Quote “I am a Catholic Christian and a theologian. I am presently reading the Quran, in English translation of course, and trying to understand Islam. I have a few questions I have asked other Muslims and they either run away from the questions or react defensively. I must emphasize that these are sincere questions, not an attempt to convert you or a “gotcha” as we say. I am sincerely interested in how you rationalize these things.
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.
Thank you for your inquiry. We will proceed to answer your questions one by one.
1.) Your 1st objection is regarding forced conversion.
a.) The Quran clearly states that there is no forced conversion:
“There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.” [2:256]
The companion, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) who was the second leader after the demise of the Prophet invited an old Christian woman to Islam, but she refused saying she was old and close to death [meaning she did not want to revert to Islam]. Upon this, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) read the verse quoted above: “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.” and did not in any way compel or force her inspite being a leader. [i]
Muslims ruled places like Spain and India for hundreds of years. Communities from other countries immigrated to Muslim Spain to escape oppression. Today, the population of both these countries is majority non-Muslim. If conversion by force was sanctioned by the faith or a policy, this would not have been the case.
From the above it is abundantly clear that Islam neither compels nor forces anyone to convert. If someone goes against these clear tenets, then the issue is with them and not with Islam.
b.) We are not sure which translation of the Quran you are reading, but it is important to understand that unlike the Bible, the Quran’s original text and language are preserved and intact.
Therefore for each inquiry we would have to look at the original source to confirm if the translation in fact conforms to the meaning, context and spirit of the verse in its original language.
Since you are a theologian, we’re sure you realize that the academic integrity of any research is compromised by resorting to translations when the original is preserved.
c.) The rules of tafsir [interpretation of the Quran] say that one part of the Quran explains another. It would be dishonest and deceptive to isolate a verse and then proceed to take it out of context by disregarding both the reason and background of its revelation. Likewise, not taking into account other relevant verses and the statements of the Prophet (salallahu alayhi wa sallam) [hadith] that explain that specific verse would also be erroneous and shoddy scholarship.
Unfortunately, it seems you have utterly misunderstood the Quran when you say that “such violence seems be enshrined in the Koran.”
To make our point clearer, we could give the same illusion about the Bible by quoting only those verses that mention violence or religious compulsion:
“Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple.” [Ezekial 9:6]
“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” [1 Samuel, 15:3]
“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” [Numbers 31:17-18]
“The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” [ Hosea 13:16]
From Deuteronomy [13: 6-10]:
6: If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known,
7: gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other),
8: do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them.
9: You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people.
10: Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
From Deuteronomy [17: 2-5]:
2: If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant,
3: and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky,
4: and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel,
5: take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.
d.) If a person goes against the tenets of his faith it should not give others the right to criticize and censure the faith itself – otherwise the same could be said about other religions:
John Paul II, has acknowledged that the Catholic Church was involved in anti-semitism, the Inquisition, the forced conversions of the people of Africa and Latin America, the Church’s support for the Crusades and so on. [ii]
It is evident that that victims were both Muslims and non-Muslims. Would you then say that your faith is responsible for all these horrific episodes or was it the people that went against the tenets of your faith by justifying such acts from the Bible? Where did “win others by reason to His religion” go in the above-mentioned events as mentioned in your inquiry?
e.) As mentioned earlier, history bears witness that Muslims conquered Spain (known as Al-Andalus) and ruled it for hundreds of years. If they wanted, just a generation was enough to convert by force so that the succeeding generation would know nothing of its original religion. But that’s not what happened, and Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in relative social harmony during this long period of Muslim rule.
Here’s what happened during the Inquisition, when Christian rule came to Spain:
→ In Valencia, the Muslims had to give a tribute of 40,000 ducats so that they would not be persecuted. [iii]
→ In the year 1499, when Archbishop of Toledo took charge of the Granada mission as part of the Inquisitions and a program of forced conversions, mass baptisms, and a violent persecution of the Muslims followed. Adherence to Islamic customs became a punishable offence. [iv]
→ This Archbishop, Cisernos, starting sending Muslims who would not convert to prisons where they were treated with what his own hagiographer describes as “methods that were not correct” until they agreed to convert.
→ The Archbishop boasted to the then Pope Alexander IV, that 3,000 Muslims had converted in a single day. They were forcing them to convert with such methods that they did not even have time to take them to baptismal font, instead, they had to splash the water on them. His methodology can best be described in his own words: “If the infidels [by infidels he is referring to Muslims] couldn’t be attracted to the road to salvation they had to be dragged to it.” [v]
→ In the town of Jatvia, hundreds of Muslims were dragged to the main cathedral and ordered to choose between baptism or death.
→ In Gandia, Muslims were given the option to choose between baptism or having their throats cut. So many Muslims were forcefully baptized that they had to be sprinkled with water from tree branches dipped into irrigation canals.
→ In the town of Malaga, Muslims were tied to stakes and killed with cane spears in a cruel variant of the jousting competition known as the juego de canas. In addition, virtually the entire remaining population of Muslims in this town was enslaved or given as “gifts” to Christian rulers.
→ For all their achievements, the then monarchs of Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella were hailed as heroes and rewarded by the pope with the title of los reyes catolicos – the Catholic Monarchs.
→ Between 1609 and 1614, King Philip III ordered the expulsion of the entire Muslim population of Spain which had by now been forcefully converted (estimated at 350,000 men, women and children over the age of seven). They were removed forcibly from their own homes and country and their assets seized. Children under seven were separated from their families and not allowed to go with their fathers and mothers. That makes it the largest removal of a civilian population in European history and larger than Spain’s previous expulsion of the Jews. All this was the idea of a religious leader, the Archbishop of Valencia, Juan de Ribera. [vi]
2.) Your second question is regarding the multiple wives of the Prophet (salallahu alayhi wa sallam). There is not only precedent, but wisdom in this. We will suffice with mentioning just a few points for your consideration [vii] [viii]:
→ His’ (salallahu alayhi wa sallam) entire youth was spent with a widow, much older than him, Khadijah (may Allah be pleased with her). Except for Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) all of the wives were widows, and polygamy only came into the picture after the age of 53. The fact that the multiple marriages only came in the last 10 years of his’ (salallahu alayhi wa sallam) life would lead any open-minded, impartial reader to realize that they were not done to fulfill any carnal desires.
→ The Prophet (salallahu alayhi wa sallam) married women from different tribes to establish peaceful relations so that Islam would spread by them coming to know his (salallahu alayhi wa sallam) true, noble, and pure character.
→ Muslims were limited to four because of the fear of injustice whereas there was no such fear in terms of the Prophet’s (salallahu alayhi wa sallam) treatment towards his wives.
→ Just as information about his external activities was reported by the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), similarly information about his domestic life was reported by his wives. Since spouses see and know each other’s nature unlike anyone else, multiple accounts of the prophetic life inside the home were needed. This information also needed to come from multiple sources (i.e. to reach a degree known as tawatur: multiple transmissions with the highest degree of confirmation). Since the minimum set for this is at 10, that is why the number of his wives reached 10. The wisdom of this is even more self-evident when we see that approximately half of the faith was conveyed through the wives (may Allah be pleased with them).
→ By virtue of being in the Prophet’s (salallahu alayhi wa sallam) company, the wives (may Allah be pleased with them) would learn a lot and in turn become teachers of the Muslim community. As an example: Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) was a teacher to 200 companions and she narrated 2,210 hadith. Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with her) had issued enough legal rulings that they could be compiled in a separate book and she narrated 368 hadith.
→ It is also strange that this question is not raised about other Prophets (peace be upon them) whom the Bible itself records as having multiple wives. In the Bible it states the following about Sulayman (peace be upon him) (Solomon), He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines…[1 Kings 11:3]. Did everybody in his kingdom have 700 wives and 300 concubines?
→ Likewise the Bible states about Dawud (peace be upon him) (David), that he had 6 wives in Hebron and that after he left Hebron, he took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem. [2 Samuel 3:2-5] and [2 Samuel 5:13] Again the question arises, did everybody in his kingdom have 6+ wives and concubines?
3.) Your 3rd question refers to a fabricated event in history that has been coined by a missionary as “Satanic Verses.” This question stems from a lack of understanding and is a regurgitation of what has been repeated by ignorant people who think these are verses from the Quran.
In reality, there are no such verses mentioned in the Quran. In fact, if you find them feel free to send them to us.
Now in all probability you are referring to a spurious and contrived incident recorded in some history books called “The cranes” [al-Garaniq] where some verses containing polytheism were allegedly recited to placate the disbelievers.
Before we clarify this, understand that Muslims have entire books devoted to forged hadith [prophetic statements]. Everything was meticulously compiled including the people who narrated these statements so later generations can easily tell who the person narrated it and what credibility they had. You see, any statement of the Prophet (salallahu alayhi wa sallam) needs to have a sanad (chain of transmission) whose authenticity, or the lack thereof is known.
So the very fact that anyone knows about these alleged “verses” is because they come from our own history books. This in fact is proof of the transparency of Islam, where scholars recorded all kinds of information no matter how preposterous a lie it was.
To give you an example of why we do this: Sometimes if you walk into a store, they have some fake currency displayed or bad cheques that didn’t clear the bank on the wall as a sign of what went wrong. This is obviously not there because they consider it an award, rather it’s to make the store clerk aware of fake and fraudulent ways of payment. It is also to make the customers aware that the store will be on the lookout for fake currency. Similarly, scholars recorded all events with chains of transmissions wherever available as a guidance and caution for current and future generations. This way we can easily prove or disprove the veracity of events that took place at that time.
Now keeping all the above in mind, let’s look at the status of those narrations (which as we said above are not part of the Quran, but come in our history books):
a.) Mufti Shafi (may Allah have mercy on him), one of the expert scholars of the latter times has clearly stated that the event of al-Garaniq is not established from any authentic narration. In fact, some scholars have written that this is a clear fabrication of heretics. [ix]
b.) From the earlier times, the hadith specialist, al-‘Ayni (may Allah have mercy on him) has analyzed the chains of narrations concerning this event and declared them all to be defective and unacceptable according to the science of evaluating hadith. [x]
c.) Imam al-Shawkani (may Allah have mercy on him), in his commentary on the Quran [tafsir] has stated that this event is false and not established in any way. He has also narrated the rulings of a number of other expert scholars in Quran and hadith [xi]:
Al-Bazzar (may Allah have mercy on him): We don’t know of this narration coming to us in any uninterrupted chain of transmission back to the Prophet (salallahu alayhi wa sallam).
Al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him): This event is not authentic and proceeded to show that the narrators are discredited and unreliable.
Ibn Khuzaymah (may Allah have mercy on him): This is a fabrication of heretics.
Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him): I have not seen this event narrated from any authentic connected chain. Rather they are all mursal (the generation of the Companions is missing from all the chains of transmission).
Now you have leading authorities in tafsir [interpretation of the Quran] and hadith [statements of the Prophet – salallahu alayhi wa sallam] making it clear that not only are the narrators discredited and unreliable but that one entire generation [the Companions] that would have been eye-witnesses to the alleged event missing from all the chains of transmission.
c.) One of the main sources where this story is found is al-Tarikh [a history book] of al-Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him) and he himself has clearly stated in the introduction [xii][xiii]:
“Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us.”
So the purpose of relating this event was not to show that it actually took place, but just to relate all stories and events that came down to the historians by whatever narrations and chains – and that included fabricators, liars and those who have been declared weak.
d.) The fact that the disbelievers of Makkah did not raise an issue about this event is also strong evidence that this event never took place. They raised a big issue about the Night-Journey of Rasulullah (salallahu alayhi wa sallam). Surely, had this event actually occurred, this was something that they would not have neglected to seize upon, and Islamic sources would have faithfully recorded that – just like they did everything else – like the objection of the disbelievers to the Night-Journey.
e.) Even Orientalists, such as J. Burton have concluded that this event has no historical basis and is likely, a later fabrication. [xiv]
In conclusion, all we request from you as a theologian is that in your study of the Quran and Islam you should apply the same fairness and impartiality that you would want and expect from anyone studying Christianity.
Just as you would not want anyone studying Christianity to segregate those verses we mentioned above, neither should you do the same if you sincerely wish to understand the Quran and Islam.
Why don’t you judge others in the same way you like to be judged? Doesn’t the Bible say:
“For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?” [Matthew, 7:2-4]
In conclusion, we appreciate your sincerity. This is a condition of the heart and is best known to yourself and God. God appreciates the honest quest of His sincere slaves and guides them to eternal salvation.
We sincerely urge you to focus on the path of your eternal salvation which we believe is Islam. Let your rationale prevail over your emotions and follow the quest of the ultimate truth.
And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best
Sohail ibn Arif,
Student Darul Iftaa
Chicago, USA
Checked and Approved by,
Mufti Ebrahim Desai.
معارف القران ١/ ٦١٦ – ٦١٧ [i]
Beck, Edward L. God Underneath: Spiritual Memoirs of a Catholic Priest. 2002 [ii]
Pendrill, Colin. Spain 1474-1700: The Triumphs and Tribulations of Empire. Heinemann. 2002 [iii]
Rawlings, Helen. The Spanish Inquisition. Blackwell Publishing. 2006. [iv]
Don, Patricia Lopes. Bonfires of Culture. University of Oklahoma Press. 2010. [v]
Carr, Matthew. Blood and Faith: The Purging of Muslim Spain [vi]
معارف القران، ٧/ ١٥٧ و ١٩٣ – ١٩٤ [vii]
إنما منع غيره من الزيادة على أربع خوفاً من عدم العدل، كما أشارت إليه آية فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا فَوَاحِدَةً [viii]
وهذه العلة مرتفعة في حقه صلى الله عليه وسلم
وقد ذكر شيخ مشايخنا حكيم الأمة التهانوي قدس الله سره حكمة أخرى في كثرة أزواجه صلى الله عليه وسلم، وهي أنه عليه الصلاة والسلام قد بعث إلى هذا العالم ليكون أسوة حسنة في كل شيء، وليقتدي به أمته في كل ناحية من نواحي الحياة. وكان يجب لذلك أن لا يخفى على أمته شيء من حياته الفردية
والاجتماعية، وأن تطلع الأمة على أحوال بيته وخلوته بذلك القطع وبتلك الاستفاضة التي اطلعت بها على أحواله خارج البيت. وإن هذه الأحوال لا تنكشف على أحد إلا بأزواجه صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولذلك بلغ عدد أزواجه عليه السلام بعد خديجة الكبرى عشرة أزواج، فإن العشر أقل عدد التواتر، ولما بلغ عدد نسائه إلى العشرة نهاه الله تعالى عن الزيادة على هذا العدد، كما قيل في تفسير قوله تعالى: {لَا يَحِلُّ لَكَ النِّسَاءُ مِنْ بَعْدُ}. . . إلخ وراجع التفسير الكبير…
ومما يؤيد ذلك أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يقض شبابه وفتوته إلا مع امرأة ثيبة أسن منه بكثير، مع ما عرضت عليه من صفايا أبكار العرب، ولم تكثر أزواجه إلا بعد ما بلغ الثالث والخمسين من عمره. وكانت كلهن ثيبات، سوى عائشة رضي الله عنها. أفهل يفعل ذلك من لا يريد إلا قضاء الشهوة وتسكين الشبق؟ كلا! ثم كلا! وإنما كان غرضه عليه السلام أن تبلغ أحوال بيته إلى الأمة بتلك الاستفاضة التي بلغت بها أحواله خارج البيت، ولم يكن ذلك إلا بأن لا تقل نساءه من عشرة.
ولذلك نرى أن نحواً من نصف الدين لم يبلغنا إلا بواسطة أزواجه صلى الله عليه وسلم.
تكملة فتح الملهم، كتاب الرضاع، الحكمة في كثرة أزواجه صلى الله عليه وسلم،ص. ١١٣ – ١١٤
معارف القران، ٦/ ٢٧٧ [ix]
وجميع هذه المسانيد الثلاثة لا يحتج بشيء منها: أما الإسناد الأول: وإن كان رجاله ثقات فإن الراوي شك فيه [x]
كما أخبر عن نفسه، فإما شك في رفعه، فيكون موقوفا. وفي وصله فيكون مرسلا، وكلاهما ليس بحجة خصوصا فيما فيه قدح في حق الأنبياء، عليهم الصلاة والسلام، بل لو جزم الثقة برفعه ووصله حملناه على الغلط والوهم، وأما الإسناد الثاني: فإن محمد بن السائب الكلبي ضعيف بالاتفاق، منسوب إلى الكذب، وقد فسر الكلبي في روايته الغرانقة العلى: بالملائكة، لا بآلهة المشركين، كما يقولون: إن الملائكة بنات الله، وكذبوا على الله فرد الله ذلك عليهم بقوله: {ألكم الذكر وله الأنثى} (النجم: 12) . فعلى هذا فلعله كان قرآنا ثم نسخ لتوهم المشركين بذلك مدح آلهتهم. وأما الإسناد الثالث: فإن محمد بن سعد هو العوفي، وهو ابن سعد بن محمد بن الحسن ابن عطية العوفي، تكلم فيه الخطيب، فقال: كان لينا في الحديث، وأبوه سعد بن محمد بن الحسن بن عطية، قال فيه أحمد: لم يكن ممن يستأهل أن يكتب عنه، ولا كان موضعا لذلك، وعم أبيه: هو الحسين بن الحسن بن عطية، ضعفه ابن معين والنسائي وابن حبان وغيرهم، والحسن بن عطية ضعفه البخاري وأبو حاتم، وهذه سلسلة ضعفاء، ولعل عطية العوفي سمعه من الكلبي فإنه كان يروي عنه ويكنيه بأبي سعيد لضعفه، ويوهم أنه: أبو سعيد الخدري. وقال عياض: هذا حديث لم يخرجه أحد من أهل الصحة. ولا رواة ثقة بسند سليم متصل، وإنما أولع به وبمثله المفسرون، والمؤرخون المولعون بكل قريب، المتلقنون من الصحف كل صحيح وسقيم. قلت: الأمر كذلك، فإن غالب هؤلاء مثل الطرقية والقصاص وليس عندهم تمييز، يخبطون خبط عشواء، ويمشون في ظلمة ظلماء، وكيف يقال مثل هذا والإجماع منعقد على عصمة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ونزاهته عن مثل هذه الرذيلة؟ ولو وقعت هذه القصة لوجدت قريش على المسلمين بها الصولة، ولأقامت عليهم اليهود بها الحجة، كما علم من عادة المنافقين وعناد المشركين، كما وقع في قصة الإسراء حتى كانت في ذلك لبعض الضعفاء ردة
عمدة القاري، ٧/ ١٠٠ – ١٠١
[xi] ولم يصح شيء من هذا، ولا ثبت بوجه من الوجوه، ومع عدم صحته بل بطلانه فقد دفعه المحققون بكتاب الله سبحانه، قال الله: ولو تقول علينا بعض الأقاويل- لأخذنا منه باليمين- ثم لقطعنا منه الوتين «3» وقوله: وما ينطق عن الهوى «4» وقوله: ولولا أن ثبتناك لقد كدت تركن إليهم «5» فنفى المقاربة للركون فضلا عن الركون. قال البزار: هذا حديث لا نعلمه يروى عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بإسناد متصل.
وقال البيهقي: هذه القصة غير ثابتة من جهة النقل، ثم أخذ يتكلم أن رواة هذه القصة مطعون فيهم. وقال إمام الأئمة ابن خزيمة: إن هذه القصة من وضع الزنادقة. قال القاضي عياض في «الشفا» : إن الأمة أجمعت فيما طريقه البلاغ أنه معصوم فيه من الإخبار عن شيء بخلاف ما هو عليه، لا قصدا ولا عمدا ولا سهوا ولا غلطا. قال ابن كثير: قد ذكر كثير من المفسرين هاهنا قصة الغرانيق، وما كان من رجوع كثير من المهاجرين إلى أرض الحبشة ظنا منهم أن مشركي قريش قد أسلموا، ولكنها من طرق كلها مرسلة، ولم أرها مسندة من وجه صحيح.
فتح القدير للشوكاني، ٣/ ٥٤٦
Khalidi, Tarif. Arabic Historical Thought in the Classical Period. Cambridge University Press. 1994 [xii]
وليعلم الناظر في كتابنا هذا أن اعتمادي في كل ما أحضرت ذكره فيه مما شرطت أني راسمه فيه إنما هو على ما [xiii]
رويت من الأخبار التي أنا ذاكرها فيه والآثار التي أنا مسندها إلى رواتها فيه دون ما أدرك بحجج العقول واستنبط بفكر النفوس إلا اليسير القليل منه إذ كان العلم بما كان من أخبار الماضين وما هو كائن من أنباء الحادثين غير واصل إلى من لم يشاهدهم ولم يدرك زمانهم إلا بإخبار المخبرين ونقل الناقلين دون الاستخراج بالعقول والاستنباط بفكر النفوس فما يكن في كتابي هذا من خبر ذكرناه عن بعض الماضين مما يستنكره قارئه أو يستشنعه سامعه من أجل أنه لم يعرف له وجها في الصحة ولا معنى في الحقيقة فليعلم أنه لم يؤت في ذلك من قبلنا وإنما أتي من قبل بعض ناقليه إلينا وأنا إنما أدينا ذلك على نحو ما أدي إلينا
تاريخ الطبري، ١/ ١٣
Ali, Mohar Muhammad. Sirat al-Nabi (salallahu alayhi wa sallam) and the Orientalists. 1997 [xiv]