Skip to: Site menu | Main content


Challenge your Beliefs. Verify any news which you hear. Ask us before you believe.  Your question will help us learn as well.
Guidance will come with true intentions.

Letter Exchange 9: Ahadith and Prophet's character Assassination, from Shaq al Sadr to the Satanic Verses

The following Queries were mailed to us by a fellow visitor, student and seeker of truth. Below is an article-version of the email exchange.

  1. I appreciate your article on ahadith and your logical attempt to show an example of how some or most can be logically refuted. But i will like to see some research in hadith as well. For example chain of narrations, "jirah o ta'deel" from leading sunni books like "meezaan ul i'tidaal" and "tazkirat ul huffaz". Rather the best thing is to upload these books on net so that each and every hadith can be judged through the credibility of its narrators. I am sure most of the fabricated ahadith can be refuted JUST by this single step.
  2. Why have you quoted many hadith from Sunni Sahah Sittah, which favor your view, and you negate many other hadith from the same books which goes against you?
  3. You mentioned the hadith where the prophet fainted after being seen naked. That makes sense to me too, i don't know why it doesn't to you. People who are very pious, Allah protects them from vice when they are not aware themselves that they are in fact committing vice. I recall reading something from way back, that when certain people who were near to Allah were about to unknowingly eat haram food, the food became stuck in their throats and it became extremely difficult to swallow it. It's also in conjunction with that time the Prophet wanted to go to a wedding to enjoy it like other people his age, then he went to sleep and awoke the next day. Allah protected him from doing anything dislikable to himself. Well it probably makes sense to me because i think he was a made of clay (and not light) as I've heard Shias say. I also think that he could make mistakes (not sins), because he was human which makes a whole whole lot of sense to me.
  4. Please comment about the Shaq al Sadr, or the event where Gabriel (AS) opened the chest of Muhammad (SAW) and washed his heart.
  5. Surah Abasa, the eightieth Surah of the Quran, states that Muhammad (SAW) frowned at a companion and thus he was rebuked by Allah. I have read both, the Sunni and the Shia tafseers and i think the shia tafseer makes more sense. However i am still confused about the pronouns. Also, in ayah 11, Allah is placating the one who ignored the blind man (by saying it is just a warning). Why would Allah calm a companion. Also, the 6th Ayah states that "unto him thou payest regard". It was the Prophet (SAW) who was conversing with the leaders and thus he was the one who was paying regard to the rich companion. Doesn't this proof that it was the Prophet (SAW) who frowned?


Thank you for appreciating a piece of text. You raise a very good and valid point, and I do not disagree with you at all. But I have three points, which i think are valid.

  1. Mawla Ali (AS) has said, that do not see who is saying, see what is being said. This Means that you can reject any hadith attributed to Mawla Ali (AS) if it goes against your logic (because to us, Islam and Rasool (SAW) and Mawla Ali (AS) will always say things which are true and logical, no insanity). This also means, you can accept any hadith narrated by umar for example, which conveys a good Islamic point.
  2. Lack of proper literary material. The books you have mentioned are not available to me or to anyone else easily. This is a huge obstacle in the task you have advised.
  3. The use of a natural weapon. My approach is, that I am a Muslim because I was born in a Muslim family. What is my credit in it? Similarly, if you were born in a Christian family, you would be a Christian, and Quran will mean nothing to you at all. No traditions, no narrators' reliability, would make you believe in the Quran except your natural instinct, your Aql, your logic.

Why should I try to prove the character or authority or authenticity of a narrator in the chain, weak, while the hadith itself neither appeals to common sense, nor Quran, nor history? I am no hadith expert, neither do I have access to many literature works which deal with it. And I am sure, bulks of the people out there do not. References do not matter.

If a wahabi gives you one thousand references that Mawiya is promised paradise, will you believe him or try to prove the chain of all those weak? If a Christian shows you thousands of hadith or biblical verses proving trinity, will you accept them? Many people do not take references seriously except the Quran and Sahah Sittah, or their own hadith books. Many people do not have books with which they can verify the chain, and most do not even rely on the chain.

We all have Aql, Logic, and I want everyone to use it and then decide it. It should work either way! No? If you were born in a Hindu family, and you continued to rely on traditions, you would have died defending Hinduism. Until you start thinking logically and challenge everything you believe, you would not have reached Islam, the true path.

Having already said that Guidance is not in our hands, as the Enigma of guidance states. Allah will guide only him who is sincere in his efforts, and for sincerity in efforts, logical approach is a must. Can you be sincere if you defend the religion of your father or the traditions supporting your views, irrespective of their logical condition etc? I doubt so.

To me, any hadith which goes against the Quran, or does not even appeal to our logic, does not deserve the efforts to be refuted by studying thoroughly it's chain of narration and then finding a fault in any one of the narrators.

I am sorry, but as long as you close your thought process, kill your logic, and follow blindly, nothing will help you at all! Give it a try if u wish to! Hindus have their books, Christians have theirs, and if u were born in their family, you would be defending their belief, because their books said so.

Whatever you believe, just don’t let a text overwrite your thought process and logical challenging!!

Let us assume that you are a Muslim, I am a Christian. You believe in unity of Allah, just because the Quran says so. I believe in the trinity of God, just because the bible says so.

I cannot convince you through bible because you believe bible is corrupt, you cannot convince me through Quran because I am a Christian and I believe Quran is fraud (god forbid). But let’s say, if I show you a verse in the Quran, which clearly states trinity and promotes my Christian beliefs, I will ask you to tell me why do you neglect that verse of the Quran which speaks about trinity and why do you take the other unity verses? If you cannot answer this verse of mine, it means that there is a mistake in the Quran and thus your unity verses are also error-prone and hold no meaning and your Muslim belief will be shattered.

Similarly, if you can show me from bible how trinity is wrong and unity is what Isa (AS) preached, then I will either have to answer your query about that verse, or accept that bible had a wrong verse, which will put the whole of Bible into doubt.

The ahadith which I take for shia views, are from Sunni books. These are the same books which Sunni use to defend their views. The onus is not on me but the Sunnis, to tell me why do they neglect the hadith which I highlight and why do they take the hadith which satisfy them. If they can answer my queries about the hadith which do not support them, then they have the right to believe they are on the right path. If they accept that the hadith which i highlighted are weak, then what makes them sure that the ahadith from the same books and pages which go their way, are accurate and authentic?

The onus is on the Sunnis.

The hadith which you speak about is as follows.

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: While Allah's Apostle was carrying stones (along) with the people of Mecca for (the building of) the Ka'ba wearing an Izar (waist-sheet cover), his uncle Al-'Abbas said to him, "O my nephew! (It would be better) if you take off your Izar and put it over your shoulders underneath the stones." So he took off his Izar and put it over his shoulders, but he fell unconscious and since then he had never been seen naked.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Hadith 360

Maybe, just maybe, we see Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in different ways. Maybe, to you he was a normal Bedouin whose thought process matched with the cave men. To me, Muhammad (SAW) was a masoom. He was not only masoom, but of exalted character, greatest farsightedness and the highest logical capabilities, wiser and more intelligent than any other man or prophet, who ever lived.

I believe, my 10 year old cousin has a sense not to take off his pants in front of people. If your Prophet lacked that sense, then I am proud to say that your prophet, and my prophet (SAW), are two different people. You rely on pieces of text which degrade the best creation of Allah and you ignore the exaltedness of his character, the completion of his senses, the maturity of his intellect and the magnitude of his nobleness and awareness, which Quran has testified time and time again.

My objection is not to his unconsciousness, but at his getting naked in public (God Forbid). Put your father in his place and then think about it. Will your father ever take off his pant infront of his colleagues in his office? If you cannot attribute such a thought to your father, who is insignificant infront of Muhammad (SAW), how dare you attribute such an event to him (SAW)? When you put your father in that scenario, I hope you will realize where the hadith went wrong.

If prophet Muhammad could make mistakes, then prove to me how Quran is perfect and complete. Because I then claim, that as Muhammad (SAW) made mistakes, he made a mistake in many of his revelations too and thus Quran is full of human errors, after all Muhammad (SAW) was a human. And do not tell me that Allah promises in Quran he will protect the Quran. I can write a book, and speak about a God which no one has seen or knows of or talks to, and I can write anything In that book, and also write in that book that God has decided that this book is free from errors. Obviously I do not believe that about the Quran, but if Muhammad (SAW) could make mistakes, then Quran looses its credibility and authenticity.

Every human doesn't make a mistake only, but every human sins. Why is then your prophet free from sins but prone to mistakes? Him being a human is not a proof of his error-proneness.

And when Isa son of Marium said: O children of Israel! surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic.
Quran [61:6]

Him being Ahmed (as Quran calls him), or praiseworthy, is proof that he (SAW) would not go out to enjoy the wedding in the era of pagans, just like other people of his age would do, because he was not like others, he was Muhammad (SAW) since his birth.

Their hearts trifling; and those who are unjust counsel together in secret: He (Muhammad) is nothing but a mortal like yourselves; what! will you then yield to enchantment while you see?
Quran [21:3]

The unjust thought that Muhammad was like them! Being of clay or of Noor is not the matter of discussion here and neither is it important, because Muhammad's (SAW) infallibility does not depend on it.

To you, your prophet maybe an ignorant and stupid caveman, with a low IQ, born to kaafirs parents and maybe these are the only things which will confirm to you that he was a human. My prophet (SAW) is different, his eloquence, wisdom and nobility is incomparable. He was given birth to and he died. This is what made him a human. Making mistakes did not make him a  human, it made him like us! Taking off pants in front of everyone is not what a prophet of Islam, the greatest creation would do, your dad might!!

I am sorry but I didn’t intend to insult your dad, but if you felt that it was insulting to your dad, then imagine how big an insult to the prophet (SAW) you are trying to defend, just because it is in a book or it is a hadith! And if u didn’t feel your dad getting naked in his office infront of people as an insult, then I am sorry, I am talking to the wrong person!

The event you talk about is, which i quote;

Shaqq As-Sadr: the splitting open of the chest. Angels came to split open the chest of our Beloved Holy Prophet Muhammad Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa Sallam, clean his heart, and fill it with nūr (spiritual light) when he was four years old and again on the night of his mi‘rāj (heavenly ascension)

One narration mentions that "the roof of my house was opened up". Ibn Dihyah Abul-Khattab tried to answer why they [Angels Jibreel and Mikaeel, and al-Buraaq] did not enter from the door. He said that the fact that the Prophet saw how the sealing opened up then closed right away gave him certainty that when the angles would open his chest that it was going to be closed and healed right away. So this was to prepare him for Shaqq as-Sadr [the opening of the chest] incident. Ibn Hajar added that opening of the roof was to give the Prophet the indication about al-Mi'raaj [ascention to heaven] which was going to happen later on his journey. In addition, coming from the roof adds to the element of surprise mentioned above.

Ibn Abi Jamrah reflects further on the Opening of the Chest incident [which took place at the beginning of al-Israa']. He said that Allah was fully capable of filling the heart of the Prophet with wisdom and knowledge without having to open his chest. But one wisdom of physically opening the chest of the Prophet is to increase his courage, his strength, and his certainty. First, the Prophet witnessed a miracle right in front of his eyes and on his own body. He saw how his chest was opened then closed without the least harm. This will lead him to believe with certainty that he will not be affected by other common fears. In fact, narrations that the Prophet was utmost in courage and strength are well known. In particular, this was to prepare him for his night journey where he was going to see what no one had seen before, and which was going to require extreme strength in his eyesight, his soul, and his body.

Miracles are a fact. Prophets had the authority to execute miracles on their own will and through the authority of Allah. These miracles were a proof. The splitting of the moon by the orders of Muhammad (SAW) is one of them.

Shaqq As-Sadr is one of those miracles, attributed to Muhammad (SAW), which only belittles his character and nobility, and also avoids all logic.

Before i proceed, you will say that miracles are illogical and thus if they avoid logic, this is what makes it a miracle. There is a difference. Can Allah kill himself? No, it is illogical. Thus Allah cannot be killed even through a miracle, it is irrational. Fire always burns and will heat things up. It is not logical for the the fire to cool down, yet it did for Ibrahim (AS). The word logical is misused in this sentence. It is not possible for the fire to cool down, but as it did for Ibrahim (AS), it became a miracle. Miracles are not making the illogical, logical. Miracles makes the impossible, possible.

It is illogical to assume that 1+1 is 2. A miracle will not make 1+1 into 3, because it is illogical. If you want 3 as an outcome, but you only have two ones, then one of the ones will be replaced by a 2 miraculously and then it will make the 1+2 into 3.

Allah can do all things. Then can Allah create a stone which is so heavy, that he himself cannot lift it even if he wills it to? This is absurd and illogical, not impossible. Coming into existence of a man, without a father and a mother is impossible. Thus the creation of Adam (AS) is a miracle.

Miracles will make the impossible, possible, not make the illogical, logical. Because logic is man's only defense against misguidance and choosing between right and wrong. If facts become illogical, then man has no blame if he is misguided.

The incident states that there was some impurity on the heart of Muhammad (SAW) when he was a child. When Jibrael (AS) opened the chest and washed the heart of it's impurity, it made the heart of Muhammad (SAW) pure and thus made him free from impurities. Before Miraj, his (SAW) heart was cleaned again so he could see the skies and he could be brave enough to face it. I have some logical queries against the incident of Shaq As-Sadr.

  1. A heart’s function is to pump blood. You do not think with your heart or make decisions with your heart. Islam and Quran talk about heart with respect to the intentions. I love football with my heart, means, I really love it. The sins do not blacken someone's heart. A black heart is a medical disease. Washing of the heart with water, literally, is not washing away your sins and impurities, because they do not exist on the physical heart of the person.
  2. It is strange, that you believe the angel washed off the heart of the prophet, but again you believe that he (SAW) could make a mistake and commit errors and sins, even after having a clean heart. Maybe the angel missed a spot or maybe, there was some more sins and impurities left in his liver and lungs!
  3. Do you believe that Muhammad (SAW), the Ahmed, the best creation of Allah, was sent into this world with an impure and dirty heart which would lead him to misguidance if not washed? While Muhammad's (SAW) servants, the likes of Isa (AS), was a prophet in his cradle and would speak the light, the bible, when children of his infant age cannot help crying?
  4. Did Jibrael (AS) not wash the heart properly for the first time, that it required a second washing before the night of miraj?

Washing of the heart of Mawla Muhammad (SAW) is not impossible, but illogical, and i see it only as an additional insult to the natural exaltness of character and authority and bounties Allah had bestowed on his Rasool (SAW).

William Muir made the wildest insinuation in his book (The Life of Mahomet) that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was, since his boyhood, a life long patient of epilepsy of “falling disease” with reference to the incident of Shaqq As-Sadr. The insinuation originated with the Greeks and was then taken up by subsequent writers.

William Muir is the probable inventor of the Satanic Verses (dealt below) which has been accepted and propogated by many sunnis historians since a long time now, which is a shame in itself. He is the same man, who claims that Muhammad (SAW) was a patient of epilepsy (God forbid) with reference to the events which occurred to Muhammad (SAW) during the alleged "washing of the heart".

You may agree that Shaq As-Sadr happened. I for one, cannot see why, and a written textual proof in some book other than the Quran is not proof enough for me.

I will go over surah 80 , translation of pikthal, which u used in the email.

He frowned and turned away
Quran [80:1]

Note, he is used instead of You. If Allah talked to the prophet (SAW), he would have said you frowned and turned away. This might not be necessary, but it still proves to the extent that the frowning was done by the companion. The companion frowned and turned away.

Because the blind man came unto him.
Quran [80:2]

Because There came to prophet a blind man, who interrupted the conversation of Prophet (SAW) with the rich companion.

What could inform thee but that he might grow (in grace), Or take heed and so the reminder might avail him?
Quran [80:3-4]

And how can you (companion) know that the blind man may become pure and be warned by listening to Muhammad (SAW)?

As for him who thinketh himself independent, Unto him thou payest regard.
Quran [80:5-6]

Prophet (SAW) was preaching to the companion/person (who frowned). He (SAW) does not know anyone's intentions until Allah reveals it to him. It is this verse which tells that the person who prophet (SAW) was initially talking to him who feels that he doesn't need Rasool (SAW).

Yet it is not thy concern if he grow not (in grace).
Quran [80:7]

The duty if prophet (SAW) is only to deliver the message. The companion should be least bothered if the blind man becomes pure or not.

But as for him who cometh unto thee with earnest purpose; And hath fear,
Quran [80:8-9]

As for the blind man who came to the prophet with the cleanest intentions.

 From him thou art distracted.
Quran [80:10]

You (companion) are distracted from him while you yourself intentionally feel u are free from the need of prophet (SAW).

Nay, but verily it is an Admonishment, So let whosoever will pay heed to it, On honoured leaves; Exalted, purified, (Set down) by scribes, Noble and righteous.
Quran [80:11-16]

This Quran, which is on honored leaves, exalted, purified, set down by scribes, noble and righteous, is an admonishment, a warning for everyone who pays heed.

And all we relate to you of the accounts of the messengers is to strengthen your heart therewith; and in this has come to you the truth and an admonition, and a reminder to the believers.
Quran [11:120]

The Quran is a warning to everyone!

Now coming to your email. Firstly, 80:11 is not a warning to the prophet or companion related with this incident, it is talking about Quran, the warning for everyone who pays heed. Secondly, as I said earlier, the prophet (SAW) being a human cannot and doesn't know the intentions of any person until Allah reveals it to him. 80:5 and 80:6 tell the prophet that the person who the prophet is preaching is not of clean intentions! The basic confusion in this whole chapter is the use of pronouns and the constant switching of it.

I swear by the star when it goes down. Your companion does not err, nor does he (Muhammad) go astray; Nor does he speak out of desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed, The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him, The Lord of Strength; so he attained completion,
Quran [53:1-6]

Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.
Quran [33:21]

With the interpretation of the Ahlulbayt, and with the verses of Quran which declare the nobility of Rasool (SAW), we conclude safely, that it was the rich companion who frowned and not Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

Rasool (SAW) is an excellent example of exalted character, and guided by the revelations. I do not know why the Sunnis or specifically, the wahabis want to find weaknesses in the character and morality of prophet (SAW) through many other hadith and incidents and Quranic interpretations.

Maybe they are doing so, as to defend their hadith, and prove that how Umer was qualified for the office of prophethood (God forbid). Sunnis are well are of the character and weaknesses of Umer, and maybe that is why they want to degrade the office of prophethood of also, which would make apparent how Umer is qualified for this office.

Uqbah ibn Amir reports: The Prophet, may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace, said, 'If there were to be a prophet after me it would be 'Umar ibn al-Khattab
The History of the Khalifahs by Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti

You should note that this hadith doesn't satisfy my logical thirst and also doesn't coordinate well with history. A Prophet is a born prophet and is masoom since his birth. Umar was an idol worshipper before he accepted Islam and used to drink alcohol. Is this how Prophets are suppose to act before being bestowed with Prophethood or announcing their Prophethood? Similarly, if Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is the last Prophet, there is no point in talking about future or would-be Prophets. Sunnis criticize shias to raise the merits of Ali ibn AbuTalib to awful heights, then should i call this hadith a blasphemy in itself, which i consider an abuse to the office of prophethood itself?

Anyhow, last night I was talking to another person about the satanic verses. I would like to bring that to your attention as well.

We all know salman Rushdie , who wrote the novel, satanic verses. In it, he writes story about Indian life style and gives the name of prophets wives and the ahlulbayt to prostitutes in that story and Jibrael (AS) is a fake prophet etc etc! It is very blasphemous and is banned.

His title is satanic verses. But do you know what is the title derived from? What is the actual "Satanic Verses"?

And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet, but when he desired, the Satan made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the Satan casts, then does Allah establish His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise,
Quran [22:52]

Sunni commentators, al-Wāqidī, Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabarī, and Ibn Ishaq, ibne Kathir etc narrate a story. The story is, that when some people  migrated to Abyssinia, Rasool (SAW) was preaching in Mecca, and to the idol worshippers, he said, "Have you thought of Allāt and al-'Uzzā and Manāt the third, the other? These are the exalted Gharaniq, whose intercession is hoped for.”

Allat, uzza etc were idols, and the prophet (SAW) said that their intercession is accepted. This made all the idol worshippers very happy and they accepted Rasool (SAW) and people started to return from Abyssinia! Afterwards, Gabriel (AS) came to prophet, and told him that the above thing which Rasool (SAW) said, was not a message from Allah, but Satan whispered it in the ears of Rasool (SAW), and he (SAW) mistook it for Gabriel (AS) and thus revealed the above “satanic verse” as the part of Quran. Then Jibrael (AS) revealed 22:52 and abolished the command which Muhammad (SAW) gave initially, thinking it to be a revelation.

At this point many of the scholars of Tafsir mentioned the story of the Gharaniq and how many of those who had migrated to Ethiopia came back when they thought that the idolaters of the Quraysh had become Muslims, but these reports all come through Mursal chains of narration and I do not think that any of them may be regarded as Sahih. And Allah knows best. Al-Bukhari said, "Ibn `Abbas said, in his recitation (of the revelation).) "When he spoke, the Shaytan threw (some falsehood) into his speech, but Allah abolished that which the Shaytan threw in.'' (Then Allah establishes His revelations.) `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, (when he did recite (the revelation), Shaytan threw (some falsehood) in it) "When he spoke, the Shaytan threw (some falsehood) into his speech.'' Mujahid said: (when he did recite) "When he spoke.'' It was said that it refers to his recitation, whereas (but they trust upon Amani) means they speak but they do not write. Al-Baghawi and the majority of the scholars of Tafsir said (he did recite) "Reciting the Book of Allah.'' (Shaytan threw (some falsehood) in it) "In his recitation.'' Ad-Dahhak said: (when he did recite) "When he recited.'' Ibn Jarir said, "This comment is more akin to interpretation.'' (But Yansakh Allah that which Shaytan throws in.) The meaning of the word Naskh in Arabic is to remove or lift away. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "This means, Allah cancels out that which the Shaytan throws in.''
Tafseer Ibne Kathir, Tafseer of Surah 22, Verse 52; Entitled "How the Shaytan threw some Falsehood into the Words of the Messengers, and how Allah abolished that"

This is how they interpret this above verse. Do you know what It means? That the prophet revealed verses of Quran from shaitaan at times (God Forbid) and not Gabriel. It was later that those verses were abrogated!

Shall I inform you (of him) upon whom the Shaitans descend? They descend upon every lying, sinful one, They incline their ears, and most of them are liars. And as to the poets, those who go astray follow them.
Quran [26:221-224]

Wahabis and nasibis have made a  joke out of the prophethood of Muhammad (SAW), just to prove that Muhammad (SAW) was like them, a normal fallible human being. Was Muhammad (SAW) a poet, and not a prophet?

Rasool (SAW) who is protected by Allah all the time, how can Satan hide from Allah and whisper in prophets ears and prophet reveal it as a part of Quran? I feel ashamed in trying to refute this allegation, an allegation which shouldn't have been there in the first place.

And thus did We make for every prophet an enemy, the Shaitans from among men and jinn, some of them suggesting to others varnished falsehood to deceive (them), and had your Lord pleased they would not have done it, therefore leave them and that which they forge.
Quran [6:112]

And thus have We made for every prophet an enemy from among the sinners and sufficient is your Lord as a Guide and a Helper.
Quran [25:31]

22:52 means, that in every time, all prophets were accompanied by the Satan who opposed the mission of the prophets by whispering to the people and making them misinterpret the religion. The Satans, the sinners, the evil ones were the enemies of prophets and their missions, and Allah dominated the message of the prophet and killed the mission of their enemies! Misinterpretation of Quranic verses, like the ones attributing satanic verses to Muhammad Rasool Allah, is an example of these whispering the Satan makes.

And when it is said to them, Follow what Allah has revealed, they say: Nay! we follow what we found our fathers upon. What! and though their fathers had no sense at all, nor did they follow the right way.
Quran [2:170]

Sense is the only thing which will guide you. Kill your senses and follow blindly anything you read and hear.

Whomsoever Allah causes to err, there is no guide for him; and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on.
Quran [7:186]

Allah blinds some people. Who are they? They are the ones who have killed their sense of thinking, and they wander on blindly. If you feel you are sincere with yourself, your prophet and his Ahlulbayt and your Allah, then challenge everything you believe, everything you hear and see if you find any logical link in your beliefs. Think outside your grudges and biasness.

If not, you are free to believe blindly, the ahadith, the "misinterpretations" and the mullahs of today.

My complaints are not against my Sunni brothers. They might not have invented these blasphemous and degrading lies. My complaints are against my Sunni brothers, because they have left something which Allah gave them, their logical thinking, and they accepted something which ignorant mullahs gave them, blasphemous fabricated ahadith and misinterpretations of the Quran.

The Danish depict Rasool (SAW) as a terrorist and as an extremist. The fact is that they see us  muslims, as a follower of Rasool (SAW), because we claim he is our role model. Their depiction of Rasool (SAW) is infact our image, and not his (SAW) blessed image.

We, the muslims, have depicted Rasool (SAW) as an error-prone man, who did not knew about his prophethood until he was forty (while many soothsayers and christians knew it before him (SAW)), who could not differentiate between the revelation of Allah and the temptation of the Satan, who had a naturally impure heart, and who did not have the sense whether to take off his trousers infront of people or not.

So before coming to the streets, banning Danish products and burning public property in order to defend the honor of Prophet (SAW), rectify your actions so that people see the true image and teachings of Rasool (SAW) in you, and open your Aql in order to propagate the true characteristics of Rasool (SAW). Burn the fake ahadith and misinterpretations of the Quran which degrade Rasool (SAW), before you burn the flag of Denmark.

Feel free to email your comments/replies to this article at or post a message at our Forum, no registration Required.