Logo Copyright © 2007 NCCG - All Rights Reserved
Return to Main Page




Symphony of Truth

In a Nutshell

Topical Guide


5 Commissions

10 Commandments

333 NCCG Number

144,000, The


Action Stations

Agency, Free





Apostolic Interviews

Apostolic Epistles

Archive, Complete

Articles & Sermons





Baptism, Water

Baptism, Fire

Becoming a Christian

Bible Codes

Bible Courses

Bible & Creed


Calendar of Festivals


Charismata & Tongues

Chavurat Bekorot

Christian Paganism

Chrism, Confirmation


Church, Fellowship

Contact us



Covenants & Vows












Ephraimite Page, The

Essene Christianity




Family, The



Festivals of Yahweh

Festivals Calendar



Gay Christians


Godhead, The






Hebrew Roots





Holy Echad Marriage

Holy Order, The

Home Education


Human Nature




Intro to NCCG.ORG



Jewish Page, The

Judaism, Messianic

Judaism, Talmudic


KJV-Only Cult





Marriage & Romance



Messianic Judaism






NCCG Origins

NCCG Organisation

NCCG, Spirit of

NCCG Theology



New Age & Occult



New Covenant Torah

Norwegian Website


Occult Book, The

Occult Page, The

Olive Branch



Paganism, Christian















RDP Page




Satanic Ritual Abuse



Sermons & Articles

Sermons Misc







Swedish Website


Talmudic Judaism



Tongues & Charismata



True Church, The




United Order, The




Wicca & the Occult


World News


Yah'shua (Jesus)




    4. Two Sets of Muslim Scriptures:
    Which is Which?

    Ask any non-Muslim what the Muslim Scriptures are and they will immediately tell you, the Koran (or Quran). Ask Muslims what are Islamic Scripture and you will get two answers:

    • 1. The Koran
    • 2. The Koran and Hadith

    What may surprise you if you are a Westerner and live in a non-mulsim country, is to learn that the vast majority of Muslims believe in both the Koran and the Hadith and that both are equally inspired. Only a minority of Muslims are committed to the Koran alone.


    All Muslims believe that not only is the Koran perfect but that their prophet, Muhammad, was perfect as well (Koran Suras 12:2; 13:37; 41:41,44). They also believe that is was originally written in heaven on a stone tablet and then transmitted to the prophet subsequently. So perfect is the Koran believed to be, that there are no variant readings whatsoever. Nothing has been lost, omitted, or changed, so that no conflicting manuscripts (MSS) exist. Many Muslims believe that an original Koran MS exists from which all Korans have been copied, and that the language in which it was written (Arabic) was flawless. Because the original language is without fault, no human being can render it into another language, so no other language is perfect enough. As literature, it is claimed, the Koran is also perfect (Sura 10:37-38).

    These fantastic claims are easily disproven. There are numerous grammatical errors (e.g. Suras 2:177,192; 3:59; 4:162; 7:160; 13:28; 20:66; 63:10). There are numerous incomplete sentences which cannot be properly understood without various aids such as commentaries. It contains both non-Arabic words and phrases (Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, Akkadian, Ethiopian, and Persian) - at least 107 - as well as words that are given abnormal meanings. Adjectives and verbs are inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number. Illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which someties have no refenent abound. And predicates exist which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects (Ali Dashti, 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad, London, George Allen & Unwin, 1985, p.48). The Koran therefore contradicts its own claim to be written perfectly. And since, it is claimed, that Allah wrote it in heaven and Muhammad simply copied it, we are forced to the conclusion that Alah is not perfect ... or that it was, in fact, written de novo by Muhammad Himself. The over one hundred Koranic aberations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic are known to exist.

    The claim that the Koranic MSS are without variants is also false. In Sura 2 alone, there are over 140 conflicting and variant readings (Arthur Jeffrey, Material for the History of the Text of the Quran). All Muslim and Western scholars admit this. And many of the variants alter the meaning of the text substantially. There are even missing verses. In the days of Ayesha, one Sura originally had 200 verses. But by the time of Uthman, 127 verses had been lost leaving only 73 behind! To this day the Shiite Muslims claim that Uthman left of 25% of the original verses in the Koran for political reasons (McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia, V:152). This is universally recognised. In response to the Muslim claim that the Koran is perfect, scholar John Burton has said:

      "The Muslim accounts of the history of the Quran texts are a mass of confusion, contradiction and inconsitencies" (Collection of the Quran, London, Cambridge University Press, 1977, p.231).

    Like it or not, the Koran has been modified. A follower of Muhammad, Abdollah Sarh, made suggestions to Muhammad about rephrasing, adding to, or subtracting from the Suras, which he often did. Al Dashti explains:

      "Abdollah renounced Islam on the ground that the revelations, if from God, could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as he. After his apostasy he went to Mecca and joined the Qorayshites" (Dashti, 23 Years, p.98).

    Not surprisingly, then, that upon conquering Mecca one of the first people the Islamic prophet killed was Abdollah, for he knew too much and opened his mouth too often.

    Verses that conttradict the Muslim faith have been removed from the Koran. Best known of these are the "satannic verses" in which Muhammad approved the worship of the three goddesses, the daughters of Allah. Arabic scholar E. Wherry notes:

      "There being some passages in the Quran which are contradictory, the Muhammadan doctors obviate any objection from thence by the doctrine of abrogation; for they say that God in the Quran commanded several things which were for good reasons afterwards revoked and abrogated" (E.M.Wherry, A Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran, p.110).

    Not only has there been a systematic deletion of disjunctive verses but also addditions. For example, Ubai had several Suras in his MS of the Koran which Uthman omitted from his standardised text. Thus there were Korans in circulation before Uthman's text which had additional revelations from Muhammad which Uthman did not like, and thus he chopped them out of his own text.

    There never was an "original Koran", no single manuscript (MS). Arthur Jeffery states:

      "Nothing is more certain than that when the Prophet died there was no collected body of revelation. The earliest strata of tradition available to us make is quite certain that there was no Quran left ready as a heritage for the community. The Prophet had proclaimed his messages orally, and, except in the later period of his ministry, whether they were recorded or not was often a matter of chance" (Jeffrey, Materials, pp.5-6. See also Caesar Farrar, Islam: Beliefs and Observations, New York, Barrons, 1987, p.28).

    The Muslim claim that Muhammad compiled a complete Koranic MS before he died is pure mythology. There never was a single codex. That there couldn't have been is proved by the fact that while he was alive, Muhammad was continually adding new sayings to the earlier ones. The Koran as we have it was gathered together after his death. And they were gathered from bones, stones, palm leaves, tree bark and other materials on which the texts had been written, none of which exist today.

    The early versions of the Koran were in conflict with each other, some having more Suras than others, and some being worded differently.

    Yet Muslims claim that the original MSS exist today. When challenged to produce them, there only answer that they give, viz. that they must.

    If there was an original, standard text, then why did Uthman have to standardise a common text if it was already in existence? Why did he destroy all the other MSS if there were no conflicting MSS? Why did he have to use the threat of death to force people to accept his text is everyone had the same text. And, finally, why did many people reject his text in favour of their own texts?

    These questions cannot be answered by Muslims. The fact that Uthman ordered all the older copies of the Koran destroyed reveals his fear that such copies would reveal that his own text was deficient either by addition to or subtraction from from what Muhammad actually said. And he was afraid that should the older MSS survive, they would undermine the message of Islam completely.

    But some of the older MSS have survived.

    If the Koran is so perfect then why were Hamzah ben-Ahed and Maslema able to write books against the Koran which so surpassed it that many Mussulman's defected from Islam?

    The dialect and vocabulary of the Koran is that of someone from the Quryash tribe living in the city of Mecca and not some superior, transcendant form of Arabic such as is Oxford English over the numerous dialects and voicalularies of common English. It bears the unmistakable mark of Muhammad himself. If it has been written in some kind of heavenly, perfect Arabic, the Koran would not have reflected a particular dialect and vocabulary - the dialect and vocabulary of a mortal human being and not some heavenly Allah.


    The very clear message of the Koran is that Muhammad uttered only one set of perfect teachings that are recorded in the Koran, that these alone are authoritative, and that he never taught anything else:

      "Had he (Muhammad) uttered any other teachings. We would have punished him. We would have stopped the revelations to him" (69:44-46).

      Allah says here that had the Prophet taught anything outside the Koran that he would have been punished. Everything that is in the Koran, according to the Koran, is the sum total of what Allah taught him.

      Muhammad, furthermore, was, we are told, to deliver (teach and propagate) the message of the Koran and do no more:

        "You (Muhammad) have NO duty EXCEPT DELIVERING the message" (42:48).

        "Your ONLY duty (Muhammad), is delivering, we will call them to account" (13:40).

        "The messenger has NO function EXCEPT delivery of the message" (5:99).

      Any extra-Koranic teaching would therefore constitute a dereliction of his duty. As if to make the point, it is repeated three times.

      Why? Simply because the Koran is theological and practically self-sufficient:

        "We have revealed to you this book (KORAN) to provide EXPLANATIONS FOR EVERYTHING, and guidance, and mercy and good news for the submitters" (16:89).

      Note the word "everything". Since the Koran covers "everything" then ipso facto there can't be any more, so no more revelation or teaching is needed. To underline the point, Allah says:

        "We did not leave anything out of this book (KORAN)" (6:38).

      Are we still unsure?

        "The word (KORAN) of your Lord (ALAH) is COMPLETE, in truth and justice" (6:115).

      It is very important that all of this is remembered when we later come to consider the second book of Muslim scriptures, the Hadith. Let's summarise:

      • 1. The Koran contains explanations of everything;
      • 2. Nothing has been left out of it; and
      • 3. The Koran is complete.

      This threefold declaration by Allah is therefore, quite simply a canonical decree telling us that the Koran is all-sifficent and that nothing - no more teachings, explanations, etc. - are needed. Nothing at all. Not even the Bible makes such a claim for itself (even though many Christians twist Revelation 22:18-19 to mean just that).

      I have presented these facts to Islamic apologists who have run circles around them, saying that the Koran still needed to be explained and expounded, which the prophet and his successors have faithfully done. But that isn't what the Koran says. It goes one step further:

        "Shall I seek other than GOD as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book (KORAN) FULLY DETAILED" (6:114).

      If the Koran is "fully detailed", then no further explanation is required. If I give someone "full details" of something, nothing more can be given. He has the fullness of the details. And when something is full, nothing can be added.

      Therefore we must add a fourth point:

      • 4. The Koran is fully detailed.

      Islamic apologists sometimes quote the following in defence of more explanation and teaching:

        "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those of you who are in authority. If you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is better and more suitable for final determination" (4:59).

      But to pit Sura 4:59 against the others is to say that the Koran contradicts itself, no less. In order to harmonise it with the previous Suras that have been quoted above, we are forced to admit that what is referred to in terms of obedience to Muhammad is the Koran, no more and no less, for Muhammad was not permitted to teach anything beyond it without being punished.

      The doctrine of the Koran is, therefore, like some forms of extreme Protestantism. It is a totally self-sufficient book containing all truth in all detail. It requires neither teachers, Imams, Mullahs, or even Muhammad himself to say anything more. Anyone - whether Mullah, Imam, Ayatollah, or the Prophet himself - who adds one new teaching to it is therefore APOSTATE.

      Unfortunately, that makes not only the Prophet, Imams, Ayatollahs, and Mullahs apostate, but every Muslim who listens to them, as we shall see.


      Like it or not, the vast majority of Muslims consider the Hadith as equally sacred, inspired and authoritative as the Koran.

      The Hadith (meaning "Traditions") is a collection of early Muslim traditions - a bit like the writings of the Catholic fathers to the Catholic Church - which record the words and deeds of Muhammad according to his wives, family members, friends and Muslim leaders which are not usually found in the Koran.

      Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah, Islamic scholar, is typical of the majority Muslim view when he states that "the custodian and repository of the original teachings of Islam" are found "above all in the Quran and the Hadith" (Introduction to Islam, p.250). To this he adds: "the Quran and the Hadith" are "the basis of all [Islamic] law" (p.163).

      The reason, according to this Muslim scholar that Muslims revere the Hadith as well as the Koran is that the Hadith is as divinely inspired as the Koran itself! He writes:

        "The teachings of Islam are based primarily on the Quran and the Hadith, and, as we shall presently see, both are based on divine inspiration" (p.23)

      But wait! What did the Koran say about itself? Let us remind ourselves lest we forget:

      • 1. The Koran contains explanations of everything;
      • 2. Nothing has been left out of it;
      • 3. The Koran is complete; and
      • 4. The Koran is fully detailed.

      So why on earth is there any need for a set of traditions called Hadith? And yet, we learn they are indispensible! Muslim writer Hammudullah Abdalatati declares:

        "All the articles of faith ... and based upon and derived from the teachings of the Quran and the Traditions [Hadith] of Muhammad" (Islam in Focus, The Muslim Association of Singapore, Singapore, 1991, p.21).

      As we shall see, not only does the existence of the Hadith contradict what Allah claims in the Koran, but it contains some of the most absurd and insane teachings imaginable that only totally unthinking and brainwashed individuals could possible believe. Many of them are an accute embarrassment to Muslims who either go silent, defend them like mad zealots, or pretend they don't exist. Some of them are most degrading and perverse teachings I have ever heard that utterly demolish any pretense by Islam to be a moral religion.

      Unlike the Koran, the Hadith is enormous, consisting (in one translation) of nine volumes (Dr. Muhammad Mushin Khan, The Translation of the Meaning of Sahih Al-Bukhari (Kazi Publications, Lahore, Pakistan, 1979). The author writes in his introduction:

        "It has been unanimously agreed that Imam Bukhari's work is the most authentic of all the other works in Hadith literature put together. The authenticity of Al-Bukhari's work is such that the reliious learned scholars of Islam said concerning him: "The most authentic book after the Book of Allah [i.e. the Koran] is Sahih-Al-Bukhari" (p.xiv).

        "He only chose approximately 7,275 [Hadiths] of which there is no doubt of their authenticity.

        "[Allah] revealed to him the Glorious Quran and the Second Inspiration, i.e., his Traditions.

        "It is incumbent upon you to strive hard to do righteous deeds according to the traditions of Muhammad as is clearly expressed in his Hadith" (p.xvii).

      How can there possibly be talk of a "second inspiration" when the Koran says there isn't one?! And yet the Hadith is so entranched in Islam that to detach it would be to alter the nature of Islam considerably.

      But let us ignore what the Koran says about anything outside its declared sufficiency and take a look at what the Hadith actually teach, since these are also the teachings of the author of the Koran. What do the Hadith tell us about the lofty spiritual teachings of Islam? Are they teachings that inspire? Are they superior to the moral and ethical teachings of Christianity or, as I believe, a call to reconstruct a primitive, unenlightened barbaric past? And what are we to learn about those few societies that have attempted to implement the Koran and Hadith in their fullness such as the Taliban régime of Afghanistan, recently overthrown to the enormous relief or ordinary Muslim Afghans who know and care little about the "Traditions"?

      The Hadith is both the Muslim's dilemma and nightmare. It presents him as believing in the efficacy of drinking camel's urine and reveals the blissful state of women who in the Muslim paradise have, as their highest honour, the honour of serving as whores in all eternity for Muslim men who have become blue birds. We shall show in the material follows that the Hadith is little more than the epitome of extreme religious catharsis and perversion. To defend Hadith means, for the Muslim, to defend the indefensible unless you believe that Taliban Afghanistan was Muslim Paradise

      The Hadith is a large work and contains much interresting detail about the pre-Islamic past. It contains the origin of many strange Muslin rituals which find no mention in the "complete" Koran.

      What is the Hadith's explanation for its own existence? Behind this enormous work is a singular force that expresses itself in the question: "What must I do to be forgiven by Allah and to be admitted to Paradise?" There are no vague generalities in this work. Muslims are told by Muhammad exactly what they must do, how to do it, and in what order to do it.

      There are, for example, precise ways in which one must urinate, where to urinate, and how to urinate. Break any of these urination laws and you forfeit Paradise and end up in Hell. Your salvation depends on how you urinate.

      The central theme of the Hadith is that without Allah's forgiveness, no one may enter into Paradise. Hellfire awaits those who do not gain Allah's favour.

      But to gain the acceptance and forgiveness of Islam's God is no easy manner. Forgiveness must be earned following an elaborate set of rules and rituals. One mistake can cost the devotee everything that has been achieved up to that point. No concept of salvation by grace exists.


      More than anything else, it was my encounter with the Hadith which persuaded me to give up any notion that Islam was a serious contender as the True Religion, the contradictions and errors of the Koran not withstanding. As we shall see as we study a selection of Hadith, only a complete imbecile could possibly take them seriously as teaching spiritual truth capable of improving the natural darkness of men's hearts.

      Section I: Muhammad the Man

      The Koran says of the Prophet Muhammad:

        "The Prophet has a higher claim on the believers than [they have on] their own selves" (33:6).

      This, I am sure will agree, is a powerful claim for it makes Muhammad something "more" than a mere human or even a "prophet". Muslims do not believer that Muhammad was a sinner like other mortals and is beyond criticism. He was, they believe, perfect.

      The Hadith tells us much about the character of the Prophet of Islam which is not to be found in the Koran. As such, then, the Hadith witness is important because it tells us much about Allah's apostle. Was he the kind of man we should follow, whom we should concede a claim to our own seves because his is superior?

      I:1 Muhammad the White Man

      The Hadith clearly states that Muhammad was a white man and it is stated so many times and in so many ways that it is quite obvious that the authors of the Hadith were deeply concerned less someone think that Muhammad was a black man. Hence the emphasis on the whiteness of the prophet of Islam.

      This may well come as a shock to the "Black Muslims" who have claimed that Islam is a black man's religion because Muhammad was a black man. Since Muhammad was a white man, then the Nation of Islam must be a "white man's religion"!

      I:2 Muhammad, a White Devil?

      In numerous radio debates with Black Muslims in the USA, great surprise has greeted the revelation that the Hadith clearly states that Muhammad was a white man. But since they pay lip service to the inspiration of Hadith, in the end they are forced to submit to its authority.

      And indeed is "all white men are devils" as Elijah Muhammas and Louis Farrakhan have claimed, then Muhammad as Wallace Fard (all leaders of Nation of Islam) were "white devils"!

      I:3 Jesus, a White Devil?

      The hadith even claims that Muhammad saw Yah'shua (Jesus) in a dream and that Yah'shua (Jesus) was a white man with straight hair (9:242). The Black Muslims will not be happy with this Hadith either because it means that Jesus was a white devil too!

      I:4 The Hadithic Evidence

      In Vol.1, Hadith #63, we read:

        "While we were sitting with the Prophet in the Mosque, a man came riding on a camel. He made his camel kneel down in the Mosque, tied its foreleg and then said, "Who amongst you is Muhammad?" At that time the Prophet was sitting amongst us [his companions] leaning on his arm. We replied: "This white man reclining on his arm." The man then addressed him, "O Son of 'Abdul Muttalib."" (1:63)

      The Hadith refers to Muhammad as "a white person" (2:122) and we are told that when Muhammad raised his arms, "the whiteness of his armpits became visible" (2:141). And if that isn't enough, Anas "saw the whiteness of the penis of Allah's Prophet" (1:367).

      Why the obsession with "whiteness"? Does the Hadith imply that there is something wrong with black people?

      I:5 Black People - Raisin Heads

      That question is easily answered by the Hadith for we know only too well what Muhammad's attitude was to dark-skinned people when he referred to them as "raisin heads" in two places (1:662; 9:256). This is not at all unlike the term of abuse a "bonehead" being used against rather stupid and arrogant people in the USA.

      Throughout the Hadith black people are referred to as "slaves". And if this isn't insulting enough to those of African descent, Muhammad felt that is someone dreamed of a black woman, that she was an evil omen of a coming epidemic of disease (9:162, 163).

      I:6 Muhammad: A Slave Owner!

      When Umar bin Al-Khattab came to the home of Muhammad, he found that "a black slave of Allah's Apostle was sitting on the first step" (6:435). From this and other references in the Hadith, it is clear that Muhammad was a slave master and that he owned black slaves. As a matter of fact, in almost every instance in which black people are mentioned in the Hadith, they were personal slaves of Muhammad! This was in stark contrast to Yah'shua (Jesus) or Nazareth who did not own slaves but came to set men free.

      It is hardly suprising, in view of what the Hadith says about slavery, that for centuries Arab raiders along the coast and interior of Africa were trafficking in black slaves even before the apostate Christian Europeans continued the evil practice. Slavery has still not been entirely abolished from Islamic nations and today it is common for the Muslim Arabs of Sudan to make slaves of Christian and Animist blacks from the south.

      I:7 The Short-Tempered Prophet

      In terms of personality, the Muslim Prophet was short-tempered and easily angered. When Muhammad heard of someone leading in prolonged prayers, the Hadith records:

        "I never saw the Prophet more furious in giving advice on that day" (1:90).

      Since he claimed to be a "prophet", a man asked Muhammad where to find his lost camel. The Hadith records his reaction:

        "The Prophet got angry and his cheeks or his face became red" (1:91).

      I:8 Muhammad Despised Enquiring Minds

      The Prophet of Islam did not like anyone asking him questions about his claims to prophethood or revelation and went so far as to say:

        "Allah has hated you ... [for] asking too many questions" (2:555; 3:591).

      How different is Yahweh, the Lord God of Israel. And what a contrast He is to the Muslim Allah, proving that the are not the same God. It is stated numerous times in the Bible that:

        "You are God, Ready to pardon, Gracious and merciful, Slow to anger, Abundant in kindness ..." (Neh 9:17; cp. Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:3)

        "Yahweh is merciful and gracious, Slow to anger, and abounding in mercy" (Ps.103:8; cp. 145:8)

      Even when he was asked questions, the Hadith records:

        "The Prophet was asked about things which he did not like, when the questioner insisted, the Prophet got angry" (1:92).

      The wisdom literature in the Bible counsels:

        "A wrathful man stirs up strife, But he who is slow to anger allays contention" (Prov.15:18, NKJV).

        "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, And he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city" (Prov.16:32, NKJV)

        "The discretion of a man makes him slow to anger, And his glory is to overlook a transgression" (Prov 19:11, NKJV).

      What then does the true God - Yahweh-Elohim - think about those who bring questions about Him and His work?

        ""Come now, and let us reason together", says Yahweh" (Isa.1:18)

        "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil" (1 Thess. 5:21-22, KJV)

      This tendency to rage tantrums was typical of Muhammad's unredeemed and uncontrolled personality. When those who asked questions "saw the [anger] on the face of the Prophet," they often withdraw their questions (1:92).

      Yet even this was enough. The internal contradiction of the man is revealed when the people rightfullt complained that he wanted them to accept what he said with no questions asked:

        "The Prophet told them repeatedly [in anger] to ask him anything they liked" (1:30).

      I am reminded of the hypocrtisy and contradiction of the Mormon leaders like Brigham You who one day would say that noone had any right to question what he said, and on another that the people should test everything against the Scriptures. We see the same tendency in Muhammad.

      Finally the early Muslims learned it wasn't safe to ask anything and so remained quiet, a tendency in all unlightened religion from Roman Catholicism to Islam.

      I:8 No Sense of Humour

      Muhammad had no sense of humour and did not permit anyone to joke about him or his doctrines.

      The Hadith (2:173) tells the story of one elderly who watched Muhammad and his disciples bowing and touching their foreheads to the dirt while reciting Surat-an-Najm. (The early Muslims prided themselves on their dirty foreheads - much as Hindus pride themselves in rubbing cow dung into their hair - and looked down on all other forms of prayer). When the old man saw their foreheads becoming dirty, as a joke, he picked up some dirt and put it to his own forehead and said, "This is sufficient for me." The old man was saying that if the improtant thing was to get dirt on your forehead when you pray, then it would be a lot easier to pick up some dirt and smear it on your forehead - ha! ha! But Muhammad was not amused by the old man or his joke. The Hadith records that the Muslims murdered the old man in cold blood!

      What cold, hard and callous religion is this that would do such a thing? Why not try to instead convince the old man of the error of his way? The reason is that he was right - and "Allah" was offended.

      I:9 Bitter and Vengeful

      And so we begin to see a pattern of uncontrolled passion and a murderous spirit so very, very different from the exalted morals of the New Testament revelation of Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ). Yah'shua (Jesus) whom Muslims supposedly venerate as a Prophet, and the New Testament (Injil) which the Koran advocates Muslims to study, taught that we should forgive our enemies and love those who despitefully use us. The whole moral tone is orders of magnitude higher than both the Koran and the Hadith.

      As we compare Muhammad who, according to Islam, was a greater prophet than Yah'shua (Jesus) and therefore the final Messenger to mankind, we discover that he was a bitter, vengeful man who had numetous people murdered when they got on his bad side.

      While Muhammad told others not to kill people when in Mecca and, in particular, not to kill people at the Kabah, when Muhammad heard that Ibn Khatal was taking refuge in the Kabah, he said: "Kill him." He was dragged out and butchered (3:72).

      One particular horrifying example of Muhammad's blood lust is found in the Hadith:

        "Allah's Prophet said, "Who will kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf as he has harmed Allah and his Apostle?" Muhammad bin Maslama [got up and] said, "I will kill him." They [Muhammad bin Maslama and his companions] came to him as promised and murdered him. Then they went to the Prophet and told him" (3:687).

      I:10 Tribal Conflict

      Muhammad's demand that somebody murder for him sometimes caused problems amongst the tribes. On one occasion, when Aisha was only 15 years old, she was accused of adultery. According to her story as the Hadith records it (3:829), she had accidentally left her neckless behind when she went to answer the call of nature. When she went back to find it, the caravan went on without her. They did not realise that she had not rejoined them. Later a Muslim by the name of Safwan bib Mu'attal As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani found her and on his own camel brought her back to the caravan.

      I:11 A Nasty Rumour

      This started the nasty rumour that she was having an affair with Safwan. The entire Muslim community was in uproar about the issue.

      According to Aisha, the leader of those who accused her was named 'Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul. His followers spread forged statements of false accusers about her adultery.

      Aisha returned to be with her parents while Muhammad,

        "called upon 'Ali bin Abu Talib and Usama bin Zaid ... to consult them about divorcing his wife [i.e. Aisha]."

      The counseled him not to divorce Aisha on the basis of mere rumours but to ask Aisha's woman servant Buraira if she had ever seen anything suspicious about her.

        "Buraira said, "No, by Allah who has sent you with the truth, I have never seen in her anything faulty except that she is a girl of immature age, who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough for the goats to eat."

      The footnote in the Hadith points out that Aisha was only 15 years old at the time. According to the Hadith, Aisha had been only 6 years old when Muhammad married her! He had consummated the marriage when she was only 9 years old!

      I:12 A Request for Murder

      With Buraira's word that Aisha was innocent,

        "Allah's prophet ascended the pulpit and requested that somebody support him in punishing 'Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul. Allah's Prophet said, "Who will support me to punish that person who has hurt me by slandering the reputation of my family?" Sa'd bin Mu'adh got up and said, "O Allah's Apostle! By Allah, I will relieve you from him. If that man is from the tribe of the Anus, then we will chop his head off, and if he is from our brothers, the Khazraj, then order us, and we will fulfill your order.""

      The chief of the Khazraj, Sa'd bib 'Ubada, jumped up to defend his tribe and said, "You cannot kill him." This in turn led Sa'd bin Mu'adh to say, "By Allah, we will kill him."

      The entire situation got out of control and the Anus tribe and some Khazraj tribe prepared to fight each other over the issue. It took some time for Muhammad to get things quietened down.

      Muhammad took the easiest way and claimed to have received a special revelation from Allah that Aisha was innocent.

      Thus the issue for Muslims was now settled because Allah had spoken. Those infidels who would dare question Allah's apostle on this issue would meet the fate of all indifels.

      I:13 Muhammad Was Not Innocent

      According to the Hadith, Muhammad was a sinner in need of forgiveness. He was NOT sinless as Islam now claims. When Muhammad was asked by Abu Huraira,

        "What do you say in the pause between Takbir and recitation? Muhammad replied, I say, "O Allah, set me apart from my sins as the East and the West are set apart from each other and clean me from sins as a white garment is cleaned of dirt [after thorough washing]. O Allah! Wash off my sins with water, snow and hail" (1:711)

      Abu Huraira said in the Hadith:

        "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah and turn to him in repentance more than seventy times a day" (8:319).

      Muhammad's wife Aisha records that the early Muslims did not regard Muhammad as sinless.

        "They said, "O Allah's Prophet! We are not like you. Allah has forgiven your past and future sins" (1:19).

      This Hadith is clear that Muhammad's disciples praised him because his sins were forgiven and not because he did not have any sins to forgive.

      It goes on to say in the Hadith:

        "The Prophet used to say frequently in his bowings and prostrations, "O Allah! Our Lord! All praises are for You. O Allah! Forgive me" (1:781)

      The men of Quraish repeatedly said:

        "May Allah forgive his Apostle!" (1:375)

      Obviously, these men did not view Muhammad as sinless! The same can be said of a group of three men who discussed in the Hadith that Allah had forgiven Muhammad of his sins (1:7). Aisha said that she heard Muhammad pray, "O Allah! Forgive me and bestow your mercy on me" (5:724).

      During his supposed night journey through seven heavens, "Jesus" says concerning Muhammad,

        "Muhammad, the Slave of Allah, whose past and future sins were forgiven by Allah" (6:3).

      Return to Islam Page of NCM

      Return to Main Index Page of NCCG.ORG

    This page was created on 24 January 2002
    Updated on 24 January 2002

    Copyright © 2001-2008 NCAY - All Rights Reserved