Top 11 Muslim Terms You Should Know

Ramadan Mubarak, everyone!

Here are 11 Muslim terms you should know. I would like to thank the couple who made this video. They are very cute together.

  • “Subhan Allah” – Glory to God. So for example, when you see something beautiful that Allah has created, you can say this term.
  • “Alhamdulillah” – All praises are due to God. When you get happy about something, you can praise Allah (Allah just means ‘God’ in Arabic).
  • “Allahu Akbar” – God is the greatest. You can use this term any time you are happy about God or you want to remind yourself that God is the best and is in control of your life and all your affairs.
  • “Jazak Allah Khair” – May Allah reward you with goodness. If someone does something good for you, you should be grateful to them and say, “Jazak Allah Khair.”
  • “Wa iyyakum” – And to you. For example, if someone says “Jazak Allah Khair” to you, you can say “Wa iyyakum” in return.
  • “In sha Allah” – If God wills. When you talk about the future, you should say, “in sha Allah,” because no one knows what will happen tomorrow except for God.
  • “Ma sha Allah” – God has willed it. When someone gives a compliment, Muslims will say “Ma sha Allah.” It’s also a phrase used to communicate joy and to protect one from jealousy.
  • “Bi-idniLah” – By the permission of God. Similar to in sha Allah.
  • “Assalamualaikum” – Peace be upon you. Used as a greeting between fellow believers.
  • “Walaikumaslam” – And upon you. Used in response to Assalamualaikum.
  • “WarahmatuLah wabarakathu” – And the mercy of Allah and the blessings of Allah upon you. Something you can add onto a greeting to make it extra special.

The Very Accurate and Holy Science of Floobism

Once upon a time, in an age of darkness and violence, God sent to Earth a messenger with a light. This light was a holy book which contained simple instructions for how one can live a good life: do not worship false gods, pray, give to charity, be nice to people, tell the truth, fast, forgive others, be fair in justice.

This holy book also said that it was complete and no additions were needed.

With the light of this holy book, the messenger helped build a successful, thriving, united and tolerant society despite the surrounding age of darkness.

When the messenger died, his succeeding rulers tried to be very careful not to add any additional rules to the holy book, because they feared such rules would obscure the light of what their messenger brought.

And yet as the years went by, little by little, succeeding rulers decided it wouldn’t be so bad to add a teensy tiny little additional rule here or there. These later rulers recruited people who knew the messenger to support their new rules. They compiled stories from these people called “floobs.”

One of the most prolific early narrators of floobs was Glemulus Son of Gloplor, a friend of the messenger. Nevermind that Glemulus Son of Gloplor was said to be a liar by the people who knew him. Or that Glemulus Son of Gloplor got deposed from his position of authority over the land of Flemdum for embezzling Flemdum’s Jello stores.

None of that matters, because Glemulus Son of Gloplor’s just so happened to know the messenger. And he narrated some 5,000 floobs.

Over time, hundreds of thousands of floobs had been collected. There were now far more floobs than the text of the original holy book. People began to study the floobs more than the holy book. And floob experts—floobists—insisted you could only understand the holy book through the floobs. In fact, they even said that the holy book was incomplete without the floobs!

According to the floobs, one has to throw Jello on their face while they pray, praise Bill Cosby three times when they go to the bathroom, all women have to wear a head to toe chicken suit, people can’t eat tacos when there is a full moon, and yet there is another floob that says people must eat tacos on the full moon. Sometimes floobs contradict each other, but it all makes sense because floobism is a very accurate and holy science, and if you haven’t studied it for ten years and don’t speak fluent Pig Latin, then you’re not really in any position to criticize it because all the floobs are carefully translated from Pig Latin.

To those reading this, you’re probably outsiders. This could sound a little odd to you. So I will explain the science. There are chains of flubs used to verify the floobs. The floob about throwing Jello in one’s face is from Slemulon who heard it from Glisandia who heard it from Thorglon who heard it from the slave of Rhindigor, who heard it from Cakenon, all the way back to Glemulus Son of Gloplor, who we all know was beyond reproach just because he so happened to know the messenger.

Sometimes later versions of floobs are more elaborate than earlier versions of the same floob. For instance, an earlier version of one floob says that you must look both ways before you cross the street. A later version of that same floob says you must look both ways while you moonwalk across the street. Some historians would say this is evidence of “embellishment,” but those historians just don’t understand the very accurate and very holy science of floobism.

And this science is so holy that that Floobists must put anyone to death who questions their floobs. So there is complete tolerance in the religion you see, but only if you do everything that the floobists say exactly and think how the floobists tell you to think. Anything otherwise is dangerous.

There are two main sects of Floobists. The Red Floobists, who think that one should throw red Jello in their faces while they pray. And the Blue Floobists, who think that one should throw blue Jello in their faces while they pray. The Red and Blue Floobists have been at war with each other for centuries. But surely one of them is correct.

1,400 years after the death of the messenger, a man deemed Klorb the Insane by the Floobists has studied the holy book, and Klorb is certainly crazy, because he claims that the holy book contains nothing of all the Floobists important rules. Klorb the Insane decides to simply follow the holy book itself, and has even gone as far as to say he uses “common sense” and “reason” for whatever isn’t specified.

So naturally the Floobists denounce Klorb as an apostate and put him on trial.

They say, “How do you know what color of Jello to throw in your face when you pray?”

Klorb the Insane says, “Maybe we don’t have to throw Jello in our faces. Maybe we can just pray to God, and that’s what’s important.”

“God forgive him!” the Floobists cry. Then they ask, “And how do you know what kind of feathers to collect for your wife’s chicken suit?”

“My wife doesn’t wear a chicken suit,” Klorb the Insane replies. “She just uses common sense and dresses modestly.”

“Heresy!” they shout. “And do you know what to say to Bill Cosby when you go to the bathroom?”

“I don’t say anything to Bill Cosby,” Klorb the Insane says. “That’s unnecessary. All that’s necessary is remembering God, being a good person and doing good deeds.”

So of course the Floobists do the reasonable thing and kill Klorb for his insanity. Then they continue to fight among themselves over what color Jello is best to throw in one’s face, and wonder why their civilization is falling apart while people who don’t even know a single floob are figuring out how to cure diseases and put people into outer space.

And that everyone, is the very accurate and holy science of Floobism.

Exploring Jordan Peterson’s Female Heroic Archetype – Beauty and the Beast

VIDEO: Jordan Peterson – Beauty is interested in the Beast Who Can Be Civilized

Many female fans of Jordan Peterson (including myself) have often wondered if there is a woman’s archetypal heroic journey. I will do my best in this article to understand what Jordan Peterson has said about the topic and to expound upon it by exploring the concept of the heroic female in the popular myths and religions of human history.

In the video above, Doctor Peterson says, “A harmless man is not a good man. A good man is a very, very dangerous man who has that under voluntary control. ”

Doctor Peterson goes on to say that one of the hero archetypes that is relevant to women is “Beauty and the Beast.”

“Beauty isn’t interested in the guy who isn’t the beast. She’s interested in the guy who is the Beast. She is interested in the guy who is the Beast who can be civilized and disciplined and who can use that in the service of a family. And that’s exactly how it should be.”


This is a concept we see more often, so let me briefly explain this first before we get into the nuts and bolts of the archetypal female heroic journey.

The male heroic archetypal journey is one in which the boy leaves the naivety and comforts of home. Through enduring several struggles along the way, and grappling with the evils of the world, he eventually becomes a man—a benevolent protector who is capable of contending with evil. But he cannot do this as a mere naïve and harmless boy. And a male who turns eighteen doesn’t magically become a man through legality or age. There is something much more powerful that creates a “man.” This is a sacred knowledge that has been shared by the various cultures, myths and religions of humanity throughout history.

This is an important concept to be aware of in our time, in which masculinity is under attack by the mainstream media from every angle. We often hear today about “soy boys.” I’m not trying to attack men in making these statements. I’m simply saying that the sacred knowledge that transforms a boy into a man is not being communicated in our culture, except by a few people—such as Doctor Jordan Peterson.




The female heroic archetypal journey is one in which an innocent virginal girl contends with a male beast (or other powerful male force). In this struggle, she brings out the man within the beast, and renders him into something that can be useful to society.

Via this process, the virginal girl becomes a woman. She is the innocent princess who evolves into matriarch, creative mother and benevolent queen. She is no longer a naive and harmless maiden. Yet she is also not the evil queen figure (or ice queen) often described by Jordan Peterson. An example of the evil queen is the witch in Hansel and Gretel who keeps the children fat with sweets and in a cage, weak and helpless.

A benevolent queen is one who can support and bring out the manhood of her king. She is a creative force that brings forth positivity into a world of suffering. She gives birth to light in the darkness.

To be clear, the Benevolent Queen is not weak. But she is also not tyrannical and controlling. She exists in balance with the male. As the Quran says, men and women are a garment to each other (2:187). Deep inside, she is emotionally strong enough to understand that her ability to be compassionate, kind and patient despite the overwhelming cruelty of the world is a strength rather than a weakness. And it is this strength that permits life itself to exist and thrive. 

She has the courage to speak out when masculinity has become too tyrannical, but also the nurturing and feminine energy to foster positive masculinity, instead of crushing masculinity entirely.


The earliest example in written history I can think of regarding the heroic female archetype is the Egyptian Queen Isis.

Osiris is the Egyptian god of the underworld, and Isis is his wife. Isis was first mentioned in the Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2181 BCE) as one of the main characters of the Osiris myth, in which she resurrects her slain husband, the divine king Osiris, and then she produces and protects her heir, Horus.

The Egyptian term for a throne may have shared a common etymology with Isis’s name. Therefore, the Egyptologist Kurt Sethe suggested Isis was originally a personification of thrones. Egyptologist Henri Frankfort agreed, believing that the throne was considered the king’s mother, and thus a goddess, because of its power to make a man into a king.

When Osiris is slain by his jealous brother Set, Isis is the one who finds the pieces of Osiris and puts him together again so he can be resurrected and become Benevolent King over his people. Yet before this can happen, he must make a trip to the underworld. Isis is the one who rescues him from the underworld, just as Beauty ends the curse of Beast, turning him into a man.


The Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh was written around 2100-1200 BCE. For those who don’t know the story of Gilgamesh, I will summarize it briefly.

Gilgamesh was strong and powerful king. But he used his strength to tyrannize the people he ruled over, the people of Uruk. He slept with men’s wives on their wedding days and plundered their wealth.

Thus, the Gods decided to create a wild man named Enkidu to contend with Gilgamesh and put a stop to his tyranny.

Once Enkidu was created, he lived in the forest and made friends with animals. This continued until he met the prostitute Shamhat, who tempted Enkidu away from the wild with her beauty. After Enkidu spends seven days and seven nights with Shamhat, his former animal companions shy away from him. He is no longer a beast of the wild. Shamhat feeds, clothes and civilizes him. She brings him into the city of Uruk. There Enkidu challenges Gilgamesh to a test of strength. Gilgamesh wins the contest. Nevertheless, Gilgamesh and Enkidu end up becoming friends, and Gilgamesh stops tyrannizing the people of Uruk.


Most of us in the West are familiar with the Greek myth about Persephone. She is the daughter of the Greek Gods, Zeus and Demeter. Demeter is the Greek goddess of the harvest and agriculture. Persephone is the goddess of Spring.

One day Hades, lord of the underworld, took a liking to the young Persephone and kidnapped her. He brought her to the underworld. Persephone’s mother was so upset that she no longer caused plants to grow (thus ushering in winter).

Persephone was told not to eat any of the foods of the Underworld if she didn’t want to be stuck there. But Hades tricked her, giving her pomegranate seeds to eat. After eating the seeds, she has to spend a third of every year (the winter months) in the Underworld.

In this journey, she is transformed from an innocent spring maiden into the queen of death. And as Persephone’s husband, Hades gains power over fertility. Without Persephone, he can only destroy. But with Persephone, he can be a creative force of existence.


The most famous example of the heroic female archetype in Christianity is the Virgin Mary. She doesn’t make a man out of a beast, but rather she makes a man out of God (a powerful force to contend with indeed). As the most pure and innocent woman in existence, Mary is able to create Jesus, the archetype of benevolence among men. The King of Men. Yet the journey isn’t easy for her. When she becomes pregnant via immaculate conception, she becomes slandered by her own people and accused of fornication. And then she ends up giving birth to Jesus in a manger filled with animals.

In Islam, there is also a great deal of respect for the Virgin Mary. She has an entire chapter of the Quran dedicated to her. However, the main difference is that while Muslims do see Jesus as the Messiah, they don’t regard Jesus as a god, but as a loyal servant of God.

Also, the story about Mary in the Quran is a little different than in the New Testament. As a young girl she was raised in a temple and survived alone on provisions given to her by God. An apt metaphor for the perfect Muslim. One who submits and depends upon their Lord, and their Lord alone.

“So her Lord accepted her with good acceptance and caused her to grow in a good manner and put her in the care of Zechariah. Every time Zechariah entered upon her in the prayer chamber, he found with her provision. He said, “O Mary, from where is this [coming] to you?” She said, “It is from Allah. Indeed, Allah provides for whom He wills without account.” (Quran 3:37)

She was so pure and good, that she gave birth to the Word of God.

The Qur’an states that Jesus is Allah’s “word which he cast into Mary, and a ‘spirit’ from him” (Sura 4:171). Jesus is also called a word from Allah. (Sura 3:39, 45).

However, the birth of God’s Word was not easy. It was painful. But God was there as her comfort and support.

“So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree. She said, “Oh, I wish I had died before this and was in oblivion, forgotten.” But he called her from below her, “Do not grieve; your Lord has provided beneath you a stream. And shake toward you the trunk of the palm tree; it will drop upon you ripe, fresh dates. So eat and drink and be contented. And if you see from among humanity anyone, say, ‘Indeed, I have vowed to the Most Merciful abstention, so I will not speak today to [any] man.” (Quran 19: 22-26)

So, whichever version of the story you believe, Islamic or Christian, the point is that Mary was a pious woman who underwent struggle, pain and humiliation in order to bring a force of benevolence into the world. A great role model for women indeed.



I’m sorry to bring up the vampire series Twilight. Yes, it’s lame when vampires sparkle. But one has to admit that the series got insanely popular for a reason. On one hand, it could just be all the soccer moms who liked Edward and Jacob’s chiseled abs. But stories that follow classical archetypes resonate with people. Bella was a young woman who became the object of desire of a vampire, a predator. She was also the object of desire of Jacob, a werewolf, a beast. And a key component of the story was Edward and Jacob learning to contend with their own predatorial impulses in order to keep Bella safe. This is a story that as old as time itself.




A much better written modern written example of the heroic female is that of Daenerys Targaryen in Game of Thrones, the Dragon Queen. While the end of the show was a tragic flop mangled by bad writing and woke politics, the beginning of the show enticed people because once again, it resonated with those deep unconscious archetypes we all share.

Daenerys as a young teenage girl was sold by her own brother to Khal Drogo, a true beast of a man. As the commander of the nomadic and tribal Dothraki horde, he is truly a warlord. His people pillage and rape those they conquer without mercy. And they are a wild people. There are scenes of people having sex openly, quite like animals. Yet for a time, the tenderness and feminine love of Daenerys seems to civilize the wild Khal Drogo. She convinces him to command his men not to rape the female captives in the aftermath of war.

Later Daenerys liberates a city full of slaves. And her mount, the dragon, is a perfect symbol of the heroic female’s mastery over chaos, since the wild fire-breathing dragon is often used as a symbol of chaos itself.

Yet while Daenerys had the potential to fulfill the heroic female arc, she ultimately ended up devolving into the evil queen archetype, burning people alive with her dragons in a maniacal grab for power. While this decision was probably the result of bad writing, it does provide a powerful archetype for radical feminism and wokeness in today’s world. And what we might think was a hackneyed effort of the showrunners to cobble something together quickly, may have actually been them inadvertently reaching into a subconscious collective truth of our time.

We live in a society today that promotes the evil queen version of feminity. The all powerful woman who “doesn’t need a man,” and who emasculates the men under her control. She is ultimately destructive. A queen of chaos, riding around on dragons, burning down the foundations of civilization itself.


In the West, masculinity has been emasculated by the forces of the Evil Queen. These forces are the education system, the media, and now the government. Forces that seek to protect and coddle people so much that they infantilize them, robbing them of their competence and independence. Jordan Peterson says men are often attacked for attempting to achieve excellence through hierarchical systems. These attempts are derided as “patriarchy” and “toxic masculinity.” Obviously a such thing as Toxic Masculinity does exist, as we saw above with Gilgamesh using his power to rape women on their wedding day, or Khal Drogo using his hordes to rape and plunder. But there is also benevolent masculinity. And when male excellence in general is attacked, the force of benevolent masculinity is oppressed, and the West becomes less likely to protect and provide for its ideals.

In the Muslim World (and in many other countries of the Global South),by contrast, the Benevolent Queen is being suppressed by the forces of the Tyrannical King. Of course the Muslim World is not a monolith, but I talk to many muslims who complain in their home countries that women are often encouraged not to exert their excellence in the hierarchical systems of their societies, and to stay out of the spheres of social influence. This is also the case in many other non-western, non-muslim countries, where the reaction to Western imperialism has been an over-reaction against it. If the West is going to be extremely feminist and secular, than they are determined to do the exact opposite. Yet without the forces of a Benevolent Queen to bring balance and the nurturing energy of femininity, the male king becomes tyrannical and predatory, following his beastly inclinations. So while feminism has gone too crazy in the West, I do think in the Muslim world and some other non-muslim, non-western countries, there needs to be a greater effort to educate women and to respect mother figures.

In the East, it seems like they have things more balanced between the masculine and feminine energies of their societies, which is probably why they’re doing better right now than most.

In all things, moderation and balance is key.


I hope this article was enjoyable and helpful.

Check out the other related content I have written below.

Jordan Peterson Archetypes: Female Chaos and Male Order

Why Promiscuity is Bad For Us – Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro

Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules and Islam

Resources on How to Pray From the Quran Alone

Muslim man is praying in mosque

One of the common questions Quran Alone/Quranist/Qurancentric muslims get is how do they pray with the Quran alone? Here are some resources I compiled below: 


­How To Pray Salat Without Hadith (Quran Only)

This is a short video. It’s only about 3 minutes long. It basically states that Quran already mentions details about where to face, what condition to approach the prayer in, how to perform ablution, and what to say in your prayers. 


The Contact Prayer (Masjid Tucson)­

Of the websites I researched, this seemed the closest to the traditional Islamic position, with 5 daily prayers, specific things to say during the prayer by position, etc. What to say during certain times of day.


The Ritual Prayer (

The Quranic Salat­ (

The sources on Quran-Islam seem closest to a lot of the Quranist positions I see online. That there is no specific mention in the Quran of 5 daily prayers, and that there are actually only 3 daily prayers mentioned by name in the Quran. It does give good Quranically sourced details on what to do and say.


Prayer According to the Quran (Abdullah Nayer)­

The Salat According to the Quran (The Truth is From God)­

According to these sources, there are only 2 daily prayers, because most of the Quranic verses that mention specific times of prayer only say “both ends of the day,” and nothing else.


How Can We Learn To Pray If We Don’t Have Hadith To Teach Us? (Medium)­

An interesting article about how Islamic prayer started with Abraham, not Mohammad.


Salat in the Quran (Sam Gerrans – Quranite)­

The position in this source is that there isn’t very specific instructions in the Quran for prayer because people are supposed to think for themselves and figure it out. The idea that there are specific X times a day to pray and specific things to say are a Hadithist idea, and that the word salat is vague and all-encompassing, like “duty.”

The Problematic History and Science of Hadith

The Hadith are a collection of the sayings and activities of the Prophet Mohammad PBUH that the vast majority of Muslims believe are key to their faith. The problem is that the majority of the Hadiths were collected and written more than 200 years after the death of the Prophet Mohammad PBUH through a chain of oral narrations.

The Quran proclaims it is fully detailed and contains the details of everything (7:52, 6:114. 10:37).

So why is an additional source needed? 

We will examine several problems with the Hadith below.


What’s interesting is that according to the Hadith itself, the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet) were hesitant to collect any sayings of the Prophet Mohammad PBUH outside of the Quran.

Narrated Aisha: My father gathered the ahadith of the Messenger of Allah, and they totaled five hundred, then he spent his night sleeplessly turning on his sides. I thought that he was upset because of someone’s complaint, or because of some news which he had heard. The next morning, he said to me, `Daughter! Bring me the ahadith in your possession,’ so I brought them to him, and he set them on fire.” Then he said: “It is possible that there should be certain things in it which did not correspond textually with what the Prophet had uttered, so I was worried that I die and these ahadith remain with me.

Reference: • See p. 237, Vol. 5, of Kanz al-`Ummal • Refer also to Ibn Kathir’s book Al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya as well as p. 5, Vol. 1, of al-Dhahabi’s Tadhkirat al-Huffaz


And yet this science of Hadith eventually began some 100 years after the death of the Prophet Mohammad PBUH, despite the fact that the Sahaba themselves were reportedly afraid to engage in it.

Systematic application of hadith criticism began with Abū ḥanīfa (died 767 CE/150 AH). A large number of forged hadith about the Prophet Mohammad PBUH was creating a situation out of control, so some scholars wanted to verify which hadith were legit and which ones were not, to try and avoid the spread of misinformation. 

According to the scholar Daniel Brown criticism of this Hadith science began in the second century of Islam when Al-Shafiʽi (767–820 A.D.)  was establishing the final authority of a hadith of Muhammad in Islamic law.

An opposing group known as Ahl al-Kalam criticized  both the traditionists’ method and the results of their work. They doubted the reliability of the transmission of the hadith, including the traditionists’ evaluation of the “qualities of the transmitters” of hadith they considered “purely arbitrary”, and thought the collections of hadiths to be “filled with contradictory, blasphemous, and absurd traditions.”

Source: Brown, Daniel W. (1996). Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought. Cambridge University Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0521570770. Retrieved 10 May 2018.

Later, another group of Hadith rejecters known as the Mu’tazilites emerged (which flourished in Basra and Baghdad in the 8th–10th centuries CE). They also viewed the transmission of the Prophetic sunnah as not sufficiently reliable. And it was their view that the Hadith was mere guesswork and conjecture, while the Quran was complete and perfect, and did not require the Hadith or any other book to supplement or complement it.

According to Racha El Omari, early Mutazilites believed that hadith were susceptible to “abuse as a polemical ideological tool”; that the matn (content) of the hadith—not just the isnad (chain of authorities)—ought to be scrutinized for doctrine and clarity; that for hadith to be valid they ought to be “supported by some form of tawātur.” Tawātur (Arabic:تواتر) is a term in the science of hadith and the usul al-fiqh), which is used when an account is reported numerously by different narrators and through various chains of transmission, in a way that substantiates its authenticity. Such a report is called mutawatir.


In writing about mutawatir (hadith transmitted via numerous chains of narrators) and ahad (hadith with a single chain, i.e. almost all hadith) and their importance from the legal theoretician’s point of view, Wael Hallaq notes the medieval scholar Al-Nawawi (1233–1277 CE) argued that any non-mutawatir hadith is only probable and can not reach the level of certainty that a mutawatir hadith can. However scholars like Ibn al-Salah (d. 1245 CE), al-Ansari (d. 1707 CE), and Ibn ‘Abd al-Shakur (d. 1810 CE) found “no more than eight or nine” hadiths that fell into the mutawatir category.


Imagine you are telling a story to someone who tells a story to someone who tells a story to someone who tells a story. A 200 year game of telephone. Even with the most honest and well intentioned people involved, how much would that story diverge over the course of time?

One Mu’tazilite who expressed the strongest statement of skepticism of any source of knowledge outside of reason and the Qurʾān was Ibrahim an-Nazzam (c. 775 – c. 845). For him, both the single and the mutawātir reports could not be trusted to yield knowledge.

He recounted contradictory hadith and examined their divergent content (matn) to show why they should be rejected: they relied on both faulty human memory and bias, neither of which could be trusted to transmit what is true.

Al-Naẓẓām supported his strong refutation of the trustworthiness of ḥadith within the larger claim that hadith circulated and thrived to support polemical causes of various theological sects and jurists, and that no single transmitter could by himself be held above suspicion of altering the content of a single report.


Al-Nazzam (775–845 CE), Ibn Sa’d (784–845 CE), Al-Nawawi (1233–1277 CE), Ibn Hajar (1372–1449 CE), later reformers Syed Ahmed Khan (1817–1898 CE), Muhammad Iqbal (1877–1938 CE); and scholars from the West such as Ignác GoldziherJoseph Schacht, and G.H.A. Juynboll, (and in the present day Israr Ahmed Khan).


For many critics, the contradictions of hadith with natural law and with other hadith demonstrated that the traditional scientists of hadith (muhaddithin) had failed to find all false hadith and there must be something wrong with their method.

Explanations of why this was included the neglect of hadith content (matn) by muhaddithin in favor of the evaluation of chain/isnad of the hadith. But this did not mean critics accepted the traditional evaluation of hadith transmission with its supposed knowledge of the character and capacity of the reported narrators, that the scientists had focused on. How could the study of the character of transmitters (ʿilm al-rijāl) be an exact science when it was “difficult enough to judge the character of living people, let alone those long dead”?

Information on the narrators was scarce and often conflicting. Hypocrites could be very clever. There was “no assurance that all the relevant information” had been gathered, and if hadith could be falsified, could not the historical reports about transmitters be as well?

Also, if the content (matn) of a hadith could be forged, why could not the chain of transmitters—the isnad? This was an issue traditional scientists of hadith had “completely discounted” and was “perhaps the most serious challenge of all” to classical hadith criticism. How could a hadith be judged “reliable” on the basis of its chain of transmission when we know that forgers commonly fabricated these chains “in order to hide their forgery?” There was, after all, strong incentive “to attribute one’s own information” to the most highly regarded authorities.

According to Bernard Lewis, “in the early Islamic centuries there could be no better way of promoting a cause, an opinion, or a faction than to cite an appropriate action or utterance of the Prophet.” This gave strong incentive to fabricate hadith.

Lewis, Bernard (2011). The End of Modern History in the Middle East. Hoover Institution Press. pp. 79–80. ISBN 9780817912963. Retrieved 28 March 2018.


The primary tool of orthodox ʻilm al-ḥadīth Hadith studies to verify the authenticity of hadith is the hadith’s isnad (chain) of transmitters. But in the oldest collections of hadith (which have had less opportunity to be corrupted by faulty memory or manipulation) isnad are “rudimentary”, while the isnads found in later “classical” collections of hadith are usually “perfect,” suggesting the correlation between supposedly high quality isnads and authentic hadith is not good.

I.e. if the earlier stuff is simpler and more basic, and the later stuff is much more elaborate and suddenly has new details that weren’t there before, this indicates embellishment and adding details that weren’t originally there. For example, if I was to tell my son a story that said, “I went to the store.” And then my great grandson told a story about me, “going to the store, the zoo and then getting a haircut.” This would be clear embellishment, adding details that weren’t in the original story.

According to Muslim Islamic scholar Jonathan A.C. Brown, 20th century Egyptian scholar Mahmoud Abu Rayya noted the problem of transmission of hadith from allegedly reliable Companions of the Prophet. One Abu Hurairah, joined the Muslim community only three years before the Prophet’s death (i.e. when the community was becoming triumphant) yet was the “single most prolific” transmitter of hadiths from among the Companions, passing on “thousands of hadiths he claimed” to have heard—far more traditions than companions who had been with Muhammad since the beginning. Abu Rayya and others think it highly unlikely Abu Hurairah could have heard the thousands of hadiths he claimed to transmitted, nor that he learned the details of ritual and law to avoid mangling the meanings of hadiths on these issues he reported.

There are also questions about Abu Hurairah, since he got deposed as the governor of Bahrain for stealing horses. 

Abu Hurayra and the Falsification of Hadith (Al-Islah)

Caliph ʿUmar prohibited transmission of hadith because the problem of forgery “had become so serious.” During the Umayyad dynasty, hadith forgeries that attacked their enemy Ali and supported dynasty founder Muʿāwiya were state sponsored. The succeeding Abbāsid dynasty circulated hadith predicting “the reign of each successive ruler”. Even traditionists whose job it was to filter out false hadith, circulated fabricated hadith for causes they thought worthy.


Sahih hadith states that adultery should be punishable by stoning.

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 7543
In-book reference: Book 97, Hadith 168
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 9, Book 93, Hadith 633

The Quran has a different punishment for adultery, which is lashing. 24:2

“Sahih” hadith orders death penalty on apostates:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Messenger forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6922
In-book reference: Book 88, Hadith 5
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 9, Book 84, Hadith 57

While the Qur’an says there is no compulsion in religion (2:256)


One way that scholars have used to make some of their hadith more “legitimate” than the Quran is through the principle of abrogation. They say that the later revealed verses abrogate the earlier revealed ones.

The following verse is used to promote this principle of abrogation.
“We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent (2:106)?” has a great response to this. The word translated to “verse” here also means “sign.” So the verse could actually be saying:

Whichever ‘ayat’ (miracle/sign) We instate or cause to be forgotten, We replace it with that which is better than it or similar to it. Did you not know that God is Capable of all things? (2:106)

The idea that verses of the Quran can abrogate themselves also contradicts the following other verses:

A.L.R. A Book whose verses have been perfected. 11:1 (word by word grammar and Arabic of verse)
There is no changing the Words of God. 10:64  (word by word grammar and Arabic of verse)

How could the Quran be a book that is perfected and the unchanging word of God if it changes over a short period of Mohammad PBUH’s prophethood (some 22 years)?


Muḥammad ibn Ismā‘īl al-Bukhārī (Persian: بخاری‎, ‎) (19 July 810 – 1 September 870) is highly regarded by Sunni Muslims for collecting the most authentic collection of hadiths. He finished his collection around 846 AD, more than 200 years after the death of the Prophet Mohammad PBUH.

Most Sunnis tell me that Bukhari was wildly respected and revered in his time. However, not many know that he was at one point imprisoned and then driven out of the city by the Hadith scholars of his time. This is because he preached that one’s recitation of the Qur’an is created, whilst the Qur’an itself is uncreated.

Bukhari also preached the doctrine of predestination (similar to Calvinism). This is a doctrine that all of one’s actions are ultimately controlled by God and God alone.

According to Ibn Hajar, Bukhari signified that if someone was to accept autonomy in creating his acts, he would be assumed to be playing God’s role and so would subsequently be declared a polytheist.

Thus Bukhari preached against free will and individual accountability, a concept that the Quran highly promotes. (3:182), (18:29).


Wahab, Muhammad Rashidi, and Syed Hadzrullathfi Syed Omar. “Peringkat Pemikiran Imam al-Ash’ari Dalam Akidah.” International Journal of Islamic Thought 3 (2013): 58-70. “Disebabkan itu, al- Bukhari dalam kebanyakan perkara berkaitan dengan persoalan akidah dikatakan akan mengambil pendapat Ibn Kullab dan al-Karabisi(al-‘Asqalani 2001: 1/293)”

Azmi, Ahmad Sanusi. “Ahl al-Hadith Methodologies on Qur’anic Discourses in the Ninth Century: A Comparative Analysis of Ibn Hanbal and al-Bukhari.” Online Journal of Research in Islamic Studies 4.1 (2017): 17-26.


50 Horrific Hadiths 

Most often when people cite their reasons for leaving Islam, they cite some horrific authentic hadith they read, such as the hadith where Mohammad PBUH is telling people to drink camel urine (an import from Zoroastrianism) or when Mohammad PBUH is stoning to death a monkey.



These are God’s verses which we recite unto you [O Muhammad] truthfully. Therefore, in which HADITH other than GOD and His verses do they believe in? (45:6

And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord: none can change His Words, and none wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him. (18:27)

Say: “Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? – when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail.” They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt. (6:114)

The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all. (6:115)

The Quran warns against those who will break down its message into portions and treat it as an uncomplete message. 

Just as We had revealed [scriptures] to the separators. Those who break the Qur’an into parts. Them, by thy Lord, We shall question, every one. (15:90-92).


There is much more to say on this topic, but I will stop here. People say that the Hadith is necessary to practice the Deen, but given that most of it wasn’t written and compiled until 2 centuries after the Prophet Mohammad PBUH’s death, how did those people in the first two centuries of Islam function according to this logic? If anything, the Muslim people experienced immense success in the growth of their civilization before any hadith was collected and written down.

The Quran has instructions for all the things that are necessary to practicing the Deen. It is a simple text that relies on people to use their own common sense and judgment to figure things out. We don’t need to be told what foot should we should use to step into the bathroom or what side we should sleep on. This is all minutia.

Everything we need to know to practice our faith is full and complete in the Quran. 

For the important matters such as how to pray, give charity, fast and do the hajj, there is some great advice here. 

Does Quran Verse 2:54 Refer to a Death Penalty for Apostasy?

Verse 2:54 of the Quran is a contentious one because it says the following in the standard Quran translations:

Word by word grammar and Arabic of verse 

Sahih International: And [recall] when Moses said to his people, “O my people, indeed you have wronged yourselves by your taking of the calf [for worship]. So repent to your Creator and kill yourselves. That is best for [all of] you in the sight of your Creator.” Then He accepted your repentance; indeed, He is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.

Pickthall: And when Moses said unto his people: O my people! Ye have wronged yourselves by your choosing of the calf (for worship) so turn in penitence to your Creator, and kill (the guilty) yourselves. That will be best for you with your Creator and He will relent toward you. Lo! He is the Relenting, the Merciful.

Yusuf Ali: And remember Moses said to his people: “O my people! Ye have indeed wronged yourselves by your worship of the calf: So turn (in repentance) to your Maker, and slay yourselves (the wrong-doers); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker.” Then He turned towards you (in forgiveness): For He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.

Shakir: And when Musa said to his people: O my people! you have surely been unjust to yourselves by taking the calf (for a god), therefore turn to your Creator (penitently), so kill your people, that is best for you with your Creator: so He turned to you (mercifully), for surely He is the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

Some have said that this is the justification for having a death penalty for apostasy, as described in the Hadith. Therefore, I think it is important to examine this verse and whether this may or may not be true. Indeed if one takes the hadith as a divine authority, they would accept that the penalty for apostasy is death.

Hadith al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

Narrated by Ikrima: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) abandons his religion, kill him.’”

However, if one does not take the Hadith as a divine authority, and only the Quran, or the Quran above the Hadith, one might come to a different conclusion.


Edip Yuksel seeks to understand and translate the Quran outside of the influence of the Hadith. He has written and published Quran: a Reformist Translation. Buy it here on Amazon. Read the PDF here for free.

Disclaimer: I’m not saying I necessarily agree with this. I am just examining his argument. 

Here is his argument below: 

Ego, the self-exaggerating or self-worshiping self, should be avoided while the realist
or appreciative self should be nourished. It is astonishing to see that many translations of the Quran render the phrase uqtulu anfusakum as “kill each other.”

How could they not notice thirty verses down, that is, the 84th and 85th verses of this very chapter [“Do not shed each other’s blood”]? The Arabic word nafs is a multiple-meaning word and its intended meaning can be inferred by considering its proximate context consistent with the entire text of the scripture. The multiple meanings ascribed to the word nafs (person) suggest that our personhood is a complex program with multiple layers and one part of it, the ego, needs to be controlled with reason and submission to God alone.

However, there is another way. We should be open to read the text of the scripture without being restricted to the traditionally codified readings. We should be
able to read the oldest texts that do not contain dots or vowels, in all possible readings, with the condition that they fit the context well and do not create internal or external contradictions within the ayat (signs) of the scripture or the ayat of nature.

There is a divine blessing and purpose in such flexibility. For instance, we might read the following verses differently. If the alternative readings change the
meaning dramatically, they are exclusive.

However, sometimes both alternative readings can co-exist at the same time. One of the following, however, is a linguistic marvel; with its four alternative combinations, it excludes and includes at the same time, depending on the reference of the key word
(3:7)! The following is a sample list:

• 2:243 Kharaju or Khuriju (inclusive)
• 3:7 Putting full stop after the word God
and/or not stopping after the word God
(both exclusive and inclusive!)
• 5:43; 5:6 Arjulakum or Arjulikum
• 11:46 Amalun or Amila (inclusive)
• 21:112 Qala or Qul (exclusive)
• 30:1 Yaglibun or Yughlabun (exclusive)
• 42:52 Nashau or Yashau (inclusive)
• 54:3 Kullu or Kulla (inclusive)
• 74:24 Yuthir or Yuthar (inclusive)

Kitab or Kutub (inclusive or exclusive) in numerous verses

Let’s now discuss the alternative reading we are suggesting for 2:54.

The expression faqtulu anfusakum is traditionally mistranslated as “kill yourselves” or “kill each other” and it contradicts a proximate verse (2:84); thus, we may choose to translate the word nafs as “ego.” If we prefer consistency in using “person/self” for translation of nafs, then we may follow the following alternative reading: Faqbilu anfusakum, that is, “turn to yourselves,” or “accept yourselves,” or “face yourselves.” To discover other examples of different yet consistent and meaningful readings, we are hoping to systematically study the entire Quran in the future.


When the Prophet Mohammad was reciting the Quran, he was speaking to people who were well aware of the stories in the Old and New Testament. Thus, to read the Quran without awareness of the Old and New Testament is to read the text without much of its context. Let us examine the story of the Golden Calf in the Old Testament.

The golden calf was worshipped by the Hebrews during the period of Exodus from Egypt in the 13th century BC and during the age of Jeroboam I, king of Israel, in the 10th century BC. Mentioned in Exodus 32 and I Kings 12 in the Old Testament, worship of the golden calf is seen as a supreme act of apostasy, the rejection of a faith once confessed. The figure is probably a representation of the Egyptian bull god Apis in the earlier period and of the Canaanite fertility god Baal in the latter. (Britannica)

In Exodus 32 of the Bible, the Hebrews who escaped Egypt asked Moses’s brother Aaron to fashion up a golden calf during the long absence of Moses on Mount Sinai.

The Lord threatened disaster upon the people for doing this, but Moses begged the Lord to show them forgiveness. So the Lord did not kill them. The second time this happened, and Moses saw what the people were doing, he had the idol melted and made the people drink it.

Then the following happened:

25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. 26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever is for the Lord, come to me.” And all the Levites rallied to him.

27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.” (Bible Gateway)

So the “kill yourselves” in the Quran may refer to Moses’s command for the men in this biblical verse to kill those who were running wild and worshipping the golden calf.



If we are to understand 2:54 in its biblical context, it is a situation where God commanded one of his prophet’s to take a particular action because the particular people were running wild and out of control. Because of this, there were growing threats from the enemies of the people and it had become a matter of safety and survival to subdue them in that particular situation.

However, there is no law in the Quran mandating this into the civil laws of everyday human beings. If anything the Quran speaks against the compulsion of religion. has some good responses to this, so I will share some of what they said instead of reinventing the wheel. Be sure to read the articles on their website.

Does the Quran authorise ‘hadd al-riddah’?

How “quranic” is the death penalty for apostasy?

Here shall be no compulsion in religion. 2:256 (word by word grammar and Arabic of verse)

These words confirm that no one is to be forced to believe nor punished for disbelieving.

Say, “The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills shall believe and whoever wills shall disbelieve. We have prepared for the transgressors a Fire whose walls will surround them. If they call for help, they will be helped with a liquid like molten brass that scalds the faces. What a miserable drink and a terrible resting place! 18:29 (word by word grammar and Arabic of verse)

Once again, confirming that God gives complete freedom to all people to either believe or disbelieve, then it is God who punishes the disbelievers and not the humans.

How can God guide people who disbelieved after their belief, when they had already witnessed that the messenger was truthful, and when clear proofs had come to them? God does not guide the transgressing people. The penalty for those is that God’s curse will be upon them, as well as the angels, and all the people. Therein they shall permanently remain. The punishment will not be lightened for them, nor will they be granted respite, except for those who repent after that and reform, then indeed, God is Forgiver, Merciful. 3:86-89

The words (disbelieved after their belief) in 3:86 clearly speak of those who abandon their faith after having been believers. (word by word grammar and Arabic of verse)

Then, in 3:89 we read about those who repent after disbelieving and that they are forgiven by God. The question is, how would they have the opportunity to repent and be forgiven if they were killed for disbelieving?

The promoters of the ‘hadd al-riddah’ try to wiggle out of this tricky situation by saying that the repentance can take place just before they are to be killed.

Immediately, the Quran exposes their false claim. The fact that God says in 3:89 that He forgives them excludes those who are sentenced to death then repent just before being executed. This is because the words in 4:18 state that repentance is not accepted by those who repent when they feel death coming.

Finally, the following verse totally demolishes any remnants of the notorious non Quranic ‘hadd al-riddah’:

Those who believed, then disbelieved, then believed, then disbelieved, then increased in disbelief, God is not to forgive them, nor will He guide them to a path. 4:137 (word by word grammar and Arabic of verse)

The obvious question is: If a murtad (a Muslim who deserts Islam) was to be killed, how then would anyone believe, then disbelieve, then believe, then disbelieve? Surely after the first episode of disbelief his head would have been chopped off?


How can one believe the Quran states, “Here shall be no compulsion in religion (2:256), while simultaneously believing that the penalty for apostasy is death? A view populated by scholars is that the later revealed verses of the Quran abrogate verses that were revealed at an earlier point.

It is difficult for me to fathom that an omniscient, all knowing all powerful God would change His mind in the short period of the 23 years of Mohammad’s prophethood.

The following verse is used to promote this principle of abrogation.
“We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent (2:106)?” has a great response to this as well.

The word translated to “verse” here also means “sign.” So the verse could actually be saying:

Whichever ‘ayat’ (miracle/sign) We instate or cause to be forgotten, We replace it with that which is better than it or similar to it. Did you not know that God is Capable of all things?

The idea that verses of the Quran can abrogate themselves also contradicts the following other verses:

A.L.R. A Book whose verses have been perfected. 11:1 (word by word grammar and Arabic of verse)
There is no changing the Words of God. 10:64  (word by word grammar and Arabic of verse)

How is it that the Quran is the well preserved word of God, but is simultaneously so difficult to understand and contradictory that we need Hadith to understand it?

How could the Quran be a book that is perfected and the unchanging word of God if it changes over a short period of some 23 years? Some may say this was to reflect the changing conditions Mohammad and the Muslims faced. And yet even so, there is not a single command in the Quran for people to insert the death penalty for apostasy in their legal systems.

The Quran makes it clear that human life is precious.

“Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.” – Quran 5:32

That’s not to say there are no punishments for murder in the Quran 2:178. The Quran also gives people the right to kill others in warfare and self defense. 22:39. 2:190.

But there is nothing I see clearly giving people the command to put the death penalty for apostasy in their legal systems. And such a punishment seems to contradict the verses of the Quran if the Quran is to be read as a comprehensive, complete and non-contradictory text from God most high.


I am hesitant to agree with Edip Yuksel’s conclusion that 2:54 means “kill your ego,” because it is an interpretation made out of context of the story that Mohammad is referring to in the Old Testament, which clearly discusses the people killing each other.

My own analysis is that in 2:54 the Prophet Mohammad was referring to an instance in which God commanded Moses to kill those among his people who were running wild and causing havoc. For all we know, these people were violent as well, since they forced Aaron to construct that calf under violent threats. There are many instances in the Quran where God punished a wildly arrogant, idolatrous and impudent people with his power. But this is the power of God and God alone (and in the case of 2:54, something God did through Moses). But it is not a power given to human beings to wield over each other, and it certainly does not seem to be something that the Quran was telling us to put in place in our legal systems.

Are Zina and Fornication Different Things?

Within the Islamic tradition, the sin of zina is classified as both “adultery” and “fornication.” Now make no mistake, in this blog entry I’m not trying to make some argument that fornication is acceptable. I’m simply asking the question, does zina always include fornication, or is zina specifically adultery? 

Here are some verses that might highlight this point. 

#1) The punishment for women who commit fahisha (general sexual indecency) and zina in the Quran are different. 

Here is the punishment for women who commit fahisha: 

If any of your women are guilty of fahisha, take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. (4:15)

Here is the punishment for women who commit zina: 

The woman and the man guilty of zina,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. (24:2)

The punishment of a man for both things is lashing, but for a woman the punishments are different. If all lewd sexual conduct was zina, then why are the punishments for fahisha and zina different?

There are also a lot more instances of fahisha used in the Quran, to refer to various types of sexual lewdness. And much less use of the word zina.  If they both meant the same thing, wouldn’t they be used with similar frequency? 

#2) The 11th-century Islamic scholar, Al-Thaʿlabi wrote that verses 17:22-39 of the Quran refer to the ten commandments. Zina is mentioned in these verses. And the ten commandments forbids adultery specifically. 

And do not approach zina. Indeed it is ever an immorality and is evil as a way. (17:32)

#3) Bishop Sebeos, Bishop of the Bagratunis stated the following about Mohammad in 660 AD:  “Muhammad legislated that they were not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsehoods, and not to commit adultery.”

This is not exact proof that zina is specifically adultery. But it certainly raises questions. Zina is spoken of in the Quran much more harshly than fahisha and even punished more severely. Therefore, I’m inclined not to think that all fahisha is zina. But rather zina is a type of fahisha (most likely adultery given the contextual and historical evidence). 

How did zina come to be associated with fornication? I believe that over time, as people tried to justify the punishment of hadith for adultery (stoning) they skewed the meaning of adultery in the Quran. Because the punishment for adultery or zina in the Quran is clearly described in Surah An Nur (Chapter 24), and it isn’t stoning to death. However, if scholars could make some claim that the punishment of Surah An Nur was fornication, then they could keep the stoning for adultery and do lashings for fornication. 

Also, the word zina may have changed over time due to Persian influence. Just as English words change. For instance, if I called you a “villain” today, it would mean something different than if I called you a “villain” in Shakespearean England. 

Different Meanings of Zina in Arabic and Persian

Here’s something interesting from Dr Kashif Khan

Quranic word “زنا” (zina) is an active participle of Arabic verb “زَنَ” (zna) which is derived out of proto root “زن” (za nun) and correctly means: suppressing, pressing with weight, pressurising or retaining someone by force or restricting someone, droning, buzzing, rushing over, disturbance, uproar, purgatory, making hell and gehenna etc.

Hence, Arabic word “زن” (zan) means “weight”, which is seen in the word “وزن” (wazan) and popular Arabic idiom “زن زائد” (zan zaid) is taken to mean “overweight” in everyday Arabic language.

Whereas, similar Persian word “زن” (zan) means “woman” in Persian language, from where “زنا” (zina) becomes “womanize” or “womanizing” to mean “engaging in sexual affairs” and under the Persian influenced Islamic Caliphates the Persian Imams replaced Arabic word “زنا” (zina) with Persian word “زنا” (zina) in the understanding and translation of Arabic Quran. Since then Quranic word “زنا” (zina) is falsely taken to mean: fornication, adultery, extramarital sexual relation or sexual intercourse outside marriage etc. 

Basics on the Byzantine Empire

“The Byzantine Empire was an expansive landmass that historians, archeologists, demographers, and cartographers alike are enamored with. Born as a Roman colony named Byzantium, it would undergo a name change to Constantinople in 330 CE by Constantine I. What made the city of Constantinople so valuable was its location between Europe and Asia. When overlaid with the modern geopolitical map, the Empire covered Egypt, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey to name a few. While the Empire grew and shrank its boundaries with time, trade was its lifeblood due to its location, which is now known as the city of Istanbul.”

Go Here For More Information

The Ten Commandments in the Quran

The ten commandments in the Old Testament and the Bible are of fundamental significance for religions and cultures based on the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is a microcosm of God’s covenant with humanity. 

Does the Quran refer to the ten commandments? 

First, let me share the Ten Commandments from Exodus in the Bible: 

The Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:1–17 read as follows:

And God spoke all these words, saying, ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

[1] You shall have no other gods before (or: besides) me.

[2]  You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the
children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

[3] You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the
Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

[4] Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall
labour, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to
the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son,
or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your
livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six
days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them,
and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath
day and made it holy.

[5] Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long
in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

[6]  You shall not murder.

[7]  You shall not commit adultery.

[8] You shall not steal.

[9] You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

[10]  You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet
your neighbour’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or
his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbour’s.’

The Ten Commandments are reinforced in the New Testament. Jesus, who refers to them as simply ‘The Commandments’ (Mark 10:19), proclaimed them as binding under the New Law and provided a short list of them (Matthew 19:17–19).

References to the Ten Commandments, or God’s Covenant, in the Quran

Q. 2:83–84 

And remember We took a covenant from the Children of Israel (to this effect): Worship none but Allah; treat with kindness your parents and kindred, and orphans and those in need; speak fair to the people; be steadfast in prayer; and practise regular charity. Then did ye turn back, except a few among you, and ye backslide (even now).

And remember We took your covenant (to this effect): Shed no blood amongst you, nor turn out your own people from your homes: and this ye solemnly ratified, and to this ye can bear witness.

Q. 7:142–145

We appointed for Moses thirty nights, and completed (the period) with ten (more): thus was completed the term (of communion) with his Lord, forty nights. And Moses had charged his brother Aaron (before he went up): “Act for me amongst my people: Do right, and follow not the way of those who do mischief.”

When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: “O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee.” Allah said: “By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me.” When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: “Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe.”

(Allah) said: “O Moses! I have chosen thee above (other) men, by the mission I (have given thee) and the words I (have spoken to thee): take then the (revelation) which I give thee, and be of those who give thanks.”

And We ordained laws for him in the tablets in all matters, both commanding and explaining all things, (and said): “Take and hold these with firmness, and enjoin thy people to hold fast by the best in the precepts: soon shall I show you the homes of the wicked,- (How they lie desolate).”

The Ten Commandments in the Quran According to Al-Thaʿlabi

The 11th-century Islamic scholar, Al-Thaʿlabi, wrote extensively on this subject in his popular work (‘The Legends of Pre-Islamic Prophets’). Side Note: Al-Thaʿlabi wrote an interesting story about the ten commandments involving the angel Gabriel making tablets out of a tree in paradise and then giving Moses a pen made out of light that stretched all the way from Earth to Heaven. 

Al-Thaʿlabi describes the commandments as being in Quran verses 17:22-39: 

(22) Set not up with God another god, or thou wilt sit condemned
and forsaken.


[1] You shall not serve any but Him, and to

[2] Be good to parents, whether one or both of them attains old age with
thee; Say not to them ‘Fie’ Neither chide them, but Speak unto them words respectful, (24) and Lower to them the wing of humbleness out of mercy and say, ‘My Lord, have mercy upon them, as they raised me up when I was little.’ (25) Your Lord knows very well what is in your hearts if you are righteous, for He is All-forgiving to those who are penitent. (26) And

[3] Give the kinsman his right, and the needy, and the traveller; and
Never squander; (27) the squanderers are brothers of Satan, and
Satan is unthankful to his Lord. (28) But if thou turnest from them,
seeking mercy from thy Lord that thou hopest for, then speak unto
them gentle words. (29) And Keep not thy hand chained to thy neck, nor outspread it widespread altogether, or thou wilt sit reproached and denuded. (30) Surely thy
Lord outspreads and straitens His provision unto whom He will;
surely He is aware of and sees His servants. (31) And

[4] Slay not your children for fear of poverty; We will provide for you
and them; surely the slaying of them is a grievous sin. (32) And

[5] Approach not fornication; surely it is an indecency, and evil as a way. (33) And

[6] Slay not the soul God has forbidden [to be killed], except by right.
Whosoever is slain unjustly, We have appointed to his next-of-kin
authority; but let him not exceed in slaying; he shall be helped. (34)

[7] Do not approach the property of the orphan, save in the fairest
manner, until he is of age. And fulfil the covenant; surely the
covenant shall be questioned of. (35) And

[8] Fill up the measure when you measure, and weigh with the straight
balance; that is better and fairer in the issue. (36) And

[9] Pursue not that thou hast no knowledge of; the hearing, the sight,
the heart – all of those shall be questioned of. (37) And

[10] Walk not in the earth exultantly; certainly thou wilt never tear the
earth open, nor attain the mountains in height. (38) All of that – the
wickedness of it is hateful in the sight of thy Lord.


Set not up with God another god, or thou wilt be cast into Hell,
reproached and rejected.

Al-Thaʿlabi also describes the commandments as being in 6:151-3

(151) Say: ‘Come, I will recite WHAT YOUR LORD HAS
FORBIDDEN YOU;’ that you

[1] Associate not anything with Him, and to

[2] Be good to your parents, and

[3] Slay not your children because of poverty; We will provide you and
them; and that you

[4] Approach not any indecency outward or inward, and that you

[5] Slay not the soul God has forbidden, except by right. That then He
has charged you with; haply you will understand. (152) And that you

[6] Approach not the property of the orphan, save in the fairer manner,
until he is of age. And

[7] Fill up the measure and the balance with justice. We charge not any
soul save to its capacity. And when you speak,

[8] Be just, even if it should be to a near kinsman. And

[9] Fulfil God’s covenant. That then He has charged you with; haply
you will remember.

(153) And that [10] THIS IS MY PATH, STRAIGHT;
they scatter you from His path. That then He has charged you with;
haply you will be godfearing.’ 

The Ten Commandments in the Quran According to Al-Suyuti

15th Century scholar Al-Suyuti states the following in Al-Itqān fi ‘Ulum Al-Qur’an (translated into English as The Perfect Guide to the Sciences of the Qur’an):

Some scholars said: ‘This means that these ayas [of Surah al-Anam]
comprise the very first ten verses that God wrote for Moses in the
Torah. They are [as follows]:

[1] The affirmation that there is no other god but God (tawhıd Allah);
The prohibition of:
[2] Polytheism (shirk);
[3] [Pronouncing] a false oath (al-yamın al-kadhiba);
[4] Dishonouring one’s parents (uquq);
[5] Murder (qatl);
[6] Adultery (zina);
[7] Stealing (sariqa);
[8] Bearing false witness (zur);
[9] Desiring that which belongs to others (madd al-ayn ila ma fı yad alghayr); and
[10] The command to honour Saturday [as a day without work] (al-amr bi ta zim al-sabt).

The Ten Commandments and their Quranic Equivalents According to Al-akım al-Tirmidhı 

The 10th-century scholar Al-akım al-Tirmidhı studied prophetic tradition, mysticism, and promoted the idea of an intimate connection between Biblical Decalogue and the text of the Quran. He provided Quranic verses and their equivalents in the 10 commandments: 

[1] Whoso associates with God anything, God shall prohibit him
entrance to Paradise, and his refuge shall be fire; and wrongdoers
shall have no helpers [Q. 5:72];

[2] God declared about parents: Be thankful to Me and to thy parents; to
Me is the homecoming [Q. 31:14];

[3] He said about murderers [sing. al-qatil]: And whoso slays a believer
wilfully, his recompense is Hell, therein dwelling for ever, and God
will be wroth with him and will curse him, and prepare for him a
mighty chastisement [Q. 4:93];

[4] and about the oath (al-hilf): Do not make God a hindrance, through
your oath, [to being pious and godfearing, and putting things right
between people] [Q. 2:224];

[5] and about the testimony [that there is no other god but God]
(shahada): Pursue not that [which] thou hast no knowledge of; the
hearing, the sight, the heart – all those shall be questioned of
[Q. 17:36]

The Ten Commandments and their Quranic Equivalents According to Al-Kisai

Al Kisai penned the work Qiṣas al-‘Anbiyā’ (Arabic: قصص الأنبياء‎) or Stories of the Prophets. 

He provides the Quranic equivalents of the ten commandments: 

[1] ‘O Moses, I am God. There is no God but I. Worship Me and
associate not anything with Me …’ Ibn Abbas said: The equivalent of
this in the Qur’an is: Be thankful to Me, and to
thy parents; to Me is the homecoming [Q. 31:14].

[2] ‘O Moses, kill not an inviolate soul except rightfully …’ The
equivalent of this in the Qur’an is: And whoso slays a believer
wilfully, his recompense is hell … [Q. 4:93].

[3] ‘O Moses, steal not what belongs to another …’ Ibn Abbas said:
The equivalent of this in the Qur’an is: And the thief, male and
female, cut the hands of both … [Q. 5:38].’

[4] ‘O Moses, commit not fornication with your neighbour’s wife.’ The
equivalent of this in the Qur’an is: Any one of you who has not the
affluence to be able to marry believing freewomen in wedlock, let him
take believing handmaids that your right hand owns … [Q. 4:25].

[5] ‘O Moses, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ Ibn Abbas said: The equivalent of this in the Qur’an is: The believers indeed are brothers; so set things right between your brothers …[Q. 49:10].

[6] ‘O Moses, eat not that over which my name has not been spoken.’ Ibn
Abbas said: The equivalent of this in the Qur’an is: And eat not of
that over which God’s Name has not been mentioned … [Q. 6:121].

[7] ‘O Moses, give yourself leisure to worship me on the Sabbath day.’
Ibn Abbas said: And well you know there were those among you that
transgressed the Sabbath … [Q. 2:65].

Sources for this article: 

O People of the Scripture! Come to a Word Common to You and Us (Q. 3:64): The Ten Commandments and the Qur’an. Sebastian Gunther. University of Toronto. 

The Majority is Not a Criterion of Truth – Quran Quotes

Often when people have an interpretation or idea that is different from the majority, they get told they can’t possibly be right (because everyone else isn’t doing it that way).

We must keep in mind there was a time when the majority of people thought the sun went around the Earth. And when Gallileo had the courage to speak against this, he was imprisoned by the Catholic Church.

When a large number of other Muslims begin to practice their religion in a way that is un-Islamicincorporating cultural or traditional practices that are not part of the faithwe must have the courage to stand for what is right. Even if we must stand alone. Because we are here to follow God, not people.


6:116….And if you obey most of those on the earth they will lead you away from the path of God; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess.
2:100…the majority do not believe (in The One God)
2:243…majority are ungrateful.
3:110…the majority are wicked.
4:114…the majority whispers lies.
5:32…..the majority are transgressors
5:49…..majority are wicked
5:59…..majority are wicked
5:62…..the majority hasten to sin and transgression and consuming money illicitly. Miserable indeed is what they were doing.
5:64…..the majority are rebels and rejectors
5:66…..the majority practice on indecency.
5:71…..the majority are blind and deaf;
5:81…..the majority are wicked
5:103…the majority do not use common sense.
6:37…..the majority do not understand
6:111…the majority do not understand
6:116…the majority would lead you astray they follow nothing but mere surmise and they do nothing but make conjectures.
6:119…the majority wants to mislead you with their interests.
7:17…..the majority are ungrateful
7:102…the majority are fasikun
7:131…majority do not actually know.
7:187…majority do not actually know
8:34…..the majority do not actually know.
9:8…….the majority is wicked.
10:36…the majority following conjecture.
10:55…the majority do not actually know
10:60…the majority are ungrateful
10:92…the majority are heedless..
11:17…the majority do not believe the Quran.
12:21…the majority do not actually know
12:38…the majority are ungrateful
12:40…the majority do not actually know.
12:68 ..majority do not actually know.
12:103.the majority do not believe
12:106.the majority associating The One God.
13:1…..the majority do not believe
16:38…the majority do not actually know.
16:75…the majority do not actually know.
16:83…the majority are Kufr
16:101.majority do not actually know.
17:89…the majority are Kufr
21:24…the majority do not know what is right and wrong.
21:93…the majority disintegrated because of their made religion.
23:70…the majority do not like the truth.
25:44…majority are more astrayed than livestocks.
25:50…the majority do not want to hear the truth but continue to deny.
26:8…..the majority do not believe.
26:121.the majority do not believe
26:139.the majority do not believe
26:158.the majority do not believe.
26:174.the majority do not believe.
26:190.the majority do not believe.
27:61…majority actually do not know.
27:73…the majority are ungrateful
28:13…the majority do not actually know
28:57…the majority do not actually know
29:63…the majority did not really understand
30:6…..the majority actually do not know …
30:30…the majority do not actually know
30:42…the majority are actually polytheists
31:25…the majority do not actually know
33:72…the majority were wrong and like to do wrongs.
34:28…the majority do not actually know
34:36…the majority do not actually know
34:41…the majority serving the Jinn.
36:7…..the majority do not believe
37:71…the majority of the past are misguided
39:29…the majority do not actually know
39:49…the majority do not actually know
40:57…the majority do not actually know
40:59…the majority do not believe
40:61…majority ungrateful
41:4…..the majority turned disobedient
43:78…the majority do not like the truth
44:39…the majority do not actually know
45:26…the majority do not actually know
49:4…..the majority do not understand.
52:47…the majority do not actually know
57:26…the majority are wicked
71:24…the majority are astrayed by leaders who have increasingly in loss due to their property and children.
89:15…the majority of people when tried by his Lord to honor him and favoring his life, saith: “My Lord has honored me!”