Hello.
As there seem to be quite a few Muslim apologists here I thought I would ask a question… I do not intend these criticisms to be “gottcha’s” and I hope this does not turn into a “Bash Islam” thread.
Hi there. I might be making a huge mistake by answering you now, though the thread is already many pages long, and I haven’t read any post past this first one. But let me take a shot… if you don’t mind.
1-Jihad. Many Muslim intellectuals have said that there is not religious doctrine so misunderstood in the west as what Muslims mean by Jihad. I fully agree with them. … Many Muslims I have talked to say that Islam only condones defensive Jihad. I believe this is correct with respect to the Shia’ to a limited respect. Yet Sura 9:29 does seem to clearly advocate aggressive military expeditions… Any thoughts or illuminations on this subject would be appreciated.
I shortened it so I can respond in a single post. First of all Jihad is a broad concept, the word itself rooted in the meaning ‘to struggle.’ It can be a spiritual struggle–against one’s self, against Satan for instance–and it can also be a physical struggle. When physical, it can be defensive, or it can be offensive. There
is such a thing as an offensive jihad. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s look briefly at the history of Islam during the life of Muhammad:
During the first 13 years, he lived in Mecca, and though the Muslims were fiercely persecuted and tortured,
they were not allowed to fight back. When they migrated to Medina, and Islam was established for ruling the city as well (ie., legal instead of just spiritual teachings), then the Muslims were first
allowed to fight those who were fighting them. They were allowed to fight, but only a specific group who was already attacking them. Basically, they were now allowed to fight defensively. Later on, they were granted permission (or even commanded by God) to fight
offensively. But the reason why they were told to fight is actually really important. As you probably know, Muslims aren’t allowed to force anyone to be a Muslim–that’s why jihad is misunderstood. What the Muslims could fight for was actually freedom of religion. If some state were not allowing people freedom of religion, if they weren’t allowing people to be Muslim or to learn Islam, then they were in a way oppressing them. So the Muslims were to fight them until the people were free of that oppression. And that is the only reason. As the Qur’an says, oppression is worse than slaughter.
2-The transmission of Hadith. I think there is reasonable evidence that the Qur’an we now have is more or less the Qur’an of Muhammad. As to the Hadith, however, I just don’t see how anyone could consider them realiable enough to be a “living Qur’an" …
There is a whole science to studying the transmission of Hadith, to determine what is authentic, what has been fabricated, and reports are given degrees of strength by the compilers. Many hadiths are known to be fabricated, or weak perhaps because of a weak narrator–someone who tended to report hadith without checking out the narrator for example. Some people are known for making things up. All the narrators are investigated, in the chain, as well as the text itself to ensure it doesn’t conflict with something else. Many of the hadith are also multiply transmitted, by so many people through so many chains it’s practically impossible for them to be false.
3-Factual errors. The Qur’an, as I recall, joins the Bible in claiming creation was an event that occurred over six days. It also says God made man out of a blood clot. It seems to suppose that the sun revolves around the earth etc.
Six periods of time is more accurate than six “days,” if you mean, by day, a 24-hr measure. The Qur’an doesn’t necessarily mean that. And when you see “clot,” it could mean a clump of clay, right? But not blood clot–when talking about blood, at least as far as I’m aware, it’s talking about a hanging sticky leech-like thing (sucks nourishment from it’s mother) and not actually a literal
clot. The sun going around the earth interpretation of one passage does exist, though in small circles only. It’s not widely held, so that
interpretation is considered faulty.
4-Free will. Does Islam say men and women have free will? Of course it seems that the Qur’an goes back and forth on this matter. …
I haven’t studied aqeedah with Ash’ari or Mu’tazilite schools, so I could be wrong here, but the way I was taught, there is no contradiction. Basically, when a person
decides not to believe (using free will), then God responds by sealing his heart. That person wants to disbelieve, so God encourages them in that path, you could say. But if a person wants to believe, then God can guide them to Islam. Through free will they decided to believe, or try to believe, and so God opens their heart to guidance.
5-Concubines. Shabbir Akhtar has pointed out that the Qur’an does not initiate the practice of concubinage but simply regulates it and that consequently Muslims are free to disregard the whole ugly practice. While this is encouraging, and the Qur’an has many wonderful passages extolling the merits of freeing conscripted individuals, it still seems a moral failing that Muslims men may impose themselves upon those “their right hands possesses”.
I appreciate the fact that slavery has been abolished. The way I understand these verses is that it was a cultural practice not so much condoned by the Qur’an but regulated so it would eventually disappear. Yet, if it had been abolished at that time, the people might not have been able to handle the change.
