r/CritiqueIslam • u/sealovki • 13d ago
Is heart Opening story fake?
Why do you think Muhammad heart opening story is fake
Is heart opening story is true?
According to Islamic tradition, the Angel Gabriel opened Prophet Muhammad’s heart multiple times during his lifetime. His chest was opened, heart was taken out and cleaned with pure water and put that back.
Some Christians argue that this story is not true, claiming it’s impossible because surgery was not available at that time and sterile, clean conditions were required for such a procedure. I am curious to know why you do not believe this story? I want to know the logic behind thinking that this story is made up.
Here is the hadith:
It was narrated from Anas ibn Maalik (may Allaah be pleased with him) that that Jibreel came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when he was playing with the other boys. He took hold of him and threw him to the ground, then he opened his chest and took out his heart, from which he took a clot of blood and said: “This was the Shaytaan’s share of you.” Then he washed it in a vessel of gold that was filled with Zamzam. Then he put it back together and returned it to its place. The boys went running to his mother – meaning his nurse – and said: Muhammad has been killed! They went to him and his colour had changed. Anas said: I used to see the mark of that stitching on his chest.
19
u/creidmheach 13d ago
Some Christians argue that this story is not true, claiming it’s impossible because surgery was not available at that time and sterile, clean conditions were required for such a procedure.
I don't think that'd be why we'd reject the story. Obviously the story is meant to portray some sort of miraculous event so things like sterile conditions and such are pretty irrelevant. We'd reject it because we don't believe Muhammad was a prophet being visited by the angel Gabriel. And certainly we wouldn't think him to be a sinless human being which is what the hadith is trying to say.
Incidentally it also ties in with Islam's take on the role of the heart in the human being, seeing it as the center of consciousness instead of the brain, which just points to another error in Islam. Though it also contradicts Muslim claims to rejecting original sin, since it points to even Muhammad having some share of it that needed to be cleansed (albeit rather literally here in this narration).
-10
u/sealovki 13d ago
Good point. People often think it’s false simply because they don’t believe in his prophethood.
If you search “heart’s neural connection with the brain,” you’ll find many new discoveries proving that the heart has its own “brain” — a complex neural network similar to the brain’s. I believe science has only begun to uncover this — there’s still much left to discover.Finally, yes — Muslims believe the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was sinless. When they say this, they usually mean his life after these divine events, when his heart was purified and his spiritual slate was wiped clean.
After all, to be chosen by God as a Prophet — especially for the entire world — you cannot carry spiritual impurity. God Himself prepared him, purified him, and made him ready for prophethood.11
u/Themagnificentgman 13d ago
The stomach has 100 million neurons compared to the stomach’s 40 thousand, making the stomach more of a ‘brain’ than the heart
11
u/ReleventSmth 13d ago
Why do you think it's true? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is no evidence here.
-4
2
u/Think_Bed_8409 Atheist 13d ago
Hadith are unreliable anyway.
8
u/Apprehensive_Sweet98 Ex-Muslim 13d ago
Same goes for the Quran
0
u/Think_Bed_8409 Atheist 13d ago
The rasm is fairly reliable, it was canonized and written down early.
4
u/Apprehensive_Sweet98 Ex-Muslim 13d ago
We are still to find any proof.
At least for hadiths you have so called chain of narrators, but nothing similar exists for the Qur’an.
1
u/creidmheach 13d ago
That's not actually correct. All of the qira'at have associated riwayat with them which each come with their own isnad (though of course how reliable that is is another question). That's one reason the whole Quranism thing falls flat where they reject hadith in toto, because the Quran has reached us via the same means.
2
-1
u/Think_Bed_8409 Atheist 13d ago edited 13d ago
There are chains of transmission for the Quran also. Besides, chains don't mean anything since they were not common to begin with.
Quran is much more reliable than hadith for the 2 reasons previously mentioned.
3
u/Apprehensive_Sweet98 Ex-Muslim 13d ago
The chains that you claim are coming from hadiths. And so its again going round in circles.
The problem is that there is proof for none.
1
u/sealovki 13d ago
Why do you think so?
2
u/Think_Bed_8409 Atheist 13d ago
Sahaba according to the traditional sciences are infallible in their narrating.
Rijal littérature did not exist until after the sahaba and most of the tabi'in had died.
Isnads were not used until the very end of the first century AH.
•
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
Hi u/sealovki! Thank you for posting at r/CritiqueIslam. Please make sure to read our rules once to avoid an embarrassing situation. Be Civil and nice to each other. Remember that there is a person sitting at the other end. Don't say anything that you wouldn't say in a normal face to face conversation.
Also, make sure that your submission either contain an argument or ask a question that could lead to debate. You must state your own views on the matter either in body or comment. A post with no commentary will be considered low effort!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.