Criticism of the Quran

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 of 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

Prof. Herbert Berg writes that "Despite John Wansbrough's very cautious and careful inclusion of qualifications such as "conjectural," and "tentative and emphatically provisional", his work is condemned by some. Some of the negative reaction is undoubtedly due to its radicalness...Wansbrough's work has been embraced wholeheartedly by few and has been employed in a piecemeal fashion by many. Many praise his insights and methods, if not all of his conclusions." 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: "[the thesis of Crone and Cook]…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."

In 2006, legal scholar Liaquat Ali Khan claimed that Crone and Cook later explicitly disavowed their earlier book . Patricia Crone in an article published in 2006 provided an update on the evolution of her conceptions since the printing of the thesis in 1976. . In the article she acknowledges that Muhammad existed as a historical figure and that the Quran represents "utterances" of his that he believed to be revelations. However she states that the Quran may not be the complete record of the revelations. She also accepts that oral histories and Muslim historical accounts cannot be totally discounted. She however remains skeptical about the traditional account of the Hijrah and the standard view that Muhammad and his tribe were based in Mecca. She describes the difficulty in the handling of the hadith because of their "amorphous nature" and purpose as documentary evidence for deriving religious law rather than as historical narratives.

Claim of divine origin

See also: Wahy § The origin of the Qur'an and the question of sincerity 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 rhyme (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 (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 interpretation 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, (25:61, 10:5, 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, (16:15, 21:31), a view which is incompatible with modern geology. Another criticism of the Qur'an involves verses 86:5–7. 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 3:59, 35:11, 96:2, 20:55, 6:1, 24:45, 15:26, 7:11, and 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 21:30, 71:13–14, 29:19–20, 6:134–136, 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.

Claims of internal inconsistency

Several critics believe that there are mutually contradictory passages in the Qur'an. The Skeptic's Annotated Qur'an asserts that there are numerous contradictions in the Qur'an. Examples include:

• the length of Allah's day (22:47 and 32:5 vs. 70:4),
• whether or not all Jews and Christians will go to hell (3:85 and 5:72 vs. 2:62 and 5:69),
• how disbelievers should be treated (2:256, 18:29, and 109:6 vs. 3:32, 18:29, 3:28, and others).
• how many angels spoke to Mary (19:16–19, vs. 3:42,and 3:45)
• whether the Pharaoh was drowned or saved (17:102–103, 28:40, 43:55 vs. 10:90–92)
• whether Muhammad asks for money (2:195, 8:41, 9:103, etc. vs. 12:104, 36:21, 42:23, etc.)
• whether heaven or earth came first (79:27–30 vs. 2:29, 41:9–12)
• whether Allah will forgive everything (4:110, 39:153 vs. 4:48, 4:116, 4:137, etc.)
• the number of angels that fought for Muhammad (3:124, 3:126 vs. 8:9–10)
• whether everyone is free to believe in what he or she wishes (2:256, 109:6 vs. 3:85, 3:28, 5:51)
• whether or not Allah is merciful (1:1–3, 2:37, 2:128 vs. 2:7, 2:17, 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 repudiated shortly afterward 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, Burton rejected the tradition. 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."

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.

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. 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 behavior

Main articles: Islam and Domestic violence and An-Nisa, 34

Verse 4:34 of the Qur'an reads:

"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, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For God is Most High, great (above you all)."

Critics claim that this is a "command to beat disobedient wives" that "is founded upon a woman’s subservient / secondary status in Islam." The film Submission, which rose to fame after the murder of Theo van Gogh, critiqued this and similar verses of the Qur'an by displaying them painted on the bodies of abused Muslim women. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the film's writer, said "it is written in the Koran a woman may be slapped if she is disobedient. This is one of the evils I wish to point out in the film" . In an answer to a question about whether the film would offend Muslims, Hirsi Ali said that "if you're a Muslim woman and you read the Koran, and you read in there that you should be raped if you say 'no' to your husband, that is offensive. And that is insulting."

Scholars and other defenders of Islam have a variety of responses to these criticisms. (See An-Nisa, 34 for a fuller exegesis on the meaning of the text.) Some Muslims argue that beating is only appropriate if woman has done "an unrighteous, wicked and rebellious act" beyond mere disobedience. In many modern interpretations of the Qur'an, the actions prescribed in 4:34 are to be taken in sequence, and beating is only to be used as a last resort.

Furthermore, some contemporary Muslims have urged that the word idribûhunna, normally translated as beat, should be translated instead as to leave them in the sense of "telling someone to 'beat it' or 'drop it' in English". Even among those who accept the translation of "beat," many Islamic scholars and commentators have emphasized that beatings, even where permitted, are not to be harsh or even that they should be "more or less symbolic." According to Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Ibn Kathir, the consensus of Islamic scholars is that the above verse describes a light beating.

Some jurists argue that even when beating is acceptable under the Qur'an, it is still discountenanced.

War and violence

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. [21] [22]

Many muslims and non-muslims believe Islamic extremist terrorism is political terrorism or the actions of a few extremists.

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 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," whilst quoting verse 2:216. He writes that according to 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 9:19–20.

Responses

Marmaduke Pickthall while commenting on verse 2:216, references verse 2:251, and interprets the notion of fighting being not optional as Quran’s way of depicting fighting as a religious duty when fighting is done in defense of the oppressed and the weak. Maulana Muhammad Ali also uses the Quran to provide context for verse 2:216 and says that “It was an injunction to fight to end persecution and….save the houses of worship of every religion from being ruined”.

Pickthall goes on to say that “Nowhere does the Qur’an approve a spirit of revenge” and situates verse 2:194 in the context of a defensive war. Maulana Muhammad Ali explaining the same verse says retaliation is being allowed “within the limits of the original act of aggression,” where forgiveness is not an option as “inaction…would be suicidal”. He, and others, have argued that the Quran clearly commands believers to prefer forgiveness over retaliation where ever possible, quoting several Qura’anic verses including 42:37–43.”

John Esposito in response to the charge laid against Islam in West as a violent religion argues that violence in Islamic history is no different than violence in histories of other religions, and the reasons for this violence include political and economic grievances. He also says that relative to other religions, people tend to unfairly link such violence practiced by Muslims to the religion of Islam itself. Other writers such as Michael Sells and Jane I. Smith (a Professor of Islamic Studies) have expressed similar opinions, saying that barring some extremists like Al-Qaeda, most Muslims do not interpret Qura’nic verses as promoting warfare; and that the phenomenon of radical interpretation of scripture by extremist groups is not unique to Islam.". According to Sells, "[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."

Treatment of enemy combatants and women captives

Criticism

Robert Spencer writes that Muhammad was instructed to take no prisoners, but also suggests that this prohibition "doesn't seem to be absolute", claiming that in another verse (33:50) "Allah gives the Muslims permission to take the wives of those they have slain in battle as concubines." On the treatment of slave-girls James Arlandson cites Maududi's interpretation of verse (4:24): "Maududi says in his comment on the verse that is it lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive." Arlandson also writes: "It is one thing for some soldiers in any army to strike out on their own and rape women. All armies have criminal soldiers who commit this wrong act. But it is quite another to codify rape in a sacred text. Islam codifies and legalizes rape." [23]

Responses

Muhammad Asad argued that the reference to prisoners of war in this verse is to give permission to marry the prisoners. Regarding verse 4:24, Asad disagrees with the interpretation that the verse is allowing marriage with war prisoners that are already married. He quotes other authorities on the Quran (Razi & Tabari) and asserts that the verse is referring not to war prisoners but to one’s already lawfully wedded wife. He interprets the next verse as referring to female prisoners of war and says that this verse “lays down in an un-equivocal manner that sexual relations with female salves are permitted on the basis of marriage and that in this respect there is no difference between them and free women; consequently concubinage is ruled out.”

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. (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!" (9:81)

Responses

Regarding the "sword" verse, John Esposito states that the critics and some of the Militants today take the verse out of context. Maulana Muhammad Ali holds a similar opinion, saying that its “words are taken out of their context, and a significance is forced upon them which the context cannot bear.” The verses should be read with the whole surah; also the time and circumstances of the verses should be considered. Explaining the context, some Quranic Scholars (Muhammad Asad, Maulana Muhammad Ali) assert that the permission to fight and kill is being given regarding specific tribes already at war with the Muslims who have breached their peace agreements and have attacked the Muslims first.Regarding the Tabuk Expedition (historical context of chapter 9), it is stated by the same authors that it was a defensive march to the frontier in order to safeguard against the Romans who were reportedly assembling a large force to attack Arabia. They state that when upon reaching the frontier it became known that the Romans did not intend an offensive, Muhammad returned without attacking them in accordance with Qura’nic teachings. See Islamic military jurisprudence#Ethics of warfare in the Qur'an regarding the principles of fighting in Islam and the "sword verse".

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.”

Responses

Hussein 'Abdul-Raof, a professor of Arabic and Middle Eastern studies, states that sura 103 was the last Sura revealed (and thus not Sura 9).

Maulana Muhammad Ali, commenting on the “sword verse” (verse 9:5) and its relation to earlier Quranic verses on the subject, asserts that this verse and the chapter (ch .9) do not “go beyond what is contained in the earliest revelations on the subject of war.” Explaining further he compares verse 9:5 and a much earlier verse (2:191) and argues that in both cases permission is given to kill only those who have attacked the Muslims first. He rejects the notion that the sword verse abrogates earlier verses, arguing that when read along with the following verses of the same chapter, it is clear that even in this later revelation fighting is only permitted in self defense, which is exactly the case with the earlier verses; so the concept of one abrogating the other does not make sense as there is not “the slightest change is principles laid down earlier”. Maulana Muhammad Ali goes on stating that if the preceding and following verses to verse 9:5 are read, the context clearly shows that the reference (to fight) is only to specific idalatorous tribes (those guilty of breaching peace agreements made earlier with Muslims), and not to “all idalatorous people living anywhere.”

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 23:1–6 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, (23:1–6)

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. (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 23:1–6 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 Maulana 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, Maulana 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 responded 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 16:71, 90:13, and 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."

Jews in the Qur'an

Main article: Islam and antisemitism

The Gutenberg Bible owned by the United States Library of Congress

Criticisms

Jane Gerber criticizes the Qur'an for, what she believes ascribes, cowardice, greed, and chicanery are but a few of the characteristics that the Qur'an ascribes to the Jews. She also alleges that the Qur'an associates Jews with interconfessional strife and rivalry, the Jewish belief that they alone are beloved of God, and that only they will achieve salvation. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, the Qur'an contains many attacks on Jews and Christians for their refusal to recognize Muhammad as a prophet. In the Muslim view, the crucifixion of Jesus was an illusion, and thus the Jewish plots against him ended in failure. Gerber alleges the Qur'an of accusing the Jews of altering the Scripture.

Responses

According to Suat Yildirim, Qur’an gave Jews and Christians a special and honored place. (Quran 29:46) . Moreover, he states that Quran mentions that Christians were the "nearest to Muslims in love, because their priests and monks are not proud, and because they listen to and recognize the truth of what the Messenger (Muhammad) has brought (Quran 5:82–83)" . Karen Armstrong mentions that there are "far more numerous passages in Quran" which speak positively of the Jews and their great prophets, than those which were against the "rebellious Jewish tribes of Medina" (during Muhammad's time) .

Regarding the "apes" verses, 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." Tahir Abbas states that the harsh criticisms were only addressed towards a particular group of Jews, as it is clear from the context of the Qur'anic verses, but the translations usually confuse this by using the general term "Jews".

See also

• Criticism of Islam
• The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Koran
• 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 [24])
• 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[25])
• 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

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
• The Prophet of Terror

Muslim responses to criticism

• Examining the Qur'an - Islamic-Awareness.org
• Misconceptions - load-Islam.com
• 'Muslim responses to anti-Islam polemics' - Bismika Allahuma.org
• Five Common Myths About Islam - globalexchange.org
• Section: The Noble Qur'an - answering-christianity.com
• USC MSA website
• Islam Truth