Fun with Islam!

As you would have no doubt realized by reading this post, I am an atheist. I do not believe there is a God. Western Atheists have for the most part studied and debunked Christianity. I would like to start a critical study of Islam. This post will be my attempt at showing flaws within Islam and it's literature. Some of this will be a rehash, or revision of previous posts I have placed on here, but most will be new material.
 
EXISTENCE OF ALLAH
 
First and foremost I would like to say that I whole heartedly believe that the God of Islam does not exist. I find it hard to believe that a merciful God would kill people for not following his way. It is the atheist stance that God is a myth, and the idea of God punishing those who do not follow him is related to this myth. Let me explain. If you do not follow Allah you will be sent to hellfire, but "Allah sends astray whomever He wants, and guides whomever He wants" (Koran 14:4). How can Allah punish those he has lead astray? This seems rather cruel, and brings me to the "free-will/suffering" equation of deciding wether or not there is a God.
 
The "free-will/suffering" is a strong argument against the existence of Allah, and can be stated in the following manner:
 
(1) If Allah exists, he is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good.
 
(2) The existence of suffering is incompatible with the existence of God.
 
(3) Suffering exists.
 
(4) Allah does not exist.
 
To make the argument clearer, consider the following clarifications. An all-knowing being will be aware of suffering; an all-powerful being will be able to prevent suffering; and a perfectly good being will desire to prevent suffering. If suffering exists, then Allah - who is characterized by the three attributes stated in point 1 - does not exist. It is possible for some other, less merciful god to exist, but he cannot be all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good, though he may be one or two of these. Most importantly he cannot be "the most merciful" as Muslims claim.
 
A library could be filled with arguments going back and forth trying to argue the existence of a supreme being, any supreme being, but I'm speaking of Allah specifically. More specifically I'm speaking of the God of modern Islam! For reasons of space I will quickly give too more bief arguments against the existence of Allah before moving on to other topics.
 
The first argument is the "Lack-of-evidence Argument", which states that if Allah existed, there would be good objective edvidence for that. Unfortunately there is no good objective evidence for Allah's existence. Therefore, probably Allah does not exist. There are those who will argue that one cannot disprove the existence of Allah either. There is no authority that can speak on the true formation of the universe. So it becomes a toss up between (1) accepting that Allah is a myth, rooted in primitive culture, created by an ancient society to explain the unexplainable, and (2) assuming that because there is no conclusive evidence to disprove the theory of this supreme being's existence, he does in fact exist. The principal of Occam's razor states that in the case of two or more theories, the simplest one is usually the right one. The simple theory is that Allah is a myth, just as all other deities are myths. The complicated theory is that Allah is the one true deity, while all other deities (Hubal, Allat, Chango, Vishnu, Siva, etc) are myths. It would seem Occam's razor supports the theory that Allah is a myth.
 
The second argument is the "Argument from Nonbelief" which states that if Allah were to exist then there would not be as many nonbelievers in the world. The reality is there are many nonbelievers in the world today. Many people that do not believe in Allah, more specifically the deity of Islam. The argument is that if Allah were real then surely he would send more prophets, and in great numbers, but unfortunately he made a mistake in making Muhammad his last messenger. Even more
compelling proof of this argument is the failure of the prophets prior to Muhammad to create believers. There is no pre-islamic literature that records "prophets" proclaiming the coming of Muhammad, and no recorded literature that has "prophets" such as Jesus, Moses, Abraham (et cetera) using terms like "Islam" or "Allah". Quite more interesting is Jesus' apparent failure to convince anyone of the truth of Islam. Wether he told his followers to worship him or not is irrelevant. The reality is that for at least 300 years (maybe as much as 600) Christians whole heartedly worshipped Jesus as God, something that Allah allegedly despises. Allah's failure to step in during that 300-600 year period brings his existence into question!
 
CREDIBILITY OF THE ISLAMIC TEXTS
 
In the few paragraphs above I have brought the question of the existence of Allah into a critical light. I personally believe Allah does not exist. However, were someone to prove the existence of Allah, they still do not prove if the Islamic texts are his word. I would like to explore the possibility that the Islamic texts are NOT the word of any supreme being.
 
I will discuss both the Koran, and the Hadiths. I recognize that very few (if any) Muslims think the hadiths are the word of God. However, most Muslims regard the hadiths to be the words, deeds, and actions of a prophet of Allah, therefor they are indirectly related to Allah as teachings of some sort.
 
First the Koran (Qur'an). By looking at the history of the Koran, one quickly realizes it is NOT the word of any supreme being. The story is that Allah had an angel reveal the Koran to Muhammad, who was illiterate. Muhammad then recited the Koranic verses to his followers, who wrote them down, and finally Caliph Uthman compiled the verses into a single volume text: Al-Qur'an (The Koran). This would make the Koran third hand (maybe even fifth-hand) information! The word of Allah was given to an anegl who took it to Muhammad, therefor it is no longer the word of Allah, but the word of the angel. Second, once Muhammad began reciting the word to his followers it was no longer the word of Allah or the angel, it was the word of Muhammad. Furthermore, when the followers (scribes) of Muhammad wrote his words down (note HIS, Muhammad's, words) it became their words, as they were transcribing it onto paper. Finally Uthman took the texts and compiled them into one book, he rewrote everthing, so he was transcribing the word of the scribes onto new paper, thus making it the written word of Uthman (or whomever did the actual writing). On this hypothesis alone we can assume the Koran is not the word of Allah. There is no proof it was not corrupted through the chain of recitation from one being to another. We know from Islamic tradition that Allah was unable to protect his word from being corrupted when it was in the Torah, and again when it was in the Injeel (Gospels). The chain of recitation of the Hadiths is even more rocky and
complicated, and muslims generally agree many hadith are corruptions.
 
Of course, the above theory on it's own is not enough. To drive the point home we must try to show absurdities and/or inconsistencies in the Koran and Hadith. I will list questionable parts of Islamic literature.
 
First there is the creation of the earth. The Koran claims that the earth was created in six days (Koran 50:38). Scientists have generally proven this to be untrue. It is a fact that the author(s) of the Koran took this information from Jewish and Christian literature. Muslims who try to explain away this scientific error point out that a day for Allah and the angels is like 50,000 years (Koran 70:4). In citing this verse, Muslims try to say the Earth was completed in 300,000 (6 x 50,000) years. While it is a nice try, the reality is this still does not agree with modern science, which states that it took several billion years for the Earth to reach this stage. Billions of years passed before there were trees, or forests, or animals. However, I dispute the claim that the this verse is saying a day equals 50,000 years because such a thing contradicts other parts of the Koran! A day cannot equal 50,000 years because according to the Koran, a day equals 1,000 human years (Koran 22:47 & 32:5). Furthermore, to claim that it took Allah 300,000 years to create the Earth is to insult the God of Islam, as when he creates, he says "Be!" and it is (Koran 2:117). If the Koran was the written word of some all-knowing supreme being, then these inconstistancies would not be present.
 
Another scientific error would be the Koran's stance on human
reproduction. While many Muslims have promoted what the Koran states regarding sexual reproduction and human development, much of it is wrong. First there is the popular verses that talk of sperm being made into blod clot, then the blood clot being turned to bone, and the bones being clothed with flesh (Koran 23:13-14). Muslims love to cite this verse not realizing the scientific error written in it. It claims that the bones are formed, then clothed with flesh. This is an incorrect description of embryonic development, as the flesh forms first, and bones form later. The author(s) of the Koran clearly did not understand human reproduction. This can be seen in the claim that sperm is from a place between the backbone and the ribs (Koran 86:6-7). That would mean sperm originates in the kidneys, not the testicles. If the Koran was the written word of some supreme being, such errors would not be present.
 
Another error in the Islamic texts is the descriptions of the
atmosphere, orbits, and solar system in general. First the Koran mentions clouds that can speak. Allah said to the clouds "come willingly or unwillingly" and they said "we come willingly" (Koran 41:11). Most readers pass right by this verse, but many questions come up when analyzing it. At what point does water vapor become conscious? Is a water molecule alive? With two atoms of hydrogen, and one of oxygen, where is the brain or the orifice required for speech?
 
Equally absurd are the description of the sun, such as a man finding the setting place of the sun, and seeing it set in a pool of dirty water (Koran 18:85-86). The Koran also claims that the sun moves towards it's resting spot (Koran 36:38) and hadiths say that after the sun sets it prostrates itself under the throne of Allah before being allowed to rise again (Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421). The sun does not disappear. It does not need to ask permission to "rise again" as it is always shining on at least one part of the earth. Clearly this misunderstanding of the earth's orbit around the sun proves a wholly human origin to Islamic literature.
 
Looking at further inaccuracies regarding the solar system, the Koran states that Allah created the sky in layers. He created seven heavens, and decked the lowest heaven with lamps (Koran 67:3-5) and adorned it with the beauty of the stars (Koran 37:6). The Qur'an also states that the moon is within these seven heavens (Koran 71:15-16). If the stars (lamps) are in the lowest heaven, they are either closer to the earth than the moon, or are at an equal distance from the earth as the moon. Either way this is scientifically inaccurate. It is a known fact that the stars are much farther away than the moon.
 
Another problem that brings the credibility of the Islamic texts into question are the rather curious references to animals. There is one hadith where Amr Bin Maimun talks of monkeys that stone a female monkey for committing adultery (Sahih Bulhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188). Even worse, Maimun takes part in the stoning. This hadith seems to describe Muslim monkeys. What entails adultery in the monkey world?
 
Then there are the references of men listening too or talking with animals. First there is a man who can hear the speech on ants (Koran 27:18-19) even though ants communicate with chemical odor (smell) and not sound. Then there is the hadith that commands Muslims to give snakes a verbal warning when they enter your house. If they enter a second time after you gave them a verbal warning you are to kill the snake (Sunan Abu Dawud Book 41, Number 5240). The interesting thing about such a Hadith is the fact that snakes cannot hear. It is bad enough to assume that any animal would understand you giving a verbal warning, but to assume that an animal that is deaf will understand you is ridiculous. It seems strange that Allah does not know these facts about animals he created.
 
Finally, improper hygiene also brings the credibility of the Islamic texts into question. In one Hadith, AbuSa'id al-Khudri asks Muhammad about water taken from the well of Buda'ah (Sunan Abu Dawud Book 1, Number 0067). Al-Khudri points out that  well contains dead dogs, menstrual clothes and excrement of people, but Muhammad tells him that "water is pure and is not defiled by anything". Not only is this an example of poor hygiene, but also a lack of scientific understanding of bacteria, viruses, and germs that can be present in water. Excrement is a very common cause of water becoming contaminated with Escherichia coli (E. coli), a bacteria commonly found in the colon that is deadly to humans if ingested. Water contaminated with dead dogs or menstrual fluids can be equally dangerous. Equally bad is the hadith where Muhammad states that drinking camel urine can heal sickness (Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 505). Islam, like Judaism, has hygienic laws that are superior to those of other ancient cultures, but Muslim hygiene cannot compare with the advancements made in secular society.
 
ORIGIN OF THE KAABA
 
The Kaaba is a cube like structure, a shrine built for Allah, where Muslims go to kiss the black stone, and pray to Allah. It is the central shrine for all Muslims. Muslims believe that the Kaaba was built by Abraham and Ishmael, and the instructions were given to them by God. But secular history shows a different story.
 
"It is virtually certain that Abraham never reached Mecca" (Watt, p.136, Muslim Christian Encounters).
 
"According to Muslim tradition, Abraham and Ishmael built the Kabah... But outside these traditions there is absolutely no evidence for this claim-whether epigraphic, archaeological, or documentary. Indeed Snouck Hurgronje has shown that Mohammed INVENTED the story to give his religion an Arabian origin...at the same time incorporating into Islam the Kaaba with all its historical and religious associations for the Arabs" (Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim, p.131, emphasis added).
 
What is its real origins?
 
"In pre-Muhammadan times it was believed that the stone had fallen from the moon and was sacred to the old moon-god Hubal. The stone was enclosed in a small square temple known as the Kaaba, which contained many lesser gods..." (The History of Islam, p.4).
 
"...the Kaaba was in fact built as a shrine for the moon-god" (Morey, The Moon-god Allah, p.9).
 
Maxine Robinson says, "The Kaaba at Mecca, which may have been initially a shrine of Hubal alone..." (Life of Mohammed, p.40).
 
"At the time of Mohammed, the Kaaba was officially dedicated to the god Hubal..." (Karen Armstrong, Mohammed, p.61).
 
THE HISTORICAL INACCURACY REGARDING ALEXANDER THE GREAT
 
One of the most curious errors is the verses about Alexander the Great, who is called the "two horned one." The Quran claims that he was a MUSLIM who worshipped Allah and the he lived to an OLD AGE (Koran 18:82-98). This error is ironclad, as history shows that Alexander the Great was a pagan Idolatrous sodomite, and died at a young age.
 
Ibn Warraq writes: "The account of Alexander the Great in the Koran (18:82) is hopelessly confused historically; we are certain it was based on the Romance of Alexander [fiction book]. At any rate, the Macedonian was NOT A MUSLIM and he did not live to an OLD AGE, nor was he a contemporary of ABRAHAM, as Muslims contend" (Why I Am Not A Muslim, p.158-159).
 
The Encyclopedia Britannica says, "His [Muhammad’s] account of Alexander introduced as ‘the two horned one’ (xviii, 82), is derived from the Romance of Alexander, which was current among the Nestorian Christians of the 7th century in a Syriac version" (15:479). So even in secular history the Koran fails to be the word of God.
 
THE CASE AGAINST MUHAMMAD
 
Many people have criticized the fact that Muhammad married Aisha when she was six years old, and consummated that marriage at nine (Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88). Muslims try to defend that action by saying that this was perfectly normal in that time. It is agreed that it was normal in those times for a girl to be considered a woman once she reached her menstrual cycle (around nine or ten) but this is not the behavior one would attribute to a prophet of God.
 
The secular west has realized that a nine year old girl is far too young to engage in sexual intercourse. Why did Muhammad or Allah not realize this. Such Hadiths could be used to make a case against Muhammad. In all seriousness if he were alive today, many countries would imprison him. Furthermore, the hadiths that talk of Muhammad consumating his marriage with her, and especially the ones that talk of her cleaning up his semen (Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229-233) could very well be made illegal. Such writings are not illegal because they are highly regarded religious texts. However, if these hadiths were written today about a man living in modern times, the man would be arrested, the Hadiths would be used as evidence to make a case against him, and the literature itself would most likely be made illegal.