H
Holly3278
Guest
Hi everyone. What are some of the most major flaws of Islam? 
- Status
L
LaMar
Guest
Hi Holly,
sexism, particularly misogyny
homophobia
If you criticize the culture of Muslims, you could name a couple of others, such as:
lack of tolerance (Salman Rushdie, Danish cartoons, etc.)
a hostility toward intellectual exploration.
These are not strictly religious arguments, but they do apply.
All of those points could be used equally well with my tradition, and yours, so it’s helpful to see that the problems are larger than Islam.
I’m not a Muslim, but if I were to write a critique about Islam I would probably list:Hi everyone. What are some of the most major flaws of Islam?
sexism, particularly misogyny
homophobia
If you criticize the culture of Muslims, you could name a couple of others, such as:
lack of tolerance (Salman Rushdie, Danish cartoons, etc.)
a hostility toward intellectual exploration.
These are not strictly religious arguments, but they do apply.
All of those points could be used equally well with my tradition, and yours, so it’s helpful to see that the problems are larger than Islam.
G
Genesis315
Guest
The major flaw is the denial of the Incarnation. All their other errors flow from this.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Neither misogyny nor homophobia has any part in Islam.
L
LaMar
Guest
Your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters:Neither misogyny nor homophobia has any part in Islam.
al-fatiha.org/
irshadmanji.com/
would disagree with you.
Like I mentioned above, it’s a criticism of Islam but it isn’t strictly an Islamic thing. It’s more a Jewish/Christian/Islamic/Mormon thing. Not all (or even most) of the adherents of the faiths are woman haters or homophobes, but there’s a definite undercurrent of stone-age ideology which courses through the lot of them.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Dolphinlove, I myself am an ex-Christian. If I started a site against Christianity, would you consider me someone who “knows their stuff” about Christianity, and a good source for other Muslims who want to learn about Christianity?
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Hebrews 1
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
This text along with Rev 22:18-19 closes the door to fulture public revelations like Mo claims.
The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book
by Ibn Warraq (Editor)
What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text… by Ibn Warraq
Quest for the Historical Muhammad by Ibn Warraq
Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq
The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the W… by Robert Spencer
Leaving Islam: Apostates
Ibn Warraq, I understand is a former muslim, so reading his books would tell us the problems he sees with islam.
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
This text along with Rev 22:18-19 closes the door to fulture public revelations like Mo claims.
The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book
by Ibn Warraq (Editor)
What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text… by Ibn Warraq
Quest for the Historical Muhammad by Ibn Warraq
Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq
The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the W… by Robert Spencer
Leaving Islam: Apostates
Ibn Warraq, I understand is a former muslim, so reading his books would tell us the problems he sees with islam.
A
Angelos
Guest
I am an ex-Muslim too. 
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Who here would accept me as an authority about Christianity?
M
morning_star777
Guest
any if you can give authentic information against christianity on an anti christian website then atleast we will read that and will think about that.but i hope as a new muslim you already read many chapters of quran.pls read sura-4:11,12,176.bt read care fully ok?
L
LDNCatholic
Guest
As you were a protestant I might accept some of your views on the particular denomination you belonged to.
M
morning_star777
Guest
amy if you can give authentic information against christianity on an anti christian website then atleast we will read that and will think about that.but i hope as a new muslim you already read many chapters of quran.pls read sura-4:11,12,176.bt read care fully ok?
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
I read (past tense) the entire Qur’an. And I’ve read most of it a couple times at least, and some parts (like the first couple of juz) many times.
By referring me to ayaat (verses) about inheritance I am assuming you think I don’t understand Islamic inheritance Law. But in fact I do understand it (and I would guess probably more than you) and I accept it and embrace it. Reason enough for me to accept Islam again, but as I am already a Muslim I will say: Glorified is Allah, and All Praise is for Him.
By referring me to ayaat (verses) about inheritance I am assuming you think I don’t understand Islamic inheritance Law. But in fact I do understand it (and I would guess probably more than you) and I accept it and embrace it. Reason enough for me to accept Islam again, but as I am already a Muslim I will say: Glorified is Allah, and All Praise is for Him.
D
Delta2
Guest
The biggest flaws for me are :
With thousands of witnesses
There is a big list of catholic saints, what they did, their life
- they don’t have any apparitions reports, as if they prayed to a unknown God that doesn’t want to communicate with them
With thousands of witnesses
- they don’t have a community of saints
There is a big list of catholic saints, what they did, their life
M
MugenOne
Guest
Islam lacks the concept of humility.
**the words **“humble” and “humility” occur rarely in the Koran, and in most cases (7:206 and 17:109) refer not to Muslims but rather to Jews or other conquered peoples, as in “And [the children of Israel] fall down on their faces weeping, and it adds to their humility”, or “We sent [apostles] to nations before you then We seized them with distress and affliction in order that they might humble themselves.” There are a few references to the virtue of being humble before Allah, but not one suggestion that it is good to show humility to other human beings. Nothing like Hannah’s praise of YHWH, (I Samuel 2:28), “You save the humble, but your eyes are on the haughty to bring them low,” occurs in Muslim scripture.
The Muslim submits to Allah, the absolutely transcendent ruler of the universe, in return for his mercy and beneficence. That is why Muslim faith hinges upon success.
That’s why you don’t see great people like Mother Teresa, John Paul II, St Francis, etc., in Islam.
atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK20Ak01.html
**the words **“humble” and “humility” occur rarely in the Koran, and in most cases (7:206 and 17:109) refer not to Muslims but rather to Jews or other conquered peoples, as in “And [the children of Israel] fall down on their faces weeping, and it adds to their humility”, or “We sent [apostles] to nations before you then We seized them with distress and affliction in order that they might humble themselves.” There are a few references to the virtue of being humble before Allah, but not one suggestion that it is good to show humility to other human beings. Nothing like Hannah’s praise of YHWH, (I Samuel 2:28), “You save the humble, but your eyes are on the haughty to bring them low,” occurs in Muslim scripture.
The Muslim submits to Allah, the absolutely transcendent ruler of the universe, in return for his mercy and beneficence. That is why Muslim faith hinges upon success.
That’s why you don’t see great people like Mother Teresa, John Paul II, St Francis, etc., in Islam.
atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK20Ak01.html
A
AntePavelic
Guest
The Qur’an explicitly denies that Jesus was crucified. It claims that the Jews became so confused that they crucified somebody else instead who had the likeness of Christ. It is recorded in the Qur’an 4:15,
“They slew him not nor crucified but it appeared so unto them.”
In his commentary on this verse al-Baydawi said (p. 135),
“A group of Jews cursed Christ and his mother. He invoked evil on them and, may He be exalted, turned them into monkeys and swine. The Jews gathered together to kill him, but God, may He be exalted, informed him (Jesus) that He was going to lift him up to heaven. Thus, (Jesus) said to his companions, `Who would like to have my likeness cast on him and be killed and crucified, then enter the paradise?’ One of them volunteered (to do so) and God cast on him Christ’s likeness. He was then arrested, crucified and killed. It is also said that (the crucified one) was a traitor who went with the mob to guide them to Christ (he meant Judas), thus God cast on him the likeness of Jesus and he was arrested, crucified and killed.”
Al- Baydawi is not the only one who records these mystical stories, but all Muslim scholars who attempt to interpret the above verse, plainly state that Jesus was not crucified. The Qur’an has ignored not only the records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the rest of the New Testament, but also all the other chroniclers. It ignores the history of the Roman Empire which documented that a Jewish man by the name of Jesus was crucified during the time of Pilate the Pontius, the Roman Governor who gave way to the demands of the chief priests of the Jews.
It is well known that Christ’s trial took place in front of the chief priests and the Roman Governor. It is also common knowledge that the arrested man did not remonstrate and say, “I am not Christ, I am Judas who wanted to betray Him and give Him away to you.” All Jesus’ words on the cross denote that He was Christ, especially His statement, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34).
Jesus Himself told His disciples that He must be delivered to the chief priests and be crucified, then He would rise from the dead on the third day. Christ Himself foretold that and the crucifixion was fulfilled according to the many prophecies recorded in the Old Testament which predicted His crucifixion centuries before. Christ came to accomplish God’s plan for man’s salvation.
Therefore, it is not reasonable that six hundred years after Christ’s crucifixion, a man should appear and declare to the world (ignoring all the historical evidence) that the one who was crucified was not Christ. This is similar to a man who comes hundreds of years from now to tell us that the one who was assassinated in the twentieth century was not Martin Luther King (or John F. Kennedy or Zia al-Haqq) but rather someone else who looked like him. Of course, nobody would believe him, even if he claimed that the angel Gabriel (or the thunder angel) revealed it to him.
“They slew him not nor crucified but it appeared so unto them.”
In his commentary on this verse al-Baydawi said (p. 135),
“A group of Jews cursed Christ and his mother. He invoked evil on them and, may He be exalted, turned them into monkeys and swine. The Jews gathered together to kill him, but God, may He be exalted, informed him (Jesus) that He was going to lift him up to heaven. Thus, (Jesus) said to his companions, `Who would like to have my likeness cast on him and be killed and crucified, then enter the paradise?’ One of them volunteered (to do so) and God cast on him Christ’s likeness. He was then arrested, crucified and killed. It is also said that (the crucified one) was a traitor who went with the mob to guide them to Christ (he meant Judas), thus God cast on him the likeness of Jesus and he was arrested, crucified and killed.”
Al- Baydawi is not the only one who records these mystical stories, but all Muslim scholars who attempt to interpret the above verse, plainly state that Jesus was not crucified. The Qur’an has ignored not only the records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the rest of the New Testament, but also all the other chroniclers. It ignores the history of the Roman Empire which documented that a Jewish man by the name of Jesus was crucified during the time of Pilate the Pontius, the Roman Governor who gave way to the demands of the chief priests of the Jews.
It is well known that Christ’s trial took place in front of the chief priests and the Roman Governor. It is also common knowledge that the arrested man did not remonstrate and say, “I am not Christ, I am Judas who wanted to betray Him and give Him away to you.” All Jesus’ words on the cross denote that He was Christ, especially His statement, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34).
Jesus Himself told His disciples that He must be delivered to the chief priests and be crucified, then He would rise from the dead on the third day. Christ Himself foretold that and the crucifixion was fulfilled according to the many prophecies recorded in the Old Testament which predicted His crucifixion centuries before. Christ came to accomplish God’s plan for man’s salvation.
Therefore, it is not reasonable that six hundred years after Christ’s crucifixion, a man should appear and declare to the world (ignoring all the historical evidence) that the one who was crucified was not Christ. This is similar to a man who comes hundreds of years from now to tell us that the one who was assassinated in the twentieth century was not Martin Luther King (or John F. Kennedy or Zia al-Haqq) but rather someone else who looked like him. Of course, nobody would believe him, even if he claimed that the angel Gabriel (or the thunder angel) revealed it to him.
A
AntePavelic
Guest
The Virgin Mary
In many places, the Qur’an mentions Mary as the sister of Moses and Aaron and the daughter of Imran. The Qur’an has confused Jesus’ mother with Aaron’s sister because both of them carry the same name, though there are several centuries between them. The Qur’an indicates that Mary (Christ’s mother) had a brother whose name was Aaron (chapter 19:28) and a father whose name is Imran (chapter 66:12). Their mother was called “the wife of Imran” (chapter 3:35) which eliminates any doubt that it confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary, sister of Aaron.
Muslim scholars acknowledge what happened and they are confused and fail in their desperate attempts to justify this grave error. Their contradictory interpretations fail to help them to find a solution to this dilemma. Let us examine these interpretations to see these conflicting views.
In the context of his comment on the Qur’anic statement that Mary is Aaron’s sister (which is recorded in chapter 19:28), al-Baydawi (p. 405) said,
“Oh, sister of Aaron (the prophet). And she was an offspring of some of those who were with him who belonged to the same class of brotherhood. It was also said that she was one of Aaron’s descendants though there were a thousand years between them. It was said too, that he (Aaron) was a righteous or a wicked man who lived during their time (time of Mary). They likened her to him to ridicule her or to insult her.”
Yet Baydawi’s statement is repealed by the Qur’an because the Qur’an did not refer to a moral relationship but stressed the literal meaning. If the Qur’an had meant to elevate Mary to the same level of Aaron, the prophet, or to the status of a daughter of Imran, why then did it mention that her mother was the wife of Imran as it is recorded in chapter 3:35? It is very obvious that the matter was either confused in the mind of Muhammad or of Gabriel, the angel! It is not acceptable that the Qur’an intended to say that Mary enjoys the same status as a sister of Aaron and a daughter of Imran. Therefore it is impossible to treat Mary (the mother of Jesus) as if she were the sister of Aaron and Moses.
The contemporary scholar who translated the Qur’an which was authorized by the Saudi authorities said (in the introduction of page 47 of chapter of the Family of Imran),
“Al Imran takes its title from v. 32, where
Thus, they fail to explain to us why the Qur’an said that the mother of Mary was the wife of Imran, especially if the Qur’an intended (as they say) to show the moral relationship only. It is an obvious historical mistake, my dear reader, because Mary had no brother named Aaron.
In many places, the Qur’an mentions Mary as the sister of Moses and Aaron and the daughter of Imran. The Qur’an has confused Jesus’ mother with Aaron’s sister because both of them carry the same name, though there are several centuries between them. The Qur’an indicates that Mary (Christ’s mother) had a brother whose name was Aaron (chapter 19:28) and a father whose name is Imran (chapter 66:12). Their mother was called “the wife of Imran” (chapter 3:35) which eliminates any doubt that it confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary, sister of Aaron.
Muslim scholars acknowledge what happened and they are confused and fail in their desperate attempts to justify this grave error. Their contradictory interpretations fail to help them to find a solution to this dilemma. Let us examine these interpretations to see these conflicting views.
In the context of his comment on the Qur’anic statement that Mary is Aaron’s sister (which is recorded in chapter 19:28), al-Baydawi (p. 405) said,
“Oh, sister of Aaron (the prophet). And she was an offspring of some of those who were with him who belonged to the same class of brotherhood. It was also said that she was one of Aaron’s descendants though there were a thousand years between them. It was said too, that he (Aaron) was a righteous or a wicked man who lived during their time (time of Mary). They likened her to him to ridicule her or to insult her.”
Yet Baydawi’s statement is repealed by the Qur’an because the Qur’an did not refer to a moral relationship but stressed the literal meaning. If the Qur’an had meant to elevate Mary to the same level of Aaron, the prophet, or to the status of a daughter of Imran, why then did it mention that her mother was the wife of Imran as it is recorded in chapter 3:35? It is very obvious that the matter was either confused in the mind of Muhammad or of Gabriel, the angel! It is not acceptable that the Qur’an intended to say that Mary enjoys the same status as a sister of Aaron and a daughter of Imran. Therefore it is impossible to treat Mary (the mother of Jesus) as if she were the sister of Aaron and Moses.
The contemporary scholar who translated the Qur’an which was authorized by the Saudi authorities said (in the introduction of page 47 of chapter of the Family of Imran),
“Al Imran takes its title from v. 32, where
the family of Imran' (the father of Moses) occurs as a generic name for all the Hebrew prophets from Moses to John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. This with the mention of the mother of Mary as the wife of Imran’ (v. 34) and the words sister of Aaron' addressed to Mary (XIX.28) have given rise to a charge of anachronism. Some say that the prophet confused Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Mary, the sister of Moses. Most Muslims believe (on the authority of the Qur'an) that the grandfather of Jesus Christ was named Imran’ which may also have been the name of the father of Moses. In Surah XIX 28 where Mary is addressed as `sister of Aaron’, they hold the ancestral sense to be the more probable, while denying that there is any reason to suppose that the virgin Mary had not a brother named Aaron.”Thus, they fail to explain to us why the Qur’an said that the mother of Mary was the wife of Imran, especially if the Qur’an intended (as they say) to show the moral relationship only. It is an obvious historical mistake, my dear reader, because Mary had no brother named Aaron.
A
AntePavelic
Guest
Alexander the Great
It is amazing to see the Qur’an talking about Alexander the Great as if he were a righteous man and a teacher, though it is well-known that the Greek, Alexander, was idolatrous and claimed to be the son of Amun, the God of Egypt. If the reader wonders where it is recorded in the Qur’an that Alexander was a righteous man, we would refer him to the chapter of the Cave 18:83-98 where we encounter sixteen verses which talk about this military general. These verses explicitly say that God assisted him, guided him and removed all obstacles from his way in order that he could accomplish his plans and fulfill his desires. They indicate that Alexander was the one who reached the place of the sunset and found it set down in a well of water and mud. They claim that he encountered some people and God gave him the option to torment them, to kill them or to take them captive, call them to the faith and to lead them in a straight path.
These comments are expressed by all the scholars without any exception (refer to Baydawi, p. 399, al-Jalalan, p. 251, al-Tabari, p. 339, al-Zamakhshari, part 2 of al-Kash-shaf, p. 743). If we do not refer to these great expounders of the Qur’an to whom, then, shall we refer? The Greek Alexander was not a righteous servant of God as the Qur’an said, but he was a licentious, belligerent, idolatrous man. He did not have any relationship with God and God never asked him to guide people and to teach them the faith.
Other Historical Errors
Does the reader believe that Abraham did not offer Isaac, but Ishmael, as a sacrifice? This is what all Muslim scholars say. Do you know that the Qur’an claims that Haman was pharaoh’s prime minister even though Haman lived in Babylon one thousand years later? Yet the Qur’an says so. The Qur’an says that the one who picked Moses from the river was not his sister but his mother (28:6-8), and that a Samaritan was the one who molded the golden calf for the children of Israel and misguided them, and the golden calf was lowing (refer to chapter 20:85-88) though it is well-known that Samaria was not in existence at that time. The Samaritans came after the Babylonian exile. How could one of them have made the golden calf for the people of Israel?
Concerning the birth of Christ, the Qur’an teaches that the Virgin Mary gave birth to him under the shade of a palm tree and not in a manger of sheep (refer to Mary 19:23). The Qur’an ignores all the documented historical evidence available to all people across the ages and brings us new discoveries!
The Qur’an claims (Chapter 2:125-127) that Abraham and Ishmael, his son, are the ones who built The Ka’ba in Mecca in Saudi Arabia. The late Dr. Taha Husayn (the most famous professor of Arabic literature in Egypt) acknowledges that the information recorded in the Qur’an pertaining to the construction of Ka’ba at the hand of Abraham and Ishmael is not historically documented. He said:
“The case of this episode is very obvious because it is of recent date and came into vogue just before the rise of Islam. Islam exploited it for religious reasons” (quoted in Mizan al-Islam by Anwar al-Jundi, p. 170).
This declaration invoked the rage of the Muslim scholars against him. The former president of Tunisia did the same thing when he stated that the Qur’an contains mythical stories. Muslim scholars revolted against him and threatened to kill him because these are Muhammad’s orders - kill anybody who insults the Qur’an. So what could Taha Husayn or Abu Ruqayba [better known in the West as Bourgiba] (or we) do if the Qur’an rejects the most scientifically documented historical stories? Are we supposed to shut up our mouth and close our minds lest we be killed?
It is amazing to see the Qur’an talking about Alexander the Great as if he were a righteous man and a teacher, though it is well-known that the Greek, Alexander, was idolatrous and claimed to be the son of Amun, the God of Egypt. If the reader wonders where it is recorded in the Qur’an that Alexander was a righteous man, we would refer him to the chapter of the Cave 18:83-98 where we encounter sixteen verses which talk about this military general. These verses explicitly say that God assisted him, guided him and removed all obstacles from his way in order that he could accomplish his plans and fulfill his desires. They indicate that Alexander was the one who reached the place of the sunset and found it set down in a well of water and mud. They claim that he encountered some people and God gave him the option to torment them, to kill them or to take them captive, call them to the faith and to lead them in a straight path.
These comments are expressed by all the scholars without any exception (refer to Baydawi, p. 399, al-Jalalan, p. 251, al-Tabari, p. 339, al-Zamakhshari, part 2 of al-Kash-shaf, p. 743). If we do not refer to these great expounders of the Qur’an to whom, then, shall we refer? The Greek Alexander was not a righteous servant of God as the Qur’an said, but he was a licentious, belligerent, idolatrous man. He did not have any relationship with God and God never asked him to guide people and to teach them the faith.
Other Historical Errors
Does the reader believe that Abraham did not offer Isaac, but Ishmael, as a sacrifice? This is what all Muslim scholars say. Do you know that the Qur’an claims that Haman was pharaoh’s prime minister even though Haman lived in Babylon one thousand years later? Yet the Qur’an says so. The Qur’an says that the one who picked Moses from the river was not his sister but his mother (28:6-8), and that a Samaritan was the one who molded the golden calf for the children of Israel and misguided them, and the golden calf was lowing (refer to chapter 20:85-88) though it is well-known that Samaria was not in existence at that time. The Samaritans came after the Babylonian exile. How could one of them have made the golden calf for the people of Israel?
Concerning the birth of Christ, the Qur’an teaches that the Virgin Mary gave birth to him under the shade of a palm tree and not in a manger of sheep (refer to Mary 19:23). The Qur’an ignores all the documented historical evidence available to all people across the ages and brings us new discoveries!
The Qur’an claims (Chapter 2:125-127) that Abraham and Ishmael, his son, are the ones who built The Ka’ba in Mecca in Saudi Arabia. The late Dr. Taha Husayn (the most famous professor of Arabic literature in Egypt) acknowledges that the information recorded in the Qur’an pertaining to the construction of Ka’ba at the hand of Abraham and Ishmael is not historically documented. He said:
“The case of this episode is very obvious because it is of recent date and came into vogue just before the rise of Islam. Islam exploited it for religious reasons” (quoted in Mizan al-Islam by Anwar al-Jundi, p. 170).
This declaration invoked the rage of the Muslim scholars against him. The former president of Tunisia did the same thing when he stated that the Qur’an contains mythical stories. Muslim scholars revolted against him and threatened to kill him because these are Muhammad’s orders - kill anybody who insults the Qur’an. So what could Taha Husayn or Abu Ruqayba [better known in the West as Bourgiba] (or we) do if the Qur’an rejects the most scientifically documented historical stories? Are we supposed to shut up our mouth and close our minds lest we be killed?
D
dolphinlove
Guest
Depends on if your telling the truth or not doesnt it?
Angelos is an exmuslim, should i not believe what he says as well? considering i have done my own research into things and find the truth for myself in any case, and im not talking about wikipedia!
The thing is, these ex muslims see Islam for what it is and dont sugar coat the truth, i find they are more reliable and truthful.
- Status