Criticism of the Quran

This is a sub-article to Criticism of Islam and Qur'an.

Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God (Allah) as recited to Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel. Critics argue against this belief, and criticize various statements in the Qur'an.

The origins of the Qur'an

Muhammad, according to tradition, recited perfectly what the angel Gabriel revealed to him for his companions to write down and memorize. Muslims hold that the wording of the Qur'anic text available today corresponds exactly to that revealed to Muhammad in the years 610–632.

Historical Authenticity of the Qur'an

Main article: Historicity_of_Muhammad § Historical_Authenticity_of_the_Qur'an

See also: Origin and development of the Qur'an

John Wansbrough believes that the Qu’ran is a redaction in part of other sacred scriptures, in particular the Judaeo-Christian scriptures. Patricia Crone and Michael Cook challenge the traditional account of how the Qur'an was compiled, writing that "there is no hard evidence for the existence of the Koran in any form before the last decade of the seventh century." (See Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World) They also question the accuracy of some the Qur'an's historical accounts. For example, professor Gerd R. Puin's study of ancient Qur'an manuscripts led him to conclude that the Qur'an is a "cocktail of texts", some of which may have been present a hundred years before Muhammad.

qur'an from the 9th century. It is an alleged 7th century original of the edition of the third caliph Uthman

It is generally acknowledged that the work of Crone and Cook was a fresh approach in its reconstruction of early Islamic history, but the theory has been almost universally rejected. Van Ess has dismissed it stating that "a refutation is perhaps unnecessary since the authors make no effort to prove it in detail...Where they are only giving a new interpretation of well-known facts, this is not decisive. But where the accepted facts are consciously put upside down, their approach is disastrous." R. B. Sergeant states: "Hagarism…is not only bitterly anti-Islamic in tone, but anti-Arabian. Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at first one wonders if it is just a ‘leg pull’, pure ’spoof’." F.E. Peters states that "Few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words" because "The search for variants in the partial versions extant before the Caliph Uthman’s alleged recension in the 640s (what can be called the “sources” behind our text) has not yielded any differences of great significance."

Claim of divine origin

See also: Wahy § The origin of the Qur'an and the question of sincerety of Muhammad

See also: Qur'an § Literary structure of the Qur'an

See also: Legends and the Qur'an

An 11th century Persian Qur'an folio page in kufic script

Critics of the Qur'an say it is nothing more than the combination of the Bible and Jewish and Christian folklore with Muhammad appended. Critics reject the idea that the Qur'an is miraculously perfect and impossible to imitate. Jewish Encyclopedia, for example, writes: "The language of the Koran is held by the Mohammedans to be a peerless model of perfection. An impartial observer, however, finds many peculiarities in it. Especially noteworthy is the fact that a sentence in which something is said concerning Allah is sometimes followed immediately by another in which Allah is the speaker; examples of this are suras xvi. 81, xxvii. 61, xxxi. 9, and xliii. 10". However other scholars argue that this sudden shift in the pronoun of the speaker or the person spoken about is known as iltifāt (to turn/turn one's face to) in balāgha (Arabic Rheotoric). Many peculiarities in the positions of words are due to the necessities of rime (lxix. 31, lxxiv. 3), while the use of many rare words and new forms may be traced to the same cause (comp. especially xix. 8, 9, 11, 16).".

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, "The dependence of Mohammed upon his Jewish teachers or upon what he heard of the Jewish Haggadah and Jewish practises is now generally conceded."

Criticism of the science in the Qur'an

Critics point to a statement the Qur'an makes regarding the setting of the sun (^{[Quran 18:86]}), which they take to mean that the sun sets in a body of water. They believe the verse is couched in such a way that it was meant to be taken literally instead of figuratively, which would imply a belief in a flat instead of a round Earth. A Muslims websites reports the following different interpretion on this verse, saying that this part of the Qur'an is describing the man Dhul-Qarnain's point of view, and is indeed to be taken as a figurative description of what he saw - that the sun appeared to be setting into the sea, but was not actually doing so.

In a similar vein, critics point to verses they think imply that the moon gives off light instead of reflecting it from the sun, (^{[Quran 25:61]}, ^{[Quran 10:5]}, ^{[Quran 71:15-16]}) and are skeptical of Muslim statements that the verses should be taken to mean reflective light only. Some critics also think that the Qur'an says that mountains were created to prevent earthquakes, (^{[Quran 16:15]}, ^{[Quran 21:31]}), a view which is incompatible with modern geology. Another criticism of the Qur'an involves verses ^{[Quran 86:5]}. These verses are interpreted by critics and some Muslims to mean that sperm comes from the lower back. This contradicts the scientific fact that semen is produced by the testicles, prostate gland, and seminal vesicles, none of which are between the backbone and the ribs. Critics note that Hippocrates, whose writings were widely available in the pre-Islamic Middle East, had taught that semen passes from the kidneys via the testicles into the penis, and believe that this is a plausible source for the idea in this verse. Muslim apologist Maurice Bucaille states that these verses are "hardly comprehensible". Campbell criticizes Maurice saying he finds his own translations of them using meanings not found in dictionaries.

Quranic verses ^{[Quran 3:59]}, ^{[Quran 35:11]}, ^{[Quran 96:2]}, ^{[Quran 20:55]}, ^[Quran 6:1], ^{[Quran 24:45]}, ^{[Quran 15:26]}, ^{[Quran 7:11]}, and ^{[Quran 19:67]} are all related to the origin of mankind. Some critics of Islam and many Muslims state that the Qur'an and modern evolutionary theory are not compatible. This has led to a contribution by Muslims to the creation vs. evolution debate. Some Muslims have pointed to certain Qur'anic verses (such as ^{[Quran 21:30]}, ^{[Quran 71:13]}, ^{[Quran 29:19]}, ^{[Quran 6:134]}, ^{[Quran 10:4]}) that they think are in fact compatible with evolutionary science, but others think that only creationism is supported by the Qur'an and the hadith.

Ahmad Dallal, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, writes that many modern Muslims believe that the Qur'an does make scientific statements, however many classical Muslim commentators and scientists, notably al-Biruni, assigned to the Qur'an a separate and autonomous realm of its own and held that the Qur'an "does not interfere in the business of science nor does it infringe on the realm of science." These medieval scholars argued for the possibility of multiple scientific explanation of the natural phenomena, and refused to subordinate the Qur'an to an ever-changing science.

Contradictions in the Qur'an

Critics believe that there are many mutually contradictory passages in the Qur'an. Examples are of verses that supposedly conflict regarding the length of Allah's day (^{[Quran 22:47]} and ^{[Quran 32:5]} vs. ^{[Quran 70:4]}), on whether or not all Jews and Christians will go to hell (^{[Quran 3:85]} and ^{[Quran 5:72]} vs. ^{[Quran 2:62]} and ^{[Quran 5:69]}), and on how disbelievers should be treated (^{[Quran 2:256]}, ^{[Quran 18:29]}, and ^{[Quran 109:6]} vs. ^{[Quran 3:32]}, ^{[Quran 18:29]}, ^{[Quran 3:28]}, and others). The Skeptic's Annotated Qur'an asserts that there are contradictions in the Qur'an related to how many angels spoke to Mary (^{[Quran 19:16-19]}, vs. ^{[Quran 3:42]},and ^{[Quran 3:45]}), whether the Pharaoh was drowned or saved (^{[Quran 17:102-103]}, ^{[Quran 28:40]}, ^{[Quran 43:55]} vs. ^{[Quran 10:90-92]}), whether Muhammad asks for money (^{[Quran 2:195]}, ^{[Quran 8:41]}, ^{[Quran 9:103]}, etc. vs. ^{[Quran 12:104]}, ^{[Quran 36:21]}, ^{[Quran 42:23]}, etc.), whether heaven or earth came first (^{[Quran 79:27-30]} vs. ^{[Quran 2:29]}, ^{[Quran 41:9-12]}), whether Allah will forgive everything (^{[Quran 4:110]}, ^{[Quran 39:153]} vs. ^{[Quran 4:48]}, ^{[Quran 4:116]}, ^{[Quran 4:137]}, etc.), the number of angels that fought for Muhammad (^{[Quran 3:124]}, ^{[Quran 3:126]} vs. ^{[Quran 8:9-10]}), whether everyone is free to believe in what he or she wishes (^{[Quran 2:256]}, ^{[Quran 109:6]} vs. ^{[Quran 3:85]}, ^{[Quran 3:28]}, ^{[Quran 5:51]}), and whether or not Allah is merciful (^{[Quran 1:1-3]}, ^{[Quran 2:37]}, ^{[Quran 2:128]} vs. ^[Quran 2:7], ^{[Quran 2:17]}, ^{[Quran 4:56]}).

Satanic verses

Some early Islamic histories recount that as Muhammad was reciting Sūra Al-Najm (Q.53), as revealed to him by the angel Gabriel, Satan tempted him to utter the following lines after verses 19 and 20 :"Have you thought of Allāt and al-'Uzzā and Manāt the third, the other; These are the exalted Gharaniq, whose intercession is hoped for. (Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were three goddesses worshiped by the Meccans). (citation needed)These histories then say that these 'Satanic Verses' were shortly afterward repudiated by Muhammad at the behest of the angel Gabriel. Academic scholars such as William Montgomery Watt and Guillaume argued for its authenticity based upon the implausibility of Muslims fabricating a story so unflattering to their prophet. Watt says that "the story is so strange that it must be true in essentials." On the other hand, scholars such as Caetani and Burton rejected the tradition. Caetani argued for its weak isnāds. And Burton, in an inverted culmination of Watt's approach, argued for its fictitiousness based upon a demonstration of its actual utility to certain elements of the Muslim community- namely, those legal exegetes seeking an "occasion of revelation" for eradicatory modes of abrogation.

The incident of the satanic verses is put forward by some critics as evidence of the Qur'an's origins as a human work of Muhammad. Maxime Rodinson discusses the satanic verses as a conscious attempt to achieve a consensus with pagan Arabs, which was then consciously rejected as incompatible with Muhammad's attempts to answer the criticism of contemporary Arab Jews and Christians linking it with the moment at which Muhammad felt able to adopt a "hostile attitude" towards the pagan Arabs. Rodinson writes that the story of the satanic verses is unlikely to be false because it was "one incident, in fact, which may be reasonably accepted as true because the makers of Muslim tradition would not have invented a story with such damaging implications for the revelation as a whole". William Montgomery Watt while accepting the incident however states: "Thus it was not for any worldly motive that Muhammad eventually turned down the offer of the Meccans, but for a genuinely religious reason; not for example, because he could not trust these men nor because any personal ambition would remain unsatisfied, but because acknowledgment of the goddesses would lead to the failure of the cause, of the mission he had been given by God."

Fischer and Abedi state that the story is rejected by almost all Muslim exegetes. Ibn Kathir in his commentary points out the weakness of the various isnāds by which the story was transmitted, almost all of them mursal- i.e. without a companion of Muhammad in their chain. This argument is supported by some academics such as J. Burton who believe the story is a forgery. Some say that the authenticity of the 'Satanic Verses' is implausible because of the long period of time (many years) between when the verses were revealed and when they were corrected. They think that such avocation of idolatry would not have been tolerated by the fledging Muslim community for so long. They also point out that the standard hadith collections do not mention this incident at all.

The morality of the Qur'an

See also: Islamic ethics

According to some critics, the morality of the Qur’an (like the life story of Muhammad) appears to be a moral regression, by the standards of the moral traditions of Judaism and Christianity it says that it builds upon, or simply by the standards of the conscience. Catholic encyclopedia, for example, states that "the ethics of Islam are far inferior to those of Judaism and even more inferior to those of the New Testament" and "that in the ethics of Islam there is a great deal to admire and to approve, is beyond dispute; but of originality or superiority, there is none." William Montgomery Watt however finds Muhammad's changes an improvement for his time and place: "In his day and generation Muhammad was a social reformer, indeed a reformer even in the sphere of morals. He created a new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before. By taking what was best in the morality of the nomad and adapting it for settled communities, he established a religious and social framework for the life of many races of men."

Domestic behaviour

Image of a woman's body with quranic verse ^{[Quran 4:34]} written on it from the film Submission. It portrays a Muslim woman (dressed with a transparent black clothing) as having been beaten and raped by a relative. The bodies are used in the film as a canvas for verses from the Qur'an.

Main article: An-Nisa, 34

Azam Kamguian and Robert Spencer argue that quranic verses ^{[Quran 4:34]} and ^{[Quran 2:223]}, among others, of the Qur'an subjugate women. Verse 4:34 reads as follows (some original Arabic words are indicated in square brackets):

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct [nashooz], admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly)[idribuhunna]; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For God is Most High, great (above you all).

According to Azam Kamguian, this verse puts the male in charge of the female. She says women are forced to accept male superiority.

Robert Spencer argues that verse 4.34 allows wife beating. He says "Sura 4:34, which has recently been advanced as a valid principle for conduct by Muslim spokesmen in Turkey, Spain, and elsewhere, makes for an atmosphere in which abuse of women is epidemic." He cites as an example the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences.

Regarding verse ^{[Quran 4:34]}, Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Ibn Kathir have both commented on this verse. The consensus of Islamic scholars is that the above verse describes a light beating. Yusuf Ali, in his Qur'anic commentary states that: "In case of family jars four steps are mentioned, to be taken in that order. (1) Perhaps verbal advice or admonition may be sufficient; (2) if not, sex relations may be suspended; (3) if this is not sufficient, some slight physical correction may be administered; but Imam Shafi'i considers this inadvisable, though permissible, and all authorities are unanimous in deprecating any sort of cruelty, even of the nagging kind, as mentioned in the next clause; (4) if all this fails, a family council is recommended in ^{[Quran 4:35]}."

War and violence

Muslims believe Islam is a religion of peace, and that Islamic extremist terrorism is political terrorism or the actions of a few extremists. Many critics of Islam, and some of those who support Muslim terrorists and Jihadists believe that violence is Islamic, and that Islamic extremist terrorism is religious terrorism or true islam.

Attitude toward violence

Criticism

Some critics believe that it is not only extremist Islam that preaches violence but Islam itself, a violence implicit in the Qur'anic text.Robert Spencer writes that verse ^{[Quran 2:194]} of the Quran is significant for the understanding of jihad as self defense. He quotes Pickthall's translation: "And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you," and writes that "this is a foundation for the revenge culture that dominates so much of the Islamic world." He goes on to say that according to this same sura (but not others, see below), "Fight is defensive, but not optional." He writes that according to ^{[Quran 4:95]}, those who fight are more pleasing to Allah than those who do not, and that those who take up arms for the Muslim cause rank highest among the believers ^{[Quran 9:19]}.

According to JihadWatch, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-born American citizen awaiting trial for nine counts of attempted murder, was motivated by certain verses of the Qur'an that in his opinion deal with war, violence, and terrorism. Here is a partial list of those Qur'anic verses:

:"Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not." (^{[Quran 2:216]})

"Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!" (^{[Quran 3:151]})

"How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them. No plea had they, when Our terror came unto them, save that they said: Lo! We were wrong-doers." (^{[Quran 7:4-5]})

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.'" (^{[Quran 8:12]})

The continued list includes the following verses: ^{[Quran 45:11]}, ^{[Quran 41:27-28]}, ^{[Quran 35:26]}, ^{[Quran 6:49]}, ^{[Quran 5:73]}, ^{[Quran 18:29]}, ^{[Quran 98:6]},^{[Quran 8:65]}, ^{[Quran 8:39]}, ^{[Quran 3:106]}, ^{[Quran 61:9]}, ^{[Quran 9:30]}, ^{[Quran 9:29]}, ^[Quran 9:5], ^{[Quran 8:36]}

Responses

John Esposito in response to the charge laid against Islam in West as a violent religion states: "There has always been violence within the Muslim history just as violence has occurred within all religious communities. Also, the problem is not only the issue of political and economical reasons and grievances, but also the fact that when we try to deal with the other (whoever the other is) we seek a way to objectify and even to demonize. What we now have is often a double standard. That is people will look at the Qur'an and they will take scripture out of context. That doesn't mean that the Qur'an doesn't say that legitimate violence is okay, i.e. to defend yourself against those who attack you. Or they will look at Muslim history and see that there had been Muslims who have used the notion of Jihad to justify their own imperialism and they will equate that with the religion of Islam, something that they often don't do when they are dealing with Christianity or other religions."

Regarding the criticism that the violence practiced by Islamic extremists is necessarily justified by the Qur'an, Michael Sells states that most Muslims interpret the verses at issue differently, "in the context of early war between Muhammad's followers and their opponents". Sells also writes that extreme readings of sacred scriptures by some groups is not a phenomenon specific to Islam. Conversely: "[Most Muslims] no more expect to apply [the verses at issue] to their contemporary non-Muslim friends and neighbors than most Christians and Jews consider themselves commanded by God, like the Biblical Joshua, to exterminate the infidels." Jane I. Smith, a Professor of Islamic Studies, states that jihad is viewed only by a minority of Muslims as justifying warfare against others, and among those only extremist elements like Al-Qaeda believe that jihad allows for aggressive, as opposed to defensive, warfare.

Treatment of enemy combatants

While quoting verse ^{[Quran 2:216]}, Robert Spencer claims that Muhammad was instructed to take no prisoners, but also suggests that this prohibition "doesn't seem to be absolute", noting that in another verse (^{[Quran 33:50]}) "Allah gives the Muslims permission to take the wives of those they have slain in battle as concubines."

Jihad and Sura 9

Main article: At-Tawba 5

Criticism

Spencer writes that Sura 9:5, called “the Verse of the Sword,” is a cornerstone of the Qur’an’s teaching about jihad:

So when the Sacred Months have passed, then fight the Mushrikun [unbelievers] wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform the Salah [Islamic prayers five times daily], and give the Zakah [alms as required by Islamic law], then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (^[Quran 9:5])

Spencer quotes Ibn Kathir, a prominent commentator of the Qur’an, with a tafsir (exegesis) of this verse. According to Ibn Kathir, "the first part of this honorable Surah was revealed to the Messenger of Allah when he returned from the battle of Tabuk". This military expedition took place within a year prior to Muhammad’s death, and was the last of his life. Ibn Kathir gives an explanation of Sura 9:5 as follows: "Do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam." Spencer quotes Hazrat Moulana Sayyed Abul Hassan Ali Nadwi, a Muslim scholar and biographer of Muhammad, who writes that the Prophet was attempting a pre-emptive strike: “The Messenger of Allah decided to lead a Muslim army into Roman territory before Roman armies crossed the Arab borders and threatened the heart of Islam.” Spencer notes that in Sura 9:81, Allah scolds those who did not cross the desert with the Prophet to fight:

Those who were left behind (in the Tabuk expedition) rejoiced in their inaction behind the back of the Messenger of Allah: they hated to strive and fight, with their goods and their persons, in the cause of Allah: they said, ‘Go not forth in the heat.’ Say, ‘The fire of Hell is fiercer in heat.’ If only they could understand! (^{[Quran 9:81]})

Responses

Regarding these verses, it is argued that they have been taken out of context. The verses should be read with the whole surah; also the time and circumstances of the verses should be considered. See Islamic military jurisprudence#Ethics of warfare in the Qur'an regarding the principles of fighting in Islam and the "sword verse". John Esposito in regard to the sword verse states that the critics and some of the Militants today take the verse out of context.

Abrogation of peaceful verses by Sura 9

Criticism

Spencer writes that Sura 9 is, according to the Sahih Bukhari, “the last Sura revealed in full.” Spencer writes: "to the distress of those who claim that while Muhammad may have fought these particular infidels, he didn't actually mean to leave his followers a universal command to fight all infidels, Ibn Kathir quotes an earlier authority, Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, to establish that the Verse of the Sword 'abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.'" Ibn Kathir quotes another authority: "No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah (Surah 9) was revealed." Spencer notes that another early commentator, Ibn Juzayy, agrees that one of this verse’s functions is "abrogating every peace treaty in the Quran."

Spencer interprets these writings: "In other words, the Muslim community is indeed commanded to fight against any and all unbelievers, not just against those Muhammad was facing when the Verse of the Sword was revealed." He writes that Ibn Juzayy was referring to the Islamic doctrine of naskh, under which later Quranic revelations may modify and cancel certain directives, replacing them with others.

Spencer writes that “this idea is crucial as a guide to the relationship of the Qur’an’s peaceful passages to its violent ones. Suras 16, 29, 52, 73, and 109-the sources of most of the verses of peace and tolerance above-are all Meccan. That means that anything they teach must be considered in light of what was revealed later in Medina. (The sole exception to this is the “no compulsion in religion” verse from the Medinan Sura 2, discussed below.) On the other hand, the last sura revealed, Sura 9, is Medinan. Thus it is in effect the Qur’an’s last word on jihad, and all the rest of the book-including the “tolerance verses”-must be read in its light.” Spencer concludes: “In other words, Muhammad gave peace a chance with the Pacific suras, and then understood that jihad was the more expedient course.”

Respones

Carl Ernst asserts that the scholarship and interpretations of the critic, Robert Spencer, are fundamentally flawed - that he supports preconceived notions through selection bias and that he does not publish his books through academic presses since the books fail the blind peer-reviews as practiced by academic presses. Regarding the issue of context, Robert Spencer writes that the Qur'an itself provides little context for understanding verses, and notes that the surahs in the Qur'an are not ordered chronologically, but by length. In response to Ernst, Spencer states that "I present the work not on the basis of my credentials, but on the basis of the evidence I bring forth; evaluate it for yourself... Carl Ernst did not and cannot bring forth even a single example of a supposed inaccuracy in my work."

Severe punishments

Main article: Hudud

Islam has been criticised for allegedly endorsing cruel and unusual punishments for certain crimes. William Montgomery Watt believes that "such penalties may have been suitable for the age in which Muhammad lived. However, as societies have since progressed and become more peaceful and ordered, they are not suitable any longer."

The sentence of amputation of the limbs of thieves by Shari'ah courts has been very controversial. Cases of the death penalty being applied for homosexuality or sodomy in Muslim countries have been condemned by human rights groups and others: "Human rights groups have documented numerous cases in which Iran has executed its citizens on charges of sodomy and adultery." Locke in an article adapted from Dr. Serge Trifkovic’s book, claims that the Qur'an's narration of the divine punishment of Sodom as a "rain of stones" is the source of the stoning to death punishment for homosexuals by fundamentalist Islamic regimes like the Taliban.

According to John L. Esposito, proof for these crimes is hard to be established. The explanations given for the severity of punishments includes arguments such as the crimes being "against God and a threat to the moral fabric of the Muslim community," and these punishment being "appropriate within the historical and social contexts in which they originated."

Slavery

Main article: Islam and slavery

Criticisms

Islam has come under criticism for permitting slavery, a practice that was a common feature of pre-Islamic pagan Arabia. Robert Spencer specifically holds up verses ^{[Quran 23:1]} for scrutiny, claiming that they allow for the taking of slaves as concubines.

The believers must (eventually) win through,- Those who humble themselves in their prayers; Who avoid vain talk; Who are active in deeds of charity; Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame, (^{[Quran 23:1]})

It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things. (^{[Quran 33:52]})

Spencer claims that slavery is still practiced in several Muslim countries today, such as Sudan and Mauritania, a situation that he thinks will always be possible as long as slavery is "explicitly sanctioned by the Qur'an and Islamic law". He also claims that the impetus to end slavery came from the West, and was resisted by at least one Muslim leader who defended the practice as not prohibited by the "laws of any sect".

Responses

Qura'nic Scholars have varying interpretation of the verses. While some scholars such as Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi comment that verses ^{[Quran 23:1]} explicitly allow sex with slave girls outside of marriage, others like Maulana Muhammad Ali, Khawaja Kamaluddin and Lord Headly reject the allegation that certain verses of the Quran allow slaves to be taken as concubines. Regarding verses 23:1-6 Muhammad Ali argues that these are describing true believers and apply equally to men and women, and do not allow concubinage. Regarding verse 33:52, Muhammad Ali says that by the term "those whom they right hand possesses" refer to the wives of the Prophet whom he had lawfully married. He claims that therefore "slaves could only be taken in marriage, and no other form of sexual relations was permitted."

Other scholars have generally respond by pointing out that while Islam regulates slavery, the good treatment and manumission of slaves are seen as ideals. John Esposito points out that the "Qur'an command(s) the just and humane treatment of slaves, and regard(s) their emancipation as a meritorious act," referencing verses ^{[Quran 16:71]}, ^{[Quran 90:13]}, and ^{[Quran 58:3]}. He goes on to note that slave owners were encouraged to permit their slaves to earn their freedom, and states that forcing female slaves into prostitution was condemned. Seyyed Hossein Nasr states that if some write that slavery is in practice today, "it is more like the slavery of sweatshops in China or the West today. In neither case is it a prevalent practice, nor are such practices condoned by religious authorities."

Incompatibility with Christian and Jewish scriptures

The Gutenberg Bible owned by the United States Library of Congress

Religious differences between believers of Christianity and Islam have lead to criticisms and debate back and forth over the legitimacy and authenticity of both the Bible and the Qur'an. Christians have argued that the Qur'anic accounts of past events differ from the Bible, characterizing that difference as 'misquoting'. According to Thomas McElwain, the foremost body of Biblical texts disagreeing with the Qur'an are those referring to the crucifixion of Jesus. Muslims, generally but not universaly, deny the crucifixion of Jesus because the Qur'an says that Jesus was not actually crucified by the Jews. They presume that the Gospel writers were mistaken or their texts were later altered. Much of the content absent in the Bible has been attributed to the incorporation of legends into the Qur'an.

Scholars such as Ahmed Deedat have defended the Qur'an by arguing that the Bible is a collection of books by 'anonymous hands' and that the Qur'anic assumptions about the authenticity of the Bible (particularly the 4 gospel) and the Torah are correct. Appealing to secular sources, Deedat alleges that the Jewish and Christian scriptures have deviated from their original state. See also Internal consistency and the Bible.

Kohler and McDonald in the Jewish Encyclopedia states that, in Islam: The Torah is confused with the Tables of the Law, and the latter are increased in number. Again, the Torah is enormously increased in bulk: it is alleged to contain a varying number of parts, up to 1,000, and to make seventy camel-loads. Each single part takes a year to read through. Only four men — Moses, Joshua, Ezra, and Jesus — have studied it all. Clear statements, all imaginative, are given as to how it begins and ends. H. Lazarus-Yafeh however holds that Torah in the Qur'an and early Islam "had the wide meaning of the whole corpus of Jewish Scriptures, as Torah in ancient Jewish literature itself."

Christians and Jews in the Qur'an

Main article: Islam and antisemitism

According to antisemitism scholar Jane S. Gerber, cowardice, greed, and chicanery are but a few of the characteristics that the Qur'an ascribes to the Jews. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, the Qur'an contains many attacks on Jews and Christians for their refusal to recognize Muhammad as a prophet.

Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (^{[Quran 98:6]})

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!(^{[Quran 9:30]})

And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah. (^{[Quran 3:54]})

For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;- (^{[Quran 4:160]})

The Qur'an also contains some passages stating that certain Jews had been transformed into apes and pigs. Examples of such passages are:

And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." (^{[Quran 2:65]})

"Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!" (^{[Quran 5:60]})

When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected. (^{[Quran 7:166]})

Muslim scholars disagree on the meanings of these verses. Some believe Jews were actually turned into apes and pigs, while others believe they began to act like animals. Sayyid Abul Ala believes this punishment was not meant for all Jews, and that they were only meant for the Jewish inhabitants that were sinning at the time. According to Khaleel Mohammed, "many Muslim preachers use the verses in a manner that is totally wrong, demonizing all Jews." Freedom House charges that Saudi Arabia uses these verses to teach intolerance.

The issue of context

Muslims often seek to dismiss critics' interpretations of verses in the Quran by saying that they quote the verses out of context, and thus cannot make a valid interpretation. Regarding this issue, Robert Spencer writes that the Qur'an itself provides little context for its verses, and notes that the surahs in the Qur'an are not ordered chronologically, but by length. Ibn Warraq refers to the Muslim lack of context response as "that old standby of crooked, lying politicians."

See also

• Criticism of Islam
• The relation between Islam and science
• Islamic extremist terrorism
• Islam and slavery
• Apostasy in Islam
• Women in Islam
• Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons
• Criticism of the Bible
• Creation-evolution controversy

Further reading

• Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out by Ibn Warraq. Prometheus Books (May 2003) ISBN 1-59102-068-9
• Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq. Prometheus Books (hardcover), 1995, ISBN 0-87975-984-4
• The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, by Robert Spencer, Regnery Publishing 2006 (NYT bestseller list [12])
• The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims, by Robert Spencer, Prometheus Books, 2005. ISBN 1-59102-249-5
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades), by Robert Spencer, Regnery Publishing, 2005. ISBN 0-89526-013-1 (NYT bestseller list[13])
• Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West, by Robert Spencer, Regnery Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-89526-100-6
• Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics,by Robert Spencer, (with Daniel Ali), Ascension Press, 2003. ISBN 0-9659228-5-5
• Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith, by Robert Spencer, (Foreword by David Pryce-Jones), Encounter Books, 2002. ISBN 1-893554-58-9
• Islam: Opposing Viewpoints edited by William Dudley. Greenhaven Press (Farmington Hills) in 2004 as a 203-page hardcover (ISBN 0-7377-2238-X) and paperback (ISBN 0-7377-2239-8).
• Against the Tides in the Middle East, by Mark A. Gabriel International Academic Centre for Muslim Evangelism in South Africa, 1997 (published under the name "Mustafa").
• Islam and Terrorism: What the Qur'an really teaches about Christianity, violence and the goals of the Islamic jihad by Mark A. Gabriel. 2002, ISBN 0-88419-884-7
• Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle by Mark A. Gabriel. 2003, ISBN 0-88419-956-8
• Jesus and Muhammad: Profound Differences and Surprising Similarities by Mark A. Gabriel. 2004, ISBN 1-59185-291-9
• Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist by Mark A. Gabriel. 2006, ISBN 1-59185-713-9
• Gerber, Jane S. (1986). "Anti-Semitism and the Muslim World". In History and Hate: The Dimensions of Anti-Semitism, ed. David Berger. Jewish Publications Society. ISBN 0-8276-0267-7

External links

• English translation Of The Qur'an

Critical sites

• The Qur'an- an Evaluation of the Muslim Claims - Answering-Islam.org
• The Skeptics Annotated Qur'an
• FaithFreedom.org - articles on the Quran
• ProphetofDoom.net - commentary on the Quran
• The Quran: One explosive book - by Robert Spencer

Muslim responses to criticism

• submission.org
• answering-christianity.com
• Five Common Myths About Islam
• USC MSA website
• Islamweb.net
• Islamic-Awareness.org
• Bismika Allahuma.org
• Islam Truth