Criticism of Islam

Criticism of Islam has existed since Islam's formative stages, as with many other religions, on philosophical, scientific, ethical, political and theological grounds. There are criticisms of both the fundamentals of Islam as a religion and of the cultural traditions and social norms associated with it.

History of criticism of Islam

The earliest records of criticism of Islam are found in early Islamic writings about criticism from pagan Arabs, and from Jewish inhabitants of Arabia.

The earliest written criticism by non-Muslims is found in the writings of Christians who came under the dominion of Islam, such as John of Damascus who was familiar with Islam and Arabic. The second chapter of his book, The Fount of Wisdom, titled 'Concerning Heresies' presents a series of discussions between Christians and Muslims. John claimed a Nestorian monk influenced Muhammad.

Some medieval ecclesiastical writers portrayed Muhammad as possessed by Satan, a "precursor of the Antichrist" or the Antichrist himself.

Maimonides, the Medieval Jewish rabbi and philosopher, sees the relation of Islam to Judaism as primarily theoretical. Maimonides has no quarrel with the strict monotheism of Islam, but finds fault with the practical politics of Muslim regimes. He also considered Islamic ethics and politics to be inferior to their Jewish counterparts. Maimonides criticised what he perceived as the lack of virtue in the way Muslims rule their societies and relate to one another.

Modern criticism of Islam

Modern criticism of Islam comes in many varieties. Many critics are non-Muslim scholars raised in the West who publicly state that Islam falls short when judged by Western, and sometimes explicitly Christian, values and standards of conduct. Noted members of this group are Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, and Bat Ye'or. Robert Spencer is especially vocal, having written many books, one titled The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims. Bat Ye'or has studied the phenomenon of dhimma in detail, and stresses "the incompatibility between the concept of tolerance as expressed by the jihad-dhimmitude ideology, and the concept of human rights based on the equality of all human beings and the inalienability of their rights."

There are also outspoken former Muslims who believe that Islam is the primary cause for what they see as the mistreatment of minority groups in Muslim countries and communities. Almost all (if not all) of them now live in the West, many under assumed names because of a perceived danger to themselves. Such people include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, and Ali Sina. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has focused on the alleged plight of Muslim women, saying that "they aspire to live by their faith as best they can, but their faith robs them of their rights."

Several scholars do not self-identify as critics of Islam but are not afraid to criticise aspects of Islam which they imply are lacking in some regard. Bernard Lewis is perhaps the most well-known member of this group. For example, he holds that unbelievers, slaves, and women are considered fundamentally inferior to other groups of people under Islamic law though he holds that even the equality of free adult male Muslims represented a very considerable advance on the practice of both the Greco-Roman and the ancient Iranian world.

Responses come from both Muslim and some non-Muslim scholars and writers. Such non-Muslim scholars include William Montgomery Watt, John Esposito and Karen Armstrong. Watt, for example, in his book Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman addresses Muhammad’s alleged moral failures. He claims that “Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad.” Watt argues that Muhammad should be judged by the standards of his own time and country rather than "by those of the most enlightened opinion in the West today." Karen Armstrong, tracing what she believes to be the West's long history of hostility toward Islam, finds in Muhammad’s teachings a theology of peace and tolerance. Armstrong holds that the "holy war" urged by the Qur'an alludes to each Muslim's duty to fight for a just, decent society. John Esposito has written many introductory texts on Islam and the Islamic world. For example, he has addressed issues like the rise of militant Islam, the veiling of women, and democracy.

Responses from Muslims have come from many Muslim writers, scholars and comparative religionists such as Ahmad Deedat, Osama Abdallah, Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Gary Miller. Within the academia, responses have come from scholars such as Michael Sells and notably Edward Said, who sharply criticized Western scholarship of the East. In his essay Islam Through Western Eyes, he stated that the general basis of Orientalist thought forms a study structure in which Islam is placed in an inferior position as an object of study. He claims the existence of a very considerable bias in Orientalist writings as a consequence of the scholars' cultural make-up. He claims Islam has been looked at with a particular hostility and fear due to many obvious religious, psychological and political reasons, all deriving from a sense "that so far as the West is concerned, Islam represents not only a formidable competitor but also a late-coming challenge to Christianity."

Alleged intolerance of criticism

Islam is frequently criticised as being intolerant of and suppressive of criticism, and especially of apostasy. Ibn Warraq, an ex-Muslim, has collected and published stories of the alleged mistreatment of Muslim apostates at the hands of Islamic authorities. Daniel Pipes has said that in order for Islam to modernize, there must be "no more death sentences for blasphemy or apostasy."

Decision of a Fatwa committee on the case of a convert to Christianity: "Since he left Islam, he will be invited to express his regret. If he does not regret, he will be killed pertaining to rights and obligations of the Islamic law."

Apostasy in Islamic law

Main article: Apostasy in Islam

Bernard Lewis writes:

"The penalty for apostasy, in Islamic law, is death. Islam is conceived as a polity, not just as a religious community. It follows therefore that apostasy is treason. It is a withdrawal, a denial of allegiance as well as of religious belief and loyalty. Any sustained and principled opposition to the existing regime or order almost inevitably involves such a withdrawal."

The question of the correct penalties to be imposed under Islamic law for apostasy is a highly controversial topic that has been passionately debated. The four Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence, as well as Shi'a scholars, agree that a male apostate must be executed. A female apostate may be put to death, according to the majority view, or imprisoned until she repents, according to others.

Some contemporary Islamic jurists from both the Sunni and Shi'a denominations together with Qur'an only Muslims have argued or issued fatwas that state that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances. For example, Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri argues that no Qur'anic verse prescribes an earthly penalty for apostasy and adds that it is not improbable that the punishment was prescribed by Muhammad when Islam was still partial, and some Jews and Christians purposely entered Islam and deserted it later to create confusion among the Muslims ^{[Quran 3:72]}. Montazari does not hold a reversion of belief in itself to constitute apostasy, but define apostasy as deserting Islam out of malice and enmity towards the Muslim community. However, these minority opinions regarding punishment for apostasy have not found broad acceptance among their peers in the ulema.

File:Abdul Rahman with Bible.jpg

Abdul Rahman, an Afghan convert to Christianity who made international headlines when he was arrested and threatened with execution. Kabul, March 23, 2006

Modern treatment of accused apostates

Today, many Muslim countries make apostasy from Islam a crime punishable by death, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and Yemen. Other Muslim countries specify lesser punishments.

The recent case of Afghan Abdul Rahman has achieved particular notoriety. In early 2006, Rahman was arrested and held by Afghan authorities on charges that he converted from Islam to Christianity, an act that is punishable by death in Afghanistan. Many Muslim clerics in the country pushed for a death sentence, but after international pressure (including a public statement by U.S. Secretary of State at the time Condoleezza Rice) he was released and secretly given asylum in Italy.

In 1993, an Egyptian professor named Nasr Abu Zayd was divorced from his wife by an Egyptian court run by Islamic radicals on the grounds that his controversial writings about the Qur'an demonstrated his apostasy. He subsequently fled to Europe with his wife.Another Egyptian professor, Faraq Foda, was killed in 1992 by masked men after criticising Muslim fundamentalists and announcing plans to form a new movement for Egyptians of all religions.

German professor Christoph Luxenberg feels compelled to work under a pseudonym to protect himself because of fears that a new book on the origins of the Qur'an may make him a target for violence. Hashem Aghajari, an Iranian university professor, was initially sentenced to death because of a speech that criticised some of the present Islamic practices in Iran as being in contradiction with the original practices and ideology of Islam, and particularly for stating that Muslims were not "monkeys" and "should not blindly follow" the clerics. The sentence was later commuted to three years in jail, and he was released in 2004 after serving two years of that sentence.

In recent times fatwas calling for execution have been issued against author Salman Rushdie and activist Taslima Nasreen.

Muhammad

Muslims consider Muhammad to be the final and greatest prophet, the messenger of the final revelation that he called the Qur’an. Muslims believe that Muhammad was righteous and holy. However, some scholars such as Koelle and Ibn Warraq see some of his actions as very immoral. Islamic scholars disagree, especially when a comparison is made between Muhammad and Biblical prophets. Muslims have also questioned the historical evidence for some of Muhammad's alleged immoral acts.

Non-Muslim perspectives on Muhammad

Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan". Maracci held that Muhammad and Islam were not very dissimilar to Luther and Protestantism. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) states that Muhammad was inspired by an "imperfect understanding" of Judaism and Christianity.

Nineteenth-century Western scholars such as Sprenger, Nöldeke, Weil, Sir William Muir, Koelle, Grimme and D. S. Margoliouth give a more positive, and according to Catholic Encyclopedia a more correct and unbiased estimate of Muhammad's life and character and agree as to his motives, prophetic call, personal qualifications and sincerity. Muir, Marcus Dods, and others have suggested that Muhammad was at first sincere but later became deceptive. Koelle finds "the key to the first period of Muhammad's life in Khadija, his first wife," after whose death he became prey to his "evil passions." Sprenger attributes Muhammad's revelations to epileptic fits or a "paroxysm of cataleptic insanity." Zwemer, a Christian missionary, criticised the life of Muhammad on various grounds; first by the standards of the Old and New Testaments, second by the pagan morality of his Arabian compatriots, and last, by the new law which he brought. Zwemer suggests Muhammad defied Arab ethical traditions, and that he personally violated the strict sexual morality of his own moral system. Quoting Johnstone, Zwemer concludes by claiming that his harsh judgment rests on evidence which "comes all from the lips and the pens of his [i.e. Muhammad's] own devoted adherents."

William Montgomery Watt, a twentieth-century non-Muslim scholar, believes that Muhammad had genuine religious experiences and really did receive something directly from God but does not believe that the Qur’an is infallibly true in the sense that all its commands are valid for all time. Daniel Pipes sees Muhammad as a politician, stating that "because Muhammad created a new community, the religion that was its raison d'etre had to meet the political needs of its adherents." Robert Spencer, a vocal critic of Islam, writes emphatically that Muhammad "did not teach 'peace and tolerance,'" and lambasts Muhammad's supposed progression from "violent words to violent deeds." Ibn Warraq, another critic, laments that "unforunately, as he gained in confidence and increased his political and military power, so the story goes, Muhammad turned from being a persuader to being a legislator, warrior, and dictator." However, John Esposito sees Muhammad in a sympathetic light, as a reformer who did away with many of the terrible practices of the pagan Arabs. "Muhammad's prophetic call summoned the people to strive and struggle (jihad) to reform their communities and to live a good life based on religious belief and not loyalty to their tribe."

Aisha

Main article: Aisha

Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is particularly controversial. Islamic traditions hold that she was as young as six at marriage, stayed in her parents' home till she had reached puberty at nine and then her marriage with Muhammad was consummated. This is particularly concerning to non-Muslims, who denounce Muhammad for having sexual relations with a girl so young. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has called Muhammad a "pervert" for allegedly marrying a girl as young as six. Some claim that Muhammad's example encourages the practice of child marriage in Muslim communities. Ibn Warraq writes that "child marriages continue to be practiced, and the fact that the Prophet himself married Aisha when she was only nine and he was fifty-three encourages Muslim society to continue with this iniquitous custom."

There is considerable debate among Muslim scholars over Aisha's age at marriage. Maulana Muhammad Ali makes a detailed historical argument that Aisha could not have been more than nine or ten at the time of betrothal, and fifteen at marriage. Others fix her age at consummation as late as nineteen. The majority of scholars accept the tradition that Aisha was married at the age of nine. Some respond to criticism of the young marriage by claiming that she had reached puberty by then. In an effort to show that Aisha's marriage was not unusual, defenders point out that early marriages were common in most cultures until fairly recent times. In medieval Britain, "Girlhood was brief. Women were marriageable at twelve and usually married by fourteen. Heiresses might be married in form as young as five and betrothed even younger..." There is even an account in Christian apocryphal writings that claims that Mary, mother of Jesus, was between the ages of twelve and fourteen at the time of her marriage to a ninety-year old Joseph.

Violence

Main article: Muhammad as a warrior

There have been several incidents recorded in Islamic histories and hadith that have served as the basis for criticisms of Muhammad's alleged cruel and unforgiving behavior in war.

Ibn Ishaq relates that, while in a certain town, Muhammad gave license to his men to "kill any Jew who falls into your power." In short order, Muhayyisa ibn Mas'ud slew a Jewish merchant named Ibn Sunayna. When Muhayyisa's brother Huwayyisa confronted him about the deed, he boasted that "had Muhammad commanded him to murder his (Muhayyisa's) brother, he would have done so." This display of faith caused Huwayyisa to convert to Islam on the spot, proclaiming that "any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!" (This story is partially corroborated in a hadith [18]).

Ibn Warraq believes this illustrates a "ruthless fanaticism into which the teaching of the Prophet was fast drifting." Scholar Daniel W. Brown concurs with this story, but does not pass judgment. In response, some Muslims question the reliability of the hadith in which the story appears (specifically, claiming that its isnad is weak). They also claim that Ibn Hisham, a disciple of Ibn Ishaq who edited his work, questioned Ishaq's timing of the incident, casting doubt on the story's accuracy as a whole. Also, in answering criticisms of this type, some Muslim scholars argue that Muhammad's actions disqualify him as God's spokesman only if such actions also disqualify men like Joshua, or conversely compare Muhammad favorably with Old Testament figures like Joshua

Muhammad is also criticised for the alleged massacre of men from a tribe of Jews called the Banu Qurayza, in 627. These Jews, living inside the Medina, had supposedly broken their covenant with Muhammad (possibly for the second time) and given aid to his enemies during the Battle of the Trench. In that battle, a large force formed by a coalition of Meccans and their allies besieged the significantly outnumbered Muslims in Medina. Ibn Ishaq writes that Muhammad approved the beheading of some 600-900 individuals who surrendered unconditionally after a siege that lasted several weeks, and also relates how Ka'b, the leader of the Qurayza, was convinced to turn against Muhammad via the exhortations of an enemy leader named Huyayy ibn Akhtab. (Also see Bukhari Template:Bukhari-usc) (Yusuf Ali notes that the Qur'an discusses this battle in verses ^{[Quran 33:10]})..

Some critics believe this event set a disturbing precedent in Islamic law that established the right of Muslim captors to show no mercy to captives of war. However, others imply that Muhammad was justified in his actions (or at least not at fault by the standards of that time) because the Qurayza Jews had, in fact, been negotiating with the Muslims' enemies. Still others don't attempt to justify the event, but instead question the validity of the story itself, noting that Ibn Ishaq supposedly gathered many details of the incident from descendents of the Qurayza Jews themselves. These Jews allegedly embellished or manufactured details of the incident by borrowing from histories of Jewish persecutions during Roman times.

Another controversial story is that of an attack on a Jewish settlement called Khaybar. After its last fort was taken by Muhammad and his men, the chief of the Jews, called Kinana ibn al-Rabi, was asked by Muhammad to reveal the location of some hidden treasure. When he refused, Muhammad ordered a man to torture Kinana, and the man "kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead." Kinana was then beheaded, and Muhammad took his young wife Safiyya as a concubine.

Critics take these events, especially the story of the torture of Kinana, to be another blot on Muhammad's character. Those few Western scholars who discuss the alleged torture of Kinana, like William Muir, do not question the validity of the story. Muslims generally dispute this incident. Some claim that this was yet another story that Ibn Ishaq heard second-hand from Jewish sources, casting doubt on its authenticity. Others argue that Kinana was killed in battle and never taken captive.

There is much disagreement over what happened with Safiyya, even over whether she was kept by Muhammad as a concubine or a wife. Some think that Muhammad married Safiyya as part of a deal to conclude a peace treaty. Muslim scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali holds that Muhammad married the widowed Safiyya, who had supposedly already fallen into his hands as a captive, as a gesture of goodwill.

Ownership of slaves

Some scholars criticise the Islamic world for allegedly having allowed slavery to persist for some time after it was abolished in the West. Rodney Stark points to the example set by Muhammad as a possible reason for this, saying that "the fundamental problem facing Muslim theologians vis-a-vis the morality of slavery is that Muhammad bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves." Although he does admit that Muhammad "advise(d) that slaves be treated well," he contrasts Islam with Christianity, implying that Christian theologians wouldn't have been able to "work their way around the biblical acceptance of slavery" if Jesus had owned slaves like Muhammad did.

Muhammad is criticised for apparently having had a child by a slave girl called Mariyah (who was a present from the ruler of Egypt). It was said that Muhammad did not marry her because she would not convert to Islam.

However, some defend Muhammad by highlighting his supposed fair treatment of slaves. For example, there was a slave called Zayd ibn Harithah, whom Muhammad freed and adopted. Zayd may have been the first male to convert to Islam, and later became a trusted companion to Muhammad. One early biography relates Muhammad as having said that "he (Zayd b. Harithah) was one of the dearest to me of all men." Additionally, some Muslims point to the following hadith as evidence that Muhammad saw all men as being equal under God:

Book 41, Number 4957: (Narrated AbuHurayrah:) The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: None of you must say: "My slave" (abdi) and "My slave-woman" (amati), and a slave must not say: "My lord" (rabbi or rabbati). The master (of a slave) should say: "My young man" (fataya) and "My young woman" (fatati), and a slave should say "My master" (sayyidi) and "My mistress" (sayyidati), for you are all Allah's slave and the Lord is Allah, Most High.[19]

Alleged Satanic connection

Some Medieval ecclesiastical writers and modern critics claim that Muhammad was completely possessed by Satan, and that everything he said and did was Satan's work. Others hold that the incident of the so-called 'Satanic Verses' casts doubt on the reliability of Muhammad's revelations.

Some early Islamic histories recount how Satan fooled Muhammad into adding two lines to Sura 53 of the Qur'an, lines that implore followers to hope for intercession by three pagan goddesses. These histories then say that these 'Satanic Verses' were shortly afterward repudiated by Muhammad at the behest of the angel Gabriel. William Montgomery Watt says that "the story is so strange that it must be true in essentials."

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 claim 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.

Yusuf Ali points out that the accusation that Muhammad was possessed was similar to the accusation levelled at Moses by the Pharaoh. This comes in a comment to a verse in the Qur'an that claims that the same charge was made against all of God's prior messengers (thus discounting its weight):

Similarly, no messenger came to the Peoples before them, but they said (of him) in like manner, "A sorcerer, or one possessed!"(^{[Quran 51:52]})

The Qur'an

Main article: Qur'an

Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God as recited to Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel. Criticism of the Qur'an generally consists of questioning traditional claims about the Qur'an's composition and content.

The origins of the Qur'an

Main article: Origin and development 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.

Compilation

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

Many Muslims believe that Abu Bakr, the first Caliph (reigned 632-634), ordered the first compilation of the different fragments of the Qur’an from odd parchements, pieces of bone and the memories of Muhammad’s followers. Shi’as reject the theory of Abu Bakr’s compilation of the Qur'an, claiming it was Ali who made the compilation of Qur'an immediately after the death of Muhammad. Uthman (Caliph 644-656) ordered a new compilation of the Qur’an due to disputes arising about recitation. The relationship of this compilation to that of Abu Bakr’s is not clear. If Abu Bakr’s compilation were in existence, it is not clear how disputes arose which required Uthman to recompile the Qur’an. Some traditions consider the first compilation to be the basis of the second (which requires the first to be incomplete), others that the first never existed, and others still that the two compilations were made independently but were found to be identical. The Qur’anic compilation of Uthman’s reign was completed between 650 & 656, about 20 years after Muhammad’s death, and about 40 years after the first revelations. Muslims consider the text of this compilation, known as the ‘rasm’, to be the same text as that of the Qur’an today.

Uthman ordered all alternative copies to be destroyed. The oldest generally accepted physical text of the Qur’an is found on inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock, built in 691. Some Qur'anic fragments have been dated as far back as the seventh or eigth century. The oldest fragments yet found are from San’a in the Yemen. Both the San’a fragments and the Dome inscriptions differ slightly from the current text. Muslim scholars argue that the differences are minor and are only in diactritics. Most scholars believe that the oldest comprehensive copy of the text is from the ninth century, [20] over one and a half centuries after Muhammad’s death.

Some Muslims claim that the Samarkand manuscript is oldest text of the Qur’an (and is one of the original five copies of Uthman) however, many scholars, such as John Gilchrist, doubt that any of the Uthmanic originals remain. [21] Having studied the early supposed Quran manuscripts very thoroughly John Gilchrist states: The oldest manuscripts of the Quran still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammdad's death. Furthermore, critics argue that the absolute political and religious authority of the caliphs would have allowed them to easily add or remove text during the compilation process, (as later caliphs may have tried to do so after).

Supporters of the Qur'an claim its initial circulation was as a spoken text which several hundred companions had perfectly memorized. Islamic sources suggest that Muhammad would recite the Qur'an in its entirety (that is, including both the earliest and the most recent elements) once every Ramadan (but twice in the year he died). They point out that the Qur'an was not only transmitted orally but was also written down by the four scribes selected by Muhammad. Some non-Muslim academics also reject the notion that the Qur'an of today is markedly different from the Qur'an recited at the time of Muhammad's death. Some Muslim commentators claim that the consistency and mathematical structure of the Qur'an shows that it had only one author.

Claim of Divine Origin

According to Muslim tradition Muhammad was illiterate and therefore could not have fabricated the Qur'an using material from the Bible or Talmud. Muslims claim that, in the Arabic original, it is miraculously perfect, and impossible to imitate. Jewish Encyclopedia writes that the oldest portions of Qur'an "reflect an extraordinary degree of excitement in their language—in their short, abrupt sentences and in their sudden transitions, but none the less they carefully maintain the rimed form, like the oracles and magic formulas of the pagan Arab priests". The later portions also preserve this form but also "in some of which the movement is calm and the style expository." Catholic Encyclopedia writes: "The language is universally acknowledged to be the most perfect form of Arab speech, and soon became the standard by which other Arabic literay compositions had to be judged, grammarians, lexirographers, and rhetoricians presuming that the Koran, being the word of God, could not be wrong or imperfect."

Critics reject the idea that 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 (comp. also xvi. 70). 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)." . Also it seems problematic to describe a text as a miracle, if the word 'miracle' is used as commonly understood in the non-Muslim world that is to say, divine intervention in which the rules of nature are defied.

File:Holy quran cover.gif

The Qur'an

See Also Origin and development of the Qur'an

The morality of the Qur'an

Muslims claim that God sent (Muslim) prophets to the adherents of other religions, but that the Jews and Christians corrupted the teachings of the prophets. Islam claims to be a final revelation and a correction of Judaism and Christianity, as well as their holy texts. Islam, as a clear uncorrupted representation of God’s will, is therefore expected to be morally superior to Judaism and Christianity. However, 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 these two moral traditions it claims to build 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 states that: "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. In this way he adapted for settled communities all that was best in the morality of the nomad, and established a religious and a social framework for the life of a sixth of the human race today. That is not the work of a traitor or a lecher."

Domestic behaviour

Verse ^{[Quran 4:34]} of the Qur'an reads (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 [idribuhunna]; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For God is Most High, great (above you all)."

The above verse thus instructs beating in certain situations. The consensus of Islamic scholars is that the above verse describes a light beating. Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his Quranic commentary states: "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 4:35 below." And Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi comments that "Whenever the Prophet (peace be on him) permitted a man to administer corporal punishment to his wife, he did so with reluctance, and continued to express his distaste for it. And even in cases where it is necessary, the Prophet (peace be on him) directed men not to hit across the face, nor to beat severely nor to use anything that might leave marks on the body."

It is also argued that this verse has exactly the reverse functionality since the domestic violence is usually the result of a "temporary" anger and that in this verse men are asked to first admonish their wives, then refuse to share their beds. They argue the intermediate steps provide the necessary time for both parties to cool off and reason. (Light) beating is only prescribed as a last resort.

Some Muslim scholars hold that above verse can be explained in two ways. The Arabic word used in 4:34, 'idribuhunna', is derived from 'daraba' which literally means 'beat', 'go abroad', or 'give' in the sense of giving or providing an example. Thus according to them, the word 'idribuhunna' could very well mean to 'leave' them, "like telling someone to 'beat it' or 'drop it' in English". Critics, however, maintain that the verb 'darb' can only mean 'to beat' or 'to strike', and as support cite not only the wealth of translations supporting this view, but the comparative use of the verb in other contexts.

A second issue relating to the validity of these criticisms is the Arabic word "nashooz", translated as "disloyalty and ill-conduct" by Yusuf Ali, "rebellion" by Pickthall and "desertion" by Shakir. As can be expected, there are different interpretations of this word's use in verse ^{[Quran 4:34]} within the Muslim community itself. For example, some Muslims believe that "The expression Nashooz نُشُوز occurring in the above Ayaah آيه means disobedience of husband. The word is derived from 'Nashaz', which signifies rising. In other words, if the wife rises above the limit that God has laid down for obedience to husband, she will be treated as disobedient." However, others believe that the word's true definition is "an unrighteous, wicked and rebellious act", thereby concluding that the verse does not necessarily prescribe the beating of disobedient wives.

Islamic scholars claim that there are verses of the Qur'an and several quotes attributed to Muhammad (Hadith) that bide believers to act kindly towards women and not to beat them . Critics claim that "the command to beat disobedient wives" that they believe to exist within the Qur'an "is founded upon a woman’s subservient / secondary status in Islam."

War and violence

Critics such as Robert Spencer believe that it is not only extremist Islam that preaches violence but Islam itself, a violence implicit in the Qur'anic text. He argues that although Islam does not explicitly preach armed jihad, moderate Muslims cannot justify their denial that the violence practiced by extremists is based on the Qur'an. For instance, verse ^{[Quran 9:29]} reads:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

According to Spencer, a move toward human rights and peaceful assimilation into the Western culture calls for moderate Muslims to reject traditional aspects of Islam such as jihad, dhimmitude and Shari'ah [6]. Critics argue that the example of Muhammad, and injunctions such as the "sword verse" (^[Quran 9:5]) promote religious violence by Muslims.

In response to the criticism regarding jihad and the Qur'an's alleged promotion of violence, Muslims argue that the real purpose of armed jihad is to remove injustice and aggression. In response, ex-Muslim Ali Sina has claimed that the Islamic concept of "injustice and aggression" is simply the refusal to join or submit to Islam.

Islam teaches that injustice and oppression should not be tolerated:

And why should you not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from Your side one who will protect; and raise for us from Your side one who will help! (^{[Quran 4:75]})

Islam rejects the idea of a total and unrestricted conflict  : Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors. ^{[Quran 2:190]}. War in Islam is only permitted in the cases of "self defence", "when other nations have attacked an Islamic state" and "if another state is oppressing its own Muslims"

Muslims stress that armed jihad is only one of the five kinds of jihad (see Jihad). Karen Armstrong in her book "Muhammad," writes that: Fighting and warfare might sometimes be necessary, but it was only a minor part of the whole jihad or struggle. A well-known tradition (hadith) has Muhammad say on returning from a battle, 'We return from the little jihad to the greater jihad,' the more difficult and crucial effort to conquer the forces of evil in oneself and in one's own society in all the details of daily life. In response, critics refer to some Islamic commentators, such as Hanbali scholar Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziya and Abu Fadl, who have analyzed the hadith and believe it is a fraud and forgery, and that Muhammad never said those words. The latter states that "This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind... the evidence used as proof or the basis for establishing that Jihad against disbelievers on the battlefield is Jihad Asghar [lesser jihad] and Jihad against the desires and Shaitaan [Satan, the devil] is Jihad Akbar [greater jihad], are weak if not false Hadith."

However, the above quotation attributed to Muhammad has been very influential in some Muslim communities, particularly Sufis. To this day, most Muslims believe that the non-violent jihad is the "greater jihad" and the violent jihad is the "lesser jihad". Sunni scholars consider a number of hadith supporting non-violent jihad to be authentic.

Severe punishments

The Qur'an ^{[Quran 5:38]} orders the severing of hands (interpreted as the four fingers of the right hand in shiasm ) in of thieves. Several conditions are required for the punishment to be applied. In shiasm, for example, the penalty will be applied only if the thief is adult, sane, has stolen intentionally, unmistakably and stealthily from a "safe" place (i.e. somewhere which is locked or someplace similar), has not been forced to do so either by someone or out of misery, also does not repent before the crime is proved, and some other conditions. . The stoning of married adulterers is mandatory in five Shari'ah schools and is practiced in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and local Shari'ah courts in northern Nigeria. The penalty is imposed on the sane married adulterers only when proof is established. The adultery is proved either when "four reliable and pious men testify that they witnessed the act and actually saw the male sexual organ inserted into the vagina", or if one bears witness against his or her own self four times, or if there is a pregnancy. . Yusuf Al-Qaradawi states that "In Islam, we are instructed to keep our sins secret and to seek repentance for them. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said, “Anyone who commits a punishable sin should cover himself up as long as he’s being shielded by Allah (i.e. he should not expose himself) because if he divulges his punishable sin, the prescribed punishment becomes due.” (i.e. it should be carried out as he has confessed)..." ... A’isha narrated that the Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘Ward off punishment as much as you can. If you find any way out for a Muslim then set him free. If the Imam makes a mistake in granting forgiveness, it is better for him than that he should commit a mistake in imposing punishment.’ Thus, any doubt about the evidence should prevent the punishment."

According to traditional Islam, men (and sometimes women) who engage in homosexual acts should be executed. Critics regard this punishment as intolerant and cruel.

Death penalties for adultery and sodomy have long been advocated by many religions and enforced by many communities, and only in recent years has this practice become almost non-existent as a result of modern standards of human rights. (For example, in England during the early 1900's, sodomy was punishable by death). Internal ethical criticism of traditional Islam has led to reform and protest initiatives within Islam, for instance liberal Islam movements. Many contemporary Muslims regard the punishments as a question of local judicial interpretation, which has been blown out of proportion by sensationalist media.

Slavery

Main article: Slavery in Islam

Islam has come under criticism for permitting slavery, a practice that was a common feature of pre-Islamic pagan Arabia.

The Qur’an "assumes the existence of slavery," and "regulates the practice of the institution and thus implicitly accepts it," according to Bernard Lewis. He notes that Muhammad himself owned slaves. Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi comments that verses ^{[Quran 23:1]} of the Qur'an explicitly allow sex with slave girls outside of marriage. (However, Yusuf al-Qaradawi states that the slave girls would automatically become free if they got pregnant, and that the child would also become free.) Maududi also says that women captured in war may be kept as slave girls in his commentary to verse ^{[Quran 33:52]}.

According to Lewis, the abolition movement got started in the Muslim world primarily because of European pressure, and for a long time continued only because of that pressure.. He claims that these reforms were strongly resisted by religious conservatives who saw themselves as upholding an institution that was "authorized and regulated by the holy law." Robert Spencer holds that the Qur'anic allowance of slavery is responsible for modern-day slavery by people in certain Muslim countries. CASMAS (Coalition Against Slavery in Mauritania And Sudan), a human rights group, accuses Arab Muslims in Northern Sudan of enslaving Black Christians and animists in the south, and says that as much as half of Mauritania's population is "enslaved or in slave-like relationships."

Those scholars sympathetic to Islam 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 "Quran 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 claims that forcing female slaves into prostitution was condemned. Yusuf Ali concurs. He comments that verse ^{[Quran 16:71]} enjoins believers to do all they can to give or buy the freedom of slaves. Writing about verse ^{[Quran 24:33]}, he says that "Islam made the slave's lot as easy as possible." He goes on to outline how this verse guarantees a slave's right to enter into an agreement to earn money by lawful means and to "earn their freedom for a certain sum." Yusuf Ali also points to this specific verse as outlawing the practice of forcing one's slave girls into prostitution.

According to some, slaves were not considered inferior to their masters in theological terms. Muhammad Qutb writes about a hadith where the Prophet Muhammad is claimed to have said that:

Your slaves are your brothers and God has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them. (Bukhari, Template:Bukhari-usc).

Slavery in Islam did not have an intrinsically racial component. Even Lewis admits that it is clear that "the Qur'an expresses no racial or color prejudice" (although he also notes that this ideal was not always put into practice). Nevertheless black slaves could rise to important positions in Muslim nations.

Criticism from the Biblical point of view

The Gutenberg Bible owned by the United States Library of Congress

Jews and Christians have occasionally criticised the Quran for misquoting the Biblical historical accounts and stories. See Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an for further details of the differences in the narratives.

The response that Muslims commonly make to this criticism is that is that they believe some parts of the Bible have been distorted by human interference, and that therefore the Qur'an need not agree with it. Any difference between the Bible and Qur'an is therefore explained as Biblical error, either intentional or unintentional. See Tahrif for further information about the Muslim doctorine of distortion of the text.

Critics of this response have argued that it is a form of circular reasoning which is only valid for those who already believe in the validity of the Qur'an, and that this standpoint is therefore only acceptable for Muslims, as it is entirely based on their trust in what they believe that God has revealed. Some Muslims argue that in every religion there are many statements in which followers must put trust and have faith (e.g. metaphysical beliefs or the story of creation).

It should be also noted that while the Qur'an always calls the Injil and Torah a guide and light and wants Jews and Christians to judge by and stand fast to the (uncorrupted versions) of their own scriptures. The Qur'an states that if God had so willed, He would have made the human a single people but His plan is to test people by what he has given them:

It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed to God's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of God's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers (5:45).

Let the people of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel (5:48).

To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God. it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute (5:49);

Particular Muslims groups, such as the Mu'tazili and Ismaili sects (accounting for a fairly small percentage of total Muslim population), as well as various liberal movements within Islam, believe that different revelations were made by God for the needs of the people in particular times and places; this they believe could potentially account for differences between the Bible and the Qur'an, without having to accuse the Bible of being corrupted.

When We substitute one revelation for another,- and God knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not (16:101).

The Jewish encyclopedia claims that: 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.

According to Thomas McElwain, the foremost body of Biblical texts disagreeing with the Qur'an are those referring to the crucifixion of Jesus. Muslims 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.

There are several references to the death or removal of Jesus in the Qur'an. (4:157) reads:

And for their (Jews) saying (in boast) 'Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Apostle of God;' But they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but (it) became dubious unto them; and indeed those who differ therein are only in doubt about it, they have no knowledge about the (real) matter, pursuing (only) a conjecture; and certainly, they slew him not.

The text on the crucifixion is generally interpreted to deny the crucifixion of Jesus, and deny his death at the hands of the Jews. Muslims believe that Jesus was lifted to the heavens by God and will return to earth in physical form before the day of judgement.

Other notable passages

Some passages depict King Solomon talking to birds in his army:

... He (Solomon) said: 'O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from God).' (27:16)

One verse implies that ants can talk:

At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: 'O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it.' (27:18)

It should be noted that in Islam, Solomon is considered both a king and a prophet who performed various miracles. Therefore, one Muslim response to this criticism is that there is no reason to doubt that ants can communicate, as Muslims believe that one of the miracles of Solomon was the ability to speak to animals. Another is that these verses are teaching devices used to convey a message and that typically such verses are pulled out of context from the Qur'an.

Some scholars believe that Solomon's use of a bird as messenger is probably taken from Jewish legend, arguing that in chapter 72 of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (written between the 1st and 2nd century AD), Solomon sent a bird on his errands and the bird was always obedient.

Other criticism

Human rights issues

Human-rights violations by adherents of Islam

See Historical persecution by Muslims.

Discrepancy between Islam and the UN Declaration of Human Rights

Malaysia and Saudi Arabia have refused to ratify the Declaration 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, essentially due to the question of state establishment of religion. In 1990 the Organization of Islamic Conference published a separate Cairo Declaration of Human Rights compliant with Shari'ah.

Alleged discrimination

Alleged discrimination against women and non-Muslims

Critics argue that in Islam women have fewer rights than men and that non-Muslims under the dhimmi system have fewer rights than Muslims. Muslims argue that men are the protectors of women (Qur'an ^{[Quran 4:34]}) and that Kafirs must return the favor of the protection given by an Islamic state (non-Muslims are exempt from military service for the state). Non-Muslims also have certain privileges in Muslim countries; for example, they may be permitted to drink alcohol, although it would be illegal for Muslims to do so, and are also not required to pay the alms tax (Zakah) that Muslims are required to pay in a Muslim state (See also Islam and other religions).

Some Islamic scholars justify the different religious laws for men and women by referring to the biological and sociological differences between men and women. For example, regarding the inheritance law which states that women’s share of inheritance is half that of men, Grand Ayatollah Makarim Shirazi quotes the Imam Ali ibn Musa Al-reza who reasons that at the time of marriage man has to pay something to woman and woman receives something, and that men are responsible for both themselves and their wives expenses but women have no responsibility thereof. Muslims reject the assertion that different laws prescribed for men and women imply that men are more valuable than women, arguing that the only criterion of value before God is piety. Part of the verse (^{[Quran 3:36]}) that literally reads as “the male is not like the female” is usually used to show that the value of the female is greater than or at least equal to the value of the male. (The text is not clear as to whether this quote is supposed to be from God or from the mother of Mary, but the meaning of the phrase is clear in its context.)

Hadith

After the Qur'an most Muslim schools of thought place the Hadith as the next most important source of Islamic law, although the Maliki school offers a counterpoint. Watt and some other Islamic Scholars do not accept narrations collected in later periods, and only studies the first collections of narrations. This leads them to not regarding certain events as authentic or relevant, in the same way that Qur'an alone Muslims reject the entire history of Islam, including the first sources.

Other scholars, like Wilferd Madelung reject the stance of indiscriminatly dissmising due to not being included in "early sources". Wilfered wrote in the preface of his book The Succession to Muhammad:

work with the narrative sources, both those that have been available to historians for a long time and others which have been published recently, made it plain that their wholesale rejection as late fiction is unjustified and that with [not without] a judicious use of them a much more reliable and accurate portrait of the period can be drawn than has so far been realized.

Ignaz Goldziher is the best-known early twentieth-century critic of these texts, alongside Margoliouth, Henri Lammens and Leone Caetani. In his Muslim Studies Goldziher writes:

... it is not surprising that, among the hotly debated controversial issues of Islam, whether political or doctrinal, there is not one in which the champions of the various views are unable to cite a number of traditions, all equipped with imposing isnads.

Subsequent generations of Western scholars were also mostly sceptical: in Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (1959), Joseph Schacht argued that isnads going back to Muhammad were in fact more likely to be spurious than isnads going back to his companions. In the 1970s John Wansbrough and his students Patricia Crone and Michael Cook were even more sweeping in their dismissal of this tradition and argued that even the Qur'an was likely to have been collected later than claimed.

Contemporary Western scholars of hadith include:

• Herbert Berg, The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam (2000)
• Fred M. Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins (1998)
• Wilferd Madelung, Succession to Muhammad (1997)

Of these, Madelung is the least critical.

Muslim responses

Many of these areas have been the focus of intense discussion in the early twenty-first century. In addressing them, Muslims have sometimes argued that no religious or social system's principles can be praised, condemned, or even understood in the abstract, and have argued for a fuller understanding of the core ideas underlying controversial Islamic rulings.

Regarding the common criticisms of Islam such as the alleged corruption and bad behaviour in so-called Muslim lands, the warfare Muhammad waged, or polygamy in Islam, some Islamic scholars such as Gary Miller argue that: In response, it must be said that bad Muslims condemn Islam only if bad Christians condemn Christianity; warfare disqualifies Muhammad as God's spokesman only if it also disqualifies Joshua; polygamy condemns Islam only if it condemns Christianity. (It is Christian culture, not the Christian religion, which has prohibited polygamy. In the Bible Paul has recommended monogamy for bishops and Jesus has spoken of the sanctity of the union but no Bible verse prohibits the practice.)

It is also argued that all criticism of Islam's morality is shaped by the societal norms specific to a given time, as well as the knowledge (or lack thereof) held by the critics. The Arab pagans looked down on Islam's equalizing principles between slaves and masters, and regarded with awe the military conquests that changed the face of their lands. Today, critics would rather have seen Islam instantly banish slavery, and view the conquests of Islamic armies as a morally repugnant. Many Muslims uphold God's Word as being the single guiding principle for the right judgment of actions, as opposed to judgment based on traditional values (which may deteriorate) or politically correct stances in a given era. Therefore, all arguments against Islam on these issues are viewed by them as groundless. But others argue that the religious laws should be understood in their cultural context.

Muhammad

File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg

"Muhammad" in Arabic calligraphy.

Response to the claim that Muhammad was a liar

Muhammad's confidence in certain circumstances

Gary Miller claims that Muhammad's confidence and his behavior show that he really thought he was a prophet, and thus not a liar. Miller states, for example, that when: He (Muhammad) left Makkah and hid in a cave with Abu Bakr during their emigration to Madeenah, the two clearly saw people coming to kill them, and Abu Bakr was afraid. Certainly, if Muhammad was a liar, a forger and one who was trying to fool the people into believing that he was a prophet, one would have expected him to say in such a circumstance to his friend, 'Hey, Abu Bakr, see if you can find a back way out of this cave.' Or 'Squat down in that corner over there and keep quiet.' Yet, in fact, what he said to Abu Bakr clearly illustrated his confidence. He told him, 'Relax! God is with us, and God will save us!'

Ahmed Deedat states that: When Muhammad's infant son Ibraheem died, his death happened to coincide with an eclipse of the sun. All of the Muslims came running to him exclaiming 'It is a miracle, the sun itself is mourning the death of your only son.' Upon hearing this, Muhammad became very angry with them and said: 'The sun and the moon do not eclipse because of the death of any among mankind. They are but two signs among the signs of God. When you see them stand up and pray.' Deedat argues that if Muhammad was a liar, he would have credited this coincidence to the death of his son.

Possible motivations

In response to the criticism that Muhammad wrote the Qur’an for material gain and glory, Muslims argue that all the descriptions of Muhammad's family life emphasize his total disregard for luxurious food, clothing, and surroundings. In Ibn Sa'd, there's a tradition that Muhammad said that the only worldly things in which he took pleasure were women and perfume. The Sira of Muhammad claims that he was of the most noble of tribes, of the most noble of families and the husband of a wealthy tradeswoman. According to these traditions, before he received his revelations, he was well-known to his own people as trustworthy and reliable. He was named “Al-Amin”, which means “The Trustworthy”. After his claim of prophethood, he became a social outcast. For 13 years in Makkah, he and his followers faced excruciating torture, which led to the death of some of his followers, ridicule, sanctioning and excommunication from society. Many note that he spent all his money and devoted his life for his goal.

There were many ways which a person could gain fame in the society of that time, including via poetry and acts of valor. Muslims argue that if Muhammad had made the claim that he himself authored the Quran that would have been enough for him to be recognized as a great poet. Maurice Bucaille claims that "the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an is untenable" arguing that a man, from being illiterate, can not become the most important author in terms of literary merits in the whole of Arabic literature . And according to the Encyclopedia Brittanica "Muhammad is the most successful of all Prophets and religious personalities".

Some relevant Qur'anic verses arguing for Muhammad's sincerity

Say: No reward do I ask of you for it but this: that each one who will may take a (straight) Path to his Lord. (^{[Quran 25:57]})

Thou wouldst only, perchance, fret thyself to death, following after them, in grief, if they believe not in this Message. (^{[Quran 18:6]})

Say: "If God had so willed, I should not have rehearsed it to you, nor would He have made it known to you. A whole life-time before this have I tarried amongst you: will ye not then understand?" Who doth more wrong than such as forge a lie against God, or deny His Signs? (10:17-18)

We have not sent down the Qur'an to thee to be (an occasion) for thy distress, But only as an admonition to those who fear. (^{[Quran 20:2]})

Say: "Will ye dispute with us about God, seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that We are sincere (in our faith) in Him?" (^{[Quran 2:139]})

Response to the claim that there were some psychological problems in Muhammad's mind

Response to the claim that Qur'an is the product of hallucinations that Muhammad underwent

Gary Miller claims that: If one assumes that the Qur'an is the product of a man's mind, then one would expect it to reflect some of what was going on in the mind of the man who "composed" it... If these claims are true - if it indeed originated from some psychological problems in Muhammad's mind - then evidence of this would be apparent in the Qur'an.

Gary Miller continues that: In order to determine whether or not there is, one must first identify what things would have been going on in his mind at that time and then search for these thoughts and reflections in the Qur'an.

Miller provides examples of intense topics that would have been on Muhammad's mind, must have hurt him, bothered him, and caused him pain and grief during periods of his psychological reflections and yet the Qur'an does not even mention them. Other cited examples include the death of all his daughters except one before him, the death of his wife at a critical period of his life, and his fear of the initial revelations.

Response to the claim that Muhammad suffered from mythomania

Regarding the claim that Muhammad suffered from mythomania, a psychological condition in which means one tells lies and then believes them, Miller claims that the only problem with this proposal is that one suffering from mythomania absolutely cannot deal with facts, and yet the whole Qur'an is based entirely upon facts. He continues that since facts are such a problem for a mythomaniac, when a psychologist tries to treat one suffering from that condition, he continually confronts the patient with facts.

Response to the claim that Muhammad copied the Qur'an from the Bible

Muslims believe that the Qur’an and Bible are similar because they have the same source and any differences are either due to the replacement of previous laws or correction of corruptions that have entered into the Bible. Muslims point to these verses in the Qur'an to support this belief:

We know indeed that they say, 'It is a man that teaches him.' The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear. (^{[Quran 16:103]})

But the misbelievers say: 'Naught is this but a lie which he has forged, and others have helped him at it.' In truth it is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood. And they say: 'Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening.' Say: 'The (Qur'an) was sent down by Him who knows the mystery (that is) in the heavens and the earth: verily He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.' (25:4-6)

The Qur'an

The first surah in a Qur'anic manuscript by Hattat Aziz Efendi.

Issues of severe punishment and human rights

The Qur'an in many places states that God is strict in punishment, both in this world (8:25, 69:4-10) and in the hereafter (69:31-36), and should thus be feared. The severing of hands of thieves or the stoning of married adulterers only differ with other punishments in that they are included in the Islamic Law, Shari'ah. Otherwise punishments are always strict if not covered by God's mercy through repentance. (^{[Quran 5:98]}, ^{[Quran 3:89]}

The Thamud and the 'Ad People (branded) as false the Stunning Calamity! But the Thamud,- they were destroyed by a terrible Storm of thunder and lightning! And the 'Ad, they were destroyed by a furious Wind, exceedingly violent; He made it rage against them seven nights and eight days in succession: so that thou couldst see the (whole) people lying prostrate in its (path), as they had been roots of hollow palm-trees tumbled down! Then seest thou any of them left surviving? (69:4-10)

According to many Muslims, punishments in Islam should be judged not by a human perspective but rather from the perspective of God, who is believed to know and see all.

... It is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not. (2:216)

The Qur'an states that God is first concerned with the afterlife of man and secondly with his momentary worldly life.

Set forth to them the similitude of the life of this world: It is like the rain which we send down from the skies: the earth's vegetation absorbs it, but soon it becomes dry stubble, which the winds do scatter: it is (only) God who prevails over all things. (18:45)

From the Islamic point of view, the punishment of the adulterer is appropriate because he or she will reap the fruit of his or her act anyway. Islamic sources explain that in this world, the punishment of stoning functions like a repentance that is enough for seventy men (Kitab Al-Hudud 017, Number 4207) and frees the adulterer from the more severe punishment in the hereafter. Muslim scholars state, however, that even if the sin is not atoned for in this world, since God is merciful and oft-returning, He may forgive the sinner and reverse his/her afterlife punishments.

Other

Divisions of Islam

Main article: Divisions of Islam

There are many divisions within Islam. Consequently, Muslims often disagree on theological, ethical, political, and scientific issues. Taking Islamism as an example, some Muslims claim that Muslims are required to be Islamists, and others argue that Islamism is a corruption of Islam. Some Muslims reject the use of the term 'Islamist' as un-Islamic.

Contemporary critics

See List of Critics of Islam.

See also

Topics regarding Islam and controversy

• Apostasy in Islam
• Historical persecution by Muslims
• Islam and anti-Semitism
• Islamic extremist terrorism
• Islamophobia
• Liberal movements within Islam
• Persecution of Muslims
• Religious persecution
• Women as imams

Criticism of other beliefs

• Anti-Catholicism
• Anti-Christianity
• Anti-clericalism
• Anti-Judaism
• Anti-Mormonism
• Anti-Protestantism
• Criticism of Atheism
• Criticism of Christianity
• Criticism of Mormonism
• Criticism of religion

Books critical of Islam

• Category:Books critical of Islam
• Geisler, Norman L. (2002). Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross. Baker Books. ISBN 0801064309.
• Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not a Muslim (1995)
• —, Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out
• The Institute for the Study of Civil Society report - The ‘West’, Islam and Islamism
• Zwemer Islam, a Challenge to Faith (New York, 1907)

References

External links

Christian academic sources

• Catholic Encyclopedia
  • Islam (Concept)
  • Mohammed and Mohammedanism
  • The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Jewish academic sources

• Jewish Encyclopedia
  • Bible in Mohammedian literature
  • Islam
  • Mohammed

Directories of sites critical of Islam

• Comprehensive List of Islamofascist Attacks
• dmoz.org
• faithfreedom.org
• Islam and Terrorism
• http://www.islamreview.com/index.htm

Muslim responses to criticism

• Defending Islam
• Five Common Myths About Islam
• Islam Religion
• Misconceptions about Islam
• Qur'an and modern science
• Shariah: The Way of Justice
• Tolerance in Islam