Monday, September 29, 2008

Islamic Lie Detector Test:

Muslim: Book 001, Number 0176:
It is narrated on the authority of Usama b. Zaid that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent us in a raiding party. We raided Huraqat of Juhaina in the morning. I caught hold of a man and he said: There is no god but Allah, I attacked him with a spear. It once occurred to me and I talked about it to the Apostle (may peace be upon him). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Did he profess" There is no god but Allah," and even then you killed him? I said: Messenger of Allah, he made a profession of it out of the fear of the weapon. He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Did you tear his heart in order to find out whether it had professed or not? And he went on repeating it to me till I wished I had embraced Islam that day.
Sa'd said: By Allah, I would never kill any Muslim so long as a person with a heavy belly, i. e., Usama, would not kill. Upon this a person remarked: Did Allah not say this: And fight them until there is no more mischief and religion is wholly for Allah? Sa'd said: We fought so that there should be no mischief, but you and your companions wish to fight so that there should be mischief.

Mohammad sure knew how to tellif someone was lying - just pluck out their hearts. Amidst this revelation, the Islamic justice system has begun to pluck out the hearts of people in order to find out if they are telling the truth.

1) Why did Mohammad find it necessary to pluck one's heart out in order to see if they were telling the truth?
a) Was intuition not enough, like Sa'd?
b) How about logic and reasoning skills? (This may be problematic, where Muslims, following Mohammad's queue in outlwaing chess, may have outlawed any form of thought that involves reasoning abilities -
c) How about evidence?
d) How about from the person's mouth rather than plucking out his heart to see the truth?

2) Did Allah's Apostle find it more helpful to talk to inanimate objects like the belly of a dead animal to know the truth?

Tabari VI:66-67: ""We were sitting by an idol a month before the Messenger commenced his mission, having slaughtered camels. Suddenly we heard a voice calling from the belly of one: 'Listen to the wonder; There will be no more eavesdropping to overhear inspiration; We throw down shooting stars for a prophet in Mecca; His name is Ahmad. His place of emigration is Yathri.' We held back and marveled; then the Messenger began his mission."

a) Did Allah's Apostle find mammalian entrails to be more convincing than oral or written testimony?
b) Why dont more Muslim countries follow Mohammad's example in adopting this new form of evidence?
c) After all, if the entrails of a dead animal are a full proof method of determining the truth for Mohammad, than it should be good enough for every believer?

3) On a side note, why does the hadith say "There is no god but Allah, I attacked him with a spear." If Allah means God, than shouldn't it be "there is no Allah but Allah?"
a) Or, someone with knowledge of classical Arabic can attest to, the Arabic word for God is "Illah" and Allah is the name of one of many gods who lived in the Kabba (Afterall, Mohammad's father's name was Abdallah [slave to Allah])
b) When asking the cleric/mullah/other expert, it is best to "tear his heart in order to find out whether it had professed or not"

4) Sa'd makes the point that some Muslims fight just to make mischief?
a) Does that apply today?
b) Did Sahih Muslim include this hadith to show that Muslims were fighting because of blood lust rather than removing mischief, and that ultimately, their fighting caused more mischief than it ended?
c) Does this mean that some Muslims should ACTUALLY start to act like Sa'd and question other Muslims who fight too much?
i) Maybe strapping one's child to a bomb to blow themselves up may not be the answer to life's problems?

5) Finally, at the beginning of this hadith, it sates that Mohammad sent his troops on a raiding party.
a) Raids are unprovoked stirkes.
b) Why would Allah's Apostle raid another party?
c) Why did he want to cause mischief where non-existed?
d) Was Sa'd indirectly accusing the Prophet of causing mischief where none existed?
e) Where are Sa'd's and Mohammad's remains?
i) Maybe digging up their hearts will give us the answers we need in determining these questions, by using Mohammad's bulletproof method of deciphering the truth


Anonymous said...

I quoted this from


I am wondering: for whose benefit this attack is launched? How come that they describe him as a hypocrite? Did they come to know what is in his heart? When Usama b. Zayd, may Allah be pleased with both of them, killed a man though he had confessed that there is no god but Allah, claiming that the man had said so out of fear of weapon, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him observed: "Did you tear his heart in order to find out whether it had professed that or not?" (Reported by Muslim)

Allah's Messenger also said, "I have not been ordered (by Allah) to search the hearts of the people or cut open their bellies." (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Now, did such people know what is in the heart of Sheikh Al-Qaradawi? Both Muslim scholars and ordinary people in the East and West place their trust in ..."

I guess one with a good judgment will understand what the hadith really means if they read the above quotation. What Muhammad (Peace be upon him) really means in that hadith is that one should never say that one is not a Muslim since we don't know what is actually in their heart (whether they really professed or not). Please do not interpret hadiths and quranic verses too literally.

hhashmo said...

I quoted this from

While I do not understand Muhammad's question regarding cutting out the man's heart, nor the reference to obesity, I know what Allah had to say about this specific subject. Qur'an 5:33 "The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive after corruption, making mischief in the land [those who refuse to surrender to Islam] is murder, execution, crucifixion, the cutting off of hands and feet on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned. That is their degradation and disgrace in this world. And a great torment of an awful doom awaits them in the hereafter. Except for those who repent (and become Muslims) before you overpower them and they fall into your control." According to Allah, the Muslim militant who overpowered his victim and then impaled him after a confession of faith was justified. Since Muhammad revealed this surah, and since it was his last, and thus the most current in his memory, he should have known this as well. But he didn't recite it even though it provided a direct answer to the man's query. Instead he proposed a ghoulish conundrum.

The following is similar yet contradictory, all at the same time. Muslim:C10B1N177 "The Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent us to raid Huraqat, a tribe of Arabs. We attacked the tribe early in the morning and defeated them. I and an Ansar man caught hold of a person of the defeated tribe. When we overcame him, he said: 'There is no ilah but Allah.' At that moment the Ansari spared him, but I attacked him with my spear and killed him. The news had already reached the Apostle, so when we came back he said: 'Usama, did you kill him after he had made the profession: "There is no ilah but Allah?.' I said. 'He did it only as a shelter.' 'Did you kill him after he had made the profession.' He went on repeating this to me till I wished I had not embraced Islam." Keep in mind that contradictory scripture is untrustworthy scripture. Liars lie, that's what liars do.

As such, and by your logic, you should not interpret the hadith literally, but see how that hadith fits into the larger picture of Mohammad's (may peace be upon him) life.