BBC 2: ‘The life of Muhammad (saw)’ – My Thoughts

Firstly its rare for a pro-Israeli, pro Zionist organisation like that of the BBC to air a programme related to Islam. You have to applaud them for their genuine attempt at trying to present an unbiased view of the life of the Prophet Muhammad (saw). With a Muslim presenter (Rageh omaar) a former BBC correspondent, the BBC seem to have gone out of their usual bigoted ways to bring a ‘neutral’ programme to light. Addressing the issues which is at the minds of many non – Muslims, namely who is Muhammad (saw)? what did he do? etc.

Secondly, although there were some good points of the programme, nonetheless the positive aspects were overwhelmingly overshadowed by the negative points.
To begin with, i was going to do a review on my thoughts of the programme. However i received a facebook message from a good friend of mine from Wales (UK) who had done a more thorough review of the first part of the programme, which was broadcast yesterday, that being the 11.07.11. Now for my part, all i can say or would like to say is the programme did more to explain the terrorists actions and the 1980s protests by UK Muslims of Rushdie’s infamous ‘satanic verses’. Than actually deal with telling the story which is ‘The life of Muhammad (saw)’! I only feel that this was a wasted opportunity which could have been utilised in a better, more effective way than it has been. With groups like that of the EDL and the BNP – Anti Muslim groups rampant throughout UK, will be more confused about Muhammad (saw) than ever. Simply because the programme does more to highlight the controversies of the terror attacks, the protests of the 80s and the links between the radical Islam and moderate Islam. Instead of clearly expounding upon the life of Muhammad (saw).

In terms of camera work, with there being a good amount of money budgeted for the programme it would have been better if they put some spirit into the production work. Although they have travelled the Muslim world extensively to produce the programme. It nevertheless, lacks that special spark which BBC documentaries often have. It appeared in many areas the footage to be raw (Unedited) with slight jerkiness at times. For example, there were many shots done which were lazily panned out, with slight shakiness of the camera when doing so. Where as there were at times just mere shots of Rageh walking about, with no commentary or narrative. I also noticed a few times repeated scenes of him leaving a book shop being used to ‘fill the space’ as it were. All in all, it did not have that uniqueness that usually comes with BBC programmes. The Worlds largest and most powerful broadcasting institution, seems to have half heartedly gone ahead with this programme.

The following is the review which was presented to me to post here:

This note is written in response to the documentary being broadcast by BBC 2 on the life of Prophet Muhammad (saw). It’s largely based on notes I was taking during watching the episode at the moment, so is more in chronological order relating to the episode, rather than addressing each point in turn.

Firstly, I’d like to point out three things. The first of them is that the Prophet Muhammad (saw) is always described as being one of three:

1) A liar,

2) A lunatic (i.e. sincere in his deluded belief of actually being a Prophet)

3) A genuine Prophet of God.

It doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to work out that only Muslims believe in aspect (3), because if you did believe he was a genuine Prophet and didn’t accept his message, it leads to pretty worrying questions about your state of mind.

Anyway, my point is that, despite the masses of evidence that shows he was a genuine Prophet of God (some of which was mentioned in the episode because it’s paramount to his story and undisputable), there were a lot of attempts to skew the narrative to point to him being a liar or deluded. Insha’Allah (God Willing), I’ll attempt to highlight these briefly.

The second point that I want to mention is the nature of making comparisons. Everyone will have some kind of similarity to something, and some kind of difference too. When you compare, you neglect the similarities and focus on the differences. However, there’s an exception in the case of Prophet Muhammed (saw) whereas, when they want to paint him to be a liar or a lunatic, they’ll focus on the aspects that were similar, and shy away from aspects that demonstrate that he doesn’t fall into the category of being a liar or lunatic.

Finally, I’d also like to point out that we Muslims are not stupid. We don’t believe in fairy-tales, etc, without solid evidences. In fact, the Qur’an mentions in several places to think, to use the brain that was given to us. We know these stories, and if you oversimply a situation, of course you can attack it. It’s called “straw men”, and oversimplifying the foundation of a belief and dismissing the oversimplification does nothing for the actual belief of Muslims. You do no justice in doing this.

Anyway, I digress… let’s move on.

The first thing that struck me was the narrator mentioning that Islam gave rise of fantastic architecture. Well, yes it did! But Islam also gave rise to much much more than this. Indeed, you could argue that it was the Muslims that were the major catalyst in the advance of science and technology! And even the Greek philosophers that people love to quote so much these days, did you know that if it weren’t for Muslims preserving their works (and making various corrections too), they wouldn’t even exist today. All that material has been translated back from Arabic because Muslims preserved the knowledge during the golden ages, when the Europeans were burning it. When the Christian’s kicked Muslims out of Spain, they tried to claim the knowledge back by converting it back from Arabic. Just check out Wikipedia for Islamic contributions to the west and to the world. You’d be surprised.

Another statement mentioned was that “revelation is said to have been received from God”. Well, the position of Muslims is that it isn’t just “said”, it’s provable! Indeed, this is the basis of the challenge of Islam in verses 2:23-24, to produce a single chapter like the Qur’an (and we’re only talking three lines of Arabic). Given this challenge was made to those best placed to answer it, and they couldn’t, and that it’s the only example of human expression that has never been replicated, it clearly shows that it’s outside the productive capacity of man, and thus must be from a higher source (i.e. the Creator of the heavens and the earth, as the Qur’an itself says). For more information, please visit http://www.theinimitablequran.com/

There were also a lot of subtle references to violence, and negative stereo-typical images associated to Islam. For example, Prophet Muhammad’s use of “war and peace” (war was mentioned first to subliminally make that word stronger and appear to be the primary focus of his mission). Again, with regards to talking about not showing pictures of the Prophet Muhammad (saw), images of Shia were shown during one of their rituals where they repeatedly beat themselves and draw blood. This has absolutely nothing to do with main-stream Islam, and in fact contradicts it (harming yourself is forbidden!), and had nothing to do with the narrative at the time the imagery was shown. The only purpose of it was to heighten sensationalism and to drive home a message of “look at the crazy mozlamics!”

“Unlike Jesus, Mohammed is not the son of God” – errm, the Islamic position (as well as the position of some Christian denominations, as well as Jesus himself) is that Jesus isn’t the son of God either. But more to the point, I don’t understand why this was even mentioned. I get that they were explaining how Muhammad (saw) is just a man and we don’t worship him (which was good), but why make a link where there isn’t one? And at the same time, why not clarify that Muslims also believe in Jesus, but as a messenger of God in a manner consistent with all the other prophets/messengers? It seems important useful bits of information were excluded, only to mention support for a non-Islamic worldview.

It was mentioned there were no signs at the birth of the Prophet (saw), unlike the stars and three kings, etc for Jesus (I can’t remember his words exactly, but I understood that to be the gist). OK, sure, I’ll give it that, but there was a miracle witnessed by his mother at the time, as well as other events that took place too. A little more subtle perhaps, but hardly “nothing”. For those that want to know, in brief his mother saw a light that showed her far away lands (which would soon come under the banner of Islam), 14 balconies of the Palace of Rome collapsed, and the fire of the Zoroastrians went out… signs of the coming of a new Messenger.

With regards to non-Muslim historians writing about the Prophet (saw) so soon after his passing, this is one evidence of his sublime character, and the promise that Allah (swt) made to him. Going back to the challenge of the Qur’an for a second, the smallest chapter (which is only 3 lines and 10 words long) makes a promise to Muhammad (saw) that he’d be given an abundance (implied to be “of good”). This is in several manners, one of which is that in the eyes of those who research him properly, they hold him with high praise. Even at the beginning of the programme the person mentioned Muhammad (saw) to be in the top 3 (although I wonder who the other two would be and what positions). For more information, see this link: http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/quote1.html

With reference to the miracle of the Qur’an, it just goes to show that it’s coming true!

With regards to the justice of pre-Islamic Arabia, one specific example was being killed for stealing a loaf of bread. Not sure where this came from, but there are a dozen other examples that could have been used without subliminally referring to the common caricature of Islamic cutting off the hands of a thief for stealing bread. Yes, the hudood punishments are real, but they don’t work like that… there’s a lot of steps in between! And I realise this was in reference to pre-Islamic Arabia, but subliminally it plants the seed in your mind to show where it came from in Islam (and perhaps people would assume that it continued).

One of the people interviewed sounded like she said the pagan Arabs had “Allah, the High God” as an Idol. I think she means Al-Lat, not Allah. The pagans never believed Allah/God to be an idol, just the idols were his daughters.

The Muslim believe in Ibrahim (as) as builder of the Kaaba was toned right down from it’s focal point in Islamic history and one of the main stories in the Qur’an. There was also a specific mention of there being no tie outside of Islam linking Abraham to Islam. Hmm… there’s plenty of evidences in the bible that link the monothesitic religion together.

It was also mentioned that Mecca was off the trading route and there was no evidence that supported the Muslim version of events. Well, even logically this can’t be true. At the end of the day, Prophet Muhammed (saw) had his followers, who even included those who tried to kill him beforehand. Point being, all these people had to come from somewhere, and they all had mouths… yet the version of history relating to Mecca is consistent. Is it being suggested that it’s a huge coverup now? That’s quite an accusation to make without evidence to back it up. It just doesn’t make sense.

I’m gonna leave this note here ‘cos it’s late and I’m tired, but I’ll continue adding more later, insha’Allah.

In short… as someone who knows the history of the Prophet (saw) at a basic level, I was disappointed by the Beeb’s portrayal. Much of the beauty and subtly was completely overlooked and ignored.

About these ads

35 thoughts on “BBC 2: ‘The life of Muhammad (saw)’ – My Thoughts

  1. I agree 100%, masha Allaah that was written with such precise detail. These types of reviews need to be done to clarify cerain issues. It seemed like too good of a truth when I heard about the progam and felt dubious about broadcasting the times of the program. There was no way the BBC would paint a fair and truthful picture of the prophet saw. If anything, this might do more harm than good, as many of the genuine ignorant listeners will not understand our complaints and frustration. It would seem that even if a ‘good light’ is shun uopn our religion, we still moan!
    There are so many little sly gestures like apparently the quran ‘clearly’ states the prophet can read!! Even calling the quran holy automatically links it to the bible. The Quran was never called holy or Mugadas in Arabic. That path is what led the Mu’tazilas away and corrupted them in Islamic History. Even to the extent of the individuals they were interviewing. As if to say the brother with the big beard or the sister with the full hijab are the extremists. These ‘moderate’ Muslims are the real Muslims, not the fanatics that wear the jilbab or the khamees. It can be seen as a positive to show that Muslims are not all Arabs or Asians and not all follow the traditional look of a Muslim (I liked having br Abdurraheem Green there who crushed that idea by being a white convert with a blond beard – remineded me of Jesus =/ not sure if that was planned!!) But regardless, they seem to show the ‘typical’ image of Muslims when it came to the burning and the violent protests, reiterating that these people are the extremists and are ignorant as they haven’t adapted to the modern society.

    • As a Muslim I have to disagree with you that the piece was well written. Unfortunately like many Muslims today the author and many more of you are missing the point and picking up on very petty issues rather than seeing the wider picture.
      For instance let me pick up on a few things:
      1. “Even calling the quran holy automatically links it to the bible” – are you being serious sister? I’m not sure how you make this assumption. My English translation of the Quran by Yusif Ali is called, “The Holy Quran”. The series clearly stated that as Muslims we believe the Quran is the word of God. How else would you have wanted him to refer to it (bearing in mind the programme was largely aimed at a non muslim audience)
      2. “There are so many little sly gestures like apparently the quran ‘clearly’ states the prophet can read!!” – Not sure where you picked up on that one – nowhere in the program was this mentioned other than when the angel Gabriel first delivered revelation to the Prophet (pbuh) and asked him to “read”. Rageh Omaar clearly stated that the prophet said he could not read. Also in series three when the treaty was made between the Quraish and the prophet – Omaar mentions the fact that the Quraish wanted the words “messenger of God” crossed off and the the Prophet had to ask Ali to point to where those words were on the document and then he crossed them out – clearly implying he could not read.
      3. “Even at the beginning of the programme the person mentioned Muhammad (saw) to be in the top 3 (although I wonder who the other two would be and what positions)” – This is from the article above. I’m afraid again this shows how stupid we have become as Muslims – Rather than making a silly point like this – The real significance is that even NON MUSLIMS consider the prophet to have been one of the most important leaders in history – It is irrelevant if they list him second or third – the point is that they recognise his standing (what more could you hope for from someone who is not a Muslim)
      4. “Unlike Jesus, Mohammed is not the son of God” – again from the article above – to me that statement was quite clearly contrasting Muslim belief against Christian belief – I don’t think many watching the programme would have taken the view that Muslims believe Jesus is the son of God
      5. “But regardless, they seem to show the ‘typical’ image of Muslims when it came to the burning and the violent protests, reiterating that these people are the extremists and are ignorant as they haven’t adapted to the modern society.” – Unfortunately, we as Muslims have much to answer for in our behaviour and our understanding of our religion – Clearly there is much animosity aimed towards us but we do not help ourselves and we do need to adapt (but not by compromising our fundamental beliefs).
      I welcomed this series and applaud the BBC – Inshallah it will open the eyes of many Muslims and Non Muslims alike to the beauty and message of Muhammad (peace be upon him). As for those who hate Islam – as we know – it will make no difference to them as their hearts and minds are closed off and we should not fear or worry about them. In fact we should take heart from their animosity because it will only strenghten us and Islam.

      ws

    • As I have categorically said “this piece was written by a good friend of mine and not myself”. Hence the reason why I chose to highlight it in quotation marks. The parts which are NOT in quotation marks are my thoughts on the programme. Please be careful and not try and jump the gun as they say.
      For my part all I would say is what ever remarks were made was and is the sole views of the author and not myself.

  2. I knew this would happen after episode one, however I almost hoped it wouldn’t, alas i was proved wrong. The whole purpose of the BBC is to create a version of Islam that is open to change. By not discussing the miracle of the Quran as the author rightly points out here it creates a kind of “they just believe he was literate” kind of view making Islam non-rational. Once you have set the basis that there is no absolute truth of Islam the attack can follow as Episode two has shown us. Did anyone notice no woman discussing Islam was wearing Hijab why was this? how many sisters are there in the world who could articulate his life better than anyone of us, millions I imagine where were they?

    I am glad i found this well written piece. My views (see link below) were not put as eloquently.

    http://www.mohbloggs.com/politics/bbcs-life-of-mohammad-saw-is-an-attempt-to-subvert-islam

  3. It is NOT in the interests of the BBC to promote Islam; rather there is a hidden agenda to increase doubts in the minds of Muslims. What what it does is that it increases the faith of Muslims MORE

  4. The programme was called “the life of the prophet”, so therefore should have contained objective facts about his life from the quran and sunnah, rather than subjective oppinions from jewish people. I feet the second programme in the series will increase hatred among a lot of non-muslims towards muslims as they portrayed us as barbaric jewish haters. I believe also that inshallah a lot of people will gain interest in this and do further research…may allah put faith in the hearts of these people!…hopefully more gain than loss!

    • I am not sure where you get the idea that the programme portrayed us as barbaric Jewish haters. I think the programme tackled an important event that happened and put it in the correct context of the time. i.e. that the jewish tribe where the men were killed had in effect committed high treason and were therefore killed as was the norm for the time. The series at all other times made it very clear that Muhammad (pbuh) behaved in a way where he did not condone the killing (out with legitimate war) or hatred of other people.
      As a muslim I really feel dismayed at some of the comments by other muslims about this series. Many of you are missing the point completely.
      This was a series about the Prophet himself and not about Islam or the Quran as such. The fact that many non muslim commentators and indeed critics of Islam, were used in the programme should be welcomed. What else do you expect. The programme would have largely been watched by non muslims and the fact is, the programme would have been hugely informative and completely destroyed many of the preconceptions that many non muslims had about the prophet. Obviously you will always have the likes of Stuart Parsons who have their own agendas.

  5. Having Studied the Islamic religion and the life of Muhammad I can assure you that these three programs were a travesty. They were more noteworthy for what they DID NOT tell us about Muhammad that what they did. They were pure religious propaganda with a liberal sprinkling of Islamic Taqiyya and kitman.

    • Stuart,

      I’d be fascinated to know just what kind of study you have done about the life of Muhammad and just what you think we should have been told. I’d be keen to hear your propaganda with the undoubted accompanying sprinkling of bigotry.
      In fact please save us all the trouble because I know you, “have however seriously studied the Quran, Sunnah and Sharia. I have also read the Muhammad biographies of Ishaq, Tabari and Kathir. I have read numerous pro and anti Islam books and visited countless pro and anti Islam Websites.” I am also aware that as a result of your extensive studies you, “know that Muhammad murdered or mutilated all who spoke out against him and with the help of his deluded and booty and sex motivated followers, he lied, plotted, tortured, killed, robbed, ransomed and raped his way to total political and religious control.”
      Clearly you are a complete bigot who has no capacity to think outside of your own screwed up mind set because there are very few non muslims who have seriously studied all the sources you claim to have studied and who have come out with the same conclusions as you have. Get a life mate because only other bigots would take anyone like you seriously. Do you even have a university education – seriously worrying if you do.

      Quabsey

  6. Thank you for all you wrote. I agree with you. But I haven’t heard about 1980s protests by UK Muslims of Rushdie’s infamous ‘satanic verses’ before. And in the first chapter of the program it tells about Muhammad received a revelation referring that the Quaraysh could continue to worship to their old Gods. And this is described as Satanic Verses. I have never heard an event like this from what that story comes? If anyone can explain I would be in gratitude.

    • This story of the ‘supposed’ successful attempts of the devil to incite the prophet is taken from a very weak and fabricated narration in one of the history books of islam. A person by the name of tabrani a known historian collected this narrative in one of his historical books on the life of the prophet (peace be upon him). Muslim scholars who (in the present and the past) did a torough investigation into this narrative and found with factual evidence that this story is completely baseless and fabricated and false!

  7. Quabsey, I was at university for 6 years and have two degrees, but that is not relevant to ‘The life of Muhammad’. Might I appeal to all Muslims, with the best of intentions, to read your own religious sources, the QURAN, SUNNAH and SIRAHS. It is a fact, beyond any shadow of doubt, that these sources reveal that during the last ten years of his life Muhammad “murdered” (admin comment: there is no need to use capital letters to convey your twisted understanding of the sources of islam) all who spoke out against him and with the support of his followers, (admin comment: as you understand) he plotted, killed, and ransomed (admin comment: you are the perfect example of those who wish spread the retarded view of islam) and his way to absolute political and religious power. It is all their in Islam’s own sources. PLEASE, PLEASE read them.
    (admin comment: I have edited slightly, your response as it was deeply demeaning and offensive. Even after your stupid and frankly speaking, nonsense you have come out with. I have not completely deleted your responce).

    • If you are wishin to continue in having a discussion here, then do so as a civilised, matured individual. Not like a 16 year old who is letting his teenage hormones run wild in answering and replying to mature and well mannered discussion comments. When referring to the prophet of islam be sure you do not come across as arrogant, bigoted individual. A person with a narrow world view. Your last comment is deeply offensive (on the bbc post) You have no consideration for the sensitivities of the Muslims when you address the prophet of islam! Your replies clearly comes across a a person hell bent on showing the superiority of Christianity over other religions. Stop this childish attitude. Out all the comments, you seem to be a individual who is trying to show people how your way is “supposedly” better than islam. Grow up and have a adult discussion here. If you think you cannot continue to have a civilised and a mature discussion here then please leave.

    • Ohh Hello Mr.Stuart….. You have got Info from wrong and bigoted sources about our Prophet(SAW) and Islam…..The anti-Islam websites and other sources are often biased and have a Grudge against Islam.So they are bound to misrepresent Islam and our Prophet. I suggest you to read the following individuals : Shaikh Hamza Yusuf,Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad,Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi,Sayyed Hossein Nasr,etc. Your views about all issues will get clearer…….However, IF YOU INTEND TO HATE MUSLIMS,ISLAM and Prophet Mohammad(SAW) then you are bound to revisit anti-Islam sources on the web or otherwise,read their Bigoted and biased analysis of Islamic texts and come back to reproduce the same here…..So ,brother, calm you heart ,read true things ,not that which stokes anger and evil in your heart.

      Have a Good day! :)

    • I suggest you some additional read :: Read Rumi’s works.You may also go for Abu Hamid Al-ghazali’s books.

      Al-Ghazali’s ‘Revival of the religious sciences’ is a great book.Though i am yet to read these 2 great men, I have heard and read that This particular book by Ghazali inspired(and continues to inspire) many learned people in the West to get their thoughts clear about Islam.Many have also chosen to embrace Islam after reading Ghazali’s works.

      And ofcouse Rumi is unrivalled and unparalleled.

      So if you sincerely wish to know about Islam,then do some honest reading :)

    • Stuart, I agree that whether you were at university or not is irrelevant (sorry about that). However I would be grateful if you could name me one or two reputed non muslim scholars who share your own views. How do explain the fact that many non muslim scholars of repute like John Esposito, Karen Armstrong, Gerald Hawting and many others do not draw the same conclusions as you do? It has been their job to study the life of Muhammad. Please don’t keep coming up with your own interpretation and reading of events. As I said, I would seriously like you to provide me with examples of the claims you make and back these up with references and quotes from anyone of any academical repute who knows their subject.
      Islam has no interest in taking over the world. You should be well aware that when the prophet “conquered Mecca” it was done in a peaceful manner and no-one was forced to convert. If Islam was hell bent on converting everyone, – how do you explain the continued presence of churches and christians in the muslim world and the “golden age” for the Jews in Islamic Spain.
      You must not confuse current Muslim culture and practice with Islam. Just because many muslims choose to interpret Islam in a certain way to justify their actions (such as suicide bombing) – this does not mean that their actions have any basis in Islam.
      Best wishes

  8. Trying a new method to see if I can send more than one line. I am not a Christian, I believe their religious beliefs are just as false as those of Islam. However, Christians or Buddhists Sikhs and Hindus etc are not threatening to take over the world and install Sharia Law. I have no objection to Muslims going to their Mosque, praying to their god and following the five pillars. However, I have a strong objection to the followers of islam wanting to force everyone to be a Muslim or submit and live under the control of Islam….. As Allah demands in the Quran.

    • Stuart, can I appeal to you to let go of this belief that you have that Muslims want to force everyone to be a Muslim or submit to the control of Islam. I will concede that there are some Muslims who think like this but they are a minority. There cannot be any compulsion in religion and it is well accepted that Islam (as a whole) was not, “spread by the Sword”. There were no Muslim armies that ever set foot in Malaysia or Indonesia or several other countries that have vast Muslim populations. Likewise it is well accepted that it was the Christians who behaved with extreme aggression during the crusades (I know you don’t have sympathy for them either). They also behaved with extreme aggression during the first world war not to mention almost wiping out the native populations of North America and Australlia, slavery etc etc.
      As for your taking quotes from the Quran – again please show us where it states that everyone has to be forced to be muslim or submit to live under the control of islam. Please remember that any quote you state will have a context that has been expanded on in the Hadiths/ Sirah.

      Also – I know you mentioned that you are retired and you clearly devote a good deal of your time trying to “expose the truth about Islam”. I sincerely hope that you can step back and question your motivations and biases (just as the rest of us should do) in the search for the truth. I, like many Muslims growing up in the West, have had to question my beliefs and motivations. I have a diverse group of friends (Muslim, Christian, Athiest and of all differing backgrounds and colours). How many Muslim friends do you have?
      Regards

  9. Having extreme difficulty in getting to this site, links don’t work. when I do get through everythig goes haywire if I write too much. In addition the moderator is censoring my remarks and I am not free to say what I want. If you wish to continue the discussion Quabsey, here is my e-mail address sonspar@tiscali.co.uk

    • i am not cencsoring your content, but your attidues and the way you expres them. if i was censoring your comments i would have deleted all your comments and not left a single one. there is a difference between the waya person presents ‘his views and the way one chooses to mock a religion. i have told you once, if you are serious in continuing this discussion in a adult manner then you may do so without offending others. With this i have no issue(s). secondly, there is nothing wrong on with this blog, everyone else is fine except you. either your browser is too old which means will new to download a newer version of your browser or there is something wrong with you PC.

  10. The truth is that there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of any god. The Quran was certainly not authored by an omniscient deity and in a democracy, unlike the 57 nations of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, one is permitted to mock and be scathing of religions. Christianty, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism etc are all false, there is no VERIFIABLE evidence to support any of them. Beliefs are not sacrosanct, including mine. I have no very strong fellings concerning other religions, but Islam, with its ghastly Sharia Law threatens me. I have no wish to become a dhimmi in my own country. Do you really believe Satan might sleep in your nose at night ? A Durood Shareef earns ten blessings and ten sins are forgiven ? A cock crows because it has seen and angel and a donkey brays when it sees Satan ? Satan urinates in the ears of those who fall asleep during prayers and most of the occupants of Hell are women etc,etc,etc ? I am reliably assured by one Islamic source that writing Quran verses on three boiled eggs and eating them will cure my impotence; do you recommend I try it ? Islam is not a religion, it is the Cult of Muhammad. Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus, he was a Jew. Christianity was invented by Paul (Saul of Tarsus) and is the Cult of St Paul. I have not wish to deliberately offend anyone but it has to be said there is no verifiable evidence of any kind whatsoever for ANY religion. If there were VERIFIABLE evidence we would ALL be followers of the same god.

  11. Hi Stuart,

    I’ve been reading all your comments and got intrigued with your last response for having “no verifiable evidence for the existence of God”……..would you mind me telling, “Do you have a verifiable evidence for the existence of your great grand father?”, if not, and I bet you don’t then how come you came into existence????….eagerly waiting for an answer which can be verified by anyone anytime anywhere, otherwise you’ll prove yourself wrong!

  12. Hi Akram Although I am an atheist, I have the family bible which contains my great-grandfathers ( on my mothers side) signature and a tattered old photo of him and my great-grand mother taken around about 1880 when they were in their early fifties. I also have a longcase clock which dates back to the 1770s and was passed from my great-grandfather, to my grandfather to my mother to me.
    On my fathers side of the family my Great-grandfather’s marriage in 1836 to an Annie Beresford appears in the local Parish Records.
    Records of all my family,since 1831, on both my mother and fathers side, can be viewed online and birth and marriage certificates obtained. The census records permit me to trace my father and mother’s families back to 1831 and will tell me where they lived, what their employment was and where they were born. Parish records might reveal who my great-great-grandfathers and mothers were etc.

    I am not sure what this has to do with the existence of a God……. but I do know that there is an ever growing body of evidence to indicate the delusional Muhammad was NOT receiving messages from a God. The Quran was certainly Not written by an omniscient deity, indeed if a genuine God were to exist, it would be the grossest of insults to credit him with the authorship of the Quran. Muhammad was the principal author of the Quran and he was certainly no ‘Prophet and Messenger’. Indeed there is considerable evidence to show the Quran is primarily the words of Muhammad and not a god. Islam is the ‘religion’ of delusion and deceit and can be shown to be so to those willing to open their eyes and uncover their ears to see and the evidence. To begin with, read the opening Exordium of the Quran. Is it spoken by Muhammad ? Or is it revealed by by Allah. Your next step should be to look at Quran 27:91 and ask yourself if these are the words of Muhammad or Allah ? If your version of the Quran has ‘Say’ at the beginning of the verse, please note the original Arabic Qurans do not have ‘Say’ in them. ‘Say’ has been mendaciously interpolated many times in translated Qurans to cover up the fact that it is Muhammad speaking and not Allah.

  13. Salam Stuart,
    Prophet (SAW) was not thee author of Quruan. i’ll try my best to show u the right path.
    Prophet (SAW) never ever claimed that he(SAW) was the author of Quruan.In fact, he always said that it was a revelation from Allah (SWT).To think otherwise is illogical and would mean that he was telling a lie, God forbid. History tells us that never has the prophet been ever reported of telling a lie till the prophethood that is till the age of 40. And all the people acclaimed him as a person who was honest, who was noble, who was chaste. No wonder they gave him the title Al-Ameen – the trustworthy. Friends and foes alike. Even those people who said that he was a liar, God forbid, after he claimed prophethood, even then, they kept their valuables with him for safe keeping. Then why should an honest person lie and say that the Qur’an is a word of God and that he was a prophet.
    The Qur’an says it is from Allah. It is from God Almighty. If it is not where did it come from? In Surah Jathiyah, Ch. No. 45, Verse No. 1 & 2…Arabic… ‘Ha meem… This is a revelation of the book from Allah, the exalted in power full of wisdom’. And Qur’an mentions in several places, that this is a revelation from God Almighty. It is mentioned in Surah Anam, Ch. No. 6, Verse No. 19, in Surah Anam, Ch. No. 6, Verse No. 92, in Surah Yusuf, Ch. No. 12, Verse No. 1 & 2, in Surah Taha, Ch. No. 20, Verse No. 113, in Surah Nahl, Ch. No. 27, Verse No. 6, it is mentioned in Surah Sajdah, Ch. No. 32, Verse No. 1 to 3, it is mentioned in Surah Yasin, Ch. No. 36, Verse No. 1 to 3, in Surah Al-Zumar, Ch. No. 39, Verse No. 1, in Surah Jathiyah, Ch. No. 45, Verse No. 45, Verse No. 2, it is mentioned in Surah Rahman, Ch. No. 55, Verse No. 1 to 2, it is mentioned in Surah Waqiah, Ch. No. 56, Verse No. 77 and 80, it is mentioned in several places.

  14. The Qur’an is acclaimed as the best Arabic literature on the face of the earth by the Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The Arabic language of the Qur’an it is so clear so meaningful, intelligible, unsurpassable, miraculous. It does not deviate away from truth. Even though it rhymes unlike other poetry and literature. It is the highest order of rhetoric towards the revelation. Will you agree an illiterate person would be able to come up with an intelligent book as this?? i bet u wont..infact it is a challenge that if all the humankind and jinn’s gathered to produce the like of the Qur’an, they will not be able to do it even if they helped each other. 1400 years passed, was anyone able to come up with a single verse as quruan??

  15. “Do they not ponder about the Qur’an? If it had not come from God they would surely have found therein much contradictions.” [Qur’an, 4:82]

    To this day Muslim and non-Muslim scholars have not been able to find any contradiction or mistake in the Qur’an. Moreover, if one was to compare letter-by-letter a copy of the Qur’an published today to one of the first copies of the Qur’an available then one would find that not a single letter has been omitted or added. Copies of the Qur’an dating back to the first century of Islam can be found in Istanbul and Tashkent.

    Furthermore, as a complimentary proof, the Qur’an has many accurate scientific points become which have only become known in very recent history and whose verification was impossible 1400 years ago.

  16. as for the verifiable existance of God… have u ever seen ur brain? does dat mean u dont have one?? so according to you u are brainless….

  17. Pingback: Ummahs Dot Com » » Inaccuracies in BBC program ‘Life of Muhammed’ presented by Rageh Omaar

  18. I am a medical doctor and just want to ask all those who belief Allah donot exist and quran is false that how can an illiterate man 14 hundred years ago write the scientific facts written in Quran. How do they explain the description given in quran about the presence of a fetus in mothers womb when only centuries later the science revealed all the facts. please try to think how advanced was the scientific knowledge 1400 years back. is it possible for any human at that time to know the scientific facts described in quran.

    please remember there is too much information now on internet. my sincere advise like many other is to verify the source you are relying on – this is what we call scientific method.

    it is very easy to say Allah do not exist but try one day – sit alone and peep into your own hearts and ask yourself who am I???

Your thoughts on this article are welcome.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s