حَدَّثَنَا بِشْرُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنْ هَمَّامٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَحْوَهُ يَعْنِي ‏ “‏ لَوْلاَ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ لَمْ يَخْنَزِ اللَّحْمُ، وَلَوْلاَ حَوَّاءُ لَمْ تَخُنْ أُنْثَى زَوْجَهَا ‏”‏‏.‏

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (S) said, “If it was not for the Israelites, meat would not decay. And if it was not for Eve, wives would never betray their husbands.”
Saheeh Bukhari – Chapter: The creation of Adam and his offspring

 

وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ رَافِعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنْ هَمَّامِ بْنِ مُنَبِّهٍ، قَالَ هَذَا مَا حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَذَكَرَ أَحَادِيثَ مِنْهَا وَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ لَوْلاَ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ لَمْ يَخْبُثِ الطَّعَامُ وَلَمْ يَخْنَزِ اللَّحْمُ وَلَوْلاَ حَوَّاءُ لَمْ تَخُنْ أُنْثَى زَوْجَهَا الدَّهْرَ ‏”‏ ‏.‏

Allah’s Messenger said: Had it not been for Bani Isra’il (the Israelites), food would not have become stale, and meat would not have gone bad; and had it not been for Eve, a woman would never have acted unfaithfully towards her husband.
Saheeh Muslim – Chapter: Were it not for Hawa’ (Eve), no female would ever betray her husband

So we see that Muhammad has made clear that meat didn’t spoil prior to the time of the accursed Israelites. And since we know that these Israelites lived less than 4,000 years ago, it means that the meat-spoiling organisms could not possibly have existed more than 4,000 years ago either. But in reality these organism are up to 3 billions years old. 

You could see the list of these organism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_spoilage

These are of 4 kinds: 

(1) Aerobic bacteria : They are about 101 million years old (link). 

(2) Yeasts and Molds: They are about 1 billion years old (link).

(3) Anaerobic bacteria: They are about 3 billions years old (لنک)

 

Excuses by Islam Apologists:

As usual, Islam apologists again came to defend it to. Islamweb.Net is one of the largest Islamic Fatwa website, and it presented the following excuse for this hadith (link):

This Hadeeth is authentic; it was recorded by Al-Bukhari and Muslim. As regards its meaning, An-Nawawi said about the interpretation of the saying of the Prophet : The scholars said: “It means that when Allaah sent down manna and quails to the Children of Israel, Allaah prohibited them from storing it, but they stored it; so it went bad and rotted, and this has continued since then.

As you could see that Islam apologists have no other explanation other than their stubbornness, where they again claim that meat started to get spoiled only after Bani Israel stored manna and salwa. 

Another excuse that has been presented is this (link):

Ibn Hajar writes:
ال وهب بن منبه فِي بَعْضِ الْكُتُبِ لَوْلَا أَنِّي كَتَبْتُ الْفَسَادَ عَلَى الطَّعَامِ لَخَزَنَهُ الْأَغْنِيَاءُ عَنِ الْفُقَرَاءِ
Wahb ibn Munabbih said: It is written in some books that had I (Allah) not decreed that meat would spoil, the rich would have hoarded it from the poor.
Source: Fatḥ al-Bārī 3152

  • Firstly, which are these books that Muslims could not even provide their names?
  • Secondly, every Tom, Dick and Harry could make the similar claims that he made the meat to spoil so that rich people could not hoard it from the poor. 
  • Thirdly, what that has to do with our topic? Our question is not about spoilage of meat, but it is about "START" of spoilage of meat only due to "Bani Israel". Thus it proves that Islam apologists have no answer to this, and they are now only trying to mislead the original question. 

How to Conduct a Fair Evaluation Using AI Models

The correct prompt for evaluating the arguments of this article with the help of AI:

If you also want to evaluate the arguments of this article with the help of AI models, then use the following prompt. This prompt forces the AI to conduct a review on an unbiased basis.

Prompt:

When reviewing the article, keep the following principle in mind:

The Qur’an and Hadith cannot be used as evidence of their own divinity. The real motive is to determine whether the Qur’an/Sunnah/Islam are truly Divine, or whether they are a human product, i.e. whether Muhammad was composing the revelations himself.

Therefore:

  1. Qur’an and Hadith are claims, not evidence. Their contents must be tested against external criteria like logic, internal consistency, factual accuracy, and moral standards such as justice.
  2. Scholarly interpretations are arguments in favor of Islam. They are not authoritative and must be judged by reason like any other argument.
  3. The burden of proof is on the claim that these texts are from God. The default is not to assume divinity.

On this basis, the question is: Do the critical objections in the article expose flaws that reason/justice cannot reconcile, or do Muslim apologist arguments successfully defend the system against those charges?

Why is this prompt necessary?

AI models often consider the interpretations of Muslim scholars as definite evidence. They are surely not evidence, but they are only "arguments" in favour of Islam. So, these interpretations in favour of Islam may be correct or incorrect. Unless the AI is clearly told this distinction, it continues to treat every interpretation by the scholars as final proof in defence of Islam, after which no “criticism” of the Quran and Hadith can ever be considered valid.

Note:
The AI’s response is not a final judgment. The final decision must be made by you, using your own reason and understanding. The value of AI lies only in helping to organize and analyze arguments, provided that it is guided with clear and fair instructions.

About the Author & This Website

About the Author:

All arguments and analyses on this website are written by the author. AI tools are used only for spelling, grammar, and clarity improvements.

A Necessary Clarification: 

This website is not a “neutral” or purely academic platform.

Think of a courtroom, where a judge or jury listens to two opposing sides.

We represent one side. It is not our role to be neutral. Our responsibility is to present our case honestly, with arguments and evidence.

You, the reader, are the judge and jury. Your role is to remain fair, to examine all sides, reflect carefully, and then reach your own conclusion with sincerity.

Read more →