The Quran brings out the best or Beast—iality in us!

The Quran a complete scripture?

Incompleteness of the Quran

Quennel Gale

 

 

Recently the authors of Answering Islam have begun a section on the incoherence of the Quran and the scrutiny of its divine claim of being “completely detail” on every religious situation. Sam Shamoun sums it up perfectly with this short article that we’ll reproduce in part, with some added emphasis:

 

From (http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Incoherence/intro.html)   

 

The Incompleteness and Incoherence of the Qur'an

The Qur'an, in many places, claims for itself complete, exhaustive knowledge. The Qur'an asserts that it basically lacks nothing as far as faith and religious knowledge is concerned. A careful analysis of the following verses demonstrates that the Qur'an's self-assessment is that it is a fully detailed revelation:

And there is no animal in the earth, nor bird that flies on its two wings, but (they are) communities like yourselves. We have NOT NEGLECTED ANYTHING in the Book. Then to their Lord they will be gathered. S. 6:38 Maulana Muhammad Ali

Shall I seek a judge other than Allah, when He it is Who has sent down to you the Book FULLY EXPLAINED? ... S. 6:114 M.M. Ali

The likeness of the life of the present is as the rain which We send down from the skies: by its mingling arises the produce of the earth- which provides food for men and animals: (It grows) till the earth is clad with its golden ornaments and is decked out (in beauty): the people to whom it belongs think they have all powers of disposal over it: There reaches it Our command by night or by day, and We make it like a harvest clean-mown, as if it had not flourished only the day before! Thus do We explain the Signs in detail for those who reflect. S. 10:24 Yusuf Ali

In their histories there is certainly a lesson for men of understanding. It is not a narrative which could be forged, but a verification of what is before it and a distinct explanation of all things and a guide and a mercy to a people who believe. S. 12:111 Shakir

Ibn Kathir comments on the last of the above quoted verses:

<and a detailed explanation of everything> Meaning the allowed, the prohibited, the preferred and the disliked matters. The Qur'an deals with the acts of worship, the obligatory and recommended matters, forbids the unlawful and discourages from the disliked. The Qur'an contains major facts regarding the existence and about matters of the future in general terms or in detail. The Qur'an tells us about the Lord, the Exalted and Most Honored, and about His Names and Attributes and teaches us that Allah is glorified from being similar in any way to the creation. Hence, the Qur'an is...

<a guide and a mercy for the people who believe.> with which their hearts are directed from misguidance to guidance and from deviation to conformance, and with which they seek the mercy of the Lord of all creation in this life and on the Day of Return. We ask Allah the Most Great to make us among this group in the life of the present world and in the Hereafter, on the Day when those who are successful will have faces that radiate with light, while those whose faces are dark will end up with the losing deal. This is the end of the Tafsir of Surah Yusuf; and all the thanks and praises are due to Allah, and all our trust and reliance are on Him Alone. (Source)

Yet another verse of the Qur’an states:

... And thee [too, O Prophet,] have We brought forth to bear witness regarding those [whom thy message may have reached], inasmuch as We have bestowed from on high upon thee, step by step, this divine writ, TO MAKE EVERYTHING CLEAR, and to provide guidance and grace and a glad tiding unto all who have surrendered themselves to God. S. 16:89 Asad

M.M. Ali has an interesting note here:

89b. Brinkman says: "If the Qur'an explains everything and is a guidance, what need is there for the Sunnah?" ... (Source)

Indeed, a very good question, one which Ali doesn't sufficiently answer. See the rest of his note. One online Shia commentary writes:

The Holy Prophet, who came with the book (a guide, a mercy and glad tidings to those who submit themselves to Allah) explaining all things, is a witness over all the witnesses. In addition to verses mentioned in the commentary of verse 84 of this surah, please refer to Bani Israil: 71 and An Nur: 24. (Pooya/M.A. Ali English Commentary; Source)

Ibn Kathir states:

<And We revealed the Book (the Qur'an) to you as an explanation of everything,> Ibn Mas`ud said: "[Allah] made it clear that in this Qur'an there is COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE AND ABOUT EVERYTHING." The Qur'an contains all kinds of beneficial knowledge, such as reports of what happened in the past, information about what is yet to come, what is lawful and unlawful, and what people need to know about their worldly affairs, their religion, their livelihood in this world, and their destiny in the Hereafter. (Source)

Two more verses from the Qur'an:

He does propound to you a similitude from your own (experience): do ye have partners among those whom your right hands possess, to share as equals in the wealth We have bestowed on you? Do ye fear them as ye fear each other? Thus do we explain the Signs in detail to a people that understand. S. 30:28

A Scripture whereof the verses are expounded, a Lecture in Arabic for people who have knowledge, S. 41:3 Pickthall

The cumulative effect of all these passages has led many Muslims to the conclusion that all one needs is the Qur'an, which in turn has led to a steady rise of "Qur'an only" Muslims. There are several distinct groups of "Qur'an only" Muslims, but they all have this in common: they reject the assertion that the hadiths and sirah literature are necessary and vital for a proper understanding of the Qur'an. Note, for instance, the statements of the following Muslim writer regarding 16:89:

There cannot be any words clearer than this. When He says "liKULLI Shai’iw" that means EVERYTHING. If the Qur’an itself is supposed to explain everything, what does it mean to explain the Qur’an by other books? In other words, the above verse is saying that there is NOTHING that is not explained by the Qur’an. The Muslim who says that "not everything is in the Qur’an", must sit down and contemplate on these Ayaats and reflect on the logical consequences of his statement.

And:

The Muslim, when confronted with these Ayaat, adopts a more defensive approach and revises his earlier statements by saying "Yes, the Qur’an is complete and has everything and is easy to understand, but it LACKS DETAILS. And to get the details we must resort to the books of Hadith". The Qur'an again refutes this statement...

The discussion should end here for if the Qur’an is COMPLETE, and EASY and has DETAILS of everything that we need for Guidance, then there is no need to look at another book for Guidance. I must add here that people should be encouraged to talk with each other and share ideas - the problem occurs when individual's ideas are taken as sources of Guidance in ADDITION to the Qur’an. This is exactly what Allah tells them:

"Is it not enough for them that We have revealed to you the Book, which is recited to them? Most surely there is a mercy in this and a reminder for a people who believe" (29:51)

The Muslim, however, refuses this "Mercy" and ties himself up in shackles of Hadith and tradition, and insists that the Book of Allah is not enough for him. With all of the above evidence, he still cannot give up Hadith. In the following chapters we will look at some of the other arguments put forth by the proponents of Hadith. (Source) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Mr. Shamoun has sufficiently shown, the Quran by its own claim is “a scripture that explains everything in detail”.  Hence, we can rightfully conclude if there isn’t a religious topic not discussed in the Quran then Allah is either a liar or worse yet, allows it without committing the fallacy of arguing from “silence”. The Holy Bible is often maligned by Muslims because of its detailed history of mankind and their actions, including some alleged embarrassing events like Lot’s daughters and their sexual encounter with their father. However, what Muslims fail to realize is if “detailed accounts” can be used against the Bible, then “less-detailed” accounts can be used against the Quran. Since it’s already been established that the Quran is complete and explains everything then any action not discussed in the Quran which can’t be related back to obvious actions of commands and forbidden practices must be sanctioned by Allah.

 

The Book of Leviticus elaborates on forbidden sexual practices:

 

The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD. Leviticus 18:1-5

 

Of the decrees demanded by God to be kept, one such horrific practice that is forbidden in the Bible is the practice of Bestiality:

 

"'DO NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH AN ANIMAL and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. "'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. "'EVERYONE who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and DO NOT FOLLOW ANY of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.'" Leviticus 18:23-30

 

The practice of Bestiality is explicitly condemned in the Torah, no such room for ambiguity. The command is clear; no such practice is permitted under any circumstance. We want to reiterate what Allah says:

 

And there is no animal in the earth, nor bird that flies on its two wings, but (they are) communities like yourselves. We have NOT NEGLECTED ANYTHING in the Book. Then to their Lord they will be gathered. S. 6:38 Maulana Muhammad Ali

According to the Quran, nothing was neglected to be explained by Allah within the pages of its text. Hence, if we find nothing mentioned against a particular practice then

 

  1. Allah forgot to explain it making himself a liar (bad enough as it is)

 

Or

 

  1. Allah views this practice as being permissible (worse to say the least)

 

If you read the entire text of the Quran, itself, the “fully-explained” scripture of Allah, the god of Muhammad, where “nothing is neglected to be explained”, we find that there is NO MENTION AGAINST THE PRACTICE OF BESTIALITY! This leaves Muslims in an obvious dilemma! They either have to admit that the Quran is false in saying that it explains everything (making Allah a liar) or accept the fact that bestiality isn’t outright forbidden by Allah in the Quran. Since many Islamic propagandists love attacking the Bible, what excuse can they make for Allah forgetting to even mention this evil practice as forbidden in the Quran? Can they show us from the Quran alone that this practice is forbidden? No. This obviously proves that the Quran is incoherent, incomplete and obviously false in its self-proclaimed statements about being “fully detailed” and “complete”. Some Muslims have realized the problem this poses for Islam, for example this Muslim website tries to explain this away:

 

Islam and homosexuality
Mikail Juma Tariq

 

As Salaamu Alaikum! (The peace of God be with you!)

Homosexuality is wrong, a sin, in Islam. Of that there really can be no dispute. See the excellent articles already on-line cited at the end of this article for the citations from the Qur'an. The point of this article is to try to put this into some reasonable perspective.

Sex outside of marriage is forbidden. It does not matter whether it is fornication, adultery, bestiality, pederasty or homosexuality. Many homosexuals claim they were born that way, they can't help being homosexual. The truth is that man has an urge for sexual gratification. As rationalizing (more than rational) beings, people will always try to find a justification for any activity which they find enjoyable. As to the claim by some homosexuals that it is genetic, this has been decisively disproven. Studies have shown that children of homosexuals are no more likely to be homosexual than any other children. If it were hereditary, many more of them would be homosexual. In our society, homosexuality frequently seems to result from a failed male role model, a father who is abusive or grossly negligent. Bestiality and pederasty are certainly natural as well. Every society has men who use children sexually. Everywhere sheep or goats are kept, they are used for sex. So the argument that homosexuality is natural or inborn has little persuasive power for Muslims… (Source)

 

Though discussing homosexuality, the Muslim apologist has no basis for claims about bestiality. He just lumps it under the idea “sex outside marriage”. The obvious problem is that THE QURAN DOESN’T FORBID BESTIALITY NOR PRESCRIBES A PUNISHMENT FOR IT. There is nothing about the punishment for bestiality in the Hadith collections of Muwatta, Bukhari or Muslim. This source gives more detail on this issue:

 

Death Penalty for Bestiality

 

There is nothing about the punishment for bestiality in Muwatta, Bukhari or Muslim. We find some ahadith on the subject in books of Abu Da`ud, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and Ahmad and, of these muhaddithun those who do express opinions on the authenticity of ahadith they record, do not have a favorable opinion of these particular ahadith.

 

There is essentially one hadith prescribing death penalty for bestiality:

 

‘Abd Allah bin Muhammad al-Nufayli related to us: ‘Abd al-‘Aziz bin Muhammad related to us: ‘Amr bin Abi ‘Amr related to me from ‘Ikrimah

 

from Ibn ‘Abbas that the Messenger of God said:If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him.” (‘Ikrimah) said: “I asked him (Ibn ‘Abbas): ‘Why the animal?’ He replied: ‘I think (the Prophet) disapproved of its flesh being eaten when such a thing had been done to it’ [1].” Abu Da`ud said, This is not strong.  (Abu Da`ud 3871)

 

Narrations of this hadith with variations are also found in Tirmidhi (1374), Ibn Majah (2554), and Musnad Ahmad (2294, 2591). They all are narrated from ‘Amr bin Abi ‘Amr from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbas. One narration in Ahmad comes from ‘Abbad bin Mansur instead of ‘Amr bin Abi ‘Amr but in that narration THE PROPHET IS NOT MENTIONED and the words quoted are understood to be the words Ibn ‘Abbas:

 

 ‘Abd al-Wahhab related to us: ‘Abbad bin Mansur informed us from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbas that concerning the one who has sex with an animal he said: “kill the fa`il and maf`ul bihi”. (Ahmad 2597)

 

But in al-Hakim a narration from the same ‘Abbad bin Mansur from ‘Ikrimah in which the saying of Ibn ‘Abbas BECOMES A HADITH OF THE PROPHET:

 

From‘Abbad bin Mansur from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbas that he mentioned (dhakara) the Prophet that concerning the one who has sex with an animal he said: “kill the fa`il and maf`ul bihi” (Al-Hakim, quoted from ‘Awn al-Ma‘bud 3869).

 

Note that this narration is the same as the one from Ahmad except for the words, “he mentioned the Prophet”. These words are awkward and vague, not clearly stating that the death penalty was prescribed by the Prophet. They are a timid attempt to turn a view attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas into a hadith.

 

It is even doubtful that Ibn ‘Abbas held this view, since in the following narration, Ibn ‘Abbas in fact says something completely different:

 

Ahmad bin Yunus related to us that Sharik, Abu al-Ahwas and Abu Bakr bin ‘Ayyash related to them from ‘Asim (bin Bahdalah Abi al-Najud) from Abu Razin from Ibn ‘Abbas who said:THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED PUNISHMENT for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.” Abu Da`ud said: “‘Ata also said so.” Al-Hakam said:I think he should be flogged, but the number should not reach the prescribed punishment (for zina`, that is, 100 lashes)”. Al-Hasan said: “He is like al-zan.” Adu Da`ud said:This hadith of ‘Asim weakens the hadith of ‘Amr bin ‘Amr.” (Abu Da`ud 3872)

 

The following facts about the above narrations, when taken together, leave little doubt that the hadith prescribing the death penalty for sex with animals is a fabrication resulting from some mistake or an outright lie: (Source) (PUNISHMENT FOR ADULTERY IN ISLAM; By: Dr. Ahmad Shafaat)

 

Dr. Shafaat was honest enough to admit that the alleged prescribed punishment for bestiality in the Hadith is a fabrication! Hence, neither the Quran nor the Hadith forbids bestiality! If this was the Holy Bible in this predicament Jews and Christians would be castrated by Muslim apologists and propagandists! Therefore Muslims don’t have a line of defense from both the Quran nor the Hadith to prohibit bestiality! If any Muslim claims that bestiality is prohibited by the Quran and the Hadith, he is outright lying to you. NO LAW BY ALLAH OR MUHAMMAD EXIST AGAINST THIS PRACTICE! Dr. Shafaat continues by given reasons as to why these hadiths are false:

 

First, the hadith is narrated only on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas (d. 68) in the first generation, only on the authority of ‘Ikrimah (d. 104) in the second generation, and then mostly from ‘Amr bin Abi ‘Amr (d. 144) in the third generation and very rarely from ‘Abbad bin Mansur (d. 152). Imams Malik, Bukhari, Muslim either did not know about it or did not trust it.

Second, narrators in the third generations, ‘Amr bin Abi ‘Amr and ‘Abbad bin Mansur, are not reliable. Abu Zur‘ah al-Razi considers ‘Amr bin Abi ‘Amr thiqah and Abu Hatim, Ibn ‘Adi and Ahmad say la bas bi hi. But al-Nasa`i considers him munkar and says he is not strong. Bukhari said that ‘Amr bin Abi ‘Amr is trustworthy but he has wrongly attributed to ‘Ikrimah several traditions. Yahya bin Ma‘in and al-‘Ajli also called him thiqah but rejected the ahadith he narrated from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbas. The views of scholars about ‘Abbad bin Mansur are even more negative. Thus he is described as da‘if al-hadith by Abu Hatim, laysa bi shay` by Yahya bin Ma‘in, layyin by al-Razi and munkar al-hadith, qadri, mudallis by Ahmad.

 

Third, in one narration in Musnad Ahmad, also from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbas, the “hadith” is found as a saying of Ibn ‘Abbas and NOT a saying of the Holy Prophet. So there is a distinct possibility that an opinion of Ibn ‘Abbas was attributed to the Prophet by a later transmitter such as ‘Amr bin Abi ‘Amr.

 

Fourth, it is doubtful that Ibn ‘Abbas believed in the death penalty for bestiality, since in another tradition Ibn ‘Abbas himself says clearly, “there is no prescribed punishment for sex with an animal”.

 

Fifth, as noted in ‘Awn al-Ma‘bud, the four Sunni schools of fiqh are unanimous that death is not prescribed for one who commits sexual intercourse with an animal, but may be given some other punishment (yu‘azzar wa la yuqtal). Such an agreement among the fuqaha` would have been difficult to develop if they generally knew and accepted a hadith, in which the  Prophet ordered to kill the one who has sex with an animal.

 

Although, in view of the above considerations, there can be little doubt the hadith in question is a false hadith, yet some later scholars accept the hadith and then try to reconcile it with the opinion of the fuqaha`. Thus some say that killing is mentioned in the hadith only as a threat not meant to be carried out. Some say that the killing of the man is only a threat but killing of the animal is to be carried out in actuality. In contrast to such artificial explanations of later scholars, Abu Da`ud and Tirmidhi themselves show better sense. Abu Da`ud, facing the obvious, declares: the tradition of ‘Asim (in which it is denied that there is any prescribed punishment for sex with animals) weakens the tradition of ‘Amr bin Abi ‘Amr (in which the death penalty is prescribed). Tirmidhi also shows reservation about the hadith by noting: “We do not find this hadith except from ‘Amr bin ‘Amr and he from ‘Ikrimah and he from Ibn ‘Abbas and he from the Prophet.”

 

It is necessary that when the weakness of a hadith reaches the level shown above we should have the courage to call it a false hadith, something that many scholars do not do. The authentic teaching of Islam, meant to guide humanity for all times to come, could not have been transmitted in this weak way. If we do not declare such ahadith as false then this means that we cannot free ourselves from the errors and lies of some Muslims in the past and therefore cannot faithfully interpret and implement what God and his Messenger have taught us. This in turn means that we cannot move forward as a civilization. (Source) (PUNISHMENT FOR ADULTERY IN ISLAM; By: Dr. Ahmad Shafaat)

 

This is utterly amazing. Muslims had to invent lies to attribute back to Muhammad and Ibn Abbas, because both the Quran and the Hadith failed to address the embarrassing practice of “Bestiality”! Apparently there were Muslims having sex with animals and justifying their actions because their holy scripture didn’t prohibit it! They understood the fact that the Quran was fully detailed and clear so, if Bestiality isn’t mentioned or forbidden then it is okay to commit it since they wouldn’t want to make Allah a liar! So where does the forbiddance of Bestiality come from? Dr. Shafaat gives us the answer:

 

The real source of the death penalty for bestiality

 

We have shown above that the death penalty FOR BESTIALITY DOES NOT COME FROM GOD AND HIS MESSENGER. So where does it come from? The most likely answer is that the penalty was borrowed from the Jewish tradition. Compare the “hadith” discussed above and what the Bible says. The “hadith” says:

 

“If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him.” (Abu Da`ud)

 

In the Bible we read:

 

If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the animal. (Lev 20:5)

 

The parallel is striking and, in view of the fact that the hadith is not authentic, strongly suggests that some Muslims took the penalty from the Biblical tradition and shamelessly attributed it to the Prophet of Islam.

 

Some scholars, such as Dr. Israr in our times, opine that a law found in earlier revelations remains valid in the Islamic Shari‘ah unless it is expressly modified and they use this principle to justify rajm for adultery. But it is easy to see that this opinion is incorrect:

 

The principle that Muslims are bound by the earlier laws unless they are abrogated or modified by the Islamic sources clearly has far reaching consequences for the practice of Islam. It is therefore expected to be stated clearly in the Qur`an or at least in some demonstrably authentic ahadith and we also expect scholars to generally accept it. But we find no statement of the principle in the Qur`an and the authentic ahadith. And the fact that the scholars have generally rejected the death penalty for bestiality despite the fact that this penalty is explicitly stated in the Torah and even in some ahadith shows that the scholars do not accept the principle.  (Source) (PUNISHMENT FOR ADULTERY IN ISLAM; By: Dr. Ahmad Shafaat)

 

Need we say more? It is obvious that Islam in its traditions and holy scripture say nothing about the practice of bestiality! Muslims knew about this so to cover up the embarrassment, they lied and attributed false hadiths back to Muhammad and Ibn Abbas! There would be no need for them to do this if Muslims weren’t committing these same very acts due to Allah and the fully detailed Quran, not mentioning any punishment or forbiddance against this practice! This also brings up further problems for Islam. If Muslims were willing to lie to save face, what other hadiths and verses in the Quran were fabricated? And to think, they have the nerve to criticize the Holy Bible and its authenticated message with such a shady and vague religion like Islam! It has been thoroughly proven that:

 

THE QURAN NOR HADITH FORBIDS BESTIALITY & MUSLIMS LIED TO COVER THIS EMBARRASSMENT!

 

Any Muslim apologists who loves attacking the Bible, has this very same scripture to thank, for forbidden a sick practice their own “complete” holy scripture failed to forbid! In Christianity Bestiality is forbidden, in Islam IT ISN’T FORBIDDEN UNLESS ONE TURNS BACK TO THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE! So when a Muslim attacks the Bible he is attacking a book that forbids “having sex with animals” while extolling a book that “doesn’t forbid this sick practice”! What more can we say? The Quran lies when it says it’s fully detailed and there is no prescribed punishment or forbiddance of Bestiality in the Quran or Islam. You’ve got to turn to the Holy Bible to find this! Thank God for the Bible, his true and complete Holy Scripture. The Quran says this about Muhammad:

 

Surely in the Messenger of God you have a good example. S. 33:21

 

Following Muhammad’s good example, we can have sex with animals and not worry anything about it, for it isn’t forbidden in Islam! God Bless all.

Quennel Gale at queball20@yahoo.com

  1. Home Back Home
  2. New Articles Back to New Section