Criticism of the Qur'an
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Part of a series on the |
| Criticism of Islam |
|---|
| Issues |
| Islam · Muhammad · Qur'an Sunni · Twelver Shia Islamism · Dhimmi · Eurabia Sharia · Jihad · Pan-Islamism Qutbism · Apostasy Domestic violence · Antisemitism Slavery · Terrorism Attitudes towards terrorism Homosexuality Divisions of the world Restoration of the Caliphate The Satanic Verses controversy Namus · Honor killings |
| Modern critics |
| Ayaan Hirsi Ali · Irshad Manji Daniel Pipes · Ibn Warraq Geert Wilders · Oriana Fallaci Pamela Geller · Robert Spencer · Theo van Gogh Afshin Ellian · Salman Rushdie Turan Dursun · Wafa Sultan Magdi Allam · Anwar Shaikh Walid Shoebat · Taslima Nasrin Mark A. Gabriel · Brigitte Gabriel · Pat Condell |
Contents[hide] |
[edit] Historical authenticity
See also: Origin and development of the Qur'an
Most Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of Abraham's God as recited to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel. 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.[1]John Wansbrough believes that the Qu’ran is a redaction in part of other sacred scriptures, in particular the Judaeo-Christian scriptures.[2][3] In their book Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, 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."[4] 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.[4]
In 2006, legal scholar Liaquat Ali Khan claimed that Crone and Cook later explicitly disavowed their earlier book.[10][11] 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 Qur'an represents "utterances" of his that he believed to be revelations. However she states that the Qur'an may not be the complete record of the revelations. She also accepts that oral histories and Muslim historical accounts cannot be totally discounted, but 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.[12]
Al-Kindi claimed that the narratives in the Qur'an were "all jumbled together and intermingled" and that this was "an evidence that many different hands have been at work therein, and caused discrepancies, adding or cutting out whatever they liked or disliked".[13] Bell and Watt suggested that the variation in writing style throughout the Qur'an, which sometimes involves the use of rhyming, may have indicated revisions to the text during its compilation. They claimed that there were "abrupt changes in the length of verses; sudden changes of the dramatic situation, with changes of pronoun from singular to plural, from second to third person, and so on".[14] At the same time, however, they noted that "[i]f any great changes by way of addition, suppression or alteration had been made, controversy would almost certainly have arisen; but of that there is little trace." They also note that "Modern study of the Qur'an has not in fact raised any serious question of its authenticity. The style varies, but is almost unmistakable[citation needed]
.
[edit] Claim of divine origin
See also: Qur'an and miracles
See also: Legends and the Qur'an
[edit] Confusion over speaker of certain verses
Bell and Watt thought that cases where the speaker is swearing an oath by God, such as surahs 75:1-2 and 90:1, seem unlikely to be coming from God. Verses 19:64 and 37:161-166 were spoken by angels, describing their being sent by God down to Earth but this all is only limited to his own thought.[16][edit] Science in the Qur'an
Main article: Qur'an and Science
Qur'anic 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.[17][18] This has led to a contribution by Muslims to the creation vs. evolution debate.[19] Some Muslims have pointed to certain Qur'anic verses (such as 21:30, 71:13–14, 29:19–20, 6:133–135, 10:4) that they think are in fact compatible with evolutionary science,[20] but others think that only creationism is supported by the Qur'an and the hadith.[21][22]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."[23] 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.[23]
[edit] Abrogation
Naskh (نسخ) is an Arabic language word usually translated as "abrogation"; it shares the same root as the words appearing in the phrase al-nāsikh wal-mansūkh (الناسخ والمنسوخ, "the abrogating and abrogated [verses]").The concept of "abrogation" in the Qur'an is that Allah chose to reveal ayat (singular ayah; means a sign or miracle, commonly a verse in the Qur'an) that supersede earlier ayat in the same Qur'an. The central ayah that deals with abrogation is Surah 2:106:
"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" [24]
When God says none of our revelation will be forgotten means the true teachings of the prophets who came before Muhammed will not be forgotten. This is evident as the Holy Qur'an mentions about the past prophets and their teachings[citation needed].
[edit] Satanic verses
Main article: Satanic Verses
Some criticism of the Qur'an has revolved around what are known as the "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." The Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were three goddesses worshiped by the Meccans. These histories then say that these 'Satanic Verses' were repudiated shortly afterward by Muhammad at the behest of Gabriel.[25] Academic scholars such as William Montgomery Watt and Alfred 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."[26] On the other hand, John Burton rejected the tradition. In an inverted culmination of Watt's approach, Burton 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.[27]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 describes this 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.[28] linking it with the moment at which Muhammad felt able to adopt a "hostile attitude" towards the pagan Arabs.[29] 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".[30] In a caveat to his acceptance of the incident, William Montgomery Watt, 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."[31]
"If it [i.e. the Qur'an] had been from someone other than God, they would have found much contradiction in it." This encouragement of Muhammad's enemies to claim inconsistency and contradiction, is argued, was pronounced in a hostile environment during the Qur'an's revelation.[32]
[edit] Intended audience
Some verses of the Qur'an are assumed to be directed towards all of Muhammad's followers while other verses are directed more specifically towards Muhammad and his wives (33:28, 33:50, 49:2, 58:1, 58:9 66:3).Other scholars argue that variances in the Qur'an's explicit intended audiences are irrelevant to claims of divine origin - and for example that Muhummad's wives "specific divine guidance, occasioned by their proximity to the Prophet (Muhammad)" where "Numerous divine reprimands addressed to Muhammad's wives in the Qur'an establish their special responsibility to overcome their human frailties and ensure their individual worthiness",[33] or argue that the Qur'an must be interpreted on more than one level.[34] (See:[35]).
[edit] Morality
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. The 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."[36] 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."[37][edit] War and peace
The Qur’an's teachings on matters of war and peace have become topics of heated discussion in recent years. On the one hand, some critics interpret that certain verses of the Qur’an sanction military action against unbelievers as a whole both during the lifetime of Muhammad and after. The Qur'an said "fight in the name of your religion with those who fight against you."[38] On the other hand, other scholars argue that such verses of the Qur’an are interpreted out of context,[39][40] and argue that when the verses are read in context it clearly appears that the Qur’an prohibits aggression,[41][42][43] and allows fighting only in self defense.[44][45]Kim Ezra Shienbaum and Jamal Hasan have claimed that a concept of 'Jihad', defined as 'warfare', has been introduced by the Qur’an. They claim that while the Prophet Muhummad was in Mecca, he "did not have many supporters and was very weak compared to the Pagans", and "it was at this time he added some 'soft', peaceful versus", where as "almost all the hateful, coercive and intimidating versus later in the Qur’an were made with respect to Jihad" when the Prophet Muhammad was in Medina (8:38-39, 8:65, 9:29-30, 48:16-22, 4:95, 9:111, 2:216-218, 8:15-17, 9:123, 8:12, 9:5, 2:190-194, 9:73).[46]
Micheline R. Ishay has argued that "the Qur’an justifies wars for self-defense to protect Islamic communities against internal or external aggression by non-Islamic populations, and wars waged against those who 'violate their oaths' by breaking a treaty" (9:12-15, 42:39).[47] Mufti M. Mukarram Ahmed has also argued that the Qur’an encourages people to fight in self defence (9:38-41, 9:36-37, 4:74). He has also argued that the Qur’an has been used to direct Muslims to make all possible preparations to defend themselves against enemies (8:60).[48]
Shin Chiba and Thomas J. Schoenbaum argue that Islam "does not allow Muslims to fight against those who disagree with them regardless of belief system", but instead "urges it's followers to treat such people kindly" (4:90, 8:61, 60:8).[49] Yohanan Friedmann has argued that the Qur’an does not promote fighting for the purposes of religious coercion, although the war as described is "religious" in the sense that the enemies of the Muslims are described as "enemies of God" (8:57-62).[50]
Rodrigue Tremblay has argued that the Qur’an commands that non-Muslims under a Muslim regime, should "feel themselves subdued" in "a political state of subservience" (4:89). He also argues that the Qur’an may assert freedom within religion (2:256).[51] Nisrine Abiad has argued that the Qur’an incorporates the offence (and due punishment) of "rebellion" into the offence of "highway or armed robbery" (5:33).[52]
George W. Braswell has argued that the Qur’an asserts an idea of Jihad to deal with "a sphere of disobedience, ignorance and war" (47:4, 49:15, 2:244-245).[53]
Michael David Bonner has argued that the "deal between God and those who fight is portrayed as a commercial transaction, either as a loan with interest, or else as a profitable sale of the life of this world in return for the life of the next", where "how much one gains depends on what happens during the transaction", either "paradise if slain in battle, or victory if one survives" (9:52).[54] Ali Sina argues that the Qur’an was used to coerce Muhammad's followers into fighting when they showed "reluctance to make war" (47:20-21).[55]
Ali Unal has claimed that the Qur’an praises the companions of the prophet Muhammad, for being stern and implacable against the said unbelievers, where in that "period of ignorance and savagery, triumphing over these people was possible by being strong and unyielding" (48:29).[56]
Solomon Nigosian has argued that in "duty to halt aggression or to strive for the preservation of Islamic principles", fighting may be involved, where the Qur’an encourages them to "fight courageously and steadfastly against recalcitrant states, be they Muslim or non-Muslim" (61:4, 3:140-141). He also argues that the "Qur’anic statement is clear" on the issue of fighting in defence of Islam as "a duty that is to be carried out at all costs", where "God grants security to those Muslims who fight in order to halt or repel aggression" (22:39-42).[57]
Shaikh M. Ghazanfar argues that the Qur’an has been used to teach it's followers that "the path to human salvation does not require withdrawal from the world but rather encourages moderation in worldly affairs" (fighting inclusive) (73:20).[58] Shabbir Akhtar has argued that the Qur’an asserts that if a people "fear Muhammad more than they fear God, 'they are a people lacking in sense'" rather than a fear being imposed upon them by God directly (59:13).[59]
Various calls to arms were identified in the Qur’an by US Citizen Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, all of which were cited as "most relevant to my actions on March 3, 2006" (9:44, 9:19, 57:10-11, 8:72-73, 9:120, 3:167-175, 4:66, 4:104, 9:81, 9:93-94, 9:100, 16:110, 61:11-12, 47:35).[60]
[edit] Violence against women
Main articles: Islam and Domestic violence and An-Nisa, 34
Verse 4:34 of the Qur'an as translated by Mohammed Habib Shakir reads:- Men are the maintainers of women because God has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as God has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely God is High, Great.
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.) Although the Qur'an does allow a husband to punish his wife for transgressing the bounds given to her by God, the Qur'an and Muhammad still put forth the prescription that the man is only allowed to hit the woman so lightly that it would not leave as much as a faint mark upon her, otherwise the man has himself transgressed divine bounds. Some Muslims argue that beating is only appropriate if a woman has done "an unrighteous, wicked and rebellious act" beyond mere disobedience.[63] 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.[64][65][66]
Many Islamic scholars and commentators have emphasized that beatings, where permitted, are not to be harsh[67][68][69] or even that they should be "more or less symbolic."[70] According to Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Ibn Kathir, the consensus of Islamic scholars is that the above verse describes a light beating.[71][72]
Some jurists argue that even when beating is acceptable under the Qur'an, it is still discountenanced.[73][74][75]
[edit] Houris
Daniel Ali interprets that the "Houris" or 'Virgins of Paradise' described in the Qur'an (37:43-49, 38:52, 44:54, 52:20, 55:56, 55:72, 56:35-38, 78:33) fulfill "every conceivable carnal desire".[76] Max I. Dimont interprets that the Houris described in the Qur'an are specifically dedicated to "male pleasure".[77] Henry Martyn claims that the concept of the Houris was chosen to satisfy Mohammed's followers.[78]Alternatively, Annemarie Schimmel says that the Qur'anic description of the Houris should be viewed in a context of love; "every pious man who lives according to God's order will enter Paradise where rivers of milk and honey flow in cool, fragrant gardens and virgin beloveds await home..."[79] She also states that the sensuality pictured in the Qur'an is comparable to that offered in sermons by the Eastern Orthodox Church; "its description of Paradise, so often attacked by Christian polemicists because of its sensuality, the Qur'an is not much more colourful than were the sermons on this topic in the Eastern Orthodox Church". She also emphasises that "women and children too participate in the paradisal bliss" (52:21).
Under the Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Qur'an by Christoph Luxenberg, the words translating to "Houris" or "Virgins of Paradise" are instead interpreted as "Fruits (grapes)" and "high climbing (wine) bowers... made into first fruits".[80] Alternate interpretations of these Qur'anic verses are offered, including the idea that the Houris should be seen as having a specifically spiritual nature rather than a human nature; "these are all very sensual ideas; but there are also others of a different kind... what can be the object of cohabitation in Paradise as there can be no question of its purpose in the world, the preservation of the race. The solution of this difficulty is found by saying that, although heavenly food, women etc.., have the name in common with their earthly equivalents, it is only by way of metaphorical indication and comparison without actual identity... authors have spiritualized the Houris" and "later literature is able to give many more details of their physical beauty... they are so transparent that the marrow of their bones is visible through sev-enty silken garments. If they expectorate into the world, their spittle becomes musk...".
[edit] Christians and Jews in the Qur'an
[edit] Criticisms
Jane Gerber claims that the Qur'an ascribes negative traits to Jews, such as cowardice, greed, and chicanery. She also alleges that the Qur'an associates Jews with interconfessional strife and rivalry (Qur'an 2:113), the Jewish belief that they alone are beloved of God (Qur'an 5:18), and that only they will achieve salvation (Qur'an 2:111).[81] According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, the Qur'an contains many attacks on Jews and Christians for their refusal to recognize Muhammad as a prophet.[82] In the Muslim view, the crucifixion of Jesus was an illusion, and thus the Jewish plots against him ended in failure.[83] In numerous verses (3:63; 3:71; 4:46; 4:160–161; 5:41–44, 5:63–64, 5:82; 6:92)[84] the Qur'an accuses Jews of altering the Scripture.[85]Qur'anic statements which portray Christians and Jews in a negative image (9:30, 5:72, 3:85, 4:150, 58:22) include verse 30 of Al-Tawba which states:
"And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of God; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of God; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may God destroy them; how they are turned away!"Although there is a verse stating that Christians and Jews will be rewarded as a result of their belief in God (2:62), there are seemingly contradicting verses like the verse 85 of Al-i'Imran:
"And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers."
[edit] Responses
The main Qur'anic statement that Muslim scholars hold[citation needed] portray Christians and Jews in a positive image in Surah Baqarah, Chapter No. 2, Verse No. 62:"Those who believe, the Jews, Christians and Sabians - any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord. They need not fear, nor shall they grieve"According to Suat Yildirim, the Qur’an gave Jews and Christians a special and honored place. (Qur'an 29:46).[86] Moreover, he states that the Qur'an 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 (Qur'an 5:82–83)".[86] However, this does not account for Muslim-Hindu or Muslim-Buddhist relations. Karen Armstrong mentions that there are "far more numerous passages in the Qur'an" 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).[87]
Regarding the "apes" verses,[clarification needed] 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.[88] 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.[88]
No comments:
Post a Comment