Feb 202016
 

pussyriot

The band “Pussy Riot” invade a Christian Cathedral in Moscow

 

The term LGBT was invented to refer jointly to lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals. It connotes both a lifestyle and sexual preference. It is important to note that the term Gay has evolved to refer to a “preference” instead of an inborn trait. At an earlier stages of Gay discourse, it would appear that the term “Gay” was coined more in reference to those that showed an inborn drive for same-sex relationships, whether sexual or not. Today, the LGBT community will be critical of anyone trying to limit the phenomenon to only those who have a natural tendency, choosing instead to view it as a lifestyle choice.

LGBT has developed in six phases as a phenomenon over the past four decades.
• Being gay as a personal condition,
• being gay as a personal choice,
• being gay as a social choice,
• celebrating being gay,
• actively advocating for the mainstreaming of gay discourse and lastly,
• actively sitting in judgement those in opposition to the phenomenon.

I wish to approach the discussion on LGBT along four perspectives.
1. LGBT as a lifestyle choice
2. LGBT as a topic within a broader human rights discussion
3. LGBT as manifested in society
4. LGBT within Islamic and religious discourse.

1. LGBT as a lifestyle choice

LGBT is an emblem rather than a fully substantive lifestyle in my view. If LGBT is at its root a sexually referenced choice, then I cannot see how it can represent a complete or comprehensive comment on sexual discourse. LGBT does not provide an exhaustive frame for discussing sexuality. After all, it omits bestiality, incest and polygamy as some examples. Neither does LGBT provide a complete or comprehensive framework for any meaningful lifestyle discourse. The human experience is frightfully complex, and, reducing it to the sexual is limiting in the extreme.

What is LGBT emblematic of? Same-sex attraction and relationships have always been there. What makes it different in our times? My humble submission is that LGBT represent the most profound attack on the normative. It represents the highest form of rejection of any positivist or objectivist world view. It represents the most visible (and colourful) celebration of the break with modernity and pre-modernity. The gay movement takes the archetypal traditional human taboo topic, namely sex, and celebrates the break with traditional approaches to it. It is therefore not enough for the LGBT activist to recognize sexual deviation from the norms, but instead, chooses to celebrate it. It represents a sort of shock treatment to normative systems, with the goal of unfreezing existing attitudes. It makes a mockery of the dominant normative social paradigm, to the point of de-legitimizing it.

LGBT has grown out of post-modernity. As an activism, it can perhaps be seen as a natural outgrowth from a society where pleasure-seeking and nihilism constitute the foundation. A society un-anchored in a set of transcendent norms, where a unique personal identity becomes more and more contested, provides the compost from which the activism has grown. LGBT provides more than an identity to its proponents. It redefines a moral and ethical discourse within which the LGBT identity is not only shaped, but in fact heroically adopted as an emblem of that new ethical and moral framework. It presents moral, naturalistic and social relativism to humanity as a new code of existence, placing the LGBT community in its vanguard.

There are many other bases from which identity has been shaped; Economic status, dietary preference, mode of worship or appearance being some examples. The problem with any of these becoming emblematic of the new moral relativism is the absence of any substantive and real currency that these would have in society. If the vegans of the world were to launch a movement to make veganism the emblem for moral relativism it would simply not have enough impact. Choosing to make an economically defined category the basis has been done before within Marxist analysis, which places the human, as the worker at the heart of its discourse. In a neo-liberal, market dominated society; the money masters would simply not allow this. Variant modes of worship or non-worship, such as the neo-atheist movement and other post-modern new-age ideas have had some good impact, but not nearly as successful as the LGBT discourse. The element that these phenomena lack, and which is probably the key to the success of LGBT activism is the element of victimhood. As with Zionism, which really only received mass global sympathy after the Holocaust, LGBT enjoys a wave of popular sympathy due to the perceived victim status of gays throughout history.

A final word on the LGBT lifestyle is that it does appear to be a middle class phenomenon. The LGBT agenda is not being visibly directed by the poor, but rather driven by the wealthy middle class.

2. LGBT within broader human rights

The post-modern condition has created an obsession with individual identities. These Individual identities have had to be forged from whatever source possible. Religion, nationality, race and culture provided some useful sources where people could create for themselves an individual identity, in the new confusing pluralistic society. Nowhere was this more relevant than in societies such as in the “melting pot” USA or the “rainbow nation” South Africa. The “rainbow nation”, where each color manifests separately is a very effective metaphor of the new identity-obsessed society. In an attempt to subscribe to a human rights culture and individual rights, the new pluralistic society has virtually sanctified individual or sectional identities. LGBT, as a newly emerged social choice, has joined other sectional identities as being sanctified by law.

The problem is that the human rights emphasis on sectional and individual identities has come at a cost of an emphasis on core human and social and economic rights. Why do we hear of “Gay Rights” as human rights, “Freedom of Religion” as a human right, but never, ever, is it legitimate to express a “Living Wage” as a human right, or “Proper Shelter” as a human right or “Sound Health Care” as a human right, enshrined by constitutions and guaranteed by the state? Society has been trained to tolerate the worst forms of degradation of its citizens due to poverty and inequality, yet seems to react hysterically when individual freedoms or rights are contravened.

The reality is clear. Sectional bourgeois identities have taken over, nay hijacked the grand narrative within the new post modern plural society. The subjugation of the grand narrative by sectional narratives is a bane and not a boon. It represents a type of fascism that denies human rights to the masses, while sanctifying them for the minority. In the wake of this subjugation, popular truisms and values have been remolded to reflect this focus on the bourgeois identity. Human rights are now the rights of bourgeois to choose their sectional pursuits and frolics. Injustice, as a universal value has been eclipsed by terms such as non-sexism, gender equality, non-racialism and freedom-of-sexual-preference. The new political correctness reflects and enforces this. The grand narrative of poverty and inequality within South Africa, coincidentally the most unequal society in the world, is not regarded at the same level of urgency and hysteria for example as the narrative around gay rights protection, and other sectional identity rights. Why?

It is time that a call for a broadly just society is revived. The poor, the humiliated and the degraded need to be placed at the centre space of liberation politics, a space that is currently being squatted on by LGBT and other sectional bourgeois interest groups. The real and urgent needs of the people cannot go on being subordinated by the agendas of bourgeois identity interests. Why would LGBT (or any other sectional agenda) feel uncomfortable in a society where justice is guaranteed to all collectively and not articulated separately for the different sections? My humble opinion is that the stratification of society into sanctified sectional agenda groupings has become the biggest tool in the broad neo-liberal assault on general human dignity. Human dignity is no longer the common collective pursuit of all people, but has become the narrow prize for the interest or lobby group. The neo-liberal project guarantees freedom to pursue one’s own agenda, but not the freedom for society to pursue the greater good. It is time to re-sanctify the call for “justice for all”, and to curtail and de-sanctify the call for “justice for the interest group”. LGBT, the nation, the culture, mode of worship and any other mode by which people shape their identity needs to seek its own justice within this broad call.

3. LGBT as manifested in society

The various components of the LGBT phenomenon seem to be the following: Legitimating, Celebrating, and Challenging.

The legitimating component has been very effectively co-opted within the broader gender discourse. It is strange to see how gender activists initially grabbed hold of the LGBT agenda. In this new merged discourse, the lesbian seems to represent the pinnacle of feminist parity with the male gender, and male homosexuality the pinnacle of the liberated male, freed from all chauvinist masculinity. The merging of these agendas has reached a point where critical gender theory has become fully instrumentalised and harnessed by the LGBT agenda. A discussion on gender equality no longer seems complete without a discussion on sexual preference rights. The LGBT agenda has therefore benefitted from both these two revisionists and critical theories.

The celebrative component of the movement is manifested in the gay parade and the omnipresent public tokens of obeisance to the agenda found in popular culture, popular media and even official communications. Gay sex is no longer regarded as an exceptional, non-normative and private preference, but is mainstreamed into movies and other popular cultural expressions. The gay parade serves to galvanize general public attitudes in favour of it, while other public expressions serve to normalize it. All of these find protection and legitimacy within a human rights discourse that places it on a par with the highest aspirations of justice in society.

Finally, the challenging component refers to the activist side of the movement. This is the LGBT attempt to stifle or silence any challenges to its claim to being a valid and even valued identity within society. By effectively merging and even hijacking the gender agenda and the broader human rights agenda, the LGBT movement has in its possession the tools to fend off any challenge. With these tools, it has managed to advance its cause to dizzy heights. In the 1970s, the movement could count as its greatest achievement, the coming out of the closet of gays and lesbians. Presently, the achievements have shifted very far beyond that. After winning the battle to sanctify gay marriage in Western societies, the new pursuit now seem be gay child adoption. Under cover of its wielding of human rights, the legitimizing of the trade in children is the latest pursuit. Society, being subdued morally, intellectually and legally to the agenda seems to stand willing to negotiate away the rights of the child in the onward gay march. In a court case in the Louisana, USA for example, an adopted child of gay parents expressed the view that she was “was exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the ilk.” If this does not constitute child abuse, then what does? There have been scary reports of the sexual abuse of children by non-biological male gay parents, but even these seem to be insufficient to check the onward march.

4. LGBT within Religious and Islamic Discourse

Western religions have by-and-large succumbed to the LGBT agenda. The Christian church, with its traditional dichotomizing of church and state found it most easy to let the LGBT agenda slide in under broad secular justifications. When the Christian Church decided to take a stand on the LGBT agenda encroaching and invading the Church itself, it found itself outsmarted and overcome. The Church has subsequently had to succumb to the agenda within its own order. The phenomenon of the gay priest and church-hosted gay marriages are the result. The biblical counter-narrative would seem to have been simply conceded in the process.

It is more difficult to achieve the same within Islam. There is common consensus in Islam is that homosexuality to the point of sodomy is condemned in the Quran as the practice of the People of Lot. This has not prevented certain contemporary Muslim gender activists from attempting to sneak the agenda in under cover of the broader gender rights agenda. A thinker like Amina Wadud is in the forefront of this. Other Muslim thinkers such as Tareq Ramadan seem unable and powerless to mount a proper response. Instead, they choose to frame their response within a larger secular pluralistic discourse. The result is that a view is being advanced by Ramadan that homosexuality is not supported in Islam, but is left to the private conscience of the individual. This view represents a cowardly cop-out and act of appeasement. It also reveals a measure of insecurity of a thinker like Ramadan. His approach is perhaps best understood within the context of his own need to defend the broader project of legitimating his own sectional group interest agenda, in his case that of being Muslim in the West.

This brings Muslim scholars to their biggest challenge. Do they trade off the broader gains of the sectional Muslim interest agenda by confronting the LGBT agenda? Only if Islam is seen as a sectional identity can this be the case. When Islamic scholarship is on the other hand redefined as the vanguard of the human project, then this is not possible. When Islamic scholarship defines itself as the defender of all human dignity and emancipation, then this trade-off does not present itself. It therefore is required of Muslim scholarship to redefine their own mission as being key protagonists for broader truth, spirituality and social justice, instead of being defenders and champions of the Muslim identity.

Homofascism

A day or so ago the world experienced its latest display of homofascism with the public disciplining and humiliation of the world renowned boxer from the Phillipines, Manny Pacquiao. Within the context of his Christian religious affiliation and upbringing, he remarked that sex between the same genders was not to be found within the animal world, and that animals therefore found themselves at a higher level than humans who engage in the practice. His views sparked an outrage, which hit global headlines. It also led to his corporate sponsor Nike, withdrawing their sponsorship to the boxer. He was forced to make a public apology. The public humiliation of world figures represents an important element in the greater LGBT agenda as it serves as a lesson for any other person that their livelihood (which often means their life) can be taken away from them should they question the mighty unchallengeable LGBT colossus. The crime here is clearly not his negative views on homosexuality but rather the excessive and overwhelming response to these views.

In 2015, the University of Cape Town SRC, suspended a student leader, Zizipho Pae, as acting President of the SRC for uttering the words “We are institutionalising and normalising sin! May God have mercy on us.” in a Facebook post. The suspension took place after a group of LGBT activists staged a sit-in and pressured the SRC to suspend the student leader. What is telling about this act of homofascism is the recalling of an elected student leader that again expressed a personal sentiment borne from a committed religious belief. Personal conscience or even legitimacy by election is clearly no longer seen as a mitigating circumstances, spelling a clear move to fascism by LGBT. The expulsion also marks the subordination of religious norms and values and the will of students who elected the leader, to the LGBT agenda.

In 2012, the Russian LGBT activist band called “Pussy Riot” invaded the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow and proceeded to desecrate the place of worship, including urinating in it. They were arrested later and understandably sentenced to jail for hooliganism. The response in the Western media was telling in this case. It was overwhelmingly sympathetic to the band’s outlandish act of desecration to an institution with a long established tradition in Russia. Their actions fit in with the broader LGBT agenda to mock and to desecrate any established value system in favor of the hedonistic and nihilistic LGBT agenda. The abuse of “freedom of speech” was also very effectively employed here to provide moral cover for their reprehensible actions.

Barbwire.com (retrieved 2016) lists 300 (three hundred) additional examples in the US of homofascism. The examples they site seem to indicate of pattern that ranges from robbing ordinary people of their livelihood by lobbying for their dismissal from work, to outright death threats by the LGBT lobby.

Conclusion

It is time to clear the human rights, social justice and intellectual public central spaces of the LGBT squatters. The war against poverty and inequality needs to be refocused on the masses of people who are suffering homelessness, disease and degradation. The grand social justice narrative must be wrested from the sticky neo-liberal hands of the LGBT lobby movement. I sincerely hope that a party in South Africa like the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) under Julius Malema will not be lured into diverting its agenda to the agenda of these petit bourgeois intellectual squatters.

References

Wikipedia. Pussy Riot. (2016) Retrieved February 20, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot

RDMRdm Newswire. (2016) Student leader in hot water over public attack on homosexuality – Sowetan LIVE. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2015/06/30/student-leader-in-hot-water-over-public-attack-on-homosexuality

Chris Murphy. (2016) Manny Pacquiao sparks fury after homophobic remark. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/16/sport/boxing-manny-pacquiao-animals-gay/

Barbwire.com. (Retrieved 2016) acts of homo fascism – Google Search. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://barbwire.com/2014/07/07/300-examples-read-understand-meant-term-homofascism/

Wadud, Amina. (2016) Women Imams – Amina Wadud. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJo8y-AxZHY

Ramadan, Tariq. (2016) Tariq Ramadan about homosexuality. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsaWjxkZB3w

Andy Marso, Jim Mclean. (2016) Topeka Child Abuse Case Raises Questions About Kansas Policy On Gay Adoptions. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://kcur.org/post/topeka-child-abuse-case-raises-questions-about-kansas-policy-gay-adoptions#stream/0

Last, First. (2016) Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

Feb 152016
 

Two giants in South Africa engage in debate. Clem Sunter is the strategic visioning guru of South Africa;s biggest company, Anglo American. Julius Malema is the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters, the party that has become a serious threat to the ruling African National Congress party in South Africa.  Excellent engagement.

Feb 132016
 

When I say my religion is Islam, then Christians and Jews hate me. They say Islam promotes violence and intolerance. They say Islam is a false religion.

When I say my mazhab (sect) is Islam, Muslims hate me. They say I must choose between being Shiite or Sunni. Islam is not enough. They say I must also join a sect.

After carefully looking at all of their beliefs, I have discovered the answer, and decided… My religion, my Madhab and my code is ISLAM. Let them all go ahead and hate me for that.

How did I come to this decision? They all say that I must spend thousands of hours mastering each of their systems in order to know enough about it. Only then can I be in a position to reject it. I disagree. I do not need to spend thousands of hours studying Sunnism, Shiism, Christianity or Judaism to find them to be false.

There is another easier way. I am using that easier way here to establish my position that pure Islam (minus Sunni or Shi’i) is all that is needed, no matter what the haters and the dividers say. Before I upset the Christians and the Jews, let me add. Islam is the word I use to refer to the religion which Jesus, Abraham and Moses brought. Islam is the term the Quran uses to refer to the religion of the One God. A follower of these prophets is, according to the Quran a Muslim.

Look at this verse:
“Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was upright, a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists.” (3:67)

Now here follows my reasoning for rejecting the false labels.

In Mathematics, you don’t have to analyze an entire theorem to disprove it. You don’t even have to know much mathematics to disprove it. All you have to do is demonstrate a case where it fails to hold true; just ONE case and the theorem loses validity. Universal claims are presented in Mathematics as theorems. A mathematical theorem is a claim to a truth. The universal truth-claims of mathematics must hold under all circumstances, times and places. Where there are exceptions, these should be mentioned as part of the theorem. The other point about a truth-claim in mathematics is that any one theorem must be coherent with all other co-existing valid theorems and laws. If I am able to show just one case where a claim to truth breaches another proven truth, then one of them must be erroneous.

Let us take an example.

The theorem of Pythagoras is an accepted universal rule for any right angled triangle. For the three sides a, b and c in a right angled triangle, Pythagoras’ theorem says that

a^2+b^2=c^2

Where a and b are the length of the two sides that form the right angle of the triangle and c is the third side of the triangle. All triangles of this type must always follow this rule. Now let us suppose for a particular triangle that side a =1, side b=2 then the equation for the triangle will be 1^2+2^2=5= c^2. The third side, c, squared, must be 5. So the third side c cannot be 3 as 3 is not the square root of 5.

No let’s say that I go and measure the sides of a right angled triangle, and find them to be of lengths 1,2 and 3, then there is definitely a mistake somewhere. Either the triangle is not a right angled triangle or either my measurement was wrong or either, Pythagoras’ Theorem is wrong. Now if I can show that the triangle is a right angled one, and that I have measured absolutely correctly, then, unfortunately, the great Theorem of Pythagoras has been shown to be false.

What is my point? My point is that a claim of universal Truth must be internally coherent, and errors can be uncovered by almost anyone who can expose internal inconsistencies. In the above case, I show that the mighty Theorem of Pythagoras can be disproven or falsified by anyone. All that is needed is just a simple ruler. The fact is that in 2500 years, no one has been able to do so, and therefore Pythagoras’ truth claim remains intact.

For me, any other claim of universal truth must pass the same test. The true test of a genuine true religious/philosophical life code must be its consistency. There must be no loop-holes, inconsistencies or compromises across the various aspects of your life, across society as a whole and across centuries of time. By “aspects of your life”, I mean ALL the facets of the life of any human being. By “across society”, I mean your worldview must be compatible with others that share the world with you, even those with different worldviews. By “across centuries of time”, I mean that core principles that hold today cannot become obsolete tomorrow. The core beliefs must remain timeless.

Let me explain a bit more what I mean. In simple terms, if you cannot practice every single element of your life, without at some point finding it impossible to contradict your religious code, then its claim of being a universal truth is false. Having fun, loving, fighting, competing, building, breaking, nurturing, laughing, crying and risking are among the activities that a truly fulfilled life engages in. If you cannot do all of these, throughout your life without finding it impossible to breach your code at any point, then your code may well hold as true or valid.

Let us take an example. The Islamic code makes the eating of pork forbidden. However, the code is accommodates a situation when there is the risk of starvation. The code accommodates the eating of pork in a time when failing to do so will lead to death. If there is nothing else to eat, then pork becomes lawful. The code is therefore wide enough to be applied under all circumstances.

This verse from the Quran explains the code:

“And why should you not eat of that on which Allah’s Name has been pronounced, while He has explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you, except under compulsion of necessity?” (6:119)

My point is that, as with the above example, the code must be so broad, that it works under ALL circumstances, with no exception.

If I can therefore find a case where a religious or philosophical code does not work for its followers, then I have disproven that code.

Let me put this to the test with some religious and philosophical codes I have come across.

Before I do so, let me raise a relevant question. Is there a need for a code? I heard someone say that they do not need a code. If you do not need a code of life, then does that not also define your code? In that case “I do not have any personal boundaries or rules” would be the code. That makes no sense, because even when you have no rules, you still have to refrain from eating poisonous food, which means you DO have a code.

Let us deal however with those who claim that they have no code. Funny enough, that is a common social world view / code in society today. I will refer to it as Nihilism. Many people today seem to adhere to this code. It basically says that you should act with absolute freedom, in your own best interest.
Nihilism is defined by Google’s quick word definition as “the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.” Much of the youth regard this as the default position, given all the trouble caused by religion and believers in God. Nihilism is often coupled with Hedonism, defined by Google as “the pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence.” Those who adhere to this code believe that their satisfaction and pleasure come first in all matters. Most people who embrace this code are quite good members of society. The problem lies at the extreme. A person who takes this code to its logical extreme would pursue pleasure and satisfaction even at the cost of other human beings. When you try to get ahead in your career, do you then undermine your colleagues? When you try to become rich and successful, do you then harm others? Sadly, for many, harming others in pursuit of pleasure has become a norm.

To feed their own need for satisfaction and happiness, how far will some nihilistic and hedonistic people go? The hedonist may rightfully argue that taking drugs gives him pleasure and is therefore justifiable. How do you convince a hedonistic society that over-indulgence can be dangerous, if pleasure is all that life is about?

What about the hedonist that crosses the boundary into sadism (getting pleasure from others’ suffering)? The most extreme cases are the serial killer or the mass shooter. The serial killer or mass shooter is a person who kills for personal pleasure. If my pleasure is the only principle that counts, then the world becomes a scary place. Welcome to a world of sadism, torture, expropriation and murder. No person can be an extreme nihilist hedonist without at some point getting into trouble with other people, or even cause his own death or incarceration. Having no personal code is therefore clearly a path that has led us to the world we currently see; a world of mass shootings, serial killers, drug abuse, suicide and unfettered crime.

Let me consider another modern-day non-religious code.

Let me look at the Liberal Humanistic / Secular world view. This worldview places the overall well-being of humanity at the core of its belief system. The undeniable fact is that this worldview is a modern interpretation of Darwinism, which preaches the survival of the strongest amongst species. One of the great guru’s of this worldview, Richard Dawkins regards evolution as a process devoid of morality, compassion and transcendence. Where, in this worldview does one find legal justification for social compassion? Where in this worldview does one find the legal de-legitimization of the despot and tyrant, who acts clinically in the interest of the human species as a whole? Hitler, and Stalin are good examples of men who followed very clinical processes of strengthening the species, even when it meant abandoning millions of humans beings which led to their death. Another problem with this worldview is that it becomes clumsy and unstuck when trying to answer the most profound questions that face us. Questions like, how non-existence became transformed into existence? The simplest mind knows that non-existence is the primary state, and that existence is the secondary state. For non-existence to become existence, requires an independently existing creative agent. They waffle when it comes to this question, pushing natural existence further back to more complex origins, instead of explaining it through a credible theory.

Let’s move on to a religious claim to universal truth.

I posed the question whether Christianity preaches non-violence and pacifism. The answer was, “yes indeed”, Jesus preached that turning the other cheek is the suitable Christian response to a provocation. It took Thomas Aquinas somewhere around 800 years ago to introduce into the overall Christian philosophy the concept of a Just War. This preaching against violence and war poses an obvious problem to theologically pure Christians. It would appear that most of them however simply opted to ignore this element of their religious world view, and simply go on practicing the rest of Christianity as if all is okay. It’s also interesting to notice that the most religiously steadfast Christian region of the US, often referred to the Bible Belt, is also the most ardent supporter of the American military. Can you therefore really be a good Christian and an eternal pacifist? If the answer is “no”, then you have disproven the Christian code. If you answer “yes”, then the Christian code becomes contradictory with basic human nature, which is to defend yourself and your loved ones from a violent attack. I believe that there is no person or country in the world that can uphold the standard of “turning the other cheek”, without being destroyed at some point in time by a violent enemy.

Probably the most contradictory Christian core belief is the absolution of the individual from personal accountability for his actions. The Christian belief that God sacrificed of his only son, Jesus, to absolve all humanity of their sins, offers blanket immunity to all from sin. Even the believing murderer, who confesses that Jesus died for his sins, is forgiven. Christianity also releases its adherents from complying with the ancient Jewish covenant with God; a covenant that included many earthly laws that were meant to ensure the smooth functioning of society. In place of the earthly laws promulgated in the Old Testament, Christianity placed the Law of Caesar; or the Secular Law; thus creating an earthly sphere of governance, independent from the divine sphere. Christianity therefore calls for a retreat from the earthly sphere, and even go so far as to concede that earthly realm to Satan. Does this core belief then not render Christianity irrelevant to the mundane earthly existence of its adherents? Sounds to me like a complete surrender of all earthly existence to Satan. If you are a good Christian, you have to believe that the earth as fallen to Satan (at least until the second coming of Christ.) Does being a good Christian not then mean offering Satan victory on this earth? Seems like a code of despair and surrender to Satan to me.

Muslims have also invented codes to further define their understanding of Islam. Today, many Muslims feverishly defend their Sunni or Shi’I identity. Each one claims that his understanding of Islam is the authentic understanding. Let us look at these Islamic codes.

Sunni Muslims face a crisis today, because it has no religious conception of the qualities and principles of societal governance and leadership. Imam Nawawi, in the classic Sunni jurisprudential work, Umdatus Saalik, spells out the requirements to be a leader in a Sunni worldview. Those qualities are three: 1. being a man, 2. puberty and 3. sanity. These are the Sunni preconditions for someone to be fit for high office. Sunni religious law allows anyone that possesses these three qualifications to get into power. Sunni law also allows any means, I repeat, ANY MEANS to get to power, including usurpation. In terms of Sunni Law, power legitimates itself. “Might makes right” in other words.

Under what legal proviso does one remain a steadfast, practicing Sunni, while at the same time condemning Saddam Husayn, and every other corrupt leader that dominated Muslim governance for the past 14 centuries? That, in a nutshell lies at the very heart of Sunni Islam and its difficulty to co-exist with modern human rights and democratic systems today. A good Sunni has a religious obligation to respect the man in power.

A peculiar belief in Sunnism is the sanctification of both parties in a war. The bloody war between Ali (the fourth Caliph) and Muawiya is a case in point. The orthodox Sunni belief is that both these man are virtuous and above reproach. This belief they hold, even though thousands of men died in the war between these two men. This belief sets a precedent for all future times, and opens the door widely for bloody internecine strife and civil wars, which incidentally characterized much of Muslim society, then and now.

I spoke to a Twelver Shia Muslim friend the other day, who told me that she is comfortable that her religion is the ultimate system by which she is able to lead a fulfilling life. She explained to me the concept of accountability through an earthly representative of God, namely the Imam of the age. Under the Imam of the Age, there is a hierarchy of leaders going down to her local cleric, who provides her with guidance on every aspect of her life. My question to her was, is it possible to comply with the “one universal leader” Imam of the Age concept when you live on a remote, undiscovered pacific island? If not, then that means that the “one leader” for all humanity is only realistic in a time when universal communication is possible; making it unrealistic, say 1000 years ago. In that case, the concept of one universal leader is definitely not possible at all times and places, rendering it not universal and thus making the claim to universality false.

My other problem is the following with this claim to universal truth. Twelver Shi’ism is based on the core belief that God will not leave humanity without a divinely appointed leader even for one minute. It goes on to claim that the present person who occupies this lofty office is Imam Mahdi. The Imam is however not physically accessible, since he exists in a state of occultation. This occultic state is beyond the perception of ordinary human beings. Does a person that is inaccessible then not render that person beyond reach, and therefore irrelevant to the mundane earthly needs and demands of ordinary people?

Probably the saddest response of adherent of false codes is when they refer me to their spiritual leaders to answer and explain some of their core beliefs. If one cannot yourself justify and explain the most fundamental beliefs you hold, then that should be clear warning sign. Imagine asking a fruit vendor why he charges more for the apples than for the oranges, and he refers you to an accountant to explain his decision. Following anything blindly is an immediate disqualifier, as the blind believer clearly professes that she or he has no problem believing something that makes no sense.

The reason I have exposed the weaknesses in these religious-philosophical codes was not to declare whatever of contained in them as completely invalid. Rather, I am trying to say that their claim to being a universal truth is false. They may have many elements that are true on their own, but the global claim to truth is false.

Is there a philosophical / religious grand worldview or life code that can stand the test of consistency and completeness at a universal level? In the interest of brevity, I will name the one worldview that stands up to any test; a universal truth that can find no point of contradiction with reason, human fulfillment and overall social order; a code that is the very definition of social order, personal fulfillment, nature and reason. I will name it and challenge the reader to explore and test it further.

Quranic Rational Theism aka PURE UNADULERATED ISLAM is a worldview that shows no flaws of inconsistency, relevance or scope. By Quran is meant the scripture that can be traced back to a credible human testifier as a medium or channel of such scripture. By Rational is meant coherence and compliance with the innate human faculty of reason. Reason serves as corroboration of Scripture. No scriptural position is allowed to contradict Reason. Any such scriptural claim (contradicting Reason), is immediately exposed as false. By Theism is meant the recognition of the existence of a supra-cosmic creative agent; i.e. a Creator that exists independently of all created existence; the necessary existence, the supreme embodiment of all reason, benevolence, justice, truth and morality.

I am not presenting something new here, my dear reader! Every authentic biblical Prophet (Peace on all of them), came with this message! Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad all brought this simple message to us earthlings. ‘Recognize and revere your Creator, God! Recognize and comply with His natural laws! Recognize His messengers! Comply with reason! Establish kindness and compassion within society!”

Every other sincere rational seeker of truth in history arrived at a similar position. Men and women like Emmanuel Kant, Isaac Newton, Plato or Socrates. Their undeniable positions were: “Behind the origin of the universe is a single Creator. The Creator has created an internally rational and consistent system. Morality is innate to Man, and connected to Man’s recognition of God.”

A word on terms we use. Terminology often illicits negative sentiments. This is so because words often have a stigma because of the images they seem to be referring to. We may hate a thing, and the word that refers to that thing will evoke a negative sentiment. “War” and “killing” are two examples. A generation ago the word “gay” had a meaning much different to the current meaning. If you called someone “gay” in 1960, it was no problem, because it only meant “being happy or jovial”. In 30 years much changed for the world, and in 1990, if you called someone “gay” it could illicit a strong, even violent response. By that time, the word had acquired the new meaning of being a homosexual.

The same goes for Islam and Muslim. When I say the word “Muslim” today, it may evoke a negative feeling in some. It is therefore more useful to refer to a concept rather than a word.

The religious/philosophical worldview that I am presenting here is age-old, and has surfaced under different names throughout history. Let us look at the word “Islam”. Morphologically the word comes from the root “sa-la-ma”, which has these meanings: surrendering, complying, being peaceful or being wholesome. The word “Muslim” refers to one that surrenders, complies or upholds peace. In its religious context, compliance with human nature and the Divine Will is implied. Now take the word “Quran”, from the word “qa-ra-a”, meaning: reading, rendition, proclamation or announcement. At numerous places in the Quran, as a proclamation from God, the reader is challenged to consider various phenomena in nature to confirm the integral connection between God, Nature and Reason.

Look at the following verses:
Surah An-Nahl, Verse 12:
وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمُ اللَّيْلَ وَالنَّهَارَ وَالشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ وَالنُّجُومُ مُسَخَّرَاتٌ بِأَمْرِهِ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ

And He has made subservient for you the night and the day and the sun and the moon, and the stars are made subservient by His commandment; most surely there are signs in this for a people who ponder;
(English – Shakir)

Surah Sad, Verse 29:
كِتَابٌ أَنزَلْنَاهُ إِلَيْكَ مُبَارَكٌ لِّيَدَّبَّرُوا آيَاتِهِ وَلِيَتَذَكَّرَ أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ

)It is) a Book We have revealed to you abounding in good that they may ponder over its verses, and that those endowed with understanding may be mindful.
(English – Shakir)

Surah Al-Hadid, Verse 8:
وَمَا لَكُمْ لَا تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولُ يَدْعُوكُمْ لِتُؤْمِنُوا بِرَبِّكُمْ وَقَدْ أَخَذَ مِيثَاقَكُمْ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ

And what reason have you that you should not believe in Allah? And the Apostle calls on you that you may believe in your Lord, and indeed He has made a covenant with you if you are believers.
(English – Shakir)

Surah Az-Zumar, Verse 28:
قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا غَيْرَ ذِي عِوَجٍ لَّعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ

An Arabic Quran without any crookedness [discrepancy], that they may guard (against evil).
(English – Shakir and my square bracketed insertion)

Before Sunni Islam and Shia Islam, there was just islam, more as a descriptive noun (small letter) than a proper noun. That means there was natural, peaceful compliance with nature under the will of the Creator of Nature. Before the Church and all its creeds, there were just People of the Covenant as Jews were referred to. The Covenant with God referred to compliance with the will of Yahwe, the Supreme Creator in return for a society blessed with harmony and prosperity. Before Rabbinical Judaism, the Talmud and countless man-made complicated mosaic laws, there was simply the Covenant: Worshipping the One God, who created the universe, and shaping all voluntary human activity in line with the gracious, nature that Man is naturally supposed to have.

I am not inviting to a new religion here; only pleading for a rededication to the original, unadulterated, uncomplicated call of the Creator, to our rational mind and to nature.

Almost every major religion started out as a means to achieve harmony with the universe under God. For a few centuries each of these were practices in its pure form, and then unfortunately underwent deviation under the influence of those in positions of power. For Christianity, the deviation to a religion preaching Trinity and other alien and unnatural ideas was brought about by the senior church fathers after about three centuries, and culminated in the Nicene Creed, which was adopted after about three centuries of the departure of the noble Messenger of God, Jesus Christ (peace be upon him.) For Judaism, this deviation took the form of attaching an infinite number of complex and infinitely difficult laws when the Rabbis developed the Talmud as a non-revealed additional “divine” source of law. For Islam, this deviation took place approximately two to three hundred years after the noble Messenger of God, Muhammad (peace be upon him.), when scholars incorporated a corpus of about a million reported sayings of the noble Prophet into the fabric of the religion. The “Hadith”, as a corpus of claimed sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (p), became a second holy source of Divine Law, even though it lacked all the powerful bases for authenticity that the Quran had.

Some Muslims refuse to see that Islam became deviated. They refuse to see Hadith as a problem. They even go to the point of raising Hadith to the level of sanctity of Quran. For the benefit of these Muslims, let me explain briefly the difference in authentication methodologies between Quran and Hadith.

Every verse from the Holy Quran is transmitted through multiple oral chains of narration from the Prophet himself, and was further corroborated by a written record, also recorded from the mouth of the Prophet, at his instruction. The Quran is universally accepted in its present form, and there exists no rival versions of the book. Before his death, the Prophet himself authenticated the complete copy, and there has never been a dispute amongst the leaders that followed the Prophet about the text of the Quran. This was the case even though there were several civil wars, which presented an ideal opportunity for rival claimants to the office of Caliphate to come up with spurious versions of the book. This never happened, which substantiates the point that the Quran is the authentic words from the mouth of the Prophet, by universal and consensus. The nonsensical claims of some critics that Uthman burnt some rival versions is bereft of any real substance. The other claim by a German scholar (Puin) that the ancient Sana’a manuscripts differ from the Quran in use, really amounts to nothing. If anything the Sana’ manuscripts reinforce the reality that the Quran is very authentically preserved.

But the best test for the Quran is the book’s own challenge to any reader to come up with any discrepancy, contradiction or flaw in the book. This challenge is easy enough. After all, even the great Shakespeare was found to have made grammatical errors in his works. The tougher challenges, which the Quran has stood up to is the challenge to find an internal contradiction in the text. This should be easy enough to find, since the book comprises 6236 verses, revealed over 23 years, which presents a strong opportunity for internal contradiction. None has been found to date. Detractors point to the contradiction of Quranic facts with Biblical facts, but this claim does not amount to a charge of internal contradiction. So the challenge remains. Then, finally, there is the challenge to expose any contradiction with a known fact of nature. This should be easy enough, since the book was written long, long before the time of great scientific discoveries. I have recently been confronted with several apparently “unscientific” assertions in the Quran. In the book download sections of this site (thecall.co.za), I gave a detailed response to these charges, which all turn out to be puny attempts at impugning the reputation of the Quran.

Why is the Quran so important? The Quran describes itself as a “criterion”. If we can establish, beyond every shred of doubt, the authenticity of at least one divine scripture, it becomes possible to authenticate every other scripture in its light. With a perfectly preserved Quran, the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Hadith and every other claim to divine communication can be verified. The Quran in fact becomes as a rescuer and a redeemer of every claimed sacred text. The Quran is the ultimate alignment tool, to regenerate the authentic, rational, naturally harmonious religious philosophical worldview that was brought by every great Prophet and every great truth seeker.

The power of a rational, Quranic society is displayed in all its glory when one reflects on the Golden Age of scientific and intellectual progress of Muslim society in its initial years (750-1258 CE), prior to the full sacralisation of Hadith as a belated grafting onto the sacred core of Islam. The next great era of human progress can be seen only around 1500, when the shackles of illogical Christian beliefs are loosened, thanks to an imbibing of fresh intellectual breaths from Islamic thinkers such as Averroes. Enlightened Christians, clearly under influence from their crusader adventures to Islamic lands led a new wave of intellectual and scientific progress, placing mankind on a new renewed progress trajectory.

Mankind was great when it professed a clean, simple, rational, theistic code of existence, freed from priesthood, senseless dogma and ignorance. That is the call of this essay. That is my own profession, whether the haters like it or not.

Feb 042016
 

stoning_adulterer

There is no Quranic basis for the stoning of an adulterer. The concept of stoning does occur in the Quran, but not in describing a punishment for women (or men.) Rather, it appears in the holy book in the context of infidel opponents threatening the stoning to the Prophets and the Faithful. In other words, the concept appears as an evil torment visited by the evil upon the good. The Qur’an exclusively presents torture as a sadistic practice of barbaric peoples. The following Quranic references illustrate this point:

Surah 11, Verse 91:
قَالُوا يَا شُعَيْبُ مَا نَفْقَهُ كَثِيرًا مِّمَّا تَقُولُ وَإِنَّا لَنَرَاكَ فِينَا ضَعِيفًا وَلَوْلَا رَهْطُكَ لَرَجَمْنَاكَ وَمَا أَنتَ عَلَيْنَا بِعَزِيزٍ
They said: O Shu’aib! we do not understand much of what you say and most surely we see you to be weak among us, and were it not for your family we would surely stone you, and you are not mighty against us.

Surah 19, Verse 46:
قَالَ أَرَاغِبٌ أَنتَ عَنْ آلِهَتِي يَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ لَئِن لَّمْ تَنتَهِ لَأَرْجُمَنَّكَ وَاهْجُرْنِي مَلِيًّا
He said: Do you dislike my gods, O Ibrahim? If you do not desist I will certainly stone you, and leave me for a time.

Surah 44, Verse 20:
وَإِنِّي عُذْتُ بِرَبِّي وَرَبِّكُمْ أَن تَرْجُمُونِ
And surely I take refuge with my Lord and your Lord that you should stone me to death:

Surah 36, Verse 18:
قَالُوا إِنَّا تَطَيَّرْنَا بِكُمْ لَئِن لَّمْ تَنتَهُوا لَنَرْجُمَنَّكُمْ وَلَيَمَسَّنَّكُم مِّنَّا عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ
They said: Surely we augur evil from you; if you do not desist, we will certainly stone you, and there shall certainly afflict you a painful chastisement from us.

Surah 18, Verse 20:
إِنَّهُمْ إِن يَظْهَرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ يَرْجُمُوكُمْ أَوْ يُعِيدُوكُمْ فِي مِلَّتِهِمْ وَلَن تُفْلِحُوا إِذًا أَبَدًا
For surely if they prevail against you they would stone you to death or force you back to their religion, and then you will never succeed.

Surah 26, Verse 116:
قَالُوا لَئِن لَّمْ تَنتَهِ يَا نُوحُ لَتَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْمَرْجُومِينَThey said: If you desist not, O Nuh, you shall most certainly be of those stoned to death.
The concept of the stoning of the adulteress is present in another scripture, namely the Jewish Torah. It is from the Torah that this concept found its way into the corpus of Muslim Law. The subsuming of this cruel practice into Islam is a false and fraudulent act that has no justification. It will go down as one of the biggest crimes in history and all those in support of it will have to take responsibility for it in front of God Almighty.

Stoning women is a practice that was carried over from the Babylonian Talmudic Priests, to their new priestly counterparts within the nascent Islamic legal orthodoxy. In Islam, the practice is traced back to a false narration from the Prophet in the Muwatta, compiled by Imam Malik. The narration, in fact ascribes the abomination falsely to the Prophet, via the second Caliph, Omar. As is well known, the period of Omar’s rule coincides with the conquest by the Caliphate of Babylonia, which was at the time filled with Jewish Academies, highly productive in producing Jewish law. It was during the early centuries 650 CE onward, that much of the known Jewish innovations into the corpus of Islamic law took place. Islamic scholars concede to the phenomenon of “Isra-ee-leeyaat” as the taking up of Jewish practices into Islam during this period.

The Jewish Virtual Library (retrieved 3 Feb 2016) describes the world of Jewish scholarship in Iraq with the advent of Islam around 650 CE as follows:

The Academies of Babylon

At the beginning of the new era, the academies were in the final process of editing the Babylonian Talmud — a colossal work of discourses on almost every discipline, accumulated over the previous four centuries. From this point on, the Rabbis would relate to the Talmud as a closed text (even though, for the most part, it did not appear as a written book for some centuries). The headmasters of these yeshivot were called Geonim, and their eminence was such that the first half of the classic Muslim era is referred to as the Geonic period (mid-7th century to mid-11th century) in Jewish history, a period which spans the entire Abbasid dynasty.

It is no wonder that the incorporating of this vile and inhuman practice happened during this early period. The tool that was used to inject it into Islam was false hadith, of which millions were in circulation by that time. By their time, the famous Muslim Babylonian scholars Bukhari (810 CE – 870 CE) and his student Imam Muslim (815 CE – 875 CE) testified to the widespread practice of inventing sayings and attributing these to the Prophet Muhammad.

The Stoning of Women Clearly Violates the Quran

The Qur’an has stated in no unclear terms what the actual punishment is for adultery. Take a look at this verse from the Qur’an and try to see of there is anything unclear about it. (Emphasis is mine)

Surah An-Noor, Verses 1-2:

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful…

سُورَةٌ أَنزَلْنَاهَا وَفَرَضْنَاهَا وَأَنزَلْنَا فِيهَا آيَاتٍ بَيِّنَاتٍ لَّعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ

(This is) a chapter which We have revealed and made obligatory and in which We have revealed clear communications that you may be mindful.

الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا مِائَةَ جَلْدَةٍ وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُم بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ
وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَائِفَةٌ مِّنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.
Where is the doubt in these verses that the punishment for Zinna (fornication/adultery) is lashing NOT stoning. I suddenly hear some voice shouting the words “But that is for the unmarried person. The Married adulterer must be stoned!” That is the voice of the brainwashed person arguing with God Almighty. Let me explain. The concept of Zinna (Fornication) as used in the Quran includes both categories, married or unmarried. The word Zinna in the Quran refers to BOTH fornication AND adultery. There is no verse anywhere in the Holy Book that prescribes stoning as a punishment for adultery in any way. If you want to go on believing in it, you need to invoke the Hadith. But keep in mind the words of God almighty in the above verse: “This is) a chapter which We have revealed and made obligatory and in which We have revealed clear communications.” Continuing to call for stoning of women means allowing weak narrations to override what Allah Almighty has clearly prescribed.

Why do Muslim Priests Refuse to Denounce this Practice?

The stoning of women is a practice that dates back many, many centuries to the age of the “Salaf us Saalih” or the “Fine Forerunners” of Islam. Indicting a practice so deeply engrained in the religion is akin to questioning the very foundations of the faith. Conceding that such a huge mistake could have been made would result in a major crack right across the legal foundations of Shariah Law. It could in fact lead to the very questioning of Hadith as a second major source of Shariah Law.

I believe that this is exactly what is needed. Beyond the indisputable word of Allah as contained in the Holy Quran, Muslims should be questioning every single man-made contribution to Islamic Law. That is the great purge that is needed.

Shaykh Ahmad Mansour further refutes the Law of Stoning in the Islam…

The Lie of Stoning in Narrations (Hadith):

1. Although the stoning punishment was invented in Abbasid era, it was never unanimously approved. The contemporary Sunnah scholars admit that Al-Mu’tazala and Rejectionist (Khawarej) rejected the stoning. (Sayyed Sabiq, Sunnah Scholarship, 2/347, the Encyclopedia of Scholarship based on the four dogmas, 5/69 written by Abdel-Rahman Al-Jazzeeri).

2. The oldest narrations about stoning were mentioned in Nowata of Malik in a narration by Mohammad Ibn Hassan Sheibani. The narration started as: (Malik told us that Yahya Ibn Saeed heard Saeed Ibn Mossayyab said: When Omar Ibn Al-Khattab came from Mina …etc). That means the original narrator of this anecdote was Saeed Ibn Mossayyab. He claimed that Omar delivered an oration claiming the existence of the stoning verse in Qur’an, but it was omitted. However, Ibn Mossayyab was two years old when Omar was assassinated. How can a crawling baby telling stories about Omar. So, it is impossible for Ibn Mossayyab to be the narrator. Also, it is impossible for Omar to say something like that. It means that Omar accused the Qur’an of being forged and this is blasphemy. God, Almighty, said: “We revealed this Qur’an, and we are protecting it.” Al-Hijr 9. So, as far as the subject, this narration is false. In this narration, they attribute a verse to stoning that says:” The senile man and women shall be stoned if they commit adultery”. It is very well known the concept of senile does not indicate the marital status. One can reach this stage and stays single. Mohammad Ibn Hassan Sheibani felt this shortcoming in the meaning and realized by commenting on another narration about the Jewish adulterers (Narration no. 694):( Any Moslem man committed adultery with a woman and was married to a free Moslem woman and copulated with her, and then he shall be stoned. This is the “married” man. If he did not copulate with her or she was A Jewish or Christian, then he is not married and no stoning. He shall be flogged with hundred lashes. This is the saying of Abu Haneefah and the majority of scholars). Sheibani (a student to Abu Haneefah and one of the two scholars in the Hanafis) put a specific definition and a correction to the narration of stoning related to Omar that included adulterous “senile” people. In his definition, “senile” was no longer the criterion for stoning the married adulterer, but also, the Moslem who married a free Moslem woman. However, the one who married a Jew or a Christian, his marriage is not complete and no punishment for his adultery.

3. There is another anecdote in Mowata no. 692. This anecdote is completely false under all measures. Malik narrated this anecdote from Ibn Shehab (Al-Zuhry) who narrated this by himself. Al-Zuhry lived towards the end of the Umayyad era and was one of the followers who never met the Prophet, peace be upon him, or lived his time. Even though we read the following in Mowata: (Malik told us that Ibn Shehab told us that a man admitted committing adultery during the reign of the Prophet. The man testified against himself and was ordered to be stoned. Ibn Shehab said: For this, one can incriminate himself by self-confession.

4. The narrations were iterated after Malik. Shafi’e, Bukhari and Moslem wrote them. Sometimes these narrations claim that certain verses in Qur’an did exist and omitted. Bukhari, died yr 256 A.H., narrated from Omar Ibn Khattab, who died 200 years before him, about verses that were omitted from Qur’an and Omar declared them late. Some of these narrations claim that the stoning rite was stemmed from the monkey’s society before Islam. Bukhari narrated in his anecdote no. 3560:” Naeem Ibn Hmmad told us about Hasheem about Amr Ibn Meimoun saying: I saw before Islam a bunch of monkeys stoning an adulterous monkey, and I did the same with them. It seems that the monkeys’ society before Islam was ahead in applying the stoning. Anybody asked about this monkey’s marital status? Did the narrator discuss this issue with the Clergy of the monkeys and how to prove the occurrence of adultery? Did the monkeys use four witnesses? All of these narrations contradicting themselves.

5. Contradiction in narrations:
Contradiction is the main characteristic of Narrations. Two kinds of contradictory characters appear in narrations: partial contradiction in the details of the same story, and major contradiction among different stories. As an example of the latter, Bukhari produced a narration about a man came to the Prophet and admitted committing adultery. The prophet avoided him. The prayer time came and the man witnessed the prayer with the Prophet. He reiterated his confession to the Prophet and demanded to be punished. The prophet said to him: did you not pray with us? The man said: yes. The Prophet said: God forgave your sin. This means that prayer forgives the sins and negates the stoning. This is a stark contradiction with other narrations that are damped with the stoned victims’ blood.

While Bukhari, Shafi’e and Malik narrations emphasized that the punishment for the married adulterer is only stoning, we found that Moslem narrated repeated stories emphasizing in them that the Prophet said: The punishment of the single is 100 lashes and one year exile. The married punishment is 100 lashes then stoning. The danger in these narrations that it made the punishment for the married adulterer was 100 lashes before being killed stoning. This is another contradiction with other narrations.

These stories and anecdotes were written in the books of narrations to become major source of legislation for Moslems. Especially, when the scholars and the storytellers celebrated them and everyone re-iterated these narrations as “real” and “rites”. This was emphasized by the application of these narrations that sent many men and women victims to death based on legislation God never authorized.
References

R. Y. (2016) Great Rabbis of the Muslim Empire | Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved February 03, 2016, from https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/muslim_rabbis.html

Mansour, A. (Retrieved 2016) The Stoning Myth. Retrieved February 04, 2016, from http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=2687