"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
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.
The imaginations of Muhammad contained in the Qur'an have come up with the odd idea that Jesus was not crucified, he only appeared to have been crucified.* Naturally, though there is no evidence for these mere words of Muhammad, other than he merely saying them, and though the vast authority of the Gospels and the traditions of the Church hold against this uneducated and ignorant Bedouin, a Muslim has to stick his head in the Qur'anic sands and ignore the witness of history and the whole traditions of the Church. They count as nothing to the witness of one man who had utterly no personal knowledge over that which he spoke. He is, one might add, the same man who (erroneously) thought the Trinity was a combination of God, Jesus, and Mary,** a theological honker, and that confused Mary the Mother of Jesus (whom he called Miriam) with Miriam, the sister of Aaron.*** a historical honker indeed. He is incompetent by his lack of personal knowledge and is impeached by his obvious ignorance of Biblical history and Christian theology. Moreover, the immorality of his life (multiple marriages, divorce and remarriage, concubines, murder, rapine, genocide, not to mention false ascription of prophecy are among some of his offenses) is a sure indicator of his lack of credibility. Muhammad is an untrustworthy witness.
An object of Muslim hate
Muhammad's untrustworthiness as a witness notwithstanding, the Muslims foolishly take Muhammad's naked word as true, thinking by force of will and force of arms to conjure around the entirety of reality, more or less like the cherubim with their swords keep us out of the Garden of Eden. So one of the things that Muslims believe they must do is to destroy all crucifixes inasmuch as crucifix contradicts the Qur'an, and despite the testimony of history, the Qur'an takes precedence. Islam cannot take the truth about Muhammad, just like it cannot take the truth about Christ. So, like the great spiritual tyranny that it is, it suppresses both with great vigor. It might be pointed out that its hatred of the crucifix is something that Islam shares with Satanism, though whether there is a relationship is something the reader can ponder.
Let us look at the Muslim sources. For a Muslim they are unimpeachable sources.
In HadithQudsi19:5 we find in part: "The Prophet said that Allah commanded him to destroy all the . . . crosses and all the trappings of ignorance." (By the way, the HadithQudsi, or "Holy Hadith," are those preeminent ahadithin which Muhammad transmits the words of Allah, although those words are not in the Qur'an.)
In the staple book 'Umdatal-Salik r40.0, we have the following teaching:
Muhammad also said:
(1) "Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with . . . crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance.
Well . . . I'll be . . . , the Devil and Muhammad share a goal, and they've joined forces against what I hold near and dear. To which all I can say (as a Catholic Texan and as heir to the monastic military orders of the Knights of Malta and the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre) to any belligerent Muslim who dares destroy our crucifixes and our way of life: I dare you, "Come and take it!"†
One Catholic Texan's response to the Muslim threat
______________________________________
*"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise; [Qur'an, 4:157-58]
**"And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, 'Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden." [Qur'an 5:116] and "O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger from Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not "Three": desist: It will be better for you: For Allah is One God: Glory be to Him: (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs." [Qur'an 4:171] "At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: 'O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" [Qur'an 19:27-28]
†In their battle against Mexico, the Texans fashioned a flag with a black cannon and star on a white background with the phrase, "COME AND TAKE IT." The cannon represented a cannon received from the Mexican government and which that same government to be returned, and failure to return it would lead to forceful taking back of that cannon. The slogan itself, is not only Texan, but Western, as it can be considered to be in the tradition of King Leonidas of Sparta's response to the Persians during the famous Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. When demanded to throw down his weapons and surrender, he is reputed to have replied according to Plutarch, "Come and get them" (Μολὼν λαβέ). The flag above is obviously modeled after this historical flag.
Why is it that Muslims pray in the public streets?
Public prayer in New York City
Public prayer in Washington, D.C.
Public prayer in Moscow
Public prayer in Rome
Public prayer in Paris
Public prayer in London
Public prayer in Milan
It is a mistake to think that this is merely some public display of personal faith, some sort of peaceable assembly, some sort of peaceful protest. No. To think that way is to think in Western categories. It is to interpret what is being done as if the Muslims are thinking within the context of Western culture. They are not.
Muslim prayer in public streets is an exercise of power. It is a claim that the streets are theirs. It is a claim that the earth was made for Muhammad and for his followers, and not for you. The prayer is an act of incipient violence. It is a threat to all that your way of life and all you believe. It is an act of political revolt, of the coming revolution. It is an insult to you, kaffir and mushrikun, you Western infidels, though you may not know it. They are calling you a pig and and ape, and you sit there tolerantly smiling.
The muslims do not see themselves as "squatters." It is you that have been squatting on their land. And they are putting you on notice that they are reclaiming it.
One need only turn to Sahih al-Bukhari (1.335) wherein Muhammad says that one of the things that Allah gave him was ownership of the world:
The Prophet said, "I have been given five (things) which were not given to anyone else before me. . . .
2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for offering Salat (prayer) and a thing to purify (perform Tayammum), therefore anyone of my followers can offer Salat wherever he is, at the time of a Salat.
You are a fool if you understand what the Muslims are doing through your frame of reference. By allowing such public displays of prayer you are conceding to the Muslim his ownership of the world. You are, in fact, consenting to, assenting to, accepting the position of dhimmitude. You are cowering before someone to whom you ought not to cower: the false prophet and madman Muhammad and his plethora of deceived followers.
