The Crowing of Cocks and the Braying of Donkeys

According to one hadith (Bukhari 4.54.522) as narrated by Abu Huraira: "Allah’s Apostle said, 'When you hear the crowing of cocks, seek blessings. Their crowing indicates that they have seen an angel. When you hear the braying of donkeys, seek refuge, for their braying indicates that they have seen Satan.'" The same report is found in Sahih Muslim 35.6581.

What--Alas--do you do if you happen to hear both?

If what Muhammad said is true, this Donkey must have seen a lot of devils:

If you ask me, this cockamamie is asinine.

Abraham and Ishmael Never at Mecca

Muslims place great faith in the Qur'anic association of Islam with the faith of Abraham and of Ishmael. For example, the Qur'an mutates the story of Abraham's testing by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, as a one where Abraham is called to sacrifice his son Ishmael. (Although the Qur'anic texts are vague as to who is the son referred to, the hadith and the traditional commentators make it clear that the Arabs considered Ishmael to be the sacrificial victim.) They also associate Abraham and Ishmael with the building of the Ka'aba in Mecca. There are efforts by Muslims to link Muhammad to Ishmael through a sort of genealogy similar to that in the Gospels that are associated with Jesus. But these are all contrived. There is simply no historical evidence that links Abraham or Ishmael with Mecca. None. As Alfred Guillaume states in his book Islam, "[T]here is no historical evidence for the assertion that Abraham or Ishmael was ever in Mecca." (p. 61) And just because the Muslim says it is so does not make it so.

Indeed, one of the most damning evidence against the claim that Abraham and Ishmael were in Mecca and were part of the Arabic historical patrimony is a fact mentioned by Guillaume. The name Ishmael was lost to the Arabs in the Hijaz, the area wherein Muhammad lived. Had Ishmael been part of the historical patrimony of the Arabs in that area, then the name should have been known in it Arabian or Semitic form, specifically with its initial consonant "Y," i.e., as in Hebrew, יִשְׁמָעֵאל, or Yishma'el. Instead, the Arabic uses the word 'Isma'il (إسماعيل‎ ), which is derived--not from the Semitic form--but from the Greek or Latin. In Greek, Yishmael was rendered into Ισμαήλ or Ismaēl, the consonant "y" (yodh) dropped for the vowel "i" (iota). Similarly, in Latin, it was rendered into Ismael. The Arabic reflects this change in the Greek or Latin, and so the Arabic is clearly derived from the Greek or Latin, or perhaps Syriac version of the name. (The same is true, by the way, of the words Isaac and Israel. Also, there are clearly Greek-forms that are adopted as it relates to other biblical personages, such as Jonah (Yunus) and Elijah (Ilyas).*)

Fresco in the Haft Tan Museum in Iran Showing Abraham Sacrificing Ishmael

This is extremely strong circumstantial evidence that there was no independent belief among the Arabs of Muhammad's time of any link between Mecca and the Ka'aba or any link between the Arabs of the Hijaz and Abraham and Ishmael. There was simply no such tradition, and, as in many things invented by Muhammad, it was simply foisted upon them by "prophetic" fiat.

As Guillaume further notes. "[I]f there had been such a tradition it would have to be explained how all memory of the old Semitic name Ishamel (which was known in its true Arabian form in Arabrian inscriptions and written correctly with an initial consonant Y) came to be lost. The form in the Quran is taken either from Greek or Syriac sources." (p. 61-62)

________________________________________
*See also Alphonse Mingana, D.D., "Syriac Influence on the Style of the Kur'an.

Islam Terrorem Potius Quam Religionem

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.»

Muhammad and the Marian Anachronism

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.

Allah's Loneliness

"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.

Two eyes, one eye, or none?

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?

_____________________________________
Islamic source for these, see The Niqaab in light of the Holy Quran and Sahih Hadith and in the Opinions of the great scholars.

Sssssshari'a on Sssssssnakes

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!