Normal

From what I can tell Muslim's believe the Bible was the word of God but got edited by human hands throughout the years.

Can someone tell me the common criticisms against the Koran, or a source (on or offline) that has common refutations?

lugotorix

Ibn Warraq (the pseudonym of a "secularist Muslim" writer) is probably the most widely-known author who is both knowlegeable and critical of Islam. The Secular Web has some information about him. His most well-known book is Why I am not a Muslim.

There was also a recent thread about him. Pretty interesting stuff.


lugotorix

dost

Hi everyone.

There are two reviews available of Warraq's work here:

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Muhammad/quest.htm

Prof Doner states:

""Ibn Warraq" like the equally mysterious author of the second essay, on the sources, "Ibn Rawandi" (perhaps one and the same individual?) lacks the rigorous specialist training in Arabic studies that alone could qualify him (her?) to evaluate independently the different schools of interpretation in this field. This inadequacy is revealed by, for example, inconsistent handling of Arabic materials . . . "

More info on the above link. So Ibn Warraq, him/herself, is certainly not "knowledgable" concerning Islam, although he is obviously critical and presents essays by a few revisionist scholars (Crone, Cook, Wansbrough, Rippin etc) in his book together with essays against Islam by Christian missionaries and polemists (such as Mingana, Tisdill etc). Therefore it is considered a pretty much one sided book that presents an incomplete picture of scholarship.

Another review by a recognized scholar, Prof Dutton:

http://afi.org.uk/New%20Articles/1Book%20Review.html

dost

Hello Normal.

"From what I can tell Muslim's believe the Bible was the word of God but got edited by human hands throughout the years. "

"Bible" is not mentioned in the Islamic sources. But Muslims do believe that during the course of its transmission, the Gospels for instance, and other books of the Bible suffered at the hands of the scribes etc. But that some books of the Bible may contain remnants of truth from the original revelations. Similarly, other documents such as the apocrypha etc., may also contains remnants of truth within them from the original revelations. Therefore a wide variety of literature may well contains certain truths within them though they may not be 100% accurate in all their details.

"Can someone tell me the common criticisms against the Koran, or a source (on or offline) that has common refutations?"

Common criticisms are to be found in a number of websites, particularly one known as answering-islam.org. They have a number of papers against the Quran together with some books online, though outdated.

As for offline sources, then you may want to get hold of the works of Arthur Jeffery, the well knwon orientalist, who wrote a great deal on the history of the Quran. His books are often used by missionaries and other critics against the Quran. Other than that, the books by Ibn Warraq basically contain essays written by some revisionist scholars and Christians against the Quran. Though their arguments are not accepted as such by the vast majority of orientalists themselves, they nevertheless contain common criticisms against the Quran. Therefore I think you may find Ibn Warraq of use, since your searching for criticisms.

sodium

I've read both reviews. Donner makes the point that the book contains "inconsistent handling of Arabic materials". Perhaps that is a valid point, but I don't really know much about the subject. His other complaints, however, are easily understood by a non-scholar, because they aren't particularly scholarly.

In fact, sometimes he sounds more than a little shrill. He calls the book a "monument to duplicity" because Waraq remains anonymous, while biographical sketches are given for other contributors (read the review for yourself if you don't believe me).

But Primarily, he is outraged by the fact that the purpose of the book is to throw doubt on the supernatural origins of Islam. I'm sure that is the books purpose, but I don't consider it a serious criticism, and I suspect most of the secularists who read this site would agree. He also calls this agenda intolerant, and one is led to wonder if it is possible to criticise Islam without intolerance, or "gratuitous rudeness to Muslim sensibilities." I can only imagine his opinion of the Secular Web.

The second review (from Dutton) is an overt work of Islamic Apologetics. Not that people don't have the right to state the case for Islam, as I believe they do against, but it's important for non-Muslims to take this into consideration when considering how best to use his authority as a "recognized scholar", who I grant may well be representative of the field of Islamic Studies.

After making some early points similar to those of Donner, Dutton launches into a Muslim version of CS Lewis's Lord / Liar / Lunatic trilemma. Here is a sample of this recognized scholar's analysis (Dutton not Lewis),

To countenance his being an impostor does not, quite frankly, tally with everything we know of the excellence of his human behaviour, nor does it tally with the love that others had for him and the spirit of self-sacrifice expressed so clearly by all who took his path.

Of course, I wouldn't discourage anyone from seeking out views opposed to Waraq's. There's always another side. But I would consider the religious / ideological positions of the reviewers before simply accepting them as experts on the field.

Steven Carr

This appears to be an ad hominem attack

'It is a collection of basically sound articles, framed by a seriously flawed introduction, and put in the service of anti-Islamic polemic dedicated to the proposition that Islam is a sham and that honest scholarship on Islam requires gratuitous rudeness to Muslim sensibilities.'

So the reviewer cannot attack the content of the book, and is reduced to saying that it is anti-Islamic

Normal

Why is there such a lack of resources on this subject?

Is there a more objective review of Warraq's work I could read?

I'll probably check out Warraq's work anyway, it just seems that there are two extreme sides to Islam scholars, with neither side taking a truely objective analysis of the Koran.

chimaira

hello... And this site answers the site "answer-Islam"


http://www.beconvinced.com/RELIGIONINDEX.htm

Toto

Possibly because Muslim critics and revisionists risk having a fatwah issued against them. That's why Ibn Warraq is anonymous.

dost

Helo Mr Carr.

You wrote:

I don't see how stating that Ibn Warraq lacks qualifications in Arabic and thus mishandles sources amounts to ad hominem. Perhaps I am incorrect, in which case your clarification will be much appreciated.

The main objection is that the book contains one sided essays, by polemicist writers (Christian authors such as Rev Tisdall, who was a well known polemicist writer of his time, Mingana etc) and by a few revisionist scholars, such as crone, cook etc. However the criticism of the theories of the revisionist historians are never presented nor mentioned. It therefore gves a misleading picture of scholarship. For example, the theories and views of Crone and Cook have been long rejected universally by western scholarship themselves and not by a bunch of "mad" and "bloodthursty" "muslim mullahs". Waines in his book, "An Introduction To Islam", states:

"The Crone-Cook theory has been almost universally rejected. the evidence offered by the authors is far too tentative and conjectural (and possibily contradictory) to conclude that Arab-Jewish were as intimate as they would wish them to have been." [pp. 273-274]

As for Wansbrough, he himself admits that his analysis are, in his own words, "conjectural", "provisional" and "tentative and emphatically provisional". And of course it has failed to win wide acceptance and support from the vast majority of orientalists themselves.

I am of course not denying the scholarship of these revisionist scholars, but only that we should study all the arguments instead of presenting views giving the impression they are widely accepted whereas in fact they are not. I hope nothing I stated her offended you, if it did then I apologise.

Thanks again.