Criticism of Islam: Encyclopedia II - Criticism of Islam - Theological criticism

Criticism of Islam - Theological criticism

Criticism of Islam's theology is often focused as much on Muhammad the individual as it is on beliefs held by Muslims about God. In addition, criticism of aspects of belief and practice that some consider "traditional" Islamic theology has often come from those identifying themselves as Muslims. A brief summary follows.

Criticism of Islam - Muhammad

Many medieval and early modern writers were motivated to criticise Islam by admiration for or hatred of its prophet Muhammad. Martin Luther, for example, referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan". The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) states that Muhammad was inspired by an "imperfect understanding" of Judaism and Christianity and draws a parallel between Muhammad's theology and Luther's Protestantism.

More recent Western scholars such as Sprenger, Noldeke, Weil, Sir William Muir, Koelle, Grimme and Margoliouth give a more positive estimate of Mohammed's life and character and generally agree as to his motives, prophetic call, personal qualifications and sincerity. Whereas Muir, Marcus Dods and others suggest that Muhammad was at first sincere but later practised deception wherever it would gain his end, 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 Muhammed's alleged revelations to epileptic fits or a "paroxysm of cataleptic insanity", a claim commonly leveled by medieval critics.

Zwemer (1907) criticises the life of Muhammad

• firstly by the standards of the Old and New Testaments, both of which he claimed Muhammad acknowledged as divine revelation (though Muslims could argue the point, stressing that Islam accepts only the original -- and now lost -- versions of these texts);
• secondly by the pagan morality of his Arabian compatriots;
• lastly, by the new law of which he "pretended" to be the "divinely-appointed medium and custodian" (an assessment that stands in stark contrast to that of the vast majority of Muslims throughout history).

Zwemer suggests Muhammad was false even to the ethical traditions of the idolatrous brigands among whom he lived and that he violated the easy sexual morality of his own system. Quoting Johnstone, Zwemer concludes by claiming that the judgment of some modern scholars against Islam, however harsh, rests on evidence which "comes all from the lips and the pens of his [i.e. Muhammed's] own devoted adherents".

At the opposite end of the spectrum are contemporary writers like Karen Armstrong, whose critique of him and his religion consists primarily of an unwillingness to accept explicity the Muslim article of faith that the Qur'an represents the literal word of God. Armstrong and other authors prefer instead to adopt vague formulations about the transcendent quality of Muhammad's visions and insights whenever the question of the Qur'an's divinity or lack thereof must be addressed. Such formulations, however tactful, are nevertheless regarded as anathema by most pious Muslims.

Criticism of Islam - The Qur'an

Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of Allah as recited to Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel. The choice of words is considered to be the exact choice of God. In this, it differs from other religions such as Christianity and Judaism, in which adherents often believe their holy book to be inspired by God, rather than chosen word for word by God. In Islam, the Qur’an constitutes God’s exact instructions for mankind. Criticism of the Qur'an generally consists of questioning traditional claims about the Qur'an's composition and content. Muslim scholars see other surviving religious texts as corrupted through human interference.

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.

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 idea of Abu Bakr’s compilation of the Qur'an. Uthman (Caliph 644-656) ordered a compilation of the Qur’an due to disputes arising about recitation. The relation of this compilation to that of Abu Bakr’s reign is not clear. If Abu Bakr’s compilation were in existence, it is not clear how disputes arose which required Uthman to compile 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. Muslim’s consider that he text of this compilation, known as the ‘rasm’, is the same text as that of the Qur’an today. Uthman ordered all alternative copies to be destroyed. The oldest physical text of the Qur’an to be 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.The oldest comprehensive copy of the text is from the ninth century, over one and a half centuries after Muhammad’s death.

To Shi’a muslims, both Abu Bakr and Uthman were usurpers, whose leadership of Islam was illegitimate, and who conspired against the true leader of Islam, Ali, cousin of Mohammad. The absolute political and religious authority of the caliphs would have allowed them to easily addd or remove text during the compilation process, (as later caliphs may have tried to do so after). Nonetheless Shi’a surprisingly trust the integrity of the supposed Uthmanic compilation of the Qur’an.

According to Muslim tradition Mohammad was illiterate and therefore could not forge the Quran from the Bible or Talmud. The Quran is generally considered to be very articulate in its grammar and impossible to recreate on such a scale of perfection and volume, although scholars are not unanimous on this point. Both those points make it difficult to claim that it was written at all by Mohammad and the latter makes it hard to believe it was written by any one person.

Supporters of the Qur'an emphasize its initial circulation as a spoken text, and point out that the several hundred companions memorized the Qur'an by heart. The Islamic sources suggest that Muhammad would recite the Quran in its entirety (that is, including both the earliest and the most recent elements) once every Ramadan; some non-Muslim academics reject the notion that the Qur'an of today is markedly different from the Qur'an recited at the time of Muhammad's death.

Muslims claim that God sent (Muslim) prophets to these religions, but that the Jews and Christians corrupted the teachings of the prophets. Islam claims to be a final revelation and a correction of the Jewish and Christian religions. Islam, as a clear uncorrupteed representation of God’s will, is therefore morally superior to Judaism and Christianity. However, 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.

In 4:34 the Koran reads “As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, and beat them.” Domestic violence is thus instructed by the Qur’an. It is justified not by the women’s actions but by the man’s fears. Islamic scholars have very often suggested less violent treatment of womenfolk (eg. A. Yusuf Ali), perhaps because their conscience pushes them away from the alledged instructions of God as revealed in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an explicitly allows and regulates slavery. Muhammad is documented as having kept many slaves. Quranic regulation made prisoners of war the source of slaves. Prisoners of war includes not only captured enemy soldiers but also captured civilians [needs Quranic reference]. For instance it allows Muslims to take enemy civilian women as slaves, and furthermore to consider any marriage bond dissolved by their enslavement. While the Qur’an suggests liberation of slaves under certain circumstances, it does not require it. Some hadiths recommend kindness to slaves, but the Qur’an itself does not.

The Qur’an alledgedly condones the rape of female slaves. The meaning of the text is not entirely clear: Chapter 23 (verses 1, 5, 6) of the Qur'an states “The beleivers must win through… who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in marriage, or whom their right hands possess- For they are free from blame”. Sura 70, verses 29-30 repeats the same idea. In Islam, “those whom their right hands possess” has always been understood to refer to slaves and captives. Some critics of traditional Islamic scholars claim that “they also approved that every male master had the right to force any of his female slaves to have sex with him”. [Spencer, Robert. Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West., pgs 299–300]. Quranic ambiguity on such a matter is itself evidence of human origins for the Qur’an. If these verses are not considered to justify rape of slaves, they still appear to justify adultery with slaves, and as such represent a regression from the fundamental moral precepts of Judaism (as practiced by the time of Muhammad) and Christianity.

Critics such as Robert Spencer believe that it is not only extremist Islam that preaches violence but Islam itself, implicit in the Qur'anic text. He argues that though Islam does not explicitly preach armed jihad, moderate Muslims' denial that the violence practiced by extremist Muslims can be read in the Qur'an cannot be upheld. For instance Qur’an 9:29 reads “Fight those who do not believe in God… or follow the religion of truth, out of the people of the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” According to Spencer, a move toward human rights and peaceful assimilation in the West calls for moderate Muslims' rejection of traditional aspects of Islam such as jihad, dhimmitude and shari'ah [6]. Muslims stress that armed jihad is only one of several kinds of jihad, despite the fact that until the twentieth century Jihad exclusively meant war, and ‘fighting’ unbeleivers was always interpreted as war-fighting; see Jihad.

Criticism of Islam - 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. Ignaz Goldziher is the best-known early twentieth-century critic of these texts, alongside Margoliuth, 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.

Following 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.

Criticism of Islam - Religious Differences

With Christians

The theology of the Qur'an is strictly monotheistic and the Christian Trinity is denounced as polytheism (shirk). Islam reveres Jesus (Isa) but worshipping Jesus as the literal "Son of God" is firmly rejected as blasphemy. Major shirk is viewed as the worst possible sin in Islam.

From the Qur'an, (4:171):

"O People of the Book, commit no excesses in your religion; nor say of Allah anything but the truth. The Messiah Jesus son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist! It will be better for you: for Allah is One: Glory be to Him! (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs."

The concept of God in Islam is called Tawheed. The Islamic concept of God has been compared to Unitarian or Arian Christianity, though there are arguably clearer parallels with the monotheism embraced in the Q document, a hypothetical text resulting from modern New Testament scholarship seeking out the earliest sayings of Jesus. Christian discussion of Islam in the modern era has only rarely focused on parallel Christo-Islamic religious principles, though these are pronounced; more common has been the tendency to group Islam with a number of Christian sects declared heretical by the post-Nicene Christian Church.

Ethically, key differences have also been pointed out by many, for example, Ali Sina, between Christianity and Islam (http://www.faithfreedom.org/comments/MComments/14.htm), while Islam tends to promote more Old Covenant style teachings on the key philosophical topic of revenge, as evidenced below: “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you." Quran 2:216

With Judaism

With Other religions

Criticism of Islam - Sectarian Differences

As with other religions, Muslims often disagree for theological reasons. For example, Wahhabism and Salafiism emerged from theological criticisms of how Islam had developed, often with sentiments very much against the folk practices that had made their way into Islamic societies, a process derided as bidah (innovation). Many Muslims believe that pleading for intersession through dead people is a major sin.

A very minor Islamic sect maintains a '"Qur'an alone'" stance that rejects hadith not only because of suspected invalidity but because they claim the Qur'an calls itself complete (sura 11:1) and thus it would be shirk to take another source of guidance. This viewpoint is regarded as heretical by many mainstream Muslims, and by all of the major schools of jurisprudence.

For information on other significant disagreements within Islam, see, for instance, Divisions of Islam, Shia and Succession to Muhammad.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Theological criticism", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki