Sectarian shahada is based on baseless hadiths

(Reason 18 of ‘22 serious reasons shahada should contain no name except God’s’)

sectarian-shahada-is-based-on-baseless-hadiths


And among the people there are those who purchase baseless HADITHS to divert from the way of God without knowledge, making mockery of it. 31:6


The 
extension of shahada was a deviation

As the extended shahada is not found in the Quran and has its sole basis only in ‘baseless hadiths’ (‘lahwaal hadeeth’ 31:6, as the Quran calls them), we need to keep in mind the Quranic position on Hadith. Not only that The Quran prohibited Hadith, the Quran constantly calls itself the only authority of Islam, while exposing the whole hadith corpus as an illegitimate addition to it.

It is important to note that – though there are hadiths that promote extended, distorted forms of shahada – the original, Quranic shahada ‘There is no god but God in its pure form also can be found in many other hadiths, e.g. in the following sahih hadiths:

“Whoever witnesses There is no god but Allah enters Paradise.”

“Whoever says There is no god but Allah enters Paradise even if he commits adultery and even if he steals.”

“Everything has its key, and the key to Paradise is the witnessing There is no god but Allah.”

“Belief is seventy and some branches. Its lowest branch is the removal of harm from the road while its highest is to say There is no god but Allah.”

“Whoever breathes his last with the words There is no god but Allah enters Paradise.”

Now, the Quran doesn’t include any name in shahada other than God’s name due to a most obvious reason: Bearing witness about a selected creature, IN ASSOCIATION WITH bearing witness about the Creator, exalts the creature – somehow and to some extent – to the rank of the Creator and, therefore, presents as a case of ‘ASSOCIATION’ or ‘shirk’ (19:65).

Then the extended shahada – which binds and couples the testimony of God’s oneness with the testimony of Muhammad’s messengership in an interwoven formula – was formulated as a violation to this monotheistic concept!

Sectarian shahada was consolidated through hadiths

Because no such formula is authorized by the Quran, it must have been an innovation, a later development, which must have evolved after the Prophet’s death and in a specific environment – under the pressure of various socio-economic, political and psycho-theological factors – in order to serve, on the first place, specific purposes of some interest groups of that time.

An obvious religious-psychological factor, among many others, was the urge for an intercessor for the purpose of salvation. As a trend noted in most of the religious groups, Muslims also were desperately looking for an intercessor who could help them to face divine anger during the Final Judgment – and they easily found it in an idolized Muhammad.

Please note below how Muhammad allegedly claimed about his role as an intercessor and negotiator with God for anyone who recites shahada. And then note the shift from ‘La ilaha illallah’ towards ‘La Ilaha Illa Allah Muhammadur rasulullah, where Muhammad’s name, which is absent in some (probably earlier) versions, is eventually added to the shahada itself (all quoted below are sahih hadiths):

“The most fortunate of people to receive my intercession on the Day of Resurrection are those who said There is no god but Allah purely and sincerely from the heart.”

Sa`id ibn al-Musayyib relates: When the death of Abu Talib approached, Allah’s Apostle came to him and said: “Say: There is no god but Allah, a word with which I will be able to negotiate or argue for you in Allah’s presence.”

“Whoever witnesses that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger, Allah forbids the Fire from touching him.”

“No one witnesses that there is no god but Allah and that I am Allah’s Messenger truthfully from his heart except Allah has made him unlawful for the Fire.”

Also – while serving as an ideological slogan to differentiate Islam from all other religions and thereby to mark a particular religious-political identity of the then Muslims during the Umayyad period of Arab expansion – this new formula must have been a resultant reaction of Muslims e.g. towards the Christian formula of their Byzantine counterparts. As sinning people always sought some sort of intercessor, some Muslims seem to have appreciated the Christian credo though replaced in it Jesus’ name with Muhammad’s! And this probably explains why the interweaving nature of the extended shahada bears resemblance to the Christian confession of Trinity where the Father and the Son co-exist within one deity (John 17:3).

It appears that the origin of the extended shahada was further related, at least to some extent, to battles and conflicts, since one of the purposes it definitely served was to justify and glorify hostile expeditions by Muslims against their non-Muslim challengers. Umayyad caliphs and then Abbasid caliphs, who conducted those military invasions, must have found it as a useful tool to conceal their worldly intentions and ambitions under the guise of divinely commanded, religious wars.

Thus, the extended shahada must have been partly developed in context of war, probably as a tactic of the military propaganda that needed to exploit popular, religious sentiment in order to portray an otherwise secular war as a Jihad. This becomes clear from the hearsay reports where the Prophet allegedly claimed that he had been commanded to fight against non-Muslims until they submited to Islam by reciting the ‘shahada’ (which would ‘save their life and property from the wrath of Muhammad’!!!):

Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say there is no god but Allah, and whoever said there is no god but Allah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 6924)

The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah. (Sahih Muslim 33)

Narrated by Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have. (Sunan of Abu-DawoodHadith 2635)

Narrated Abu Ma’bad: (the slave of Ibn Abbas) Allah’s Apostle said to Muadh when he sent him to Yemen, “You will go to the people of the Scripture. So, when you reach there, invite them to testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and that Muhammad is His Apostle. And if they obey you in that, tell them that Allah has enjoined on them five prayers in each day and night. And if they obey you in that tell them that Allah has made it obligatory on them to pay the Zakat which will be taken from the rich among them and given to the poor among them. If they obey you in that, then avoid taking the best of their possessions, and be afraid of the curse of an oppressed person because there is no screen between his invocation and Allah.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, 573)

Once again, please observe in the above hadiths the shift from ‘La ilaha illallah’ towards ‘La Ilaha Illa Allah Muhammadur rasulullah, where Muhammad’s name, which was absent in some (probably earlier) versions, was eventually added to the original shahada.

Thus, by looking at the then historical context we can try to understand what was going on in the minds of the Muhammadans of early Islamic centuries who found it so essential to associate Muhammad’s name with God’s name and, therefore, formulated the extra shahada (‘full shahada’), which was eventually consolidated by hadith hearsays.

Azan further reveals how Muhammad’s name entered the shahada as a later import

A further witness of this later addition of Muhammad’s name to shahada is azan. Here is an extract from Edip Yuksel:

Very Embarrassing Question to all Mohamedans:

‘How Many Words in Your Adhan?’

The Mohamedans, like the Christians before them, idolize their prophet against his will. Thus, the Quran that came to us through the Prophet Muhammad’s mouth enjoins us from uttering any name beside the name of God during our worship practices (72:18). But the Mohamedans insist upon putting the name of their idol next to God’s name – from the Shahãdah to the Adhãn to the Salãt prayers. This, by definition, is Shirk (idolatry).

Additionally, the Quran, out of Muhammad’s mouth, informs us in so many verses that it is “complete, perfect, and fully detailed” (6:19, 38, 114; 7:52; 11:1; 12:111; 41:3). The Mohamedans, of course, do not believe their idol; they attribute to him what Satan gave them under the names “Hadith & Sunna.”

OK, Here is an “Authentic” Hadith

Because of his limited knowledge, Satan puts his followers in difficult positions. For example:

In two of the Mohamedans’ most respected books of “authentic” Hadith, Tirmizy and Nasa’i, we see a Hadith wherein the Prophet proclaims that the Adhãn consists of 19 words.

OK, let us count the words of Adhãn practiced in the “Muslim” world:

(1)  Allahu (2) Akbar  (3) Ash-hadu (4) Allã (5) Elãha (6) Ellã (7) Allãh.  (8) Ash-hadu (9) Anna (10) Muhammadan (11) Rasool (12) Allãh.  (13) Hayya (14) ‘Alã (15) Al-Salãh.  (16) Hayya (17) ‘Alã (18) Al-Falãh.  (19) Allãhu (20) Akbar.  (21) La (22) Elãha (23) Elãa (24) Allãh.

Thus, the Mohamedans disobey their own idol by adding 5 extra words to the Adhãn!! There are only two phrases in the Mohamedans’ Adhãn that consist of 5 words: ‘Ash-hadu Allã Elãha Ellã Allãh,” and ‘Ash-hadu Anna Muhammadan Rasool Allãh.”

THE QUESTION

If the Mohamedans really want to obey the Prophet, they will have to remove one of these two statements: “Ash-hadu Allã Elãha Ellã Allãh” (I bear witness that there is no god beside God) or “Ash-hadu Anna Muhammadan Rasool Allãh” (I bear witness that Muhammad is a messenger of God). The question is: Which one will it be?

That Muhammad’s name in azan was a later intrusion can be figured also by this simple observation:

The concluding part of azan, ‘Allahu Akbar/ La ilaha illallah’ – which repeats and confirms the introductory part of azan, ‘Allahu Akbar/ Ash-hadu Alla ilaha illallah’, i.e. the original declaration of God’s greatness and oneness – DOESN’T CONTAIN MUHAMMAD’S NAME IN ITSELF.

So, by comparative study of the relevant hadiths and their evident discrepancies, one can easily notice the reckless shift from ‘La ilaha illallah’ towards ‘La Ilaha Illa Allah Muhammadur rasulullah, where Muhammad’s name, which was absent in many of the (probably earlier) narrations, was eventually added to the original shahada. An example of this later addition of Muhammad’s name to shahada is azan, which can be evidenced by a disagreement in the numbers of words in various hadith versions.

Abu Hurairah was beaten by Omar for spreading false shahada!!!

However, from a traditional point of view, the extended shahada can be called Abu Hurairah’s shahada as it solely ORIGINATES, according to a bizzare hadith, from an alleged claim of a story-teller called Abu Hurairah. The hadith relates the origin of the extended shahada to the following absurd story:

One day Abu Hurairah went to the people and told them that the Messenger had authorized him to go and tell them to recite the shahada “ashhadu anlaa ilaha illallhu wa ashhadu anna muhammadar-rasulullah” (another version reads “muhammadan abduhu wa rasuluhu”). When Omar (later the second caliph) heard it, he promptly punched Abu Hurairah in the chest and knocked him to the ground. Then Omar put his foot on Abu Hurairah’s neck and asked him how dare he uttered such blasphemy. Abu Hurairah cried out and named the messenger as his authority. When again challenged by Omar, Abu Hurairah pulled out a pair of leather slippers and showed them to Omar. The slippers, he said, were given to him by the prophet, as proof for what he was saying. Recognizing the prophet’s slippers, Omar simmered down. Everyone then happily started reciting the new shahada – “La ilaha illa Allah Muhammadun rasulullah.”!!!! (Mishkat-ul-Masabih”, translated by Moulana Fazlul Karim, Vol. 1, Chapter 1, no 27, published by the Book House, Lahore, Pakistan; there are many versions of this hadith; one may also like to read the collections of Tirmidzi in this regard).

So the Prophet allegedly handed over his pair of slippers to Abu Hurairah and told him to preach the extended shahada with the slippers in hand as proof of authenticity!! And with this new confession of faith – where the name ‘Muhammad’ was illegitimately coupled with God’s name in an idolatrous, interwoven formula – Abu Hurairah made Omar furious and was harshly beaten by him!!

It is strange that Omar, a much closer Companion of the Prophet, who was with him for more than 16 years, didn’t know about the ‘full shahada’ and had to hear it for the first time from Abu Hurairah, who reportedly accepted Islam just 3 years before the death of the Prophet! So, Omar – who even didn’t say the ‘full shahada’ when he himself accepted Islam – never heard any Muslim saying ‘Ashhadu anna Muhammadar rasoolullah’ anytime during all those 13 years he was with the Prophet before Abu Hurairah appeared in the scene!

Thus, one of the most sincere and respected senior sahaba like Omar was completely unaware even of the very foundation of Islam and had to learn it from Abu Hurairah, a novice in Islam!

Remarkably, according to other hadiths, this is the same Abu Hurairah, who was consistently accused as a liar by some of the best sahaba including Omar, Othman, Aisha and Ali!! Who was beaten by Omar on several occasions and was recorded as having admitted himself his trouble with Omar for spreading hadith hearsays.

Please look at the severe anger Omar reacted with when he heard Abu Hurairah saying ‘ashhadu anna muhammadar rasoolullah’ along with ‘ashhadu anlaa ilaha illallhu’. He found it as such a serious blasphemy (as the Quran calls it hypocrisy, 63:1, and ‘rejection’ or kufr, 3:18-19, 3:151, 63:1-3, 6:19, 7:37, 7:172, 9:17, 9:107, 48:28-29) that he gave Abu Hurairah a good punch and knocked him to the ground! Obviously, according to Omar’s judgement, Abu Hurairah was spreading shirk and this made him so angry (the Quran refers to this particular aspect of the Prophet’s true companions when it states that ‘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’).

Then it is weird that the same Omar – well-known for his rational mind and strict personality – so easily accepted the claim of a story-teller (notorious among many respectable sahaba as a liar and a thief) merely on the basis of a pair of leather slippers!

Then again, this is the same Omar who allegedly narrated the famous Jibril hadith (Sahih Muslim), where Omar himself ‘hears’ directly from the angel Gabriel appearing in human form and mentioning the ‘extended shahada’ (with Muhammad’s name) as the prime essential of Islam. How seriously contradictory are all these hadith hearsays!

Now please read carefully the following hadith, which appears to be an earlier version of the hadith quoted above, and note once again how ‘La ilaha illallah’ was distorted with time into ‘La Ilaha Illa Allah Muhammadur rasulullah:

Narrated by Muslim from Abu Hurayra: The Prophet — Allah bless and greet him — said to Abu Hurayra: “Go with these two sandals of mine and whoever you meet behind this wall that witnesses that there is no god except Allah with certitude in his heart, give him glad tidings that he will enter Paradise.” The latter then met `Umar, who prevented him from announcing this to the people and the Prophet — Allah bless and greet him — agreed with him on the grounds that they would then rely upon it to the exclusion of everything else. The prevention of this news from reaching the ears of the ignorant is confirmed by the hadith of Mu`adh and that of `Ubada ibn al-Samit through al-Sunabihi, both narrated by Muslim in the same chapter (Book of iman ch. 10).

Very little or probably nothing is known about the true identity of Abu Hurairah including his real name. While he may have been an invented, fictional character, hadith books call him Abu Hurairah, a nickname, meaning “the Father of Cats” (although another hadith, ironically again of Abu Hurairah, states that one should not be called by nicknames). He is considered as the most prominent hadith narrator, whose major role in distorting Islam is considered by some as that of St Paul in Christianity. For further info please read: Abu-Hurayrah, the man who narrated thousands of Hadiths.

  • So the ‘full shahada’ was introduced in sectarian Islam by an unknown (or fictional) story-teller, who was systematically beaten by a much closer companion of the Prophet and was unequivocally described in authentic hadiths as a notorious liar and criminal!

Should the basis of a Muslim’s faith rest on a PAIR OF LEATHER SLIPPERS? And on the blind following of similar, fabricated stories? Should our mind remain subdued under the feet of idols – under their boots, shoes and slippers? Or should it rather consciously stand on reason and logic?

 

Summary

Sectarian shahada is based on baseless hadiths

As the extended shahada is not found in the Quran and has its sole basis only in ‘baseless hadiths’ (‘lahwaal hadeeth’ 31:6, as the Quran calls them), it is important to keep in mind the Quranic position on Hadith. Not only that The Quran prohibited Hadith, the Quran constantly calls itself the only authority of Islam, while exposing the whole hadith corpus as an illegitimate addition to it.

Because no such sectarian formula is authorized by the Quran, it must have been an innovation, a later development. By comparative study of the relevant hadiths and their evident discrepancies, one can easily notice the reckless shift from ‘La ilaha illallah’ towards ‘La Ilaha Illa Allah Muhammadur rasulullah, where Muhammad’s name, which was absent in many of the (probably earlier) narrations, was eventually added to the original shahada. An example of this later addition of Muhammad’s name to shahada is azan, which can be figured by the disagreement in the numbers of words in various hadith versions.

It appears that the extended shahada must have been formulated after the Prophet’s death and during the first decades of the Islamic era in a specific environment – under the pressure of various socio-economic, political and psycho-theological factors – in order to serve, on the first place, specific purposes of some interest groups of that time. A close observation of the related hadiths can help us understand some of these factors.

An obvious religious-psychological factor, among many others, was the urge for an intercessor for the purpose of salvation, which people easily found in an idolized Muhammad. The new formula further served as an ideological slogan to differentiate Islam from all other religions and thereby to mark a particular religious-political identity of the then Muslims during the Umayyad period of Arab expansion. It also served as a propaganda tool to justify and glorify hostile expeditions by Muslim rulers against their non-Muslim challengers. Moreover, it must have been a reaction of Muslims e.g. towards the Christian formula of their Byzantine counterparts. And this probably explains why the interweaving nature of the extended shahada bears resemblance to the Christian confession of faith where the Father and the Son co-exist within one deity (John 17:3).

However, the extended shahada can be called Abu Hurairah’s shahada because, according to a hadith, it was INTRODUCED in Islam solely following an alleged claim of an unknown (or fictional) story-teller called Abu Hurairah – the sole proof of whose claim was allegedly BASED only on a PAIR OF LEATHER SLIPPERS of the Prophet. This is the same Abu Hurairah, who was systematically beaten by Omar, a much closer companion of the Prophet, and was consistently accused as a liar and criminal by some of the best sahaba including Omar, Othman, Aisha and Ali!!

Should the basis of a Muslim’s faith rest on a PAIR OF LEATHER SLIPPERS? And on the blind following of similar, fabricated stories? Should our mind remain subdued under the feet of idols – under their boots, shoes and slippers? Or should it rather consciously stand on reason and logic?