0
0
Criticism Of Islam: Part III
Sana’a Manuscripts Of The Qur’an
The traditional view of Islam has also been criticized for the lack of supporting evidence consistent with that view, such as the lack of archaeological evidence, and discrepancies with non-Muslim literary sources. In the 1970s, what has been described as a “wave of skeptical scholars” challenged a great deal of the received wisdom in Islamic studies. They argued that the Islamic historical tradition had been greatly corrupted in transmission. They tried to correct or reconstruct the early history of Islam from other, presumably more reliable, sources such as coins, inscriptions, and non-Islamic sources. The oldest of this group was John Wansbrough (1928–2002). Wansbrough’s works were widely noted, but perhaps not widely read. In 1972 a cache of ancient Qur’an in a mosque in Sana’a, Yemen was discovered – commonly known as the Sana’a manuscripts. On the basis of studies of the trove of Qur’anic manuscripts discovered in Sana’a, Gerd R. Puin concluded that the Qur’an as we have it is a ‘cocktail of texts’, some perhaps preceding Muhammad’s day, and that the text as we have it evolved. He further claimed that, despite the assertion that is ‘mubeen’ (clear), one fifth of the text was incomprehensible and therefore could not be translated.
Claim Of Divine Origin
Critics reject the idea that the Qur’an is miraculously perfect and impossible to imitate (2:2, 17:88–89, 29:47, 28:49). The Jewish Encyclopedia, for example, writes: “The language of the Koran is held by the Mohammedans to be a peerless model of perfection. Critics, however, argue that peculiarities can be found in the text. For example, critics note 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.). Many peculiarities in the positions of words are due to the necessities of rhyme (lxix. 31, lxxiv. 3), while the use of many rare words and new forms may be traced to the same cause (comp. especially xix. 8, 9, 11, 16).” According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, “The dependence of Mohammed upon his Jewish teachers or upon what he heard of the Jewish Haggadah and Jewish practices is now generally conceded.” Early jurists and theologians of Islam mentioned some Jewish influence but they also say where it is seen and recognized as such, it is perceived as a debasement or a dilution of the authentic message. Bernard Lewis describes this as “something like what in Christian history was called a Judaizing heresy.” Philip Schaff described the Qur’an as having “many passages of poetic beauty, religious fervor, and wise counsel, but mixed with absurdities, bombast, unmeaning images, low sensuality.”
According to Professor Moshe Sharon, a specialist in Arabic epigraphy, the legends about Muhammad having ten Jewish teachers developed in the 10th century A.D.:
In most versions of the legends, ten Jewish wise men or dignitaries appear, who joined Muhammad and converted to Islam for different reasons. In reading all the Jewish texts one senses the danger of extinction of the Jewish people; and it was this ominous threat that induced these Sages to convert.
Preexisting Sources
Mary shaking the palm tree for dates is a legend derived from the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.
Günter Lüling asserts that one-third of the Qur’an has pre-Islamic Christian origins. Puin likewise thinks some of the material predates Muhammad’s life.
Scholar Oddbjørn Leirvik states “The Qur’an and Hadith have been clearly influenced by the non-canonical (‘heretical’) Christianity that prevailed in the Arab peninsula and further in Abyssinia” prior to Islam.
When looking at the narratives of Jesus found in the Qur’an, some themes are found in pre-Islamic sources such as the Infancy Gospels about Christ. Much of the Qur’anic material about the selection and upbringing of Mary parallels much of the Protevangelium of James, with the miracle of the palm tree and the stream of water being found in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. In Pseudo-Matthew, the flight to Egypt is narrated similarly to how it is found in Islamic lore, with Syriac translations of the Protevangelium of James and The Infancy Story of Thomas being found in pre-Islamic sources.
John Wansbrough believes that the Qur’an is a redaction in part of other sacred scriptures, in particular the Judaeo-Christian scriptures. Herbert Berg writes that “Despite John Wansbrough’s very cautious and careful inclusion of qualifications such as ‘conjectural,’ and ‘tentative and emphatically provisional,’ his work is condemned by some. Some of the negative reaction is undoubtedly due to its radicalness. Wansbrough’s work has been embraced wholeheartedly by few and has been employed in a piecemeal fashion by many. Many praise his insights and methods, if not all of his conclusions.” Gerd R. Puin’s study of ancient Qur’an manuscripts led him to conclude that some of the Qur’anic texts may have been present a hundred years before Muhammad. Norman Geisler argues that the dependence of the Qur’an on preexisting sources is one evidence of a purely human origin.
Ibn Ishaq, an Arab Muslim historian and hagiographer who collected oral traditions that formed the basis of the important biography of Muhammad, also claimed that as a result of these discussions, the Qur’an was revealed addressing all these arguments – leading to the conclusion that Muhammad may have incorporated Judeo-Christian tales he had heard from other people. For example, in al-Sirah an-Nabawiyyah (an edited version of Ibn Ishaq’s original work), Ibn Hishām’s report explains that the Prophet used often to sit at the hill of Marwa inviting a Christian but they actually also would have had some resources with which to teach the Prophet.
A study of informant reports by Claude Gilliot concluded the possibility that whole sections of the Meccan Qur’an contains elements from or within groups possessing biblical, post-biblical and other sources. One such report and likely informant of Muhammad was the Christian slave mentioned in Sahih Bukhari whom Ibn Ishaq named as Jabr for which the Qur’an’s chapter 16: 101–104 was probably revealed. Waqidi names this Christian as Ibn Qumta, with his identity and religious affiliation being contradicted in informant reports. Ibn Ishaq also recounts the story of how three Christians, Abu Haritha Ibn `Alqama, Al-`Aqib `Abdul-Masih and Al-Ayham al-Sa`id, spoke to Muhammad regarding such Christian subjects as the Trinity.
The narration of the baby Jesus speaking from the cradle can be traced back to the Arabic Infancy Gospel, and the miracle of the bringing clay birds to life being found in The Infancy Story of Thomas.
Several narratives rely on Jewish Midrash Tanhuma legends, like the narrative of Cain learning to bury the body of Abel in Surah 5:31. Richard Carrier regards this reliance on pre-Islamic Christian sources, as evidence that Islam derived from a heretical sect of Christianity.
Influence Of Heretical Christian Sects
The Qur’an maintains that Jesus was not actually crucified and did not die on the cross. The general Islamic view supporting the denial of crucifixion was probably influenced by Manichaeism (Docetism), which holds that someone else was crucified instead of Jesus, while concluding that Jesus will return during the end-times. However the general consensus is that Manichaeism was not prevalent in Mecca in the 6th– & 7th centuries, when Islam developed.
That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;
— Qur’an, sura 4 (An-Nisa) ayat 157–158
Despite these views and no eyewitness accounts, most modern scholars have maintained that the Crucifixion of Jesus is indisputable.
The view that Jesus only appeared to be crucified and did not actually die predates Islam, and is found in several apocryphal gospels.
Irenaeus in his book Against Heresies describes Gnostic beliefs that bear remarkable resemblance with the Islamic view:
He did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all.-
— Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 24, Section 40
Another Gnostic writing, found in the Nag Hammadi library, Second Treatise of the Great Seth has a similar view of Jesus’ death: I was not afflicted at all, yet I did not die in solid reality but in what appears, in order that I not be put to shame by them;
and also:
Another, their father, was the one who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. Another was the one who lifted up the cross on his shoulder, who was Simon. Another was the one on whom they put the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the riches of the archons and the offspring of their error and their conceit, and I was laughing at their ignorance.
Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, likewise, reveals the same views of Jesus’ death:
I saw him (Jesus) seemingly being seized by them. And I said ‘What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?’ The Savior said to me, ‘He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.’ But I, when I had looked, said ‘Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place.’ But he said to me, ‘I have told you, ‘Leave the blind alone!’. And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame.’ And I saw someone about to approach us resembling him, even him who was laughing on the tree. And he was with a Holy Spirit, and he is the Savior. And there was a great, ineffable light around them, and the multitude of ineffable and invisible angels blessing them. And when I looked at him, the one who gives praise was revealed.
Muhammad As Speaker
According to Ibn Warraq, the Iranian rationalist Ali Dashti criticized the Qur’an on the basis that for some passages, “the speaker cannot have been Allah.” Warraq gives Surah Fatihah as an example of a passage which is “clearly addressed to Allah, in the form of a prayer.” He says that by only adding the word “say” in front of the passage, this difficulty could have been removed. Furthermore, it is also known that one of the companions of Muhammad, Ibn Masud, rejected Surah Fatihah as being part of the Qur’an; these kind of disagreements are, in fact, common among the companions of Muhammad who could not decide which surahs were part of the Qur’an and which not. [The] Qur’an is divided into two parts: the seven verses (Al-Fatiha) and Qur’an the great. And we have given you seven often repeated verses and the great Qur’an. (Al-Qur’an 15:87)
Cases where the speaker is swearing an oath by Allah, such as surahs 75:1–2 and 90:1, have been made a point of criticism. But according to Richard Bell, this was probably a traditional formula, and Montgomery Watt compared such verses to Hebrews 6:13. It is also widely acknowledged that the first-person plural pronoun in Surah 19:64 refers to angels, describing their being sent by Allah down to Earth. Bell and Watt suggest that this attribution to angels can be extended to interpret certain verses where the speaker is not clear.
Science In The Qur’an
Muslims and non-Muslims have disputed the presence of “Scientific miracles in the Qur’an.” According to author Ziauddin Sardar, “popular literature known as ijaz” (miracle) has created a “global craze in Muslim societies,” starting the 1970s and 80s and now found in Muslim bookstores, spread by websites and television preachers.
Ijaz literature tends to follow a pattern of finding some possible agreement between a scientific result and a verse in the Qur’an. “So verily I swear by the stars that run and hide …” (Q.81:15-16) or “And I swear by the stars’ positions-and that is a mighty oath if you only knew,” (Qur’an, 56:75-76) is declared to refer to black holes; “[I swear by] the Moon in her fullness; that ye shall journey on from stage to stage” (Q.84:18-19) refers to space travel, and thus evidence the Qur’an has miraculously predicted this phenomenon centuries before scientists.
While it is generally agreed the Qur’an contains many verses proclaiming the wonders of nature — “Travel throughout the earth and see how He brings life into being” (Q.29:20) “Behold in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of understanding . . .” (Q.3:190) — it is strongly doubted by Sardar and others that “everything, from relativity, quantum mechanics, Big Bang theory, black holes and pulsars, genetics, embryology, modern geology, thermodynamics, even the laser and hydrogen fuel cells, have been ‘found’ in the Qur’an.”
Many classical Muslim commentators and scientists, notably al-Biruni, assigned to the Qur’an a separate and autonomous realm of its own and held that the Qur’an “does not interfere in the business of science nor does it infringe on the realm of science.” These medieval scholars argued for the possibility of multiple scientific explanations of the natural phenomena, and refused to subordinate the Qur’an to an ever-changing science. Some modern scholars like G. A. Parwez have translated those verses in the Qur’an which are generally associated with “miracles,” “angels” and “jinn” rationally as metaphors, without appealing to the supernatural.
Abrogation
Naskh 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 (“the abrogater and the 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 abrogation means that the revelation about the stories of previous messengers cannot be used as legal basis because they are abrogated by more general verses of Qur’an. The central ayah that deals with abrogation is Surah 2:106:
“We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?” Philip Schaff argues that the concept of abrogation was developed to “remove” contradictions found in the Qur’an:
“It abounds in repetitions and contradictions, which are not removed by the convenient theory of abrogation.”
Muhammad Husayn Tabatabaei believes abrogation in Qur’anic verses is not an indication of contradiction but an indication of addition and supplementation. As an example he mentions 2:109 where – according to him – it clearly states the forgiveness is not permanent and soon there will be another command (through another verse) on this subject that completes the matter. He also mentions 4:15 where the abrogated verse indicates its temporariness.
Other scholars; however, have translated the ‘abrogation’ verse differently and disagree with the mainstream view. Ghulam Ahmed Parwez in his Exposition of the Qur’an derived the following meaning from the verse 2:106, making it consistent with the overall content of the Qur’an:
The Ahl-ul-Kitab (People of the Book) also question the need for a new revelation (Qur’an) when previous revelations from Allah exist. They further ask why the Qur’an contains injunctions contrary to the earlier Revelation (the Torah) if it is from Allah? Tell them that Our way of sending Revelation to successive anbiya (prophets) is that: Injunctions given in earlier revelations, which were meant only for a particular time, are replaced by other injunctions, and injunctions which were to remain in force permanently but were abandoned, forgotten or adulterated by the followers of previous anbiya are given again in their original form (22:52). And all this happens in accordance with Our laid down standards, over which We have complete control. Now this last code of life which contains the truth of all previous revelations (5:48), is complete in every respect (6:116), and will always be preserved (15:9), has been given [to mankind].
Satanic Verses
Some criticism of the Qur’an has revolved around two verses 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 Al-lāt 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 Allahdesses (females) worshiped by the Meccans. These histories then say that these ‘Satanic Verses’ were repudiated shortly afterward by Muhammad at the behest of Gabriel.
There are numerous accounts reporting the alleged incident, which differ in the construction and detail of the narrative, but they may be broadly collated to produce a basic account. The different versions of the story are all traceable to one single narrator Muhammad ibn Ka’b, who was two generations removed from biographer Ibn Ishaq. In its essential form, the story reports that Muhammad longed to convert his kinsmen and neighbors of Mecca to Islam. As he was reciting Sūra an-Najm, considered a revelation by the angel Gabriel, Satan tempted him to utter the following lines after verses 19 and 20:
Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzzá and Manāt, the third, the other?These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for. Allāt, al-‘Uzzā and Manāt were three Allahdesses worshipped by the Meccans. Discerning the meaning of “gharāniq” is difficult, as it is a hapax legomenon (i.e., only used once in the text). Commentators wrote that it meant the cranes. The Arabic word does generally mean a “crane” – appearing in the singular as ghirnīq, ghurnūq, ghirnawq and ghurnayq, and the word has cousin forms in other words for birds, including “raven, crow” and “eagle.”
The subtext to the event is that Muhammad was backing away from his otherwise uncompromising monotheism by saying that these Allahdesses were real and their intercession effective. The Meccans were overjoyed to hear this and joined Muhammad in ritual prostration at the end of the sūrah. The Meccan refugees who had fled to Abyssinia heard of the end of persecution and started to return home. Islamic tradition holds that Gabriel chastised Muhammad for adulterating the revelation, at which point [Qur’an 22:52] is revealed to comfort him,
Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise. Muhammad took back his words and the persecution of the Meccans resumed. Verses [Qur’an 53:21] were given, in which the Allahdesses are belittled. The passage in question, from 53:19, reads:
Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzza And Manat, the third, the other? Are yours the males and His the females? That indeed were an unfair division! They are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers, for which Allah hath revealed no warrant. They follow but a guess and that which (they) themselves desire. And now the guidance from their Lord hath come unto them.
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, linking it with the moment at which Muhammad felt able to adopt a “hostile attitude” towards the pagan Arabs. Rodinson writes that the story of the Satanic Verses is unlikely to be false because it was “one incident, in fact, which may be reasonably accepted as true because the makers of Muslim tradition would not have invented a story with such damaging implications for the revelation as a whole.” 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 Allahdesses would lead to the failure of the cause, of the mission he had been given by Allah.” 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.” On the other hand, John Burton rejected the tradition.
In an inverted culmination of Watt’s approach, Burton argued the narrative of the “satanic verses” was forged, based upon a demonstration of its actual utility to certain elements of the Muslim community – namely, those elite sections of society seeking an “occasion of revelation” for eradicatory modes of abrogation. Burton’s argument is that such stories served the vested interests of the status-quo, allowing them to dilute the radical messages of the Qur’an. The rulers used such narratives to build their own set of laws which contradicted the Qur’an, and justified it by arguing that not all of the Qur’an is binding on Muslims. Burton also sides with Leone Caetani, who wrote that the story of the “satanic verses” should be rejected not only on the basis of isnad, but because “had these hadiths even a degree of historical basis, Muhammad’s reported conduct on this occasion would have given the lie to the whole of his previous prophetic activity.” Eerik Dickinson also pointed out that the Qur’an’s challenge to its opponents to prove any inconsistency in its content was pronounced in a hostile environment, also indicating that such an incident did not occur or it would have greatly damaged the Muslims.
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, yet others are directed towards the whole of humanity. (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 Muhammad’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,” or argue that the Qur’an must be interpreted on more than one level.
Jurisprudence
British-German professor of Arabic and Islam Joseph Schacht, in his work, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (1950) regarding the subject of law derived from the Qur’an, wrote:
“Muhammadan [Islamic] law did not derive directly from the Koran but developed out of popular and administrative practice under the Umayyads, and this practice often diverged from the intentions and even the explicit wording of the Koran Norms derived from the Koran were introduced into Muhammadan law almost invariably at a secondary stage.”
Schacht further states that every legal tradition from the Prophet must be taken as an inauthentic and fictitious expression of a legal doctrine formulated at a later date:
“. . . We shall not meet any legal tradition from the Prophet which can positively be considered authentic.”
What is evident regarding the compilation of the Qur’an is the disagreement between the companions of Muhammad (earliest supporters of Muhammad), as evidenced with their several disagreements regarding interpretation and particular versions of the Qur’an and their interpretative Hadith and Sunna, namely the mutawatir mushaf having come into present form after Muhammad’s death. John Burton’s work, The Collection of the Qur’an further explores how certain Qur’anic texts were altered to adjust interpretation, in regards to controversy between fiqh (human understanding of Shari’a) and madhahib.
Quality
Thomas Carlyle, after reading Sale’s translation, called the Qur’an “toilsome reading and a wearisome confused jumble, crude, incondite” with “endless iterations, long-windedness, entanglement” and “insupportable stupidity.” He said it is the work of a “great rude human soul.” Gerd Rüdiger Puin noted that approximately every fifth sentence of it does not make any sense despite the Qur’an’s own claim of being a clear book. Salomon Reinach wrote that this book warrants little merit from a literary point of view.
Morality
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.” 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.”
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859), a French political thinker and historian, observed:
I studied the Qur’an a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism.
War And Peace
The Qur’an’s teachings on matters of war and peace are topics that are widely debated. On the one hand, some critics, such as Sam Harris, interpret that certain verses of the Qur’an sanction military action against unbelievers as a whole both during the lifetime of Muhammad and after. Harris argues that Muslim extremism is simply a consequence of taking the Qur’an literally, and is skeptical about significant reform toward a “moderate Islam” in the future. On the other hand, other scholars argue that such verses of the Qur’an are interpreted out of context, and Muslims of the Ahmadiyya movement argue that when the verses are read in context it clearly appears that the Qur’an prohibits aggression, and allows fighting only in self-defense.
The author Syed Kamran Mirza has argued that a concept of ‘Jihad,’ defined as ‘struggle,’ has been introduced by the Qur’an. He wrote that while Muhammad 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 verses,” whereas “almost all the hateful, coercive and intimidating verses later in the Qur’an were made with respect to Jihad” when Muhammad was in Medina.
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.” Mufti M. Mukarram Ahmed has also argued that the Qur’an encourages people to fight in self-defense. He has also argued that the Qur’an has been used to direct Muslims to make all possible preparations to defend themselves against enemies.
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 its followers to treat such people kindly.” 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 Allah.”
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.” He also argues that the Qur’an may assert freedom within religion. Nisrine Abiad has argued that the Qur’an incorporates the offence (and due punishment) of “rebellion” into the offence of “highway or armed robbery.”
George W. Braswell has argued that the Qur’an asserts an idea of Jihad to deal with “a sphere of disobedience, ignorance and war.”
Michael David Bonner has argued that the “deal between Allah 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.” Critics have argued that the Qur’an “glorified Jihad in many of the Medinese suras” and “criticized those who fail(ed) to participate in it.”
Ali Ünal has claimed that the Qur’an praises the companions of 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.”
Solomon Nigosian concludes that the “Qur’anic statement is clear” on the issue of fighting in defense of Islam as “a duty that is to be carried out at all costs,” where “Allah grants security to those Muslims who fight in order to halt or repel aggression.”
Shaikh M. Ghazanfar argues that the Qur’an has been used to teach its followers that “the path to human salvation does not require withdrawal from the world but rather encourages moderation in worldly affairs,” including fighting. Shabbir Akhtar has argued that the Qur’an asserts that if a people “fear Muhammad more than they fear Allah, ‘they are a people lacking in sense‘” rather than a fear being imposed upon them by Allah directly.
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.”
Criticism Of Islam: Part III
701 – 009c
Last Updated: 08/2021
Copyright © 2017-2021 Institute for the Study of Islam (ISI) | Institute-for-the-study-of-Islam-org | Discerning Islam | Discerning-Islam.org | Commentaries on Islam | © 2020 Tips Of The Iceberg | © 1978 marketplace-values.org | Values In The Marketplace | are considered “Trade Marks and Trade Names” ®️ by the Colorado Secretary of State and the Oklahoma Secretary of State. All Rights Reserved.
