an the moon.

(Koran 67:3-5)
He Who created the seven heavens, one above the
other...And WE have adorned the lowest heaven with
lamps ...

(Koran 71:15-16)
Do you not see how God has created the seven heavens
one above the other, and made the moon a light in their
midst, and made the sun as a lamp?

(Koran 71:41:12)
And He completed the seven heavens in two
days and inspired in each heaven its command;
and We adorned the lower heaven with lamps,
and rendered it guarded...

Firstly, the Koran states that there are seven heavens in

universe. Any sane person who has studied a bit of Modern
Astronomy can tell that the conception of seven heavens
was nothing but a result of Mohammed's absurd imagination.
Muslim compliers try to cover up this serious flaw in the
Koran by saying that the expression should be considered
poetic rather than scientific.

Secondly, Koran claims that the stars are in a lower or even

lowest heaven, while the moon is in a middle heaven. Even
a child in primary standard knows today that the stars are
much much further away from the earth than the moon.

Solomon listens to ants

The Koran talks about an incident where Solomon listens to

ants while they are "talking".
(Koran 27:18-19)
At length, when they came to a valley of ants, one of
the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations,
lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot)
without knowing it."

So he smiled amused at her speech; and he said: "O my

Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favours,
which Thou has bestowed on me and on my parents, and
that I may work the righteousness that will please Thee: And
admit me, by Thy Grace to the ranks of Thy Righteous
Servants."

This in deed is a new discovery by Mohammed about ants

which directly contradicts the scientific fact that ants
communicate using smells, not modulation of sounds.
Solomon could not have heard any talk since ants do not
produce any sound.

d from a clot of blood

(Koran 23:14)
Then WE made the sperm into a clot of congealed
blood; then of that clot We made a (fetus) lump;
then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the
bones with flesh
This is scarcely a scientific description of embryonic
development. It ignores to mention the female egg (the
second and equally important half) and the process of
fertilization when egg and sperm unite to form one new cell.

It mentions the obvious (the sperm), the visible, that which

all mankind knew for a long time which is necessary to
create a human. But the Koran does NOT mention the
invisible (the female egg), which we know only through
modern medicine.

Koran also teaches us that the Sun sets in a muddy spring.

(Koran 18:86)
Till, when he [the traveler Zul-qarnain]
reached the setting-place of the sun,
he found it going down into a muddy spring...

(Koran 18:90)
Till, when he reached the rising-place of the
sun, he found it rising on a people for whom
WE had appointed no shelter from it.

Firstly, It is scientifically proven that the sun does not go

down in a muddy spring.

Secondly, this seems to presuppose a flat earth, otherwise

how can there be an extreme point in the West or in the
East? It does not say, he went as far as possible on land in
these directions and then observed the sun-rise or sun-set
while standing at this shore. A sunrise there would be
basically just the same as at any other place on this earth, at
land or sea. It would still look as if it is setting "far away". It
does say, that he reached THE PLACE where the sun sets
and in his second journey the place where it rises.
.

Why Mountains Were Created?

Koran clearly explains that mountains were set on the earth

so that the earth does not shake when earthquakes take
place.

(Koran 21:31)
And We have set on the earth firm mountains, lest it should
shake with them

(Koran 16:15)
And He has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it should
shake with you..

(Koran 31:10)
He has created the heavens without supports that you can
see, and has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it should
shake with you..

It's very obvious that Mohammed was completely ignorant

about the geological reasoning for existence of
mountains. He saw that mountains are huge and heavy. So
a good way to explain their existence is to say that
mountains prevent earthquakes.

Firstly, this particular reason for existence of mountains is a

direct contradiction with modern Geology. Geology proves
to us that movement of tectonic plates or earthquake
itself causes mountains to be formed.
Secondly, if mountains are created to stop the earth from
shaking why several dozens of earthquakes happen every
year?

Moon Has Its Own Light?

Koran reveals to us that moon has its own light!

(Koran 10:5)
It is He who made the sun to be a shining glory and
the moon to be a light...

Everyone in the modern world knows that moon does not

have any light of its own.

not have any light of its own.

Everything is Created in Pairs?

The following verse tells us that Allah created everything in

pairs. For example, sex in plants and animals, day and night,
forces of attraction and repulsion, etc.

(Koran 51:49)
And of every thing WE have created pairs:
that ye may receive instruction.

However, Mohammed in his simplistic observation of the

world did not notice that there are some things in this world
which are not in pairs. For example, bacteria, fungi
imperfecti, etc. are members of the Monera Kingdom and
reproduce asexually only! The European population of
Elodea consists of plants of the same sex as well and
therefore they also reproduce through asexual means.

Another example of things not in pairs is the gravitational

force. The gravitational force is an attractive force. It does
not have a counterpart. There is no such thing as repelling
gravity.

Gospel Existed During The Time Of Moses?

(Koran 7:157)
Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered
Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own
(Scriptures),- in the Taurant and the Gospel...

Notice that the above verse is in present tense and thus the
obvious problem is that the Gospel was not yet revealed at
that time!

Is Wine Good Or Bad?

In one sura we find that wine is Satan's handiwork.

(Koran 5:90)
...Intoxicants (wine) and gambling...are of Satan's
handiwork...

But then in other suras Koran says there are rivers of wine in
Paradise.

(Koran 47:15)
Here is a Parable of the Garden, which the righteous
are promised. In it are...rivers of wine...

My question is: how did Satan manage to introduce his

handiwork in Paradise?

Is Homosexuality Allowed In Islam?

The Koran contradicts itself on this topic as well. The

following verses state that homosexuality is forbidden.

(Koran 4:16)
If two men among you is guilty of lewdness, punish
them both...

(Koran 27:55)
Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather
than Women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!

Now the verses below are in clear contradiction of the above

verses.

(Koran 52:24)
Round about them will serve, to them, boys
(handsome) as pearls well-guarded.
(Koran 56:17)
Round about them will serve boys of perpetual
freshness.

(Koran 76:19)
And round about them will serve boys of perpetual
freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think
them scattered pearls.

Mohammed could not make up his mind about Sodomy. He

prohibits it on earth, but then he says that Muslims can enjoy
homosexuality in Paradise. It is a well established fact that
many famous Muslims were practicing homosexuals who
looked towards the Koran to justify their actions. For
example, Babar, the moghul king was madly in love with a
young boy named Baburi. Kuttubuddin Aibak, another
Muslim ruler of India used to dress up as a woman and
dance in a vulgar manner.

Another example is Abu Nuwas--one of the greatest poets in

Arabic language writes in the Perfumed Garden:

O the joy of sodomy! So now be sodomites, you Arabs.

Turn not away from it--therein is wondrous pleasure.
Take some coy lad with kiss-curls twisting on his temple
and ride as he stands like some gazelle standing to her
mate.

-A lad whom all can see girt with sword and belt
not like your whore who has to go veiled.

Make for smooth-faced boys and do your very best

to mount them, for women are the mounts of the devils.
There are other such poems by Abu Nuwas and others,
which are more graphic in glorifying homosexuality and
lesbianism.
historical authenticity

See also: History of the Quran and Historicity of Muhammad

Most Muslims believe that the Quran is the literal word of Allah as
recited to 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

See also: Wahy, Quran and miracles, and Legends and the Quran

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

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

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

Naskh (‫ )نسخ‬is 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 Allah 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

Main article: Satanic Verses

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

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

See also: Islamic ethics

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

Main article: Quran and violence

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

Main articles: Islam and Domestic violence and An-Nisa, 34

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 film Submission, which rose to fame after the murder of its
director Theo van Gogh, 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

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

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