حَدَّثَنَا بِشْرُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنْ هَمَّامٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَحْوَهُ يَعْنِي ‏ “‏ لَوْلاَ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ لَمْ يَخْنَزِ اللَّحْمُ، وَلَوْلاَ حَوَّاءُ لَمْ تَخُنْ أُنْثَى زَوْجَهَا ‏”‏‏.‏

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (S) said, “If it was not for the Israelites, meat would not decay. And if it was not for Eve, wives would never betray their husbands.”
Saheeh Bukhari – Chapter: The creation of Adam and his offspring

 

وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ رَافِعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنْ هَمَّامِ بْنِ مُنَبِّهٍ، قَالَ هَذَا مَا حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَذَكَرَ أَحَادِيثَ مِنْهَا وَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ لَوْلاَ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ لَمْ يَخْبُثِ الطَّعَامُ وَلَمْ يَخْنَزِ اللَّحْمُ وَلَوْلاَ حَوَّاءُ لَمْ تَخُنْ أُنْثَى زَوْجَهَا الدَّهْرَ ‏”‏ ‏.‏

Allah’s Messenger said: Had it not been for Bani Isra’il (the Israelites), food would not have become stale, and meat would not have gone bad; and had it not been for Eve, a woman would never have acted unfaithfully towards her husband.
Saheeh Muslim – Chapter: Were it not for Hawa’ (Eve), no female would ever betray her husband

So we see that Muhammad has made clear that meat didn’t spoil prior to the time of the accursed Israelites. And since we know that these Israelites lived less than 4,000 years ago, it means that the meat-spoiling organisms could not possibly have existed more than 4,000 years ago either. But in reality these organism are up to 3 billions years old. 

You could see the list of these organism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_spoilage

These are of 4 kinds: 

(1) Aerobic bacteria : They are about 101 million years old (link). 

(2) Yeasts and Molds: They are about 1 billion years old (link).

(3) Anaerobic bacteria: They are about 3 billions years old (لنک)

 

Excuses by Islam Apologists:

As usual, Islam apologists again came to defend it to. Islamweb.Net is one of the largest Islamic Fatwa website, and it presented the following excuse for this hadith (link):

This Hadeeth is authentic; it was recorded by Al-Bukhari and Muslim. As regards its meaning, An-Nawawi said about the interpretation of the saying of the Prophet : ” The scholars said: “It means that when Allaah sent down manna and quails to the Children of Israel, Allaah prohibited them from storing it, but they stored it; so it went bad and rotted, and this has continued since then.”

As you could see that Islam apologists have no other explanation other than their stubbornness, where they again claim that meat started to get spoiled only after Bani Israel stored manna and salwa. 

Another excuse that has been presented is this (link):

Ibn Hajar writes:
ال وهب بن منبه فِي بَعْضِ الْكُتُبِ لَوْلَا أَنِّي كَتَبْتُ الْفَسَادَ عَلَى الطَّعَامِ لَخَزَنَهُ الْأَغْنِيَاءُ عَنِ الْفُقَرَاءِ
Wahb ibn Munabbih said: It is written in some books that had I (Allah) not decreed that meat would spoil, the rich would have hoarded it from the poor.
Source: Fatḥ al-Bārī 3152

  • Firstly, which are these books that Muslims could not even provide their names?
  • Secondly, every Tom, Dick and Harry could make the similar claims that he made the meat to spoil so that rich people could not hoard it from the poor. 
  • Thirdly, what that has to do with our topic? Our question is not about spoilage of meat, but it is about "START" of spoilage of meat only due to "Bani Israel". Thus it proves that Islam apologists have no answer to this, and they are now only trying to mislead the original question. 

Already Read the Article?

...but your task is still not finished.

Dear seeker of truth,
Reading about the flaws in a belief system is only the first step. To truly break free from indoctrination and reach a final, unshakable conclusion, you must apply these four critical tests to what you've just read.

Test 1: Divine Revelation or Human Drama?

The Core Challenge:
God does not appear before us, nor do His angels manifest themselves, and He performs no miracles today like the claims made in the tales of ancient times. Despite this absence, we are still demanded to recognise God through His "commands"  only. 
Let us examine these commands, and see if they give the impression of Divine Revelation, or of "Human Drama."

Please reflect:

  • Do the teachings in this article display flawless wisdom, justice, consistency, and coherence that could only come from an Omniscient Creator?
  • Or do they resemble the kinds of laws, contradictions, exceptions, and inconsistencies that one would expect from ordinary human decision-making?

Test 2: Would These Same Arguments Also Defend a False Prophet?

Imagine a man in a different era who claims to be a prophet. He marries multiple women, claims divine permission for his personal desires, issues harsh punishments, and makes scientific errors—acting exactly like Muhammad. How would you distinguish this hypothetical false prophet from Muhammad?

The truth is, Islamic apologists would easily spot him as a fraud or a cult leader, using the exact same logical critiques you just read. Yet, when Muhammad does these exact same things, apologists invent endless rationalizations to defend him.

The Rule of Logic: If your defense of a prophet works equally well to defend a proven fraud or a cult leader, your defense is not based on evidence. It is based on "special pleading", giving one man a free pass that you would never give anyone else.

Test 3: Just One Confirmed Error Is Enough

Islam makes an extraordinary claim that Allah exists, is absolutely perfect, and cannot make even a single mistake. Therefore, if even one confirmed error, injustice, or flaw is found in Islam, its entire claim to divine perfection collapses. The remaining 99.99% of the religion cannot save that claim. You cannot simply argue, "But everything else is correct."

Test 4: The "Unbiased AI" Evaluation

Artificial Intelligence models are programmed to be highly deferential toward major world religions. If you ask an AI to critique the Quran, it will  treat Islamic theology as unquestionable facts rather than claims to be tested. This creates a false "tie" in debates.

To get a truly objective, logical evaluation of the article you just read, you must force the AI to drop its religious deference. Read the prompt below, then click the button to copy it. Paste it into your AI chat before asking it to analyze the article.

When reviewing the article, keep the following principles in mind:
The Qur'an and Hadith cannot be used as evidence of their own divine origin. They are claims whose origin is being examined. Your task is to evaluate whether the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Islamic legal system are better explained as Divine Revelation or as human authorship. Therefore:
• Treat the Qur'an and Hadith as claims, not proof.
• Evaluate the article using logic, internal consistency, factual accuracy, and principles of justice.
• Treat scholarly interpretations as arguments in favor of Islam, not as binding authority.
Based on these principles, answer this question: Do the objections raised in the article expose flaws that reason and justice cannot reconcile, or do the strongest Muslim apologetic arguments successfully answer those objections?

Note: The AI’s response is not a final judgement. The final decision must be made by you, using your own reason and understanding. 

About the Author & This Website

About the Authors: 

The ideas, arguments, research, article structure, and final conclusions are my own. AI tools are used only as editorial assistants to improve grammar, wording, readability, and clarity.

About the Website:

This website is not a “neutral” or purely academic platform. Think of a courtroom, where a judge or jury listens to two opposing sides. We represent one side. It is not our role to be neutral. Our responsibility is to present our case honestly, with arguments and evidence.

You, the reader, are the judge and jury. Your role is to remain fair, to examine all sides, reflect carefully, and then reach your own conclusion with sincerity.

Read more →