speak in their coffins.
We learn exactly what the dead humans say in their coffins
We learn that ALL animals (and Jinn too) hear the dead humans speak in their coffins
We learn that if Allah mercifully gave humans 100% proof of the afterlife—by hearing dead humans speak—we would fall down unconscious from the shock
The key to Islam’s truth is to make all claims unverifiable.
• HOTD #174: Sahih al-Bukhari 1380
HOTD 173: Muhammad says drinking standing up is even worse than drinking with a cat. It’s like drinking with Satan! So vomit it out
In multiple hadiths Muhammad forbids drinking while standing.
It was narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade drinking while standing. (Muslim 2025b)
“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘No one among you should drink while standing. Whoever forgets, let him make himself vomit.’�? (Muslim 2026)
Question: So why does Muhammad forbid drinking while standing?
Answer: No one knows. As far as I know, he never gives a reason why.
And while Muhammad forbids drinking while standing, there are multiple hadiths in which Muhammad drinks while standing. This is a common contradiction in which Muhammad does exactly what he says is forbidden.
Obviously, scholars cannot say the obvious: Muhammad is a hypocrite, or, more gently, inconsistent. Rather, the scholars' answer is usually “abrogation�? or “special concession.�?
But in this case, most scholars say the reconciliation is that Muhammad didn’t really mean “forbid,�? but rather that it is simply disliked.
There is no contradiction in these hadiths, praise be to Allah, and none of them are da'if. Rather they are all sahih. The correct view is that the forbidding mentioned in them is to be understood as meaning that it is disliked. The fact that the he ﷺ drank while standing indicates that it is permissible to do so. There is no uncertainty or contradiction. This is all that needs to be said on the matter.
This is a weak explanation by al-Nawawi because Muhammad specifically uses the words zajr (rebuke) and naha (forbid).
Al-Albani, explaining that drinking while standing is haram, has a much better explanation:
The majority of the scholars hold the opinion that the prohibition is not a total prohibition, and that the command of vomiting after having drunk liquid is only a recommended action.
Ibn Hazm opposed them in this, and went with the ruling of the prohibition to drink while standing, and perhaps this opinion is closer to being correct.
As for the opinion that it is not a total prohibition, then the wording zajr (rebuke) does not support that opinion, nor does the command to vomit. And what I mean by this is that vomiting is a severe hardship upon humans, and I am not aware of such a hardship in the Shariah as a consequence for being lax about a recommended action! Likewise, the saying of the Messenger ﷺ: ‘The Shaitan has drunk with you.’ Then this is a strict deterrent from drinking while standing, and it cannot be inferred from this, that it is possible to say that, not sitting while drinking is merely leaving a recommended action.
As for the hadiths which mention drinking while standing, then we can assume that this is when there is an excuse for it, like if there is no space to sit, or that it is a hanging water skin and you need to reach it and this point has been indicated in some hadiths. And Allah knows best.
And remember the other important lesson from Muhammad: Drinking with a cat is like drinking with the Shaitan!
The words of a wise prophet or of an unhinged kook?
HOTD 172: Muhammad says artists—not sex slave owners, not child molesters, not murderers—will be “the most severely punished” by Allah
In today’s hadith, Muhammad—a sex-slave owner who deflowered a nine year-old girl and decapitated all 400 men of a Jewish tribe while enslaving their women and children—explains who will be the most severely punished on the Day of Resurrection.
It’s the artists!
Scholars state it is specifically artists who make images (i.e., statues or pictures) of people or animals.
Images are so bad that, in a famous hadith, Muhammad says angels won’t enter houses with images or dogs (Bukhari 3322).
The reason Muhammad gives for the image-ban is that Allah is offended when people attempt to match His creation. Muhammad boldly quotes Allah:
"Allah, Exalted and Glorified is He, said: 'Who does more wrong than the one who tries to imitate My creation? Let them create an ant, or let them create a grain of wheat, or let them create a grain of barley.'" (Muslim 2111a)
Interestingly, this hadith arguably contradicts the premise that it is okay to make images of plants.
Many Muslims say Muhammad’s complete ban on images is because of the potential for idol worship. This has little support in the Hadith literature. At best, one can say Muhammad implies that images in graves can encourage idol-worship (Bukhari 427).
There is also a story where Ibn Abbas says certain Arab idols used to be statues of righteous people of Noah, which statues the Shaitan tricked people into making and then worshiping by placing them where the righteous people used to sit. (Bukhari 4920)
But Muhammad's blanket prohibition on all images—such as benign animal prints on curtains—is based on Allah being upset at people trying to match His creation. In addition to Muslim 2111a above, see:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "Those who make images will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them: 'Bring to life that which you have created.'" (Muslim 2108)
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ entered upon me and I had covered a niche of mine with a thin curtain on which there were images. When he saw it, he tore it down, and his face changed color and he said, “O Aishah, the people who will be most severely punished by Allah on the Day of Resurrection will be those who imitate the creation of Allah.” (Muslim 2107i)
(Other hadiths specify that this curtain’s “creation of Allah” was winged horses.)
Since Muhammad says that artists will be the “MOST SEVERELY PUNISHED” of all people on the Day of Resurrection, one would think there would be at least one verse condemning artists in the Quran. But there is not a single verse.
In fact, there is a verse (34:13) in which Allah has Jinn make statues for Solomon per Solomon's wishes.
It reminds me of how Muhammad makes a huge deal about the Dajjal (Antichrist), saying:
“Between the creation of Adam and the onset of the Hour there is no creation that has more impact than the Dajjal.” (Muslim 2946a)
...but then doesn’t mention the Dajjal once in the Quran.
• HOTD #172: Sahih al-Bukhari 5950
HOTD 171: Muhammad says the "most virtuous charity" is slave labor for Jihad
Muhammad perverts the noble concept of charity with the evil concepts of slavery and jihad against infidels.
I originally thought that the best charity is giving stuff to the poor, but thankfully, Muhammad set me straight. The best charity is giving stuff to jihadis, people trying to kill non-Muslims.
It should be noted that the “cause of Allah” is a euphemism for jihad unless the context makes it clear otherwise. And that is why this hadith is in Jami al-Tirmidhi’s "The Chapters on the Virtues of Jihad."
And Muhammad answers the question, “What is jihad?”
…He asked, “What is jihad?” He said, “That you fight (qatil, really, 'try to kill') the infidels when you encounter them.” He asked, “Which jihad is best?” He said, “That of a man whose blood is shed and whose horse is felled.”
Al-Mubarakfuri explains today’s hadith:
“‘The service of a slave in the cause of Allah’ …The meaning of this statement is the service of a slave, in which the slave is a gift to the Mujahid (jihadi) to serve him or labor for him. ‘Or the shade of a tent’…To turn out a tent under which the Mujahid may be shaded, that is, erecting a tent of palm leaves or wool for the fighters to use as shade. ‘Or a mount’ …This means a she-camel or a mare which has matured to the point where the stallion may cover her. She is given to him (the Mujahid) to ride as a loan or the like, or as a gift.”
“‘Or a mount’ …Moreover, it is a she-camel which is able to be covered by a stallion. Her minimum age should be a little over three years. This is known as a Hiqqa camel. This means that the fighter should be given a servant, or a she-camel with these characteristics. That is the best charity.”
• HOTD #171: Jami al-Tirmidhi 1626. (Note that Abu Khaliyl mistranslated ʻabd as "worshipper" rather than "slave," which is its correct meaning in this hadith.) Classed hasan by al-Albani and al-Arna’ut.
HOTD 170: “The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or an image”
In today's famous hadith, Muhammad conveys knowledge from the angel Gabriel:
”…He (Gabriel) said, ‘Yes, but we do not enter any house in which there is a dog or an image.’ The next morning, the Messenger of Allah ordered that all dogs be killed…”
This resulted in Muhammad's Medina dog massacre (HOTD 243).
Al-Nawawi sums up the angels’ rationale:
“The scholars said: The reason why they refuse to enter a house in which there is an image is the fact that it is a grievous sin and is competing with the creation of Allah, may He be exalted. And some images represent that which is worshipped instead of Allah, may He be exalted.
The reason why they refuse to enter a house in which there is a dog is that dogs frequently eat impure things. And because some of them are called a devil, as recorded in the Hadith, and the angels are repulsed by the devils. And the foul smell of the dog, and the angels hate the foul smell.”
As confirmed by al-Nawawi, the angels’ hatred of images stems from humans trying to match Allah’s creation. This offends Allah. Muhammad quotes Allah:
"Allah, Exalted and Glorified is He, said: 'Who does more wrong than the one who tries to imitate My creation? Let them create an ant, or let them create a grain of wheat, or let them create a grain of barley.'" (Muslim 2111a)
And thus artists will be the most severely punished by Allah on the Day of Resurrection:
HOTD 172: Muhammad says artists—not sex slave owners, not child molesters, not murderers—will be “the most severely punished” by Allah.
For a review of Muhammad's feelings on dogs, see:
HOTD 243: Muhammad "a mercy to the worlds" massacres the dogs in Medina
HOTD 275: Muhammad likens women to donkeys and dogs
HOTD 279: Celebrated dog-hater Muhammad says Allah gives daily demerits for keeping a dog, reducing your chance of going to Heaven
HOTD 313: Muhammad says buying a dog is as bad as prostitution
HOTD 338: Muhammad says black dogs are devils and should all be killed
• HOTD #170: Sahih al-Bukhari 3322
HOTD 169: Muhammad says archangel Gabriel didn’t visit because of a puppy in his house. Muhammad then orders all dogs be killed: the Medina dog massacre
In HOTD 243, Muhammad commands the massacre of dogs in Medina:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to order that dogs be killed, and I went throughout al-Madinah, and we did not spare any dog but we killed it, to such an extent that we would even kill the dog of a woman belonging to the desert people.
In today’s hadith, we learn the reason for the Medina dog massacre:
Muhammad says Gabriel didn’t visit him because there was a puppy in his house. When Gabriel finally arrived in the evening, he said, “We do not enter any house in which there is a dog or an image.” Muhammad then orders that all dogs—except those guarding large gardens—be killed.
Today’s hadith is also the source of Muhammad’s famous saying, “The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or an image.” (HOTD 170)
The apologetics for the Medina dog massacre is that there must have been an outbreak of rabies in Medina. This is not supported by the Hadith literature. I am unaware of any hadith that suggests there was an outbreak of rabid dogs in Medina.
However, today’s hadith from Sahih Muslim explains exactly why Muhammad ordered the mass killing of dogs in Medina. It’s because Gabriel didn't visit Muhammad when there was a puppy in his house, and because the reason given is that angels don't visit houses with dogs in them.
In discussing today’s hadith, Shuʻayb al-Arna’ut directly ties the Gabriel incident with the Medina dog massacre:
”’The next morning, he ordered that all dogs be killed,’ which was first presented in narration 4744 within the chapter of hadiths containing the Musnad of Ibn Umar.”
4744. It was narrated from Ibn Umar that the Prophet ﷺ ordered that dogs be killed, to such an extent that we even killed the dog of a woman who came from the desert.
Muhammad eventually changed his mind about killing all dogs, stating that one should only kill black dogs (Abu Dawud 2846) and vicious dogs (Muslim 1198). Scholars are divided on whether the command to kill black dogs, which Muhammad calls "devils" (HOTD 338), was ever abrogated.
• HOTD #169: Sahih Muslim 2105 (5513)
HOTD 168: Muhammad “a mercy to the worlds” commands the killing of people who drink wine four times
Ahmad Shakir is one of the great muhadditheen of the 20th century, perhaps best known for his hadith authentications of Tafsir al-Tabari and Musnad Ahmad.
But his greatest contribution to the world is The Definitive Word on Killing the Habitual Wine Drinker, a 100-page book focused on proving that Muhammad’s order to kill wine drinkers on the fourth instance is permanent and not abrogated.
The term khamr, which means wine, is extended to all alcoholic drinks. As Muhammad makes clear, “All drinks that intoxicate are unlawful.” (Bukhari 5585)
The authenticity of today’s hadith, transmitted by multiple Companions, is not disputed.
Question: Why is no one being killed for drinking alcohol now?
Answer: The primary reason is a hadith, classed daʻif (weak) by al-Albani, which suggests that the command was abrogated:
Narrated Qabisah bin Dhuʻaib:
The Prophet ﷺ said: “Whoever drinks Khamr (wine), flog him, and if he repeats it, flog him, then if he repeats it flog him, and if he repeats it a third or fourth time, then execute him.”
A man who had drunk Khamr was brought to him and he flogged him, then he was brought to him and he flogged him, then he was brought to him and he flogged him, then he did not execute that man, and it was a concession.
There are two main problems with this hadith:
1- Qabisah bin Dhuʻaib was two years old when Muhammad died. It is impossible that he heard this from Muhammad.
For al-Albani, this deficiency renders the hadith daʻif. In contrast, al-Arna’ut is willing to presume that Qabisah bin Dhuʻaib heard it from a Companion of Muhammad.
2- Muhammad never states that the command is abrogated. The concession may have been unique to that one man. The command’s abrogation is presumed.
And this is the problem. There is not a single hadith in which Muhammad clearly abrogates the command.
Shams al-Haqq al-Azimabadi, quoting al-Sindi, writes:
”These are some ten hadiths, all of which are sahih and explicit about killing in the fourth instance. There is nothing that explicitly counters it. The statement of those who say that it has been abrogated is not backed by any proof.”
Ibn Taymiyyah strikes a middle ground, believing that killing the wine drinker is not obligatory, but rather discretionary.
"It is a tazʿir (discretionary punishment) that an imam makes when necessary."
Ultimately, I believe that early Muslims used iffy narrations to allow their innate sense of morality to overrule the Hadd punishment of the Prophet. And this is a good thing.
But not all Muslims:
Narrated al-Hasan al-Basri:
”By Allah, they claimed that Abdullah bin Amr testified on the basis that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘If he drinks khamr (wine), whip him; then if he drinks again, whip him; then if he drinks again, whip him. If he is at his fourth instance, then strike his neck (i.e., kill him).’” He said, “Abdullah bin Amr would say, ‘Bring me a man who has been whipped for khamr four times, I owe it to you to strike his neck.’”
Whether or not abrogated, Muhammad's command to kill for drinking wine is depraved. It is disproportionate to the supposed "crime." It is the opposite of mercy from someone who claims to be "a mercy to the worlds."
And it highlights the lunacy of Islam, where sex slavery is halal—and drinking wine can be worthy of death.
HOTD 167: Muhammad: This one weird trick stops genies from staring at your genitalia. Devils hate him
♫ ♪ Bismillah, we will not let you go…stare at our genitalia ♫ ♪
This invaluable hadith should be combined with HOTD 305 for full protection from the many devils that hang out in toilets.
Ibn Uthaymin explains the benefits of the two toilet statements:
The benefit of saying “Bismillah” is that it conceals a person. The benefit of turning to Allah is that one is seeking refuge with Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, from the male and female devils, for this place is khabeeth filthy and a filthy place is the abode of those who are khubatha’ evil. So it is the abode of the devils. Thus it is appropriate if one wants to enter the toilet to say, “I seek refuge with Allah from the male and female devils” so that he will not be harmed by evil or these evil souls.
A strange thing to me is that jinn, who are so different from humans that they don’t even occupy the same dimension, really want to stare at human genitalia.
But then again, jinn and humans can both have sex with houris (Quran 55:56) so maybe we’re not all that different.
I can’t believe I used to believe this sh*t.
See also IslamQA’s How can a person conceal himself from the jinn when in the toilet?
HOTD 166: Muhammad says the illegitimate child is more evil than the parents. A Companion says he would rather donate a whip than free an illegitimate child-slave
Muhammad is evil for uttering these words.
Because this is so obviously stupid, the Salaf and scholars have tried valiantly to justify the stupidity.
Everyone acknowledges there is no way an illegitimate child can be held responsible for his parents' zina, as that would violate basic fairness and the Quran’s “and no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another.” (6:164)
The most common apologetics originate from Sufyan al-Thawri, a Tabi al-Tabi'un (3rd generation Salaf) and Islamic scholar.
The Messenger of Allah was asked about an illegitimate child. He said, “He is the most evil of the three.” Sufyan said, “Meaning, if he does the same action as his parents did.”
This is straining the meaning of a simple statement.
And it is dubious that a person who commits zina should be considered worse than his fornicating parents. If a child with alcoholic parents becomes an alcoholic himself, is he worse than his parents? If anything, he is less to blame because he was given a more difficult upbringing.
Sufyan’s interpretation is also inconsistent with the comment of Abu Hurairah—who was actually with Muhammad when he said it.
However, Abu Hurairah's comment is consistent with Ibn al-Qayyim's explanation:
“It is stated as a disparagement, ‘He is the most evil of the three.’ It is a hasan hadith, and its meaning is correct in this regard, for the evil of the parents serves as a handicap. The nutfah (drop of male and female mixed discharge) is malevolent, for it is evil in its origin and from the actions of the evil parents.”
Ultimately, Abu Hurairah’s words speak to Muhammad’s true meaning. Abu Hurairah believes illegitimate children are so innately evil that he would rather give as little as a whip to charity than free an illegitimate child-slave.
And today I have perfected for you your religion.
HOTD 165: Muhammad says the End of the World has begun. …1400 years later, still nothing
The Hour means the End of the World.
Imagine you are a Companion of Muhammad. Muhammad says to you, “The Hour and I have been sent together, such that it almost preceded me.”
By “together” are you thinking “within 1400 years?” By “almost preceded me,” are you thinking “might come 1400 years after me?”
Add to this:
Muhammad has told you that Allah just opened a hole in the iron and copper wall that was preventing Gog & Magog from attacking the Earth. (Muslim 2881)
Muhammad has told you that he just found out that the Dajjal (Antichrist) is now on earth, chained up on an island “in the east,” planning his attack, saying, “Soon I will be given permission to emerge.” (Muslim 2942a)
Muhammad has told you he may be alive to help out with this Dajjal attack. (Ibn Majah 4075)
Muhammad makes it clear that he doesn’t know the exact time of the Hour, but he also makes it clear to the Companions that it is soon.
One of the common justifications by classical scholars of this hadith, particularly the version in which Muhammad indicates nearness of the Hour with his two fingers, is that it may simply mean that that there will be no prophet between Muhammad and the Hour.
But that cannot be the case because, as shown in Musnad Ahmad 22947, Muhammad is clearly referring to nearness in time.
However, the discovery of the age of the Earth by kuffar scientists has produced a new justification—perhaps the most popular among modern apologists: Relative to the very old age of the Earth of 4.5 billion years, 1400 years is not that long.
The first issue is that neither Muhammad nor his Companions had any idea this was the true age of the world. Islam is consistent with Judeo-Christian belief that Adam first appeared about 4,000 BC. Islam adds another 2000 years prior to Adam in which Jinn ruled the earth, until “soldiers from the angels” chased them away to the “islands of the seas.” (Quran 2:30, Al-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak 3035)
There is no acknowledgement of which I am aware that the Earth existed for more than 6,000-7,000 years at Muhammad’s time.
And the second issue: Let’s look at the most common version of this hadith and a similar hadith about orphan sponsors:
Narrated Anas: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘The Hour and I have been sent like these two,’ and he held his forefinger and middle finger together.” (Muslim 2951e (7408))
Narrated Sahl bin Saʻd: “The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘I and the one who sponsors an orphan will be in Paradise like these two,’ and he indicated this with his fingers, meaning his forefinger and middle finger.” (Jami al-Tirmidhi 1918. Classed sahih by al-Albani and al-Arna’ut.)
Muhammad uses the same expression and gesture to indicate both:
the nearness between him and the Hour, and
the nearness between him and an orphan sponsor in Paradise.
Allah helpfully indicates the size of Paradise:
And march forth in the way (which leads to) forgiveness from your Lord, and for Paradise as wide as are the heavens and the earth, prepared for the pious (Quran 3:133)
Race one with another toward forgiveness from your Lord and toward Paradise, whose width is as the width of the heaven and the earth, prepared for those believe in Allah and His Messengers (Quran 57:21)
Thankfully, kuffar scientists, in addition to calculating the age of the Earth and universe, have calculated the width of the universe, i.e., the heavens.
The universe is 93 billion light-years wide, or 544,887,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles wide.
Does an orphan sponsor who hears Muhammad tell him that they will be as close together in Paradise "as these two fingers" believe that they will be 165 quadrillion miles apart in Paradise? Of course not.
And neither would a Companion believe that the End of the World could be more than 1400 years away.
The bottom line is that Muhammad gave the Companions a false view to the immediacy of the End of the World—a false view from a false prophet.
HOTD 164: Muhammad—who deflowers a child—says a child is “mutilated” when raised Jewish or Christian. Says every child is born Muslim
In this hadith, Muhammad achieves peak arrogance and says everyone is born Muslim.
The word Fitrah in this hadith means the "natural state" and refers to Islam. Sahih Muslim 2658e, which is the same hadith using the term hadhihi al-millat (this religion) rather than al-fitrah, makes it clear that Muhammad is specifically referring to Islam—that all babies are born Muslim.
In addition, the Tabiʿun (Successors) Mujahid, Ikrimah mawla of Ibn Abbas, and Umar bin Muhammad bin Zayd, all state that the Fitrah specifically means Islam. (Tafsir al-Tabari 18/493-494)
A basic element in dawah (proselytizing Islam) is to make the non-Muslim believe that by converting to Islam, she is in fact “reverting” back to her pure, childlike spiritual state. Quran 30:30 and today’s hadith (typically omitting the “mutilating” part) is used as scriptural support.
This is why some converts without irony call themselves “reverts”—confident in their understanding of Islam after reading dawah pamphlets.
Jews must laugh at this. There is great irony in the term “revert” because it’s supposed to mean pure monotheism with no shirk (associating partners with God). Yet Islam not only glorifies and exalts a human being—which is already improper—but a human being who commits the worst kind of shirk: associating HIMSELF as a partner of Allah.
Muhammad negotiated Shariah with Allah, resulting in Allah reducing the daily required prayers from fifty to five. Rather than accept Allah’s wisdom, Muhammad went back and forth with Allah until Allah reduced the prayers down to five (Bukhari 3207). Negotiating Shariah is one of the greatest acts of shirk imaginable. Not to mention Muhammad’s enormous powers of intercession in the afterlife (Bukhari 7510).
While Muhammad’s statement that all babies are born Muslim is arrogant, it is also incorrect. Before anyone is born, Allah has already predestined them for Paradise or Hell (Muslim 2662a, 2262b). As 100% of Muslims eventually go to Paradise and 100% of non-Muslims go to eternal Hell, the babies Allah predestines to be people of eternal Hell cannot be Muslim. Their Fitrah, or natural state, is to be non-Muslim.
If babies are somehow all born into Islam, then it is Allah Himself—not the parents—who “mutilates” the babies because it is Allah who predestined their change of religion when He created them as people of Hell.
“Islam is always superior and can never be surpassed”—except in women’s rights, children’s rights, advancement of the arts and sciences, economic development, sustaining peace, etc. …
This is a supplement to HOTD 164, in which Muhammad says everyone is born Muslim and then parents mutilate them by raising them Jewish or Christian.
In this hadith, Muhammad—sounding more like an insecure Patriots fan than a secure prophet—says “Islam is always superior and can never be surpassed.”
The inherent superiority of Muslims is a central tenet of Islam. It is expressed in this hadith, and it is expressed by Allah to Muslims:
“You are the best of people ever brought forth to mankind.” (Quran 3:110)
The hadith: "Islam is always superior and can never be surpassed" is well known among fuqaha (Islamic jurists), who often cite it in their rulings, including:
Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men (Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu al-Fatawa 32/185)
Muslims can inherit from non-Muslims but not vice versa—despite a clear sahih hadith saying that no inter-religion inheritance is allowed (Fiqh Saʻid bin al-Musayyab 3/161)
Captured children—even when with their non-Muslim parents—should be forced to convert to Islam (Ibn Abd al-Barr, Tamhid 18/140)
The testimony of a non-Muslim against a Muslim is invalid (Sarakhsi, Mabsut 16/134)
And perhaps most commonly, this hadith is used to support the humiliation of dhimmis (non-Muslims living under Muslim rule), including:
Dhimmis are forbidden from building houses that are taller than Muslim houses (Ibn al-Qayyim, Ahl al-Dhimmah 3/1220)
Christian dhimmis may not build new churches, display a cross, ring bells, illuminate lights, etc. (Khallal, Ahl al-Milal 971)
Regarding the humiliation of dhimmis, this hadith is used in conjunction with Quran 9:29, in which Allah orders that non-Muslims be given three choices in life: convert, die, or pay the jizya extortion tax.
Allah gives one and only one reason for the jizya: to humiliate (saghirun, literally: “make small”) the non-Muslim.
HOTD 163: Muhammad has woman breastfeed a grown man. Aisha then orders her nieces to breastfeed adult men
This hadith begins with the incident, discussed in HOTD 331, in which Muhammad has a woman breastfeed her adult, bearded, adopted son in order to create a “relationship through breast-feeding.”
For more details on the insanity of Islam’s relationships through breastfeeding, see HOTD 321.
Today's hadith had a particularly strong impact on me because it shows breastfeeding adult men—rather than being one-time insanity from Muhammad—is meant as Sunnah for eternity.
In this hadith, Aisha orders her nieces to breastfeed any unrelated male that Aisha wants to visit her, including adult men. Her nieces would breastfeed them, making Aisha the men’s great-aunt, and then they would visit Aisha—with Aisha not needing to worry about the hijab or a mahram.
Muhammad’s other wives are understandably horrified by this and refuse to do it, saying, “By Allah, we do not know, for this might have been a concession from the Prophet ﷺ to Salim.”
This makes clear that Muhammad never said the Salim incident was an exception. It is simply wishful thinking by the the wives that “this might have been a concession.” But Aisha, who knows Muhammad and Islam better than any other wife, says that this was not case-specific.
Those who argue that breastfeeding adult men is not allowed point to a hadith in which Muhammad, albeit in jealous anger, explains to Aisha that “breastfeeding is from hunger”:
The Messenger of Allah entered upon me and there was a man sitting with me. He got upset about that, and I saw the anger in his face. I said, “O Messenger of Allah, he is my brother through breastfeeding.” He said, “Be careful who you count as your brothers, for breastfeeding is from hunger.”
Al-Shawkani and Ibn Hajar both address this hadith. Al-Shawkani directly says it does not refer to adult breastfeeding, and that adult breastfeeding is allowed (Nayl al-Awtar 6/375).
Ibn Hajar says that it doesn't have to refer to adult breastfeeding, and that Aisha is well within reason to believe in the continued permissibility of adult breastfeeding. (Fath al-Bari 9/148-149)
Ibn Taymiyyah explains there is no inconsistency:
”This hadith (Salah breastfeeding the adult Salim) was accepted by Aisha, but the other wives of the Prophet ﷺ refused to accept it even though Aisha narrated it. He said, “Breastfeeding is from hunger.” But she saw the difference between when it is meant for suckling and for nourishment. If it is the latter purpose, a mahram relationship is not established except before weaning. And this is “suckling” for the general public. As for the first, it is permissible if it is required for her to create a mahram relationship. It may be permissible for a need that is not permissible under normal circumstances. This is a statement of judgment.”
Ibn al-Qayyim concludes:
”The hadith of Salah is not abrogated. It is neither specific (to that case), nor is it broadly applicable. It is simply a license addressing the need of someone who has to enter upon a woman, and from whom seclusion is burdensome. This is like the case of Salim with the wife of Abu Hudhaifah. If this adult is breastfed by her due to a need, then the breastfeeding produces such effect.”
For the present-day legitimacy and relevance of breastfeeding adult men, see al-Albani's discussion in HOTD 163 supplement.
These hadiths were the basis of a famous 2007 fatwa from the Head of the Department of Hadith at Al-Azhar University stating that a woman is allowed to work with a non-mahram man only if she first directly breastfeeds him. Al-Azhar fired him because of the embarrassment his fatwa caused.
In defending himself, the scholar stated:
“My statements on the issue of breastfeeding an adult were based on the imams Ibn Hazm, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Shawkani and Amin Khattab, and on conclusions I drew from the statements of Ibn Hajar.”
Al-Watani Al-Yawm, May 22, 2007 (Quote accessed here)
Yeah, but what do they know?
Al-Albani explains legitimacy and current relevance of breastfeeding adult men
The muhaddith Nasiruddin al-Albani is probably the greatest Islamic scholar of the past hundred years.
Al-Albani explains how the practice of breastfeeding adult men—established by Muhammad—is legitimate and relevant for the present-day.
He gives a hypothetical example in which a Christian couple converts to Islam. The couple lives in the same house with the husband’s brother.
Now that the wife is Muslim, she is not allowed to be around a non-mahram (a man who would be marriageable to her) except under strict conditions, in particular the need for a mahram and hijab.
Al-Albani explains that this can be solved through the example set by Muhammad in which he had a woman breastfeed her adopted son, who was now an adult, in order that they can be in the same house together. (Allah voided adoption when Muhammad wanted to marry his adopted son’s wife. Quran 33:4)
In his hypothetical example, al-Albani explains that the convert wife can breastfeed her brother-in-law. This would make the brother-in-law her son through breastfeeding.
And the three can all live together happily ever after.
And today I have perfected for you your religion.
• HOTD #163 supplement: Nasiruddin al-Albani, Breastfeeding of Adults, Audio: 4:05-5:25, 10:06-11:08
HOTD 162: Muhammad says fish pray to Allah—seeking forgiveness for Islamic scholars
Muhammad teaches a valuable lesson:
There is no limit to the insanity you can spew when your companions are too gullible, fearful and addicted to slaves and booty, to call out your lies.
HOTD 161: Muhammad says Allah allows all "Arabian" horses to pray at 5 am + The exact words of the horse prayer
In HOTD 162, Muhammad tells us that horses—and all animals, even fish—selflessly pray to Allah for the forgiveness of Islamic scholars.
And in today’s hadith, Muhammad teaches us that Allah allows Arabian horses (always with the Arab favoritism) to make a special self-seeking prayer, too.
Assuming that the Arabian horse wakes up before daybreak, Allah lets the horse recite a prayer in which the horse supplicates for two things:
To be the dearest of his owner’s family (more than the owner’s wife and kids?)
To be the dearest of his owner’s wealth (horses compare themselves to jewels and slaves?)
Because that’s obviously what horses care most about.
My favorite part of this ridiculous duʻa that Muhammad—oops, I mean Allah—scripted is that the horses refer to people as the “sons of Adam.”
Arabian horses apparently know the Abrahamic narrative on the origin of humans.
See also commentary in Hashiyat al-Sindi ʿala Sunan al-Nasa’i 6/223.
HOTD 160: Muhammad says Allah gives only 50% credit for prayers performed sitting. He then gets caught praying while sitting. He justifies: “Yes, but I am not like any one of you”
One of the classic characteristics of a cult leader is that his rules don't apply to himself.
Perhaps the most famous of privileges Muhammad gives himself is unlimited wives, rather than abide by the four-wife limit of the Quran.
Today begins a five-part series in which Muhammad illustrates how his own rules don’t apply to him.
In today’s hadith, Muhammad explains that Allah gives only half credit—i.e., only five hasanah points per letter instead of ten (Tirmidhi 2910)—for nafil supererogatory prayers performed while sitting. (Sitting is not an option for the five obligatory prayers.)
But then Muhammad gets caught, by a Companion, praying while sitting. When the Companion calls him out on it, Muhammad’s reply is “Yes, but I am not like any one of you.”
That one sentence beautifully summarizes Islam.
Al-Nawawi explains the hadith:
”It is one of the unique characteristics of the Prophet ﷺ that his nafil (supererogatory) prayers offered sitting when he was able to stand were like his nafil prayers offered standing, as an honor for him, as he was similarly singled out in other matters well-known in the books of our companions (Shafiʻi scholars) and others. We have detailed them in the beginning of Tahdhib al-Asma’ wa-al-Lughat.”
Thank you Imam. So if you’d like to read up on all of the special privileges Allah gives Muhammad—the truthfulness of which can be confirmed only by Muhammad—read Tahdhib al-Asma’ wa-al-Lughat 1/37-44.
• HOTD #160: Sahih Muslim 735a (1715)
HOTD 159: While married to nine women, Muhammad—believing polygamy would hurt his own daughter—won’t let Ali marry another woman
Ali was married to Muhammad’s daughter, Fatimah. He proposed marriage to another woman, which made Fatimah complain to Muhammad (Bukhari 3729).
Muhammad then forbade the marriage, giving two main reasons for forbidding the marriage. Al-Nawawi writes:
“He ﷺ recognized that the marriage of the daughter of Abu Jahl to Ali was permissible when he ﷺ said, “I do not forbid what is halal.” But he forbade joining them together for two reasons. One is that this would have led to hurting Fatimah, in which case it would have hurt the Prophet ﷺ too, and the one who hurts him is doomed. For that reason he forbade him to do that, out of compassion towards Ali, and towards Fatimah. And the second is fear that this would put her to trial (with regard to her religious commitment) because of jealousy.”
Al-Nawawi’s comment about it being an act of “compassion” from Muhammad to Ali is laughable.
It is remarkable Muhammad doesn’t want his own daughter to be hurt by polygamy because it hurts him, but then he hurts his own wives through polygamy—which apparently doesn’t hurt him.
And two of his wives are the daughters of his closest Companions. Muhammad seemingly cares little about how having eight co-wives may hurt Aishah and Hafsah, or their respective fathers, Abu Bakr and Umar (though it’s hard to imagine Umar caring).
Ibn Hajar adds that there may be a blanket prohibition against any of Muhammad’s daughters having co-wives, not just Fatimah:
"The context indicates that it was permissible for Ali, but the Prophet ﷺ disallowed it out of care for Fatimah’s feelings, and Ali accepted it out of obedience to the instructions of the Prophet ﷺ. Thus it seems to me that it is not far-fetched to suggest that one of the unique characteristics of the Prophet ﷺ was that his sons-in-law were not to marry other wives when they were married to his daughters. Or it may be that this is something that applied only to Fatimah."
Muhammad also says:
"By Allah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and the daughter of the enemy of Allah will never be joined together in one place." (Muslim 2449c)
This is a dubious statement. Abu Jahl, the Quraishi leader, died six years earlier. And his daughter was now Muslim. The Quran states, “and no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another,” (6:164) but somehow it doesn’t apply to the Muslim woman Ali wants to marry.
Additionally, it is hypocritical that Muhammad has no problem making his own wives co-wives with Juwayriyah and Safiyyah, who were also “daughters of the enemies of Allah.” Is it only when the "daughter of the enemy of Allah" is gorgeous and Muhammad wants to have sex with her that she is allowed to join Muhammad’s family?
Regardless, there is no scholar of which I am aware who states Muhammad would permit Ali to take a second wife, even if she is not a "daughter of the enemy of Allah."
Rather, the two primary reasons of:
It would hurt Fatimah and thus hurt Muhammad
It would put to trial Fatimah’s deen because of jealousy
are sufficient to block Ali from marrying any woman.
But don’t worry about Ali. Once Fatimah died, he married multiple wives.
And even while Fatimah was alive, Muhammad let Ali have a prepubescent sex slave (HOTD 265).
• HOTD #159: Sahih Muslim 2449a (6307). See also IslamQA’s Why did the Prophet ﷺ not allow ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib to take a second wife when he was married to Faatimah?
HOTD 158: Muhammad—who at age 52 deflowered his 9-year-old wife—stops men younger than that from marrying his teenage daughter because “she is young”
This is part three in a five-part series in which Muhammad, like all good cult leaders, illustrates how his own rules don’t apply to him.
In today’s hadith, Muhammad, who married a girl 43 years his junior, disallows Umar and Abu Bakr from marrying Fatimah because “she is young.”
Consensus among Sunni scholars is that Fatimah was at or near 18 years old at the time, meaning she was 21 and 31 years younger than Umar and Abu Bakr, respectively. This compares to the 43 year age gap between Muhammad and Aishah.
Ali, who was in his early 20s, ended up marrying Fatimah with Muhammad's blessing.
For those interested, here are key dates based on the consensus of Sunni scholars.
Khadijah—b. 556 CE
Muhammad—b. April 20, 571 CE
Abu Bakr—b. 574 CE
Umar—b. 584 CE
Ali—b. 600 CE
Fatimah—b. 605 CE
Aishah—b. 614 CE
Ali marries Fatimah—623 CE
Al-Hasan—b. 625 CE
Al-Husain—b. 626 CE
The most noteworthy date is Fatimah’s birthdate. Sunni scholars say she was born around 605 CE, while Shia scholars say she was born around 615 CE.
605 CE is more plausible because 615 CE would mean that Khadijah gave birth to Fatimah near age 60, and that Fatimah gave birth to al-Hasan at age 10. (See Ibn Saʻd, Abu Nuʻaym, Al-Suyuti, Muhibb al-Din al-Tabari, and the Shiʻite Abu al-Faraj al-Isbahani.)
The popular Shia site al-Islam.org explains the reason for the discrepancy between Shia and Sunni scholars on the age of Fatimah:
"There are two motives which can be cited for those who made such false claims: The first is to refute the prophetic traditions which reveal the story of heavenly food, and that Fatima was born from sperm produced from an apple that came from paradise.
The second is to prove that Fatima Zahra was unattractive to the point that she became eighteen years old before anyone asked to marry her."
I’m sure that’s what Sunnis were thinking!
HOTD 157: Muhammad orders a man killed—on no evidence—for having sex with Muhammad’s sex slave. It turns out he is a eunuch and has no penis
This is part four in a five-part series in which Muhammad, like all good cult leaders, illustrates how his rules don’t apply to him.
In this hadith, Muhammad orders a man killed who he believes is having sex with Muhammad’s sex slave, Mariyah the Copt. Muhammad flagrantly violates Shariah in doing so.
Of course the main problem with this hadith is that Muhammad owns a sex slave in the first place. In fact, he owns four sex slaves. Sex slavery is evil, and Muhammad is evil for engaging in it.
Muhammad suspects a man of having sex with Mariyah and orders Ali to go kill him. This blatantly runs afoul of Shariah. First, zina (unlawful intercourse) requires four witnesses. As the man had no penis, obviously no sex occurred and there were no witnesses.
Second, the punishment for zina of an unmarried man is whipping, not execution (and even execution is via stoning, not the sword). The man, who had no penis, was obviously unmarried.
Musnad al-Bazzar 634 explains that the man was a visiting Coptic cousin of Mariyah.
The scholars are humorously creative in justifying Muhammad’s violation of Shariah.
Muhammad made the false accusation in order to justify killing a hypocrite:
"He was a hypocrite and deserved to be killed using some other justification, and this provided a means to kill him for hypocrisy and other reasons, not for his zina, and to put a stop to him. Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, recognized that the killing was dependent on the occurrence of zina, and he ascertained that no zina occurred. And Allah knows best."
Al-Nawawi is incorrect. Al-Bazzar establishes that the man is a Coptic cousin of Mariyah, not a munafiq (hypocrite, i.e., a bad Muslim). This is why al-Nawawi did not provide any detail on who the hypocrite was or what he did.
It’s remarkable that al-Nawawi believes it’s excusable for Muhammad to fabricate zina evidence to provide justification for killing a hypocrite. That’s like justifying a crooked cop fabricating evidence because the guy really deserves it.
Muhammad just wanted to scare the man, not kill him:
”This judgment was difficult for many people to accept, and some of them denounced the hadith. However, its chain of transmission does not have anyone about whom there is concern. Some of them explained it on the basis that he ﷺ did not truly want the killing. Rather, he wanted to frighten him in order to prevent him from coming to her. It is said: This is as Solomon said regarding the two women who quarreled in front of him over a child, ‘Bring me a knife so that I can divide the child in half between them.’ He did not actually want to do that. Rather, he intended to gather information on the matter from these words.”
This is logically incoherent. If Muhammad knew the man was a eunuch, there is no reason for Muhammad to fear the man and Mariyah having relations. And if the man wasn’t a eunuch, there would be no clear proof that the man was innocent, and Ali would have killed him, not just scared him.
Muhammad wanted to test Ali:
”Likewise (to the Judgment of Solomon), the Messenger of Allah never wanted the killing of that eunuch carried out. Rather, he wanted to test Ali in carrying out his command, and he wanted to reveal the innocence of the accused and the falseness of the accusation visually. In this way, Allah, may He be exalted, did not want to carry out the sacrifice of Ishmael, son of Abraham, when he commanded his father to sacrifice him. Rather, Allah, may He be exalted, wanted to make known his carrying out of His command.”
This is logically incoherent. If the test is for Ali to unquestioningly obey Muhammad—as it was for Abraham to unquestioningly obey Allah—then Muhammad must cause Ali to believe that killing the man is without reason, just as Allah caused Abraham to believe killing Ishmael was without reason.
But instead, Muhammad states that the man committed zina, a crime punishable by death. Of course Ali would obey Muhammad's justified command.
It is incorrect to say that a) Allah’s order for Abraham to kill his own son—who He accuses of nothing, is analogous to b) Muhammad’s order for Ali to kill a stranger—who he accuses of committing a crime punishable by death.
Perhaps most important, none of the hadiths even hint at the various rationalizations offered by scholars. Rather, these justifications are the wishful thinking of Muslim scholars whose responsibility to defend Muhammad, unfortunately and always, supersedes scholarly integrity.
Bottom line: A jealous Muhammad recklessly ordered the killing of an innocent man in violation of Shariah. His order to kill the man violated Shariah because:
He had no evidence that zina was committed
He had no evidence that the man was married
HOTD 156: Muhammad says he’s exempt from ablution after sleep because he—unlike everyone else—is aware of his nighttime farts. He explains: “My eyes sleep but my heart does not sleep”
This is part five in a five-part series in which Muhammad, like all good cult leaders, illustrates how his rules don’t apply to him.
In Islam, the Creator of the Universe rejects your prayers if you fart (HOTD 281).
The only way Allah will accept your prayers again is if you perform wudu (ablution). This involves washing various parts of your body multiple times and rinsing your mouth and nose. Notably, you don’t actually clean your butt during ablution.
And because there is the strong possibility that you fart when you sleep, sleeping automatically invalidates wudu. Jami al-Tirmidhi 96, classed sahih by al-Arna'ut and hasan by al-Albani, is commonly used to demonstrate that sleeping invalidates wudu.
And as is so often the case, Muhammad’s rule doesn’t apply to himself. Here we see Muhammad waking up and praying without performing wudu:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would fall asleep until he was breathing deeply, then he would get up and pray, and he did not perform wudu.
Al-Sindi explains the contradiction:
”'He would pray and he did not perform wudu' because his eyes would sleep but his heart did not sleep, as is stated clearly in the books of Sahih. His sleep did not invalidate his wudu because sleep only invalidates wudu when there is the fear that something may exit a person’s body without him realizing it, but that does not apply in the case of one whose heart does not sleep.”
In today’s hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari, Aisha asks Muhammad if he sleeps before the witr nighttime prayer, and he tells her, “O Aisha! My eyes sleep but my heart does not sleep.”
Muhammad is expressing coyly that he is aware, even when sleeping, of any actions which may invalidate his wudu. And thus sleep does not automatically necessitate wudu for him.
Ibn Hajar, as quoted by al-Mubarakfuri, explains:
”Al-Hafiz (Ibn Hajar) said in al-Talkhis: ‘Sleeping does not invalidate his ﷺ wudu. This is indicated by what is in the books of Sahih from Aisha: “My eyes sleep but my heart does not sleep.”’”
Ibn Taymiyyah explains:
”‘My eyes sleep but my heart does not sleep.’ He indicated that his heart, which does not sleep, knows that nothing took place, even though he himself is sleeping. This includes the passing of urine, stool, and wind, which invalidate wudu like other actions which invalidate wudu.”
”And it shows that he ﷺ does not break his wudu through sleep because his heart does not sleep, and this is one of the characteristics of the prophets, peace and blessings be upon them, as demonstrated in the Sahih by the statement, “And such is the case with the prophets that their eyes sleep but their hearts do not sleep.” And it shows that sleep is contrary to ritual purity.”
In Muslim 763f, Ibn Abbas recounts a time in which Muhammad did not perform wudu after sleeping. Al-Nawawi explains:
“This is one of his distinctions ﷺ that sleep does not invalidate wudu. Because his eyes sleep and his heart does not sleep, if he passes wind he will be aware of it, unlike other people.”
At the circus, you're meant to laugh.
HOTD 155: Muhammad says shooting stars are missiles shot at devils in the sky who are trying to overhear Allah’s revelation: Part 1
In this glorious hadith, Muhammad explains that shooting stars are missiles shot at devils in the sky who are trying to overhear Allah’s revelation.
So this is what happens according to Muhammad:
Allah conveys information to a group of angels who are bearers of the Throne
These angels then pass the information to another nearby group of angels
This second group of angels passes the information to another group of angels, and so on, until the information reaches the angels in the lowest heaven.
In this lowest heaven, devils, i.e., bad jinn, sit tight in their stations, trying to overhear the angels
Shooting stars are pelted at these devils, but they still overhear some information before evacuating the area
The devils then take this true information and share it with soothsayers on earth. They add many lies to this information, resulting in the truthful portion of a soothsayer’s words being maybe 1%.
And this, per Muhammad, is how soothsayers are sometimes correct.
tl;dr. See this pictorial representation.
HOTD 154: Muhammad says shooting stars are missiles shot at devils in the sky who are trying to overhear Allah’s revelation: Part 2
In this insightful hadith, we learn that shooting stars are missiles shot at devils in the sky who are trying to overhear Allah’s revelation.
To understand this hadith, all you need is this pictorial representation from the Biography of the Prophet Muhammad by Abdullah ibn Saʻd ibn Abu Sarh (a clever pen name).
The use of shooting stars as weaponry against devils is mentioned in the Quran in several places. See for instance: 15:16-18, 37:6-10, 67:5, 72:8-9.
In 67:5, Allah states:
"And verily We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps (i.e., stars) and have made them as missiles against the devils and have prepared for them the punishment of the Blaze."
The exegetes explain that shooting stars are detached pieces of stars used as missiles. Of course, we now know that shooting stars are space dust/rock that enters and briefly burns in the earth's atmosphere.
Ibn Kathir writes:
”And We have made them (as) missiles to drive away the Shayatin,” The pronoun “them” in His statement, “and We have made them'” is the same type of statement as the stars being referred to as lamps. This does not mean that they are actually missiles, because the stars in the sky are not thrown. Rather, it is the meteors beneath them that are thrown and they are taken from the stars. And Allah knows best.
“And verily We have adorned the lowest heaven,” the one closest to the earth, “with lamps,” with stars, “and made them missiles” against “the devils,” should they [attempt to] listen by stealth, in which case a meteor of fire detaches itself from the star, just like a brand is taken from a fire, and either kills that jinn or deprives him of his senses: it is not that the star itself is displaced from its position.
That is, “we have made it” applies to “shooting star,” the omitted connecting noun, as evidenced by: “Except one who snatches [some words] by theft, but they are pursued by a burning flame, piercing in brightness.” (Qur’an 37:10) …And it is not the star itself that is released, rather a piece is detached and thrown, without diminishing its light or damaging its form.
First, it is illogical that material shooting stars can be used as weapons against immaterial jinn/devils.
Second, it is inconceivable that the All-Knowing Creator of the Universe could so badly describe shooting stars as: “We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps and have made them (as) missiles against the devils.”
The only celestial body that could be considered a misbah “lamp,” i.e., emits light, is a star. But we know that shooting stars don’t come from stars. They are space dust/rock, primarily from comets. Comets, which are ice and rock, do not emit light. They are visible because of sunlight reflecting and refracting off the dust in the tail.
Because of the ridiculousness of shooting stars as weaponry, modern apologists sometimes try to claim that the word shihaab doesn’t mean shooting star. Some claim that shuhub could be pulsars and gamma rays and other science-y sounding things.
Lane’s Lexicon defines shihaab شِهَابٌ:
A شُعْلَة [i. e.either brand or flame (app. the former, agreeably with what follows,)] of fire: or a شُعْلَة of fire gleaming or radiating: accord. to ISk, a firebrand; i. e. a stick in which is fire: or, accord. to AHeyth, originally, a piece of wood, or stick, in which is fire gleaming or radiating: pl. شُهُبٌ
Hence, [A shooting, or falling, star;] a star, or the like of a star, that darts down [or is hurled] by night; and particularly after a devil; as occurring in the Kur [15:18 and] 37:10; and in a trad.; respecting the attempt of a devil to hear, by stealth, words uttered in heaven.
The following hadith in Sahih Muslim demonstrates that a shooting star—when used in the context of pelting devils—means the luminous meteors visible from the earth:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
One of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, an Ansari man, told me that while they were sitting one night with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, a shooting star shone brightly. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to them: 'What did you used to say during the Jahiliyyah if you saw something like this (i.e., a shooting star)?' They said: 'Allah and His Messenger know best. We used to say that a great man has been born this night, or that a great man has died.' The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'It does not appear for the death or life of anyone, but when our Lord, Exalted and Blessed is His Name, decrees some matter. …Then the eavesdropping Jinn snatch what they can and they convey it to their friend (the soothsayers). …
HOTD 153: Muhammad says every Friday, all animals fear the End of the World is upon us. Their fear subsides once the sun rises (in the east 😉)
Muhammad’s claim is comical. Were it true, all animals would be awake during dawn on Friday, stressed out while “listening out” for the End of the World. There would be a noticeable difference in the behavior of the entire animal kingdom every Friday at dawn.
This hadith is also one of many Muhammad-boasts-about-Friday hadiths. In it he says:
”The best day on which the sun rises is Friday. On this day Adam was created, on this day he was sent down, on it his repentance was accepted, on this day he died, and on this day the Hour will begin.”
Funny enough, in contrast to Adam, Muhammad was born and died on a Monday—an inferior day.
Muhammad explains why Jews and Christians—who came before him—don’t have Friday as their holy days. He says Friday was always Allah’s commanded holy day, but Jews and Christians told Allah they refuse to do Friday (!). (HOTD 301)
And so the Hour, i.e., the Day of Resurrection, i.e., the End of the World, will be another noteworthy event to occur on a Friday.
And per Muhammad, all animals of the world are aware of this. And they listen every Friday morning in fear of its arrival. And once sunrise hits, they stop worrying:
"Muṣikha ('listening'), from aṣākha, that is, listening at twilight, that is, out of fear of its occurrence. It tells us that animals know the specific days of the week and they know that the Resurrection will occur on a Friday. However, they do not know the events between their time and the Resurrection, or what they know is that these events have not yet occurred. And Allah, may He be exalted, knows best."
Shams al-Haqq al-Azimabadi explains (in this version, it includes Jinn):
”’Until the sun rises,’ because the Resurrection will arrive on a Friday between dawn and sunrise. …’Except the Jinn and mankind,’ they are not cognizant of it, or it is not inspired within them that the Resurrection may occur on that day.”
I am unaware of any Islamic primary text stating that the Hour begins between dawn and sunrise. It is more likely that Muhammad’s statement, "until the sun rises," refers to animals realizing that the sun did not rise in the west, which is a well-known necessary condition for the Hour.
Muhammad’s fabricated animal stories have a strong impact on me. They demonstrate Muhammad’s charlatanry in a subtle way.
Muhammad knows that, as a self-proclaimed prophet, he cannot make claims only about the heaven and afterlife. He needs to make claims about this world too. And animal stories are perfect because they allow him to make fantastical claims about this world, the veracity of which cannot be tested.
Muhammad’s modus operandi is as follows:
He makes a fantastical claim about animals, which if demonstrable, would give 100% proof of his prophecy
He says that humans are the exceptions to this fantastical claim
Proof can only occur through human language, which animals don’t possess
A classic example is Muhammad's claim that all animals hear dead people talk in their coffins (HOTD 174). Another is his claim that the bray of a donkey means it’s seen a devil and the crow of a rooster means it’s seen an angel (Bukhari 3303).
I can't believe I used to believe this s**t.
HOTD 152: 💘 Romance by Muhammad 💘: I (1) murdered your husband, (2) let a jihadi make you his sex slave, (3) saw how hot you are, so reclaimed you from the jihadi, (4) “married” (i.e., raped) you before we even got home, (5) didn’t pay you a dower because not making you a sex slave is your dower
With Valentine's Day upon us, Muhammad teaches us a lesson in Islamic romance.
Mahr is the money or property given to a wife by her husband upon an Islamic marriage. This payment is viewed as the price for the woman’s sexual exclusivity. As al-Shafiʻi explains, mahr is the “price of the vulva.” (Al-Umm 5/65)
Safiyyah bint Huyayy was the 17 year-old wife of Kinana bin al-Rabi, a Jew of Khaibar. In blatant offensive jihad, Muhammad attacked Khaibar (HOTD 297), killing her husband, Kinana. (And this was after beheading her father in the slaughter of Banu Quraizah a year earlier.)
Muhammad allowed a jihadi, Dihyah al-Kalbi (aka the angel Gabriel 😉), to have any slave-girl he wanted, and he chose Safiyyah. But then Muhammad was told that Safiyyah was gorgeous, and so he confirmed this with his own eyes and then took her for himself. (Bukhari 2235, Abu Dawud 2998)
Muhammad, a slave-owner, traded seven of his own slaves to Dihyah for her. (Ibn Majah 2272, in the chapter Selling Animals for Animals, of Different Kinds, Hand to Hand)
Muhammad promptly “married,” (i.e., raped) Safiyyah, not waiting to get back to his home in Medina. He didn’t give her a mahr, which is an obligatory condition of marriage.
But there’s always an excuse for Muhammad, and in today’s hadith, it’s that his freeing her from sex slavery was her mahr.
Now just absorb that for a moment. Just absorb what a monster Muhammad is.
Muhammad murders Safiyyah’s husband in blatant offensive jihad. He lets a jihadi take her as a sex slave. When he finds out how hot she is, he takes her for himself and “marries” her, i.e., rapes her.
He then says he doesn’t have to give her a mahr because he “freed” her from her slavery—SLAVERY HE WAS 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR!
• HOTD #152: Sahih al-Bukhari 5086
HOTD 151: Ignorant of both past and future, Muhammad says “No people will ever prosper who appoint a woman as their leader.” All hail: Queen Hatshepsut, Cleopatra, Queen Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great
“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend from their means.” (Quran 4:34)
Based on Allah’s words, it is argued that women cannot lead men. If they did, then women would become the “protectors and maintainers” of men, in opposition to Allah’s words.
Muhammad’s statement that “no people will ever prosper who appoint a woman as their leader” is also in line with:
Allah’s ruling that a women’s testimony is worth half that of a man (Quran 2:282)
Muhammad’s explanation of 2:282: “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.” (HOTD 207)
Islamic scholars (see IslamQA links below) have discussed in great detail the reasons behind Muhammad’s belief that women should not be leaders. There are two primary reasons:
Women are deficient in intelligence
Women aren't allowed to go outside and interact with men
Al-Shawkani explains that the judgment of women is inferior to that of men:
”’No people will ever prosper…’ This provides evidence that women are not people of governance, and it is not permissible for the people to appoint one. This is because avoiding that which impedes prosperity is required.
He (Ibn Hajar) said in al-Fath: The scholars agreed on the requirement that judges be men, with the exception of the Hanafis, and they (women) are excluded in matters which call for prescribed punishments, and this is unrestricted per Ibn Jarir, supporting the majority’s view that a judge necessarily must be sound in judgment, and the judgment of women is deficient and imperfect, notably within assemblies of men.”
Al-Baghawi explains how “women are nakedness” (HOTD 289) and need to avoid going outside, a necessary precondition of a leader:
“The scholars agreed that women are not fit to be leaders or judges, because the leader needs to go out to organize jihad and take care of the Muslims’ affairs, and the judge needs to go out to judge between people, but women are ‘awrah (nakedness) and it is not right for them to go out. Because of their weakness, women are not able to do many things. Women are imperfect, and the positions of leaders and judge are among the most perfect of positions for which only the most perfect of men are qualified.”
The meaning of Abu Bakrah’s statement, “Allah benefited me with a word during the days of al-Jamal,” is quite interesting.
Al-Jamal (the camel) refers to the Battle of the Camel fought in Basra, Iraq in 656 CE. It was an intra-Muslim battle, pitting forces led by Aishah against those led by Ali. Ali won.
Abu Bakrah, a Companion of Muhammad, was in Basra when Aishah’s forces were mobilizing, and he thought of joining them. He said, “Allah benefited me with a word,” meaning that Allah reminded him of a statement that Muhammad made to him. This statement “benefited” Abu Bakrah because it caused him to not join Aishah, who lost the battle.
Per Abu Bakrah—who ultimately did not fight for either side—Aishah’s loss to Ali was inevitable because, “No people will ever prosper who appoint a woman as their leader.”
See also IslamQA’s multiple fatwas on the issue:
HOTD 150: A war captive about to be killed by Muhammad asks “Who will look after my children?” Muhammad responds “The Fire”
In this noble hadith, Muhammad orders the beheading of Uqbah bin Abi Muʻait, a Quraish leader and war captive from the Battle of Badr.
About to be beheaded, he asks Muhammad “Who will look after my children?” Muhammad responds, “The Fire,” i.e., Hell.
Uqbah is famous for an incident in Mecca in which he put his rida around Muhammad's neck and throttled him. What is rarely mentioned is that this occurred after Muhammad’s repeated insults and mockery of the Quraish and their religion, as well as Muhammad’s threat to slaughter the Quraish leaders:
Narrated Urwah bin al-Zubair from Abdullah bin Amr:
I said to him (Abdullah bin Amr): “What is the worst incident of aggression and hostility that you saw on the part of Quraish toward the Messenger of Allah?” He said, “I was present when their prominent figures met together one day in al-Hijr. They talked about the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and they said, ‘We have never put up with anything like that with which we are putting up with from this man. He has accused us of being fools, slandered our forefathers, criticized our religion, divided us and reviled our gods, and the matter has become very serious’ – or words to that effect.
Whilst they were like that, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ came walking until he touched the corner (of the Kaʻbah, where the Black Stone is), then he passed by them as he circumambulated the House. When he passed by them, they made fun of some of the words he was saying, and I could see from his face that it caused him pain. Then he moved on, then when he passed by them the second time, they made fun of him in like manner, and I could see from his face that it caused him pain. Then he moved on, then when he passed by them the third time, they made fun of him in like manner, then he said, ‘Listen to me, O Quraish! By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, I have brought slaughter to you.’
The people were so shocked that each man among them froze, as if there was a bird on his head, and those who had spoken most harshly to him before that began speaking to him with the kindest words, saying, ‘Leave us, O Abu’l-Qasim, for by Allah you have never been an ignorant man.’ So he ﷺ left them. The next day, they met together in al-Hijr, and I was with them. They said to one another, ‘(Yesterday) you said how impatient you are becoming with him, and what you have heard about him and what he is saying, then as soon as he said something that alarmed you, you left him alone.’
Whilst they were talking about that, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ appeared and they rushed towards him as one and surrounded him, saying to him, ‘You are the one who said such and such – referring to what they had heard about his criticism of their gods and their religion.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘Yes, I am the one who said that.’ I saw one of them grab the neck of his garment, and Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, got up to defend him and said, weeping, ‘Would you kill a man just because he says, my lord is Allah?’ Then they left him alone. That was the worst incident of aggression that I saw on the part of Quraish.”
Fast forward forty or so years, al-Dahhak bin Qais al-Fihri wants to appoint Masruq bin al-Ajda to a government post. The beheaded man’s son, Umarah bin Uqbah, objects to this because of Masruq’s supposed connection with those who murdered the third caliph Uthman.
Masruq is furious with Umarah’s objection, and he says to him, “I desire for you what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ desired for you.” That is, Masruq, like Muhammad, also desires for Umarah—the child of Uqbah—to go to Hell.
And indeed, Muhammad is “a mercy to the worlds.”
HOTD 149: Umar threatens Muhammad’s wives “It may be if he divorced you that Allah will give him instead of you, wives better than you.” Umar then meets with Muhammad, and "Allah" puts Umar’s exact words into the Qur’an (66:5)
Sometimes the fraud is so obvious you have to laugh.
Quran 66:1-5 are some of the most extraordinarily self-serving verses for Muhammad.
In it, Allah says that Muhammad doesn’t need to honor his oaths, and Allah then threatens all of Muhammad’s wives with divorce if they don’t shape up, using the exact same words that Umar previously used.
And as seen in Muslim 1479a, Allah got inspired after listening to Umar’s pep speech to Muhammad, thus also revealing to Muhammad 66:4, in which Allah states that He, the angels, and all righteous Muslims will have Muhammad’s back if he divorces his wives:
Narrated Umar bin al-Khattab:
… And when I entered upon him I saw signs of anger on his face. I said, "O Messenger of Allah, why are you so upset about these women? If you divorce them, Allah is with you, and the angels and Gabriel and Michael, and myself and Abu Bakr and the believers will be with you." Seldom did I speak words - praise be to Allah - but I hoped that Allah would confirm what I said. Then this verse, the verse of choice, was revealed: "It may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you ... " (Al-Tahrim 66:5) " ... But if you back each other against him, then verily, Allah is his Mawla (Lord, Master, Protector), and Gabriel and the righteous of the believers and the angels, moreover, are his helpers.” (Al-Tahrim 66:4) …
Allah has a remarkable knack for following Umar's advice to Muhammad, which also includes mandatory hijab. In Bukhari 402, Umar proudly mentions these matters in which "Allah" agreed with him.
And today's hadith just gets better (worse) because of the context:
“The wives of the Prophet, out of their jealousy, backed each other against the Prophet,” and thus Umar/Allah/Muhammad threatened them with divorce.
So what exactly were the wives jealous about? There are two sahih stories on what happened. The first story makes complete sense. The second story is laughable.
Scholars typically say that both stories are true, and that Allah revealed Quran 66:1-5 regarding both. I find this implausible. In any case, the two stories are:
Muhammad is caught by wife Hafsa having sex with his slave Mariya in Hafsa’s bed on Hafsa’s day behind Hafsa’s back. Muhammad tells Hafsa not to tell anyone and makes an oath to her that he won’t have sex with Mariya anymore. Hafsa ends up telling Aisha the secret. All hell breaks loose when all the wives find out. (Nasa’i 3411, Tafsir al-Jalalayn 66:1)
Wives Aisha and Hafsa want Muhammad to stop literally drinking honey with his wife Zainab bint Jahsh. They falsely tell Muhammad that he smells bad after drinking honey at Zainab’s. Muhammad then makes an oath that he won’t drink honey with Zainab anymore, and this needs to be kept a secret. Hafsa tells another wife, presumably Aisha. All hell breaks loose when the wives find out. (Bukhari 6691)
Ultimately, the nonsensical Zainab honey story is likely a cover-up, which morphs a true honey story (Bukhari 5268, 6972) in which Hafsa, instead of Zainab, is the one drinking honey. This true story likely morphed into the cover-up story found in Bukhari 4912, 5267, 6691.
The true honey story of Aisha, Sawda, and Safiyya conspiring against Hafsa likely served as a good launching pad for the cover-up story because the expression “to taste someone’s honey” is an expression for sex (see for instance Abu Dawud 2309), which is what Muhammad was caught doing with Mariya.
Muhammad, like a petulant man-child, then divorces Hafsa for revealing his secret (HOTD 268), takes her back, and ultimately abandons all his wives for one month.
And indeed, he is The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ: The Best of All Husbands. That Muhammad had sex with a concubine in Hafsa's bed and then divorced Hafsa is mentioned nowhere in the book. Surprise, surprise.
HOTD: The Real Housewives of Medina
I just noticed how similar Mohammed's house life is like an episode of a trashy reality show. The Real Wives of Medina.
Oh indeed it is.
And yet neither NeNe nor Kim would ever smear food on the other’s face.
HOTD 148: Muhammad says: 1) A fly carries disease on one wing and the cure on the other, 2) The fly lands in your drink specifically with its disease-carrying wing, 3) You must dunk the whole fly in to get the cure
In today’s noble hadith, Muhammad endangers people’s health with quackery.
This begins with Muhammad making the claim that a fly has disease on one of its wings and the cure on the opposite wing. He then states that the fly lands into drinks specifically with the wing on which there is a disease.
While the translation “When it falls, it falls onto the wing on which is a disease, so immerse it fully” is the correct meaning, the literal rendering of the phrase is, “And it protects itself with the wing carrying the disease, so immerse it fully.”
Shams al-Haqq al-Azimabadi explains:
“And it protects itself with the wing carrying the disease.” That is, it lands with that wing. ...And it may signify that by landing with that wing, it saves itself from injury caused by the heat of the food, as mentioned by Ibn al-Malik.”
Another hadith states similarly:
Narrated Abu Saʻid:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “On one of the wings of a fly there is a poison and on the other is the cure. If it falls into the food, then dip it into it, for it puts the poison first and holds back the cure.”
The hadith becomes dangerous because it has an important shariah implication: that food is edible because—after dipping the fly's second wing, which contains the cure—the disease has been removed.
Shams al-Haqq al-Azimabadi continues:
“’So immerse it fully,’ that is, the whole fly, in order to equalize the disease and medicine. The hadith is clear evidence for the permissibility of killing it (by fully immersing it) in order to guard against its harm, and it (i.e., the fly) is then discarded and not eaten. When the fly dies in water, it does not make it najis because he ﷺ ordered for it to be fully immersed. It is well-known that it will die from that, especially when the food is hot. Were it to make it najis, then the order would render the food corrupt. However, he ﷺ simply ordered that it be rendered suitable. This ruling was then extended to everything that does not shed blood, such as the bee, the hornet, the spider, and the like.”
The apologetics for this hadith are to disregard the hadith's wording, and to point to research demonstrating that flies’ wings have antimicrobial properties. This is deceitful for two key reasons:
A. This is not what the hadith is saying. For Muhammad to be correct, it must be shown that:
One wing of the fly contains disease and the opposite wing contains the cure for that disease
When the fly goes into food or drink, the fly lands with its diseased wing
Assuming 1. and 2. are correct, then it must be demonstrated that fully immersing the fly reduces disease transmission to humans
If those three points cannot be demonstrated, then Muhammad is a charlatan.
B. There is nothing unique about flies having antimicrobial properties. The surface of most, perhaps all, plants and animals have antimicrobial properties. Numerous studies demonstrate that human skin, for instance, has robust antimicrobial properties. There are also countless articles documenting the antimicrobial properties of plant leaves.
Furthermore, a fly’s physiology is vastly different from that of a human, and thus the pathogens that harm flies differ from those that harm humans. There is no reason for a fly to hold "cures" for pathogens that do not affect it.
But it all comes back to Muhammad's three outrageous claims. If they are untrue, then Muhammad is a charlatan.
HOTD 147: Muhammad tells man he’ll have a winged horse made of rubies to fly him around in Heaven
This hadith is a particularly stupid version of Muhammad selling Paradise to men by appealing to earthly desires.
Of course, that Muslim men will have sex with multiple virgin houris in Paradise is the classic example of Muhammad catering to men’s earthly wants.
In today’s hadith, Muhammad appeals to the man’s love of horses and adds dazzling new features to it. In a da’if (weak) version of this hadith, Muhammad covers all bases when then asked by someone if there are camels in Paradise, saying, “If Allah admits you to Paradise you will have therein whatever your heart desires and whatever will delight you.” (Al-Tabarani, Al-Muʻjam al-Awsat 5023, classed daʻif by al-Albani)
That statement, attested to by the Quran (36:57, 41:31, 43:71, 50:35), is certainly untrue.
A man cannot have more than 70 or so wives. A woman cannot have more than one husband. And a woman cannot have a husband to herself (i.e., she must share husband with houris).
And most significant to me, a Muslim can’t be with non-Muslim friends and family in Paradise, for they are in eternal Hell because they rejected a sex slave owner (Nasa'i 1126) who told them to believe in a god who can't do math (HOTD 206 suppl.).
But that’s okay. Just give me more stuff.
HOTD 146: Muhammad says he’s competing against other prophets for the most followers—and thus infertile women aren’t deserving of marriage
Muhammad is strangely insecure for a prophet.
He is competitive about having the most followers, which of course is shared by many Muslims today.
He says that the prophets are actually competing against each other to see who has the most followers.
Muhammad describes that on his famous Buraq ride, he saw Moses crying because he was jealous that Muhammad would have more followers. (Bukhari 3207)
In today’s hadith, when Muhammad says, “for I will boast of your great numbers before the umam (nations),” he means that on the Day of Resurrection he wants to boast specifically to the other prophets whose umam are smaller:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ enjoined men to marry, and he emphatically disallowed celibacy. He said, “Marry one who is loving and fertile, for I will boast of your great numbers to the Prophets on the Day of Resurrection.”
In today's hadith, Muhammad explains that each prophet gets a cistern in Paradise. This is a large basin of water where all the followers will gather and drink from on the Day of Resurrection. Muhammad’s cistern is called al-Kawthar (Abundance), which is fed by Muhammad’s river in Paradise, also called al-Kawthar.
Muhammad says regarding the Muslims who will drink at his Cistern: “whoever drinks from it will never thirst again.” (Bukhari 7050)
Why, it’s almost like this Paradise was customized for nomadic desert-dwellers. 😉
One of the problems with Muhammad’s insecurity-rooted competition is its repercussions for women.
In today’s hadith, Muhammad forbids a man from marrying an infertile woman because she can’t create more Muslims for Muhammad.
While Muhammad forbids the man from marrying her, consensus of the ulama is that marrying an infertile woman is not haram forbidden, but rather is makruh reprehensible.
So because of Muhammad, infertile women:
Cannot experience the love of a husband
Cannot experience motherhood—because Muhammad banned adoption in order to marry his adopted son’s wife
Cannot have sex by any legal means
Quoting Muhammad's wisdom on marrying fertile women, Umar divorced a new wife when he discovered she had some grey hair:
It was narrated from Umar that he married a woman, had intercourse with her, and found that her black hair was streaked with white hair. He divorced her and said, “A mat in a house is better than a woman who cannot bear children, by Allah, that which is your most ardent wish. Nonetheless, I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, ‘Marry one who is loving and fertile, for I will boast of your great numbers before the nations on the Day of Resurrection.’”
HOTD 145: Muhammad believes mice are transmuted Jews
In this hadith, Muhammad believes that mice are transmuted Jews—and his evidence is that by not drinking camel milk, the mice are adhering to halakhah (Jewish law).
”The meaning is that the meat and milk of camels were forbidden to the children of Israel, in contrast to the meat and milk of sheep. He indicated that mice abstained from drinking camel milk, but not sheep milk, which reveals that they are transmuted children of Israel.
The saying (of Abu Hurairah), ‘Shall I read the Torah?’ It is a question of chastisement and denial, and its meaning is: I do not know or teach anything except that which I gained from the Prophet. And I do not convey anything from the Torah or other books, unlike Kaʻb al-Ahbar (a former Jew) and other scholars from among the People of the Book.”
So is Muhammad saying that current mice are Jews? Abu Hurairah certainly believes so:
It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said, “Mice are a transformed race, and the sign of that is that when sheep's milk is put down for them they drink it, and when camel's milk is put down for them they do not even taste it.” Ka'b said to him, “Did you hear this from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ?” He said, “Was the Torah revealed to me?”
Al-Nawawi also seems to believe so, titling the chapter dogmatically, “Mice are a transformed race.”
However, the hadith blatantly conflicts with a hadith from Ibn Masud (HOTD 323), in which Muhammad states that Allah doesn't give those who He transmutes offspring.
Ibn Hajar writes:
"And when the Prophet ﷺ was asked about monkeys and pigs, he said, 'Allah never gives those who have been transmuted offspring. Monkeys and pigs existed before that,'—as found in Sahih Muslim and elsewhere. Upon this accords the statement of the Prophet ﷺ, 'But I think that they became mice,' as if he was thinking that, but then knows that it is not true.”
This explanation is nonsense. Not only does it conflict with the plain meaning of the Arabic, it clearly contradicts Abu Hurairah’s categorical statement, “Mice are a transformed race,” which he attributes to Muhammad after his death.
Later in Fath al-Bari, Ibn Hajar offers the opinion that Muhammad did, in fact, incorrectly believe that mice were transmutated Israelites. But Allah eventually revealed to him that He never gives those who are transmuted offspring.
“The majority responded that the Prophet ﷺ said this before the truth of the matter was revealed regarding it. Therefore he had not reached any determination regarding it, other than the denial of it as indicated in the hadith of Ibn Masʻud.”
But there is no hadith of which I am aware in which Muhammad retracts his statement on mice—and this explanation conflicts with Abu Hurairah’s categorical statement that “Mice are a transformed race,” which he made after Muhammad's death.
But perhaps more important, Muhammad's belief that Allah transmuted Israelites into animals is insane.
If something so batshit crazy ever happened, it surely would be found in the canonical Jewish texts, particularly considering the many mundane things reported in the Tanakh.
Transmuting Jews into monkeys and pigs, as recorded in the Quran (2:65, 5:60, 7:166), should be the most famous story in the entire Hebrew Bible, but it's nowhere to be found.
Ultimately, it seems that Muhammad got the story from a Jewish legend, an apocryphal addition to the story of the Tower of Babel, which can be found in the Babylonian Talmud:
Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya bar Elazar says: They divided into three factions; one said: Let us ascend to the top of the tower and dwell there. And one said: Let us ascend to the top of the tower and engage in idol worship. And one said: Let us ascend to the top of the tower and wage war. With regard to that faction that said: Let us ascend to the top of the tower and dwell there, God dispersed them. And that faction that said: Let us ascend to the top of the tower and wage war, became apes, and spirits, and demons, and female demons. And with regard to that faction that said: Let us ascend to the top of the tower and engage in idol worship, it is written: “Because there the Lord confounded the language of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9).
• HOTD #145: Sahih Muslim 2997a (7496)
HOTD 144: Muhammad says lizards may be transmuted Jews, so he doesn’t eat them
In yesterday hadith, HOTD 145, Muhammad believes mice are transmuted Jews.
In today’s hadith, Muhammad believes mastigures, or spiny-tailed lizards, may be transmuted Jews, and so he doesn't eat them.
The apologetics for this hadith are identical to the one on mice. See comment on HOTD 145 for the apologetics.
What is especially noteworthy about today's hadith is that this incident occurred in Medina. We know this because the narrator Abu Saʻid al-Khudri, as well as Thabit bin Yazid al-Ansari in a similar hadith, Nasa'i 4325, are from Medina.
Why is it noteworthy? Because at this point, it was already revealed in Quran 7:166 that the Israelites were turned into monkeys. Surah al-Araf was revealed in Mecca.
In 7:166, a group of Israelites were caught fishing on the Sabbath and were told by Allah, “Be monkeys, despised!” There is overwhelming consensus among exegetes that this refers to Allah turning these Israelites into monkeys, as also found in 2:65 and 5:60.
So when Muhammad says in today's hadith:
“Allah cursed or became angry with a tribe of the Children of Israel, and He transformed them into animals that move on the earth and I do not know, perhaps these (lizards) are descended from them."
Muhammad should already know that the tribe was turned into monkeys!
Why would Muhammad not mention here that Israelites were transmuted into monkeys?
Is he now saying that there was a second group of Israelites transmuted into different animals? Even the pigs mentioned in 5:60 are supposed to be older members of the same tribe, with the monkeys being the younger ones. (Tafsir al-Tabari 10/529)
Ultimately, Muhammad, like all serial liars, can't keep his stories straight.
But what kills me about this hadith is that even though Muhammad thinks lizards may be Jews, he still makes eating them an option.
Maybe I’m just overly cautious.
• HOTD #144: Sahih Muslim 1951b (5044)
HOTD 143: Guess which hadith on “the greater jihad” is authentic and which is fabricated
One of the great myths is that Muhammad spoke of “greater jihad” vs. “lesser jihad,” with jihad against the self being "greater" and jihad against the infidels being "lesser."
There is certainly the concept of jihad al-nafs (jihad against the self) in Islam, and in fact, it can be argued that jihad al-nafs is a necessary precondition for a person to engage in jihad al-kuffar (jihad against the infidels).
However, jihad al-nafs is simply the base for a man to perform the greater jihad, which is violent jihad against infidels.
And in today’s sahih hadith, Muhammad makes it clear that jihad against the infidels is the highest jihad:
I came to the Prophet ﷺ and said, “O Messenger of Allah, which jihad is best?” He said, “That of a man whose blood is shed and whose horse is felled.”
Ibn Taymiyyah writes:
”As for the hadith which some of them narrate, that he said about the invasion of Tabuk, ‘We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad,’ it has no basis. None among the people of knowledge narrated it in connection with the words and actions of the Prophet ﷺ. Jihad against the infidels is one of the greatest deeds. It is the best of those for which a person can volunteer.”
It also should be noted that when Muhammad uses the word "jihad," he always means jihad against the infidels, unless the context or wording makes it clear otherwise.
Muhammad answers the question, “What is jihad?”
…He asked, “What is jihad?” He said, “That you fight (qatil, really, 'try to kill') the infidels when you encounter them.” He asked, “Which jihad is best?” He said, “That of a man whose blood is shed and whose horse is felled.”
HOTD 142: 🎵 Yummy, Yummy, Yummy, I got camel urine in my tummy 🎵
This hadith is part of a larger story, in which Muhammad orders the killing and chopping off of the hands and feet of people who stole his camels and killed his herdsman, thus causing the revelation of Quran 5:33. (Nasa’i 4039) This incident will be discussed in a future HOTD.
Today's hadith focuses on Muhammad enjoining these men to drink camel urine—before they went rogue.
Despite the tireless efforts of Muslim researchers to prove otherwise, drinking camel urine has not been shown to cure anything.
See IslamQA’s "The benefits of drinking camel urine" for research—conducted exclusively by Muslim researchers—with no mention of pesky things like peer-reviewed journals or placebo control groups for humans.
IslamQA's four cited sources on drinking camel urine are laughable:
The Camels: Secrets and Wonders (book published in Riyadh)
Someone's Master's thesis at Al-Jazirah University in Sudan
The Muslim Soldier's Magazine
Al-Sindi explains that drinking camel urine was divine inspiration from Allah:
“He said, ‘and urine,’ hence, Malik and Muhammad (Ibn Hanbal) spoke of the purity of the urine of that whose meat is eaten. It was said, ‘It is lawful as a medicine.’ As for those who find it not permissible, I say: He ﷺ, by divine inspiration, treated them with urine, absent an alternative. What is said otherwise is not lawful.”
As suggested in al-Sindi’s commentary, the permissibility of drinking camel urine was rejected by some fuqaha (Islamic jurists), including Abu Hanifah and al-Shafiʻi. (Not all Hanafis share this opinion.)
But their argument is undermined by Muhammad’s statement that Allah would not make a cure from something haram—and thus camel urine must be halal:
Narrated Umm Salamah:
My daughter complained of illness to me, and I made for her nabidh (a drink made from fermented dates or grapes) in a mug. The Prophet ﷺ came in, and he was angry. He said, “What is this?” I said, “My daughter complained of illness, and we gave her this.” He said, “Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, did not make your healing from that which is forbidden.”
Ultimately, drinking camel urine is simply an especially disgusting example of Muhammad’s quackery.
For a humorous take on camel urine drinking from an intrepid non-Muslim reporter, who also reports dissenting Muslim medical views on camel urine drinking, see Vice’s Drinking Camel Urine in Yemen:
"The taste of warm piss is, as you would expect, disgusting. But when it’s mixed with camel milk, as it traditionally is, it’s even worse. Getting rid of the musky aftertaste that takes over your mouth after the first sip is impossible. It didn’t make me feel any healthier, but it didn’t make me sicker either."
HOTD 141: Muhammad blinds mankind with the light of divine wisdom: If 💩 then 🐪 🍺
This is a sequel to yesterday’s hadith, HOTD 142, in which Muhammad advised some Bedouins to drink camel urine (which starts a chain of events ending with their hands and feet being chopped off).
In today’s hadith, Muhammad, divinely inspired, explains specifically the health benefits of drinking camel urine, stating that it heals stomach problems, notably diarrhea.
”His statement: ‘For those who have a problem (al-dhariba) in their stomachs,’ vocalized with a fatha above the dhaal with a diacritical point, and a kasra under the raa’. This means: For those whose stomachs are in a corrupt state, and diarrhea (al-dharab)—with two fathas—an illness afflicting the stomach, such that it does not digest the food, becoming of a corrupt state, and it is not retained. It (i.e., drinking camel urine) appears to be of general permissibility. And Allah, may He be exalted, knows best.”
Drinking camel urine has not been shown to cure anything, much less stomach problems and diarrhea.
HOTD 140: Muhammad says when you yawn, Satan enters your open mouth and then laughs at you from inside your body
I hate being lied to. But I especially hate it when the liar takes me for a gullible idiot.
And that’s why this hadith bothers me so much. It's a personal insult to my intelligence from Muhammad.
I feel Muhammad not only lying, but also mocking his Companions and every Muslim ever born—including me—in doing so.
Muhammad thinks we're so stupid that we'll believe that the Shaitan, i.e., an evil jinn, wants to enter our mouths and laugh at us from inside our bodies. And even though the Shaitan occupies some totally different, non-corporeal dimension, a hand over the mouth still acts as kryptonite against his evil plan.
So why doesn't the Shaitan just enter through our nose instead?
Allah Muhammad knows best.
”The scholars said that he (ﷺ) ordered that yawning be stifled and resisted, and that the hand be placed over the mouth, in order that the Shaitan not attain his goal of distorting his appearance, entering his mouth, and laughing at him. And Allah knows best.”
”’Sneezing is from Allah and yawning is from the Shaitan,’ because sneezing (by lightening and vitalizing the body) gives rise to activities of worship. Therefore, it is attributed to Allah. In contrast, yawning gives rise to fullness leading to laziness, and it is thus attributed to the Shaitan. ‘Let him cover it with his hand,’ that is, his mouth in order to resist (the Shaitan) as best he can. ‘For when he says, “Ah, Ah,”’ which represents the sound of someone yawning. “The Shaitan laughs from inside of him,” and in the following narration, he is laughing at him.
Al-Tibi said, ‘That is, he is pleased with such carelessness and with entering his mouth to spread devilish whispers.’”
I can't believe I used to believe this s**t.
See also: HOTD 251: Allah loves sneezing, but yawning is Satanic. See also IslamQA's: "Should a person stifle a yawn with his right hand or left?" (Arabic only).
HOTD 139: Muhammad stones to death a new mom because her child is illegitimate
This hadith discusses Muhammad’s stoning to death of two people: Maʻiz bin Malik and a woman from the tribe of Ghamid. Muhammad’s killing of Ibn Malik will be addressed in a future HOTD.
Muhammad is evil.
Let’s look at the sexual ethics of the two main characters in today’s hadith:
Muhammad. As a 52-year-old man, he has sex with a nine-year-old wife who’s still playing with dolls (HOTD 187). He owns sex slaves (Nasa’i 1126, Zad al-Ma’ad 1/114), and allows the sexual slavery of prepubescent girls (HOTD 265).
The Ghamidi woman. She has consensual sex outside of marriage.
Muhammad, who enslaves women for his sexual gratification, kills a woman for unlawful intercourse!
Who is the real criminal here? Who, if anyone, deserves death?
And is it really the All-Merciful's desire that the child be denied a mother?
Muhammad is blind to his own evil, never realizing he is the villain of his own story.
• HOTD #139: Sahih Muslim 1695b (4432)
HOTD 138: Muhammad says violent jihad is better than anything in the world
Killing others is evil.
And in today’s hadith, Muhammad says that killing others in jihad is better than anything in the world. By this he means Allah’s reward for violent jihad is better than anything in the world.
Badr al-Din Al-Ayni, quoting al-Qurtubi, writes:
“Al-Qurtubi said, ‘Any reward received from a single walk in Jihad is better for his companion than the world and all that is in it, gathered for him altogether. It is clear that this does not apply to simply going about his environs in the morning or afternoon. Rather, he obtains this reward by going out in the morning or afternoon on his way to an attack.’”
While the hadith's translation uses the terms “forenoon” and “afternoon”, the terms al-ghadwa and al-rawha used in today’s hadith and commentary are more nuanced than that. The time periods are perhaps better translated as “early morning” and “late day.”
Al-ghadwa refers specifically to going out between dawn and sunrise.
”He went, or went away, in the time called غُدْوَة, i. e. [the early part of the morning,] the period between the prayer of daybreak and sunrise: this is the primary signification”
Lane’s Lexicon: غدو
Al-rawha refers specifically to going out in the afternoon and/or evening.
”He, and they, went, or journeyed, or worked, or did a thing, in the evening, or in the afternoon, i.e., from the declining of the sun from the meridian until night: this is said to be the primary meaning”
Lane’s Lexicon: روح
This is significant because these are the exact two times in which Muhammad, in offensive jihad, attacks others:
Narrated Ibn Muqarrin:
I observed the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. If he did not fight at the beginning of the day; he would delay the fighting until the sun passes the zenith, the wind blows and the aid descends."
Today’s hadith is not about simply jihad. It's about offensive jihad, as Muhammad cannot time when he is attacked, only when he attacks others.
So while Muhammad, to make his message more persuasive to Muslims, guilefully couches violence against non-Muslims with the euphemism “the cause of Allah,” his meaning is:
Offensive jihad is better than the world and all that is in it.
It is extraordinary that someone can describe one of the most evil things in the world as better than anything in the world.
• HOTD #138: Sahih al-Bukhari 2792
HOTD 137: Muhammad prays for Ibn Abbas to correctly interpret the Qur'an. Ibn Abbas then says the earth is spread over the back of a whale
In today's hadith, Ibn Abbas states that nun in Quran 68:1 refers to the whale whose back the earth rests on.
Multiple versions of the hadith directly incorporate Quran 68:1:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
The first thing that Allah created was the Pen. He said, “Write.” It said, “O Lord, what shall I write?” He said, “Write the divine decree.” And it wrote all that shall be from that day until the onset of the Hour. Then the Book was folded up and the Pen lifted. The water vapor rose and the heavens split off from it. He then created the whale (Nun), then the earth was spread over it. When the whale stirred, the earth shook. He created the mountains to secure it, for indeed, they prevail over the earth. Then Ibn Abbas recited the verse, “Nun. By the Pen and what they write,” (Al-Qalam 68:1) through the saying of the Exalted, “You are not, by the favor of your Lord, a madman.” (Al-Qalam 68:2)
Ibn Abbas, who is nicknamed the "Interpreter of the Qur'an," is the cousin and close Companion of Muhammad. As seen in today’s hadith, Muhammad prayed to Allah that Ibn Abbas correctly interpret the Quran.
So there are two Islamic possibilities:
The earth sits on the back of a whale
Allah didn’t answer Muhammad’s prayer
This hadith also exists directly narrated from Muhammad, but it is daʻif (weak).
It is consensus among the ulama that, as all Companions are adil (upright, just), if a Companion’s statement on religious matters cannot have come through a) his own reasoning, or b) from Judeo-Christian traditions, then his statement is considered marfu, that is, directly from Muhammad.
In attributing the narration directly to Muhammad, today's hadith meets condition (a) but not condition (b).
There are two non-scriptural Jewish texts which mention the Leviathan as supporting the earth. The first is the aggadic-midrashic work Pirke DeRabbi Eliezer and the second is the Apocalypse of Abraham, an apocryphon which survives only in the Old Slavonic language.
“On the fifth day He brought forth from the water the Leviathan, the flying serpent, and its dwelling is in the lowest waters; and between its fins rests the middle bar of the earth.”
“I saw there the sea and its islands, and its monsters and its fishes, and Leviathan and his dominion, and his camping-ground, and his caves, and the world which lay upon him, and his movements, and the destructions of the world on his account.”
Ibn Abbas has three monikers:
1- Tarjuman al-Qur’an: Interpreter of the Qur’an
”Abdullah (Ibn Masʻud) said, ‘When Ibn Abbas reaches our age, no man will have one tenth of his knowledge.’ Al-Aʻmash said: I heard them saying that Abdullah said, “Ibn Abbas, may Allah have mercy on him, what an excellent interpreter of the Qur’an he is.”
2- Bahr al-ʻIlm: Ocean of Knowledge
”Ibn Abbas was called al-bahr (the ocean) because of his vast knowledge.”
Al-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak 6283. Classed sahih by al-Hakim.
3- Hibr al-Ummah: Learned Man of the Ummah
”I have never seen the like of Ibn Abbas. On the day he died, he was the learned man of this ummah.”
Al-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak 6284. Classed sahih by al-Hakim.
Ultimately, there are two possibilities for what happened, both of which discredit Muhammad:
Muhammad told Ibn Abbas the earth sits on the back of a whale
Ibn Abbas retold Jewish apocrypha as Islamic truth, demonstrating that Allah didn’t answer Muhammad’s prayer
• HOTD #137: Sunan Ibn Majah 166. Classed sahih by al-Albani and al-Arna’ut. See also Sahih al-Bukhari 75, 143, 3756 and Sahih Muslim 2477 (6368). Al-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak 3840. Classed sahih “according to the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim” by al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi agreed.
See also IslamQA’s “False reports about the earth being placed on the back of a bull” for apologetics on the hadith. See also IslamQA's “The virtue and knowledge of Abdullah Ibn Abbaas,” a fatwa IslamQA has since deleted.
HOTD 136: Muhammad says when a Muslim dies, his soul is perfumed with musk and placed in a shroud of white silk. Non-Muslims are put in a sackcloth and made to smell like rotting flesh
There's something about the "white silk" vs. "sackcloth" comparison that always makes me smile. Today’s hadith demonstrates Allah’s comic-book malice to non-Muslims, but only the moment they die.
Of course, Muhammad’s description of cruelty to non-Muslims can only begin with the afterlife, because Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims, which He professes in the Quran (maqt 35:39, 40:10), is not apparent in this world.
If anything, Allah seemingly favors non-Muslims considering the endless violence and low standards of living prevalent in Muslim countries. Not a single Muslim country places among the top 20 countries in happiness, quality of life, or peacefulness.
And so Muhammad fabricates a ridiculous tale of Muslim delight and non-Muslim misery the moment people die.
Today’s long hadith is actually a shorter version of Musnad Ahmad 18534, with the only difference being that today’s hadith specifies that the “shrouds from Paradise” are made from “white silk.”
I strongly recommend reading Musnad Ahmad 18534. Every sentence is gold, and no single hadith gives a more complete account of one’s immediate afterlife than it.
And while it's comical that Muslim souls are placed in white silken shrouds while non-Muslim souls are thrown into a sackcloth, my absolute favorite part of Muhammad’s tale of the immediate afterlife will be in tomorrow’s HOTD.
HOTD 135: Muhammad says when a non-Muslim dies, Allah has an angel bludgeon him with an iron sledgehammer. The beating and screams are heard by every animal on earth
In this noble hadith, Muhammad explains how every animal in the world hears the screams of every dead non-Muslim getting beaten by Allah’s sledgehammer-wielding “blind and dumb” angel.
But of course, non-Muslims deserve this for the ultimate sin of being non-Muslim—which was predestined by Allah as part of His divine decree.
And as non-Muslims are dying at the rate of about 85 per minute, all animals live life hearing dead kafir screams pulsing at an ambient house BPM of 85.
And indeed Allah is Ar-Rahman, Ar-Ra’uf.
HOTD 134: Muhammad says the Anti-Christ is currently alive, on earth, enchained in a monastery on an island “in the east.” He shares the island with a beast resembling Cousin Itt of the Addams Family
In this glorious hadith, Muhammad tells us exciting news about the Dajjal, i.e., the Anti-Christ: He's alive and on earth right now!
The Companion Tamim al-Dari informs Muhammad that he went out on a boat with thirty men, landing a month later on an island. There, they met a hairy beast named al-Jassasah that told them to go to a monastery on the island to meet a man.
This man, huge and enchained, turns out to be the Dajjal. He informs them:
“I am the Dajjal, and soon I will be given permission to emerge. So I will come out and travel in the land, and will not spare any town but I will stay for forty nights, except Mecca and Taibah (Medina). They are both forbidden to me; every time I try to enter one of them, I will be met by an angel with a sword in his hand, who will bar my way, and on every route there will be angels guarding it.”
"Soon I will be given permission to emerge." Hmmm, 1400 years later and still no Dajjal.
Anyway, Muhammad is excited because this closely resembles his own story about the Dajjal, Mecca and Medina. (See Bukhari 1881.)
The story in today's hadith was told to Muhammad by Tamim al-Dari. And despite it coming from a Companion, I am unaware of any scholar who challenges the truthfulness of Tamim’s story.
There are two reasons for this:
All Companions are adil (upright, just), and it would be unthinkable for Tamim to have fabricated the story. It would be an extraordinary violation of his deen to do so
It is impossible for Allah to allow Muhammad to be misled on a matter of religion
There are two fun characters in this hadith: al-Jassasah and al-Dajjal.
Al-Jassasah is a beast who is so hairy you can't tell its front from its back. Al-Jassasah is remarkably similar to Cousin Itt of the Addams Family.
Al-Nawawi explains the name al-Jassasah:
”It was said that it (i.e., al-Jassasah) was so named because it would seek out (tajassasa) information for the Dajjal. And it came from Abd al-Rahman bin Amr bin al-As that it is the beast of the earth mentioned in the Qur’an.”
That al-Jassasah is the “beast of the earth” from Quran 27:82 is a minority opinion.
The Dajjal is the Anti-Christ figure who will come at the end of times to terrorize the world for forty days and then be killed by Jesus at the Gate of Ludd in Lod, Israel. Regarding the Dajjal, Muhammad says:
”Between the creation of Adam and the onset of the Hour there is no creation that has more impact than the Dajjal.” (Muslim 2946a)
And while Muhammad says “there is no creation that has more impact than the Dajjal," he isn't mentioned anywhere in the Quran. Apparently, Allah found it more important to devote a whole surah to insulting Muhammad's uncle, Abu Lahab, and wife (Al-Masad, Surah 111).
Question: So, as the Earth is completely mapped out, where is this island “in the east” with the monastery and chained up Dajjal?
Answer: Collard greens taste best. No, wait...
• HOTD #134: Sahih Muslim 2942a
HOTD 133: Early Muslims discuss fondling and penetrating their new prepubescent sex slaves
Every school of Islamic jurisprudence, with no exception, allows men to own and have sex with prepubescent sex slaves.
The only real debate regarding prepubescent sex slaves is Istibra. Istibra is one menstrual period of sexual abstinence for a slave-girl when she is captured or changes ownership. This is to ensure there is no confusion on paternity.
Muhammad explains the requirement of Istibra:
It was narrated from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri in a marfu report (attributed to the Prophet ﷺ), regarding the slaves that were captured at Awtas: “Do not perform the sexual act upon a pregnant woman until she has given birth, nor upon the one who is not pregnant until she has menstruated once.”
But what about slave-girls who are so young they haven’t had their first period? Regarding them, two issues arose for early Muslims:
How would one observe Istibra since it is based on menstruation?
Why should Istibra be observed at all? A girl who has not reached menarche should be infertile and thus not pregnant
This was the situation of Ali when, with Muhammad’s approval, he took a prepubescent girl from the war booty and raped her (HOTD 265).
While having sex with the captured young girl was halal, the Companion Buraidah was nevertheless angry with Ali because he didn’t observe Istibra.
Ibn Hajar writes:
"Ali was blamed for having intercourse with the slave-girl without observing Istibra and also for the share of the Khumus that he took for himself.
Now the first allegation is defensible as she was a virgin and not pubescent, and thus she did not need any Istibra — in accordance with the practice of many Sahabah (Companions) before him. And she might have had her period after becoming his and then became purified after one day and one night. He had intercourse with her with no ill intent.”
Just absorb that for a moment. It was the regular practice of Muhammad’s Companions to rape prepubescent slave-girls.
Today’s hadiths come from a horrific chapter in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, titled:
Regarding the man who buys a slave-girl, may he (immediately) take pleasure in anything of her, and does it exclude the vulva or not?
The chapter is devoted to the Istibra requirements for those who buy sex slaves. The subsequent, equally horrific chapter in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, is devoted to the Istibra requirements for those who sell sex slaves.
Today's hadiths are the words of the Tabi‘un (Successors), i.e., the second generation of Muslims, those who followed the Sahabah (Companions).
In the first hadith, Ikrimah discusses fondling not just your regular prepubescent sex slave, but “even one younger than that.” (!) He says there is nothing wrong with doing it, even before Istibra.
In the second hadith, the famous judge Iyas bin Mu‘awiyah states that Istibra is not even needed before having sex with your prepubescent sex slave.
The consensus of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence is that Istibra is required for all non-menstruating sex slaves, whether prepubescent or mature, before having sex with them. The Hanafis and Shafi‘is state Istibra should last one month, in line with the one menstrual period requirement for menstruating sex slaves. The Hanbalis believe it should be three months long. And Malik has given opinions ranging from one month to three months. (Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Fiqh 3/174)
Stepping back, the details of prepubescent Istibra are not what's important. Far more important, WHY IS THE SEXUAL SLAVERY OF CHILDREN PERMISSIBLE?!
It's horrific enough that Islam supports sex slavery:
Allah gives His divine blessing to sex slavery multiple times in the Quran (4:24; 23:5-6; 33:50-52; 70:29-30)
But PREPUBESCENT sex slaves!! FFS.
Bottom line: Islam supports the sexual slavery of prepubescent girls. This is evil.
• HOTD #133: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 16906. Not studied. All narrators and isnad (chain of transmission) links are of Sahih al-Bukhari. The link of Ikrimah and Yahya occurs in Bukhari 360, 1107, 1534, 1706, 1809. The chain of Yahya, Ali bin al-Mubarak, and Waki occurs in Bukhari 945, 4922.
Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 16907. Not studied. All narrators are of Sahih Muslim: Hammad bin Salamah (86 times) and Zaid bin Hubab (16 times). The link of Iyas bin Mu‘awiyah and Hammad is documented by al-Dhahabi. The link of Hammad and Zayd bin Hubab is documented within Musnad Ahmad 21923, in which al-Arna’ut writes:
“Its isnad is hasan. Its men are thiqat (trustworthy) except for Sa‘id bin Jumhan, who is saduq (sincere) among the men narrated by the authors of the Sunans.”
HOTD 133 Supplement: Ten hadiths on sex slavery
Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 16905-16914
Book of Nikah (Marriage/Intercourse)
Chapter 105: Regarding the man who buys a slave-girl, may he (immediately) take pleasure in anything of her, and does it exclude the vulva or not?
16905. Ibn Ulayyah narrated to us about the one who asked Yunus, regarding the man who buys a slave-girl and observes Istibra, may he take pleasure in her with a kiss, and with direct skin contact?” He replied, “Ibn Sirin said, ‘It is Makruh (reprehensible) for him to take pleasure in that which is Haram (forbidden) to him of other women, until she has observed Istibra.’ Al-Hasan mentioned that he did not see anything wrong with kissing.”
16906. Waki narrated to us from Ali bin al-Mubarak, from Yahya bin Abi Kathir, from Ikrimah, regarding the man who buys a prepubescent slave-girl, even one younger than that. He said, “There is nothing wrong with touching her before observing Istibra.”
16907. Zaid bin Hubab narrated to us from Hammad bin Salamah, from Iyas bin Mu‘awiyah, regarding a man who bought a prepubescent slave-girl, do not those like her have sexual intercourse? He said, “There is nothing wrong with performing the sexual act upon her without observing Istibra.”
16908. Abd al-A‘la narrated to us from Sa‘id, from Qatadah, that it is Makruh (reprehensible) to kiss her until she has observed Istibra.
16909. Zaid bin Hubab narrated to us from Hammad bin Salamah, from Ali bin Zaid, from Ayyub al-Lakhmi. He said, “Ibn Umar received a slave-girl on the Day of Jalula as part of his share, and her neck was like a silver jug. He said that he could not stop himself from kissing her while everyone was watching.”
Chapter 106: Regarding the man who wishes to sell a slave-girl, there is he who said, “Observe Istibra”
16910. Abu Bakr bin Ayyash narrated to us from Aslam al-Minqari, from Ubaidullah bin Ubaid bin Umair. He said, “Abd al-Rahman bin Awf, before observing Istibra, sold a slave-girl with whom he used to have intercourse. It became apparent to the one who bought her that she was pregnant. He argued his case before Umar. Umar said (to Abd al-Rahman), ‘Did you used to have intercourse with her?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘So you sold her before observing Istibra?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Then you did not act appropriately.’ He called for the Qafah (those skilled in determining paternity by observing physical features). They looked at him and attributed paternity to him.”
16911. Hushaim narrated to us from Yunus, from al-Hasan, that he used to say, “A man has his slave-girl observe Istibra for one menstrual period when he sells her, and for one menstrual period when he buys her.”
16912. Mu’tamir narrated to us from Kathir bin Yasar, from Ibn Sirin. He said, “If a man buys a slave-girl and she has not reached menarche, he must have her observe Istibra for three months. If he has intercourse with her and then wants to sell her, let him likewise have her observe Istibra for three months.”
16913. Yahya bin Adam narrated to us from Isra’il, from Mansur, from Ibrahim. He said, “If he wishes to sell her, let Istibra be observed.”
16914. Abu Usama narrated to us from Abdullah, from Nafi, from Ibn Umar, regarding the slave-girl upon whom the sexual act is performed, “If she is sold, gifted, or set free, let Istibra be observed for one menstrual period.”
Note: Istibra is one menstrual period of sexual abstinence required of a slave-girl when she is captured or changes ownership. This is to ensure no confusion on paternity. In the case of slave-girls who have not reached menarche, if Istibra is observed, it is typically for a period of one month.
Yesterday's HOTD 133: "Early Muslims discuss fondling and penetrating their new prepubescent sex slaves" consists of two hadiths from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah's chapter on buying sex slaves and Istibra.
I thought it would be worthwhile to translate all ten hadiths in the chapters titled:
Regarding the man who buys a slave-girl, may he (immediately) take pleasure in anything of her, and does it exclude the vulva or not?
Regarding the man who wishes to sell a slave-girl, there is he who said, “Observe Istibra”
In the edition of Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah annotated by Usamah bin Ibrahim bin Muhammad Abu Muhammad, who I am not familiar with, Usamah gives grades to two of the ten hadiths:
For hadith 16909, he writes: "Its isnad (chain of transmission) is da‘if jiddan (very weak), in which Ali bin Zaid bin Jad‘an is da‘if in hadith, and Ayyub bin Abdullah al-Lakhmi is unknown.”
For hadith 16914, he writes: "Its isnad is sahih."
Usamah doesn't offer an opinion on the other eight hadiths.
These hadiths showcase the Salaf's complete support of sex slavery. It’s important to be aware of them, and I haven't seen them translated into English before.
• HOTD #133 supplement: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 16905-16914
HOTD 132: Muhammad says non-menstrual vaginal bleeding is caused by Satan kicking the woman’s womb
So why does the Shaitan do this?
It’s in order to trick the woman into thinking she is menstruating, and thus she will not pray.
Allah forbids women from praying during their period and rejects their prayers if they do. Allah poorly explains this in the Quran (it is implied from 2:222), but Muhammad makes it clear in this famous hadith in which he explains why women are the majority in Hell:
…The women asked, “O Allah's Messenger ﷺ! 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.”
So the sneaky Shaitan kicks the woman’s womb, causing it to bleed, and then the woman mistakenly believes she is forbidden from praying, and thus she neglects her prayers.
“The statement: ‘rather it is a kick,’ meaning: ‘a kick from the Shaitan, as in the narration, and it is striking with the leg and causing injury. It is ascribed to the Shaitan because he found a way to confuse her in matters of her religion, ritual purity, and prayer.”
Muhammad attributes non-menstrual vaginal bleeding to “a kick from the Shaitan” in other hadiths as well, including Jami al-Tirmidhi 128, classed hasan by al-Albani and da'if by al-Arna’ut, and Musnad Ahmad 27631, classed sahih by al-Arna’ut.
“‘This is a kick from the kicks of the Shaitan’ means the Shaitan kicked the womb, in reality, because ‘the Shaitan flows through the son of Adam like blood.’”
The Shaitan’s ability to enter our bodies is well documented in the Hadith. Muhammad says the Shaitan enters our noses when we sleep (Bukhari 3295) and enters our mouths and laughs at us when we yawn (HOTD 140).
O Muhammad, so many lies, so little time.
HOTD 131: 😈 → 😣💨 Muhammad says Satan gently coaxes you—‘as a man softly coaxes an animal’— to trick you into farting
In Islam, Allah rejects your prayers if you fart.
If you fart, the Creator of the Universe will never again accept your prayers unless you wash your feet and rinse your mouth, i.e., perform wudu ablution. (HOTD 281)
In fact, sleeping automatically invalidates wudu because of the chance you farted during sleep. One notable exception is Muhammad. He says he is uniquely aware of his nighttime farts, and so he doesn’t have to perform wudu. (HOTD 156)
Anyway, the Shaytan, i.e., an evil jinn, knows farting invalidates your prayers. Thus, he is always trying to trick you into thinking you farted, so that you stop praying. It’s possible he can also cause you to actually fart, as the wording of today’s hadith suggests. This would seem easy for the Shaytan considering he can kick a woman’s womb to cause her vaginal bleeding. (HOTD 132)
It’s possible the specific Shaytan in today’s hadith is named Khinzab, which means “maggoty and stinking piece of meat.” (What cruel parents to name him that!)
Khinzab is the particular devil who is always trying to distract you in your prayers with devilish whispers. (Muslim 2203a) And these devilish whispers can include making you think you farted. Khinzab is one of the hardest working devils, having to distract over a billion Muslims from their prayers every day.
However, it’s also possible Khinzab has help from a different devil who specifically focuses on fiddling with your anus, with Khinzab focusing entirely on devilish whispers. And
Allah Muhammad knows best.
In today’s hadith, Muhammad explains that this devil softly coaxes you into relaxing and submitting, at which point you release farts, just as a good camel owner softly coaxes his camel into relaxing and releasing milk.
However, Muhammad believes this may not be a true fart. Rather, it is the Shaytan blowing air into your anus, tricking you into thinking you farted.
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Allah’s Messenger ﷺ said, “Satan comes to one of you in Salat (prayer) and blows air in his bottom. Consequently, he imagines that he has passed wind, yet he did not (do so). So, if he gets that feeling he should not leave (his prayer) unless he hears the sound (of passing wind) or smells (its) odor.”
Al-Bazzar, Kashf al-Astar 281. Classed sahih by Abdullah al-Sa‘d in al-Majlis al-Awwal min al-Qira’ah w’al-Ta‘liq ala Matn Bulugh al-Maram 2:22:16 and Ali ibn Nayf al-Shahhud in Mawsuʻah al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah no. 4540.
English translation from Ibn Hajar, Bulugh al-Maram, 2nd ed. (Riyadh: Darussalam, 2002), 44, no. 76.
It's important to fully absorb this lunacy:
Muhammad says that during prayer an evil genie rims your anus and blows air into it, to simulate a fart.
In today’s hadith, Muhammad says the worshipper “should not leave until he hears a sound or detects an odor and there is no doubt about it.”
By this, Muhammad is saying that because the fart is being brought about through unnatural means, the person shouldn’t abandon his prayer to perform wudu unless he is certain he farted by actually hearing or smelling his fart.
All I know is Islam doesn’t pass the smell test.
HOTD 130: Umar sees slave-girl wearing hijab and he lashes her in the head with a whip
Even among the wretched group of Companions, Umar ibn al-Khattab stands out.
HOTD 129: Muhammad says you better be afraid of Allah turning your head into a donkey’s head. 1400 years later and it’s never happened…or has it... 😲
One of the many, many, many sins in Islam is to raise your head from the sajdah prostrate position before the imam does. (Oh the horror!)
Why, this sin is so great Allah might turn your head into the head of a donkey, or maybe even your whole body into a donkey-body!
You say: 1400 years and it's never happened.
I say: …Or has it… 😲
The story of the donkey-head sheikh teaching students behind a curtain, recorded by 16th century muhaddith Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, is one of my favorites ever. Oh, if only the poor sheikh obeyed Muhammad’s warning!
So even apologists know this never happened. So their excuse is...drumroll...Muhammad didn't mean what he said.
Muslim apologists say transforming one’s head into a donkey’s head is a metaphor for likening the person to a donkey, an animal whose stereotypical defining trait and appearance is one of slow-wittedness.
This is nonsense. It's clear in the Quran that Allah can and will punish transgressors by transmuting them into animals. Allah famously punished Jews who fished on the Sabbath by transmuting them into monkeys and pigs (Quran 2:65, 5:60, 7:166).
Muhammad’s donkey threat is entirely consistent with Allah’s behavior in the Quran.
Apologists typically quote al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (different scholar than Ibn Hajar al-Haytami) when arguing for a metaphorical interpretation. Ibn Hajar’s Fath al-Bari is the most celebrated commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari.
Apologists, like surgeons, carefully excise his quotes on metaphorical interpretation from the larger text, thus implying the metaphorical views are held by Ibn Hajar. They then ignore and never translate his rebuttal of those views and his support for a literal understanding!
Ibn Hajar writes:
Others have taken it literally as there is no objection to this occurring. And in the Book of Drinks will come evidence that transmutation will occur to this ummah, and this is the hadith of Abu Malik al-Ash‘ari in al-Maghazi, in which some will be swallowed up by the earth, and finally, “He shall transmute the others into monkeys and pigs, and they shall remain so until the Day of Resurrection.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 5590) And more will come regarding this in Tafsir Surah al-An‘am, if Allah, may He be exalted, wills.
A literal understanding is strengthened by the report of Ibn Hibban (Sahih Ibn Hibban 2283), with a different transmission path from Muhammad ibn Ziyad: “that Allah shall turn his head into the head of a dog.” This discredits the metaphorical interpretation because of the example they mentioned, the slow-wittedness of the donkey (i.e., dogs are not characterized as slow-witted).
What also discredits it (the metaphorical interpretation) is expressing the warning as a future occurrence and with wording indicating a resulting change in form. If he wanted to liken him to a donkey because of slow-wittedness, he would have said, for example, “His head is the head of a donkey.” I said this purely because (per the metaphorical interpretation) the stated characteristic, which is slow-wittedness, is obtained by performing the stated action. It is no more logical to say to him, “It is feared that if you do so, you shall become slow-witted,” when the stated action itself arises from slow-wittedness.
Ibn al-Jawzi said in the narration in which he expounded on the word surat “form”: “This term precludes the metaphorical interpretation of those who say that what is meant by ‘head of a donkey’ is slow-wittedness.” He did not address preclusion using the word “face.”
So to sum up Ibn Hajar’s reasons for a literal understanding:
Muhammad said Allah will literally transmute transgressing Muslims into animals on another occasion.
This hadith also exists in sahih form in which the donkey is replaced with a dog. This discredits the metaphorical interpretation of slow-wittedness because dogs are not characterized as slow-witted
It’s nonsensical to say Allah will make you slow-witted like a donkey, when being slow-witted like a donkey TO BEGIN WITH is the reason for your action
A translation of Ibn Hajar's entire commentary on Bukhari 691 can be found here in HOTD 129 supplement:
The bottom line is this:
Muhammad used an insane, empty threat as an easy way to get his followers to conform to petty prayer formalities. He knew it would work because they all knew the story of Allah turning Jews into monkeys and pigs.
But after 1400 years, no one’s turned into a donkey for preceding the imam.
Muhammad is a charlatan.
HOTD 129 Supplement: Fath al-Bari commentary on donkey-head hadith + 4 fun and exciting hidden sentences
This is a translation of the entire text of Ibn Hajar’s Fath al-Bari commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari 691, which is the subject of HOTD 129: Muhammad says you better be afraid of Allah turning your head into a donkey’s head
Fath al-Bari is the most celebrated commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, but unfortunately it hasn't been translated into English.
I’m hoping this can be a useful, long-term resource for the many English-speaking Muslims, ex-Muslims, and never-moose who don't speak Arabic, but who want to genuinely understand Muhammad’s words in this hadith.
And to make a long sharh reading fun and exciting—make that thrilling and rapturous!—I’ve buried into Fath al-Bari four sentences that were spoken in my house in the past three days, sentences I will later remove.
See if you can find them!
Fath al-Bari, vol. 2, p. 182-184
53. Chapter on the sin of the one who raises his head prior to the imam
691. Hajjaj ibn Minhal narrated to us, Shu‘bah narrated to us, from Muhammad ibn Ziyad: I heard Abu Hurayrah say that the Prophet ﷺ said, “Is not one of you afraid —or does not one of you fear—that if he raises his head prior to the imam, Allah shall turn his head into the head of a donkey, or Allah shall change his form into the form of a donkey?”
The words: “Chapter on the sin of the one who raises his head prior to the imam,” meaning, from the prostrate position, as will be explained.
The words: “From Muhammad ibn Ziyad,” which is al-Jumahi from Madinah who lived in Basrah, and in the hadiths of al-Bukhari he narrated from Abu Hurayrah. Among the Successors, there is also Muhammad ibn Ziyad al-Alhani al-Himsi, who has one hadith narrated from Abu Umamah in the Book of Agriculture.
The words: “Is not one of you afraid,” and in the report of al-Kushmihani, “or does not one (of you) fear.” And in Abu Dawud (Sunan Abu Dawud 623) from Hafs ibn Umar from Shu‘bah, amā yakhshā aw alā yakhshā, “Is not one afraid—or—does not one fear,” with (the “or” indicating) uncertainty. What the hell is an Idaho Spud? And amā, where the letter mīm is pronounced without a shaddah, is a term used for when an explanation is sought, like alā. Its origin is that of negation, and added to it is the interrogative hamzah, and here it is an interrogative of reproach.
The words: “If he raises his head prior to the imam.” Ibn Khuzaymah (Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah 1600), from the narration of Ḥammad ibn Zayd from Muḥammad ibn Ziyad, added, “in his prayer.” In the abovementioned narration of Hafs ibn Umar it says, “the one who raises his head while the imam remains prostrate.” It is clear that what is intended is rising from the prostrate position, in which case, this supersedes those who say that the hadith is a stipulation which prohibits one led in prayer by the imam from preceding him in both bowing and prostrating. It is only a stipulation for prostration. Bowing is associated with it because it is subsumed within its meaning (i.e., bowing is necessary for prostration). It is possible to differentiate between the two as prostration has greater merit. This is because in it the worshipper is as close as possible to his Lord, and this is the end point of the submission required of him. And I can’t believe Joshua Bassett would break up with her when she’s a billion times better than him. Therefore, it (prostration) was designated as the object of the stipulation. It is possible that it falls under the principle of sufficiency, which is the mention of one of the two things which jointly contribute to a ruling when the mentioned thing has superiority.
As for preceding the imam in lowering into the position of bowing and prostration, it was said that it belongs to the preceding principle. This is because standing up and sitting between prostrations are the means, and bowing and prostrating are the ends. If the evidence indicates that it is obligatory to consent to that which is a means, it is more likely that it must be for that which is an end. It could be said that this is not evident, because to rise from bowing and prostration necessarily cuts short the progression to completion. Introducing a defect in the ends is more serious than introducing it in the means.
The prohibition on descending and rising prior to the imam is mentioned in another marfu (attributable to the Prophet ﷺ) hadith narrated by al-Bazzar (Musnad al-Bazzar 9404) from the report of Malih ibn Abdullah al-Sa‘di from Abu Hurayrah: “The one who descends and rises prior to the imam, his forelock is but in the hand of a devil.” And Abd al-Razzaq (Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq 3753) narrated it in mawquf (attributable to a Companion) form, and it is the preserved (i.e., preferred) version.
The words: “Or Allah will change his form into the form of a donkey.” The uncertainty (indicated by “or”) is from Shu‘bah. It was narrated by al-Tayalisi (Musnad Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi 2612) from Hammad ibn Salamah, and Ibn Khuzaymah from the narration of Hammad ibn Zayd, and Muslim (Sahih Muslim 427) from the narration of Yunus ibn Ubayd and al-Rabi ibn Muslim, all from Muhammad ibn Ziyad without repetition. As for the two Hammads, they said, “head,” while Yunus said, “form,” and al-Rabi said, “face.” It is apparent that it (the reason for different wording) is the inclination of the narrators. Iyad said, “These narrations are in agreement because the face and most of the form is with the head.”
I said: The term surat (form, image, visage) also refers to the face. The word “head” has been narrated more often and is more comprehensive, and it is thus the accepted narration. The warning is specifically expressed regarding it (the head) because the offense occurred with it, and it is more comprehensive. The literal understanding of the hadith requires that it be forbidden to raise it prior to the imam. This is because of the threat of transmutation, which is the most severe punishment. Well Miss Rabbit works harder than you. Al-Nawawi asserted this in Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, as well as to it being forbidden. The majority argue that, while the action is a sin, the prayer remains valid. And from Ibn Umar, it is invalid, and likewise by Ahmad in a narration, and by Zahiri scholars. This is based on the fact that prohibition requires corruption (i.e., the Prophet ﷺ would prohibit the action only if it corrupted the prayer). In Al-Mughni, from Ahmad, he said in his treatise, “Because of this hadith, those who preceded the imam have no claim to an act of prayer.” He said, “Were he to have claim to an act of prayer, he could expect his reward and would not fear punishment.”
And they have differed on the meaning of the abovementioned warning. It was said that this possibly relates to a matter of the mind. The donkey is characterized by slow-wittedness, and metaphorically this meaning applies to the one ignorant of his duty regarding required prayer and following the imam. It is likely that this metaphorical transformation did not occur with the great number who acted thus. However, there is nothing in the hadith indicating that this must occur. It simply indicates that one who acts in such a manner is at risk and that his action makes possible the threat of this occurring. Being exposed to the risk of something does not necessitate that such thing will occur.
Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id stated that Ibn Bazizah said, “It is possible that what is intended by transformation is physical transmutation, or transformation of the sensory or mental state, or both together.”
Others have taken it literally as there is no objection to this occurring. And in the Book of Drinks will come evidence that transmutation will occur to this ummah, and this is the hadith of Abu Malik al-Ash‘ari in al-Maghazi, in which some will be swallowed up by the earth, and finally, “He shall transmute the others into monkeys and pigs, and they shall remain so until the Day of Resurrection.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 5590) And more will come regarding this in Tafsir Surah al-An‘am, if Allah, may He be exalted, wills.
A literal understanding is strengthened by the report of Ibn Hibban (Sahih Ibn Hibban 2283), with a different transmission path from Muhammad ibn Ziyad: “that Allah shall turn his head into the head of a dog.”
This discredits the metaphorical interpretation because of the example they mentioned, the slow-wittedness of the donkey (i.e., dogs are not characterized as slow-witted).
What also discredits it (the metaphorical interpretation) is expressing the warning as a future occurrence and with wording indicating a resulting change in form. If he wanted to liken him to a donkey because of slow-wittedness, he would have said, for example, “His head is the head of a donkey.” I have said this purely because (per the metaphorical interpretation) the stated characteristic, which is slow-wittedness, is obtained by performing the stated action. It is no more logical to say to him, “It is feared that if you do so, you shall become slow-witted,” when the stated action itself arises from slow-wittedness.
Ibn al-Jawzi said in the narration in which he expounded on the word “form”: “This term precludes the metaphorical interpretation of those who say that what is meant by ‘head of a donkey’ is slow-wittedness.” He did not address preclusion using the word “face.”
In the hadith, there is the perfection of his ﷺ compassion for his ummah, and his explanation to them of the rulings and resultant reward and punishment, and it has been inferred the permissibility of acting simultaneously (with the imam). If you put gum in her hair I’m going to rip Baby Yoda’s head off. There is no proof of it because it (the hadith) demonstrated with its wording the prohibition of preceding him, with the understanding that following him is demanded. As for acting simultaneously, it was silent about it.
Ibn Bazizah said, “Some people who do not understand the validity of soul transmigration inferred its literal meaning.” I said: It is a contemptible school of thought based on claims without proof. He among them who inferred this (a metaphorical interpretation of the hadith based on soul transmigration), inferred it but through a basis of abrogation having nothing to do with this hadith.
A beneficial word: The author of Al-Qabas said, “There is no reason to precede the imam except as an appeal to haste. Its remedy is to recall that one does not say the Salam prior to the imam, so there should be no haste in these acts.” And Allah knows best.
• HOTD #129 supplement: Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari 2/182-184
HOTD 128: Ali chops off man’s hand—and makes him wear it as a necklace
Ali somehow gets a reputation of being less evil than most of Muhammad’s crew. But he’s a villain like all of them.
Ali raped a prepubescent slave-girl (HOTD 265), set apostates on fire (Bukhari 3017), and in today’s hadith, Ali makes a thief wear his severed hand as a necklace—because, you know, he won’t learn his lesson by just chopping it off.
We know the man in today’s hadith is a thief because of the preceding sahih hadith:
“Ali cut off the hand of a thief, and I saw it hanging, meaning: around his neck.”
In Quran 5:38, “Allah” decides the Arab pagan practice (Tafsir Ibn Kathir 5:38) of chopping off hands for theft—mentioned nowhere in the Bible—is monotheistic perfection, and He reveals the local pagan practice as global Divine Law.
Regarding the severed hand necklace, there’s a hadith in which Muhammad himself orders a thief’s severed hand hung around his neck (Tirmidhi 1447), but most hadith scholars believe it to be da‘if weak despite al-Tirmidhi saying it’s hasan good. In contrast, the Ali hadith is sahih.
I believe the Muhammad incident is true because I don’t believe Ali would innovate such a startling practice.
But regardless, the severed-hand necklace is forever Sunnah because Ali is a Rightly Guided Caliph, and Muhammad said:
”Whoever among you lives after I am gone…must adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs.”
✋ Hang Time:
But for how long should the thief wear his severed hand? After all, the thing rots and smells.
The Hanbali jurist al-Hajjawi says three days is the right amount of time to wear one’s severed hand:
“It is Sunnah to hang his hand around his neck. A group (of scholars) added: for three days if the imam sees fit.” (al-Iqna 4/285)
In contrast to lion-hearted Hanbalis, Shafiites are a squeamish lot. They think a one-hour hang time is sufficient. The Shafiite al-Nawawi writes:
”The Sunnah is that the severed hand hangs from his neck. Then what is found in the books of the esteemed is that it hangs for one hour.” (Rawdat al-Talibin 10/150)
Since most Muslims are horrified with chopping off hands, Muslim apologists do the True Islamic State™ special pleading argument—claiming a horrific Islamic practice makes total sense, but only in an Islamic state, and since there is no True Islamic State™ (watch out for Afghanistan), Allah’s eternal command to the world doesn’t apply anywhere in the world.
But this is nonsense. Chopping off hands was already the appropriate punishment in the pluralistic pagan society from which Islam copied.
And hand-chopping’s dual purpose is made simple and clear by Allah (Quran 5:38):
jazan bima kasaba, “recompense for what they earned,” i.e., retribution
nakalan, a punishment that serves as a deterrent
There is NOTHING unique about a True Islamic State™ that would indicate Allah’s dual purpose applies only there. Allah’s dual purpose of retribution and deterrence applies ANYWHERE, and in fact, criminal justice has always incorporated these two objectives, among others. (Funny how the Most Merciful doesn’t mention rehabilitation as an objective.)
The reason non-Islamic societies nevertheless don’t do hand-chopping is because it’s barbaric, totally disproportionate to the crime, and the mutilation is permanent.
But at least IslamQA has the integrity to say it like it is, that cutting off hands can indeed be applied in non-Islamic societies:
”If this ruling (cutting off the hand) was applied in the societies which are content with man-made laws and which have cast aside the sharee’ah of Allaah and replaced it with human laws, this would be the most beneficial treatment for this phenomenon.”
When everyone is lying, it’s refreshing to read the truth, even when it’s horrific.
HOTD 127: Muhammad says Allah creates people for Hell by whacking Adam’s left shoulder! Allah then tells them—before they’ve done anything—‘For the Fire, and I don’t mind’ 😧🔥
The Origin of Humans per Islam—Totally Not Stupid and Fake:
1. First, Allah predestined everything that will ever happen: “Verily the first of what Allah created was the Pen. He said to it, ‘Write.’ So it wrote what will be forever.’” (Tirmidhi 3319) This divine decree is inscribed in a book called al-Lawh al-Mahfuz (the Preserved Tablet) (Quran 85:22).
2. After 50,000 years had passed (Muslim 2653), Allah created the earth and the heavens in six days (Qur’an 50:38). He first created the earth in four days, after which He created the seven heavens from smoke in two days (Qur’an 41:9-12).
The seven heavens refer to the ancient firmament model in which the seven moving celestial bodies—sun, moon, and five visible planets—lie in seven different sky layers on which they travel around the flat earth. Also, note that Allah made the earth before the heavens, even though we know the universe, i.e., the heavens, is older than the earth.
Also note that it took Allah four long days to make the one miniscule Earth, but only two days to make the heavens with two TRILLION galaxies and SEPTILLIONs of stars and planets.
3. Allah then placed on the earth Jinn, i.e., genies, who ruled the earth for two thousand years. (And yet no mention of the 150 million years dinosaurs ruled the earth.)
The Jinn corrupted the earth, so Allah had warrior angels chase them away to the islands of the sea (Al-Mustadrak 3035).
After making Adam, Allah made Eve from Adam’s rib (Qur’an 4:1, Tafsir Ibn Kathir 4:1, Muslim 1468c (3643)), and Allah also created all humans yet to be born, creating people specifically for Paradise and specifically for Hell (Qur’an 7:179, Muslim 2662b (6768)).
5. To make people for Paradise, Allah hit Adam’s right shoulder (Bazzar 4143) and took these people out of Adam’s loins (Ahmad 17660) and placed them in His right hand (Ahmad 17593), saying to them, “For Paradise, and I shall not mind.” (Bazzar 4143). Likewise, to create people for Hell, He hit Adam’s left shoulder and took these people out of Adam’s loins and placed them in His left hand, saying “For the Fire, and I shall not mind.”
Allah then placed all the people in darkness and shone His light on those He would guide—the people of Paradise—and kept His light away from those He will have go astray—the people of Hell (Ahmad 6854 (m)).
6. As people have been born, Allah causes their actions to follow exactly what was decreed for them (Bukhari 7454, Ahmad 311), and they are sent to Paradise or Hell exactly as was decreed for them (Bukhari 4946).
There is no free will in Islam. Everything is predestined.
In today’s hadith, Muhammad adds a nice touch of soft racism in which the people for Paradise are made white while the people for Hell are made black.
And finally, the cherry on top is Allah’s words to the people He just created for eternal Hell, “For the Fire, and I shall not mind”. Phew. I got worried there that Muhammad’s Allah might have a conscience.
And indeed Allah is Ar-Rahman Ar-Ra’uf.
As an aside, the hadith actually reads, “white like الذَّرُّ,” which means “white like small ants.” This English rendering—which I always see—is almost certainly incorrect, and it should be “white like الدَّرُّ,” with a daal rather than a dhaal, meaning “white like milk,” as found in al-Tabarani's Musnad al-Shamiyin 2213. The hadith is also found written as “white like اللَبنُ, meaning “milk,” as found in al-Suyuti’s al-Jami al-Saghir (Al-Albani, Sahih al-Jami al-Saghir 3234)
HOTD 126: World History: 🧞 Genies ruled earth for 2,000 years then Allah had warrior angels chase them away to the sea, then Allah installed humans as new earth rulers
In today’s hadith, we learn that just prior to Adam, for 2,000 years Earth was ruled by Jinn. 🧞 (Yet no mention of the 150 million years dinosaurs ruled the earth.)
However, these Jinn were big troublemakers, corrupting the earth and shedding blood. (TIL Jinn bleed!)
Allah got fed up with the Jinn, so “He unleashed upon them soldiers from the angels, and they battered them until they were banished to the islands of the seas.”
Allah then put Adam on the earth, with humans being a new Khalifah, replacing the reign of the Jinn.
Today’s hadith is Ibn Abbas’ tafsir of Qur'an 2:30, which reads:
And when your Lord said to the angels, “Indeed, I will make upon the earth a Khalifah,” they said, “Will you place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare your praise and sanctify You?” He said, “Indeed, I know that which you do not know.”
Ibn Abbas is Muhammad’s cousin and Companion. It is consensus among the ulama that, as all Companions are udul (upright, just), if a Companion’s statement on religious matters cannot have come through (a) his own reasoning, or (b) from Judeo-Christian traditions, then his statement is considered marfu, that is, directly from Muhammad.
This is such a case.
This story did not come from reasoning. And I am unaware of any Judeo-Christian tradition in which the earth is ruled by spirits for thousands of years prior to Adam’s placement on Earth, particularly since, per the Biblical narrative, Adam, and thus the earth, was 130 years old when Seth was born.
While, per usul al-hadith, Ibn Abbas’ account of the story must have come from Muhammad, it’s also noteworthy Muhammad prayed for Ibn Abbas to correctly interpret the Qur’an, and Ibn Abbas’ moniker is Tarjuman al-Qur’an “Interpreter of the Qur’an.” (HOTD 137)
In Which Years Did Jinn Rule the Earth:
Islamic scripture, though hardly precise on the matter, roughly follows the Biblical chronology in which Adam first appears on the Earth around 4000 BCE. (See IslamQA’s: How many years were there between Adam and Muhammad?)
There are authentic hadiths, which in combination account for 4,300 years between Adam and Muhammad, excepting the years between Abraham and Moses, for which there is no hadith. The Bible indicates the two were born 400-600 years apart.
So now you know the earth was ruled by genies from about 6000 BCE to 4000 BCE.
For the sake of Allah, please inform your teachers in front of all the students.
• HOTD #126: Al-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak 3035. Classed sahih by al-Hakim and confirmed by al-Dhahabi.
HOTD 125: Muhammad wages war on laughter, ‘for much laughter kills the heart’ 😄 → �?💔�?
While we know Muhammad forbids laughing at farts (HOTD 229), his disdain for laughter runs even deeper.
To control others, a cult leader will typically teach that joy can't be found in this world, but only in the afterlife to which the cult leader exclusively has the key.
The cult leader's problem with laughter is that it’s an expression of joy with this world, a joy that shouldn't exist.
And so in today’s hadith, cult leader Muhammad teaches his flock the dangers of laughter:
"Do not laugh much, for much laughter kills the heart."
And Muhammad practiced what he preached:
“The laughter of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was nothing but a smile.” (Tirmidhi 3642)
Of course, modern medicine has demonstrated that laughter does the OPPOSITE of what Muhammad says. It actually greatly benefits the heart.
Al-Manawi explains how in Prophetic Medicine, laughter kills your heart and ultimately your body:
”In abundant laughter there is corruption of the heart, and if the heart becomes corrupt, then the whole body is corrupted. (See Bukhari 52)
Warning: Laughter fatal to the heart arises from joy and exultation in this world. The heart has a life and a death. Its life is in steadfast obedience (to Allah). Its death is in responding to that which is not Allah, to one’s ego, whims, and the Shaytan.
And with frequent ailments (of the heart) due to disobedience, bodies die from their ailments. While the causes of its death were limited (in the Hadith) to abundant laughter, it arises from all of them (i.e., all the causes) which originate from a love of this world.
Such love is the basis of every sin, as in the text of the report in which Allah revealed to Dawud: ‘Whoever disobeys me has died. Among the causes of the heart’s death are evil, exultation, and joy, and if it dies, Allah will not respond to him when he calls on Him.’”
One might ask: Why does corruption of the heart necessarily lead to corruption of the whole body?
Well, as Ibn Hajar explains: “the heart is the seat of the mind,” and as such, “the heart is the ruler of the body and when a ruler is sound, his subjects are sound. Similarly, when he is corrupt, they are corrupt.” (Fath al-Bari 1/128-29)
And to understand that “the heart is the seat of the mind,” you need to know that Allah incorrectly believes cognitive function occurs in the heart, not the brain.
So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? (Quran 22:46)
Well, at least Allah knows what ears do.
HOTD 124: O Muslim women, Rejoice! In Heaven, you’re with your husband who’s ‘busy deflowering virgins’—and you’ll be so happy for him 😊
In today’s hadiths, Muhammad’s senior Companions explain that in Qur’an 36:55, Allah is saying Muslim men will be busy having sex with virgin houris on the Day of Resurrection.
Muslim wives will still be married to their husbands in the afterlife, and so they’ll have the pleasure of knowing their husbands are being sexually pleasured by hot virgin houris.
Even when I was a teenager, hormones raging, virgin houris disturbed me. Space-girl sex creatures were not my thing.
It didn’t make sense to me that there’s physical sex in a spiritual world, and I found it hackneyed and creepy for Allah/Muhammad to use sex as a Paradise enticement.
It also didn’t make sense to me that there was no mention of virgin houris in the 1000+ pages of the Bible, considering the many mundane things in it. It seemed to me Muhammad just made it all up to entice horny men into joining his new religion.
So in Islam, all Muslim men will be given wide-eyed houris to have sex with in Paradise. Each man will receive a minimum of two houris (Muslim 188) and a maximum of seventy-two (Tirmidhi 1663), which is reserved for martyrs.
Ibn Abbas and Ibn Masʻud:
The most celebrated exegete of the Qur’an—after Muhammad himself—is Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin and close Companion. Ibn Abbas is given the monikers "Interpreter of the Qur’an” and “Learned Man of the Ummah.”
The reason Ibn Abbas is considered the best exegete of the Qur’an is because Muhammad prayed to Allah that Ibn Abbas correctly interpret the Qur’an. (HOTD 137)
In today’s hadith, Ibn Abbas explains that Qur’an 36:55 refers to men in Paradise deflowering virgins.
The Companion Ibn Masʻud, who Muhammad named as one of four people from whom to learn the Qur’an (Bukhari 4999), says the same.
Nine Companions and Successors:
Ibn Kathir, in addition to citing the Companions Ibn Abbas and Ibn Masʻud, cites seven Tabiʻin Successors saying “deflowering virgins” is the meaning of Qur’an 36:55 (Tafsir Ibn Kathir 6/518).
The Darussalam English translation of Tafsir Ibn Kathir—which frequently edits out embarrassing content—omits every mention of “deflowering virgins” and the NINE Companions and Successors who give that explanation.
What happens after I deflower my virgin houris? They’re not virgins anymore, and I only want to have sex with virgins.
Don’t worry, Allah’s got us covered. And by us, I mean straight men, whose desires are Allah’s sole sexual focus.
Muhammad strongly suggests that Allah repairs the torn hymens of post-coital houris so they’re as good as new:
Narrated Abu Hurayrah:
It was said to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, “Do we have sexual intercourse in Paradise?” He said, “Yes, by the One in whose hand is my soul, he shall thrust again and again. And when he lifts off of her, she shall come back a virgin, having been purified.”
In Islam, Paradise is a brothel of virgins.
HOTD 123: Rich cowards rejoice as Muhammad reaches peak stupidity. Says paying someone to do jihad for you gets you more reward than doing jihad yourself. Ibn Umar denounces it 🤦
Muhammad makes up Islam as he goes along.
The problem with his approach is he often says stupid things to meet an immediate need—and then his stupid statement ages very poorly.
In this case, Muhammad is meeting his desperate need for jihadis by encouraging Muslims to pay people to fight. And in doing so, he makes one of his dumbest comments yet.
1. Meaning of hadith:
Muhammad is saying if you pay someone to fight in jihad in your stead, you get more reward from Allah than the jihadi himself.
The jihadi still gets his huge reward, but you get the same huge reward as the jihadi PLUS your own reward for paying him.
Now just reflect on the stupidity of this. 🤔
If you’re rich, but too cowardly to fight in jihad, you can pay someone to fight in jihad in your place, and you get MORE reward than the jihadi who’s doing all the work and RISKING HIS LIFE.
In Islam, offensive jihad is considered fard kifayah, a communal obligation, as opposed to fard ayn, an individual obligation. A person is not required to participate, though it is the highest voluntary deed a person can do in Islam.
(Yes, killing non-Muslims to impose Islam is the most virtuous voluntary deed in Islam.)
Because offensive jihad is not fard ayn, a person can pay someone else to fight for him and still get credit for participating in jihad. These payments are called al-ja‘ā’il.
The person who pays the jihadi may also negotiate to receive a share in the jihadi’s war spoils. Typically, a jihadi would only get spoils or a wage, but not both.
3. Ibn Umar:
Muhammad’s senior Companion, Ibn Umar, disapproves of al-ja‘ā’il, the very system for which Muhammad promises extraordinary rewards:
Narrated Ibn Sirin:
Ibn Umar said regarding al-ja‘ālah: “I do not sell my share in the (spoils of) jihad, nor do I fight for pay.”
Ibn Umar calls al-ja‘ā’il for what it is: greed and cowardice in the name of Allah:
Narrated Muhammad ibn Sirin:
Ibn Umar was asked about giving al-ja‘ā’il, whereby a man makes payment to another man to go to war for him. He disapproved of it. He said: “I see the warrior as selling warfare, and I see this man (who pays) as fleeing from a fight.”
Ibn al-Mundhir, Al-Awsat 6557. Unstudied. All links are of Sahih al-Bukhari, except Ali ibn Abd al-Aziz ← Hajjaj. Per Ibn Hajar, Ali ibn Abd al-Aziz is thiqah trustworthy (Lisan al-Mizan 5431) and heard from Hajjaj (Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 383).
See also Al-Khattabi, Ma‘alim al-Sunan 2/245.
4. 🤦 Draft Dodger Gets More Reward than Jihadi:
Ibn al-Mundhir writes regarding the Hanafi madhhab position on al-ja‘ā’il:
“There is nothing wrong if a rich man feels cowardice and gives a man pay to fight in the cause of Allah.”
But today’s hadith goes well beyond “there’s nothing wrong.” Rather, Muhammad indicates that regarding physical jihad, cowardice and wealth are more rewarded than bravery and principles. It’s just over-the-top stupid.
But Muhammad had a need for more jihadis, and getting rich Muslims who don’t want to fight to pay up—by promising them more reward than the jihadis themselves—served his purpose at the time.
That’s what a charlatan does.
5. Mistranslation of hadith:
But those are dishonest translations. Ja‘al means to pay a wage for a person’s service, it can also mean a bribe, and in the context of war, it has a very specific meaning: to pay someone to wage war for you in your stead.
Lane’s Lexicon defines the term:
”And جَعَلَ ja‘al [alone] He gave wages, pay, or a stipend, to another to serve for him in war, i. e., in his stead.” (Lane’s Lexicon: جعل)
In today’s hadith, the exact phrase is “wa-lil-jā‘il.” Al-jā‘il is the giver of al-ja‘īlah.
Ibn Hajar explains the meaning of ja‘īlah:
”Al-ja‘ā’il with a jīm is the plural of ja‘īlah, and it is what the man who forgoes fighting gives as payment to the one who attacks on his behalf.” (Fath al-Bari 6/124)
It should be noted that in Sunan Abu Dawud, today’s hadith is in: Chapter: Allowance to receive al-Ja‘ā’il, which is defined by Ibn Hajar above.
And Ahmad Shakir explains the use of al-jā‘il in today’s hadith:
“What is meant is that the attack is prescribed for the man, so he gives something to another man to take his place.”
6. My Personal Anguish Alleviated: 😢🎶
I used to worry night and day about my excess sexual power in Paradise. Allah will give me “the strength of 100 men in eating, drinking, libido, and sexual intercourse” (Ahmad 19269), but I’ll only have 72 virgins when I die as a martyr (Tirmidhi 1663).
I'll still have capacity to have sex with 28 more virgins, and I hate to operate at only 72% sex capacity in Paradise .
What to do? What to do?
Aha! The solution is:
Be a coward → Pay someone to join ISIS in my place → ISIS jihadi gets killed as a martyr → He gets 72 virgins so I get 72 virgins → I get another 28 virgins for paying him to join ISIS.
100 virgins. 100% capacity. And Bob’s your uncle.
HOTD 122: Ibn Umar goes to Islamic slave market shopping for a sex slave. He gropes sex slave and he’s ready to buy and rape her—but he can’t find her seller anywhere. Ugh, it’s so annoying!
I know many of the Companions’ sayings. But one day I'll be old and senile, and I’ll have forgotten all of them...except for two.
One of them is Ibn Umar’s words on the woman he’s going to rape:
“She is but an item for sale.”
Ibn Umar’s dehumanizing words and actions embody the evil of sex slavery, an Islamic evil blessed by Allah (4:24, 23:5-6, 33:50-52, 70:29-30) and practiced by Muhammad (Nasa’i 1126, Zad al-Ma’ad 1/114).
And about Muhammad’s Companion Ibn Umar:
Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah said: “Ibn Umar was the best of this ummah (nation).”
Al-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak 6371. Classed sahih by al-Hakim.
A very low standard, indeed, for the "best of all generations."
HOTD 121: Muhammad goes on cursing spree and unleashes homophobic TRIPLE curse on gay men. Men who have sex with livestock get only one curse
“Doing the act of the people of Lot” refers to anal sex between men.
Incredibly, mind-boggingly, Muhammad believes consensual gay sex is worse than bestiality! And so Muhammad curses three times men who have gay sex—but curses only once those who have sex with goats!
(I first wrote this as: “but curses those who have sex with goats only once.” Phew, watch out for misplaced modifiers...)
Ahmad al-Banna al-Sa‘ati explains the significance of Muhammad’s triple curse:
“He repeated this statement three times because of the degeneracy of this act and its evil – we seek refuge with Allah from that.”
You really need "refuge with Allah" from men having consensual gay sex in their private home?
Ibn al-Qayyim writes on the triple curse:
“It is proven that he ﷺ said: ‘May Allah curse the one who does the act of the people of Lot! May Allah curse the one who does the act of the people of Lot! May Allah curse the one who does the act of the people of Lot!’
And it is not narrated that he cursed the adulterer in a single hadith. He cursed those who do a variety of major sins, but he did not curse any of them more than once, but he repeated the curse for the homosexual three times.
The Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ agreed unanimously that the homosexual is to be executed, and none of them differed concerning that. Rather they differed as to the method of execution.
Some people thought that this difference means that they disagreed about executing him, so they narrated it as a matter concerning which the Companions differed, but it is a matter concerning which there was consensus among them, not a matter of difference.”
Ibn al-Qayyim, Al-Daa wa’l-Dawaa, 202. English translation from IslamQA fatwa 38622: The punishment for homosexuality.
Muhammad is an absolute homophobe. He believes men who have gay sex should be killed:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Lot, kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”
Muhammad’s cousin, “Interpreter of the Qur’an” Ibn Abbas helpfully explains the proper method for killing the gay man:
Narrated Abu Nadrah:
Ibn Abbas was asked: “What is the Hadd (prescribed punishment) of a homosexual?” He said, “The highest building in town should be found, and he should be thrown head first from it. Then stones should be thrown at him.”
“The highest building in town…” Good thing Dubai with its Burj Khalifa isn’t Shariah-compliant.
Muslim apologists like to say: But Allah/Muhammad doesn’t condemn gay people, rather, he only condemns those that act on this attraction.
That’s nonsense. That’s like saying Allah doesn’t condemn racists, He only condemns those that act racist.
In Islam, the gay man must not only abstain from his desires, he must also believe the sex he desires—which Allah put in his heart—warrants extreme retribution.
Muhammad's Allah is unjust because He provides no legal means for gay individuals to fulfill their basic human need for sexual expression.
In contrast, Allah is oh so kind to pedophiles—people who violate children. They can marry and have sex with prepubescent girls.
Act Hetero or Go to Hell:
Also, despite claims of apologists, Allah’s condemnation goes beyond simply having gay sex. If one’s sexuality manifests itself in mannerisms of the opposite sex—you go to Hell!:
So Muhammad says if people don't act straight, kick them out of your houses, and by the way, they’re going to Hell, too.
But pedophiles and slave-holders can go straight to Paradise.
And this day I have perfected for you your religion.
• HOTD #121: Al-Tabarani, Al-Muʻjam al-Kabir 11546. Classed sahih by al-Albani and Ahmad Shakir. See also IslamQA fatwa 38622: The punishment for homosexuality.
HOTD 120: Muhammad makes Islam a supremacist ideology. Says Muslims can’t be killed for murdering a non-Muslim. Values non-Muslims at 50% of Muslims
Muslim supremacy is central to Islam. The Quran specifically tells Muslims they are better than everyone else:
“You (the Muslim Ummah) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” (3:110)
“A Muslim is Not Killed for an Infidel”:
By this, Muhammad means a Muslim who murders a non-Muslim can’t be killed for it. In contrast, anyone can be killed for murdering a Muslim.
This hadith is referring to non-combatant non-Muslims. (Obviously combatants can be killed.) The person can be a mu‘ahid (one with whose country the Muslims have a peace deal), a musta’man (one who is granted security in a Muslim land), or a dhimmi (non-Muslim living under Muslim rule).
The prohibition of killing a Muslim who murders a non-Muslim is based on the principle of al-mukafa’a, which, as normally understood, is to requite goodness with something equal or greater. In this case, it is to requite a bad action (i.e., murder) with something equal or lesser, but not better like a Muslim.
Sheikh Khalid al-Mushayqih writes that a Muslim is not killed for an infidel because it wouldn’t be equitable to exchange a less valuable non-Muslim life for a more valuable Muslim life:
”A Muslim is not killed for a dhimmi because doing so would be in opposition to the condition of al-mukafa’a, which is one of the conditions required for retribution.”
The problem with killing a Muslim for a non-Muslim is that it wouldn’t be retribution, rather it would be be an INCREASE in retribution, which isn’t allowed.
Sheikh Muhammad al-Shinqiti explains the inferiority of non-Muslims:
“He (Imam al-Hajjawi) said: ‘to be equal in religion,’ meaning that the slain and his killer are equal in religion. A Muslim is not killed for the murder of an infidel because an infidel does not measure up to a Muslim.
The evidence for this is in his ﷺ words in the hadith of the Sunan: ‘The blood of the Muslims is equal, protection given by the least among them is to be honored, they are united in war against others, and a Muslim is not killed for the murder of an infidel, and one who has a covenant is not killed during the covenant.’ (See Abu Dawud 2751)”
1 non-Muslim = 1/2 Muslim:
The second part of the hadith states the blood-money for a non-Muslim is half that of a Muslim, which is discrimination based on Muslim supremacist ideology.
Diyah (blood-money) is compensation for injuries or death. In the case of murder, the heirs of a slain Muslim can choose money over the killer’s death.
As an example, if a non-Muslim man gets run over by a Muslim asleep at the wheel, the non-Muslim’s family would get the value of 50 camels. Were a Muslim similarly killed, his family would receive the value of 100 camels.
It should be noted that the blood-money for women is half that for men (HOTD 205), and so that equation would be: 1 non-Muslim woman = 1/4 Muslim man.
Ultimately, theses hadiths damaged my faith because it showed Islam to be just another supremacist ideology, a religious white supremacy.
Islam simply takes the ideology of racism and replaces religion for race.
I thought Allah was better than that.
HOTD 119: Flat-earther Muhammad tells Muslims not to pray at noon because that’s the time of day Hell’s gates are opened—except it’s always noon somewhere on Earth!
I first learned this hadith in a boring lesson on praying Zuhr, the midday prayer. When this came up, I perked up, laughed out loud, and said: “Are you kidding me?” I got a light beating™, nothing like the Kwara madrasa students.
Muhammad believed the Earth is flat. Specifically, he believed in the seven heavens firmament model popular at the time, in which the seven moving celestial bodies—sun, moon, and five visible planets—lie in seven different sky layers on which they travel around the flat earth, much (but not exactly) like this image.
Every reference to the earth in the Quran and Hadith connotes flatness. (See Wikiislam's excellent article on Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth.)
In Quran 71:19: “And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet,” Abu Hayyan—probably the greatest grammarian mufassir of all time—writes:
”The obvious meaning is that the Earth is not spherical, but flat.”
1. The Gates of Hell 🔥 Open at Noon:
In today’s hadith, Muhammad says not to pray at high noon, i.e, when the sun is at its highest point, because that’s when Hell’s gates are opened and its fire stoked.
Muhammad al-Mukhtar al-Shinqiti explains that the hadith means what it says:
“His words: ‘when the gates of Hell will be opened,’ which means what it says. ‘And it is stoked up,’ which means its fire is kindled.”
It’s like my pizza place firing up its brick oven the same time every day. 🍕🔥
2. Muhammad the Meteorologist
When Hell’s gates open at noon and its fires are stoked up, it impacts the weather by making it hot. Cling clang and it cost a lot.
”Pray Zuhr prayer when it becomes (a bit) cooler as the severity of heat is from the raging of the Hell-fire.” (Bukhari 538)
So now you know why it’s hot midday! It’s NOT what teachers taught you:
A. The angle of the sun’s rays hitting the earth
It's what Muhammad taught you:
B. Heat from the raging fire of Hell coming through Hell's opened gates
Among the many problems with Muhammad’s thinking is that it is ALWAYS noon somewhere on Earth. Thus, Hell’s gates would ALWAYS need to be open and its fire ALWAYS stoked up.
But that’s not the case according to Muhammad. He says this opening of the gates occurs once a day.
Muhammad's words only makes sense if the entire earth experiences noon at the same time, i.e., a FLAT EARTH.
3. ”The Sun Rises Between the Two Horns of the Shaytan” 😈
These words are also a huge problem because—not only are they laughable—they too presume a flat Earth. (See HOTD 334)
Ibn Hajar explains the meaning of Shaytan’s two horns:
”The two horns of the Shaytan means the two sides of his head. It is said that he stands in line with the rising sun. When the sun rises, it is situated between the two sides of his head, so that when the one worshiping the sun prostrates, he prostrates before him, and likewise when the sun sets.
It is in this regard he said: ‘It rises between the two horns of the Shaytan,’ that is, from the perspective of the one who watches the sun as it rises. If he sees the Shaytan, he will be observing him standing with it.”
Muhammad al-Mukhtar al-Shinqiti explains:
“His words: ‘Then it rises between the two horns of the Shaytan.’ This is an explanation for the prohibition of prayer and the command to abstain from it in this case. This is because the Shaytan places his head under it (the sun) so that whoever prostrates before it is prostrating before him. This is the time during prayer in which the infidels prostrate before the sun.
This is what has been conveyed, and a dispute regarding what is meant by the ‘two horns of the Shaytan’ has been conveyed, namely: that it is the two sides of his head, and it has been said he actually has two horns.”
Similarly, the sun “rising” between the horns of the Shaytan makes sense only with a flat earth. This is because—in Muhammad's flat-earth fiction—Shaytan standing around waiting for the sun to rise in front of his head is a once-a-day, simultaneous event for the whole earth.
This is in contrast to reality, in which the sun “rises” continuously 24 hours per day as the earth rotates on its axis.
Muhammad is a flat-earther charlatan.
HOTD 118: Muhammad approves of Abu Bakr telling pagan to ‘Suck Allat’s clitoris!’ This is equivalent to telling a Muslim ‘Suck Allah’s penis!’
Every Muslim would understandably be offended if they were told to suck Allah's genitalia.
So why is it right for Muhammad and Abu Bakr to uphold telling a polytheist to “Suck the clitoris” of his goddess?!
The reason is simple. Islam is a religion of double standards.
1. Taqrir (Tacit Approval)
In today’s hadith, Muhammad did not rebuke Abu Bakr for his obscenity. Rather, he remained silent, which in hadith sciences is known as his Taqrir, or tacit approval, of the Companion’s behavior.
It is universally held by Islamic scholars that it would be impossible for Muhammad to remain silent and not forbid a Companion from doing an act which is against Shari‘ah. And so Muhammad’s silence is considered his approval—like a virgin's silence (Bukhari 5136) 😉.
Muhammad and Abu Bakr are hypocrites by violating the Quran and Hadith they impose on others:
A. Violating the Quran
Qur’an 6:108 states: “And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge.” While the verse’s purpose is to prevent insults of Allah, it nevertheless clearly instructs Muslims not to insult other gods.
Telling someone, as did Abu Bakr, to suck his god’s clitoris is about as vile an insult there is, both to the person and his god. Qur’an 6:108 was recorded at least six years prior to Abu Bakr’s profanity.
Abu Bakr and Muhammad, through his Taqrir, both violate Allah's command in the Quran.
B. Violating the Hadith
Consistent with other world religions, Islam condemns foul language. In the Hadith, Muhammad states: “Allah hates the foulmouthed person who speaks in an offensive manner.” (Tirmidhi 2002, IslamQA fatwa 199021)
He says: “Obscenity in speech is part of harshness, and harshness will be in Hell.” (Ibn Majah 4184)
Muhammad states that a key characteristic of the Hypocrite is that “in disputes, he resorts to obscene speech.” (Muslim 58)
Based on the Hadith, “Allah hates” Abu Bakr, because Abu Bakr’s conduct is of a “foulmouthed person who speaks in an offensive manner.” Abu Bakr “is part of harshness, and harshness will be in Hell.” Abu Bakr has the characteristic of a Hypocrite because, as demonstrated, “in disputes, he resorts to obscene speech.”
Because Muhammad approves of Abu Bakr’s obscenity, the same inferences can be made about Muhammad.
3. “Bite Your Father's D**k!”:
Discussions of today's hadith often occur in conjunction with a hadith in which Muhammad commands Muslims to use an obscenity:
Narrated Ubayy ibn Ka‘b:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “He who ascribes his lineage to the Period of Ignorance, tell him to bite his father’s male member, and do not use a euphemism.”
The Arabic term translated above as “male member” is Han, which literally means “thing.” Islamic scholars explain that the actual insult is meant to be: “Bite your father’s Ayr !” ’Ayr is a vulgar term for penis, typically translated as “dick” or “cock.”
The most celebrated hadith linguist, Ibn al-Athir, and the most celebrated Arabic linguist, Ibn Manzur, explain the hadith's wording:
“And in (the hadith): ‘He who ascribes his lineage to the Period of Ignorance, tell him to bite his father’s Han thing, and do not use a euphemism,’ that is, say to him, ‘Bite your father’s dick,’ and do not replace ‘dick’ with the euphemism ‘thing.’’”
Ibn al-Qayyim explains the use of vulgarities for both hadiths:
”The words of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq to Urwah – “Suck the clitoris of al-Lat” – indicate that it is permissible to refer to genitalia bluntly, if it is necessary based on the situation, as the Prophet gave permission to mention the father’s Han thing bluntly to those who ascribe their lineage to the Period of Ignorance, to whom it may be said, “Bite your father’s dick,” without using a euphemism. To each situation there is a suitable response.”
4. Concealing this Hadith
Many Muslims are understandably embarrassed by this hadith, and that is why every published English translation of Sahih al-Bukhari conceals the passage, replacing it with the sentence, “Abu Bakr abused him.”
And yet it is the concealment itself, carried out by Muslims, that is a testament to the wrongfulness of Abu Bakr’s obscenity and Muhammad’s approval of it.
If it were moral, it wouldn’t be hidden.
• HOTD #118: Sahih al-Bukhari 2731, 2732
HOTD 117: Muhammad says an hour of jihad is better than 60 years (!) of prayer + Osama bin Laden quotes this hadith before 9/11
What can I say?
Muhammad really loves killing non-Muslims to spread Islam.
Today’s hadith is a favorite among terrorists worldwide.
Harith ibn Ghazi al-Nadhari was an al-Qaeda cleric killed by a US drone strike on January 31, 2015. He writes on today’s hadith:
“’Standing in ranks for an hour to fight in the cause of Allah is better than standing in prayer for sixty years,’ meaning a person who spent sixty whole years in salah standing and praying, sixty consecutive years of standing up for prayer. And is an hour standing in ranks to fight in the cause of Allah comparable to those sixty years? No, you would prefer it! (i.e., an hour of fighting)”
And of course, let’s not forget the leader of al-Qaeda, the “Mujahid Sheikh” Osama bin Laden, murderer of thousands of Americans on 9/11 and a “martyr” per the prime minister of Pakistan.
Here, Osama bin Laden, less than a year before 9/11, inspires would-be terrorists to take arms, quoting today’s hadith:
“It is narrated in a sahih report that our Prophet ﷺ said: ’Standing in ranks for an hour to fight in the cause of Allah is better than standing in prayer for sixty years.’ And what could be a greater wrong than this: ‘In ranks for an hour,’ you can take part in it to support Allah against the Jews, Christians and their supporters—and the field of operations, by the grace of Allah, is open and ready for you to prepare, train, and set out to support Allah—and you remain sitting?!”
Osama bin Laden, “Explanation of the Hadith of Ka‘b ibn Malik,” September 22, 2000, Maqalat wa-Rasa’il wa-Tawjihat Abu Abdullah Osama, 389
As the terrorist Harith ibn Ghazi al-Nadhari correctly notes above, Muhammad is referring to ALL prayer, not just voluntary prayer, even though jihad itself is a voluntary deed.
We know Muhammad is referring to obligatory salah because of the context of the hadith: A man was enamored with a ravine that had a spring of fresh water. He wished to live there, which would cause him to live away from others. He asked permission from Muhammad, and Muhammad tells him:
“Do not do it, for one of you to stand in the cause of Allah is better than sixty years of salah alone. Would you not like that Allah should forgive you and admit you to Paradise? Then fight in the cause of Allah, for whoever fights in the cause of Allah for the length of time of two milkings of a she-camel, Paradise is guaranteed for him.”
Muhammad is referring to all prayers the man would conduct living alone in the ravine, which of course includes obligatory salah.
And finally, let's compare two statements before and after 9/11:
Osama bin Laden: “It is narrated in a sahih report that our Prophet ﷺ said: ’Standing in ranks for an hour to fight in the cause of Allah is better than standing in prayer for sixty years.’”
George W. Bush: “Islam is peace.”
HOTD 116: Muhammad says if a grieving woman wails, Allah will pour tar on her and light her on fire 😭 → 🔥😱🔥
Allah repeatedly describes Himself in the Quran as Ar-Rahman, the Most Merciful.
Little known fact:
In Qurayshi Arabic, rahma means “psychopathic evil marked by a void of pity, compassion, and empathy.”
Good thing none of the canonical readings of the Quran are actually in Qurayshi. 😉
And, indeed, Allah is Ar-Rahman, Ar-Ra’uf, Al-Wadud.
See also Sahih al-Bukhari 1304, in which Umar beats women with a stick, throws rocks at them, and throws sand in their mouths, for wailing at the death of loved ones.
Allah’s torture porn
Today’s Quran verses are a supplement to HOTD 116: Muhammad says if a grieving woman wails, Allah will pour tar on her and light her on fire.
The verses of al-Hajj 22:19-22—Allah’s torture porn of non-Muslims—reveal Muhammad’s Allah to be the most deranged, psychopathic, evil being ever.
And that destroys Islam for me.
Allah is no longer Ar-Rahman, the Most Merciful. No matter how far you try to stretch the word “merciful,” there is no concept of “mercy” that encompasses:
lighting people on fire
pouring scalding water on them
melting their guts and skins
beating them with maces of iron
and doing this for eternity
Plus Allah PREDESTINED them for this!
And so Allah lies when He repeatedly calls Himself Ar-Rahman in the Quran—which then contradicts Allah’s statement that “Allah is the Truth.”
A liar cannot be the Truth, and therefore the Quran is a lie.
• HOTD #116 supplement: Qur’an 22:19-22.
HOTD 115: Muhammad says Satan wants peace and Allah wants bloodshed. Says peace-loving Satan urges Muslims not to attack others…wait…Who’s the Evil One in Islam? 🤔
Islam is often a Bizarro world in which good is evil, and evil is good.
In Islam, sex slavery is allowed, but adoption is forbidden. Extorting a non-Muslim is allowed, but befriending a non-Muslim is forbidden.
Today’s hadith is my absolute favorite in the Bizarro world of Islam—because it directly contrasts Allah and Satan.
⚔️ Allah ⚔️
Muhammad’s Allah wants non-stop bloodshed.
Muhammad carried out 27 battles against non-Muslims, only one of which occurred in Muslim land and could be considered “defensive.” (Battle of the Trench)
The remaining 26 were all in non-Muslim lands and were “offensive,” and these battles exclude another 60 or so raiding parties that Muhammad didn’t travel with. (Ibn al-Qayyim, Zad al-Ma’ad 1/125)
In less than ten years, Muhammad initiated over 80 (!) instances of violent jihad for Allah.
☮️ Satan ☮️
Muhammad’s Satan advocates peace.
The Shaytan is any one of the "evil" non-Muslim jinn (genies) operating under the command of head devil, Iblis. There is a whole army of Shayateen running around causing havoc on earth.
According to jinn taxonomist Muhammad, there are three species of devils:
those who are snakes and dogs
those who fly in the air
those who walk on the earth (HOTD 365)
In today’s hadith, the Shaytan actually tries to dissuade Muslims from the vile endeavor of jihad—a euphemism for killing non-Muslims.
Muhammad answers the question: “What is jihad?”
…He asked: “What is jihad?” He said: “That you fight (qatil, really, ‘try to kill’) the infidels when you encounter them.” He asked: “Which jihad is best?” He said: “That of a man whose blood is shed and whose horse is felled.”
In contrast to the peaceful ways of Satan, Allah commands bloodshed against non-Muslims.
Allah even says He’ll make sure that—until the end of time—there will always be non-Muslims to fight so that Muslims can live off of plundering them. (Sunan al-Nasa’i 3591)
And Muhammad’s Allah has the most horrific, psychopathic, eternal torture planned for the afterlife. (HOTD 116 supplement)
So who's the Evil One in Islam?
HOTD 114: Muhammad’s insanity level tops 9000. Says whenever a rooster crows, it saw an angel. 👼 → 🐓🔊 And whenever a donkey brays, it saw a devil
How stupid is Muhammad? No seriously, how stupid do you have to be to say something like this?
Islamic scholars waste their lives analyzing this stuff. Ibn Hajar writes:
”Iyad said: ‘The benefit of the instruction is to seek refuge when he fears the evil of the Shaytan and the evil of his devilish whispers, and he turns to Allah to repel this.’
Al-Dawudi said: ‘He learns five qualities from the rooster: a good voice, rising pre-dawn, protective jealousy, generosity, and frequent sexual intercourse.’”
Now I’m supposed to model myself after a rooster! Should I have my wife and daughter model themselves after hens?
And what does the rooster do when it sees a devil?—roosters are famous for aggressively protecting their brood. They just stay silent then? They only get worked-up for angels?
Oooo I know I know: Angels are made of light and devils of smokeless fire. Allah gave roosters and donkeys the ability to see invisible beings of only one source element. 🙃
And what about all the farmers with dogs guarding the chicken coop? Muhammad says angels won’t go near dogs, so why are roosters crowing then?
Muhammad also explains that dogs, like donkeys, see devils and bark at them:
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
The Messenger of Allah said: “If you hear the barking of dogs, or the braying of donkeys at night, seek refuge with Allah, for they see what you do not.”
So my neighbor has a dog who barks non-stop when left alone in the yard. And the dog’s quiet when he’s with his owner. But per Islam, the owner, like all people, has a companion devil with him all the time. (Quran 50:27, Muslim 2814)
So why's the dog always quiet when he’s with his owner and the owner’s devil, but barks when left alone?
And what happens when a black dog (HOTD 338) sees a devil?! 😉
I can’t believe I used to believe this sh**t.
• HOTD #114: Sahih al-Bukhari 3303
HOTD 113: O Muslim women Rejoice! Meet your co-wives in Heaven: the virgin houris. Muhammad says they mock and curse you for annoying your husband. You’ll be living with them for eternity
Dear Muslim women,
Meet your co-wives in Paradise, the wide-eyed houris. You’ll be sharing your husband with them after your time in Hell, which is your most likely destination as Muhammad said women in Paradise are as rare as a red-beaked crow. (HOTD 331)
Anyway, these virgin houris are so, umm, sexy that each of them “will wear seventy garments, and the marrow of her shin can be seen beneath her flesh just as a red drink can be seen in a white glass.” (HOTD 296)
How many co-wives?
From day one (HOTD 124), he’ll be having regular sex with the houris, and Allah will turn them back into virgins right after your husband has sex with them. (Ibn Hibban 7402) Now don’t you worry that he won’t be able to handle so much sex: Allah will give your husband the strength of 100 men for sex. (Tirmidhi 2536)
You’ll all live together for eternity as one family in a giant sixty-mile-wide hollowed-out pearl. Thankfully, you and the houris will have separate rooms far from each other within the giant pearl, (Muslim 2838a, b), so you won’t hear the loud houri sex he’ll be having.
In the giant pearl, Allah will give the houris beautiful chambers made of green emeralds and red rubies. (HOTD 204) It’s unclear what your accommodations will be.
Now as today’s hadith shows, the houris have a grudge against you. They’re already furious with you for annoying your husband, something they would never do.
And they’ve already cursed you to Allah, saying “May Allah destroy you!”
But to your husband, they'll sing the Houri Song: 🎵 “We're the beautiful houris, given to noble husbands” 🎵 (HOTD 263)
Have fun for eternity.
Best wishes, HOTD
Or maybe, just maybe, Muhammad made it all up.
HOTD 112: Muhammad says Allah curses for eternity the sound of...wife-beatings?...holocausts?...No, it’s ‘singing at times of joy’!
Muhammad says Allah’s most hated sound is…’Singing at times of joy.’
I don’t know what to say. Muhammad’s insane.
Music, if anything, is one of God's greatest gifts to mankind.
Ibn al-Qayyim writes on today’s hadith:
“This hadith is among the best of what is quoted as evidence for the prohibition of singing, as in the other sahih wording:
‘I have forbidden but two foolish and immoral sounds: sounds at times of joy: (those made during) fun and games, and the musical instruments of the Shaytan (i.e., songful voices and melodious instruments), and sounds at times of calamity: slapping cheeks, tearing collars, and supplicating the supplications from the Days of Ignorance.’ (Al-Mustadrak 6825)
He forbade the sound made at times of calamity, and the sound made at times of joy is the sound of singing. …
What is meant by the sound of the mizmar (flute) here is the melodious air of singing, for the melodious air of a person’s voice is called a mizmarah and mazmurah, as when he ﷺ said to Abu Musa: ‘This man has been given a mizmarah among the mazamir of the family of Dawud.’ (Nasa’i 1022) So he called his voice a flute.”
And since Muhammad says Allah curses singing in the Hereafter, I guess He curses that beautiful song virgin houris sing to men in Paradise:
♫ “We’re the beautiful houris ♫ Given to noble husbands” ♫ (HOTD 263)
O how Imru al-Qays would have wept, awestricken, had he heard the Houri Song! 😉
See also HOTD 266: Muhammad’s senior Companions state the Quran bans singing.
HOTD 111: Muhammad says sneaky Satan spends the night in your nose
In Islam, it’s well-established that the Shaytan (an evil jinn) enters our body orifices.
Ibn Taymiyyah writes:
”The fact that the jinn can enter human bodies is proven according to the consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah.”
The consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah (adherents to the Sunnah)?! Well nothing beats that. Who needs peer-reviewed science!
One example of such body invasions is when the Shaytan enters a woman’s body and kicks her womb to make it bleed (HOTD 132). He does this to trick a woman into believing she’s menstruating and thus doesn't pray.
The Shaytan also enters your mouth when you yawn and then laughs at you from inside (HOTD 140).
”That is, he is pleased with such carelessness and with entering his mouth to spread devilish whispers.”
Al-Tibi touches on the Shaytan’s main goal in entering your body: to spread devilish whispers into your heart. As Muhammad said:
”The Shaytan flows through the son of Adam as intensely as blood, and I was afraid that he might cast something into your hearts.” (Bukhari 6219)
Why does the Shaytan share devilish whispers with your heart and not your brain?
Muhammad’s Allah incorrectly believes cognitive function occurs in the heart, not the brain.
”So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear?” (Quran 22:46)
So in today’s hadith, Muhammad says the Shaytan spends the night in your nose.
Ibn Hajar explains the Shaytan’s purpose:
”The apparent meaning of the hadith is that it applies to every sleeping person. But it may be that it is specific to those who have not guarded against the Shaytan through some remembrance of Allah, as in the words of Abu Hurayrah from the hadith of Sa‘id (Bukhari 4548) in which there is protection from the Shaytan (Al Imran 3:36), as well as the Verse of the Throne (Al-Baqarah 2:255), of which it is said: ‘And no Shaytan will come near you.’ (Bukhari 2311)
It may be that what is meant by thwarting ‘nearness’ here is that he does not come near the place where he shares devilish whispers, which is the heart. So he spends the night in the nose to reach the heart when he awakens. Whoever rinses his nose prevents him from reaching the place (i.e., the heart) where he intends to share devilish whispers. Then in that case, the hadith applies to everyone when they awaken.”
So the Shaytan camps out in your nose at night so he can get to your alert heart once you wake up, whereby he can share devilish whispers.
And if you don’t believe a jinn can enter your body, well doesn't that just prove a jinn has entered your body? 😉
• HOTD #111: Sahih al-Bukhari 3295.
HOTD 110: Muhammad believes a talking wolf brags about him. Talking wolf says Muhammad’s more amazing than…a talking wolf! 🐺
You know what’s amazing?
In 7th century Arabia, there was a talking wolf who spoke fluent Arabic
But you know what’s even more amazing than that? Oh man! Oh man! Oh man! You’re not going to believe this. Okay let me catch my breath.
In 7th century Arabia, there was a man who “told people of news from long ago,” i.e., retold Judeo-Christian scripture and apocrypha
Wow!!!! That’s mind-blowing! 🤯
But wait. He even told people unverifiable news of the future. Now how amazing is that!:
”The Hour will not begin until predatory animals speak to human beings, and the tip of a man’s whip and the straps of his sandals speak to him, and his thigh tells him of what occurred with his family in his absence.”
The most “amazing” thing about Muhammad is he can pack so much insanity into one sentence—I always wished my thigh would snitch on my family.
Let’s definitely have our lives micro-managed by this guy.
And kill for him.
HOTD 109: O horny Jihadis, how are you going to have sex with virgins if you’re a green bird? And Muhammad, get your bloody story straíght! (see comment)
A key misunderstanding of horny jihadis is that they’ll immediately be having sex with virgin houris after dying. This is incorrect.
Virgin houris will only be given to them after the End of the World, which, as Muhammad explains, will only happen after the tribes of Gog and Magog—who are billions of humans currently trapped behind an iron wall somewhere on earth—overpower mankind using wooden bows and arrows. (Ibn Majah 4076)
And so by that, I mean, the Day of Resurrection will never happen.
The Green Bird 🦚
Muhammad’s green bird story always struck me as lame and uninspired. Muhammad’s descriptions of Paradise and Hell don’t ring true to me because they’re tethered to hackneyed bodily interests and impulses—oooo, Wow, a green bird, so exotic and tropical to a desert dweller!
This is in contrast to, say, near-death experiences, which ring true to me.
My problem with the green bird story, and all of Muhammad’s descriptions of Paradise and Hell, is best encapsulated in a quote from A. A. Bevan about the Night Journey:
In general it may be said of the traditions concerning the Prophet's Ascension that, while they contain much that is grotesque, they are wholly devoid of poetical feeling and of that impressiveness which we should expect to find in descriptions of the other world.
Bevan, A.A. (1914). Mohammed’s Ascension to Heaven.
Daaaamn…Orientalists call it like it is.
While the lameness of the green bird story wasn’t a deal-killer to me, Muhammad’s contradictions about it are.
The inability to keep one’s story straight is the most basic tell of a liar. And Muhammad repeatedly contradicts himself on what happens to dead people in al-Barzakh, the period between one’s death and the Day of Resurrection.
Pathological Liar 🤥
As an aside, I believe Muhammad was a pathological liar. By that, I mean actual pseudologia fantastica, in which he lied so frequently and effortlessly that his lies and stories fell somewhere between conscious lying and delusion. And as his lies crossed into delusion, he believed his own lies.
Contradiction #1: Muslims ☪️
Muhammad says that during al-Barzakh:
Muslims wait in the grave, and
Muslims are birds flying around in Paradise.
Muhammad first explains that Muslims will be hanging out in a beautiful, bright spacious grave, waiting for the Day of Resurrection when they’ll finally go to Paradise. (HOTD 184) They get a sneak peek at their place in Paradise twice daily until then:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
The Prophet ﷺ said: “When a man dies, he is shown his place morning and evening. If he is one of the people of Paradise, then (he is shown his place) in Paradise, and if he is one of the people of the Fire, then (he is shown his place) in the Fire. Then it is said: This is your place to which you will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection.”
But Muhammad contradicts this, saying Muslims will instead be in Paradise the whole time as birds feeding on trees:
Narrated Ka‘b ibn Malik:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “The soul of the believer is but a bird that feeds from the trees of Paradise until Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, restores it to its body on the Day He resurrects him.”
So which is it?! A bird feeding on trees in Paradise or a human in a bright spacious grave?
Contradiction #2: Martyrs ⚔️
Muhammad says that during al-Barzakh:
Martyrs are green birds in Paradise, and
Martyrs are humans in a green tent just outside of Paradise
In today’s hadith, Muhammad teaches us that martyrs don’t wait around in the grave. They’re fast-tracked into Paradise…as green birds:
”Their souls are in the insides of green birds, which have lanterns hanging from the Throne, and they roam freely wherever they want in Paradise, then they return to roost in those lanterns.” (Muslim 1887)
Musnad Ahmad 2388 adds that the green birds “drink from the rivers of Paradise and eat from its fruit.”
Like sex with virgins houris, the promised feast of slaughtered bull and fish liver will occur only after the End of the World. (HOTD 216) Until then, it’s a vegetarian diet.
But Muhammad contradicts this, saying martyrs will be in a green tent, presumably in human form, just outside Paradise on the banks of river, getting food from Paradise Uber Eats:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “The martyrs are on the banks of a river at the gate of Paradise in a green tent, and their provision comes out to them from Paradise morning and evening.”
So which is it? A green bird in Paradise or a human in a green tent outside of Paradise?
Within hadith sciences, there is a field called Mukhtalif al-Hadith devoted to conflicts in hadiths. Not surprisingly, Muslim scholars rarely mention this field. The need for it is an embarrassment.
Anyway, a trick used to reconcile two conflicting hadiths is to say one or both apply to different subcategories Muhammad fails to mention.
And so in this case, some martyrs are green birds in Paradise while other martyrs are in green tents outside of Paradise.
But this is nonsense. In all the various hadiths about al-Barzakh, Muhammad speaks authoritatively about the entire group: “The martyrs,” “The Muslims,” “The believers,” and never qualifies these groups with “Some of.”
Any listener would understand his words to apply to the entire group. The apologetics presume that Muhammad's poor wording misled his listeners regarding religious matters, which is unthinkable.
Words of the Green Birds 🦚
In today’s hadith, while Muhammad’s words are stupid, they are also evil. Ultimately, Muhammad is simply trying to sell jihad—the killing of non-Muslims—to Muslims.
As the green birds say:
”O Lord, we want You to restore our souls to our bodies so that we may be killed in Your cause again.” (Muslim 1887)
”O Lord, would that our brothers knew what Allah has done for us, so they would not lose interest in jihad or abandon fighting.” (Ahmad 2388)
HOTD 108: Black man complains of being black. Muhammad urges him to be a Jihadi—getting him killed—and tells corpse ‘Allah has whitened your face’ + Virgin visits Earth
In today’s hadith, Muhammad teaches an important principle of cults: When recruiting, exploit a person's low self-esteem.
It is said the black man’s name—as spoken by Muhammad—is Ju‘aal (Ibn al-Athir, Usd al-Ghabah 749). If true, it would be an unfortunate coincidence because Ju‘al was and still is a slur meaning a small, ugly, black man. A Ju‘al is a black dung beetle.
Muhammad exploits the man’s self-loathing by promising him Paradise if he gets himself killed in Jihad. Sure enough, he keeps fighting until he is killed.
Muhammad's Words 🗣
Muhammad’s statement: “Verily Allah has whitened your face” is a double entendre of soft racism, in which Muhammad simultaneously:
Makes sport of the man's blackness, and
States the man is going to Paradise for his martyrdom
In Islam, people of Paradise have white faces and people of Hell have black faces. The Qur'an (3:106-107) states:
On the Day, some faces will turn white and some faces will turn black. As for those whose faces turn black, to them it will be said, "Did you disbelieve after your belief? Then taste the punishment for what you used to reject."
But as for those whose faces will turn white, they will be within the mercy of Allah. They will abide therein eternally.
And their afterlife skin color—either “white like milk” or “black like charcoal”—is predestined for them, as seen in HOTD 127.
Raghib al-Sirjani highlights that Muhammad’s words were in response to the man’s lament of being black:
“The man fought until he was killed. So the Prophet ﷺ came to him after he was martyred, and he stood by him, teaching the Companions and teaching us, and he says: ‘Verily Allah has whitened your face’—and did he not say: ‘I am a man who is black’?!—‘and made your odor pleasant, and increased your wealth.’”
Muhammad’s other remarks “made your odor pleasant, and increased your wealth” are in response to the man’s two other complaints that he is “foul-smelling” and “has no wealth.”
Al-Qaeda’s “Guardian of Shari‘ah” Hamad Hammud al-Tamimi explains that all of a martyr’s flaws and deficiencies, including “blackness,” will be remedied upon death:
“Indeed, whoever is killed in the cause of Allah, and who had any flaw or deficiency—such as: blindness, smelliness, poverty, blackness, lameness, paralysis, or otherwise—then martyrdom in the cause of Allah removes all these flaws and deficiencies. Moreover, the person becomes more perfect than the qualities opposite to those flaws.
For example, in the case of blackness, Allah will whiten the face of black people in Paradise with martyrdom, and not with any whiteness, but with the most perfect whiteness, and so on.”
Notwithstanding the above, what bothers me most about this hadith is:
Muhammad took advantage of a vulnerable, self-hating man who strongly implied to Muhammad he wouldn’t stop fighting until he was killed, i.e., a suicidal man.
Virgin Houri Visits Earth 🌎
And to top everything off, we’ve got Muhammad’s ridiculous story of a virgin houri cuddling with the dead man.
This hadith is important to Jihadi-Salafis because it’s one of the three hadiths in the Virgins on Earth Trilogy. The Trilogy gives Jihadis hope they’ll see their houris before turning into green birds (HOTD 109)—just some additional motivation to do the evil deed of violent Jihad.
For those interested, the Trilogy is:
Al-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak 2463
Al-Bayhaqi, Shu‘ab al-Iman 4008
Al-Tabarani, Al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir v. 22 no. 641
Lord of the Rings is better. 🧙🏼♂️
HOTD 107: Ali rapes a slave-girl. Muhammad says he's entitled to it. Part 2
Here is the entire text of HOTD 107. For some strange reason, I've never seen this hadith translated. 😉
22967. Narrated Buraydah:
I hated Ali as I had never hated anyone. And I loved a man from the Quraysh (i.e., Khalid ibn al-Walid) whom I loved only because of his hatred for Ali. This man was sent in command of the cavalry, and I accompanied him only because of his hatred for Ali.
We obtained some female captives. He wrote to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to send someone for the Khumus (one-fifth of war booty given to the Prophet ﷺ). He sent to us Ali, and among the female captives was a slave-girl who was the finest of the female captives, and he apportioned the Khumus. He divided the shares, and his head was dripping (after taking a ritual bath following sexual intercourse with the slave-girl).
We said: “O Abu al-Hasan (i.e., Ali), what is this?!” He said: “Did you not see the slave-girl who was among the female captives? I divided the shares and apportioned the Khumus, and she became part of the Khumus. Then she became part of the household of the Prophet ﷺ, and then she became part of the house of Ali, and I had sexual intercourse with her.”
So the man wrote to the Prophet of Allah ﷺ, and I said: “Send me.” So he sent me to attest (to what he had written).
I started to read the letter and said: “It is the truth.” He (ﷺ) grabbed my hand and the letter and said: “Do you hate Ali?” I said: “Yes.” He said: “Do not hate him. If you used to love him, then increase your love for him. By the One in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, the share of the house of Ali in the Khumus is better than a slave-girl.”
After the Messenger of Allah ﷺ spoke, there was none among the people more beloved to me than Ali.
It was the regular practice of Muhammad’s Companions to rape prepubescent slave-girls
For those interested, below is a full translation of Ibn Hajar’s commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari 4350, a shorter version of today’s HOTD 107.
Ibn Hajar's Fath al-Bari is the most celebrated commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari.
The most useful stuff is toward the end, beginning at "Abu Dharr al-Harawi said:"
Get ready to be horrified...
Fath al-Bari, vol. 8, p. 66-67
4350 — Muhammad ibn Bashshar narrated to me, Rawh ibn Ubadah narrated to us, Ali ibn Suwayd ibn Manjuf narrated to us, from Abdullah ibn Buraydah, from his father, may Allah be pleased with him.
He said: “The Prophet ﷺ sent Ali to Khalid to collect the Khumus (one-fifth of war booty given to the Prophet ﷺ), and I used to hate Ali. *He performed Ghusl (i.e., performed ritual bathing after sexual intercourse with a slave-girl from the Khumus), so I said to Khalid: ‘Do you not see this (i.e., Ali’s misconduct)?’ When we reached the Prophet ﷺ, I mentioned that to him. He said: ‘O Buraydah! Do you hate Ali?’ I said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Do not hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumus.’”
The Second Hadith: the Hadith of Buraydah
The words: “Ali ibn Suwayd ibn Manjuf narrated to us,” with a fathah on the letter mīm, a sukun on the letter nūn, a dammah on the letter jīm, and a sukun on the letter wāw. And according to the report narrated by al-Qabisi, “from Ali ibn Suwayd ibn Manjuf,” but this is an error (i.e., the correct wording is “narrated to us,” not “from”). Ali ibn Suwayd ibn Manjuf Sadusi Basri is thiqat (trustworthy), and he is not invoked by al-Bukhari except in this place.
The words: “From Abdullah ibn Buraydah,” and according to the report narrated by al-Isma‘ili, “Abdullah ibn Buraydah narrated to me.”
The words: “The Prophet ﷺ sent Ali to Khalid,” that is, Ibn al-Walid. “To collect the Khumus,” meaning one-fifth of the war booty. According to a report narrated by al-Isma‘ili which I will mention, “to divide the Khumus.”
The words: “I used to hate Ali, and he performed Ghusl. So I said to Khalid: ‘Do you not see this?’” And in that way it was brought forth in summarized form.
Al-Isma‘ili transmitted it via Rawh ibn Ubadah, which is the path presented by al-Bukhari. And he said in his transmission, “He sent Ali to Khalid to divide the Khumus,” and in another report, “to divide the war booty, and from it Ali selected for himself a Sabi’a,” with a fathah (on the letter sīn) undotted, and a single kasrah (under the letter bā’), after that (the letter yā’) dotted below with a sukun, then a hamzah, meaning a jariyah (slave-girl, concubine) from the female captives.
According to his report, “He took from it a slave-girl, then his head was dripping. Khalid said to Buraydah, ‘Do you not see what he has done?’ Buraydah said, ‘And I hated Ali.’”
And it was narrated by Ahmad via Abd al-Jalil, from Abdullah ibn Buraydah, from his father, “I hated Ali as I had never hated anyone. And I loved a man from the Quraysh (i.e., Khalid ibn al-Walid) whom I loved only because of his hatred for Ali.”
He said, “We obtained some female captives. He wrote—meaning the man—to the Prophet ﷺ to send someone for the Khumus. He sent to us Ali, and among the female captives was a slave-girl who was the finest of the female captives. He apportioned the Khumus. He divided the shares, and he came out and his head was dripping. I said, ‘O Abu al-Hasan, what is this?’ He said, ‘Have you not seen the slave-girl? She became part of the Khumus. Then she became part of the house of Muhammad, and then she became part of the house of Ali, and I had sexual intercourse with her.’”
The words: “When we reached the Prophet ﷺ,” and according to the report of Abd al-Jalil, “The man wrote to the Prophet ﷺ relaying the story, and I said, ‘Send me.’ He started to read the letter and said, ‘He spoke the truth.’”
The words: “‘He said, O Buraydah! Do you hate Ali?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Do not hate him.’” According to the report of Abd al-Jalil, “If you used to love him, then increase your love for him.”
The words: “For he deserves more than that from the Khumus.” According to the report of Abd al-Jalil, “By the One in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, the share of the house of Ali in the Khumus is greater than a slave-girl.” He added, “He (Buraydah) said, ‘There was none among the people more beloved to me than Ali.’”
And Ahmad narrated this hadith at length via Ajlah al-Kindi, from Abdullah ibn Buraydah, and he added at the end, “Do not defame Ali, for he is of me and I am of him, and he is your Waliy (friend, protector, loved one) after me.”
It is also narrated in abridged form by Ahmad and al-Nasa’i from the path of Sa‘id ibn Ubaydah, from Abdullah ibn Buraydah, and it is narrated at the end, “With a reddened face (from anger), the Prophet ﷺ said to him, ‘If I am someone’s Waliy (friend, protector, loved one) then Ali is also his Waliy.’” And it was narrated at length by al-Hakim through this chain, and in it is the story of the slave-girl according to the report of Abd al-Jalil, and these are routes that strengthen one another.
Abu Dharr al-Harawi said: “The Companion hated Ali only because he saw him taking from the spoils of war, so he thought that he had acted treacherously. When the Prophet ﷺ informed him that he took less than what was his right, he loved him.” This would be a good interpretation but for it being distant from the hadith brought out by Ahmad. Perhaps the reason for the hatred had a different basis, and it ceased when the Prophet ﷺ forbade them from hating him.
It was problematic that Ali had sexual intercourse with the slave-girl without observing Istibra, and also that he apportioned a share for himself. As for the first issue, it is understood that she was a virgin and not pubescent. He recognized that someone like her need not observe Istibra—in accordance with the practice of other Companions.
And she might have had her menses after becoming his, and then she became pure after a day and a night, and then he had sexual intercourse with her. And it (i.e., sexual intercourse) is not what motivates him. (Note: 🤣)
As for the division of bounty in the case of a person who is also a member of the group for whom he is dividing, it is as when the Imam divides for the community while also being a recipient. And it goes the same for whomever the Imam appointed in his stead, who assumes the same rank.
And that was also the response of al-Khattabi about the second issue. And he stated regarding the first issue that it is possible that she was a virgin or prepubescent, or that he relied on his legal reasoning for forgoing Istibra.
It may be taken from the hadith the permissibility of concubinage alongside the daughter of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, as distinct from co-marriage, as was recounted in the hadith of al-Miswar in the Book of Nikah.
• HOTD #107 supplement: Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari 8/66-67
HOTD 106: O Muslim women Rejoice! In Heaven you’re in a harem. You and your harem-mates live in a giant hollowed-out pearl (!)—and your husband circles round the pearl having sex with you all
Dear Muslim women,
Rejoice! After being tortured in Hell—maybe a few days, maybe a million years—you’ll eventually go to Paradise for being Muslim.
Eternity in a Harem 🏩
And in Paradise, it’s glorious! You’re immediately put in a harem. And your co-wives will be the virgin houris, who are super-hot sex creatures who curse you. (HOTD 113)
Your husband will be the same husband you had on earth. And your reward in Paradise will be your happiness for him!
Your Home ⛺
Designed by Allah with the 7th century polygamous Arab in mind, you and your harem-mates will all live in rooms in a 60-mile-wide hollowed-out pearl shaped like a Bedouin tent.
O how it sounds glorious! And Allah’s unbounded genius lies in the interior design. Your rooms will be far enough apart so you won’t hear or see each other having sex with your shared husband. Praise be to Allah a thousand times!
Indeed your noble husband will perform Tawaf through the pearl—like circumambulating the Kabah in this world, except in your Paradise he pops into rooms for sex with virgins.
And verily Allah’s imagination has no limits! I, as a mere human, might have fashioned a 10-dimensional shape-shifting house, in infinite colors not seen on earth, with portals to different universes.
But alas no! Nothing is more fantastic, nothing more glorious, than Allah’s giant hollowed-out pearl shaped like a Bedouin tent.
Or maybe, just maybe, Muhammad made it all up.
See also HOTD 113: O Muslim women Rejoice! Meet your co-wives in Heaven: the virgin houris. Muhammad says they mock and curse you for annoying your husband. You’ll be living with them for eternity
See also HOTD 124: O Muslim women Rejoice! In Heaven you’re with your husband who’s ‘busy deflowering virgins’—and you’ll be so happy for him 😊