What is the original material that man has evolved from?

What is the original material that man has evolved from

 
Question:

God in the Quran appears a bit muddled. Can he make his mind and decide what is the original material that man is developed from: dust (30:20), water (25:54), sounding clay from black mud (15:26), or blood clot (alaq, 96:2)?

Answer:

The Quran clarifies and often elaborates an issue through its interactive explanatory process (6:65, 6:105, 17:89, 18:54), where verses in one place explain, supplement, clarify or throw more light on verses in other places, and vice versa (17:89, 25:33, 39:23, 75:19, 6:114). So, for a better understanding, it is essential that we read the verses as parts of an integrated whole rather than as detached.

Take the various statements in the Quran describing various physical materials for man’s creation as an example.

Thus, according to the Quran, human is created from ‘nothing’ (19:67), from water (25:54), from primordial water (21:30, 2:164, 24:45, 31:10), from sea water (11:7, 25:53-54), from dust (18:37, 30:20, 35:11, 40:67), from clay (6:2, 17:61, 22:5, 32:7, 37:11, 55:14), from quintessence of clay (23:12), from potter’s clay (55:14), from potter’s clay of ‘black mud transmuted’ (15:26, 15:28, 15:33), from Earth as a ‘growth/ growing plant’ evolving through stages (71:17, 71:14), from a single self (39:6), from a single self split into opposites (4:1), from male and female (49:13), from a tiny drop (53:46), from a drop intermingled (76:2), from quintessence of a fluid despised (32:8), from gametes (18:37, 40:67), from a blood-sucking leech (‘alaq’; clinger, leech, aquatic worm, hanging embryo, affection etc; 96:2), from nutrients of blood ejected from mother’s heart (‘a gushing fluid, emerging from between the backbone and the ribs’; 86:6-7), from ‘chewed-like lump, formed and unformed’ (22:5) and so on.

All these statements are scientifically accurate, not only individually but also collectively. The more they are assembled together, the more they portray a wider picture. A deeper analysis of these verses and their interrelations, further expounded with relevant scientific information, enlightens the reader with dynamic messages in line with growing knowledge of evolving generations.

For instance, look into the statement “And indeed We created man out of potter’s/sounding clay of black mud transmuted. 15:26” (cf. 15:28, 15:33). Now, this makes a good sense if interpreted in light of modern evolutionary biochemistry. That is how we can appreciate that ‘black mud’ (‘hama’) here actually means carbon and that the term ‘transmuted’ (‘masnoon’, also meaning altered, moulded or aged) alludes to the change over lengthy time span of millions of years when ‘hydrocarbons’ were gradually organised into higher organic molecules – like amino acids (protein), nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) and so on – necessary for origin and evolution of life. All these molecules are ‘sounding’, i.e. tale-telling, as they encompass in themselves history of millions of years. Thus the Quran seems to have used the expression ‘black mud transmuted’ to depict the original matrix – carbon (‘black mud’)-based organic molecules like hydrocarbons and their derivatives – whereby started the evolution of human’s physical body.

Then, reflect on man’s creation from ‘alaq’, or a blood-sucking leech (22:5, 23:14, 40:67, 75:38, 96:2). While ‘alaq’ has been traditionally used to mean a clinger, leech, blood-sucker, worm, clot, hanging embryo, affection etc, it essentially means ‘something that clings or hangs or remains attached to something’ (4:129). In the Quranic context, the word mainly describes an initial stage of the development of the human embryo when it resembles and functions like a hanging leech, sticking to the womb and sucking blood from its host. Viewed in light of modern embryological knowledge, this is an appropriate description of the human embryo between days 7 and 24 of its development.

The dual shahada evolved in line with an increasing idolization of Muhammad

(Reason 24 of ‘24 serious reasons shahada should contain no name except God’s’)

The dual shahada evolved in line with an increasing idolization of Muhammad

 
Here is a list of Dated texts and coins mentioning Prophet Muhammad from the earlier Islamic decades:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlysaw.html

Abbasid coins  http://islamiccoins.ancients.info/

Below we will observe how a chronological review of these texts and numismatic materials exposes the gradual distortion of the original shahada of Unity into the present day shahadatan of Duality.

 

DATED MUSLIM COINS MENTIONING MUHAMMAD FROM THE EARLIER ISLAMIC DECADES

Starting from 66 AH, when Muhammad’s name first appeared on a dated Muslim text

Drachm Of ʿAbd al-Malik Ibn ʿAbd Allāh, Zubayrid Governor Of Bīshāpūr, 66 AH / 685-686 CE

Obverse margin: bism Allāh / Muḥammad rasūl / Allāh. “In the name of God, Muhammad is God’s messenger”. This is the earliest occurance of the name “Muhammad” in a dated Muslim text.

Note: Although there has been constant remembrance of God’s name throughout the earlier ‘Dated’ Muslim texts, Muhammad’s name didn’t appear there until 66 AH/ 686 CE. In other words, Muhammad’s name appeared in a ‘Dated’ Muslim record for the first time NOT earlier than 54 years after his death, during the lifetime of the third and fourth generations of Muslims and at the beginning of the reign of 5th Umayyad Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik (65-86 AH/ 685–705 CE). See: Earliest ‘dated Muslim texts’ constantly remember God but never Muhammad

Eighteen Arab-Sassanian coins of the Zubayrid governor of Basra ʿUmar ibn ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Maʿmar, Fars, 67-70 AH / 687-89 CE

All have the legend lillāh al-ḥamd. “Unto God be praise”.

An Arab-Sassanian coin of the Kharijite rebel Qatarī ibn al-Fujāʾa, Bīshāpūr, 69 AH / 688-89 CE

A coin of Qatarī ibn al-Fujāʾa from 75 AH / 694-695 CE is shown here. It bears the typically Kharijite slogan lā ḥukm illā lillāh. “Judgement belongs to God alone”. Prefixed with bism Allāh. In the name of God. And written in Persian: “Servant of God, Ktri, commander of the faithful”.

Anonymous Arab-Sassanian Coin From Kirmān, 70 AH / 689 CE

Obverse field: Typical late Arab-Sassanian bust without the name of governor. Instead it is occupied by Middle Persian legend MHMT PGTAMI Y DAT. “Muhammad is the messenger of God“. Obverse margin: bism Allāh walī / al-Amr. “In the name of God, the Master / of affairs”.

An Arab-Sassanian coin of the Umayyad governer of Basra Khālid ibn ʿAbd Allāh, Bīshāpūr, 71 AH / 690-91 CE

The legend reads bism Allāh Muḥammad rasūl Allāh. “In the name of God, Muhammad is God’s messenger”.

Anonymous Arab-Sassanian Coinage Of Syrian Origin Under ʿAbd al-Malik, 72 AH / 691 CE

Obverse field: Written in Arabic to downwards to the right of the bust: Muḥammad rasūl Allāh. “Muhammad is God’s messenger”. Obverse margin: bism Allāh. “In the name of God“.

Note: Initially Muhammad’s name started appearing around 66 AH/ 686 CE, either to replace a governor’s name on the coin or as part of an isolated statement mentioning his messengership – like bism Allāh Muḥammad rasūl Allāh or simply Muḥammad rasūl Allāh – WITHOUT being conjoined with the declaration of God’s oneness.

The Arab-Byzantine “Three Standing Imperial Figures” Dīnār From The Time Of Umayyad Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik, 72-74 AH / 692-694 CE

Obverse field: This is the Umayyad imitation of the Byzantine prototype – both of them consist of three standing imperial figures on the obverse side.

Reverse field: Staff ending in globe in steps. Reverse margin: bism Allāh lā-ilaha il-Allāh waḥdahu Muḥammad rasūl Allāh. “In the name of God. There is no god but God alone. Muhammad is God’s messenger”. This full shahada is perhaps the earliest surviving physical record of it. The initial stage was the elimination of crosses present in the Byzantine prototype coins, but keeping everything else intact. In the subsequent stage, crosses as well as Byzantine formula were removed and instead Arabic formula, i.e., the shahada, was introduced. Please note that representation of human images was not prohibited in an earlier period.

Transitional Arab-Sassanian Coin Of Governor ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Ibn ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Āmir, 72 AH / 691-92 CE

Reverse field: The legend in Middle Persian reads (written in five lines) – YZDT’ -I BR’ ‘LH ’HRN YZDT’ L‘YT’ MḤMT’ PTGMBI Y YZDT’ . “One God, but He, another god does not exist. Muhammad is God’s messenger”.

Note: First as a concept, then as a military slogan and finally as a well-devised politico-theological formula, the extended shahada – where mention of Muhammad’s messengership was conjoined with declaration of God’s oneness – appeared for the first time in 72 AH/692 CE, and it appeared only in the margin of a coin. So it was not any earlier than at least 60 years after Muhammad’s death that the extended shahada appeared in a ‘Dated’ Muslim text!

Aniconic Silver Coins (“Reformed Coinage”), Minted By The Umayyad Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik, From 77 AH / 696 CE

Obverse field: lā-ilaha il-Allāh waḥdahu la sharīkalah. “There is no god but God alone, He has no associate”. Obverse margin: bism Allāh ḍuriba hadhā al-dirham bi-r-rāmhurmuz fī sanat tisʿ wa sabʿīn. “In the name of God, this dirham was struck in Rāmhurmuz in the year 79″.

Reverse field: Allāhu aḥad Allāhu al-ṣamad lam yalid wa-lam yulad wa-lam yakun lahu kufūwan aḥad. “God the one, God the eternal, He did not beget and was not begotten. And there is none like unto Him”. Reverse margin: Muḥammad rasūl Allāh arsalahu bi-l-huda wa dīn al-ḥaqq liyudhhiru ʿala al-dini kullahi wa-law karih-al-mushrikūn. “Muhammad is God’s messenger whom He sent with guidance and the religion of truth that He might make it prevail over all religions even if the associators are averse”.

Arab-Sassanian Coin Of Al-Ḥajjāj Bin Yūsuf, 77 AH / 696-697 CE

Typical late Arab-Sassanian bust with the name “al-Ḥajjāj bin Yūsuf” written in Arabic on the right hand side of the bust. Obverse margin: bism Allāh / lā-ilaha il- / Allāh waḥdahu Muḥammad / rasūl Allāh. “In the name of God. There is no god but God alone. Muhammad is God’s messenger”.

This is a very unique coin. The shahadah is arranged in striking fashion radially in the obverse margin. As far as we are aware, no other coin from 1st century of hijra which shows this feature. The Arab-Sassanian and Arab-Byzantine coins which show either full or partial shahadah, show its arrangement running along the obverse margin.

Arab-Sassanian Fals From Veh-az-Āmid-Kavād (Arrajān), 83 AH / 702-703 CE

Obverse margin: Muḥammadun rasūlu’llāhi wa’lladhīna yatlūna maʿahu ashiddāʾu ʿalā’l-kuffāri ruḥamāʾu baynahum. Muhammad is God’s messenger, those who recite with him are severe with the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves.

Note: The extended shahada gradually evolved over a period of time encompassing several generations, in line with an ever-increasing glorification and deification of Muhammad. This was promoted by a particular religious-political sentiment during the Umayyad period of Arab expansion, when Muslims were insisting on making their messenger greater than all other messengers, partly as a reaction and a propaganda effort against their Christian-Byzantine challengers. This is clearly evidenced by Islamic inscriptions on The Dome of the Rock (72 AH / 692 CE) as well as inscriptions (including uncontextualized or distorted Quranic messages) on the coins of that period.

Aniconic Gold Coins (“Reformed Coinage”), From The ‘Mine Of The Commander Of The Faithful’, 89 AH / 708 CE

Obverse field: lā-ilaha illa-Allāh waḥdahu la sharīkalah. “There is no god but God alone, He has no associate”. maʿdin amīr al-muʾminīn. “Mine of the Commander of the Faithful’. Obverse margin: Muḥammad rasūl Allāh arsalahu bi-l-huda wa dīn al-ḥaqq liyudhhiru ʿala al-dini kullahi. “Muhammad is the messenger of God whom He sent with guidance and the religion of truth that He might make it prevail over all religions”.

Reverse field: Allāhu aḥad Allāhu al-ṣamad lam yalid wa-lam yulad. “God the one, God the eternal, He did not beget and was not begotten”. Reverse margin: bism Allāh ḍuriba hadhā al-dīnār fī sanat tisaʿ wa thamānūn. “In the name of God, this dīnār was struck in the year 89″.

This unique historic coin is of the highest rarity and the earliest known dīnār to bear the legend ‘Mine of the Commander of the Faithful’. The reverse margin bears the same legend as what is seen on the aniconic silver and gold coins issued by Umayyad caliph ʿAbd al-Malik.

An Umayyad post reform Silver coin, from 93 AH / 712 CE

Obverse centre: Laa ilaaha illallaah wahdahuu laa shareeka lahu. There is no diety except | (the one) God alone | He has no partner to Him. Obverse margin: In the name of God. This Dirham was struck in Wasit in the year three and ninety.

Reverse centre: Allahu ahadun Allahu alssamadu Lam yalid walam yooladu Walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahadun. God is One God | The eternal and indivisible, who has not begotten, and | has not been begotten and never is there | His equal. Reverse margin: Muhammad is God’s messenger. He sent him with guidance and the true religion to reveal it to all religions even if the polytheists abhor it.

The Umayyad post reform Silver Dirhams had mostly consistent field inscriptions on the Obverse and the Reverse as well as the reverse margin.

An Umayyad Silver coin, from 120 AH / 738 CE, during the reign of Hisham

Obverse centre: “There is no God except |God Alone |He has no partner to Him”; Obverse margin: “In the name of God, this dirhem was minted in Wasit in the year 120”

Reverse centre: “God is One God |The everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, and | has not been begotten and never is there | His equal” (Sura 112). This is the Umaidyid symbol; Reverse margin: “Muhammad is God’s messenger whom He sent with guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over all other religions, even though the associators may dislike it.” (“Second Symbol”).

Note: “Muhammad is God’s messenger … the associators may dislike it” is a common text and an imperialistic mantra of the Umayyads, seen inscribed on the Arab coins since the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik. We have specially studied it to understand how politics played a major role in the distortion of shahada: Distortion of shahada through the political slogan of the Umayyads

An Abbasid Silver coin, from 133 AH / 751 CE, during the reign of Saffah

Obverse centre: “There is no God except |God Alone |He has no partner to Him” (Kalima); Obverse margin: “In the name of God, this dirhem was minted in El-Kufat in the year 133″

Reverse centre: “Muhammad is God’s messenger”; Reverse margin: “Muhammad is God’s messenger. He sent him with guidance and the true religion to prevail over all other religions even if the polytheists abhor it.” (“Second Symbol”). Sura 112 (sura ikhlas) removed from the coin and Muhammad’s name moved to the centre in its place, as a counterpart of God’s name.

An Abbasid Gold coin, from 147 AH / 764 CE, during the reign of al-Mansur. See: Abbasid coins

Obverse centre: “There is no God except |God Alone |He has no partner to Him” (Kalima); Obverse margin: “Muhammad is God’s messenger. He sent him with guidance and the true religion to prevail over all other religions even if the polytheists abhor it.” (“Second Symbol”).

Reverse centre: “Muhammad is God’s messenger”; Reverse margin: “In the name of God, this dinar was struck in the year 147

Note: The coins from the later decades of the 1st Islamic century that contain reference to Muhammad – which either mentions his name or declares his messengership – show this reference running as a sidenote only along the MARGIN, and not in the CENTRE, which was reserved to state God’s uniqueness and greatness (SHAHADA and SURA 112). It was only in a much later period, during the reign of Abbasid dynasty (started 132 AH/ 750 CE), when sura 112 (sura ikhlas) was removed from the coin and Muhammad’s name was moved to the centre in its place, as a counterpart of God’s name!!!

Arab coins ending up in Sweden during the trade between Arabs and Vikings

These are Arab coins of the Viking Age (8th-11th Century), which the Scandinavians apparently used as trading silver. None contains Muhammad’s name next to God.

Conclusion

Dated Muslim texts and numismatic materials from the earlier Islamic decades reveal how the dual shahada went through a devolution: first as a concept, then as a military slogan and finally as a well-devised politico-theological formula. And how Muhammad’s name was slowly permeated next to God’s name over the decades in line with an ever-increasing idolization of the messenger. And also, how this occurred partly as a Muslim response to their non-Muslim challengers during the period of Arab expansion.

Summary

The dual shahada evolved in line with an increasing idolization of Muhammad  

A chronological study of the Dated Muslim texts and numismatic materials from the earlier Islamic decades exposes the gradual transmutation of the original shahada of Unity into the present day shahadatan of Duality. Here are some of the findings from our observation:

Although there has been constant remembrance of God’s name throughout these ‘Dated’ Muslim texts, Muhammad’s name didn’t appear there until 66 AH/ 686 CE. In other words, Muhammad’s name appeared in a ‘Dated’ Muslim record for the first time NOT earlier than 54 years after his death, during the lifetime of the third and fourth generations of Muslims and at the beginning of the reign of 5th Umayyad Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik (65-86 AH/ 685–705 CE).

Initially Muhammad’s name started appearing around 66 AH/ 686 CE, either to replace a governor’s name on the coin or as part of an isolated statement mentioning his messengership – like bism Allāh Muḥammad rasūl Allāh or simply Muḥammad rasūl Allāh – WITHOUT being conjoined with the declaration of God’s oneness.

First as a concept, then as a military slogan and finally as a well-devised politico-theological formula, the extended shahada – where mention of Muhammad’s messengership was conjoined with declaration of God’s oneness – appeared for the first time in 72 AH/692 CE, and it appeared only in the margin of a coin. So it was not any earlier than at least 60 years after Muhammad’s death that the extended shahada appeared in a ‘Dated’ Muslim text!

The extended shahada gradually evolved over a period of time encompassing several generations, in line with an ever-increasing glorification and idolization of Muhammad. This was promoted by a particular religious-political sentiment during the Umayyad period of Arab expansion, when Muslims were insisting on making their messenger greater than all other messengers, partly as a reaction and a propaganda effort against their Christian-Byzantine challengers. This is clearly evidenced by Islamic inscriptions on The Dome of the Rock (72 AH / 692 CE) as well as inscriptions (including uncontextualized or distorted Quranic messages) on the coins of that period.

The coins from the later decades of the 1st Islamic century that contain reference to Muhammad – which either mentions his name or declares his messengership – show this reference running as a sidenote only along the MARGIN, and not in the CENTRE, which was reserved to state God’s uniqueness and greatness (SHAHADA and SURA 112). It was only in a much later period, during the reign of Abbasid dynasty (started 132 AH/ 750 CE), when sura 112 (sura ikhlas) was removed from the coin and Muhammad’s name was moved to the centre in its place, as a counterpart of God’s name!!!

 

Further reading:

Earliest ‘dated Muslim texts’ constantly remember God but never Muhammad

Distortion of shahada through the political slogan of the Umayyads

What a doctor can learn from the Quran

What a doctor can learn from the Quran

 

Question:

You’re a doctor, right? What did you learn from the Quran when it comes to medical practices or research? I think that would make a great sermon to a congregation of pre-med students, if some of them shadow you in your clinic.

Answer:

First, the Quran is not a textbook of Medicine. So we are not really looking for medical information in its pages. Well, often through snappy allusions, the Quran quite fascinatingly conforms with – or, as some will say, “foreshadows or points to” – many aspects of our current knowledge about the universe (inc. biological and medical knowledge) that have been discovered only very recently by modern science. Yet, most of these ‘scientific’ messages are veiled, to various extents, while sketchily dwelling only in the deeper layers (56:77-79). But they are there. Otherwise restricted by their vagueness, impregnated with a clear metaphysical intent, they do not help per se to discover any new scientific knowledge, but, reversely, new scientific knowledge often helps to spot and elucidate them. This is to my mind one of the many idiosyncrasies of the Quran that convincingly indicate its uniqueness and its divine origin.

Having said that, however, when it comes to medical practices and research, to me what really counts is not the information contained in the verses about natural phenomena (inc. biological and medical knowledge), but the worldview, ethics, methodology and epistemology that we learn from the Quran.

Here are some of the principles and inspirations in this regard that I find truly important:

The central message of the Quran, the message of the Oneness (tawhid), is based on the concepts of the oneness of humans, the oneness of life, the oneness of the universe, and, above all, the oneness of the Divine. This awareness of the Oneness, which demands from us seeking knowledge and doing justice (6:115; cf. 3:18, 4:135, 5:8), makes the core of my worldview and, thereby, also the basis of my understanding of medical ethics.

The Quran – with its constant calls to acquire knowledge through deep observation and reflection upon the world (10:101), and its calls to continuously question, analyse and verify (17:36), together with its clear preference for inductive reasoning over deductive (39:18) – robustly promotes scientific observation, experimental knowledge and rationality. Reputedly first developed by the Quran-inspired Muslim scientists, these primary tools are the foundations of the modern scientific method which I find important for progress in scientific (and so medical) knowledge and research.

The Quran exhorts us to explore the treasure of nature and utilize all things in it for the benefit of man.

The Quran views nature as a compilation of messages pointing to the Divine, where everything is an integral part of the whole that interconnects God, humanity and the world through infinite links. This Quranic perspective, which provides me with a meaning and purpose, gives my quest for scientific (inc. medical) knowledge a heavenly touch.

The Quran insistently regards every single human life as a sacred, divine gift (42:49-50) that needs to be protected and saved from all adversities including diseases (5:32, 17:33). This strong emphasis on the sanctity of life (6:151) guides my sense of morality when I am engaged in clinical practice, and adds to it an extra dimension.

The Quran describes ‘the ascent’ or way of progress as ‘freeing a neck’, i.e. emancipating oneself and others from all sorts of bondage: physical, mental and moral (2:177, 90:10-13). For me, treating a patient is freeing a neck from the bondage of pathology.

As Islam in the Quran is a total system governing all aspects of life, all interrelated within a whole, Islamic medical ethics views the patient holistically. This constitutes the basis for an integrated approach to health care that treats the ‘whole’ person, not simply symptoms and disease.

The medical ethics incorporated in the Quran comprises too many important domains relevant to our time and extends as far as to the issues like a positive neuroethical understanding of mental health (4:5), elderly care (17:23-24, 31:14, 46:15), disability care (24:61, 48:17, 80:1-2), sexuality and sexual health (3:6, 30:21,17:32, 2:187, 2.222-223, 4:19, 42:49-50), abortion (31:14, 46:15, 23:14, 6:151), breastfeeding (2:233, 31:14, 46:15), diet and nutrition (2:168, 2:172, 7:31, 16:67, 20:81), drug abuse (5:90, 2:195, 20:81), organ donation (5:32), euthanasia and suicide (17:33, 4:29, 6:151, 31:17), animal rights (6:38,16:7), vivisection (16:5-8), environmental pollution (30:41-43, 2:195), ecological balance (15:19) and so on.

 

By Siraj Islam (based on a discussion with Dongyi Lu)

The Quran condemns those who mention ‘others’ with God

(A serious reason shahada should contain no name except God’s’)

The Quran condemns those who mention ‘others_ with God

 
The Quranic CRITERION distinguishes true Muslims from those who mention ‘OTHERS’ with God

The following verse presents as a criterion for distinguishing true Muslims from idolaters as it identifies the mentioning of ‘OTHERS’ alongside God as a sign of idolatry:

When God Alone is mentioned, the minds of those who do not acknowledge the End (Whole/ Ultimate) are filled with aversion; and when OTHERS are mentioned besides Him, they rejoice! 39:45

This describes how the pure monotheists who have a holistic mindset differ from the polytheists who are unable to consider the Whole as One (cf. ‘who do not acknowledge the End (Whole/ Ultimate)’). The latter, due to the polytheistic splitting of their minds towards scattered idols with fragmented authorities, fail to proclaim God’s oneness as such without conjoining it with their demigods, the ‘OTHERS’ (2:165, 9:31, 12:106, 16:51-52, 17:22, 17:39, 39:36, 39:45, 40:12).

This Quranic criterion instantly exposes those Muhammadans who, by mentioning Muhammad with God in their extended testimony, somehow perceive God + Muhammad as two reciprocal halves of a divine pair and thus violate the holistic awareness about God. Expectedly, they feel discontent when God alone is mentioned in the original testimony, as they find it inadequate. But when their venerated idol appears besides God in their own add-on, they rejoice at it (‘and when OTHERS are mentioned beside Him, they rejoice’).

This conjoining of the messenger’s name with God’s turns him into a divine associate and makes Hadith a second authority next to the Quran. This in turn downgrades the Quran into an incomplete book unless it is annexed with hadith hearsays.

We do not need ‘OTHERS besides God’

Please observe how the context of the above Quranic criterion clarifies the expression ‘OTHERS besides God’:

Is God not sufficient for His servant? They frighten you with OTHERS besides Him. …

Or have they taken intercessors besides God? Say: What if they do not possess any power, nor understanding?

Say: To God belong all intercessions. To Him belongs the sovereignty of the Heavens and the Earth, then to Him you are returned.

When God Alone is mentioned, the minds of those who do not acknowledge the End (Whole/ Ultimate) are filled with aversion; and when OTHERS are mentioned besides Him, they rejoice! 39:36, 43-45

This issue of ‘OTHERS besides God’ is dealt with throughout the Quran. For example:

And from among the people are some who take OTHERS as equals to God, they love them as they should love God. 2:165

And God has said, “Do not take-up two gods, two. There is only One god, so it is Me, only Me, that you shall revere.”

And to Him is what is in the Heavens and the Earth, so to Him shall be the obedience. Would you then pay reverence to someone OTHER than God? 16:51-52

Do not set up with God any OTHER god; or you will find yourself disgraced, abandoned. 17:22

This is from what your Sustainer has inspired to you of the wisdom. And do not make with God any OTHER god, or you will be cast into inferno, blameworthy and rejected. 17:39

As noted elsewhere, the focal point of Islam, as the formulation ‘There is no god but God’ and its equivalents, is stated throughout the Quran most clearly and constantly, and NEVER in conjunction with another name. A good example in this regard is 47:19, which, though found in sura Muhammad, doesn’t make an exception: So know that there is no god but God, and ask forgiveness for thy faults. 47:19. Since the verse belongs to a chapter named after Muhammad, at least here we could expect his name attached with God’s! But, to the contrary, by depicting him as a fallible mortal instead of God’s earthly counterpart, it rather discredits the sectarian addition to shahada. Thus, the Quranic shahada (3:18, 3:81), even when appears in sura Muhammad, doesn’t mention Muhammad’s name!

Extended shahada involves shirk or association

To better understand how the dual testimony blatantly violates the spirit of the Quran and presents as a form of shirk, please notice all the related undertones of the word ‘shirk’:

Shiin-Ra-Kaf = to be a companion, be sharer/partner; shirkun – share, participation, polytheism, idolatry, making associate/partner with Allah; shariik (pl. shurakaa) – associate, partner, sharer; shaarak (vb. 3) – to share with; ashraka (vb. 4) – to make a sharer or associate, give companions (e.g. to God), be a polytheist or idolater; ashraktumuuni – you associated me as partner; mushrik – one who gives associate to God, polytheist; mushtarikun (vb. 8) – one who partakes or shares (Project Root List).

Evidently, by associating Muhammad’s name with God’s, Muhammadans have turned a mere human into a companion/sharer/partner/participant/associate with God. In fact, there are Muslim scholars who very openly proclaim that the extended shahada deliberately conjoins Muhammad’s name with God’s for the express purpose of making him a partner with God. For example, according to the renowned Muslim jurist and scholar Qadi Iyad, though we should not use the Arabic conjunction wa (“and”) when speaking of God and anyone or anything else since this ends up associating partners with God, we must make an exception in the case of ‘shahada’, the very testimony of faith that elevates Muhammad to divine status and parity with God:

Qatada said, “Allah exalted his fame in this world and the Next. There is no speaker, witness nor anyone doing the prayer who fails to say, ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.’”

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri related that the Prophet said, “Jibril came to me and said, ‘My Lord and your Lord says, “Do you know how I have exalted your fame?”’ I said, ‘Allah and His Messenger know best.’ He said, ‘When I am mentioned you are mentioned with Me.’”

Ibn ‘Ata quoted a hadith qudsi saying, “I completed belief with your being mentioned with Me.” And another one which says, “I have made your mention part of My mention so whoever mentions Me, mentions you.”

Ja’far ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq, “No one mentions you as the Messenger but that he mentions Me as the Lord.”

… He coupled his name with His own name, and his pleasure with His pleasure. He made him one of the two pillars of tawhid.” (Qadi Iyad Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Kitab Ash-shifa bi ta’rif huquq al-Mustafa)

But not only did God pair His own name with Muhammad’s name forever, what is even more shocking is that these two conjoined names are also inscribed on the very gate of the paradise itself:

Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Written on the door of the Garden is: I am Allah. There is no god but Me. Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. I will not punish anyone who says that.” (Ibid., Chapter Three).

Muhammadans share the same idolatrous attitude with their pagan predecessors

Meccan polytheists, who also claimed themselves followers of Abraham the monotheist, worshipped mainly sanctified names of imaginary idols – Laat, Manat, Uzza etc – rather than concrete idols or graven images (53:19-23). Thus, like today’s Muhammadans, they also created more of an abstract idolization through holy names, intercession and absurd rules and rituals (53:23-28).

It is inconceivable that the prophet of monotheism would allow his followers to replace the names of these previous idols with his own name or names of OTHERS besides God (7:71, 12:40, 19:65, 37:35-36). Obviously, placing his name or the names of his relatives or companions next to God’s name was an innovation by earlier Muhammadans who shared a similar idolatrous attitude with those pre-Islamic pagans. No distortion of Islam can be more serious than idolizing the messenger against the core commandments of the Quran, a book that condemns any form of shirk or association with God as the only unforgivable sin in Islam (4:48 cf. 4:116, 39:65, 6:88). By following their predecessors, Muhammadans of later generations gradually fell into this hidden trap of shirk.

True Muslims with a holistic approach should find no difficulty in accepting the Quranic shahada with no name in it except God’s (3:18, 3:81). On the other hand, people with a fragmented mindset, who set up semi-divinities besides the Divine, will fail to testify God’s oneness without adding to it their own idols:

This is because when God Alone was mentioned, you rejected, but when associates were included besides Him, you acknowledged. 40:12 (cf. 12:106)

Summary

The Quran condemns those who mention ‘others’ with God

The following verse presents as a CRITERION for distinguishing true Muslims from idolaters as it identifies the mentioning of ‘others’ alongside God as a sign of idolatry: When God Alone is mentioned, the minds of those who do not acknowledge the End (Whole/ Ultimate) are filled with aversion; and when OTHERS are mentioned besides Him, they rejoice! 39:45

This is how the pure monotheists who have a holistic mindset differ from the polytheists who are unable to consider the Whole as One. The latter, due to the polytheistic splitting of their minds towards scattered idols with fragmented authorities, fail to proclaim God’s oneness as such without conjoining it with their demigods, the ‘OTHERS’ (2:165, 9:31, 12:106, 16:51-52, 17:22, 17:39, 39:36, 39:45, 40:12).

This Quranic criterion instantly exposes those Muhammadans who, by mentioning Muhammad with God in their extended testimony, somehow perceive God + Muhammad as two reciprocal halves of a divine pair and thus violate the holistic awareness about God. Expectedly, they feel discontent when God alone is mentioned in the original testimony, as they find it inadequate. But when their venerated idol appears besides God in their own add-on, they rejoice at it.

Evidently, by associating Muhammad’s name with God’s in shahada, Muhammadans have turned a mere human into a companion/sharer/partner/participant/associate with God. This blatantly goes against the spirit of the Quran and presents as a form of shirk or association with God, the only unforgivable sin in Islam (4:48 cf. 4:116, 39:65, 6:88).

Meccan polytheists, who also claimed themselves followers of Abraham the monotheist, worshipped mainly sanctified names of imaginary idols – Laat, Manat, Uzza etc – rather than concrete idols or graven images (53:19-23). Thus, like today’s Muhammadans, they also created more of an abstract idolization through holy names, intercession and absurd rules and rituals (53:23-28). It is inconceivable that the prophet of monotheism would allow his followers to replace the names of these previous idols with his own name or names of OTHERS besides God (7:71, 12:40, 19:65, 37:35-36). Obviously, placing his name or the names of his relatives or companions next to God’s name was an innovation by earlier Muhammadans who shared a similar idolatrous attitude with those pre-Islamic pagans. By following their predecessors, Muhammadans of later generations gradually fell into this hidden trap of shirk.

True Muslims with a holistic approach should find no difficulty in accepting the Quranic shahada with no name in it except God’s (3:18, 3:81). On the other hand, people with a fragmented mindset, who set up semi-divinities besides the Divine, will fail to testify God’s oneness without adding to it their own idols (40:12; cf. 12:106).

The Parable of the Town in Ruins

The Parable of the Town in Ruins

 
Please read this famous story, ‘The Parable of the Town in Ruins’, as narrated in the Quran:

Or the similitude of one who passed through a town which had fallen into ruin. He said: “How shall God bring it to life after its death?” So God put him to death for a hundred years, then raised him. He said: “How long have you stayed here?” He said: “I have stayed here a day or part of a day.” He said: “Nay, but you have stayed here for a hundred years! Deeply observe your food and your drink, untouched is it by the passing of years. And deeply observe your donkey! Thus We make you a symbol for the people. And deeply observe the bones, how We erect them together and then clothe them with flesh.” So when this became clear to him, he said: “I know that God is all-powerful over everything!” 2:259

In the above, there are a few points to contemplate:

Or the similitude of one who passed through a town which had fallen into ruin. Now, like any story, this story is also narrated in the Quran in the past tense, apparently giving a first impression as if it is relating an event of the past. However, because it is a parable with certain moral intent, it is not time-bound. As a ‘thought experiment’, here the events are meant to be in all tenses – past, present and future – including present continuous.

He said: How shall God bring it to life after its death? While Muslims traditionally understand this popular story as a real historical account, this is obviously a parable meant to illustrate how God’s infinite creative power can resurrect a ghost town, as it can bring the dead back to life: and thus it is meaningfully placed between Abraham’s assertion in verse 258, “My Sustainer is the One who gives life and death”, and his subsequent curiosity, in verse 260, about life’s regeneration from the non-living.

I have stayed here a day or part of a day. Similar answers, involving time sensed as relative, are also given by people after resurrection when asked “How long have you stayed on Earth?” (23:112-114, 17:52, 18:19,10:45, 30:55-56).

Deeply observe your food and your drink, untouched is it by the passing of years. This is a description of divine nourishment that is eternal and thus feeds the human soul throughout the ages. Mentioned earlier in the same sura, this is the same timeless ‘food and drink’, of spiritual awareness (2:56-61), which remains unchanged and untouched by the passing of years.

And deeply observe your donkey! The donkey is the crude creature, the carrier (16:8-9, 62:5, 31:19). It appears to symbolize the animal part of human existence, i.e. the physical body that carries the soul. While this corporal vehicle is transitional and mortal, it is capable of being renewed by fresh growth. In contrast to the prevalent understanding, the verse doesn’t say that the donkey is dead. Rather it asks to deeply observe the resurrected ‘donkey’ (the fleshly carrier of human soul; note ‘Thus We make you a symbol for the people’) and the process of its creation and re-creation (note ‘… the bones, how We erect them together and …’).

And deeply observe the bones, how We erect them together and then clothe them with flesh. This is in line with the similar Quranic references to the “assembling of bones and clothing them with flesh” in descriptions of man’s birth and resurrection (23:14, 36:77-82, 75:3-4; cf. 17:49, 19:4, 23:35, 37:16, 56:47, 79:11).  In all these instances, like many other places, the Quran points to the ever-recurring miracle of birth, preceded by the gradual evolution of the embryo in its mother’s womb, as a visible sign of God’s infinite creative power to regenerate life, and therefore also to resurrect the dead (36:77-82).

The above reflections elaborate our understanding of the verse into the following rendering:

Or consider this ‘thought experiment’: A person passes through a town which has fallen into ruin. He says: “How shall God bring it to life after its death (How shall God resurrect this ghost town and how shall He bring the dead back to life)?” So God puts him to death for a hundred years, then raises him. He says: “How long have you stayed here?” He says: “I have stayed here a day or part of a day.” He says: “Nay, but you have stayed here for a hundred years (Not only time is relative, man’s earthbound concept of time is illusory)! Deeply observe your food and your drink, untouched is it by the passing of years (Observe the spiritual nourishment that feeds your soul; it is eternal and therefore remains untouched by time). And deeply observe your donkey (Observe your resurrected body, the fleshly carrier of your soul, and observe the process of its creation and re-creation)! Thus We make you a symbol for the people (Succeeding generations may learn from your lesson how God’s infinite creative power can vivify a dead town or society, as it can resurrect the dead). And deeply observe the bones, how We erect them together and then clothe them with flesh (Observe how the ever-recurring miracle of the evolution of the embryo in mother’s womb presents evidence of God’s infinite power to create and resurrect).” So when this becomes clear to him, he says: “I know that God is all-powerful over everything!” 2:259

Some commentators have futilely tried to identify this story with a number of Biblical accounts, such as ♦ Ezekiel’s Vision of the Valley of Dry Bones (Ezekiel, 37:1-14); ♦ Nehemiah’s visit to Jerusalem which had lain in ruins for more than a century following the invasion by King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon and which was subsequently restored by King Cyrus of Persia (Nehemiah, i. 12-20); and ♦ Ezra’s observation of Israel’s captivity in Babylon and their return to Jerusalem (Ezra, 1-8). Thus there are attempts to identify the person with Ezekiel, Nehemiah or Ezra; the town with Jerusalem; and the bones with the ‘dry bones’, which represented the People of Israel in exile. However, Islamic scholars commonly agree that these alleged connections are no more than speculations and have no relevance to the very general narrative of this Quranic parable, where the identity of the man and the town is unspecified and therefore unimportant.

The Quran relates Hadith to shirk

The Quran relates Hadith to shirk

 
Earlier we noted that wherever the word ‘HADITH’ appears in the Quran to denote anything besides the Quran – in all the 20 instances – it is ALWAYS used in a negative sense and in a tone of strong disapproval. See The Quran prohibited hadiths and The Quran disapproves all hadiths other than the Quran

Now we will look into another interesting finding:

Wherever the word ‘HADITH’ appears in the Quran to denote anything besides the Quran (the Best Hadith) – in all the 20 instances – it ALWAYS occurs in a context that condemns SHIRK or association with God.

Below we will try to read all these verses in context and observe how the Quran relates Hadith to shirk:

The Quran endorses no hadith except the divine hadith, the Quran

But they cannot hide any HADITH from God. …

Indeed God does not pardon that anything should be associated with Him, but He pardons all besides that, for whom He wills. And whoever associates with God anything has certainly devised an offense tremendous. …

Did you not see those who were given a portion of the book, they believe in superstition and evil. …

What is amiss with these people, they do not understand a HADITH ? …

Do they not study the Quran? And if it were from any other than God they would have certainly found therein many contradictions. …

God, there is no god but He. He will most certainly gather you on the Resurrection Day, no doubt of it. And whose HADITH is more truthful than God’s? 4:42, 48, 51, 78, 82, 87

Please see the repeated recurrence of the word ‘hadith’ and note how the context associates ‘hadith’ with polytheism and dogmas, concocted by false sources claiming to be divine. Also note how the context condemns shirk as the only unforgivable sin in Islam (4:48; cf. 4:116, 39:65, 6:88).

The Quran denounces hadiths as they mock God’s messages

As for those who ally themselves with the rejecters rather than the acknowledgers – do they seek dignity with them, when, behold, all dignity belongs to God alone?

It has been sent down to you in the Book, that when you hear God’s messages being rejected and ridiculed in, then do not sit with them until they move on to a different HADITH. …

As for those who repent, amend, hold fast to God, and devote their system to God alone; these will be with those who acknowledge. 4:139-140, 146

Here the Quran denounces ‘hadiths’ that ‘reject and ridicule’ the messages of the Quran (‘a different hadith’). Note how the word ‘hadith’ is associated with shirk, or deviation from God alone.

The Quran asks to keep distance from hadithmongers

And when you see those who engage in mocking Our messages, then turn away from them until they move on to a different HADITH. …

Say: Shall we call upon other than God what cannot benefit us or harm us, and we turn back on our heels after God has guided us? …

‘Surely I have turned my face, being upright, wholly to Him who originated the Heavens and the Earth, and I am not of those who associate’. 6:68, 71, 79

Once again, the Quran portrays Hadith as a deviation from the Quran (‘a different hadith’). Note how the word ‘hadith’ appears in a context that condemns shirk and how this is in line with its wider context, the sura 6 itself. The latter insists on the oneness of God; highlights the humanness of Muhammad; and confirms that the messenger delivered only the Quran. See Understanding chapter 6 from Abraham’s perspective  and The Quran describes Hadith as satanic revelation

The Quran predicts that Muslim polytheists would call their forged teachings hadith

As for those who give the lie to Our messages, We shall bring them low, step by step, by ways which they know not. …

… Then in which HADITH after this will they believe?

Whoever God misguides, then there is none to guide him; and He leaves them blundering in their transgression.

They ask you regarding the Hour: When will it come to pass? Say, Its knowledge is with my Lord, none can reveal its time except Him. …

Say: I do not possess for myself any benefit or harm, except what God wills.

… Do they associate those who do not create anything, while they are created?

They cannot help them, nor can they help themselves? …

Verily, those whom you call on besides God are servants, the likes of you: call on them then, and let them answer you, if you are truthful. 7:182, 185-188, 191-192, 194

Note how the word ‘hadith’ appears in a context that condemns shirk.

The Quran distances itself from all hadiths

The majority of them will not acknowledge God without setting up associates.

… This is not a fabricated HADITH, but a confirmation of what is before it, and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guide and a mercy to a people acknowledging. 12:106, 111

Note how the word ‘hadith’ appears in a context that condemns shirk.

The sole emphasis of the Quran is on the Quran only, and not on any hadith

Praise be to God who sent down the book to His servant, and allowed no flaw in it …

And to warn those who said: God has taken a son. …

Should you grieve yourself to death if they believe not in this HADITH? 18:1, 4, 6

Note how the word ‘hadith’ appears in a context that condemns shirk.

The Quran warns that hadiths would degrade Muhammadans

Then sent We Our Messengers successively; whenever there came to a nation its Messenger they cried him lies, so We made them follow one another in ruin and We made them HADITHS; so away with a people who acknowledge not! …

O messengers, enjoy of the good things and do right; surely I know what you do.

And certainly, this community of yours is one community and I am your Sustainer. So, remain conscious of Me.

But they split in their affair between them into sects, each rejoicing in what is with them. …

And those who acknowledge the messages of their Sustainer,

And they do not associate with their Sustainer. 23:44, 51-53, 58-59

Evidently, by basing their religion on baseless hadiths, Muhammadans themselves have turned into ‘hadiths’, meaning in this context ‘folk tales or outdated stories of the past’. Note how the word ‘hadith’ appears in a context that condemns shirk and its by-product, sectarianism.

The Quran warns that hadithmongers would import corruption in Islam

And among the people there are those who purchase baseless HADITHS to divert from the way of God without knowledge, making mockery of it. For those is a humiliating retribution.

And when Our messages are recited to him, he turns away arrogantly as if he did not hear them, as if there is deafness in his ears. So announce to him a painful retribution. …

This is God’s creation: show Me then what those besides Him have created. Nay, the unjust are in manifest error. 31:6-7, 11

Note how the word ‘hadith’ occurs in a context that condemns shirk.

The Quran discourages listening to hadiths

And do not obey the rejecters and the hypocrites, and disregard their abuses, and put your trust in God alone; for God is enough as trustee. …

O you who acknowledge, do not enter the Prophet’s dwellings unless invited. … When you finish dining, you shall leave, without staying to wait for a HADITH 

People ask thee about the Hour. Say: The knowledge of it is with God alone; and what makes thee to know whether the Hour is near! 33:48, 53, 63

Note how the word ‘hadith’ occurs in a context that describes the Prophet as a mere human, and not an associate with the Divine.

The Quran warns that hadiths would split up Muhammadans into sects

And they were unjust to themselves so We made them HADITHS and scattered them with an utter scattering. …

Say: Call upon those whom you assert besides God; they have no power on an atom’s weight in the Heavens or in the Earth nor have they any share in either, nor is any of them an auxiliary to Him. 34:19, 22

Compare the above with 23:44-54 and note how the word ‘hadith’ occurs in a context that disapproves the attribution of divine qualities to humans, while dismissing the belief in intercessions as absurd.

The Quran highlights its consistency, which makes it different from all other hadiths

God has been sending down the best HADITH, a Book fully consistent in its oft-repeating, whereat shiver the skins of those who of their Sustainer stand in awe. … And whomever God leaves astray, for him there is none to guide. …

God cites a parable of a man belonging to many disputing partners and a man belonging to one master. Are they the same? Praise be to God; but most of them know not. …

Is God not sufficient for His servant? They frighten you with others beside Him. And whomever God leaves astray, for him there is none to guide. 39:23, 29, 36

Note how the word ‘hadith’ appears in a context that condemns shirk. The above verses are scanned from 39:23-36, which can be summarised as follows: As a complete and consistent guide, originating from one divine source – the Quran, the best hadith, doesn’t require all those contradictory hadiths, wrongly attributed to the messenger, who is misperceived as an earthly associate of God.

The Quran challenges the idea that it needs hadith as a supplement

These are God’s messages that We recite unto thee in truth. So, in which HADITH after God and His messages will they believe?

Woe to every guilty fabricator;

He hears God’s messages recited unto him, yet persists arrogantly, as if he had not heard them: then give him tidings of a painful retribution!

And if he learns anything from Our messages, he takes it for a jest. For these is a humiliating retribution.

Awaiting them is inferno; and what they earned will avail them not, nor will the allies whom they had taken besides God, and for them is an awesome retribution. 45:6-10

It is interesting to observe that the Quran here not only condemns hadith straightaway by its name, but also calls it a blasphemous fabrication against God’s messages (i.e. the Quran; cf. 26:222). Note how the word ‘hadith’ appears in a context that condemns shirk.

The Quran insists that it is very different from all other hadiths

Then let them produce a HADITH like this, if they are truthful. …

Or are thy Sustainer’s treasures with them, or are they in charge?

Or have they a stairway whereby they overhear (Heaven’s secrets)? Then let their overhearer bring an authority clear! …

Or is the Unseen with them so they can write it down? …

Or have they a god, other than God? Glory be to God, above that which they associate! 52:34, 37-38, 41, 43

Note how the word ‘hadith’ appears in a context that condemns shirk.

The Quran constantly highlights only one hadith, i.e. the Quran itself

Approaching is the Approaching;

None except God can disclose it.

Do you then find this HADITH strange?

And you laugh and not weep?

Just insisting on your ways?

You rather prostrate to God and serve Him alone. 53:57-62

Note how the word ‘hadith’ occurs in a context that denounces shirk.

The Quran declares that minds polluted with hadiths cannot grasp the Quran

It is indeed an honourable Quran,

In a Book well-protected/covered.

None can grasp it except the purified.

A descent from the Sustainer of the worlds!

Are you disregarding this HADITH?

And make your denial your livelihood? 56:77-82

So, none can touch (grasp) the Quran and its ‘covered’ messages in particular (56:78), except those who approach it with an open mind, purified (‘mutahharoon’) from false gods, misconceptions and bias. Note how the word ‘hadith’ occurs in a context that denounces ‘contamination with false gods’ (alluded by the term ‘purified’).

The Quran criticizes sharing, reporting and spreading of hadiths

O you Prophet, why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you? …

When the Prophet disclosed a HADITH to one of his wives, then one of them spread it, and God let him know about it, he recognized part of it and denied part. …

They could not help them at all against God. 66:1, 3, 10

The above text dismisses the idea that the Prophet was a second author in divine legislation (66:1); spotlights the fallibility of hadiths due to its dubious mode of transmission (66:3); and shatters the myth of intercession (66:10). Note how the word ‘hadith’ thus occurs in a context that disapproves ‘association with God’.

The Quran predicts the gradual downfall of the hadith-following Muhammadans

Should We treat the submitters like the evildoers?

What is wrong with you then, how do you judge?

Or do you have another Book which you study?

In it you find all that you may wish to find?

Or do you have an oath from Us, reaching to the resurrection day, that you can judge as you please?

Ask them which of them will be a guarantor for this.

Or do they have divine associates? Then let them bring their associates, if they are truthful.

The day comes when they are exposed, and they are required to prostrate (to God alone), but they are unable to.

With their eyes subdued, abasement covers them, for they were summoned to prostrate while they were sound.

So leave Me alone with him who gives the lie to this HADITH. We shall bring them low, step by step, by ways which they know not. 68:35-44

Note how the word ‘hadith’ occurs in a context that condemns ‘shirk’ and that contains a prophetic description of the hadith-following Muhammad-worshippers, while predicting their ‘step by step’ material and spiritual downfall (cf. 7:182-185; 45:6).

The Quran disapproves all hadiths other than the Quran

And now when they are told to bow down, they do not bow down (to God alone).

Woe on that Day to those who give the lie to the truth!

Then in which HADITH after this will they believe? 77:48-50

Please observe that this objection to all hadiths after the Quran appears in a context that condemns the reluctance of the polytheists to submit to one God alone (cf. 68:35-44; 7:182-185; 45:6).

SUMMARY

Wherever the word ‘HADITH’ appears in the Quran to denote anything besides the Quran (the Best Hadith) – in all the 20 instances – it ALWAYS occurs in a context that condemns SHIRK or association with God.

Distortion of shahada through the political slogan of the Umayyads

Distortion of shahada through the political slogan of the Umayyads

 
A review of the Dated texts and coins mentioning Prophet Muḥammad from the earlier Islamic decades and Abbasid coins exposes the gradual distortion of the Quranic shahada (the testimony of Unity) into the present day “dual shahada” (shahadatan, the testimony of Duality).

It reveals how this distorted shahada went through a devolution: first as a concept, then as a military slogan and finally as a well-devised politico-theological formula. And how Muhammad’s name was slowly permeated next to God’s name over the decades in line with an ever-increasing idolization of the messenger. And also, how this occurred partly as a Muslim response to their non-Muslim challengers during the period of Arab expansion. See Distortion of shahada evidenced by archaeology

To understand how politics played a major role in this process of distortion, we will observe the following imperialistic slogan of the Umayyads (661–750). This is a common text seen inscribed on the Arab coins since the reign of the 5th Umayyad Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik (685–705):

Muḥammad rasūl Allāh arsalahu bi-l-huda wa dīn al-ḥaqq liyudhhiru ʿala al-dini kullahi wa-law karih-al-mushrikūn

Muhammad is God’s messenger whom He sent with guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over all other religions, even though the associators may dislike it.

At first sight this appears to be a simple paraphrase, adapted only innocently, of the following verses of the Quran (note the highlighted words):

He is the One who sent His messenger with the guidance and the system of truth, that He may make it prevail over all other systems. God is enough as witness:/ Muhammad is God’s messenger; and those who are with him are stern towards the rejecters and kind among themselves. 48:28-29

He is the One who sent His messenger with guidance and the system of truth, that He may make it prevail over all other systems, even though the associators may dislike it. 9:33 (cf. 61:6-9, 9:31-33, 14:48, 18:48)

Here one may get easily deceived by an initial impression that the Umayyad text simply connects the verse 48:28 with ‘Muhammad is God’s messenger’, a fragment from its next verse, 48:29 – though by turning the sequence upside down – and then imports, only unintentionally, the last phrase of 9:33.

On an attentive reading, however, it becomes evident that this seemingly spiritual, Quranic-looking text is in fact an extremely aggressive, chauvinistic slogan, which was instigated by a specific sentiment of those earlier Muhammadans and their hawkish rulers, who were insisting on making their messenger greater than all other messengers, partly as a reaction and a military propaganda effort against their Christian-Byzantine contestants. With this obvious religious-political agenda, the text was concocted by deliberately joining several unconnected fragments from the above verses, while carefully detaching them from their contexts, thereby distorting the actual messages of the Quran.

For example, note the fragment ‘Muhammad is God’s messenger’. This exact expression appears in the Quran only once, i.e. in 48:29 above, and that is also only immediately after a clear PROHIBITION for humans to include the messenger’s name in shahada: God is enough as witness:/ Muhammad is God’s messenger (48:28-29)”. Here we are reminded of a serious warning, which recurs throughout the Quran: God is enough as witness that Muhammad was God’s messenger.

The Umayyad masterminds detached ‘Muhammad is God’s messenger’ from its context by removing its preceding words,God is enough as witness’, in order to avoid this clear warning of the Quran. Then, after turning the sequence of 48:28-29 upside down, they purposely picked up the last phrase of 9:33 to make the expansionist threat to their enemies specific and also starker and louder.

This is how they, acting under religious-political motivation, performed a creative surgery of the holy texts and thus contributed to the increasing idolization of Muhammad. And this in turn contributed to the eventual transmutation of the original shahada of Unity into the present day shahadatan of Duality.

Related articles:

Distortion of shahada evidenced by archaeology

Earliest ‘dated Muslim texts’ constantly remember God but never Muhammad