"There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites [i.e., Islam] which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist."
--St. John Damascene
In his Penseés, Blaise Pascal wrote: "The conduct of God, who disposes all things gently, is to put religion into the mind by reason, and into the heart by grace. But to will to put it into the mind and heart by force and menace is not to put religion there, but terror, terrorem potius quam religionem.*
The invocation of terror as a tool of conversion is an integral part of historical Islam, and it is simply disingenuous to disregard this. A small sampling in the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Sirat, the three sources of Muslim doctrine, will show this handily:
Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220
"Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror.'"
Qur'an 8:12
"I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."
Qur'an 8:57
"If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned."
Ibn Ishaq 326
"If you come upon them, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah's enemies."
Qur'an 8:67
"It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."
Tabari IX:42
"We have been dealt a situation from which there is no escape. You have seen what Muhammad has done. Arabs have submitted to him and we do not have the strength to fight. You know that no herd is safe from him. And no one even dares go outside for fear of being terrorized."
Ibn Ishaq 326
"Allah said, 'No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.' Muhammad said, 'I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.'"
Don't be fooled, these three sources are the fundamental sources of Islam. It is Islam by definition.
__________________________________________ *The Latin phrase is "a terror[ism] more than a religion." The original French: (Laf. 172 | Br. 185) «La conduite de Dieu, qui dispose toutes choses avec douceur*, est de mettre la religion dans l’esprit par les raisons et dans le cœur par la grâce, mais de la vouloir mettre dans l’esprit et dans le cœur par la force et par les menaces, ce n’est pas y mettre la religion mais la terreur. Terrorem potius quam religionem.»
Muslims hold the Qur'an to be the revealed word of Allah given through Muhammad, the alleged seal of the prophets. For a Muslim, the Qur'an by definition cannot contain any errors.
Unfortunately for the Muslim, the Qur'an contains a number of errors. Perhaps one of the most obvious relates to Muhammad's confusion of two people who lived hundreds (perhaps as much as 14 centuries) of years apart, Mary (in Arabic, Maryam [مريم]) the mother of Jesus, and Miriam (in Arabic, Maryam) the sister of Aaron (in Arabic, Harun [هارون] and Moses (In Arabic, Musa [موسىٰ]) and daughter of Amram (in Arabic 'Imran [عمران]).
Unquestionably, Miriam is identified as the daughter of Amram and the sister of Moses and Aaron in the Jewish scriptures. For example, 1 Chronicles 6:3 states that the children of Amram were Aaron, Moses, and Miriam. In Numbers 26:49, we learn that Amram's wife was called Jochebed, and that she bore Aaron, Moses, and Miriam to Amram. Cf. Exodus 15:20; Numbers 12:1-5; 10-15; Micah 6:4.
"And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron,
took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her
with timbrels and with dances." (Exodus 15:20).
Unquestionably, the Qur'an 19:27-28 refers to Maryam the mother of Jesus as the "sister of Aaron (Harun)" and the "daughter of Amram ('Imran)"
Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, "O Mary [Maryam], you have certainly done a thing unprecedented. O sister of Aaron [Harun], your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste."
Cf. Qur'an 3:35-36; 66:12 (which identify Mary as the daughter of 'Imran).
The error was apparent to the Christians of Muhammad's day. A hadith (Sahih Muslim, 25:5326) relates a situation where the Christians of Najran were aware of the error and challenged a Muslim follower of Muhammad, Mughira bin Shu'ba, as well as the authenticity of the Qur'an. According to the hadith, bin Shu'ba asks Muhammad to explain the apparent error:
Mughira b. Shu'ba reported: When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "O sister of Harun" (i. e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.
Confronted with the error, Muhammad comes up with a frivolous defense. Instead of owning up to the error, Muhammad's excuse is based on the alleged practice where persons were given honorific names of the prophets, similar in the sense to how Jesus was called the "son of David." The reference is to be understood metaphorically based upon an ancient custom.
There are problems with Muhammad's excuse.
First, there is no evidence contemporaneous to the time of Mary that would suggest that women were called "sister of Aaron" or "daughter of Amram" as a sort of honorific title. There is no such record of such a practice. Mary had never been known by Christians as "sister of Aaron" or "daughter of Amram" like Jesus was known as the "son of David."
Mary, daughter of Sts. Joachim and Anna
There is an instance of Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariah, who is called one of the "daughters of Aaron." (Luke 1:5) But being called a "daughter of Aaron," is a reference to Elizabeth being a part of the priestly (Aaronic) caste, i.e., a Levite. Elizabeth was not called "daughter of Amram" (who was not a priest) or "sister of Aaron." Moreover, Mary was not part of the priestly caste, as she was part of the kingly caste, a member of the tribe of Judah, of the house of David.
Interestingly, the hadith is inconsistent with commentary that indicates that Muslims believed, based upon the Qur'an, that Maryam the mother of Jesus and Maryam the sister of Aaron were the same historical person. Ibn Kathir, for example, relates in his commentary on 19:28 that Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife, grew angry and accused a certain man named Ka'b of lying when he suggested that Maryam the mother of Jesus was not the same person as Mary the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Amram.
It was narrated from Ibn Jarir, narrated from Yaqub, narrated from Ibn U’laya, narrated from Sa’id Ibn Abi Sadaqa, narrated from Muhammad Ibn Sireen who stated that he was told that Ka’b said the verse that reads, "O sister of Harun (Aaron)!" (of Sura 19:28) does not refer to Aaron the brother of Moses. Aisha replied to Ka’b, "You have lied." Ka’b responded, "O Mother of the believers! If the prophet, may Allah’s prayers be upon him, has said it, and he is more knowledgeable, then this is what he related. Besides, I find the difference in time between them (Jesus and Moses) to be 600 years." He said that she remained silent.
There are efforts by Muslims to evade or avoid this embarrassing anachronism. But the excuses--which seek to identify Mary with the Levitical priestly tribe or which seek to argue that in fact there was a practice to call women "sister of" and "daughter of" important figures and that Mary was customarily called "sister of Aaron" and "daughter of Amram"--are simply untenable. The Qur'an understands the word "sister" literally, not figuratively. The Muslims and Christians both understood the Qur'an to mean this, hence the hadiths. Nowhere in Christian tradition is Mary referred to as "sister of Aaron" or "daughter of Amram."
The conclusion is that Muhammad, the illiterate and unschooled prophet, got it wrong. And the Allah, who supposedly revealed truths to him, seems to be equally illiterate and unschooled as his alleged prophet.
"If there were not a plurality of persons in the divinity," St Thomas Aquinas states in his Summa Theologiae, "it would follow that God would be alone or solitary." (S. T. Ia, q. 28, a. 4). It is well-known that the Qur'an rejects any notion of the Trinity. We have for example, the following in the Qur'an (4:171):
O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.
Or the following (5:72):
They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.
Or, finally, this (5:116):
And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?
Islam's Allah is not a Trinity engaged in an eternal communion of love. He is therefore relegated to a lonely, solitary existence. And everyone knows that a lonely, solitary being has no one to love and no one to love him. Love requires at least two persons. Hence Allah is not a God of love, but a bitter, lonely, solipsistic being.
Recently, the Saudi Arabian news website Bikya Masr reported that Saudi women with attractive eyes may be forced to cover them up. A spokesman for Saudi Arabia's Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPVPV), Sheikh Motlab al Nabet, explained that the the committee had the right to stop women revealing "tempting" eyes in public. This, one must suppose, is based upon Muhammad's enlightened teachings. Three or so years ago, there was a little controversy caused by a similar view by Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan who announced that said that showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive, and so one eye ought to be covered.
Though there is some debate among the Muslims, the requirement for women to veil themselves, including their eyes, is unquestionably Qur'anic in origin. The precise requirement--e.g., whether the eyes need to be covered (as in the burqa), or whether one eye may show (e.g., a one-eyed niqab) or whether two eyes may show is the result of conflict in the ahadith and the preferences of commentators trying to ascertain their validity or authenticity and their role in defining the Shari'a.
The Qur'anic sources are the following verses:
Surah Al-Ahzaab, ayat 59 (33:59) (Pickthall trans.) O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
Surah An-Nur, aya 30-31 (24:30-31) (Pickthall trans.) And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.
How are these vague Qur'anic injunctions to be interpreted?
For this, we must turn to the Sunnah and the ahadith or reports which compose it. Unfortunately, there is no unanimity in the ahadith. These conflicting authorities are the source of the various views of how strictly to construe the requirement of veiling.
A little background. The ahadith or reports relate to Muhammad's statements and those of his companions and followers (in the aggregate known as the as-Salaf as-Salih (السّــلف الصّــالح), or "pious predecessors,"and composed of three groups: the "companions" or as-Sahabah (الصحابة), the "followers" or at-Tabi'un (التابعون), and the "followers of the followers" the Tabi' at-Tabi'un (تابع التابعين)). There is a conflict among these on this issue of the veil and how much of the face it ought to cover. The ahadith, of course, are the source documents that compose the Sunnah and are part of what is revealed, along with the Qur'an itself. The Qur'an and the Sunnah are the source of the laws that govern the entirety of the Muslim's world, i.e., the Shari'a.
Good?
Better? (wrong eye, by the way)
Best?
The matter is quite intricate. There are debates on which ahadith or reports are authentic, and much of this depends upon the testimonial chain or isnad (he said to him, and he told him, that he said . . .) that relates to those. There are also distinctions made between the reports of the so-called Sahabah or companions of Muhammad (those who saw him, believed in him, and never left Islam), that so-called Tabi'un or followers of Muhammad who followed Muhammad after he had died but who lived while the Sahabah were alive. Finally, there is the testimony of the so-called Tabi' at-Tabi'un, which is the generation after the Tabi'un and are defined as Muslims who had seen at least one of the Tabi'un, was rightly-guided, and died in that state. There are also distinctions that are made in the quality of the individual speaker and the quality of the witnesses in the hearsay chain.
On the issue of two eyes, one eye, or none, there seems to be conflict between the witness of the as-Salaf as-Salihin. The whole thing is hopelessly confused, and rather tedious to explore in its entirety. One ends up straining at gnats. One would have thought Allah or his alleged prophet would have been a little more precise about this sort of thing if he's going to go through the trouble of forcing women to wear the veil.
In any event, to give you the flavor we might turn to the witness of Muhammad bin Sirin, a member of the Tabi'un or follower of Muhammad, and generally considered to be one of the more reliable witnesses of the early Muslim practice and Muhammad's will. He reported that he spoke with Ubaida bin Sufyan bin al-Harith, one of the Sahabah or companions of Muhammad.*
Muhammad bin Sirin states:
"When I asked Ubaida bin Sufyan bin al-Harith the meaning of this verse about "Alaihinna" and how the jalbaab was to be worn, he demonstrated it to me by pulling a sheet of cloth over his head to cover his entire body, leaving the left eye uncovered. This was also the explanation of the word 'Alaihinna in this verse"
But there are other ahadith that suggest that the entire face ought to be covered, and there are some that seem to allow for either one eye or two eyes to be covered.
I suppose that we shall never know with any certainty whether Allah's will is that a woman veil in public in such a manner that two eyes, one eye, or none may be seen.
With hell in the balance, doesn't this present a problem?
It is hard to tell whether the prophet Muhammad was ophidiophobic or ophiophobic (fearful of snakes) or misoöphidic or misoöphic (hater of snakes), the latter not to be confused with misosophic (hater of wisdom). It may be that in Muhammad's case there is perhaps a greater relationship between his misoöphism (hatred of snakes) and his misosophism (hatred of knowledge) than just the sigma (Greek s) that separates the two words. At least that is what the wicked kafir would say, and for that they ought to be put to death, just like Muslim snakes.
Muslim snakes?
Yes, you read right. Muslims snakes. (There are also abortion-causing and blindness-causing snakes in the wisdom of Islam, as one will learn below.)
What is weirder than the notion of Muslim snakes, when one thinks of it--and for that reason, one ought not to think of it, for Allah (not man) knows best--is this: A kafir or mushrik, that is to say a Jew, a Christian, or an Infidel of any kind, is to be treated the same as a Muslim snake. They may both profitably be put to death. What is weirder is that the snake is to be given three days' warning, and Jew or Christian need be given none.
What?
To understand Muhammad's sssssssssublime sssssserptentine teaching one has to plunge into the ahadith, especially those ahadith so highly regarded by the Muslims as normative, the Sahih Bukhari and the Sahih Muslim, but another fertile source that composite of ahadith called Abu Dawud.
To fathom the wisdom of Muhammad, let us start with this pretty serpentine story. It is found in Sahih Muslim, 26.5557.
Abu as-Sa'ib, the freed slaved of Hisham b. Zuhra, said that he visited Abu Sa'id Khudri in his house, (and he further) said: I found him saying his prayer, so I sat down waiting for him to finish his prayer when I heard a stir in the bundles (of wood) lying in a comer of the house. I looked towards it and found a snake. I jumped up in order to kill it, but he (Abu Sa'id Khudri) made a gesture that I should sit down. So I sat down and as he finished (the prayer) he pointed to a room in the house and said: Do you see this room? I said: Yes. He said: There was a young man amongst us who had been newly wedded. We went with Allah's Messenger (to participate in the Battle) of Trench when a young man in the midday used to seek permission from Allah's Messenger to return to his family. One day he sought permission from him and Allah's Messenger (after granting him the permission) said to him: Carry your weapons with you for I fear the tribe of Quraiza (may harm you). The man carried the weapons and then came back and found his wife standing between the two doors. He bent towards her smitten by jealousy and made a dash towards her with a spear in order to stab her. She said: Keep your spear away and enter the house until you see that which has made me come out. He entered and found a big snake coiled on the bedding. He darted with the spear and pierced it and then went out having fixed it in the house, but the snake quivered and attacked him and no one knew which of them died first, the snake or the young man. We came to Allah's Apostle and made a mention to him and said: Supplicate to Allah that that (man) may be brought back to life. Thereupon he said: Ask forgiveness for your companion and then said: There are in Medina “Jinns” who have accepted Islam, so when you see any one of them, pronounce a warning to it for three days, and if they appear before you after that, then kill it for that is a devil.
This hadith is very, very rich, and there is much wisdom which could be distilled from it. But let us focus on what it tells us about snakes, particularly, Muhammad's teaching about them. In the city of Medina, at least, there were "jinns" or spirits who accepted Islam, and these turned into snakes, poisonous snakes that is, and sometimes occupied houses in Medina. (It is unclear whether this doctrine applies to snakes elsewhere, e.g., in Mecca, or to the snakes in Tehran or in Washington, D.C.) In any event, these Muslim jinns-become-poisonous-snakes would sometimes occupy the houses of the human Muslims, and there they presented a threat, as they did the young Muslim warrior who distrusted his wife.
Accordingly, the Muslim jinns-become-poisonous-snakes were to be given three days' warning to leave the household, and if they did not, they could be killed because the Muslim-jinns-become-poisonous-snakes were then also devils. (Again, it is unclear whether this teaching would apply to the snakes in Mecca, Tehran, or Washington, D.C.)
Now, with this background, we may turn to another hadith, again from the Sahih Mulsim, 26.5558:
Asma' b. 'Ubaid reported about a person who was called as-Sa'ib having said: We visited Abu Sa'id Khudri. When we had been sitting (with him) we heard a stir under his bed. When we looked we found a big snake, the rest of the hadith is the same [as the one above, i.e., 26.5557]. And in this Allah's Messenger is reported to have said: Verily in these houses there live aged (snakes), so when you see one of them, make life hard for it for three days, and if it goes away (well and good), otherwise kill it for (in that case) it would be a nonbeliever. And he (the Holy Prophet) said (to his Companions): Go and bury your companion (who had died by the snake bite).
This hadith seems to be a version of the other hadith. An additional enlightenment is that jinns-become-poisonous-snakes become devils after three days and jinns-become-poisonous-snakes become unbelievers after three days are equivalent, which suggests that unbelievers and devils are equivalent in Muhammad's eyes (or his brain).
WARNING: DO NOT LOOK AT THIS SNAKE IT WILL CAUSE BLINDNESS AND SPONTANEOUS ABORTION!
There is a similar report given in Abu Dawud, another anthology of ahadith (41.5236):
Narrated Abu Sa'id al-Khudri:
Muhammad ibn Abu Yahya said that his father told that he and his companion went to Abu Sa'id al-Khudri to pay a sick visit to him. He said: Then we came out from him and met a companion of ours who wanted to go to him. We went ahead and sat in the mosque. He then came back and told us that he heard Abu Sa'id al-Khudri say: The Apostle of Allah said: Some snakes are jinn; so when anyone sees one of them in his house, he should give it a warning three times. If it return (after that), he should kill it, for it is a devil.
The form of imprecation against the snake is (thankfully) given us in another hadith (Abu Dawud, 41.5240).
Narrated AbdurRahman Ibn Abu Layla:
The Apostle of Allah was asked about the house-snakes. He said: When you see one of them in your dwelling, say: I adjure you by the covenant which Noah made with you, and I adjure you by the covenant which Solomon made with you not to harm us. Then if they come back, kill them.
From this we learn that the snakes made covenants with Noah and Solomon, and so, quite plainly, armed with this historical knowledge, we would be wise to invoke the Noahide and Solomonic treaties in our adjurations against the snakes as recommended by Muhammad. (By the way, Muhammad claimed that the Jews and Christians tampered with their Scriptures, so wherever the Qur'an and the Jewish or Christian scriptures vary, it is ipse dixit on the ground of the corruption of the latter. Since the covenant between snakes and Noah and snakes and Solomon is not found in either the Old or New Testaments, I would assume that this is one of those revelations excised by those unfaithful , ssssssslippery and sssssslick Jews and Christians.)
Muhammad displays a little more animosity against snakes in the following hadith (Abu Dawud, 41.5229):
Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas'ud:
The Prophet said: Kill all the snakes, and he who fears their revenge does not belong to me.
Don't be squeamish in killing snakes, or Muhammad will disown you!
It is not clear whether the hadith above refers to all snakes, to Muslim jinn-become-poisonous-snakes-who-ignore-Noahide-and/or-Solomonic-treaties-by-staying-in-Muslim-homes-in-Medina-after-three-days'-warning, or other kind of snakes.
There is a little more confusion in that all of a sudden the broad command is limited by other ahadith. For example, Sahih Muslim 26.5544 says the following:
Salim, on the authority of his father reported Allah's Apostle as saying: Kill the snakes having stripes over them and short-tailed snakes, for these two types cause miscarriage (of a pregnant woman) and they affect the eyesight adversely. So Ibn 'Umar used to kill every snake that he found. Abu Lubaba b. 'Abd al-Mundhir and Zaid b. Khattab saw him pursuing a snake, whereupon he said: They were forbidden (to kill) those snakes who live in houses.
I have not been able to refer to the many commentators, but it seems to me that these snakes (striped back and short-tailed) present other problems from the jinn-become-poisonous-snakes-who-ignore-Noahide-and/or-Solomonic-treaties-by-staying-in-Muslim-homes-in-Medina-after-three-days'-warning, and that the former may be killed without the three days' warning, obviously because of their danger to the general welfare.
This is buttressed by the fact that the jinn-become-poisonous-snakes-who-ignore-Noahide-and/or-Solomonic-treaties-by-staying-in-Muslim-homes-in-Medina-after-three-days'-warning are fatal, whereas the striped and short-tailed snakes cause only miscarriages and poor eyesight. This interpretation is supported by the hadith in Abu Dawud 5232:
Ibn Umar reported the Apostle of Allah as saying: Kill snakes, kill those which have two streaks and those with small tails, for they obliterate he eyesight and cause miscarriage.
Salim said: Abd Allah used to kill every snake which he found. Abu Lubabah or Zaid b. al-Khattab saw him chasing a snake. He said: He (the Prophet) prohibited killing house snakes.
One of Muhammad's wives, 'Aisha, was apparently taught this. In Sahih Bukhari (4.54.528), we learn the following:
Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet ordered that a short-tailed or mutilated-tailed snake (i.e. Abtar) should be killed, for it blinds the on-looker and causes abortion.
And this is corroborated by a certain Abu Mulaika in Sahih Bukhari 4.54.529:
Narrated Abu Mulaika: Prophet said, 'Do not kill snakes except the short-tailed or mutilated-tailed snake with two white lines on its back, for it causes abortion and makes one blind. So kill it.'
There you have it . . . Sssssshari'a on Sssssssnakes!
There are many benefits to being a Muslim. One of the great benefits is that one learns what offends Allah, and what does not offend the Allah. And it is very important to know these things because human reason has no way of knowing what can please Allah and what may offend him. I am sure that from Allah's perspective they make sense, but from our perspective what Allah wills does not always make sense.
Sometimes, for us, what Allah hates seems highly arbitrary. For example, who would think that killing a Jew or a Christian, or an apostate Muslim is a good thing, and will win you a blessing and a ticket to paradise, but that wearing wigs will earn you a curse from Allah and a ticket to hell?
I, for one, would not have known this were so were it not for the wonderful Sunna that helps us know these things that otherwise we could not even guess at knowing. Our reason and common sense would tell us that wearing a wig, though it may reflect vanity, is not as wrong as murdering someone for God's sake. But this, it turns out, is not true. See! Allah's ways are simply way beyond ours. A good Muslim ought not to trust his reason!
Wigs made of human hair are very offensive to Islam, as Muhammad taught that Allah curses women who wore wigs or wore hair extensions of real human hair (al-mustawsilah), even in extenuating (pun) circumstances.* Allah even curses wigmakers (al-wasilah), so both maker and wearer--the whole economy of wig-making and wig-wearing--are condemned as much as usury is condemned.
In Sahih Bukhari 7.72.817), for example, we find the following hadith:
An Ansari girl was married and she became sick and all her hair fell out intending to provide her with false hair. They asked the Prophet (pbuh) who said, "Allah has cursed the lady who artificially lengthens (her or someone else's) hair and also the one who gets her hair lengthened."
Here is another hadith from Sahih Bukhari (7.72.818):
Narrated by Asma (the daughter of Abu' Bakr) A woman came to Allah's Apostle and said, "I married my daughter to someone, but she became sick and all her hair fell out, and (because of that) her husband does not like her. May I let her use false hair?" On that the Prophet cursed such a lady as artificially lengthening (her or someone else's) hair or got her hair lengthened artificially.
Lest one waver, the next hadith (7.72.819) is succinct as it is clear:
Narrated by Asma (the daughter of Abu Bakr) Allah's Apostle has cursed such a lady as artificially lengthening (her or someone else's) hair or gets her hair lengthened.
A similar teaching is found in Sahih Bukhari 7.72.824:
Narrated by Asma
A woman asked the Prophet saying, "Oh Allah's Apostle! My daughter got measles and her hair fell out. Now that I got her married, may I let her use false hair?" He said (to her), "Allah has cursed the lady who lengthens hair artificially and the one who gets her hair lengthened artificially."
These and similar such ahadith make it clear that Muhammad and Allah both are disdainful of wigs. I would suppose no means no even if the little girl lost her hair because of chemotherapy. See! This is how wonderful Islam is! It tells the little girl who has lost her hair in chemotherapy that she must not have a wig of real human hair, but this is because Allah--isn't he merciful?--would otherwise curse her? The little girl that suffers both being bald and being ridiculed for it will grow up psychologically healthy because she will know that at least she avoided Allah's curse because she did not wear a wig of human hair.
Oh wicked wigs! Oh wicked wigs! How much better the world would be without wicked wigs!
Louis XIV was definitely not a Muslim!
Another hadith (Sahih Bukhari 4.56.674) evidences Muhammad's teaching that wigs are evil. And this one makes clear that the prohibition is not only for women, but includes men, and so presumably includes toupees. Men who wear wigs (al-mustawsil) and who make them (wasil) are execrable.
Humaid bin 'Abdur-Rahman (May Allah be pleased with him) said: I saw Mu'awiyah (May Allah be pleased with him) during the Hajj (pilgrimage) standing on the pulpit. He took from the guard a bunch of hair, and said: "O people of Al-Madinah! Where are your scholars? (Why do they do not prohibit you) I heard the Prophet (PBUH) prohibiting from using this (false hair) and saying, 'The people of Bani Israel were ruined when their women wore such hair.'"
Again, repetitio mater memoriae. Another hadith says:
Ibn 'Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) said: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) cursed the maker and wearer of a wig and the tattooer and the one who is tattooed.
This must explain why Muslims believe America is cursed. After all, the American founders all wore wigs, white periwigs on top of that--egads! They were cursed! We are cursed! All on account of the wigs!
Allah damn the wig!
Écrasez la perruque!
Cursed wig-wearer!
This must explain why Mozart's music is so ugly, especially such works as his German Dances K 605). Not only was that piece written by a cursed man--after all, he wore a wig--he also had the temerity to put sleigh bells in his musical work, and, as all good Muslims know, Muhammad hated bells--they, after all, quite plainly instruments of the devil!
Cursed wigged musician!
Bless the world! Burn wigs! Burn wigs! Burn them all! A Jihad on all wigs!
We've heard of the Revolutionary sans culottes. We'd have been better off with sans perruques!
Wigs, wigs, and more wigs: A Muslim vision of Hell!
____________________________________________ *I understand that the subtleties of Shari'a allow for wigs other than for human hair (although there is some infighting among scholars here). See for here enlightenment. Clearly prohibited by all schools of thought are wigs of human hair, and of animals, such as pigs and dogs, that are considered unclean. However, for some schools (the liberals) synthetic or camel hair or other animal hair of a clean animal is acceptable, and for most everyone, the use of wool or silk, is acceptable. And naturally, a woman ought to cover the whole damn head with a burqa which makes the matter academic, or at least a matter for within the Muslim household. What's the incentive of wearing a wig under a burqa?
For a pious Muslim, spitting has some great qualities. Before one is Muslim, spitting does nothing for you. After you become Muslim, however, your spittle becomes very powerful, as if by magic. This is one of the benefits of becoming Muslim: your spit turns from just mere human spit, to Islamic spit, and Islamic split is better than mere human spit. Muslims are the best of mankind, and so it follows, quite logically, that Muslim spit is better than Christian, Jewish, or (need we say), an atheist's spit. One of the great boons of becoming Muslim, then, is the benefit to your spit. Satan is frightened of a Muslim's spittle, but everyone else's spittle is . . . just spittle to Satan. If I were you, if for no other reason, I would become Muslim just because your spit turns magic.
Specifically, Muslim spit can keep you safe from nightmares, and protect your from Satan.
Spiting once over your left should protect you from bad dreams.
According to a hadith found in al-Bukhari (4.54.513):
Narrated Abu Qatada: The Prophet said, "A good dream is from Allah, and a bad or evil dream is from Satan; so if anyone of you has a bad dream of which he gets afraid, he should spit on his left side and should seek Refuge with Allah from its evil, for then it will not harm him.
Satan is a little harder to stop that mere nightmares. One must spit over his left shoulder three times to remove the temptations of Satan. According to a hadith found in Sahim Muslim 26.5463:
Uthman b. Abu al-'As reported that he came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah's Messenger, the Satan intervenes between me and my prayer and my reciting of the Qur'an and he confounds me. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: That is (the doing of the Satan) who is known as Khinzab, and when you perceive its effect, seek refuge with Allah from it and spit three times to your left. I did that and Allah dispelled that from me.
The spit is so powerful that it can be minimal spit, even a form of dry spit and dry spitting. This is a very fine art, and so we may be thankful for the likes of Egyptian Cleric Wagdi Ghneim, who will helps explicate the Muslim way of how to expectorate.
It is very funny that Christians worship the trinity (as Mr. Ghneim laughingly points out at the end of his enlightening talk). Muslims are much wiser, since they now that trinity refers not to God, but to spit techniques. Really, Allah and his prophet know best.
Mr. Ghneim suggests we teach our wives and children the benefits of spitting. Perhaps the following ditty (sung to the melody of "Knock Tree Times" by Tony Orlando) can help:
Oh my Allah Spit three times o'er my shoulder and I'm safer Mmmmm twice is no good, for Muhammad said so Oh al-Rahman Means my prayers will surely do you service Oh twice is no good, for Muhammad said so.
Russians, I understand, have a custom of spitting over their left shoulder. This is something, I'm quite sure, they did not get from the wisdom of the Orthodox faith. It is something likely they got from the wisdom of Islam. This is just one example of how the West obtained so many benefits from Islam. Islam gave medieval Europe exposure to Aristotle and such other things. Islam gave the Russians the custom of spitting over one's left shoulder. It is perhaps a shame that the greater West did not get this custom at the same time it was exposed to the works of Avicenna and Averroes.
Islam has forgotten Aristotle (and Avicenna and Averroes).
But Islam has not forgotten its teachings on spitting.
Islam has put the more important thing first, since everyone knows that one hadith is (or two ahadith are)better than the whole of Aristotle.
Things brings us to an interesting fact. Islam tells us to forget Aristotle (he's much too hard to read anyway), but reminds us to spit over your left shoulder. Oh . . . and if you are tempted to read Aristotle . . . why that's either a bad dream or a temptation of Satan . . . so . . . quickly . . . remember your Sahih al-Bukhari, remember your Sahih Muslim, remember the sublime teachings of Muhammad, and spit three times with great celerity over your left shoulder. The temptation to read Aristotle should leave you.*
Guaranteed by the word of Muhammad.
______________________________________ *It may also have the unfortunate side effect of suppressing your reason, but reason is overrated anyway. Reason, one might remember, would probably say that a Muslim's spit is just like everyone else's spit, and that spitting over one's left shoulder is not really much different metaphysically from spitting over one's right shoulder. Reason may even say that the devil could care less whether you spit over your left or right shoulder. Reason in fact might say that the devil is happy so long as you think that spitting over your shoulder gets rid of his influence and don't think that you are under his influence if you believe that killing Christians and Jews and non-believers in jihad is commanded by God.
Borrowing from Aristotle's Politics, St. Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between despotic and political rule in his Summa Theologiae:
For a power is called despotic whereby a man rules his slaves, who have not the right to resist in anyway the orders of the one that commands them, since they have nothing of their own. But that power is called political or royal by which a man rules over free subjects, who, tough subject to the government of the ruler, have nevertheless something of their own, by reason of which they can resist the orders of him who commands.
S.T., Ia, q. 81, a.3, ad. 2.
This seems to me to have some bearing on the Christian versus Islamic notion of God and of His Providence. A Muslim is a slave of Allah: he is to submit, no questions asked. Under St. Thomas Aquinas's distinctions, Allah is a despot, and his slave, the Muslim, has nothing of his own. There is no freedom even to participate in the Providence of Allah. Allah holds the reins of all power, and gives none to man. There is no discretion in the Shari'a.
On the other hand, Christians view God as quite different. God's Providence involves "political or royal" power, a power which rules over "free subjects," subjects who, though under God's governance, "have nevertheless something of their own." God, in other words, has given man something of his own, the ability to participate in law-making, so that the laws that human societies pass participate in the natural law, which in turn is the eternal law as it relates to God's governance of man.
Muslims have nothing of their own. They are not free. They are ruled by a despot. Christians have something of their own--granted that something is a gift of God, but it remains something of their own. They are free. They are ruled by royal and political power, a power which seeks obedience of its subjects--not through violence--but through persuasion, through reason, through grace, through love.
Islam's law, the shari'a, is all encompassing. It reaches to the ethereal realms of the proper means to worship God through prayer in its intricate detail, but it also stoops down to address the nether regions of man (and woman). Indeed, as one hadith puts it the non-Muslims of Muhammad's time were amazed at the detail with which Muhammad taught his believers. Muhammad, they observed, "teaches you about everything, even about excrement." Sahih Muslim II.504 It is true that Muhammad taught about excrement: there is a shari'a of shit. But that is a topic for another day. Today we want to focus on the shari'a of pubes, yes, pubes. It is part of the requirements of al-fitra (الفطرة--sometimes transliterated as al-fitrah) or cleanliness.
Yes, Muhammad so loved the world that he deigned--not to give his followers his son (for they all died young)--but to teach them instead the perfection even in the area of how to handle that intricate moral problem of pubic hair. There is, in fact, a shari'a of pubes. Jesus said that God knows the number of hairs on our head; Muhammad one-upped Jesus, as he knew what God's plans were with respect to the hairs on our unmentionables. This is proof positive of Muhammad's moral perfection. We must envision the claimed prophet of Allah shaving his privates, I mean around his penis and his anus, to get the full implication of the moral perfection of his teaching.
"To be or not to be, that is the question," an ordinary man or even a troubled man like Hamlet might think. But only the prophet of Allah asks: "To shave or not to shave?" This is part of the glorious revelation of Muhammad, as it is apparent that the teachings of Moses and Jesus both were deficient in that they did not handle the issue of pubes. It is a boon to humanity that Allah disclosed to this most perfect of all men the eternal law relating to the shaving of pubes. Humanity was in darkness, or at least in hairiness, until this divine law was disclosed.
(Although we Christians and Jews did not know it, all prophets--Abraham, Moses, and Jesus among them--apparently shaved their pubes inasmuch as all prophets are said to have complied with the requirements of al-fitra, one precept of which is the shaving of pubes. I do not know how Muhammad knew the historical shaving habits of Abraham, Moses, Solomon, or Jesus, or the many other prophets. Where these habits are recorded, in scripture or tradition, or whether they were simply a revelation in the febrile mind of Muhammad I do not claim to know. What we do know is that he must have known since in Islam by definition it is not possible that Muhammad did not know what he was talking about.)
The Qur'an has only vague references to fitra:
So direct your face toward the religion [لِلدِّينِ ], inclining to truth. [Adhere to] the fitrah of Allah [فِطْرَتَ اللَّهِ] upon which He has created [all] people. No change should there be in the creation of Allah. That is the correct religion, but most of the people do not know.
Qur'an 30:30 (Sahih International).
Thankfully, as in many cases, the Sunna or customs recorded in the various anthologies of ahadith help fill the gaps of what the Qur'an means. We learn through the ahadith that the fitra of Allah, of course, extends beyond pubes. We are meant to understand that it includes somewhere between five and ten requirements. The ahadith that deal with the issue of fitra are somewhat inconsistent, but thankfully there is concordance in the shari'a of pubes.
For example, in the highly-regarded anthology of ahadith Sahih al-Bukhari 7.72.77, we find the following hadith:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "Five practices are characteristics of the fitra: circumcision, shaving the pubic region, clipping the nails and cutting the mustaches short.
The Sahih Muslim, another highly-regarded anthology of authentic ahadith, identifies ten, not five, essentials of fitra in 2.502:
'A'isha reported: Muhammad said: Ten are the acts according to fitra: clipping the mustache, letting the beard grow, using the tooth-stick, snuffing water in the nose, cutting the nails, washing the finger joints, plucking the hair under the armpits, shaving the pubic hair and cleaning one's private parts with water. The narrator said: I have forgotten the tenth, but it may have been rinsing the mouth.
In any event, both authorities clearly include the pubes.
Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al Kawthari (We can confidently surmise that he has shaved his pubes within the last 40 days)
The requirements of shaving pubes, as the Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al Kawthari in the YouTube discussion included below insists over and over again, are "very important." (This Mufti is an authority on Islamic sexual relations and the growing of beards, and he has written such books as Islamic Guide to Sexual Relations and a book entitled Shaykh Zakariyya Kandahlawi’s Wujub I’fa’ al-Lihya which addresses the obligation of growing a beard. These books, I'm sure, have added much to the wisdom of mankind.)
There are strict time constraints for shaving pubes. A pious Muslim is to shave his pubes at least every forty days. Failure to do so can interfere with prayers. In the commentary Mishkat-ul-Masaih (Vol. I, ch. vi, p. 607) we are told that according to the Ihya of Imam Gazzali (Vol. 4, p. 129), the "hairs surrounding the male and female organs should be shaved or shortened at least once in every forty days. If it is not done, the body cannot be said to have been cleansed of all impurities so as to make it fit for saying prayers." Muhammad, we must assume, perfectly complied with this requirement. I have seen some of Muhammad's swords. I have not seen Muhammad's razor. I have heard of Ockham's razor, but until I started studying Islam I had no idea that Muhammad had a razor also. The Franciscan Ockham's razor was mental, and he used it to shave thoughts; Muhammad's razor was real, and he used it to shave his pubes. I'm glad Muhammad did not use his razor on his thoughts, but instead told us his thoughts on his razor. It goes without saying that Muhammad's razor is a far better thing to know about that Ockham's razor, and it has contributed more to humanity's betterment.
The good Imam Gazzali based himself on true tradition, for the forty-day period is what is suggested in, among other places, Sahih Muslim II.497:
Anas reported: A time limit has been prescribed for us for clipping the moustache, cutting the nails, plucking hair under the armpits, shaving the pubes, that it should not be neglected far more than forty nights.
It seems that a woman in Islam is under a further requirement. Not only must she shave her pubes every forty days to please Allah, she must also shave more frequently to please her husband, and she should save especially before he comes home from a trip, perhaps returning from a jihad campaign. It is important to clear the forest so that the Muslim man can find his way home, if you get my drift:
Narrated by Jabir bin 'Abdullah The Prophet said, "If you enter (your town) at night (after coming from a journey), do not enter upon your family till the woman whose husband was absent (from the house) shaves her pubic hair and the woman with unkempt hair, combs her hair" Allah's Apostle further said, "(O Jabir!) Seek to have offspring, seek to have offspring!"
This interesting excursus on the shari'a of pubes leads to some interesting reflections.
First, the failure of Christians and Jews (and other non-believers and infidels) to shave their pubes explains why, according to Muslims, Allah does not hear their prayers: they have not shaved their pubes. Also, here we are exposed to the superiority of Muhammad's teaching. When the disciples of Jesus asked Jesus to teach them to pray, he neglected to teach them the whole truth. Jesus should have said . . . first, shave your pubes . . . and only then should he have taught them the Our Father. First things first. See! Clearly Muhammad's teachings are superior!
Second, the shari'a of pubes when joined with the shari'a of jihad raises a very interesting situation. Combining the two laws we come to the proposition that, in Islam, the man who nurses in his heart the intent to kill a Christian or Jew for no other reason than that he or she is a Christian or Jew or who even kills a Christian or Jew, but who shave his pubes, is a better man by far, than a man who tries to love all men--regardless of creed--but does not shave his pubes. The logic of Islam is that Muhammad Atta is a better human being than Mother Theresa of Calcutta because he shaved his pubes, and she did not. Oh, Christian saints live in such darkness compared to the enlightened martyrs of Islam! We ignorant Westerners have so much to learn from the enlightened doctrine and practices of Islam!
Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari's teaching the Shari'a of pubes (He starts in Arabic, but segues into English)
In Sahih al-Bukhari, 2.11.876, Muhammad boasts about the Islamic prescription of communal prayer on Friday, the so-called Salat-ul Jumu'ah (صلاة الجمعة) or Jumu'ah prayer. Muhammad adopts a sort of "the last shall be first and the first shall be last" argument in ascribing to his followers preeminence over their religious monotheistic rivals, the Jews and the Christians. The Jews and Christians received their Scriptures first, and the Muslims last, Muhammad argues; therefore, the Muslims receive the Resurrection first, and the Jew and the Christian, if they enjoy the Resurrection at all, will be last, which Muhammad elsewhere clarifies means they will not enjoy paradise at all, but an eternity in Hell. Based upon Muhammad's vision of Islam, Muslims are kind of like that person that at the last moment cuts in line in front of you, gets mad at you for complaining he cut in front of you, and then justifies his misbehavior by some stupid and irrational excuse.
Nevertheless, Allah's solicitude of the Muslims over the Jews and Christians is, Muhammad insists, proved. This state of affairs is proved, asserts Muhammad, because Allah chose Friday as the day for worship, thus placing the Muslims before the Jews, who worship on the Sabbath (Saturday), and the Christians, who worship on the Lord's Day (Sunday). "So, Allah gave us the guidance for it (Friday) and all the other people are behind us in this respect," Muhammad articulates in this hadith, "the Jews' (holy day is) the following day (i.e., Saturday) and the Christians' (is) the day after the following day (i.e., Sunday)."
Of course, the reasoning is flawed. What Muhammad apparently did not realize was that in the Biblical way of thinking the last day of the week is the Sabbath, and the first day of the week was Sunday. The reader will recall that Jews rested on the Sabbath in imitation of God, who in the book of Genesis is said to have rested on the last day of the seven-day week. "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God." Exodus 20:8-9.
For a variety of reasons, most significantly because Jesus rose the day after the Sabbath, the Christians celebrated their Eucharist on the first day of the week, that is, on Sunday. See Acts 20:7 ("And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered to gather to break bread . . . ."); see also 1 Cor. 6:2 ("on the first day of every week . . . ."). Sunday was called the "Lord's Day," because that was the day of his Resurrection. See Rev. 1:10.
So, had Muhammad had any competent knowledge of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, he would have known that Friday was not a day before the Lord's Day; rather, it was a day after the Lord's Day. One would have thought a prophet who recognized the Old Testament and New Testament traditions, and claimed prophethood in part through their authority, would have known this elementary fact. And if Muhammad did not know it, one would think at least Allah--if he were the God of the Old and New Testaments--would know of that.
Muhammad's ignorance of the fact that, from a Biblical point of view, Friday comes after Sunday, and not before Sunday, speaks poorly of his knowledge of the Scriptures, and is evidence against his claimed office as prophet of the God who revealed himself in the Old and New Testaments. Even if he was ignorant, supposing Allah had told him that Friday preceded Sunday, then this Allah himself is mistaken. Since God of the Old and New Testaments is one who is not deceived and cannot deceive, it seems to follow that Allah is not this God, since the God of the Old and New Testaments would have known that Sunday preceded Friday. But then again, maybe this Allah was more direct about his lack of congruence with the God revealed in the Old and New Testaments, for Allah admits he is the "best deceiver," الله خير الماكرين , Allahu khayru al-makrina, Qur'an 3:54, something which the God of the Old and New Testaments is not. The God of the Old and New Testaments is the worst of deceivers, for he is Truth itself, and there is no shadow of lie in him.
Islam has rules that control virtually all aspects of one's life; it is rule-ridden. This is one of the features that it counts among its strengths. One of these areas of legislation involves impurities, which comes under the discipline or science of najis (نجس),part of its all-encompassing shari'a. The law regarding impurities is very serious on account of the fact that Muslims will eagerly die for their shari'a, or perhaps, more accurately, kill to impose on the whole world, a duty they believe incumbent upon them by the inscrutable will of Allah. Being ritually unclean is a big deal for them, and we must assume it is because Allah and his prophet--and they always know best--require this ritual purity of them. The reason for it is not quite known, but reasons do not matter in Islam. It is enough that Allah and Muhammad will something. In Islam, Man is not made to question. Questioning for the reasoning of such things is evil in Islam, mainly for the simple reason that there are many things in Islam that have no reason, and so if one questions for the reason behind things one will see that there is no reason behind things. And this would be a problem, since it would unsettle the faithful. We might call this the "wizard of Oz" problem. We can never, ever pay attention to the man behind the curtain of Islam.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
The whole issue of najis is--alas--complicated on account of the different schools of law in Islam, and this makes it most difficult for the simple-minded Westerner eager to learn about Islam. In advance, I beg indulgence of any Muslim for any error. Generally, however, uncleanliness is bifurcated into najasat haqiqiya and najasat hukmi. The distinction between these two types of uncleanliness appears to be based upon whether the impurities can be seen or not seen. The latter (najasat hukmi) cannot be seen directly, and it includes two categories, hadath as-asghar (حدث الأصغر) and hadath al-akbar (حدث الأكبر). Farts are unclean according to Islamic doctrine. Farts cannot be seen, they can only be heard or smelled, so it follows they would fall under the discipline of najasat hukmi.* Islam is very logical. It is not very reasonable, but it is very logical.
Islam's preoccupation with ritual purity focuses on the scatological as well as the eschatological, which makes for an interesting blend. There is great focus on the supposed impurity arising from urination, defecation, and, yes, farting, the passing of wind. In numerous ahadith, farting (hadath, fart, not to be confused with hadith, report) is considered to cause ritual impurity (confusingly also known as hadath). In summary, there are then hadiths about hadath (farts) and how hadath (farts) causes hadath (uncleanliness), and then there are hadiths about how to get rid of the hadath(uncleanliness) caused by hadath (farts).
To get back to the issue. True, the ritual impurity involved with farts is not major ritual impurity--hadath akbar. What is involved is a minor ritual impurity--hadath asghar, an impurity equivalent to touching a woman's skin.** The reason why touching a woman's skin is similar to farting is unclear to me, but again we should not be thinking about reasons. We only know that farts and touching a woman's skin are unclean and require us to undertake some sort of ritual cleansing before the Muslim can say his formal prayers.
What happens when a Muslim farts? Muhammad has the answer
Thankfully--Allah and his prophet are merciful--we have here, not a "major event," but only a "minor event." Major events must be purified by ghusl (غسل), pretty much a whole bath, whereas minor events may be purified by wudu (وضوء), a little bit of water strategically applied to the hands, the head, and the feet via a certain strict and unvarying routine. This must be done after every fart, at least before the prayers--salat--may be said. One must not say prayers in a state of ritual impurity, which includes farting. Otherwise the prayers are no good for saving one's soul. It would be a shame if one's farts kept one from heaven. And Islam--this, along with jihad, is one of its great beauties--gives us a way to make sure that farts don't keep us from paradise. This is how merciful Allah is.
Because Islam is concerned over the impurity caused by farts, and the manner in which this ritual impurity may be cleansed, we may say that Islam has a "law of farts," or a "science of farts," an usul al-hadath. As a consequence of this "law of farts," serious Muslim scholars, following the wisdom of Muhammad, have written many serious things about farts. Farts are serious business in Islam.
As far as I know, Islam is unique among the world's major religions in that it has a well-developed "doctrine of farts" and "law of farts." Muhammad is the only prophet in the world that has was preoccupied with farts, which shows his great solicitude toward all mankind. No other religious teacher, as far as I know, recognized the problem associated with farts nor taught us how to get around this most serious problem. This is one evidence that Muhammad is a true prophet. Until the advent of Muhammad, mankind's prayers have been no good because they have never cleaned themselves from the stain of farts. This is very sad, since it would appear that all men fart, and therefore fall short of the glory of Allah. Men are condemned to Hell because they fart and do not know the way around the problem. This "law of farts" speaks well of Islam's superiority over Christianity and Judaism, and indeed all other religions. It is hard to argue that a religion with a "law of farts" is not superior to religions that have no doctrine and no law about farts at all, who are in a state of ignorance, what is known as jahiliyyah (جاهلية), on the matter of the divine teaching regarding farts.
Teach them young about the Islamic "law of farts"
Muhammad himself--may be be blessed and praised for it--reserved some of his greater insights when it came to farts, revealing both their earthly and spiritual dimensions. We Westerners and Christians (and even Jews) ought not to be closed-minded to the possible enlightenment that might be gained by studying the Muslim "law of farts." Raised in our evil materialistic and scientific Western ways, we view farts as having just earthly ramifications, mainly of the highly embarrassing social kind, though farts sometimes can be the subject matter of good jokes.
But this attitude may be error, if Islam is to be believed. Multiculturalism and dialogue, not to mention a desire for ecumenism, compel us, in love of course, to study with great seriousness the Muslim law of farts, relying, to the extent we can, on original sacred Muslim sources, especially that great source of the Sunna, the Sahih al-Bukhari, which is second only to the Qur'an in defining the shari'a law governing Muslims. This is the law that Muslims say is the best law in the world. The same comprehensive and humane law that mandates what to do when we find someone stealing things tells us also what to do if we fart. Thank Allah that the punishment regarding farting is less draconian than the punishment for stealing. It would be very bad indeed if one had to have one's hand cut off for farting. This is another evidence of Allah's great mercy. Muhammad was obviously a great legislator in having such a reasonable sanction associated with farting. Had he been a real tyrant, he may have required cutting of one's hand, or perhaps even death by beheading, for farting. See, Muhammad was a very compassionate man. This is another proof of his true status as universal prophet.
Of course, one may be tempted to laugh at the Muslim "law of farts," the shari'a of farts, but that is just a sign of our close-mindedness and spiritual obtuseness.*** We must try to be open-minded, and this serious posting is an attempt to give the Muslim "law of farts," all the dignity it deserves. I am of the opinion that the West has much to learn from Islam, including its "law of farts." The Islamic "law of farts" is certainly part of the precious patrimony of mankind. In my opinion, it ranks right up there with the Qur'an, the Ka'ba, the minaret, the hajj, and jihad, the five best inventions of Islam.
As an example of a hadith that classifies farting, hadath, as unclean, hadath (oh why is Arabic so confusing?), we might point to Sahih Bukhari 4.1.176.
Allah's Apostle said, "A person is considered in prayer as long as he is waiting for the prayer in the mosque as long as he does not do hadath." A non-Arab man asked, "O Abii Huraira! What is hadath?" I replied, "It is the passing of wind (from the anus) (that is one of the types of hadath)."
Do not be fooled. This "minor event" is not to be simply passed over. Indeed, it is significant enough for angels to take heed. They are aware of anyone who passes wind while he is in his praying place, his al-musalla (المصلى). Angels are a sort of "fart police," in Islam, a role that in my ignorance I did not know angels had. The moment the angels catch whiff of a fart (they apparently have noses, another thing I did not know), the angels' prayer changes from asking Allah's blessing and forgiveness to asking for forgiveness and mercy. This is known because Muhammad said it as documented in the "trustworthy" source of ahadith the Sahih al Bukhari, namely, 10.36.659 in my written version, but numbered 1.11.628 in this convenient on-line version. The differences between a prayer of blessing-and-forgiveness and a prayer of forgiveness-and-mercy are difficult for me to understand, but the subtlety ought not to make us think something of importance is not going on in the ethereal world, all on account of a Muslim's fart.
It is unclear in Islamic doctrine, by the way, what sort of cataclysmic spiritual events are caused by the farts of the infidels, of the kafir and the mushrikun, atheists and Christians, and worse, Jews. Since the Muslims are the best of all peoples,† however, one may logically assume that their farts are the best of all farts. And the spiritual catastrophes that might be expected from the farts of kufar and mushrikun, including Jews--the latter who, according to the Qur'an, are really apes and pigs,†† though this is really difficult to believe, may Allah help my unbelief†††--may be too terrible to behold. If there was a doctrine of farts of apes and pigs, we might be able to apply it to the Jew through analogy, but there is no such doctrine in the Islamic science of farts. So in summary we do not know what effect the fart of an infidel, the fart of a Christian, or the fart of Jew, or for that matter the fart of a Hindu or Buddhist, or an ape or a pig, might have in the superlunary world. Muhammad did not vouchsafe to the world such doctrine. He must have preserved it in pectore. Maybe it was too horrible to talk about. But that is sheer speculation. We just don't know. What we do know is that Allah and his prophet Muhammad know best.
There are, then, some lacunae or gaps in the Muslim doctrine of farts, especially in the above areas. But we are not left entirely orphaned. Mercifully, Muhammad taught us other things about farts. For example, 'Abbas bin Tamin had an uncle who asked Muhammad about a person who had imagined to have farted during the formal prayers. To imagine a fart involves a big difference from hearing a fart or smelling a fart. We are not obliged to worry about imaginary farts, Muhammad teaches--peace and blessings be upon him for leaving us a teaching about farts. Muhammad says that a Muslim "should not leave his prayers unless he hears sound or smells something." In my written Sahih Bukhari this hadith has the number 1.4.137, but it is numbered 1.4.139 in this on-line version. Had this not been revealed by Muhammad--that imaginary farts are different from farts we hear or smell--I would probably not have known it by reason alone. This is a precious nugget of Islamic doctrine. To this revealed truth reason must bow down. (It is unclear what someone who is deaf and who suffers from anosmia [loss of sense of smell] is to do, if he thinks he may have farted, but he cannot hear or smell it. This presents a metaphysical, or perhaps more accurately, juristic problem of the first order.)
Another interesting teaching in the Muslim "law of farts" is that the devil apparently farts, and, what is more intriguing, that he must have an anus, which makes some sense since angels apparently have noses. Obviously, one does not have an anus unless one has a mouth (since both are part of the alimentary canal) and one eats some sort of gas-causing food. And this therefore this raises some very interesting collateral issues. The sacred doctrine that Satan has an anus and that Satan farts is from the mouth of Muhammad himself. Again, we avail ourselves of that assemblage of wisdom known as the Sahih al-Bukhari 1.10.608 which has Muhammad's precious words: "When the adhan (أَذَان)[the Muslim call to prayer] is pronounced Satan takes to his heels and passes wind with noise during his flight in order not to hear the adhan." Again, inexplicably, my written version of Sahih al-Bukhari differs from this on-line version which documents it as 1.11.582. But wherever it is to be found, it ought to be accepted, as the very wise Muhammad, who taught no error and never did things in vain, must have said it for the good of mankind.
Theologically, what is fascinating about this teaching is to contemplate what a spiritual sphincter looks like, what a spiritual fart smells like, and how a spiritual fart can be heard. This takes great grace and imagination, and we enter into areas where angels fear to tread. But because of the seriousness of these questions, it must be approached with great humility. All efforts at smirking, at smiling, at guffawing must be squelched as haram, prohibited. If one is really curious one might ask whether Satan eats some sort of spiritual beans, as it is a universal rule that: "Beans, beans . . . the more you eat, the more you fart." I wish I knew how to say this in Arabic. Google Translate puts it like this:
الفاصوليا والفول...كلماكنت تأكل، وكلماضرط
Assuming the Bedouins had a similar doctrine ("Beans, beans . . . ), it follows that Satan must eat beans commensurately with the number of Muslims in the world, since the more muezzins there are to call Muslims for prayer through the adhan, the more Satan is compelled to fart. Where these spiritual beans come from is, alas, one of those mysteries to which we are not privy. I suppose they come from Hell, but I really do not know. Muhammad may have known, but if he did, he did not share it.
More seriously, we might think about the natural disasters that this doctrine of Satanic farts explains. It would seem that the more muezzin we have screaming the adhan throughout the world in their nasal voices and with fingers in their ears, the more Satan farts (maybe that's why they put their fingers in their ears, to keep from being distracted by Satan's farts?), which might lead to serious air and noise pollution, and is probably really the reason there may be global warming. Have Western scientists studied the effect that Satan's increased farting may have on global warming? I don't know of any study. I do not remember Al Gore mentioning it in his otherwise very good movie. This is one reason why I don't believe in global warming or in Al Gore: they have obviously discounted the wisdom of the prophet. The real reason for global warning, then, may not be industry and carbon emissions, but may be Satan's farts on account of the increased number of muezzins around the world. Al Gore should have been reading Sahih Bukhari instead of chasing masseuses. Then he would have known this.
Swiss political poster advocating the ban on minarets: What is the relationship between pumpernickel bread and Sahih al-Bukhari 1.10.608?
In a related matter, many people think that the Swiss (who have banned minarets so that the muezzin cannot scream the adhan and disturb the peaceful air of their Alpine paradise from these high, needle-like towers) are intolerant and are acting against the spirit of multiculturalism. This, the opponents say, is a form of Swiss jingoism, of Swiss chauvinism. One argument that I have not heard used to support the Swiss efforts is that they are trying to protect the pristine Alpine environment from the air and noise pollution and the global warming sure to come from the muezzin's cries of the adhan on account of the known link of the cries of the muezzin to Satan farting.‡ Who would want to have more of Satan's farts in their land? This seems to be a good argument for the Swiss effort to ban the minaret. I am surprised I have not heard it argued. This is probably the result of the Swiss ignorance of, or prejudice against, Islam.
Finally, I do not know if Muhammad's teaching relates to a physical pronouncement of the adhan, or whether it works on recording of the adhan. I have played versions of recorded adhans in the internet and strained my ears to hear Satan farting. Sometimes I think I hear it, right when the muezzin says Ash-hadu anna Muħammadan rasulullah, "I bear witness that Muhammad is God's Messenger," but sometimes I think I do not and am just imagining things, or am insensitive to the subtleties of Arabic pronunciation. Perhaps my readers can listen to this rendition of the adhan and tell me by answering the questionnaire below whether or not they hear Satan farting. This would be valuable scientific or sociological research. Science at the service of Islam.
The adhan: According to Muhammad, Satan is farting, farting, and farting Can you hear it?
*It is beyond the scope of this posting to determine if there have been any opinions or fatwas that handle the issue of sharts. The Urban Dictionary defines "shart" as "a small, unintended defecation that occurs when one relaxes the anal sphincter to fart (blend of "shit" and "fart")." I am at a loss as to whether a shart is something that falls under najasat haqiqiya or najasat hukmi. Maybe Muslims don't shart, so it is not a problem for their jurists. Muhammad himself handled the issue of those farts know as SBDs, which the Urban Dictionary defines as "a quiet flatulent that makes its presence known by a foul odor; 'silent but deadly.'" I do not know how Islamic jurisprudence would handle farts that we may call SBND, silent but not deadly, that is flatulence that is neither heard nor smelled, but not imagined. Apparently, some Muslims (in a spirit of blasphemy, to be sure) find the whole matter humorous, which it plainly is not. If one has farted, and one remains unclean, Allah will not hear your prayers, and they avail nothing toward salvation. That's serious business. In any event, one can buy a T-shirt on a site called Funny Muslim Clothes that says: "Do silent farts break wudu." This is a shirt the humor of which only a Muslim would understand.
**E.g., Qur'an 4:43 ("do not approach prayer . . .[if] you have contacted women." ). ***Some may accuse me of speaking "tongue in cheek," but when it comes to farts that whole concept of tongue and of cheeks is distasteful. †Qur'an 3:110 ("You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind"). ††Qur'an 2:65 ("Be apes--despised and hated by all"), 5:60 ("They [the Jews] are those whom Allah has cursed, . . . some of whom were turned into apes and swine."), 7:166 ("We [Allah[ said to them, "Be apes, despised.") †††I might point out that I have Jewish blood on both sides of the family, so it follows that I am mongrel human, being according to my calculation about 3/8 ape and pig and 5/8 human. Of the 3/8 that is ape and pig, I have not figured out the proportion of pig and the proportion of ape. That raises an interesting question: if a Jew converts to Islam, does he or she change to human from ape and pigs? That would be interesting to see. I Googled for this phenomenon, but I found no "before" and "after" pictures. But maybe there just have been no conversions from Judaism to Islam. ‡The Swiss, at least the German-speaking Swiss, may be sensitive to Satan and farts. Pumpernickel means "Satan's farts" ("pumpern = break wind, and "nickel" is a goblin or devil). It may be that their exposure to pumpernickel has sensitized them to the problem. But the exploration of this possibility is beyond the scope of this post.
