0
0
Criticism Of Islam: Part IV
Violence Against Women
Verse 4:34 of the Qur’an as translated by Ali Quli Qara’i reads:
Men are the managers of women, because of the advantage Allah has granted some of them over others, and by virtue of their spending out of their wealth. So righteous women are obedient, care-taking in the absence [of their husbands] of what Allah has enjoined [them] to guard. As for those [wives] whose misconduct you fear, [first] advise them, and [if ineffective] keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them. Then if they obey you, do not seek any course [of action] against them. Indeed, Allah is all-exalted, all-great.
Many translations do not necessarily imply a chronological sequence, for example, Marmaduke Pickthall’s, Muhammad Muhsin Khan’s, or Arthur John Arberry’s. Arberry’s translation reads “admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.”
The Dutch film Submission, which rose to fame outside the Netherlands after the assassination of its director Theo van Gogh by Muslim extremist Mohammed Bouyeri, critiqued this and similar verses of the Qur’an by displaying them painted on the bodies of abused Muslim women. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the film’s writer, said “it is written in the Koran a woman may be slapped if she is disobedient. This is one of the evils I wish to point out in the film.”
Scholars of Islam have a variety of responses to these criticisms. Some Muslim scholars say that the “beating” allowed is limited to no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush. Some Muslims argue that beating is only appropriate if a woman has done “an unrighteous, wicked and rebellious act” beyond mere disobedience. In many modern interpretations of the Qur’an, the actions prescribed in 4:34 are to be taken in sequence, and beating is only to be used as a last resort.
Many Islamic scholars and commentators have emphasized that beatings, where permitted, are not to be harsh or even that they should be “more or less symbolic.” According to Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Ibn Kathir, the consensus of Islamic scholars is that the above verse describes a light beating.
Some jurists argue that even when beating is acceptable under the Qur’an, it is still “discountenanced.”
Shabbir Akhtar has argued that the Qur’an introduced prohibitions against “the pre-Islamic practice of female infanticide” (16:58, 17:31, 81:8).
Houris (women in Islamic eschatology who will accompany faithful believers in Paradise)
Max I. Dimont interprets that the Houris described in the Qur’an are specifically dedicated to “male pleasure.”
Alternatively, Annemarie Schimmel says that the Qur’anic description of the Houris should be viewed in a context of love; “every pious man who lives according to Allah’s order will enter Paradise where rivers of milk and honey flow in cool, fragrant gardens and virgin beloveds await home.”
Under the Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Qur’an by Christoph Luxenberg, the words translating to “Houris” or “Virgins of Paradise” are instead interpreted as “Fruits (grapes)” and “high climbing (wine) bowers . . . made into first fruits.” Luxenberg offers alternate interpretations of these Qur’anic verses, including the idea that the Houris should be seen as having a specifically spiritual nature rather than a human nature; “these are all very sensual ideas; but there are also others of a different kind . . . what can be the object of cohabitation in Paradise as there can be no question of its purpose in the world, the preservation of the race. The solution of this difficulty is found by saying that, although heavenly food, women etc., have the name in common with their earthly equivalents, it is only by way of metaphorical indication and comparison without actual identity . . . authors have spiritualized the Houris.”
Christians And Jews In The Qur’an
Jane Gerber claims that the Qur’an ascribes negative traits to Jews, such as cowardice, greed, and chicanery. She also alleges that the Qur’an associates Jews with inter-confessional strife and rivalry (Qur’an 2:113), the Jewish belief that they alone are beloved of Allah (Qur’an 5:18), and that only they will achieve salvation (Qur’an 2:111). According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, the Qur’an contains many attacks on Jews and Christians for their refusal to recognize Muhammad as a prophet. In the Muslim view, the crucifixion of Jesus was an illusion, and thus the Jewish plots against him ended in failure. In numerous verses the Qur’an accuses Jews of altering the Scripture. Karen Armstrong claims that there are “far more numerous passages in the Qur’an” which speak positively of the Jews and their great prophets, than those which were against the “rebellious Jewish tribes of Medina” (during Muhammad’s time). Sayyid Abul Ala believes the punishments were not meant for all Jews, and that they were only meant for the Jewish inhabitants that were sinning at the time. According to historian John Tolan, the Qur’an contains a verse which criticizes the Christian worship of Jesus Christ as Allah, and also criticizes other practices and doctrines of both Judaism and Christianity. Despite this, the Qur’an has high praise for these religions, regarding them as the other two parts of the Abrahamic trinity.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that Allah is a single being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a communion of three distinct persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In Islam such plurality in Allah is a denial of monotheism and thus a sin of shirk, which is considered to be a major ‘al-Kaba’ir’ sin.
Hindu Criticism
Hindu Swami Dayanand Saraswati gave a brief analysis of the Qur’an in the 14th chapter of his 19th-century book Satyarth Prakash. He calls the concept of Islam highly offensive, and doubted that there is any connection of Islam with Allah:
Had the Allah of the Qur’an been the Lord of all creatures, and been Merciful and kind to all, he would never have commanded the Muhammadans to slaughter men of other faiths, and animals, etc.
If he is Merciful, will he show mercy even to the sinners? If the answer be given in the affirmative, it cannot be true, because further on it is said in the Qur’an “Put infidels to sword,” in other words, he that does not believe in the Qur’an and the Prophet Mohammad is an infidel (he should, therefore, be put to death). Since the Qur’an sanctions such cruelty to non-Muhammadans and innocent creatures such as cows it can never be the Word of Allah.
On the other hand, Mahatma Gandhi, the moral leader of the 20th-century Indian independence movement, found the Qur’an to be peaceful, but the history of Muslims to be aggressive, while he claimed that Hindus have passed that stage of societal evolution:
Though, in my opinion, non-violence has a predominant place in the Qur’an, the thirteen hundred years of imperialistic expansion has made the Muslims fighters as a body. They are therefore aggressive. Bullying is the natural excrescence of an aggressive spirit. The Hindu has an ages old civilization. He is essentially non violent. His civilization has passed through the experiences that the two recent ones are still passing through. If Hinduism was ever imperialistic in the modern sense of the term, it has outlived its imperialism and has either deliberately or as a matter of course given it up. Predominance of the non-violent spirit has restricted the use of arms to a small minority which must always be subordinate to a civil power highly spiritual, learned and selfless.
Anti-Muslim Bigotry Vs. Genuine Criticism Of Islam
I think this heading could be one of the most important I’ve ever written on the subject of Islam. Why? It’s because of the growing obscurantism that has made it almost impossible to have any discussion what-so-ever about Islam without terms such as bigot, racist, Islamophobe, Zionist, Uncle Tom, and many others being thrown around by the national media.
Why is this happening? The debate concerning Islam and Muslims has become so polarized that no one can easily engage in honest conversation without being pigeonholed into one camp or another. This process is not wholly arbitrary; I’ve identified eight major groups or categories, and most who hold forth on things Islamic in the media genuinely seem to fall into one of them:
- Muslim Conservatives
- Muslim Moderates
- Muslim Reformers
- Pseudo-Liberal Apologists
- Genuine Critics of Islam
- Pro-Christian Right
- Anti-Muslim Groups
- Far-Right Jewish Groups
I will try to define these groups one by none
- Muslim Conservatives believe that Islam is perfect and that theyyyy Hadith and the Qur’an as a whole contain no errors. They view liberalism as a Western invention incompatible with their interpretation of the faith. They believe there is a cosmic war going on between the Muslim world and the West. The majority of them are nonviolent, but the ultraconservatives among them, whether they be Salafist or Wahhabi, tend 7to support violent jihad jagainst the West, including violence against civilians. Few in this group engage with Western media; they are far more active in Arab and Urdu media such as Aqra Channel, Al Jazeera Arabic, and the like.
- Muslim Moderates also consider Islam to be perfect and the Qur’an and the Hadith to be inerrant. However, they don’t follow the interpretations that advocate violent jihad, and they deny that any link exists between jihad and Islam. They are frequently seen in Western media, especially television, stating that Islam is a religion of peace, that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that terrorist groups are un-Islamic.
Their views on human rights cover a broad spectrum, from advocating public killing of gays to welcoming gays as equal citizens, and from defending women’s right to wear head scarves to requiring them by law. Many disbelieve in a cosmic war between the Muslim world and the West, but some justify jihad as a way of addressing grievances against Western imperialism and the West’s support for Israel.
In the main, Muslim Moderates argue that terrorist groups such as ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram have nothing to do with Islam and that they are either created by or a reaction to Western colonials.
Some Muslim Moderate organizations have high profiles in Western media, often acting as public-relations firms and lobby groups for Muslim communities. Examples include the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and CAGE in the United Kingdom. Prominent Muslim Moderates often seen on television include Linda Sarsour, Dean Obeidallah, Murtaza Hussain, and Mahdi Hassan.
- Muslim Reformers either don’t consider the Qur’an to be perfect and the literal word of Allah or concede that some of its commandments are not applicable in the twenty-first century. They try to rally against extremist interpretations and to create new ones more in keeping with modern liberal values. JThey accept that there is a link between radical interpretations of Islam and terrorism. Many of them advocate for liberal government and separation of religion and state. Prominent individual Muslim Reformers include Maajid Nawaz, Asra Nomani, and Irshad Manji.
- Pseudo-Liberal Apologists, mainly non-Muslim white liberals, agree with Moderate Muslims’ argument that terrorist groups such as ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram have nothing to do with Islam and are either a result or a creation of Western imperialism. Pseudo-Liberal Apologists tend to agree that Islam is a peaceful religion and that those who speak out against it are motivated by racism, hatred of minorities or the “other,” or hold a neoconservative imperialist agenda and desire to kill all Muslims and steal resources from Muslim-majority countries. They tend to think that the greatest enemy of world peace is Western capitalism, a view they share with many Moderate and Conservative Muslims.
Pseudo-Liberal Apologists tend to receive a lot of media attention; in U.S. media, members of this group receive the most attention of any of the six groups. Examples include Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan, and Chris Stedman.
- Genuine Critics of Islam are mainly liberal democrats, some of them atheists, who think that there is a connection between some interpretations of the religion and bad or violent behavior. They share many agreements with Muslim Reformers. Some tend to think that Islam in the twenty-first century represents a special case, and some do not.
They care about issues such as women’s rights and LGBT rights. They are acutely aware of extremist groups in the Muslim world and around the globe and see a clear link between violence and some interpretations of the fundamentals of Islam. They view Islam itself as a major reason human rights are poorly upheld in most majority-Muslim countries. Most are also very critical of Christianity but are likely to argue that the Enlightenment has had a “buffering” effect on Christianity that Islam has yet to undergo, leaving Islam in need of enlightenment or reformation.
They tend to differentiate between Islam as a set of ideas and interpretations and Muslims as people. Often, they mostly rely on statistics from organizations such as Pew and Gallup to resist making generalizations about Muslims as a whole. Prominent examples include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Salman Rushdie, Ali A. Rizvi, Aki Muthali, Sarah Haider, and many others. Recently, Sam Harris coauthored a book with the Muslim Reformer Majid Nawaz (Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue, Harvard University Press , 2015) to promote more nuanced discussion of these issues. Harris has also been supportive of many other reformers.
- Pro-Christian Right believes that there is a cosmic war between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They tend to view many, but not all, Muslims as fanatics and terrorists. Some of them consider the prophet of Islam to be the Antichrist and may believe there is a connection between Islam and satanism.
They usually view fundamentalism as the only true form of Islam, going so far as to accuse Muslims of lying or of practicing Taqyia (lying in defense of the faith). Many in this group trade in conspiracy theories — for example, that radical Muslims in America want to impose Shari’a law or want to convert Europe into “EuroArabia.”
- Anti-Muslim Groups tend to view most Muslims as fanatics and terrorists. Many in this group trade in utterly counterfactual conspiracy theories. They operate on a platform of fear-mongering, pressing for agendas that have nothing to do with human rights or secular liberal values but rather with imposing their own theocracies or authoritarian views on others. Many view President Barack Obama as a secret Muslim with Muslim Brotherhood connections; some of them engage in “Birther” conspiracy theories. Prominent individuals include Bridge Gabriel, Walid Shoebat, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer. Organizations include Stop Islamization of America (SIOA, also known as the American Freedom Defense Initiative), the UK’s English Defence League (EDL), and others
- Far-Right Jewish Groups consist mostly of Jewish activists, who believe that there is a cosmic war between Judaism, and Islam. They tend to view most Muslims as fanatics and terrorists.
An important takeaway is that those who believe in Islam and those who criticize it fall along a broad spectrum. There is no one school of belief in Islam, and there is no one school of criticism of Islam. In such a variegated environment, how can media consumers distinguish between an anti-Muslim bigot and a genuine critic of Islam? Look at two principal markers.
How much does the person engage in broad generalizations, saying that all Muslims are X or Y? (Less is better.)
What is the apparent intention behind the person’s criticism of Islam? Is it offered in a reasoned way? Or does the criticism represent merely the opinion of a theocrat from a different religion? Is the intention of discussing Islam merely to defend, say, Israel’s actions toward the Palestinians? Or does it come from a place of concern for the well-being and human rights of people across the Muslim world?
For U.S. media consumers, the most important distinction to make may be the one between Moderate and Pseudo-Liberal Apologists and Muslim Reformers. Muslim Reformers admit that there is a connection between certain radical interpretations of Islam and terrorism; also, they don’t blame all the ills of the Muslim world on Jews and/or U.S. foreign policy.
Criticism of Islam has existed since Islam’s formative stages. Early written disapproval came from Christians and Jews as well as from some former Muslims such as Ibn al-Rawandi. Later the Muslim world itself suffered criticism. Western criticism has grown in the 21st century especially after the September 11 attacks and other terrorist incidents. As of 2014, about a quarter of the world’s countries and territories (26 percent) had anti-blasphemy and anti-apostasy laws or policies, of which 13 nations, all of which were Muslim majority nations, had the death penalty for apostasy.
Objects of criticism include the morality of the life of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, both in his public and personal life. Issues relating to the authenticity and morality of the constitutional scriptures of Islam, both the Qur’an and the hadiths, are also discussed by critics. Islam has also been viewed as a form of Arab imperialism and has received criticism by figures from Africa and India for what they perceive as the destruction of indigenous cultures. Islam’s recognition of slavery as an institution, which led to Muslim traders exporting as many as 17 million slaves to the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa, has also been criticized.
Another criticism focuses on the question of human rights in the Islamic world, both historically and in modern Islamic nations, including the treatment of women, LGBT people, and religious and ethnic minorities, as evinced in Islamic law and practice. In the wake of the recent multiculturalism trend, Islam’s influence on the ability or willingness of Muslim immigrants to assimilate in the Western world, and in other countries such as India and Russia, has been criticized.
The earliest surviving written criticisms of Islam are to be found in the writings of Christians who came under the early dominion of the Islamic Caliphate. One such Christian was John of Damascus (c. 676–749 AD), 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 an Arian monk (whom he did not know was Bahira) influenced Muhammad and viewed the Islamic doctrines as nothing more than a hodgepodge culled from the Bible. Writing on Islam’s claim of Abrahamic ancestry, John explained that the Arabs were called “Saracens” (Greek Σαρακενοί, Sarakenoi) because they were “empty” (κενός, kenos, in Greek) “of Sarah.” They were called “Hagarenes” because they were “the descendants of the slave-girl Hagar.”
Other notable early critics of Islam included:
- Abu Isa al-Warraq, a 9th-century scholar and critic of Islam;
- Ibn al-Rawandi, a 9th-century atheist, who repudiated Islam and criticised religion in general;
- al-Ma’arri, an 11th-century Arab poet and critic of Islam and all other religions. Also known for his veganism and antinatalism (a philosophical position and social movement that assigns a negative value).
In the early centuries of the Islamic Caliphate, Islamic law allowed citizens to freely express their views, including criticism of Islam and religious authorities, without fear of persecution. As such, there have been several notable critics and skeptics of Islam that arose from within the Islamic world itself. One eminent critic, living in the tenth- and eleventh-century Syria was the blind poet Al-Ma’arri. He became well known for a poetry that was affected by a “pervasive pessimism.” He labeled religions in general as “noxious weeds” and said that Islam does not have a monopoly on truth. He had particular contempt for the ulema, writing that:
They recite their sacred books, although the fact informs me that these are fiction from first to last. O Reason, thou (alone) speakest the truth. Then perish the fools who forged the religious traditions or interpreted them!
In 1280, the Jewish philosopher, Ibn Kammuna, criticized Islam in his book, Examination of the Three Faiths. He reasoned that the Shari’a was incompatible with the principles of justice, and that this undercut the notion of Muhammad being the perfect man: “there is no proof that Muhammad attained perfection and the ability to perfect others as claimed.” The philosopher thus claimed that people converted to Islam from ulterior motives:
That is why, to this day we never see anyone converting to Islam unless in terror, or in quest of power, or to avoid heavy taxation, or to escape humiliation, or if taken prisoner, or because of infatuation with a Muslimwoman, or for some similar reason. Nor do we see a respected, wealthy, and pious non-Muslim well versed in both his faith and that of Islam, going over to the Islamic faith without some of the aforementioned or similar motives.
According to Bernard Lewis, just as it is natural for a Muslim to assume that the converts to his religion are attracted by its truth, it is equally natural for the convert’s former coreligionists to look for baser motives and Ibn Kammuna’s list seems to cover most of such nonreligious motives.
Maimonides, one of the foremost 12th-century rabbinical arbiters and philosophers, 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 virtue in the way Muslims rule their societies and relate to one another. In his Epistle to Yemenite Jewry, he refers to Muhammad, as “hameshuga” – “that madman.”
Apologetic writings, attributed to Abdullah Ibn al-Muqaffa, not only defended Manichaeism against Islam, but also criticized the Islamic concept of Allah. Accordingly, the Qur’anic deity was disregarded as an unjust, tyrannic, irrational and malevolent demonic entity, who “fights with humans and boasts about His victories” and “sitting on a throne, from which He descends.” Such anthropomorphic descriptions of Allah were at odds with the Manichaean understanding of Divinity. Further, according to Manichaeism, it would be impossible that good and evil originate from the same source, therefore the Islamic deity could not be the true Allah.
Medieval Christianity
At right, Dante shown holding a copy of the Divine Comedy, next to the entrance to Hell, the seven terraces of Mount Purgatory and the city of Florence, with the spheres of Heaven above.
Early criticism came from Christian authors, many of whom viewed Islam as a Christian heresy or a form of idolatry and often explained it in apocalyptic terms. Islamic salvation optimism and its carnality was criticized by Christian writers. Islam’s sensual descriptions of paradise led many Christians to conclude that Islam was not a spiritual religion, but a material one. Although sensual pleasure was also present in early Christianity, as seen in the writings of Irenaeus, the doctrines of the former Manichaean Augustine of Hippo led to broad repudiation of bodily pleasure in both life and the afterlife. Ali ibn Sahl Rabban al-Tabari defended the Qur’anic description of paradise by asserting that the Bible also implies such ideas, such as drinking wine in the Gospel of Matthew. During the Fifth Crusade, Pope Innocent III declared that many men had been seduced by Muhammad for the pleasure of flesh.
Defamatory images of Muhammad, derived from early 7th century depictions of Byzantine Church, appear in the 14th-century epic poem Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri. Here, Muhammad appears in the eighth circle of hell, along with Ali. Dante does not blame Islam as a whole, but accuses Muhammad of schism, by establishing another religion after Christianity. Some medieval ecclesiastical writers portrayed Muhammad as possessed by Satan, a “precursor of the Antichrist” or the Antichrist himself. The Tultusceptrum de libro domni Metobii, an Andalusian manuscript with unknown dating, shows how Muhammad (called Ozim, from Hashim) was tricked by Satan into adulterating an originally pure divine revelation. The story argues Allah was concerned about the spiritual fate of the Arabs and wanted to correct their deviation from the faith. He then sends an angel to the monk Osius who orders him to preach to the Arabs. Osius however is in ill-health and orders a young monk, Ozim, to carry out the angel’s orders instead. Ozim sets out to follow his orders, but gets stopped by an evil angel on the way. The ignorant Ozim believes him to be the same angel that spoke to Osius before. The evil angel modifies and corrupts the original message given to Ozim by Osius, and renames Ozim Muhammad. From this followed the erroneous teachings of Islam, according to the Tultusceptrum. According to the monk Bede Muhammad was foretold in Genesis 16:12, which describes Ishmael as “a wild man” whose “hand will be against every man.” Bede says about Muhammad: “Now how great is his hand against all and all hands against him; as they impose his authority upon the whole length of Africa and hold both the greater part of Asia and some of Europe, hating and opposing all.”
In 1391 a dialogue was believed to have occurred between Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos and a Persian scholar in which the Emperor stated:
Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. Allah is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to Allah’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats. To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.
Otherwise the Greek Orthodox Bishop Paul of Antioch accepts Muhammed as a prophet, but not that his mission was universal. Since the law of Christ is superior to the law of Islam, Muhammad was only ordered to the Arabs, whom a prophet was not sent yet. Denis the Carthusian wrote two treatises to refute Islam at the request of Nicholas of Cusa, Contra perfidiam Mahometi, et contra multa dicta Sarracenorum libri quattuor and Dialogus disputationis inter Christianum et Sarracenum de lege Christi et contra perfidiam Mahometi.
David Hume
David Hume was critical of traditional religion and scholars generally agree that Hume was both a naturalist and a sceptic, though he considered monotheistic religions to be more “comfortable to sound reason” than polytheism and found Islam to be more “rational” than Christianity. In Of the Standard of Taste, an essay by David Hume, the Qur’an is described as an “absurd performance” of a “pretended prophet” who lacked “a just sentiment of morals.” Hume says, “we shall soon find, that [Muhammad] bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society. No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers.”
The commonly held view in Europe during the Enlightenment was that Islam, then synonymous with the Ottoman Empire, was a bloody, ruthless and intolerant religion. In the European view, Islam lacked divine authority and regarded the sword as the route to heaven. Hume appears to represent this view in his reference to the “bloody principles” of Islam, though he also makes similar critical comments about the “bloody designs” characterizing the conflict between Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation. Many contemporary works about Islam were available to influence Hume’s opinions by authors such as Isaac Barrow, Humphrey Prideaux, John Jackson, Charles Wolseley, Hugo Grotius, Paul Rycaut, Thomas Hyde, Pierre Bayle, and Blaise Pascal. The writers of this period were also influenced by George Sale who, in 1743, had translated the Qur’an into English.
Criticism Of Islam: Part IV
701 – 009e
Last Updated: 09/2021
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.
