Excellent Critique of the Quran

[frank462]

The Koran Unveiled

This is an excellent critique of the Quran. The short list of Questions and Answers below show the topics that are fully covered in this article. It is not a short piece but it is well worth the time it takes to read it. Lots of direct quotes from the Quran to back up the positions taken by the author.

Questions:
1) Does the Koran really call for war against non-Muslims?
2) Does it really sanction domestic violence and say women have to obey men?
3) Does it really mandate women to cover up from head to toe?
4) Are Muslim men really promised virgins and wine in paradise?
5) Does the Koran really endorse martyrdom?
6) Does it mandate public flogging, cutting off hands and stoning to death?
7) Does the Koran really back a Taliban-style ban on anything but religious music?
8) Islamic tradition forbids portraying Mohamed, Allah, human beings generally and even animals (some Muslims do not even allow their children to play with dolls because they represent human beings), but does the Koran actually mandate this?

Answers:
1) Yes, and quite emphatically.
2) Literally so.
3) The Koran leaves this up to local custom, but it does not explicitly mandate women to cover any part of their body except the breasts.
4) That, and comely boys as well.
5) Although the term "martyrdom" only appears once, the Koran does advance the notion.
6) It mandates public flogging for adultery and cutting off hands for stealing, but not stoning to death (not for adultery nor for any other offense).
7) No, not at all. In fact, the Koran does not even mention music.
8) No, there is nothing to the effect in the entire book.

 

[Big Les]

*adds to bookmarks*

Thanks for this - as with the bible I have little desire to trawl it page by page, but do come across claims either way quite frequently and never know what to make of them, so this is very interesting.

 

[Hokulele]

Thanks for sharing this.

*Darn, more stuff to add to the "Must Read" list.*

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Much like my sentiments on the bible ....

Charlie (has anyone ever really read this book?) Monoxide

 

[T'ai Chi]

Have Muslim related wars killed more than atheism-related Communism?

 

[Mark]

Have Muslim related wars killed more than atheism-related Communism?

What communist state would that be? There are none...there are a LOT of them that claim(ed) to be communist but weren't. As far as I know, none of their wars were started in the name of atheism; all of them were typical imperialistic, despotic, wars of expansion.

 

[T'ai Chi]

As far as I know, none of their wars were started in the name of atheism;

As far as I know, they probably didn't say 'we're atheists, let's go to war', but they did systematically outlaw religion, slaughter religious, and want to do away with religion and superstition in general, and promoted atheism.

Stalins' Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot. You've really never heard of these people?

 

[Mark]

As far as I know, they probably didn't say 'we're atheists, let's go to war', but they did systematically outlaw religion, slaughter religious, and want to do away with religion and superstition in general, and promoted atheism.

Stalins' Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot. You've really never heard of these people?

Of course (very condescending of you), but there is no indication whatsoever that any of them went to war because of religion. If you have any such, I would be delighted to know about it. Their's were wars of expansion and power; atheism had nothing to do with it.

Btw, was Pol Pot an atheist? I'm sure I don't know.

 

[newlyfound]

....

(has anyone ever really read this book?)...

Excellent question, why would one want to waist their valuable time on such irrelevant junk when they could read a book that actually help them expand real expertise in a specific field ?

 

[TriangleMan]

Excellent question, why would one want to waist their valuable time on such irrelevant junk when they could read a book that actually help them expand real expertise in a specific field ?

I did once I moved to the Middle East. Living in an Islamic State I figured I'd better get familiar with the base rules.

 

[CFLarsen]

As far as I know, they probably didn't say 'we're atheists, let's go to war', but they did systematically outlaw religion, slaughter religious, and want to do away with religion and superstition in general, and promoted atheism.

Stalins' Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot. You've really never heard of these people?

Religion was never outlawed in the Soviet Union.

 

[Mark]

Religion was never outlawed in the Soviet Union.

Not in general. Individual churches had to have State approval, which many did not get.

 

[CFLarsen]

Also, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge can hardly be called communist. It was more a nationalist-paranoid agrarianism.

 

[zooloo]

Not in general. Individual churches had to have State approval, which many did not get.

I recall (Perhaps wrongly) that Russia had it's state approved church before the advent of the Soviet. Citizenship being dependent on belonging to the official church.

As is often the case the head is new but the body is the same old one

 

[Mark]

I recall (Perhaps wrongly) that Russia had it's state approved church before the advent of the Soviet. Citizenship being dependent on belonging to the official church.

As is often the case the head is new but the body is the same old one

You know, I think that is correct...now I have to dig out the ol' history books!

 

[This Guy]

The Koran Unveiled

This is an excellent critique of the Quran. The short list of Questions and Answers below show the topics that are fully covered in this article. It is not a short piece but it is well worth the time it takes to read it. Lots of direct quotes from the Quran to back up the positions taken by the author.

SNIP

Thanks for the link.

Now I just wish there was someone that reads and understands Arabic, that has read the "approved" version, and could critique the site, based on the Arabic version of the Quran.

I know there should be little to no difference, but it would give me a "warm fuzzy" to get a concurring review from an Arabic speaker (even better if they were Muslim of some flavor).

 

[ile]

Islam is more than the Quran

I do not want to defend Islam; first, I am not qualified to do that properly. Second, I actually have no desire to do so, and what I do know about it distances me from it.

But I should point out that this critique is, in the kindest terms possible, rather naïve.

Islam is of course based on the Qur'an, and everything refers to it. But the ahadit play an extremely important role as well. Furthermore, there is the ijtijadh (effort, strain, of the same root as yihad, used in the context of intellectual effort) that led to the different law systems. And as part of that there was a systematic procedure to resolve the different contradictions, real or (as many would have it) apparent, between different ahadit, or between a hadit and a sura, or even between aleyas. There were a number of criteria, such as the quality of the isnad of the hadit (the traceability of it to one of the companions of the founder), or the actual statement that a sura replaced another one.

All this goes to say that simply stating that there are internal contradictions or even what we (I) deem as aberrant statements in the Qur'an is no good in having an honest discussion with an educated muslim. He (unlikely that it would be a she) would know full well about those, and, furthermore, will have quite a lot of knowledge about the context of those in islam.

You might want to use those examples with uneducated muslims. But they are too simple for any educated one.

On the other hand, I will point something out that is, in my view, missing from that list: the wedding to Zaynab bint Jahsh. It is well known, and has been used by many critics, including Voltaire, because of the inclusion of 33:36-40

See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Holy_Qur'an/Al-Ahzab

 

[newlyfound]

He (unlikely that it would be a she) would know

...now what exactly does that mean?


May President George W. Bush be blessed and praised to the end of times...

 

[Jigsaw_Psyche]

Islam is of course based on the Qur'an, and everything refers to it. But the ahadit play an extremely important role as well.

This is absolutely true. However, there are Muslims who reject the ahadith (Quran-only's), thus they can interpret it and Islam any way they wish (basically). This is mostly where the "softer" version of Islam comes from. The ahadith (narrations about/of Muhammad) spell out clearly what Islam is and what it is not, what a good Muslim is and what is not, etc... thus the version of Islam practiced by ahadith accepters (and of Muhammad himself) is much harsher, much more 'black and white'.

Furthermore, there is the ijtijadh (effort, strain, of the same root as yihad, used in the context of intellectual effort) that led to the different law systems.

This was brought about by those unwilling or unable to institute full Shariah law (Islamic law) as brought into existence,practiced and enforced by Muhammad and his companions. Public executions? Cutting off of limbs? Public floggings? Harsh punishments like this? ALL in the Quran/ahadith and ALL practiced and condoned by the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

If they do not wish to institute these laws in their own country then more power to them! I applaud them! But you cannot say that this is from their 'interpretation' of Islam, because in order to 'interpret' it this way, you must reject all evidence from the Quran and ahadith.

Please note: I'm not saying they SHOULD start up these laws; I'm saying Muhammad did it and so should they; Muhammad called "Muslims" like them, hypocrites in his day.

And as part of that there was a systematic procedure to resolve the different contradictions, real or (as many would have it) apparent, between different ahadit, or between a hadit and a sura, or even between aleyas.

This is not correct. Any hadith that contradict the Quran (proveably) are dismissed as fabricated. No exceptions, no appeals NADA. The Quran is the supreme authority in Islam, as it is believed to be the Literal, unchanged and unchageable world of the Islamic deity (Allah). The ahadith are narrations passed down orally from generation to generation, and then written down.

The ahadith have their own classifications also, eg.. Sahih, Mutawatir, etc.. and these are used to 'validate' a hadith or reject it. Mostly its based on Bukhari's critera for an acceptable hadith. If a narration fails any one of these criteria, it is rejected.

Basically Muslims follow the Quran first and foremost, and then the ahadith; at least the ones classified as Sahih (genuine).

There were a number of criteria, such as the quality of the isnad of the hadit (the traceability of it to one of the companions of the founder), or the actual statement that a sura replaced another one.

Oh okay so you know about Bukhari's critera then? Then you should know that Sahih ahadith are followed by hadith accepting Muslims, yes?

You are also talking about Abrogation as it exists in the Quran. The Quran itself admits it has abrogation, but modern apologists say no, its abrogation between the previous scriptures (bible) and the Quran - that the Quran replaces commands given in the Bible. There is no evidence for this claim though; and you would have to dump a boatload of Sahih ahadith that show abrogation exists within the Quran, in order to make this claim.

In essence, if a verse or directive in the Quran contradicts something that was revealed earlier than it (the Quran was revealed over 23 years) then it replaces it.

eg. Quran Surah 109: 1-6 says (paraphrased) "you believe whatever you want, and I will believe whatever I want; to you your religion and to me mine." This Surah was revealed early on. However, the war surahs were revealed later (eg. 9:5). Since they were revealed later, the peaceful verses are 'cancelled out' and replaced by the fighting verses.

This is why you see such attention paid to the Revelational order of the Chapters/verses of the Quran; Muslims need to know what to follow and what not to follow when it comes to the Quran.

All this goes to say that simply stating that there are internal contradictions or even what we (I) deem as aberrant statements in the Qur'an is no good in having an honest discussion with an educated muslim. He (unlikely that it would be a she) would know full well about those, and, furthermore, will have quite a lot of knowledge about the context of those in islam.

Yes, this is what I thought when I started to learn about Islam. I think it very sad that the vast majority of Muslims do not know much about Islam save the 'everyday rituals.' They are angry at me for telling them things like abrogation, or Muhammad's paedophilia, or that Muhammad murdered 600-900 men in one day, etc..

You think they'd know stuff like that..... If there are so many educated Muslims, why have they not taken up a famous challenge to disprove charges against Islam/Muhammad? Surely they could all get their heads together and writer a killer response?

Third off, most of them don't know arabic either! (save the greetings and such). Many of them pride themselves on being a hafiz (one who has memorised the Quran), but when you ask them to translate what they are reciting, they can't! Why? Because they memorise the transliteration of the arabic, in their own language. They can parrot it, but do not understand it! (a phonetic spelling out of each word).

You might want to use those examples with uneducated muslims. But they are too simple for any educated one.

I disagree. I am the first to admit that I am not an expert in Islam; however I frequently win debates with Muslims on many topics; ie. abrogation, corruption of previous scriptures, meaning/implementation of Hijab, Women are deficient in intelligence (according to Islam), Polygamy in Islam, etc...

So, respectfully, I disagree with your statements.

On the other hand, I will point something out that is, in my view, missing from that list: the wedding to Zaynab bint Jahsh. It is well known, and has been used by many critics, including Voltaire, because of the inclusion of 33:36-40

See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Holy_Qur'an/Al-Ahzab

[/quote]

How many Zaynab's Muhammad have there? Are you referring to Zaynab, the woman Muhammad stole off his adopted Son? Ahhh well, you don't need adoption in Islam now, do you?

Meh anyway, thanks for your thoughts; I do not agree with some of your claims, but we are free to disagree!


-JP

 

[ile]

This is absolutely true. However, there are Muslims who reject the ahadith (Quran-only's), thus they can interpret it and Islam any way they wish (basically). This is mostly where the "softer" version of Islam comes from. The ahadith (narrations about/of Muhammad) spell out clearly what Islam is and what it is not, what a good Muslim is and what is not, etc... thus the version of Islam practiced by ahadith accepters (and of Muhammad himself) is much harsher, much more 'black and white'.


This was brought about by those unwilling or unable to institute full Shariah law (Islamic law) as brought into existence,practiced and enforced by Muhammad and his companions. Public executions? Cutting off of limbs? Public floggings? Harsh punishments like this? ALL in the Quran/ahadith and ALL practiced and condoned by the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

If they do not wish to institute these laws in their own country then more power to them! I applaud them! But you cannot say that this is from their 'interpretation' of Islam, because in order to 'interpret' it this way, you must reject all evidence from the Quran and ahadith.

Please note: I'm not saying they SHOULD start up these laws; I'm saying Muhammad did it and so should they; Muhammad called "Muslims" like them, hypocrites in his day.



This is not correct. Any hadith that contradict the Quran (proveably) are dismissed as fabricated. No exceptions, no appeals NADA. The Quran is the supreme authority in Islam, as it is believed to be the Literal, unchanged and unchageable world of the Islamic deity (Allah). The ahadith are narrations passed down orally from generation to generation, and then written down.

The ahadith have their own classifications also, eg.. Sahih, Mutawatir, etc.. and these are used to 'validate' a hadith or reject it. Mostly its based on Bukhari's critera for an acceptable hadith. If a narration fails any one of these criteria, it is rejected.

Basically Muslims follow the Quran first and foremost, and then the ahadith; at least the ones classified as Sahih (genuine).


Oh okay so you know about Bukhari's critera then? Then you should know that Sahih ahadith are followed by hadith accepting Muslims, yes?

You are also talking about Abrogation as it exists in the Quran. The Quran itself admits it has abrogation, but modern apologists say no, its abrogation between the previous scriptures (bible) and the Quran - that the Quran replaces commands given in the Bible. There is no evidence for this claim though; and you would have to dump a boatload of Sahih ahadith that show abrogation exists within the Quran, in order to make this claim.

In essence, if a verse or directive in the Quran contradicts something that was revealed earlier than it (the Quran was revealed over 23 years) then it replaces it.

eg. Quran Surah 109: 1-6 says (paraphrased) "you believe whatever you want, and I will believe whatever I want; to you your religion and to me mine." This Surah was revealed early on. However, the war surahs were revealed later (eg. 9:5). Since they were revealed later, the peaceful verses are 'cancelled out' and replaced by the fighting verses.

This is why you see such attention paid to the Revelational order of the Chapters/verses of the Quran; Muslims need to know what to follow and what not to follow when it comes to the Quran.


Yes, this is what I thought when I started to learn about Islam. I think it very sad that the vast majority of Muslims do not know much about Islam save the 'everyday rituals.' They are angry at me for telling them things like abrogation, or Muhammad's paedophilia, or that Muhammad murdered 600-900 men in one day, etc..

You think they'd know stuff like that..... If there are so many educated Muslims, why have they not taken up a famous challenge to disprove charges against Islam/Muhammad? Surely they could all get their heads together and writer a killer response?

Third off, most of them don't know arabic either! (save the greetings and such). Many of them pride themselves on being a hafiz (one who has memorised the Quran), but when you ask them to translate what they are reciting, they can't! Why? Because they memorise the transliteration of the arabic, in their own language. They can parrot it, but do not understand it! (a phonetic spelling out of each word).



I disagree. I am the first to admit that I am not an expert in Islam; however I frequently win debates with Muslims on many topics; ie. abrogation, corruption of previous scriptures, meaning/implementation of Hijab, Women are deficient in intelligence (according to Islam), Polygamy in Islam, etc...

So, respectfully, I disagree with your statements.

How many Zaynab's Muhammad have there? Are you referring to Zaynab, the woman Muhammad stole off his adopted Son? Ahhh well, you don't need adoption in Islam now, do you?

Meh anyway, thanks for your thoughts; I do not agree with some of your claims, but we are free to disagree!


-JP

Actually, I think the only point of disagreement in on the effectiveness of the arguments. It might well be that the only muslims I have had discussions on religion with were indeed very well aware of abrogation, of the killing of the Banu Qurayza, and so on, so my experience is unlike yours, and I could well be wrong.

I should also point out that my objective in those conversations was usually that they accept that even if I respect them, and because of that their religious beliefs, they had to understand that these were not as attractive to others as they might have thought. Nothing more than that...

You also bring up a very important point nowadays: although mainstream muslims do accept the ahadith (sorry for the wrong transcription - in spanish those words were incorporated into the language quite a while ago, so I think of hadiz, or azora or aleya...), and there is quite a number that would even dispute that the door of the ijtihad is really closed, there is a hugely important Qur'an only sector, back to basics group ... and this is in fact where the violence is most prevalent.

Although, on re-reading what you wrote, you actually use the "Qur'an-only" name exactly for those who, I would say, try to use modern day ijtihad...

As to Zaynab, yes, I meant Zayd b. Haritha's wife. That's why I gave her filiation