Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Clearing Some Misguided Understanding Of Al Hadeeth An Nabawiy

Clearing Some Misguided Understanding Of Al Hadeeth An Nabawiy

Apparently, the Anti Hadeeth is in bed with some American Evengelical Christians in defaming the good name of Al Hadeeth. The Anti Hadeeth sect apparently speak in the same tone with their “Jerry Fallwell”’s counterpart when commenting on a number of hadeeth.

Here, I wish to list down some of the accusations and try to provide the true explanation of the hadeeth.

1.0 How do you explain Bukhari vol. IV, no. 543 where it states that Adam was 60 cubits tall?

EXPLANATION: The more complete wording in al-Bukhari and Muslim adds "in the heaven" (fi al-Sama'), i.e. in an other-worldly context. Similarly, when the Prophet saw Ibrahim (AS) in the heaven he said he was so tall that he could hardly see his head as narrated from Samura ibn Jundub in Sahih al-Bukhari.

2.0 Satan lives in the nose over night. He can be flushed out if you snort water up and then out the nose. (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 516; Muslim vol. I, no. 462) How big is Satan? Is he in everyone's nose? Is he omnipresent?

EXPLANATION : That's right. There are satans up our noses. But only in the noses of “smucks” who makes an issue out of this hadeeth. “Devil” is another way of representing danger or "dirtiness". The "devil" by itself is considered as “unclean” in Islam, so in this context of the hadeeth, it is used in place of smudge or dirt. The trouble with Anti hadeeth and their Evengelical counterparts is that they take the Hadeeth from it’s translation.

3.0 Muhammad forbade the game of chess! (Muslim vol. IV, no. 5612)

EXPLANATION : No he didn't. Read the hadeeth properly next time and stop reading it from it's translation

4.0 Muslims have one intestine while non-Muslims have seven! (Muslim vol. III, no. 5113-5115)

EXPLANATION : Another way of explaining 05:03 in the Quran. It shows that a Muslim is limited in terms of the things he can eat and drink as opposed to non muslims. This is another example of Majaz. Taking it in it's literal form is either stupid or very stupid.

5.0 Fevers are from the fire of hell and can be cooled by water.(Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 483,486)

EXPLANATION : I've explained this before, it's a common saying among Arabs at that time that when one has a high fever, one is having a heat from hell. Another idiotic understanding of the hadeeth taken literally from it’s translation.

6.0 If you lift up your eyes towards heaven while praying, your eyes will be snatched out!

EXPLANATION : Another example of “Majaz”. Anyone taking the hadeeth literarily is either blind or should blind himself like Kassim Selamat, for his/her eyes is useless.

Ampunkan mak Kassim

7.0 We should drink camel urine as a medicine

EXPLANATION : We should? The hadeeth doesn't say that it applies to all? Anyways, it's another form of the Prophet's miracle

8.0 A She-Monkey gets stoned / condemned, for 'adultery??! (Islam recognises human moral laws for the animal kingdom!!!). Narrated Amru bin Maimun: "During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it - the she monkey had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them."

EXPLANATION : Secular-Liberalists feels very offended by this hadeeth because they have to accept the fact that their value system is lower than that of monkeys. Even monkeys regard adultery as a crime punishable by death. They, on the other hands, view it as tolerable or acceptable. Kindda like pigs.

9.0 Muhammad was a dog hater. He thought that angels could not enter a house if a dog was there and that black dogs were devils. Thus he ordered dogs to be killed and forbid the selling of dogs. Why were only black dogs supposedl;y possessed by shaitans/devils in Islam?

EXPLANATION : The term "black dog" is another way of expressing "fierce looking dogs". And the word "devil" is used to mean "extreme danger". As much as we know that a devil is dangerous, we should also regard a "fierce dog" as dangerous. Nowadays, dogs that has been caught biting onto a human will be put to death summararily. The practice is common until today.

10.0 People turn into rats, pigs and monkeys. (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 524, 627; Muslim vol. IV, no. 7135). Abraham's father was turned into an animal (Bukhari vol. IV, no.569)

EXPLANATION : The Quran says that Jews were turned into apes, 02:65. So, what is so unusual about these Al Hadeeth? God can change anyone into anything and there are many verses in the Quran about it. For example, the example of Moses staff turning into snakes.

Read more!

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

More Issues On Anti Hadeeth Methodology


9.0 Anti Hadeeth claims that books on Arabic grammar and language should not be used in interpreting and understanding the Quran. We must let the Quran explain itself.

REPLY: This is the funniest statement ever made by the Anti Hadeeth sect. The humor sticks out like a sore thumb after one understands the process explained below:


Major Translators of Quran learns Arabic from grammar books written by people (except Anti Hadeeth translators, of course).


They translate the Quran based on what they learned from the Arabic grammar books and others


Anti Hadeeth exponents reads the translations to try to understand the Quran


Anti Hadeeth derive rules, regulations and methodologies in understanding the Quran


Anti hadeeth says that Arabic Grammar books are written by humans and therefore they cannot be used to understand the Quran.

BUT, all that the Anti Hadeeth has understood of the Quran comes from translations based upon the rules written in these grammar books?

In other words, anti hadeeth has effectively rejected everything they’ve come to understand from the Quran. This is the humor.

10.0 But, what about translations from the likes of Rashad Khalifah. They too have translation of the Quran

REPLY: Rashad’s work is a translation upon translation of the Quran. In other words, he writes his translation by reading other translation of the Quran. So, his translation can be summed up as the translation of the translation of the Quran.

That also explains why Rashad’s translation is “politically correct” from the perspective of secular liberalists.

For instance, the verse 16:44, Rashad translates as

(Rashad) ….And we sent down to you this message, to proclaim for the people……..

Compare it with the other reliable translators:

(Yusuf Ali)………and We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them…………..

(Pickhall)…… Remembrance that thou mayst explain to mankind that which hath been revealed for them……”

Noticed that Rashad deliberately change the the word “to explain” to become “to proclaim” simply to justify his demented and backward anti hadeeth ideology. He knows that if the meaning of 16:44 is not twisted beyond recognition, it will serve as a deadly blow to his twisted anti hadeeth ideology.

Such is the reason why I say that when quoting translation of the Quran, do not quote Rashad’s along with the other names as Rashad’s translation is not ion the same stature of the rest.

Rashad’s can be characterized as plagerized from other translation while inserting his demented and sick anti hadeeth ideology.

11.0 Why does the Anti Hadeeth needs to reject Arabic Grammar and basically the entire discipline of the Arabic language?

REPLY: If the actual Arabic language methodology is used, then the Quran cannot be interpreted as they will. The Quran will also have to be understood contradictory to their sick and demented ideology. One example is quoted above in my commentary on Rashad Khalifa’ translation.

Other examples are as such:

  1. They cannot claim that Al Kitab and Kitab is the same anymore. This destroys many of their interpretation of the Quran.
  2. They cannot claim that Al Kitab and Al Hikmah is the same anymore. This will force them to accept the Al Hadeeth as Revelations from God.
  3. They cannot claim that “faqtulu anfusakum” as “ neutralize your ego”
  4. They cannot claim that masjid and yasjudan means the same; submission
  5. They cannot claim that Ar Ruh is Al Ilm because it just doesn’t make sense
  6. They cannot claim that there is no Majaz in the Quran
  7. They cannot claim that there is no Balaghah in the Quran
  8. They cannot claim that wau atfa in the Quran has no significance in terms of meaning.
  9. They cannot claim that “faqtau aidiyahuma” as cutting of their means of living
  10. They cannot claim that there is no aborogation in the Quran
  11. They cannot claim that there is no Al Am Wal Khas in the Quran
  12. They cannot claim that the Hadeeth of the Prophet contradicts the Quran anymore
  13. They cannot claim that the Quran rejects the AlHadeeth An Nabawiy anymore.

Seeing that the Arabic Language discipline results in the Quran contradicting their ideology, they decide to do the next best thing, to reject the Arabic language itself.

They don’t realize by doing so, they are also rejecting their entire understanding of the Quran. Since, their entire understanding of the Quran is based upon Quran’s translations which is made based upon the Arabic language discipline.

12.0 Anti Hadeeth cited this particular hadeeth as evidence of the hadeeth being stupid:

Narrated 'Aisha:

“The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people)." I said, "You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him"

The likes of True Muslim representing the Anti Hadeeth sect has this to say about this hadeeth:

According to this precious piece of magnificence from Bukhari, women are like dogs and donkeys. And exactly which verse in the Quran is explained by this precious pearl?”

REPLY: Clearly True Muslim and his kind does not have the mental capability to understand a simple hadeeth like this.

The part- “They said, "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman” is something which is mentioned to Saidatina Aisyah by someone else other than the Prophet SAW. The next part “I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla” is meant to refute what Saidatina Aisya has heard.

The hadeeth makes no reference to the Prophet equalizing women with dogs and donkeys. Or maybe the anti hadeeth sect needs to get their eyes examine. While they’re at it why don’t they get their brains checked as well.

CONCLUSION: I’m beginning to appreciate why certain quarters of the ulama resisted the idea of allowing the translation of the Quran. Apparently, they foresaw the appearance of the likes of Anti Hadeeth sect that will do nothing but disrespect and confuse the message of the Quran even more.

It’s safe to say that Anti Hadeeth is a sect that is based upon an English Quran from the Planet Uranuz.

Read more!

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Anti Hadeeth’s Quran is From The Planet Uranus

Anti Hadeeth’s Quran is From The Planet Uranus

After a series of debates with many of the Anti Hadeeth exponents, I have come to one very important discovery - that the Anti Hadeeth’s Quran is not the Quran that was sent down by God. Their Quran comes from the Planet Uranus.

Why do I say this? Because of the way they whimsically rearrange the meaning of the Quran,so much so, they changed completely the message originally intended by a verse. I will quote to you a number of examples below.

But first, allow me to express several observation made during my debate with Anti Hadeeth and a few Anti hadeeth individuals in the forum like Farook, AdmiralTojo, ShameonYou5, LadyMessiah and so on and so forth.

Observation 1: The Anti Hadeeth seems to have mutated into a more disgusting form. The Rashad Khalifah version is bad enough, but, it seems that there is a new mutation led by a new “Prophet” called AididSafar. Among the differences between the group are the prohibition of alcohol, the prohibition of pigs and many more. The Old “Anti Hadeeth” agrees on the prohibition while the new anti hadeeth seems rejects the prohibition.

Observation 2: The Anti-Hadeeth, old and new, relies on the changing of God’s words to support their case and to give a false pretense that their ideology is Quran-based. The sad truth is that their ideology is anything but the Quran. Their sole basis of existence is nothing more than their whimsical interpretation of the Quran’s translation.

Observation 3: They are not very good at answering difficult question related to their ideology. To date, the True Muslim character has failed to provide the readers any significant information as to what constitutes their ideology. At least, the AdmiralTojo character (from the new anti hadeeth clan) is pretty straightforward in his methodology (he is pretty proud of the fact that his sect changes the meaning of the Quran to fit his agenda)

Observation 4: While these people keep reading the verses of the Quran in Arabic, none of their conclusion adheres the Quran, when it is understood in the Arabic language. For Admiraltojo, despite quoting several passages from his “Uranus Based” Quran, he has failed to quote the 10 verses in the Quran that states specifically the language of the Quran. TM, on the other hand, unequivocally rejects the entire Arabic language despite quoting verses from the Quran stating the Quran is in Arabic.

Observation 5: The Anti Hadeeth, new and old, has a sort of superiority complex based upon their notion that the muslims are backwards and under-developed. They seems to feel that the West will accept them should they change and contort Islam into a shape that is liked by the West. (Note : Tell that to the Bosnians).

Observation 6: They seem to have this thing against Arabs. Despite the fact that Rashad Khalifah was an Egyptian Arab. So, I speculate that the old Anti Hadeeth consist of those less hateful of Arabs while the new anti hadeeth are more. I suspect the New Anti Hadeeth is based in Turkey.

Now, let me quote to you several examples that I’ve noticed

1.0 “Al Masjid Al Haram” - They translate it as “Sacred Submission”. They justify by saying that the word “masjid” comes from the word “sajada” which means “to submit”. I quote AdmiralTojo: “As mentioned in the Reading the word sujud means submit or being subservient.”


The word “sajada” means “to prostrate” and not “to submit”. The word “masjid” is means “a place to prostrate”. For example the verse 55:6

“wal-najmu wal-sajaru yasjudan”(55:3-7) – “and the stars and the trees all are prostrating

Prostrating is a physical act, whereby submitting is a concept. Prostrating is specific while submitting is general.

I’m not going to dwell on this topic too long, but suffice to comment on a passage quoted from AididSafr/Admiraltojo and show you how ignorant these people are:

“The forms sujud, yas-judan, sujadan, sajid and masjid derive from the root sajada which means submit. None of these words refers to the act of physical prostration.”

It’s amazing at how anyone can make this type of statement. If they all mean the same, why then are they PRONOUNCED differently?. It doesn’t take an educated man to see the difference between these words. In fact, you don’t have to be educated to see there is a difference in these words. All u need to be is literate. Even an illiterate Arab can tell u that these words are different.

I think from kindergarten we were taught that words means differently because they are meant to refer to different meanings.

Suffice to say, these people would stop at nothing to support their perverted and demented brand of religion, even to the extent of changing the meaning of the Quran.

2.0 In 02:54, they changed the meaning of the word “anfusakum” to either mean “your ego” (from TM) or (your souls) (AdmiralTojo/Aididsafr’s Quran).

TRUTH: It means “yourselves” and it refers to the Bani Israel and their order for them to kill themselves for the crime of apostasy. The word “anfusakum” comes from the word “nafs” which means “oneself”. “Anfusakum” refers to “yourselves” in plural. It could not mean “soul” because “soul” is “ruh” in Arabic. It cannot mean “ego” because “ego” is “ana” or “ilat” or “gharur” in Arabic.

3.0 The main motivation for Anti Hadeeth in changing the meaning of 02:54 is because they have mistakenly went to town telling others that there is no death penalty for apostasy in the Quran. However, when 02:54 was made to light to them, they had to resort to acts of contortioning of the Quran in order to preserve their credibility. Like they have any to start with.

4.0 Anti hadeeth claims that amputation (for the crime of theft) doesn’t exist in the Quran. They change the meaning of the word from “your hands” to “your means of living”

TRUTH : In the Arabic language, the word “Aydi” stands for hands and nothing else. If God wanted to say “ means of living” he would have said so. God doesn’t need Farook, True Muslim, AdmiralTojo and all the Anti Hadeeth to put words in His mouth.

Notice, that the word “Aydi” is given in the “jama’-nakirah” form and not “ma’rifah” form to point to the common meaning of the word “aydi” in the Arabic language. In short, it means “hands”.

5.0 “Al Kitab and Kitab is the same”. They claim that the “Al(alif lam)” at the start of a word is the same with words without it.

TRUTH: Any street Arabs will tell u that this is an idiotic statement. Even idiots among the arabs knows that there is a different between the two. In short, the anti hadeeth has reduced themselves to a level lower than idiots.

6.0 TM renounced “wau atfa” completely. He says that the “wau” between “al kitab” and “al hikmah” does not differentiate between “al kitab” and “al hikmah”. They both can mean the same.

TRUTH: When God says “Wasyamsi wa dhuhaha” is God saying that “the Sun” is the same as “the dusk” (in verse 91:01) ? Does TM assumes that "Asy Syams" is the same as "Ad Dhuha"

7.0 Anti Hadeeth claims that there is only 3 salat in the Quran.

TRUTH: There is more than 3 salah in the Quran BASED ON THE QURAN. Noticed the wordings in the verses I shall quote u below:

a. 11:114 – the word used in “zulufayn” which indicates a quantity of 2,

b. 02:238 – the word used is “salawat” which is “plural” which indicates a quantity of 3.

As a result, the number of salat mentioned in the Quran is at least 3+2 = 5. However u look at it, the Quran has never advocated the idea that there is only 3 salat.

8.0 Lastly, there are other instances like “no Majaz in the Quran” or “al Khamr” does not mean liquor etc which is clearly based upon their abject ignorance of the Arabic language.

Please heed God’s directive on the language of the Quran. 12:02 “We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom.”.

The Anti Hadeeth and it’s spawn or mutations have one fundamental trait: they all interpret their Quran from it’s translation, not in the original language of the Quran.

And, by just writing down how a certain verse is read in Arabic does not constitute the action of understanding the Quran in its original language, Arabic. (One may have noticed that Anti Hadeeth frequently cites the Arabic reading of the Quran in their writings but when they give their interpretation, they completely blew it)

Lastly, to those who are about to start adopting the Anti hadeeth ideology, please aware that their methodology is nothing more than interpreting the Quran directly from the Translations and nothing more. Remember, that the translation of a Quran is not the Quran.

Read more!

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Another Attack on Anti Hadeeth Character Named True Muslim

02/07: True Muslim has truly blown a gasket this time

[print] Category: General
Posted by: Raja Petra
by Rahman Celcom

Before I start, I wish to beg for forgiveness from the readers. I understand how frustrated you are having to go through TM’s rants and spit. Even though he writes plenty, but we are left begging for substance.

Let’s analyze TM’s answers shall we.

TM’S ANSWER 1: “There is no such thing as the al Hadeeth of the Prophet. If you believe that there is such a thing as the al hadeeth of the Prophet, then please show us your proof. The Prophet said in the Quran ‘ Haatu burhanukum inkuntum sadikin’. This means ‘show your proof if you are truthful’.

TRUTH : The proof is simple, go to the bookstore and you will find books of Hadeeth. Right now, no one doubts the existence of hadeeth except for a small group of demented and mentally-besieged individuals in the muslim world who thinks otherwise.

The Quran does one more and that is confirming the DIVINITY of the Hadeeth of Nabi SAW. To which until today, TM has failed to prove otherwise.

Another Proof of existence of Hadeeth Al Nabiy is the Quran itself. The same people that carries the Quran carries the hadeeth too. In short, we receive our Quran in this day of age from the same chain of individuals that carries the hadeeth of the Prophet.

TM’S ANSWER 2: TM rants that the Quran is THE ONLY hadeeth of the Prophet. He then quotes these verses: 69:38 – 40, 39:23 and 39:23.

Truth : Yet none of the verses above states what TM claims. The verses a. Doesn’t deny the existence of the Hadeeth Al Nabiy, b. The verses doesn’t deny the existence of the word of the Prophet c. The verses doesn’t state unequivocally that Prophet’s word is only the Quran, d. In 39:23, the word ahsan means “beautiful” and it is because the quran is consistent yet it can repeat itself. See how these people whimsically twist the meaning of the Quran.

It’s all TM’s whimsical interpretation. That’s why he keeps evading my question abt his methodology of understanding the Quran. At this point, it is safe to say that much, if not all, of TM’s belief is not based on the Quran but simply based upon what he wants the Quran to be.

TM’s ANSWER 3: TM claims that there is no death penalty for apostasy in the Quran and he denies ever making reference to Sigmund Freud

Truth : First, TM needs to get his brains checked. I think he’s having memory lapses. Secondly, I quoted 02:54 which states clearly about death penalty to apostates.

The verse quotes Musa AS as saying …Fatubuilabariikum faqutulu anfusakum…, which means “…make repentance to your Maker and kill yourselves…”.

TM, at one time, says that ..anfusakum.. stands for “one’s ego”. When pressed for reason, he resorted to Sigmund Freud to justify his claim. Do you remember now TM?.

Not only I proved TM wrong on this issue, I also show part of TM’s methodology in interpreting the Quran. In one word, WHIMSICAL.

TM’S ANSWER 4: TM argues that grammars are inert upon the native speaker and has to be learnt by non-native speakers. So, then he argues that Arabic grammar is not a big deal and need not be learnt. There is no need for methodology etc. For Arab villagers, they don’t need to learn the methodologies cause they speak the language


a. In Arabic countries, the Arabic language is taught to the Arabs. They teach Arabic in all their schools from Morrocco to Iraq. They even offer Bachelor, Masters and Phd in Arabic language. Why is this so since every Arab is born knowing how to speak the language?.
b. The same goes to our country, why the hell do we need to learn Bahasa Malaysia in school when it’s already our mother-tounge?.
c. The answer is simple. The Quran is “formal language” of Arabic. Arabs do not use their formal language when they speak. This would mean that the chances of Arab villagers understanding the Quran without learning is close to zero..
d. “Formal language” has methodology and system. And this goes to any language in the world.
e. In TM’s case, he has totally rejected the Arabic grammar. So, that prompts me to ask TM what is his method of understanding the Quran since he has rejected Arabic grammar.
f. Example of his rejection is he says that “Al Kitab” and “Kitab” are the same thing when anyone who knows Arabic grammar knows that they are different.

TM’S ANSWER 5A : Here TM again demonstrates his evasive maneuvering. He once claimed that Imam Bukhari has declared other than the 7000+ in his Aj Jami to be unauthentic. I asked him for evidence of this claim and to date, there is no proof furnished by TM.

TRUTH: Imam Bukhari never declared that other than the 7000 in his Aj Jami’s to be unauthentic. And to answer TM, the rest of the hadeeth is recorded in another book by Imam Bukhari called “At Tarikh Al Kabeer”.

TM’S ANSWER 5B: TM claims that Sahih Bukhari is not written by Imam Bukhari. He claims that he’s read a couple of books convincing him that the “Aj Jami” was never written by Imam Bukhari

TRUTH: All of his sources are secondary sources. None of them are written based on direct study on the primary source. Anyone who studies the “Aj Jami” directly would never come to such conclusion.

That explains if u buy any copies of AJ Jami As Sahih u will find that they all contained the same list of hadeeth. That’s because they are published from the same manuscript.

Here in Egypt, no one makes this type of issue. Reason being, all it takes is a taxi ride to Al Azhar University library where manuscripts of “Aj Jami’” is kept.. Such issue is only effective in countries where the manuscript are not present.

TM’S ANSWER 6: TM says that the Quran is of the confirming nature. So it confirms everything that is true and everything that is not true. So, the Quran cannot come from the Bible

TRUTH: That doesn’t answer the question TM. The Quran cannot confirm the truth anymore since it is now proven to be extracted or taken from the Bible (based on your logic, of course). The Quran has lost it’s credibility to confirm what is right and what is wrong because it’s content has been found to be taken from the Bible?

Please bear in mind that, to date, you have never furnished us with any evidence showing the Hadeeth is taken from the Bible. All u showed were similarities. These mere similarities led you to conclude that hadeeth is from the Bible.

By the same logic, u have but no choice to admit that the Quran is also from the Bible and therefore, the Quran’s ability to confirm what is right and what is wrong is nullified.

Of course, I happen to know that the Hadeeth is Revelations from God. S hould there be any similarities with others, then it is the Hadeeth confirming the truth. What’s more, I can prove that Hadeeth is a Revelations from God based on the Quran.

TM applied his evasive maneuver tactics yet again. Whether the Quran confirms the truth or not is a totally separate issue and it’s irrelevant. I too can say that the Hadeeth confirms the truth because the hadeeth since the hadeeth Revelation from God. And my argument is based on the Quran as well.

TM’S ANSWER 7: TM didn’t understand what I wrote because he has selective memory.

TRUTH: In proving the Hadeeth as Revelation, I quote verse that contains the phrase ..al kitab wal hikmah…. TM then quotes verses that contains only the word …al hikmah.. without the ..Al Kitab… to mean that the al hikmah means al Kitab.

I told TM that his interpretation is a serious error based on the Arabic grammar. The “wau” in the middle of “…al kitab wal hikmah..” indicates that both al Kitab and Al Hikmah are two different entities.

It was at this point that TM renounced the Arabic grammar completely. He dismisses them as being man-made. Therefore, it is unacceptable.

So that led me to question TM on what methodology he utilizes in interpreting the Quran since he has already rejected the Arabic grammar?.

Remember his famous statement: “ Al Kitab and Kitab is the same”.

TM’S ANSWER 8: TM equates formal language with spoken language.

TRUTH: TM is completely out of whack. I asked him for his methodology since he completely disregards Arabic Grammar and all he can say is about whether my grandfather can speak Malay or not. TM is simply pathetic.

Note: TM wants us to believe, that the understanding of the language of the Quran exists in every Arab without the Arabs having to go to school and learn, is because his Prophet, Rashah Khalifah, is an Egyptian. Rashad had never had any formal training in the Arabic language but still went ahead to interpret the Quran as he sees fit. He ended up making a hell of a lot of mistakes and became the laughing stock of the Muslim world.

Unfortunate souls like TM decided to follow Rashad and his ‘mysterious methodology” in interpreting the Quran. When studied carefully, Rashad’s interpretation has been the laughing stock of the muslim world for years.

TM’S ANSWER 9: TM says that “due process” is not mentioned in the Quran.

TRUTH: Let me rephrase my sentence so that TM can understand. Where does it say in the Quran that a thief must be subjected to a trial and then found guilty in a court of law before his hands can be amputated? I dunno, but I understand the above process as “due process”

Please answer that TM.

After that TM went ballistics with so many of the issues I raised. I’ll just highlight some of the out of whack statement he made and explain why it’s corny.

TM’S ANSWER 10: TM says that in a case of parents being murdered by their children, we have to use our brain because the Quran doesn’t say anything abt it.

TRUTH: The Quran does say in 04:11 that when a when their parents dies, their children inherits their wealth. Is TM trying to imply that we should disobey the Quran whenever an incident like above occurs?.

I had a good laugh when TM raised a number of possible scenarios. I laughed because I’m sure the likes of TM will be pressured to provide some kind of a decent answer. I’m sure they won’t be able to. They’ll end up having to reward murderers.

Anti Hadeeth is limited to 04:11, while the people who follows the truth has the hadeeth as guidance. The Prophet says:

“ Murderer does not inherit anything from the murdered” (Abi Dawud)

TM’S ANSWER 11: TM says that the concept of “properly slaughtered” is not mention in the Quran. So, all u need to do is drain the blood of a dead animal and u basically can eat the animal

TRUTH: The Quran in 05:03 says that it is forbidden for us to eat “al mayyit” which means “carcass of dead animals”. Read 05:03 completely, please. There is the word “al Maitata” before the word “Ad Damu” (blood).

Oh wait, to TM, “Ad Dam” and “ al Maitata” is the same. Just like “Al Kitab” and “Al Hikmah” is the same. Right TM??? Is this another one of your anti Arabic grammar stand?

Also, how do you drain the blood of a fish???

TM’S ANSWER 12A: He says that there is no “amputation” in the Quran

TRUTH: I wonder what faqtau aidiyahuma means to TM? I bet he’s gonna say it means cutting off his means of living. But, in the Arabic language, Aydi refers to “hands” in reference to the As Sariqah which means “thieves”.

Here we see the real motivation behind anti hadeeth, to fit into the secular liberal mould. Without the hadeeth present, they are free to reinterpret the Quran as they see fit i.e. no amputations, no crucifixion, no 100 lashes for fornicators. Everything must be given a new meaning. The hadeeth is not an obstacle anymore. We are free, free, free.

TM’S ANSWER 13:TM says “Zakat means to purify. There is no such thing as paying money for zakat in the Quran.”

TRUTH: The word in the Quran is Az Zakah not mere zakah. Since it is “ism maarifah”, it therefore has a special meaning.

Oh wait, TM doesn’t believe in Arabic grammar. So, I’m wrong and he’s right. God might be wasting his time for adhering to the Arabic grammar in the Quran. God is not as smart as TM. TM rejects the entire Arabic Quran and instead goes for Rashah Khalifa wacky Quran.

Notice how TM evades my question on his methodology. He still haven’t told us how he understands the Quran despite rejecting just about every aspect of the Arabic language.

Instead he went to rambling about village arabs knowing how to speak Arabic. I’m not asking him about how village arabs understands the Quran, I’m asking how TM understands it.

TM’S ANSWER 14: TM says that some dudes named Saim Bakar and Hasan Qalami told him that Imam Bukhari didn’t write Sahih Bukhari

TRUTH: Who the hell are these guys? Can somebody tell me. I did sneeked a peak at the Saim Bakar book and let me tell u, now I know where TM gets his simplistic approach to hadeeth and just about everything else.

I am pretty sure that both Saim and Hasan has never even seen the manuscripts of Sahih Bukhari when they did their so-call research.

Now, if u come to, say, Al Azhar University, you’ll probably be able to see scholars who actually studies the work of Imam Bukhari direct from the manuscript. At this point, who do I listen to?: a bunch of nobodies like Saim and Hassan or to Azhar scholars who actually studied the book direct from the primary source.

Explains why you’re such a screwed up TM. You listen to screwed up sources.

TM’S QUESTION 1 : TM started asking a bunch of questions about Abu Hurairah

TRUTH: Refer to this url for more explanation http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/in_defense_of_abu_hurairah.htm

Suffice to say that scholars who studies the classical texts in it’s original language have a completely good opinion of Abu Hurairah. Scholars such as:

(a) Dr. Mustafa al-Siba'i (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria), in his thesis, al-Sunna wa Makanatuha fi l-Tashri' al-Islami, (Cairo: 1380/1961);
(b) 'Abd al-Razzaq Hamza (the head of Dar al-Ahaadeeth in Makka and Imam of Masjid al-Haram),Zulumat Abi Raya amam Adwa' al-Sunna al-Muhammadiya, (Cairo: n.d.); and
(c) the definitive response by 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Yahya al-Mu'allami al-Yamani (the Librarian of Masjid al-Haram), al-Anwar al-Kashifa lima fi Kitab Adwa' 'ala al-Sunna min al-Zallal wa l-Tadlil wa l-Mujazafa, (Cairo: 1378) - may Allah have mercy with them Read more!

Debate With An Anti Hadeeth On The Issue Of Apostasy

Based on Farook’s input, I can conclude:

1.0 He assigns meaning to words in the Quran as he pleases without any justification. For instance, when he translates “nafs” as soul, it is without any basis in the Arabic language. It’s just his wish and pleasure. Many will want to know where Farook gets the authority to change the word of God in ways that pleases Farook?

2.0 He will ignore parts of a verse as he pleases. The verses 02:54 and 02:55 starts with the words; <>, which means “and when”. These words means something, and in this context, it referring to two DIFFERENT INCIDENCES. Tell me Farook, why is it that there are no at the start of 02:56?. Same passage doesn’t mean same story.

3.0 At this point you will notice that Farook’s methodology is the same for all Anti-Hadeeth ideologue. They assign meanings to the Quran just as they please and start calling others disjointed and confused for not following their ways. I’m going to assume that all this is a form of “defence mechanism” on their part for deep in their heart, they know that their ways are far from the Quran.

4.0 Farook attempts to confuse the language by citing this example:
“Have a look at 5/116: Faqad `Alimtahu Ta`lamu Mâ Fî Nafsî Wa Lâ 'A`lamu Mâ Fî Nafsika . The 'nafsika' here, who does it refer to please? Does Allah have a body?”

Reply: Is Farook saying that God has a soul? It works both ways Farook. “Nafs” means “oneself”, If it’s referring to humans, then it’s referring to the entire human, body and soul. If it’s referring to God, then it’s referring to God. How God looks like we don’t know <….laisakmislihi shaiun..>. Only God knows.
How is that so difficult to understand?

5.0 Farook asks “Have a look at 61/14, the phrase 'thaifatan min bani israil' (a group from bani israil'. Why is that phraseology missing from 2/54?”

Reply : Simple, in 02:54 “qaum” refers to one tribe. In 16:14, the word “Thaifah” refers to a group among the Bani Israel without reference to any tribe. It’s that simple.

6.0 Farook is also confused about the concept of apostasy. He says “It makes sense for
you to command a people who left Islam to follow an Islamic law. Good stuff.”.

Reply : If they didn’t leave Islam, then it wouldn’t be called apostasy. Thus, all this
will not be an issue anymore. The punishment is for the act of leaving Islam after one
has converted to Islam uncoerced. Smart people don’t ask stupid question like this.
7.0 Farook also accused me of having disjointed and manipulative reading. Yet, he changed the meanings of the words in the Quran whimsically, ignore words in the Quran when he sees fit, introduced inconsistency in the Quran by adopting silly and dumb methodology.

8.0 Prophet Sulaiman did build statues as stated in the Quran, Farook. But, we are told by the second Revalation, the Sunnah, it is prohibited for the UMMAH OF MUHAMMAD. It was not prohibited to the people of Solomon, then. However, the second Revelations tells us that the punishment for apostasy stays.
03/07 02:55:38
Read more!

Saturday, June 30, 2007



By Rahman Celcom

We see so many instances of anti-hadeeth exponents spreading their teaching claiming their so-call total submission to the Quran. They came up with numerous argument arguing against Al Hadeeth of the Prophet.

In this article, I will attempt to show why such misunderstanding occurs. In one word, the main reason for such confusion is ignorance. Specifically, ignorance in the the Arabic language.

One will notice that the Modus Operandi of every Anti Hadeeth is to take the literal translations of the Hadeeth and then make commentaries on them. All of their criticism against Al Hadeeth is solely based upon the literal translation of the hadeeth.

The trouble with this method is that the Arabic language doesn’t exist only in the literal form. The Arabic language also exist in the figurative form called Majaz.

By taking a hadeeth in from it’s literal meaning is not doing the hadeeth justice since not all the hadeeth is spoken to refer to it’s literal meaning.

For example, the hadeeth that True Muslim likes to quote:

‘Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 232: Narrated Abu Huraira: “Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established till the buttocks of the women of the tribe of Daus move while going round Dhi-al-Khalasa." Dhi-al-Khalasa was the idol of the Daus tribe which they used to worship in the Pre Islamic Period of ignorance. ‘

Because TM is dumb when it comes to Arabic language, he fail to see that the phrase “the buttocks of women….move…” refers to “dancing around the Dhi-Al-Khalasa”. In making fun of this hadeeth, he makes a complete fool of himself.

Another example TM quotes:

Allah’s Apostle said, “The woman is like a rib; if you try to straighten her, she will break. So if you want to get benefit from her, do so while she still has some crookedness.” - Volume 7, Book 62, Number 114

The word “while she still has some crookedness some crookedness” here actually refers to how to deal with a women by using methods somewhere between hard and soft. In other words, the Prophets says that in dealing with women one should not be too hard or too soft. Those who understands Arabic don’t find this hadeeth weird.

And you will see this pattern throughout the entire anti hadeeth literature. And u will also see TM’s brand of ignorance throughout their hadeeth criticism when it comes to Anti Hadeeth.

It is also unfortunate for anti-hadeeth, Majaz also exist in the Quran. For instance in 02:187

[2:187 ……, and eat and drink, until the white thread appears to you distinct from its black thread…….]

By Anti Hadeeth methodology timing for fasting during Ramadhan is determine by visual differentiation between a white thread and a black thread. But how can this be?. Everyone knows that if we put a black and white thread in a dark room, we can never tell the difference between the two. Furthermore, one’s eyes is able to tell the difference between them whether it’s night or day.

The real meaning of white thread is dawn and black thread is dusk. The words “black thread” and “white thread” are figurative and cannot be taken literarily.

Another example of Majaz in the Quran is 59:21-22

21. Had We sent down this Qur'an on a mountain, verily, thou wouldst have seen it humble itself and cleave asunder for fear of Allah. Such are the similitudes which We propound to men, that they may reflect.

22. Allah is He, than Whom there is no other god;- Who knows (all things) both secret and open; He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Taking the literal translation of the verses above would force us to believe that mountains have the same faculties and abilities as humans. But, logic tells us that this is ludicrous.

To adopt the anti hadeeth’es methodology would render the Quran as ludicorous.

The verse above demonstrates to us another type of Majaz of the “similitude” type. It is used to signify the heavy responsibility of the Quran upon human beings.

Bear in mind there exist many types of Majaz in the Arabic language and the Quran uses them all.

One will noticed that each time the anti hadeeth methodology is applied, it carries similar implication upon the Quran.


Among factors to be considered when interpreting the hadeeth are as follows:

v Context : The context of a hadeeth must be considered. Sometimes a hadeeth may sound strange when taking out of context but when it is put into it’s context it makes perfect sense. For example the hadeeth:

……meats become bad because of the Jews…” (Bukhari).

The context of the hadeeth was uttered during the “Khandak” war. After the Musyrikeen had withdrawn from the Madinah lines, the Prophet was ordered to deal with the Jewish for treason. As the order was to be executed immediately, the army of the Prophet had to march all day until the reach the Citadels where the Jews lived. As a result, meats that was prepared for celebration of victory became bad after being exposed for a long time. Thus, such words was uttered signifiying the Prophet’s frustration in the Medinan’s Jews’es treachery.

v Aborogation : Certain decrees were made by the Prophet as a temporary measures which in turn the Prophet SAW had repealed. In short, aborogation. Examples such as the prohibition of writing down of the hadeeth of the Prophet, the prohibition of women from visiting the grave and many more.

v Timing : Certain hadeeth is spoken in the time of peace and certain hadeeth are spoken in the time of war. If understood within the correct timing, they provide a clear picture.

v Arabic Local Slang (Ammeyyah): The Prophet SAW uses figurative, metaphorics in his hadeeth which is prevalent among the people of his time. For instance the hadeeth:

The Hadith mentions that "fever" is from the "heat of hell" [Hadith 621,622, page 417, vol 7].

The truth is, it is common among Arabs at that time to use the “heat of hell” as
comparison to high fevers.

v Expression of Miracles of the Prophet: Example, the drinking of camel urine, the separation of the moon into two parts and many more.

v Usage of Arabic Figurative or Sayings: The hadeeth “ My community will be divided into 73 sects” does not refer to the number 73. When the Arabs uses the word “seventy” or any of it’s derivatives, it means numerous.


I have stated this once and I will state this again. Ignorance is the main reason why anti hadeeth thrives. They are completely ignorant of the Arabic language and choose to interpret Islam while being void of knowledge.

The other push-factor towards this ideology is total fanaticism towards western secular liberal paradigm. These people are afraid to call themselves Muslims and feel ashamed of Islam.

They, then, uses the Anti Hadeeth ideology to misinterpret the Quran to fit it into the western secular mold.


The version I sent to Raja Petra contained tables and cannot be published on the blog, this particular part of the article was not presented properly.

1) Confusion No. 1: Punishment For theft and fornication as stated in the Quran (05:38 and 05:02)
Anti Hadeeth Way: Punishment can be carried out without due process because the Quran does not prescribe due process resulting in chaos and absolute anarchy in the society.
The Truth: The way punishment is carried out as stated in 05:38 and 05:02 is shown by the Prophet SAW. In the hadeeth, due process was clearly demonstrated to us.

2) Confusion No. 2: Inheritance to children who had murdered their parents (04:11 states on inheritance)
Anti Hadeeth way: The murdering children are allowed to receive their inheritance. Hurrah for the Menendez brothers.
The Truth: There is a hadeeth stating exceptions to children who murder their parents.

3) Confusion No. 3: Consuming the carcass of dead animals (The Quran prescribe to it’s followers that animals which are to be consumed must be properly slaughtered - 05:03)
Anti Hadeeth Way: It will cover all types of animals including sea animals. In short, the next time the Anti Hadeeth open their can of sardines, they will have to ensure that the sardines are slaughtered properly.
The Truth: There is a hadeeth making -exceptions to sea-living animals i.e. fish, squid

4) Confusion No. 4: In 05:38, there is no mention of minimum limits for a thief to be qualified for amputation
Anti Hadeeth Way: Even if a man steal a clove of garlic, he will be amputated.
The Truth: There is a hadeeth stating that only is the value of loot is more than ¼ of a deenar will a thief have his hands amputated.

5) Confusion No. 5: The Quran states many times about Az Zakah
Anti Hadeeth Way
: There is simply no methodology at all for the anti hadeeth to follow.
The truth: The methods are clearly mentioned in the sunnah, ijma and qiyas.

6) Confusion No. 6: Various ibadah clearly mentioned in the Quran, i.e fasting, solat, al hajj, jihad, sadaqah, inheritance, marriage, divorce, commerce etc
Anti Hadeeth Way: AN ABSOLUTE MESS. There is absolutely no methodology shown in the Quran, so the anti hadeeth will be practicing such ibadah at best by guessing.
The Truth: The method to carry out all the ibadah above is as shown to us by the Prophet as recorded in the Al Hadeeth.


I’m sorry for the rather late response to True Muslim (TM) ridiculous rant on Hadeeth but allow me to highlight some of his grave mistakes. We should start by highlighting TM’s inherent weaknesses in his understanding of the Quran:

  1. In spite of his reference to 17 occurances of the word Hadeeth in the Quran, he has failed to show that any of them refers to the Al Hadeeth of the Prophet SAW.
  2. He has failed to disapprove the existence of death penalty in the Quran. His reference to Sigmund Freud in interpreting 02:54 is not only laughable but also the biggest joke to date
  3. He has failed to provide us methodology on how he interprets the Quran since he rejects the “Arabic Grammar” altogether as being human-made. Any linguist can tell u that grammar is derived and never made by anyone.
  4. He fail to bring proof of Imam Bukhari declaring other than the 7000 hadeeth in his As Sahih as being unauthentic. To me that makes TM a blatant liar.
  5. Since he claims that Hadeeth comes from the Bible, then he also must answer, based on his parallel, why Al Quran is also not from the Bible based on the prohibition of pig example. To date he has been clueless.
  6. Al Kitab and Al Hikmah is not the same as Al Hikmah when it is spoken alone. This proves the existence of a second form of Revelation which TM has failed to deny until now.

and many more. What is weird is that despite his inability to provide decent explanation to his own inconsistency, he goes on to write about other topics.

THE ISSUE OF WHO WROTE SAHIH BUKHARI RAISED BY TM (http://www.malaysia-today.net/blog2006/letters.php?itemid=2891)

TM’s entire case is based on the booklet found at http://www.central-mosque.com/biographies/asqalani2.htm which is a secondary source. His entire case cannot be considered credible at all since he didn’t really refer to the original text. That explains why in his article no reference is made to his source at all.

So, what he’s trying to debunk is merely what somebody else says about the Sahih Bukhari and not the book itself.


This is also a very strange claim made by TM considering there exists similarities between the Bible and Al Quran. Although he quotes this verse:

[2:97] Say, “Anyone who opposes Gabriel should know that he has brought down this (Quran) into your heart, in accordance with GOD’s will, confirming previous scriptures, and providing guidance and good news for the believers.”

and argues that the Quran can confirm certain parts of the bible in it’s truthfulness. The Hadeeth on the other hand cannot do that.

The problem with this argument is that the Bible is not Injil. The word “previous scriptures” above refers to INJIL and not the Bible. There is no evidence showing the the current Holy Bible is derived from the Injeel? Even the Quran does not confirm that the Holy Bible is the derivation from Injeel? What is understood from 02:97 is that that the Quran confirms the truthfulness of the Injeel without any reference to the Holy Bible of current time.

Again we see how confused and deranged this TM character is. Please visit my blog for more information at antiantihadeeth.blogspot.com.

Read more!

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

What’s Good For The Goose Is Not Good For The Gender (Part 1)

by Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib, Dokki Cairo

Dear Editor,

With reference to the letter Apostasy - what’s good for the goose also good for the gander? especially and many other letters, allow me to present my views in two parts. Below is Part 1 of my response.

I find it strange that Singaporean view Malaysian as “Talibanizing” ourselves. This is because the apostasy law has existed LONG before the Taliban I know Syed Alwi doesn’t speak for all Singaporeans but Dr Syed Alwi needs to get his timeline corrected. If what Dr Syed Alwi claim about the “Singaporean perception” is correct, then, Singaporeans need to get their timeline correct too.

Dr Syed also spoke at length for reinterpretation of Islam. But, he fail to provide any justification for it and keep repeating the same 10th Century excuse. He quotes the Crusades example of Darul Harb vs Darul Islam. The trouble is that Crusade happened at least 200 yrs after the Apostasy law is enacted so it has no connection.

I’d like to remind Dr Syed that just because others look different unto you does not make u wrong, For instance, the Americans clearly supports “Capital Punishment”. It is sanctioned by 38 states as well as the US Federal government and the military. They are criticized by the European for it. However, in the end, scientific proof has shown that Capital Punishment is effective in curbing violent crime much to the embarrassment and dismay of the Europeans.

As for hypocrisy, I guarantee Dr Syed that abolishing laws of apostasy does not deter hypocrisy nor will it curb them. Abolishment of laws of hypocrisy will only breed apostasy more. Hypocrisy, on the other hand, will continue to flourish despite the repeal.

In addition, abolishing laws on apostasy will only render Islam into becoming a mere belief-system. It contradicts the true nature of Islam, which is a complete-way-of-live encompassing every aspect of human’s social and individual domain.

I am still waiting for one definite justification from all the readers as to why Islam need to change it’s policy on apostacy? Just one. The mere utterance of a need “to adhere to modern time’s call and trend” is not an adequate justification seeing that even modern time’s prevalent system is not without it’s imperfections.

That’s why one sees major differences when adopting the secular agenda even among secular countries. For instance, the Capital Punishment is strongly sanctioned by America while Europeans secular states opposed them. In the issue of abortion, the fact remains that secularists have to rely on the US Supreme Court ruling (Roe vs Wade) as no state legislative body would pass a bill to support abortion because of it’s unpopularity. The Europeans, on the other hand, largely allows abortion. And many more.

As a result, I am now hard pressed to find a single viable justification for Islam to change itself to fit the modern world’s demand for such reasons:

a. The current global secular agenda is itself riddled with flaws and confusion for it to warrant others to follow in it’s footsteps.

b. Whatever the challenges of a modern world is adequately handled by Islam’s “Ijtihad” process. And, this is not the first time Islam has to adapt itself to “current changes”.

c. Islam cannot change itself up to a point of self-destruction. For secular liberalists to demand such change is akin to demanding the total destruction of Islam.

d. Islam is a total way of life. The apostasy law is not about “group dynamics” or “herd mentality”. It’s about maintaining the sanctity of Islam as a comprehensive system of life. To allow one to jump in and out of Islam as he/she pleases would entail severe legal and systemic complications within the framework of a comprehensive system of life.

e. Thus, it will render Islam into a mere ridicule and demoted to the status of a belief system open to ridicule and disrespect.

f. There is no need to repeal the apostasy laws as Islam is very clear on the issue of coercing others into adopting Islam. Just as Islam is tough on apostasy, so is Islam is also tough on coercion (into Islam). Islamic government are strictly prohibited in the coercion of others so much so that they are forced to adopt equality in their governmental policies. This is to avoid an economic and social condition whereby adopting Islam would serve as a convenient tool towards government aids and assistance. Such aid is viewed by Islam as a form of coercion.

g. Islam exempts non-muslims from being subjected to Islamic laws and regulations.

h. It’s the secular liberalist who now have to answer for their perceived coercion of Islam to change itself into a secular mould under the pretext of “adapting to modern times”.

(End of Part 1 of my letter)

Read more!

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Debate WIth Anti Hadeeth in Malaysia-Today PArt 2

07/01: Anti Hadeeth From Another Persepctive – Part 2

Category: General
Posted by: Raja Petra

By Rahman Celcom (cabearth4@yahoo.ca)

Dear readers,

My earlier postings were replied in two parts by True Muslim (TM). I however feel that I have more to add to my earlier postings. Considering the poor quality of response by TM, I think I should just go on to add to my earlier article and reply to his reply in a separate article.

Readers should share my disappointment when I am forced to reply points like below:

1) TM says: “Also, note that Rahman has tabulated ONLY 17 occurrences of the word 'hadith'. Rahman surely you know that there are more than 17 occurrences of 'hadith' in the Quran.”

My response: So what if it occurs more than 17 times. I never said that it had occurred less than 17 times. My point is that the word Al Hadeeth carries more than one meaning throughout the entire Al Quran. This is something TM has failed to disapprove.

2) TM also says: “But Rahman forgets that the Quran was revealed in Arabic. In Arabic the word used is 'hadith' and 'hadith' only (in 39:23, 45:6 etc). It is Rahman's English translation which has used different English words like message, explanation, exposition, story, etc.”

My Response: Let’s apply TM’s definition of the word “Al Hadeeth” (TM translates it Revelations) to the other verses, say 23:44.

wajaalna hum ahadisa

Using TM’s definition: “we turn them into a Revelation/Quran????”
The right translation: “we turn them into a tale/story”

The question I ask TM is that why would God wants to turn the people who rejects His Prophets into REVELATIONS?

So the moment we adopt TM’s way of translation, the entire Quran goes haywire. In any case, the verse above proves beyond any doubt that the word Al Hadeeth carries many meanings in the Quran.

3) After that, TM comments on dream and the word hadeeth. He says:

“In 12:06 the word hadith does not mean 'dream'. The Arabic word for dream is 'rukya' which appears in the previous verse 12:5. In 12:6 Allah taught Joseph to understand the message (wayu - allimuka min ta' weeli al-hadeethi) of the rukya or dream that he had in 12:5. Please double check your Arabic..”

My Response: Since the word Hadeeth in 12:06 is connected with an alif-lam called “alif lam maa’rifah”, in the Arabic language, it then takes the meaning of the word “dream” as mentioned in 12:05. In short Alif Lam Maa’rifah makes it possible for it to take the meaning of the word “dream”.


Despite his all out effort to discredit me by picking on small mistakes that I make (due to hastiness since I was alone in writing this article), TM fail to deny the fact that the word Al Hadeeth in the Quran takes many meanings.

The question is now is the Al Hadeeth mentioned in the verses he quoted (45:06 and 39:23) can be referred to the “Al Hadeeth An Nabi” or not?

We know that the word Al Hadeeth in 45:06 takes on the meaning “exposition”. TM tries to argue that exposition and explanation has the same meaning. Yet, exposition can also take the meaning “the act of presenting to view; display” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exposition.) which is more accurate considering the context of the verse. It also explains why Yusuf Ali did not use the word “explanation”. Or does TM only knows one definition of the word exposition?

As for 39:23, the right translation for the word Al Hadeeth would be “the message”. (I mistakenly put it under “explanation”). However, the verse 39:23 only states that the Quran is “The Most Beautiful Message”. It did not say anything about the Quran being THE ONLY MESSAGE.

Therefore, none of the verse quoted by TM negates the “Al-Hadeeth-An-Nabi”. The anti hadeeth claim on hadeeth is baseless.

In addition, even the word Al Kitab has many meanings in the Quran:

02:02 : Al Quran, 18:49 : Book of Deeds, 11:110 : Torah


The verse I quoted (02:129, 02:151, 03: 164, 62: 02, 04: 113) Allah mentions that God has revealed two forms of Revelations through the Prophet, Al Kitab and Al Hikmah. The word 'Al Kitab' and 'Al Hikmah' is connected with a 'wau' (and) and in the Arabic language this signifies TWO DIFFERENT ARTICLES.

Since, Al Hadeeth is nothing more than the collections of the teachings of the Prophet other than the Quran it is therefore a Revelation from Allah SWT. In short, the Quran refers to the Hadeeth as Al Hikmah.

TM tries, in vain, to bring forward an alternative explanation by quoting 36:02, 'wal quranilhakeem'. Yet, one can easily see that the word Al Quran and Al Hakeem is not connected with any “huruf atf” (connector). So, 36:02 is not the right explanation for all the verses I quoted above.

And in his answers TM repeatedly exhibits his ignorance of the Arabic language. For instance, when he questions the verse 16:44 he says:

“TM: Ah yes, Rahman, your famous 16:44: We provided them with the proofs and the scriptures. And we sent down to you this message, to explain for the people everything that is sent down to them, perhaps they will reflect. So you say ‘to explain’ (li tubayyi linnas) is referring to the al hadith. Rahman, as I said the word Al Hadeeth is not found anywhere in these verses.”

My Response: How can one compare the word 'Li Tubayyin' with the word 'Al Hadeeth' when the former is “verb” (Al Feel) and the latter is a noun (Al Ism)? To answer him, the word Al Hadeeth is not mentioned because it does not fit the sentence.


By now I’m sure that readers can tell that all my arguments supporting Al Hadeeth is solely based upon the Quran. In short, I have quoted nothing more than the Quran

At the same time, TM and the Anti Hadeeth sect argues from the Quran standpoint.

The sole differentiating factor would be that my argument is based upon the Arabic language (among all) while the Anti Hadeeth sect relies on whimsical and free-hand interpretation of the translation of the Quran.

The fact that TM is unaware of the many meanings of the word Al Hadeeth in the Quran is a fine example of clear deficiency in the Arabic language.

He tries to cover his weakness by attacking small typo mistakes here and there. But the typo mistakes only prove that the article is the work of one man, that is myself and not that of a committee. In fact, it took me less than two days to write.


TM’s explanation on this issue is wishy-washy at best. Here’s why:

a. First he confirms that the Bible is not Injeel that was revealed to Isa AS.
b. Then he quotes 02:97 which states that the Quran confirms previous scriptures.

Since the Bible is not Injeel, therefore, 02:97 DOES NOT CONFIRM the Bible as previous scriptures. The Injeel, however, is Revelations from Allah SWT.

Yet, the prohibition of swine example that I quoted was from THE BIBLE and not INJEEL. And the same prohibition can be found in the Quran. Since the Bible is NOT INJEEL as TM has stated so eloquently. Therefore, by TM’s logic, the Quran also speaks in the language of the Bible.

At this point anyone can see how confused and dazed TM is. His entire theory is blown to smithereens.

Also, the verse 03:71 is too general anyways. It could mean anything.


In spite of all the words uttered, TM still has not furnished us with one proof of his claim on Imam Bukhari. He claimed that Imam Bukhari had declared other than the 7000 hadeeth he puts in As Sahih is unauthentic.

Those learned in Ulum Al Hadeeth would know that Imam Bukhari had never declared other than the 7000 hadeeth to be unauthentic.

My only comment is for those who accuses Imam Bukhari of something and fail to provide proof, he/she is an outright liar.

As for the question of who wrote Sahih Bukhari, let me remind all of us that the works of Imam Bukhari have been studied by all scholars, muslims and non. Yet, not a single one of them ever doubted that the Sahih was written by Imam Bukhari.


Here we see clearly how the Anti Hadeeth sect uses their whims and fancies to fit the Quran with the western liberal ideology.

'anfusakum' is plural to the word 'nafs' which means “oneself”. 'Anfusakum' means “yourselves”. I am perplexed where how TM managed to turn the original meaning of the word into something totally far from its real meaning? What is his basis for doing so?

Also, at the start of the verse, Moses is said to be addressing His People and he said “O my People”. 'Qala Musa Liqaumihi, Ya Qaumoihi'. If we go by TM’s interpretation, then Moses would have been addressing his people’s EGO instead.

And it would have been silly for Moses to ask his people to “kill their ego”? How can one kill their ego? The only possible way of doing that is by killing oneself.

What’s clear is that Anti Hadeeth sect refuse to consider any verses in the Quran that contradicts their liberal ideology. Instead of accepting the verse as it is, they try to reinterpret 02:54 in accordance to their whims and fancies.

Also, please bear in mind that if the punishment for apostasy has been abrogated, then 02:54 need not have been mentioned.

(Incidentally, the same penalty is mentioned in Exodus 28-29 which by TM’s logic would indicate that the Quran also speaks in the language of the Bible).

As for 02:55, the verse refers to a totally different incident and certainly not the incident in 02:54. For one, it was referring to the time when the Bani Israel was demanding to see God and God struck them with lightning bolt. Notice the word 'wa iz' at the start of the verse. It’s a clear indication that it is referring to a totally different incident.


After 1,400 years of scholarly work by generations of Islamic scholars, one is forced to find writings of anti-hadeeth nature not is Islamic literatures of the past 1400 but in Orientalist writings back in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Examples are as follows:

I. I. Goldzeiher - Muhammedenishe studien
II. J. Sacth - The Origins Of Muhammaden Jurisprudence
III. A.Guillaume - The Traditions Of Islam
IV. S.Mackensen Ruth - “Arabic Books and Libraries In The Umayyad Period” American Journal Of Semantic Journal and Literature.

The trouble with orientalists is that none of their criticism holds water. For one, they tend to contradict themselves. For instance, the strong criticism of the Isnad system in hadeeth by orientalist was rebutted by other orientalist like J. Robson and W.W. Watt. J. Robson wrote in The Isnad Of Muslim Tradition that the Isnad system has already existed in the middle of First Hijrah Century.

In any case, countless work from Islamic scholars, namely Yusuf Al Qardhawi and specifically in Al Hadeeth, Muhammad Mustafa Al Azami, has effectively put to rest various criticism made by orientalists on the Hadeeth and the Isnad system.

Unfortunately, the Anti Hadeeth sect had refused to read counter arguments made against the Orientalist and adopted the Orientalist view wholesale.


One fact the Anti Hadeeth sect refuses to consider is that the Quran and Hadeeth was brought down to us over generations via the same channel.

In short, the same people that handed down the Quran are the same individuals that transmit the Hadeeth. For anyone to reject the hadeeth, it’s only a matter of time before he/she rejects the Quran.


The version I sent to Raja Petra contained tables and cannot be published on the blog, this particular part of the article was not presented properly.

1) Confusion No. 1: Punishment For theft and fornication as stated in the Quran (05:38 and 05:02)
Anti Hadeeth Way: Punishment can be carried out without due process because the Quran does not prescribe due process resulting in chaos and absolute anarchy in the society.
The Truth: The way punishment is carried out as stated in 05:38 and 05:02 is shown by the Prophet SAW. In the hadeeth, due process was clearly demonstrated to us.

2) Confusion No. 2: Inheritance to children who had murdered their parents (04:11 states on inheritance)
Anti Hadeeth way: The murdering children are allowed to receive their inheritance. Hurrah for the Menendez brothers.
The Truth: There is a hadeeth stating exceptions to children who murder their parents.

3) Confusion No. 3: Consuming the carcass of dead animals (The Quran prescribe to it’s followers that animals which are to be consumed must be properly slaughtered - 05:03)
Anti Hadeeth Way: It will cover all types of animals including sea animals. In short, the next time the Anti Hadeeth open their can of sardines, they will have to ensure that the sardines are slaughtered properly.
The Truth: There is a hadeeth making -exceptions to sea-living animals i.e. fish, squid

4) Confusion No. 4: In 05:38, there is no mention of minimum limits for a thief to be qualified for amputation
Anti Hadeeth Way: Even if a man steal a clove of garlic, he will be amputated.
The Truth: There is a hadeeth stating that only is the value of loot is more than ¼ of a deenar will a thief have his hands amputated.

5) Confusion No. 5: The Quran states many times about Az Zakah
Anti Hadeeth Way: There is simply no methodology at all for the anti hadeeth to follow.
The truth: The methods are clearly mentioned in the sunnah, ijma and qiyas.

6) Confusion No. 6: Various ibadah clearly mentioned in the Quran, i.e fasting, solat, al hajj, jihad, sadaqah, inheritance, marriage, divorce, commerce etc
Anti Hadeeth Way: AN ABSOLUTE MESS. There is absolutely no methodology shown in the Quran, so the anti hadeeth will be practicing such ibadah at best by guessing.
The Truth: The method to carry out all the ibadah above is as shown to us by the Prophet as recorded in the Al Hadeeth.


TM says:

“Anyway, let us see 2:129 which you quoted above to justify ‘God has indicated the existence of two forms of revelations’. Here is 2;129.

[2:129] Our Lord! And raise up in their midst a messenger from among them who shall recite unto them 1. Thy revelations, and shall instruct them in the 2. Scripture and in 3. wisdom and shall 4. purify them.

You say two things but Rahman it looks like there are four things here. The Rasul will:

1. recite revelations (Quran?) yatloo alaihim ayatika
2. instruct in the Scripture (what is this?) yu allimuhu kitaaba
3. instruct in wisdom (you say al hadith?) wal hikmata
4. and purify them (what is this?) yuzakeehim

Rahman, you keep harping ‘two things, two things’, because that is what Syafie told you. But look at this verse you yourself quoted. There are four things man. 1. Ayatika, 2. kitaaba, 3. hikmata and 4. yuzakeehim. Using your logic (borrowed from Syafie) it looks like Rasul has four things to do and not two.

Using your borrowed logic, there are now FOUR types of divine revelations!”

My Response:

TM cannot tell the difference between “verb” (Al-Feel) and “noun” (Al Ism). When the issue of “Revelations” (Wahi) is mentioned, we are talking about “nouns” not “verbs”. Allah’s Revelations are nouns and not verbs.

Take means “recite revelation”. It is “feel Amr” and cannot be a “revelation” because it is not a noun (ism). It’s a verb (feel amr). The same goes to 'yuzakeehim'. The only noun in the entire verse is 'Al Kitab' (The Book) and 'Al Hikmah' (The Wisdom)

Therefore, since what Allah SWT has revealed are “nouns”, then they are none other than “Al Kitab” and “Al Hikmah”.


TM says:

“What do you mean by ‘Al Hadeeth’? This is an isme ma’rifah? We all know Rahman Celcom’s famous isme ma’rifah don’t we?”

My Response:

ROPE use to be Anti Hadeeth sect’s mailing list. After spending a few months actively participating, the Rope mailing list curators have decided to ban me for life. Each time I enter the mailing list, I kept getting kicked out. It seems that their effort to convert me had backfired badly. Instead, most of their lies were exposed throughout the entire mailing-list making it difficult to convert new members.

One thing I noticed is that there is a complete ignorance of the Arabic language by the members of the sect. Why I kept winning arguments (against a myriad of characters) is by referring to one of the most basic concept of the Arabic language, Al Ism Al Maarifah.

Many times I caught their mistakes in interpretation of the Quran simply because they have totally neglected the existence of Ism Maarifah in the verses they quoted. Their entire case is blown simply by highlighting this small mistake.

And it is not true that the Anti Hadeeth sect respects the freedom of expression. My forced expulsion is a clear testimony.


Anti Hadeeth has a weird belief that the Arabic language can be learnt from the Quran. It is as if the Quran is a self taught language book (A How-To book for learning the Arabic language).

But the truth of the matter is that one has to learn Arabic to understand the Quran. The Quran was not sent down by God to teach humans Arabic.

While it is true that the Quran revolutionized the Arabic language, it does not contain instructions in basic Arabic for beginners. One must learn Arabic first before one can understand the Quran.

That is why we see ridiculous statement like:

“In 12:06 the word hadith does not mean 'dream'. The Arabic word for dream is 'rukya' which appears in the previous verse 12:5”

TM doesn’t know that the word Al Hadeeth can represent the meaning of the word Ar Rukya in 12:06. But, those who know Arabic can tell you that it is allowable.

Check with Yusuf Ali’s translation and even he says that Al Hadeeth in 12:06 is the dream.


I hope that readers exposed to Anti Hadeeth ideology would take some time to carefully study their points and argument. There is more than meets the eye when it comes to Anti Hadeeth ideology. It is not as rosy as it looks.


1) Reply To Rahman Celcom - Part 2
2) Reply To Rahman Celcom - Part 1
3) Anti-Hadeeth from another perspective - Part 1
4) Pas’ Bible Link
5) Who’s anti-Hadith? Read more!