Hitchens Book “God is not great”
1. In some cases—most notably the Christian—one revelation is apparently not sufficient, and needs to be reinforced by successive apparitions, with the promise of a further but ultimate one to come. In other cases, the opposite difficulty occurs and the divine instruction is delivered, only once, and for the final time, to an obscure personage whose lightest word then becomes law.—Page-97: Chapter-7: Hitchens Book “God is not great”
2. The syncretic tendencies of monotheism, and the common ancestry of the tales, mean in effect that a rebuttal to one is a rebuttal to all.
Page-98: Chapter-7: Hitchens Book “God is not great”
Hitchens knowledge of religion is based on Bible; not on Quran, hence he hides behinds his own words “most notably the Christian” and then makes an unfounded and poor generalization in the second sentence given above.
Hitchens, as is evident, never read Quran intently, hence he did not quote from Quran, not even a single verse to substantiate his viewpoint.
Quran is the first and the foremost source of guidance of all Muslims, whatever their denomination. Had Hitchens been an honest research scholar with some scientific method of research he must have based his criticism of Islam primarily on Quran but that is not the case; he relied on the traditional source called Hadith which never existed in the time of Muhammad. Hadith was collected 200/250 years after Muhammad.
Hence, whatever is written in Hadith; Muhammad/Quran/Islam are not responsible for it. Criticism of Hitchens of Islam/Quran/Muhammad is therefore irrelevant and is of shallow significance.
Those who collected Hadith they had a clear principle in mind that Hadith should accepted if it is not against Quran or in other words, it is not validated by Quran. Due to the time lag after Muhammad, Hadith is engrossed in denominational feuds; hence if at all it quoted it should be done with caution; else it should be rejected. Quran absolutely rules the teachings of Muhammad/Islam and there is no other contestant to it.
If one wants to cut a tree; one should cut it from root or just uproot it from the earth that holds it firmly; if one tears some leaves from a tree and then claims; “lo! I have uprooted the tree” and in evidence he shows the torn leaves, the claim is not worthy of attention.
The skeptics who claim to follow reason should not follow a denominational line just because it suits their philosophy; this would be a biased approach on their part.
The Americans who are in search of God; they should reject this shallow research of Christopher Hitchens, in my opinion.