Part of a series on
Qur'an
Text Chapter (Sura) List of chapters Meccan Medinan Verse Juz Muqatta'at
Content God Eschatology Prophets in the Quran Quran and miracles Quran and science Legends Female figures Parables in the Quran
Quran reading Tajwid Tarteel Hafiz Reciter Variant readings
Translation List of translations English translations
History History of the Quran Samarkand Kufic Quran Sana'a manuscript Topkapi manuscript
Qur’anic exegesis Persons related to verses mentioned by name Occasions of revelation Abrogation Biblical narratives Esoteric interpretation Qur'anic hermeneutics
Related Inimitability Qur'an and tradition Qur'anism Shi’a Createdness Criticism
v t e

While the Quran is the scriptural foundation of Islam, criticism of the Quran has frequently occurred. Critics have made allegations of scientific, theological, and historical errors, claims of contradictions in the Quran and criticisms of the Quran's moral values.

Historical authenticity[edit]

Most Muslims believe that the Quran is the literal word of Allah as recited to Prophet Muhammad through the angel Gabriel. 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 Quranic text available today corresponds exactly to that revealed to Muhammad in the years 610–632.^[1]

Maurice Bucaille states in The Bible, The Qur'an and Science that "The Quranic Revelation has a history which is fundamentally different from the other two. It spanned a period of some twenty years and, as soon as it was transmitted to Muhammad by Archangel Gabriel, Believers learned it by heart. It was also written down during Muhammad's life. The last recensions of the Quran were effected under Caliph Uthman starting some twelve years after the Prophet's death and finishing twenty-four years after it. They had the advantage of being checked by people who already knew the text by heart, for they had learned it at the time of the Revelation itself and had subsequently recited it constantly. Since then, we know that the text has been scrupulously preserved. It does not give rise to any problems of authenticity."^[2]

John Wansbrough believes that the Quran is a redaction in part of other sacred scriptures, in particular the Judaeo-Christian scriptures.^[3][4] In their book Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook challenge the traditional account of how the Quran was compiled, writing that "there is no hard evidence for the existence of the Koran in any form before the last decade of the seventh century."^[5] They also question the accuracy of some of the Quran's historical accounts. For example, professor Gerd R. Puin's study of ancient Quran manuscripts led him to conclude that the Quran is a "cocktail of texts", some of which may have been present a hundred years before Muhammad.^[5]

Quran from the 9th century. It was alleged to be a 7th-century original from Uthman era

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."^[6]

It is generally acknowledged that the work of Crone and Cook was a fresh approach in its reconstruction of early Islamic history, but the theory has been almost universally rejected.^[7] Van Ess has dismissed it stating that "a refutation is perhaps unnecessary since the authors make no effort to prove it in detail ... Where they are only giving a new interpretation of well-known facts, this is not decisive. But where the accepted facts are consciously put upside down, their approach is disastrous."^[8] R. B. Serjeant states that "[Crone and Cook's thesis]… is not only bitterly anti-Islamic in tone, but anti-Arabian. Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at first one wonders if it is just a 'leg pull', pure 'spoof'."^[9] Francis Edwards Peters states that "Few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words".^[10]

In 2006, legal scholar Liaquat Ali Khan claimed that Crone and Cook later explicitly disavowed their earlier book.^[11][12] Patricia Crone in an article published in 2006 provided an update on the evolution of her conceptions since the printing of the thesis in 1976. In the article she acknowledges that Muhammad existed as a historical figure and that the Quran represents "utterances" of his that he believed to be revelations. However she states that the Quran may not be the complete record of the revelations. She also accepts that oral histories and Muslim historical accounts cannot be totally discounted, but remains skeptical about the traditional account of the Hijrah and the standard view that Muhammad and his tribe were based in Mecca. She describes the difficulty in the handling of the hadith because of their "amorphous nature" and purpose as documentary evidence for deriving religious law rather than as historical narratives.^[13]

The author of the Apology of al-Kindy Abd al-Masih ibn Ishaq al-Kindi (not the famed philosopher al-Kindi) claimed that the narratives in the Quran were "all jumbled together and intermingled" and that this was "an evidence that many different hands have been at work therein, and caused discrepancies, adding or cutting out whatever they liked or disliked".^[14] Bell and Watt suggested that the variation in writing style throughout the Quran, which sometimes involves the use of rhyming, may have indicated revisions to the text during its compilation. They claimed that there were "abrupt changes in the length of verses; sudden changes of the dramatic situation, with changes of pronoun from singular to plural, from second to third person, and so on".^[15] At the same time, however, they noted that "[i]f any great changes by way of addition, suppression or alteration had been made, controversy would almost certainly have arisen; but of that there is little trace." They also note that "Modern study of the Quran has not in fact raised any serious question of its authenticity. The style varies, but is almost unmistakable."^[16]

Claim of divine origin[edit]

Critics reject the idea that the Quran 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)."^[17] 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."^[17] 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."^[18] According to Moshe Sharon, the story of Muhammad having Jewish teachers is a legend developed in 10th century A.D.^[19] Philip Schaff described the Quran as having "many passages of poetic beauty, religious fervor, and wise counsel, but mixed with absurdities, bombast, unmeaning images, low sensuality."^[20]

Confusion over speaker of certain verses[edit]

Bell and Watt thought that cases where the speaker is swearing an oath by God, such as surahs 75:1-2 and 90:1, seem unlikely to be coming from God. Verses 19:64 and 37:161-166 were spoken by angels, describing their being sent by God down to Earth but this all is only limited to his own thought.^[21]

Science in the Quran[edit]

Quranic verses 3:59, 35:11, 96:2, 20:55, 6:1, 24:45, 15:26, 7:11, and 19:67 are all related to the origin of mankind. Some critics of Islam and many Muslims state that the Quran and modern evolutionary theory are not compatible.^[22][23] This has led to a contribution by Muslims to the creation vs. evolution debate.^[24] Some Muslims have pointed to certain Quranic verses (such as 21:30, 71:13–14, 29:19–20, 6:133–135, 10:4) that they think are in fact compatible with evolutionary science,^[25] but others think that only creationism is supported by the Quran and the hadith.^[26]

Ahmad Dallal, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, writes that many modern Muslims believe that the Quran does make scientific statements, however many classical Muslim commentators and scientists, notably al-Biruni, assigned to the Quran a separate and autonomous realm of its own and held that the Quran "does not interfere in the business of science nor does it infringe on the realm of science."^[27] These medieval scholars argued for the possibility of multiple scientific explanation of the natural phenomena, and refused to subordinate the Quran to an ever-changing science.^[27]

Abrogation[edit]

Naskh (نسخ) 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 (الناسخ والمنسوخ, "the abrogater and the abrogated [verses]"). The concept of "abrogation" in the Quran is that God chose to reveal ayat (singular ayah; means a sign or miracle, commonly a verse in the Quran) that supersede earlier ayat in the same Quran. 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?"^[28]

Philip Schaff argues that the concept of abrogation was developed to "remove" contradictions found in the Quran:

"It abounds in repetitions and contradictions, which are not removed by the convenient theory of abrogation."^[20]

Muhammad Husayn Tabatabaei believes abrogation in Quranic verses is not an indication of contradiction but an indication of addition and supplementation. As an example he mentions 2:109^[29] 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^[29] where the abrogated verse indicates its temporariness.^[30]

Satanic verses[edit]

Some criticism of the Quran has revolved around what are 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 goddesses worshiped by the Meccans. These histories then say that these 'Satanic Verses' were repudiated shortly afterward by Muhammad at the behest of Gabriel.^[31] 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."^[32] On the other hand, John Burton rejected the tradition. In an inverted culmination of Watt's approach, Burton argued for its fictitiousness based upon a demonstration of its actual utility to certain elements of the Muslim community – namely, those legal exegetes seeking an "occasion of revelation" for eradicatory modes of abrogation.^[33]

The incident of the Satanic Verses is put forward by some critics as evidence of the Quran'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,^[34] linking it with the moment at which Muhammad felt able to adopt a "hostile attitude" towards the pagan Arabs.^[35] 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".^[36] 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 goddesses would lead to the failure of the cause, of the mission he had been given by God."^[37]

"If it [i.e. the Quran] had been from someone other than God, they would have found much contradiction in it." This encouragement of Muhammad's enemies to claim inconsistency and contradiction, is argued, was pronounced in a hostile environment during the Quran's revelation.^[38]

Intended audience[edit]

Some verses of the Quran 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 Quran's explicit intended audiences are irrelevant to claims of divine origin - and for example that Muhummad's wives "specific divine guidance, occasioned by their proximity to the Prophet (Muhammad)" where "Numerous divine reprimands addressed to Muhammad's wives in the Quran establish their special responsibility to overcome their human frailties and ensure their individual worthiness",^[39] or argue that the Quran must be interpreted on more than one level.^[40] (See:^[41]).

Morality[edit]

According to some critics, the morality of the Quran, 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."^[42] 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."^[43]

War and peace[edit]

This section contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (March 2012)

The Quran's teachings on matters of war and peace have become topics of heated discussion in recent years. On the one hand, some critics interpret that certain verses of the Quran sanction military action against unbelievers as a whole both during the lifetime of Muhammad and after. For instance, Sam Harris interprets certain verses of the Quran as sanctioning military action against unbelievers as a whole both during the lifetime of Muhammad and after. The Quran said "fight in the name of your religion with those who fight against you."^[44] In The End of Faith Harris argues that Muslim extremism is simply a consequence of taking the Qur'an literally, and is skeptical that moderate Islam is possible.^[45] On the other hand, other scholars argue that such verses of the Quran are interpreted out of context,^[46][47] and Muslims of the Ahmadiyya movement argue that when the verses are read in context it clearly appears that the Quran prohibits aggression,^[48][49][50] and allows fighting only in self-defense.^[51][52]

Kim Ezra Shienbaum and Jamal Hasan have claimed that a concept of 'Jihad', defined as 'struggle', has been introduced by the Quran. They claim that while Muhummad 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 Quran were made with respect to Jihad" when Muhammad was in Medina (8:38-39, 8:65, 9:29-30, 48:16-22, 4:95, 9:111, 2:216-218, 8:15-17, 9:123, 8:12, 9:5, 2:190-194, 9:73).^[53] This interpretation of events is strongly disputed by other scholars^[who?], claiming an intention of encouraging self-defense in Islamic communities.

Micheline R. Ishay has argued that "the Quran 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" (9:12-15, 42:39).^[54] Mufti M. Mukarram Ahmed has also argued that the Quran encourages people to fight in self-defense (9:38-41, 9:36-37, 4:74). He has also argued that the Quran has been used to direct Muslims to make all possible preparations to defend themselves against enemies (8:60).^[55]

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" (4:90, 8:61, 60:8).^[56] Yohanan Friedmann has argued that the Quran 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 God" (8:57-62).^[57]

Rodrigue Tremblay has argued that the Quran commands that non-Muslims under a Muslim regime, should "feel themselves subdued" in "a political state of subservience" (4:89). He also argues that the Quran may assert freedom within religion (2:256).^[58] Nisrine Abiad has argued that the Quran incorporates the offence (and due punishment) of "rebellion" into the offence of "highway or armed robbery" (5:33).^[59]

George W. Braswell has argued that the Quran asserts an idea of Jihad to deal with "a sphere of disobedience, ignorance and war" (47:4, 49:15, 2:244-245).^[60]

Michael David Bonner has argued that the "deal between God 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" (9:52).^[61] Critics have argued that the Quran "glorified Jihad in many of the Medinese suras" and "criticized those who fail(ed) to participate in it" (47:20-21).^[62]

Ali Ünal has claimed that the Quran 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."^[63][64]

A critic^[who?] has argued that in "duty to halt aggression or to strive for the preservation of Islamic principles", fighting may be involved, where the Quran encourages them to "fight courageously and steadfastly against recalcitrant states, be they Muslim or non-Muslim."^[65][66] He also argues that the "Quranic 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 "God grants security to those Muslims who fight in order to halt or repel aggression" (22:39-42).^[67]

Shaikh M. Ghazanfar argues that the Quran 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" (fighting inclusive) (73:20).^[68] Shabbir Akhtar has argued that the Quran asserts that if a people "fear Muhammad more than they fear God, 'they are a people lacking in sense'" rather than a fear being imposed upon them by God directly (59:13).^[69]

Various calls to arms were identified in the Quran by US citizen Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, all of which were cited as "most relevant to my actions on March 3, 2006" (9:44, 9:19, 57:10-11, 8:72-73, 9:120, 3:167-175, 4:66, 4:104, 9:81, 9:93-94, 9:100, 16:110, 61:11-12, 47:35).^[70]

Violence against women[edit]

Verse 4:34 of the Quran as translated by Ali Quli Qara'i reads:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.^[71]

The Dutch film Submission, which rose to fame outside the Netherlands after the murder of its director Theo van Gogh by Muslim extremist Mohammed Bouyeri, critiqued this and similar verses of the Quran by displaying them painted on the bodies of abused Muslim women.^[72] 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".^[73]

Scholars of Islam have a variety of responses to these criticisms. (See An-Nisa, 34 for a fuller exegesis on the meaning of the text.) Although the Quran does allow a husband to punish his wife for transgressing the bounds given to her by God, the Quran and Muhammad still put forth the prescription that the man is only allowed to hit the woman so lightly that it would not leave as much as a faint mark upon her, otherwise the man has himself transgressed divine bounds.^{[citation needed]} Some Muslims argue that beating is only appropriate if a woman has done "an unrighteous, wicked and rebellious act" beyond mere disobedience.^[74] In many modern interpretations of the Quran, the actions prescribed in 4:34 are to be taken in sequence, and beating is only to be used as a last resort.^[75][76][77]

Many Islamic scholars and commentators have emphasized that beatings, where permitted, are not to be harsh^[78][79][80] or even that they should be "more or less symbolic."^[81] According to Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Ibn Kathir, the consensus of Islamic scholars is that the above verse describes a light beating.^[82][83]

Some jurists argue that even when beating is acceptable under the Quran, it is still discountenanced.^[84][85][86]

Shabbir Akhtar has argued that the Quran introduced prohibitions against "the pre-Islamic practice of female infanticide" (16:58, 17:31, 81:8).^[87]

Sunni scholars would argue that the Quran and sunnah must be used in conjunction.^{[citation needed]} The hadith state that the only permitted form of beating is a miswaak, a piece of olive branch used for cleaning the teeth, approximately 8 centimetres in length.^{[citation needed]}

Houris[edit]

Max I. Dimont interprets that the Houris described in the Quran are specifically dedicated to "male pleasure".^[88] Henry Martyn claims that the concept of the Houris was chosen to satisfy Mohammed's followers.^[89]

Alternatively, Annemarie Schimmel says that the Quranic description of the Houris should be viewed in a context of love; "every pious man who lives according to God's order will enter Paradise where rivers of milk and honey flow in cool, fragrant gardens and virgin beloveds await home..."^[90] She also states that the sensuality pictured in the Quran is comparable to that offered in sermons by the Eastern Orthodox Church; "its description of Paradise, so often attacked by Christian polemicists because of its sensuality, the Quran is not much more colourful than were the sermons on this topic in the Eastern Orthodox Church". She also emphasises that "women and children too participate in the paradisal bliss" (52:21).

Under the Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Quran 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".^[91] Alternate interpretations of these Quranic verses are offered, 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" and "later literature is able to give many more details of their physical beauty... they are so transparent that the marrow of their bones is visible through sev-enty silken garments. If they expectorate into the world, their spittle becomes musk...".

Christians and Jews in the Quran[edit]

According to Islam, Christianity is the natural successor of Judaism, making it invalid and Islam is the natural successor of these two by invalidating them and all other religion as God only amended the single course of Monotheism when people went astray or made their religion corrupt, as Surah Fatiha states:

"Guide us to the Straight Way. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace , not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians)." Quran 1:6-7, (Muhsin Khan translation)

These distinctions are clearly explained in Surah Al Bayyinah (Quran: 98)

All other ways, religion are not correct or acceptable to God, according to Islam. Proofs are evident in:

"And they say, "None will enter Paradise except one who is a Jew or a Christian." That is [merely] their wishful thinking, Say, "Produce your proof, if you should be truthful." Quran 2:111

"And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers." Quran 3:85

On three occasions in the Quran, it has been said that followers of other religions do not like Islam as it succeeded their corrupt faith.

"It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion. And sufficient is Allah as Witness." Quran 48:28

For similar references, see also Quran 9:33 and Quran 61:9

According to the Quran, Islam historically has no conflict whatsoever with other monotheistic religions as all previous prophets are mentioned as 'Muslims' in Islam and they are equally revered as the Quran states:

"And remember Our slaves, Ibrahim (Abraham), Ishaque (Isaac), and Ya'qub (Jacob), (all) owners of strength (in worshipping Us) and (also) of religious understanding. Verily, We did choose them by granting them (a good thing, i.e.) the remembrance of the home [in the Hereafter and they used to make the people remember it, and also they used to invite the people to obey Allah and to do good deeds for the Hereafter]. And they are with Us, verily, of the chosen and the best! And remember Isma'il (Ishmael), Al-Yasa'a (Elisha), and Dhul-Kifl (usually identified as Ezekiel, but also as Joshua, Obadiah or Isaiah), all are among the best." Quran 38:45-48

"And that was Our Proof which We gave Ibrahim (Abraham) against his people. We raise whom We will in degrees. Certainly your Lord is All-Wise, All-Knowing. And We bestowed upon him Ishaque (Isaac) and Ya'qub (Jacob), each of them We guided, and before him, We guided Nuh (Noah), and among his progeny Dawud (David), Sulaiman (Solomon), Ayub (Job), Yusuf (Joseph), Musa (Moses), and Harun (Aaron). Thus do We reward the good-doers. And Zakariya (Zachariya), and Yahya (John) and 'Iesa (Jesus) and Iliyas (Elias), each one of them was of the righteous. And Isma'il (Ishmael) and Al-Yas'a (Elisha), and Yunus (Jonah) and Lout (Lot), and each one of them We preferred above the 'Alamin (mankind and jinns) (of their times). And also some of their fathers and their progeny and their brethren, We chose them, and We guided them to a Straight Path." Quran 6: 83-87

But people who still follow them are, according to Islam, on the wrong way because what was revealed to them at that time either became corrupt or does not exist in present day what the followers claim.

"And they say, "Be Jews or Christians, then you will be guided." Say (to them, O Muhammad Peace be upon him ), "Nay, (We follow) only the religion of Ibrahim (Abraham), Hanifa [Islamic Monotheism, i.e. to worship none but Allah (Alone)], and he was not of Al-Mushrikun (those who worshipped others along with Allah - see V.2:105)." Quran 2:135

But it is solely Allah's jurisdiction to judge Jews, Christians or followers of previous scriptures as the Quran states:

"The Jews say "The Christians have nothing [true] to stand on," and the Christians say, "The Jews have nothing to stand on," although they [both] recite the Scripture. Thus the polytheists speak the same as their words. But Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ." Quran 2:113

See also[edit]

• Islam: What the West Needs to Know
• Islam and science
• Creation–evolution controversy
• Criticism of the Bible
• The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Koran
• War against Islam

Criticism

• Apostasy in Islam
• Censorship by religion
• Criticism of Muhammad
• Criticism of the Morality of Islam
• Homosexuality and Islam
• Islam and antisemitism
• Islam and domestic violence
• Islamic views on slavery
• Islamic terrorism
• Islamofascism
• Women in Islam

Controversies

• Islamic view of Ezra, concerns the claim in surah 9:30 of the Quran that the Jews believe Ezra (Uzair) is the son of God

References[edit]

External links[edit]

This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (August 2010)

We're sorry, but there's no news about "Criticism of the Quran" right now.