Islam Watch: July 2025

Thursday, July 31, 2025

There Is No “Moderate Sharia”

Your Friendly Neighborhood Theocracy Is Still a Theocracy

Keywords: moderate Sharia myth, Sharia law critique, Islamic jurisprudence facts, Sharia and human rights, Islamic law punishment, women in Sharia, apostasy in Islam, Islamic law enforcement, political Islam exposed

I. Let’s Kill the Fairy Tale

There is no such thing as “moderate Sharia.”
It’s not a thing. It never was. And trying to make it one is like putting a bowtie on a guillotine and calling it reform.

The idea that Sharia — Islam’s legal framework — can be modernized, secularized, or humanized is a delusion peddled by Islamic apologists and swallowed whole by Western useful idiots. The notion of a “lite” version of divine law that somehow respects freedom, women’s rights, minority protections, and modern ethics is about as plausible as a feminist Taliban.

Let’s stop playing dress-up with a doctrine that was written for a tribal desert society in the 7th century and hasn’t aged a day. Sharia isn’t a buffet. You don’t get to pick the “nice” parts and ignore the rest. It’s a totalizing system — political, legal, religious, economic, and personal — and it was never designed to be moderate. It was designed to dominate.

II. What Is Sharia, Really?

Let’s get technical. Sharia (شريعة) means “the path” — and no, not the whimsical kind with flowers and tolerance. It is the sacred law of Islam derived from the Qur’an, the Hadith, Ijma’ (consensus), and Qiyas (analogy). The four major Sunni schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali) and the Shia Ja’fari school all interpret it differently in detail — but they agree on its uncompromising foundations¹.

The result? A medieval legal doctrine where:

Apostates are to be killed
Women are half the worth of men
Non-Muslims are inferior by law
Adulterers are stoned to death
Homosexuals are executed
Theft is punished by amputation
Blasphemy equals capital punishment

That’s not fringe. That’s mainstream, classical, doctrinal Sharia.

Still feeling moderate?

III. Sharia vs. Human Rights: The Showdown

Let’s do a side-by-side comparison of Sharia and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Spoiler: it’s a massacre.

Human Right	Sharia Law
Freedom of religion	Apostasy is punishable by death²
Freedom of speech	Criticism of Islam is blasphemy and criminal³
Gender equality	Women inherit half, cannot lead, and require male guardians⁴
Freedom from torture	Lashing, stoning, beheading are prescribed penalties⁵
Equality before the law	Non-Muslims face discrimination in testimony, taxes, and legal rights⁶

When the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam was adopted by 45 Muslim-majority states in 1990, it explicitly stated that all rights are subject to Sharia⁷. Translation: human rights, but only if the Qur’an approves.

“Moderate Sharia” is code for Sharia with better PR.

IV. The “Nice” Sharia Lie

Apologists will tell you Sharia is about personal piety: prayer, fasting, charity. You know, spiritual stuff. But they leave out the small print — that the same system also includes legalized misogyny, theological supremacy, and medieval punishments.

Here’s what else is considered “moderate” in actual Sharia practice:

A woman can’t leave the house without male permission (Hanbali fiqh)
A husband may beat his wife “lightly” (Quran 4:34)
A rape victim must produce four male witnesses or risk being charged with adultery (Quran 24:4-13)
A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim (Sahih Muslim 1614a)
Slavery is permissible (Quran 4:24, 8:67, 33:50)

Moderate? Only if you’re grading on a scale that starts at the Inquisition.

V. “Reformers” and the Great Gaslight

Muslim reformists and Western pundits love to dangle examples of “progressive Islam” as proof that Sharia can evolve. They point to Tunisia banning polygamy or Morocco reforming inheritance law. But here’s the truth: these reforms are not Sharia. They are departures from Sharia, often in direct defiance of it.

Tunisia outlawed polygamy in 1956 — which flatly contradicts Quran 4:3. Morocco’s inheritance reforms violate Quran 4:11, which gives males double the share of females. Reformers must override divine scripture with secular laws to achieve justice. That’s not “moderate Sharia.” That’s secularism disguised as Islam.

Worse, the more “moderate” a country becomes, the more furious the clerics get. See the backlash in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Egypt whenever someone tries to modernize Islamic family law. The reformers are not softening Sharia — they are fighting it.

VI. Where “Moderate Sharia” Still Kills

Let’s take a global tour of “moderate” Sharia in action:

• Malaysia

Often cited as a model of modern Muslim democracy. Yet:

Homosexuals are caned under Sharia courts⁸
Muslims who convert face prison under apostasy laws
Women must comply with dress codes and Islamic morality police

• Indonesia

Aceh province enforces Sharia. “Moderate,” right?

Floggings for premarital sex, alcohol, and LGBTQ conduct
Public canings in stadiums
Women require male permission for travel and education⁹

• Nigeria

In Sharia-controlled northern states:

Adultery punished by stoning
Thieves lose hands
Blasphemy results in execution (see the 2022 lynching of Deborah Samuel)¹⁰

These aren’t extremist enclaves. These are state-backed, law-enforced Islamic courts operating with full theological legitimacy.

VII. The Trojan Horse in the West

While apologists babble about “moderate Sharia,” Islamic activists push for its quiet implementation in Western democracies — through arbitration courts, family law loopholes, and moral policing under the guise of religious rights.

In the UK:

Sharia tribunals legally handle divorce, custody, and inheritance
Women are routinely pressured to accept inequitable settlements
Some rulings have violated British law on domestic abuse and child custody¹¹

This is not multiculturalism. It’s legal apartheid imported under the veil of tolerance.

VIII. Sharia Is Meant to Rule — Not Coexist

Sharia is not designed to function as a private moral code. It is designed as a complete system of life: religious, legal, political, economic, and penal. It cannot coexist with secularism because it does not recognize its legitimacy.

“Islam is to dominate, not to be dominated.” — Sayyid Qutb¹²

This is the ideological foundation of Islamism, and it is rooted in centuries of Islamic jurisprudence, not “extremist interpretations.”

There is no room for “moderate” pluralism in a system that classifies the entire planet into:

Dar al-Islam (House of Islam)
Dar al-Harb (House of War)

Sharia’s goal is to transform the latter into the former — by persuasion, lawfare, migration, or jihad. That is not a conspiracy theory. That is doctrinal Islam.

IX. The Fantasy of Compatibility

Western liberals, terrified of appearing “Islamophobic,” pretend that Sharia is just another expression of religious identity — like kosher laws or Catholic canon law. But this isn’t about food preferences or spiritual rituals. This is a theocratic legal code that commands the death of critics, subjugation of women, and legal apartheid for non-believers.

Let’s be brutally honest:
You cannot square the circle between human rights and divine law that overrides them.
You cannot reconcile equality under the law with a doctrine that ranks you based on belief, gender, and obedience.
And you cannot sanitize Sharia by cherry-picking Hadiths and reinterpreting scripture to suit modern taste — unless you reject its divine status entirely.

Which, of course, makes you an apostate. Which, under Sharia… is a death sentence.

X. Verdict: Moderate Sharia Is a Myth — And a Dangerous One

The myth of “moderate Sharia” is not just a lie — it’s a lethal distraction. It allows theocratic law to slip past democratic defenses under the banner of tolerance. It enables Islamist supremacism to wear a human rights mask. And it gaslights critics into silence, lest they be labeled bigots for pointing out the obvious.

There is no moderate Sharia. There is only Sharia — and those who violate it, whitewash it, or enforce it.

If you believe in free speech, gender equality, legal secularism, and universal human rights, then you have one obligation when it comes to Sharia: reject it in full. Not just the hand-chopping and stoning — the whole scaffolding.

There is no reforming a doctrine whose central claim is infallibility. You either abandon it — or you surrender to it.

Bibliography

Disclaimer

This post critiques Islam as an ideology, doctrine, and historical system—not Muslims as individuals. Every human deserves respect; beliefs do not.

Footnotes

Kamali, Mohammad Hashim. Shari'ah Law: An Introduction. Oneworld Publications, 2008. ↩
Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, Hadith 57 ↩
Quran 33:57, Abu Dawud 4361 ↩
Quran 2:282, 4:11; Sahih Bukhari 2658 ↩
Reliance of the Traveller (Umdat al-Salik), Islamic Sacred Law Manual ↩
Ibn Qudamah, Al-Mughni, Vol. 10 ↩
Organization of Islamic Cooperation. “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,” 1990 ↩
Human Rights Watch. “Malaysia: Stop Punishing LGBT People.” 2019 ↩
Amnesty International. “Indonesia: Sharia Canings.” 2017 ↩
BBC News. “Nigeria Student Lynched over Alleged Blasphemy.” 2022 ↩
Civitas. “Sharia Law or One Law for All?” 2009 ↩
Qutb, Sayyid. Milestones. 1964 ↩

Wednesday, July 30, 2025

Freedom of Speech vs. Blasphemy Laws in Islam

When Free Thought Meets a Book That Can’t Take a Joke

I. Let’s Be Clear: Islam Can’t Handle Free Speech

There are fragile ideologies, and then there’s Islam — a 7th-century scriptural authoritarianism masquerading as sacred truth that collapses the moment someone cracks a joke about its prophet. In a world where the marketplace of ideas fuels progress, Islam brings a padlock, a gag order, and a sword.

Criticize Jesus, and Christians might pray for you. Mock Buddha, and nobody cares. Draw Muhammad? You might get firebombed, beheaded, or stabbed in a Dutch street while jogging. But remember: Islam is a religion of peace — as long as you never, ever question it.

This isn’t just about hurt feelings. This is about an ideology that demands state-enforced reverence, international blasphemy policing, and death for dissenters — all while pretending it’s the victim. It’s time to stop tiptoeing around the theological toddler with a temper tantrum. Let’s drag Islamic blasphemy laws out into the sunlight and watch them wither under scrutiny.

II. Blasphemy in Islam: A Crime Against Insecurity

Let’s define our terms. In most civilized societies, blasphemy is obsolete — a medieval relic filed next to witch-burning. In Islam, it’s eternal law, still enforced with lethal vigor. Blasphemy is not just an insult; it’s a capital crime. Criticize the Prophet, the Qur’an, or any sacred symbol, and you’ve just bought yourself a one-way ticket to hell — or a mob justice lynching before you get there.

The Qur’an itself lays the groundwork:

“Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger—Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment.” (Quran 33:57)

Cursed by God — and, conveniently, his earthly representatives. The Hadith literature, that endlessly charming repository of 9th-century bloodlust, ups the ante:

“Whoever abuses the Prophet, kill him.” — Sunan Abu Dawud 4361¹
“Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” — Sahih al-Bukhari 3017²

Yes, you read that right. Islam not only prohibits criticism of its core tenets — it mandates execution for doing so. And this isn’t “cultural” Islam or “extremist misinterpretation.” This is mainstream, scripturally endorsed, legally enforced orthodoxy.

III. Sharia Law: Where Free Speech Goes to Die

Under Sharia, blasphemy laws aren’t optional. They’re central. Classical Islamic jurisprudence — across all four Sunni schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali) — is unanimous:
Blasphemy is punishable by death.

No trial? No remorse? Doesn’t matter.

Hanafi fiqh: Apostates and blasphemers get a 3-day grace period to repent, then it’s curtains.
Maliki fiqh: No repentance required; immediate execution.
Shafi’i fiqh: Death for Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Hanbali fiqh: Same again — a quick ticket to the grave³.

This isn’t fringe. These are the default positions in classical Islamic law — and they remain the legal basis in modern theocratic states like Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Sudan.

IV. Real-World Blood Trails: Blasphemy Laws in Action

This isn't theoretical. Here's what Islamic “tolerance” for dissent looks like in practice:

• Pakistan

The blasphemy capital of Earth. Since 1987, over 1,500 people have been charged under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws — many for nothing more than offhand remarks or WhatsApp messages⁴.

Asia Bibi, a Christian farmworker, spent 8 years on death row for allegedly insulting Muhammad.
Mashal Khan, a university student, was lynched in 2017 by a mob — despite being innocent.
Salman Taseer, a Muslim governor who defended Bibi, was assassinated — and his killer is now revered as a martyr.

• Bangladesh

Secular bloggers like Avijit Roy and Ananta Bijoy Das were hacked to death in broad daylight for criticizing Islam. Police stood by. Their killers were lauded by Islamist groups⁵.

• Saudi Arabia

Raif Badawi, a blogger who advocated for secularism, was sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison for "insulting Islam" in 2014⁶.

• Iran

Executions for blasphemy are common. Mohsen Amir Aslani, a Quran teacher, was hanged in 2014 for “heresy” and “corrupting minds” — i.e., having an unapproved interpretation⁷.

Freedom of speech? Not even in death. These regimes don’t just punish blasphemers — they use them as warnings.

V. But...Islamophobia?

Let’s dispense with the tired canard of “Islamophobia.” Criticizing a belief system that executes people for jokes, cartoons, or doubting angels is not bigotry. It’s called sanity. Calling out blasphemy laws isn't Islamophobia — it’s human rights advocacy.

But Islam plays a brilliant hand. It demands both dominance and protection, insisting that its sacred texts govern all, but must remain immune to critique. Any questioning is “hate speech.” Any satire is “Islamophobia.” Any dissent is a “Western conspiracy.”

Let’s be blunt: a religion that calls for the death of critics deserves criticism — not state-sponsored silence.

VI. Global Blasphemy Policing: Exporting the Gag Order

Islam’s contempt for free speech doesn’t end at the borders of the caliphate. It now exports its taboos globally, trying to force secular democracies to adopt theocratic standards under the euphemism of “respect.”

Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were murdered in Paris for drawing Muhammad.
Samuel Paty, a French teacher, was decapitated in 2020 for showing those cartoons in a class on freedom of expression.
In the UK, Batley Grammar School suspended a teacher in 2021 for using similar material. Islamist outrage trumped academic freedom⁸.

Meanwhile, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — a 57-nation bloc — has repeatedly pushed the UN to criminalize “defamation of religions,” with Islam obviously being the focus⁹.

This isn’t just religious offense. It’s transnational censorship. Islam demands blasphemy laws not just for Muslims — but for you, me, everyone.

VII. The Prophet Who Couldn't Be Mocked

Let’s talk about the elephant in the prayer room: Muhammad — a man whose legacy is so brittle it apparently requires global censorship, state-sanctioned killing, and violent retribution to preserve.

This is a man who:

Ordered assassinations of poets who mocked him¹⁰
Endorsed the murder of a woman (Asma bint Marwan) for writing satirical verses¹¹
Had Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf, a Jewish critic, assassinated for insulting him¹²

It’s not modern Muslims who invented the violence against blasphemers — they’re simply following their prophet’s example. The cult of Muhammad is so hyper-defensive that merely depicting him — even neutrally — is treated as a war crime.

Sorry, but if your ideology requires murder to defend its founder’s reputation, maybe it’s the ideology that’s the problem.

VIII. Islam vs. Enlightenment: Incompatible at the Root

Free speech isn’t just a Western luxury — it’s the bedrock of any society that wants to evolve. Without the right to offend, there’s no right to think. No right to question. No right to change. Islam — in its doctrinal essence — rejects this outright.

The Enlightenment gave us secularism, rationalism, satire, and the right to challenge any idea — including sacred ones. Islam gives us death for doubting Muhammad.

There is no bridge between these values. You either believe that humans can question all ideas — or you believe that one book and one man are above scrutiny, forever.

Pick a side.

IX. Verdict: No Peace Without Critique

Islam doesn’t just dislike free speech — it fears it. Because deep down, it knows its foundations are paper-thin. An ideology that crumbles under cartoons, recoils from criticism, and kills its critics isn’t holy. It’s hostage to its own insecurity.

No society can be free while shackled to a theology that calls ideas crimes and punishes words with death.

You want peace? Then the right to criticize Islam — loudly, publicly, and unapologetically — must not just be defended. It must be exercised.

Because the only thing worse than offending a bad idea — is being afraid to.

Bibliography

Disclaimer

This post critiques Islam as an ideology, doctrine, and historical system—not Muslims as individuals. Every human deserves respect; beliefs do not.

Footnotes

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Hadith 4361. ↩
Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 260. ↩
Kamali, Mohammad Hashim. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. Islamic Texts Society, 1991. ↩
Human Rights Watch. “Pakistan: Events of 2022.” HRW Report. ↩
Amnesty International. “Bangladesh: Relentless Attacks on Secular Writers.” 2015. ↩
Amnesty International. “Saudi Arabia: Raif Badawi.” 2014. ↩
Center for Human Rights in Iran. “Iran Executes Mohsen Amir Aslani.” 2014. ↩
BBC News. “Batley teacher suspended over Muhammad cartoon.” 2021. ↩
United Nations Human Rights Council, “Combating Defamation of Religions,” Resolution 16/18. ↩
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, trans. A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press, 1955. ↩
Ibid., pp. 675–676. ↩
Ibid., p. 367. ↩

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

Islam: A Revelation That Never Happened

How a Caravan Raider’s Hallucinations Became a Global Religion

I. Welcome to the Grand Delusion

Imagine this: a 7th-century merchant with frequent seizures and a flair for drama staggers out of a cave, raving that an invisible being squeezed him and dictated God's final message for humanity — in Arabic, no less, to a barely literate desert tribe. And from this sand-drenched fever dream emerged the Qur’an — a jumbled, contradictory, chronologically incoherent collection of pseudo-monotheistic ramblings that somehow became the foundation for one of the most powerful religions in human history.

This, in case you were wondering, is the “revelation” at the core of Islam — a religion that insists it is perfect, eternal, and beyond scrutiny. So naturally, we’re going to scrutinize it.

Let’s set the ground rules: No special pleading. No "you have to understand it in Arabic." No circular reasoning. We will judge Islam by the same evidentiary standards used to demolish every other man-made theology. And once we do, the only revelation will be that it never happened at all.

II. Muhammad: The Man, The Myth, The Military Strategist

Let’s start with Muhammad, the so-called “Seal of the Prophets.” The historical record for the most pivotal figure in Islam is laughably thin. Virtually everything we “know” about him comes from sources written over a century to two centuries after his death — mainly the sīra (biographies) and hadith literature, which are riddled with contradictions, hearsay, and political agendas¹.

There are no contemporaneous records of Muhammad from non-Muslim sources. Not one Roman, Persian, Greek, or Byzantine chronicler mentions this prophet during his lifetime — strange, given how much noise he supposedly made. The earliest datable Islamic inscription mentioning Muhammad is the Dome of the Rock (691 CE) — a full 59 years after his death². Even the earliest Qur’anic manuscripts show no consistent reference to “Muhammad” as a prophet — or even a person. Some scholars argue “Muhammad” was initially a title meaning “the praised one,” possibly referring to Jesus³.

It gets worse. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad received revelations from the angel Jibril while alone — conveniently untestable. His first reactions to the supposed encounter? Terror, suicidal ideation, and the belief he was possessed by a jinn⁴. This wasn't a confident prophet — this was a man having a breakdown.

So, was Muhammad a prophet, or just a politically savvy warlord whose visions conveniently aligned with his ambitions?

III. The Quran: Patchwork Piety With a Dash of Plagiarism

Islam’s supreme miracle, the Qur’an, is often touted as inimitable, unchangeable, and miraculously preserved. Reality has a more vulgar word for it: cut-and-paste chaos.

Let’s start with its structure: the Qur’an is a non-chronological mess, jumping between topics mid-verse, repeating itself endlessly, and contradicting itself more than a drunk philosopher⁵. Verses about mercy are cancelled out by later verses calling for bloodshed — all thanks to the conveniently vague doctrine of abrogation (Quran 2:106).

And originality? Forget it. Scholars have documented numerous borrowings from earlier Jewish, Christian, Gnostic, Zoroastrian, and even pagan sources⁶. Stories of Moses, Noah, Joseph, and Jesus are retold — often with embarrassing errors and mangled details. The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, a Christian folktale, becomes Surah 18. Alexander the Great becomes "Dhul-Qarnayn," inexplicably presented as a monotheist (Quran 18:83–101)⁷.

The “perfect” Qur’an even contradicts observable reality:

The sun sets in a muddy spring (Quran 18:86)
Sperm originates from between the backbone and ribs (Quran 86:6-7)
The Earth is flat, spread out like a carpet (Quran 15:19, 20:53)

Modern apologists trip over themselves inventing metaphors for these facepalms. But if this is divine language, then God needs a fact-checker.

IV. Revelation by Convenient Timing

Muhammad’s revelations often came at suspiciously opportune moments — just when he needed to justify a decision, desire, or crime. Some greatest hits:

He wanted his adopted son's wife? Surprise! Allah abolished adoption (Quran 33:37).
Accused of adultery? Poof! A verse appears requiring four witnesses (Quran 24:4).
Wanted more wives? Allah graciously grants him an exemption (Quran 33:50).
Caught in a sex scandal with his slave girl? Allah clears him — and scolds his wives (Quran 66:1-5).

This is less divine inspiration and more a political-religious improv show, where every controversy is resolved by God acting as Muhammad’s celestial PR agent.

V. The Myth of Miraculous Preservation

Muslims insist the Qur’an is preserved “letter for letter, harf for harf.” This is a comforting myth. Reality: the Qur’an we have today is a redacted, standardized, and partially lost document.

The Uthmanic recension — Islam’s first “official” Qur’an — was compiled in the mid-7th century by committee, and all rival manuscripts were burned⁸. What a bold strategy for divine preservation: burn the evidence.

But it gets better. Early Qur’anic manuscripts like the Sana’a palimpsest, discovered in Yemen, show multiple textual variants, corrections, and erasures — proof the Qur’an evolved over time⁹. Scholars like Dr. Dan Brubaker have documented hundreds of manuscript-level changes¹⁰.

There is no single, pristine Qur’anic text. There are dozens of qira’at (variant readings) — some with different meanings, grammar, and theology. This isn’t divine precision. This is scriptural roulette.

VI. The Hadith House of Cards

When the Qur’an isn’t enough, Muslims turn to the Hadith — six canonical collections of oral reports compiled 200+ years after Muhammad’s death. Bukhari alone claims to have sifted through 600,000 hadiths to accept just 7,275, tossing out 98.8% as garbage¹¹.

Yet somehow, these cherry-picked stories define Islamic law, ritual, punishment, even hygiene. Want to know how to pee, eat, or beat your wife? There’s a hadith for that.

Worse still, major hadiths contradict each other, or flat-out contradict the Qur’an. And why wouldn’t they? They were collected based on hearsay chains (isnads) with no contemporaneous verification. Imagine trying to reconstruct a historical biography today using only word-of-mouth gossip from TikTok influencers two centuries later. That’s Islamic historiography.

VII. Islam’s Borrowed Theology

Islam is not the fresh monotheistic masterpiece it claims to be. It’s a syncretic Frankenstein — a mishmash of Judaism, Christianity, pre-Islamic Arab paganism, and local folk beliefs.

Allah was a pre-Islamic moon god worshipped alongside daughters Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat¹².
The Islamic Shahada closely mirrors Jewish Shema and Christian creeds.
Angels, Satan, Judgment Day, Heaven, and Hell? All borrowed from Second Temple Judaism and Zoroastrianism.
Ramadan? Likely borrowed from earlier Christian Lenten fasts practiced in Arabia.

Even prayer toward Mecca only became mandatory later in Muhammad’s career — initially, Muslims prayed toward Jerusalem¹³.

This is not divine originality. It’s theological plagiarism with an Arabic accent.

VIII. The Political Weapon Called “Islam”

Far from being a mere spiritual path, Islam was from its inception a political movement cloaked in theology. Muhammad didn’t just preach — he conquered. Medina wasn’t just a sanctuary; it was a base of operations for raids, assassinations, and warfare.

Islam expanded not through inspiration, but by the sword — justified through verses like:

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah…until they pay the jizya” (Quran 9:29)

This isn't moral guidance — it's mafia economics.

Early Islam spread through military conquest, forced conversions, tribute extortion, and dhimmitude. It wasn’t ideas that won; it was armies. And the pattern hasn’t changed much since.

IX. Verdict: Revelation Denied

Strip away the apologetics, the mysticism, and the political correctness, and Islam collapses under the weight of its own fictions. No eyewitness accounts. No contemporary corroboration. A book riddled with contradictions and plagiarism. A founder whose divine hotline seemed perfectly timed to serve his ambitions. And a religion that expanded not through peace, but plunder.

This wasn’t a revelation.

It was an invention.

⚠️ Disclaimer

This post critiques Islam as an ideology, doctrine, and historical system — not Muslims as individuals. Every human deserves dignity. Systems that trap people in cruelty under divine claims do not.

Footnotes

Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. Oxford University Press, 1955. ↩
Crone, P., & Cook, M. Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Cambridge University Press, 1977. ↩
Wansbrough, J. Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation. Oxford University Press, 1977. ↩
Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 3. ↩
Luxenberg, C. The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran. Hans Schiller Verlag, 2007. ↩
Tisdall, W. St. Clair. The Original Sources of the Qur'an. SPCK Publishing, 1905. ↩
Reynolds, G. S. The Qur'an and Its Biblical Subtext. Routledge, 2010. ↩
Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Vol. 6–9. SUNY Press. ↩
Puin, Gerd R. “Observations on Early Qur’an Manuscripts in San'a.” in The Qur'an as Text, ed. Stefan Wild, Brill, 1996. ↩
Brubaker, D. Corrections in Early Qurʾān Manuscripts: Twenty Examples. Think and Tell, 2019. ↩
Brown, J. A. C. Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World. Oneworld, 2009. ↩
Peters, F. E. Allah's Commonwealth. Princeton University Press, 1973. ↩
Watt, W. M. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, 1961. ↩

Monday, July 28, 2025

The Prophet Distinction Trap

How Islam Became Muhammadism

“We make no distinction between any of His messengers.” — Qur’an 2:285
“Those who do are true disbelievers.” — Qur’an 4:150–152

🚨 Introduction: The Subtle Descent into Idolatry

Islam began as a religion fiercely committed to the singular worship of God. It emphasized His oneness, His absolute authority, and His direct communication through a series of messengers across time. But something changed. Slowly, subtly, and with institutional reinforcement, Islam became less about God and more about His final messenger.

What emerged over time was not the Qur’an's envisioned monotheism, but a man-centered faith structure indistinguishable from the prophet-worship the Qur’an itself condemns. Today, the religion that claims to be “submission to God” looks remarkably like “submission to Muhammad”—a prophet-centered religion that ironically mirrors the same error Islam was supposedly sent to correct.

Let’s be clear: Islam, as per the Qur’an, is not the religion of Muhammad. It is the religion of Abraham (2:130, 2:135, 4:125). And it commands believers not to make any distinctions between messengers. Yet modern practice has done just that—with dangerous consequences.

🧠 Part I: The Qur’anic Framework — No Distinctions Between Messengers

Repeatedly, the Qur’an lays down a theological bedrock:

“The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, as did the believers. All of them have believed in God, His angels, His books, and His messengers. We make no distinction between any of His messengers.” — Qur’an 2:285

The point is not symbolic. The command is doctrinal.

Making distinctions between messengers—elevating one over others in spiritual or devotional rank—is explicitly condemned:

“Those who disbelieve in God and His messengers and seek to make a distinction between God and His messengers… saying, ‘We believe in some but reject others,’ seeking a middle way—they are the true disbelievers.” — Qur’an 4:150–151

This is not metaphor. It's a litmus test for belief. To elevate one prophet as “better,” “superior,” “savior,” or “intercessor” is not reverence—it’s rebellion against divine authority.

🔍 Part II: The Tafḍīl Misinterpretation — God’s Favour vs. Human Preference

Traditional theology leans heavily on verses like:

“These messengers—We favoured some over others…” — Qur’an 2:253

At first glance, this appears to sanction preference. But the Qur’an’s use of فَضَّلْنَا (faḍḍalnā) doesn’t mean preference in the human sense of liking one more than another. It refers to divine favour, not superiority.

The favour (tafḍīl) is functional, not hierarchical. It refers to gifts, roles, or challenges suited to each prophet’s time and mission:

Some were given Scripture.
Some were spoken to directly.
Some were gifted with miracles.
Others had no miracles at all, only character and patience.

But these differences are assigned by God, not determined by us. They are not grounds for human veneration, let alone deification.

“To each of you We have prescribed a law and a method. Had God willed, He could have made you one community…” — Qur’an 5:48

📜 Part III: The Religion of Abraham — Not the Cult of Muhammad

Time and time again, the Qur’an reminds us: Islam is the religion of Abraham.

“Who but a fool would turn away from the religion of Abraham…?” — Qur’an 2:130
“Say, rather, [ours is] the religion of Abraham, upright, and he was not of the polytheists.” — Qur’an 2:135

Abraham is the archetype of monotheistic submission—not Muhammad.

Yet what do we see today? A religion almost entirely rebranded around one man. Sermons are filled with the names of Muhammad, his companions, his wives, and his tribe. The Qur’an is rarely quoted except in service of justifying hadith-based theology. And God? Often relegated to a ceremonial mention.

This is not an exaggeration. It’s what even early European observers noticed, referring to Islam not as “submission to God” but as “Muhammadism.” They weren’t trying to insult—it was the only logical label for a religion obsessed with its prophet.

📚 Part IV: The Idolatry Cycle — From Veneration to Deification

What begins as love easily morphs into dependency. What begins as reverence soon becomes worship.

Christianity took Jesus from messenger to Messiah to God incarnate. Islam followed a parallel path:

Veneration of Muhammad’s character.
Obedience to Muhammad’s hadith.
Invocation of Muhammad in prayer.
Dependency on Muhammad as intercessor.
Divinization of Muhammad as sinless, infallible, and the ultimate savior from Hell.

The Prophet went from being a servant of God to being the hope of the ummah—sometimes mentioned more than God Himself. From there, it snowballed:

His companions became holy.
His family became sacred.
His narrators, scholars, and imams became infallible.
His grave became a pilgrimage site.

All this, despite the Qur’an warning:

“The Day when no soul will benefit another in any way, and the command belongs entirely to God.” — Qur’an 2:48

Muhammad cannot hear prayers. He cannot forgive. He cannot intercede. To believe otherwise is idolatry—plain and simple.

🛑 Part V: Who Made the Distinction?

The Qur’an makes it abundantly clear: God alone assigns roles and ranks. Humans do not.

“Those messengers—We gave some more than others…” — Qur’an 2:253
“We raised some of them above others in rank…” — Qur’an 6:83–86

But this tafḍīl was from God, not based on fame, number of hadiths, miracles, or followers. In fact, the prophet most associated with the religion—Abraham—was given that status precisely to avoid the distortion of prophet worship.

So even if we were to say one prophet had a unique rank (say, Abraham, whom God called a friend), the Qur’an never commands us to show preference. On the contrary, it says:

“Those who believe… and do not make distinctions between any of them—God will reward them.” — Qur’an 4:152

This is not optional. This is the test.

🕋 Part VI: Traditional Islam’s Subtle Apostasy

Let’s be blunt.

If Islam today insists that:

Muhammad is the best of creation,
Only Muhammad can intercede,
Prayers should be upon Muhammad daily,
Muhammad is sinless and beyond critique,
Obedience to him is equal to obedience to God,

Then Islam has crossed the line into idolatry.

It has taken a messenger and turned him into a religious object—exactly what previous communities did, and what the Qur’an warned about relentlessly.

“Do not say [of any messenger], ‘He is the son of God.’ God is far above that!” — Qur’an 9:30

Today, Muhammad is praised in poetry, song, and ritual in ways that would horrify the Abraham of the Qur’an.

The Qur’an never commanded:

Sending daily blessings to Muhammad.
Visiting his grave.
Reciting his biography as a religious duty.
Obeying extra-Qur’anic sources attributed to him centuries later.

All this is post-Qur’anic invention. And it directly violates the Qur’anic call to not distinguish between messengers.

⚖️ Part VII: The Consequences of Distinction

When a religion centers a man instead of God, everything collapses:

Revelation becomes secondary to biography.
Worship becomes dependent on intercession.
Divine justice becomes negotiable through human loyalty.
Community identity becomes tribal.

This is precisely what happened to Judaism with Moses, to Christianity with Jesus, and to Islam with Muhammad.

“If they had associated others with Him, all their deeds would have come to nothing.” — Qur’an 6:88

🧨 Conclusion: Time to Choose — Islam or Muhammadism?

The Qur’an is not ambiguous. Those who make distinctions between messengers are disbelievers. Those who refuse to do so are true believers.

The irony is crushing: Islam came to end idolatry, but much of what we see in traditional practice today is precisely that—idolatry in the name of the Prophet.

True Islam, the Qur’an-only kind, calls us to:

Focus on God, not men.
Believe in all messengers, not idolize one.
Follow Scripture, not historical hearsay.
Reject intercessors, and turn to God alone.

“Say: I am only a human being like you. It has been revealed to me that your God is one God. So whoever hopes to meet his Lord, let him do righteous deeds and not associate anyone in worship with his Lord.” — Qur’an 18:110

That includes the Prophet himself.

Sunday, July 27, 2025

Muhammadism

Manufactured by Hadith

How Post-Qur’anic Literature Hijacked a Monotheistic Faith

“These are fabricated sayings, and what they invent will only lead them astray.” — Qur’an 6:112

⚠️ Introduction: A Second “Revelation”?

Islam was meant to be a religion of tawheed—absolute devotion to one God, through His final, preserved revelation: the Qur’an.

But within two centuries after Muhammad’s death, a parallel revelation emerged. Not from God. Not even from the Prophet. But from anonymous narrators, political factions, and religious institutions that needed control, power, and obedience.

This literature became known as the Hadith corpus—and it reconstructed the Prophet from God’s servant to Islam’s center of gravity.

The result? Muhammadism.

Let’s pull this distortion apart piece by piece.

📚 Part I: What Are Hadith?

Hadiths are oral reports, allegedly passed down from person to person, eventually written centuries after the Prophet's death. Each hadith contains:

A matn (text of the statement)
An isnad (chain of narrators)

The earliest canonical collections appeared over 200 years after Muhammad died:

Muwatta (Imam Malik): ~150 years after.
Sahih Bukhari: ~220 years after.
Sahih Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, Nasa’i: 250+ years after.

Thousands of conflicting reports. Politically charged. Theologically weaponized. Often unverifiable. And yet—taken as religious law.

This was not "tradition." It was an invention. And it rewrote the religion.

🔨 Part II: What Hadith Did That the Qur’an Didn’t

Let’s be crystal clear. The hadith literature does not supplement the Qur’an—it supplants it.

✅ The Qur’an says:

“Say: I am only a human like you…” — 18:110
“Muhammad is only a messenger…” — 3:144
“The Qur’an is a clarification of everything…” — 16:89
“Obey God and the messenger…” — (when messenger speaks Qur’an)
“Do not divide between messengers.” — 4:150–152

❌ The Hadith says:

Muhammad is the best of creation.
He was created before the universe (lawlaka lawlaka).
His intercession saves sinners from hell.
He is infallible and free from error (Ismah).
Prayers must be sent to him daily.
He hears prayers from his grave.
The Sunnah overrides the Qur’an in many rulings.
Obedience to hadith = obedience to God.

See the shift?

From God-centered monotheism to prophet-centered ritualism.

🧬 Part III: The Cult Mechanics Built Into Hadith

Hadith didn't just reinterpret the Prophet—it reprogrammed the religion around him.

Here’s how:

1. Personality Cult Construction

“None of you truly believes until I am more beloved to him than his father, son, and all of mankind.” — Sahih Bukhari 15

This is the foundation of every cult: total loyalty to a leader, emotional dependency, and obedience above reason.

2. Infallibility (Ismah)

The Qur’an shows Muhammad erring, being corrected, and warned repeatedly:

Abasa 80:1–11 – He frowns at a blind man.
66:1 – He forbids what God permits.
9:43 – God reproaches him.

But hadith reversed this. Suddenly, Muhammad was sinless, all-wise, and beyond criticism. This justified making his every action law.

3. Grave-based Intercession

“Send abundant blessings upon me, for your blessings are presented to me.” — Sunan Abu Dawud 2041

“Whoever visits my grave, I shall intercede for him.” — Al-Daraqutni, weakly authenticated

The Prophet becomes a spiritual middleman—exactly the role the Qur’an forbids anyone from having.

“On that Day, intercession will not benefit except he to whom God permits.” — 20:109

4. Legal Supremacy of Hadith over Qur’an

The Qur’an says nothing about stoning adulterers.
Hadith commands it.
Islamic law obeys the hadith.
The Qur’an forbids compulsion in religion (2:256).
Hadith justifies execution for apostasy.
Islamic law follows hadith.

The result: Muhammad’s reported words override God’s literal words.

🏛️ Part IV: Why Hadith Was Invented

Hadith didn’t arise in a vacuum. It was a tool of empire.

1. Political Control

Rulers needed religious authority. Invented hadiths like:

“Obey the ruler, even if he flogs your back.” — Sahih Muslim 1839
“Whoever dies without a pledge of allegiance dies a death of ignorance.”

This silenced dissent and sacralized the state.

2. Religious Gatekeeping

Theologians and jurists became indispensable interpreters of “the Sunnah.” Only they could navigate the hadith labyrinth.

Result: an elite clergy emerged—despite Islam claiming to have no priesthood.

3. Sectarian Control

Sunni and Shi’a hadiths reflect opposing power narratives:

Sunnis elevate Abu Bakr, Umar.
Shi’a elevate Ali, Fatimah.

Each side fabricates hadiths to fortify its lineage, imams, and legitimacy. Scripture becomes a weapon, not a guide.

🧨 Part V: The Hadith Catastrophe

By the 10th century CE, Islam had changed.

Qur’an: Complete revelation from God.
Hadith: Thousands of sayings, many contradictory, used to rewrite doctrine.

The religion became hadithic, not Qur’anic.

Even today:

Sermons quote hadiths more than Qur’an.
Legal rulings are mostly from hadith.
Qur’an-only Muslims are branded heretics or “Quraniyoon.”
Prophetic traditions are considered divine inspiration (waḥy ghayr matluw)—despite zero Qur’anic support for that idea.

God said: “Shall I seek a judge other than God? While it is He who has sent down to you the Book, explained in detail?” — 6:114

But Muslims say: “The Book is not enough. We need volumes of hadith to understand it.”

That’s not reverence. That’s rejection of divine sufficiency.

📌 Conclusion: Hadith Made Muhammad Divine

Let’s call it what it is:

Muhammadism is not Islam.

It is a post-Qur’anic religion where:

Muhammad replaces the Qur’an as ultimate authority.

Devotion to him overrides devotion to God.

Obedience to hadith cancels Qur’anic principles.

Intercession, infallibility, and sainthood create a prophet-centric idol system.

The Qur’an came to liberate humanity from intermediaries.

Hadith turned around and gave us one more.

❗Final Mic Drop

“On the Day We summon every people with their messenger… And the Messenger will say: ‘My people have abandoned this Qur’an.’” — Qur’an 25:30

He didn’t say they abandoned the Sunnah.
He didn’t say they abandoned his hadiths.
He said: the Qur’an.

The abandonment is real. And the proof?
The rise of Muhammadism.