|
|
|
| Zobacz też: |
 |
|
|---|---|
| Beliefs | |
|
Allah · Oneness of God |
|
| Practices | |
|
Timeline of Muslim history |
|
|
Qur'an · Sunnah · Hadith |
|
| Sunni · Shi'a | |
|
Academics · Animals · Art |
|
| Islam and other religions | |
| Christianity · Judaism |
|
|
Criticism of Islam · Islamophobia
|
|
(Arguments critical to religion in general, or specific to monotheism, such as the existence of God, are not dealt with here. This page describes criticism specific to Islam only, looking at either its historical nature or that of its beliefs and practices.)
Criticism of Islam has existed since Islam's formative stages. Early written criticism came from Christians, prior to 1000 CE, many of whom viewed Islam as a radical Christian heresy.[1] Later there appeared criticism from the Muslim world itself, and also from Jewish writers and from ecclesiastical Christians.[2][3][4][5] In the modern era, criticism has come from people both inside and outside Islam, on a wide variety of topics.
Objects of criticism include Islam's intolerance of criticism, attitudes towards perceived heresy and accused heretics, and the treatment accorded to apostates in Islamic law.[6] Another area focuses on the morality of the life of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, both in his public and personal life.[5][7] Issues relating to the authenticity and morality of the Qu'ran, the Islamic holy book, are also discussed by critics.[8][9] Other criticisms focus on the question of human rights in modern Islamic nations, and the treatment of women in Islamic law and practice.[10][11] Recently, Islam's influence on the ability of Muslim immigrants in the West to assimilate has been criticized.[12]
Contents
|
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 (born c. 676), 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 influenced Muhammad and viewed the Islamic doctrines as nothing more than a hotchpotch culled from the Bible. Writing on the Islam's claim of Abrahamic ancestry, John explained that the Arabs were called "Saracens" because they were "empty of Sarah". They were called "Hagarenes" because they were "the bastard descendants of the slave-girl Hagar".[13] According to John V. Tolan, a Professor of Medieval History, John's biography of Muhammad is based on deliberate distortions of Muslim traditions. [14]
The Hadith (written between 844 and 874) contain accounts of criticism of Islam at the time of Muhammad from the pagan, Jewish and Christian inhabitants of Arabia.
Over the years there have been several famous Muslim critics and skeptics of Islam from within the Islamic world itself. In tenth and eleventh-century Syria there lived a blind poet called Al-Ma'arri. According to Ibn Warraq, 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![2] | ” |
In 1280, the Jewish philosopher, Ibn Kammuna, criticized Islam in his book Examination of the Three Faiths. He reasoned that incompatibility of sharia with the principles of justice undercuts Muhammad's claims of being a perfect man: "there is no proof that Muhammad attained perfection and the ability to perfect others as claimed."[15] The philosopher thus concluded that people usually convert 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 Muslim woman, 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.[3] | ” |
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. [16]
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 the lack of virtue in the way Muslims rule their societies and relate to one another.[4]
| “ | 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. God is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God'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. | ” |
The first sentence of this quotation, when repeated by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006, lead to a series of riots, firebombing of churches and a Fatwa against the life of the Pope (see Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy).
During the late 19th and early 20th century, the new methods of Higher criticism were applied to the Qu'ran, claiming that it had a non-divine origin. Ignaz Goldziher and Henri Corbin wrote about the influence of Zoroastrianism, and others wrote on the influence of Judaism, Christianity and Sabianism [20]
Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister through most of World War 2, was a strong critic of the effects Islam had on its believers. He stated in his 1899 book "The River War" [21]:
| “ | How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome. | ” |
Notable contemporary critics include:
Several scholars do not self-identify as critics of Islam but criticize some of its aspects:
There are also outspoken former Muslims who believe that Islam is the primary cause for what they see as the mistreatment of minority groups in Muslim countries and communities. Almost all of them now live in the West, many under assumed names because of a legitimate danger to themselves. Many have had death threats made against them by Islamic groups and individuals.
Muslims believe the Qur'an to be the perfect word of Allah, and as such it cannot contain any errors or contradictions, and must be perfectly compatible with science. It is so perfect that readers must conclude it is of divine, rather than human, origin.
Critics argue that:
| “ | is not an invention, but a concoction; there is nothing novel about it except the genius of Mohammad in mixing old ingredients into a new panacea for human ills and forcing it down by means of the swordcitation needed | ” |
In a 1999 Atlantic Monthly article, Gerd Puin,German scholar and the world's foremost authority on Qur'anic paleography [citation needed], the study and scholarly interpretation of ancient manuscripts, is quoted as saying that:[75] [75]
My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.
Prominent muslims such as Dr. Zakir Naik, on the other hand claim that "every single of these criticisms can be easily refuted". Naiks lectures and debates are mostly centered around the removing of, what he calls, misconceptions regarding Islam and the Quran. In his book titled The Qur'an and Modern Science, Compatible or Incompatible?[77] he explains a number of scientific 'miracles' of the Qur'an (i.e. verses, apparently referring to what has only recently been scientifically established) and thus concludes,
| “ | The scientific evidences of the Qur’an clearly prove its Divine origin. No human could have produced a book, fourteen hundred years ago, that would contain such profound scientific facts. The Qur’an, however, is not a book of Science but a book of "Signs". | ” |
He and most other muslims scholars like Ahmed Deedat claim that the seeming contradictions amongst verses in the Qur'an can be refuted simply by understanding verses in their context. They also claim that Qur'an itself poses a challenge to anyone to find a single contradiction and prove the Qur'an was not authored by Allah[78]; they all then quote the following verse:
| “ | Will they not then ponder on the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much contradictions. (Qur'an, Chapter 4:Verse 82) | ” |
Writers such as S.M. Saifullah argue that it is an Islamic viewpoint that every nation was sent a Messenger for their guidance by Allah. The important matter was the concept of Tawheed (i.e. Islamic-monotheism) while the secondary matter was shariah, which kept changing from nation to nation<refEvery Nation was sent a Messenger - by S.M. Saifullay</ref>; their arguments are based on Qur'anic verses like the following:
| “ | And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taghut (all false deities, etc. i.e., do not worship Taghut besides Allah)." Then of them were some whom Allah guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel through the land and see what was the end of those who denied (the truth). (Qur'an, Chapter 16:Verse 36) | ” |
Muslims thus believe that it is obligatory for them to believe in the prophets mentioned by Prophet Muhammed and the Qur'an.[79]
Aisha Geissinger, a notable writer on Islam, notes in her article titled "Orientalists plot against the Qur'an under the guise of academic study and archive preservation"[80]
| “ | that the existence of minor differences in wording and in the ordering of the surahs in the earliest masahif (manuscripts) is no surprise to classical Muslim scholars, since such variations occurred for reasons like the dialectical differences in different regions of Arabia and the fact that some of the Sahaba (many of who were known to have memorized the Qur'an) recorded such masahif for their own personal use as an aid to memory; thus, notes in the margins such as the wording of du'as (supplications) occurred, and the order of surahs varied. Books written by classical Muslim scholars, such as al-Suyuti's Itqan, go into great detail about such issues. | ” |
Hadith are Muslim traditions relating to the Sunna (words and deeds) of Muhammad. They are drawn from the writings of scholars writing between 844 and 874 CE, more than 200 years after the death of Mohammed in 632 CE.[81] In general, for Muslims the hadith are second only to the Qur'an in importance,[82] although some scholars put more emphasis on the perpetual adherence of Muslim nation to the traditions to give them credibility, and not solely on hadith.[83]. Most of our knowledge about the life of Muhammad comes from the hadith, many of which were biographies of Mohammed. Many Islamic practices (such as the Pillars of Islam) are drawn from the hadith.
However, there is criticism of the historical reliability of hadith. John Esposito notes that "Modern Western scholarship has seriously questioned the historicity and authenticity of the hadith", maintaining that "the bulk of traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad were actually written much later." He mentions Joseph Schacht as one scholar who argues this, claiming that Schacht "found no evidence of legal traditions before 722," from which Schacht concluded that "the Sunna of the Prophet is not the words and deeds of the Prophet, but apocryphal material" dating from later.[84]
Other Western scholars, like Wilferd Madelung, are more confident in the reliability of Islamic traditions, rejecting the stance of some historians who show an "extreme distrust" for "Muslim literary sources for the early age of Islam". Madelung wrote in the preface of his book The Succession to Muhammad:
| “ |
Work with the narrative sources, both those that have been available to historians for a long time and others which have been published recently, made it plain that their wholesale rejection as late fiction is unjustified and that with a judicious use of them a much more reliable and accurate portrait of the period can be drawn than has so far been realized.[85] |
” |
Within Islam, different schools and sects have different opinions on the proper selection and use of hadith. The four schools of Sunni Islam all consider hadith second only to the Qur'an, although they differ on how much freedom of interpretation should be allowed to legal scholars.[86] Shi'i scholars disagree with Sunni scholars as to which hadith should be considered reliable. The Shi'as accept the Sunna of Ali and the Imams as authoritative in addition to the Sunna of Muhammad, and as a consequence they maintain their own, different, collections of hadith.[87]
On the extreme end, there have been Muslims who deny the authority of the hadith completely or almost completely (manifestations of which have sometimes been termed the Quran-only movement). Early in Islamic history there was a school of thought that adhered to this view, but it receded in importance after coming under criticism by al-Shafi'i. Daniel Brown describes a modern anti-hadith movement that reached its peak in the 1950s and 1960s, but is now in decline.[88] The Submitters movement today holds to a Quran-only view,[89] although they are considered heretical by more traditionalist Muslims.[90]
The traditional view of Islam has also been criticised for the lack of supporting evidence consistent with that view, such as the lack of archaeological evidence, and discrepancies with non-Muslim literary sources.[91] (see Hagarism)
Muslims consider Muhammad to be the final prophet, the messenger of the final revelation that he called the Qur’an. Muslims believe that Muhammad is righteous, holy, no more than a messenger, a warner and seal of Prophets. However, critics such as Koelle and Ibn Warraq, as well as some other non-Muslims, see some of his actions as immoral.[5][7] Islamic scholars, such as William Montgomery Watt disagree, especially when a comparison is made between Muhammad and Biblical prophets. Watt, for example, argues that Muhammad should be judged by the standards of his own time and country rather than "by those of the most enlightened opinion in the West today."
Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God as recited to Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel. Criticism of the Qur'an generally consists of questioning traditional claims about the Qur'an's composition and content.
It is a central tenet of Islam that the Qur'an is perfect, so criticism of the Qur'an is considered criticism of Islam.
This is a list of critical arguments:
Bernard Lewis summarizes:
| “ |
The penalty for apostasy, in Islamic law, is death. Islam is conceived as a polity, not just as a religious community. It follows therefore that apostasy is treason. It is a withdrawal, a denial of allegiance as well as of religious belief and loyalty. Any sustained and principled opposition to the existing regime or order almost inevitably involves such a withdrawal.[29] |
” |
The four Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence, as well as Shi'a scholars, agree that a sane adult male apostate must be executed. A female apostate may be put to death, according to the majority view, or imprisoned until she repents, according to others.[104]
The Qur'an threatens apostate with punishment in the next world only, the historian W. Heffening states, the traditions however contain the element of death penalty. Muslim scholar Shafi'i interprets verse Qur'an 2:217 as adducing the main evidence for the death penalty in Qur'an.[105] The historian Wael Hallaq states the later addition of death penalty "reflects a later reality and does not stand in accord with the deeds of the Prophet." He further states that "nothing in the law governing apostate and apostasy derives from the letter of the holy text."[106]
William Montgomery Watt, in response to a question about Western views of the Islamic Law as being cruel, states that "In Islamic teaching, such penalties may have been suitable for the age in which Muhammad lived. However, as societies have since progressed and become more peaceful and ordered, they are not suitable any longer."[107]
Some contemporary Islamic jurists from both the Sunni and Shi'a denominations together with Qur'an only Muslims have argued or issued fatwas that state that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances.[108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115] For example, Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri argues that no Qur'anic verse prescribes an earthly penalty for apostasy and adds that it is not improbable that the punishment was prescribed by Muhammad at early Islam due to political conspiracies against Islam and Muslims and not only because of changing the belief or expressing it. Montazeri defines different types of apostasy. He does not hold that a reversion of belief because of investigation and research is punishable by death but prescribes capital punishment for a desertion of Islam out of malice and enmity towards the Muslim.[116]
Today, out of 57 mostly Islamic countries in OIC, five make apostasy from Islam a crime punishable by death: Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan and Yemen. According the US State Department, there have been no reports any executions carried out by the government of Saudi Arabia for several years.[117] On the other hand, in Pakistan, vigilante attacks against alleged apostates are common.[118]
The recent case of Afghan Abdul Rahman has achieved particular notoriety. In early 2006, Rahman was arrested and held by Afghan authorities on charges that he converted from Islam to Christianity, a capital offense in Afghanistan. Many Muslim clerics in the country pushed for a death sentence, but after international pressure (including a public statement by U.S. Secretary of State at the time Condoleezza Rice) he was released and secretly given asylum in Italy.[119][120]
In 1993, an Egyptian professor named Nasr Abu Zayd was divorced from his wife by an Egyptian court run by Islamic radicals on the grounds that his controversial writings about the Qur'an demonstrated his apostasy. He subsequently fled to Europe with his wife.[121] Another Egyptian professor, Farag Fuda, was killed in 1992 by masked men after criticizing Muslim fundamentalists and announcing plans to form a new movement for Egyptians of all religions.[122]
Some widely held interpretations of Islam are inconsistent with Human Rights conventions that recognize the right to change religion.[123][124]
In particular article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [125] states:
| “ | Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. | ” |
To implement this, Article 18 (2) of the ICCPR states:
| “ | No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion of his choice. | ” |
The right for Muslims to change their religion is not afforded by the Iranian Shari'ah law, which specifically forbids it [126][124][123]
Muslim countries such as Sudan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, have the death penalty for apostasy from Islam.[127].
These countries have criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of non-Western countries.
In 1990, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference published a separate Cairo Declaration of Human Rights compliant with Shari'ah.[128]. Although granting many of the rights in the UN declaration, it does not grant Muslims the right to convert to other religions, and restricts freedom of speech to those expressions of it that are not in contravention of the Islamic law.
Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami,[129] wrote a book called Human Rights in Islam[130], in which he argues that respect for human rights has always been enshrined in Sharia law (indeed that the roots of these rights are to be found in Islamic doctrine)[131] and criticizes Western notions that there is an inherent contradiction between the two.[132]. Western scholars have, for the most part, rejected Maududi's analysis.[133][134] [135]
Many have asserted that "women are not treated as equal members" of Muslim societies [10] and have criticized Islam for condoning this treatment.[11] The term "Muslim apartheid" has been used to highlight religious isolation in France as well as gender segregation practices.[136][137]
The Catholic Church has warned christian women about marrying Muslim men because of the "inferior" status of women in Muslim countries and the nonexistence of maternal rights to children. [7]
 |
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (June 2008) |
Critics such as Muslim lesbian activist Irshad Manji[138], former muslim Ehsan Jami and the Dutch Muslim-born politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali have criticized Islam's attitudes towards homosexuals. Most international human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, condemn Islamic laws that make homosexual relations between consenting adults a crime. Since 1994 the United Nations Human Rights Committee has also ruled that such laws violated the right to privacy guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However (except for nations such as Turkey that were required to change their laws to be eligible to join the European Union) most Muslim nations insist that such laws are necessary to preserve Islamic morality and virtue.[139]
Despite claims that the sources of Islam demand it to be a "religion of peace" with violence being regulated by laws of Jihad, it has been criticised for its followers exhibiting intolerance and violence towards critics (often viewed as being pejorative of Islam and its Prophet[140]):
The immigration of Muslims to European countries has increased g
