How to refrain to fall into our Muslim friends’ traps when talking about Religion
This is a refreshing and enlightening antidote to the usual dhimmitude we get from non-Muslim academics who engage Islam.
1. Do you know Aramaic or Hebrew?
Muslims in general have a tendency to disarm any criticisms of Islam and in particular the Qur’an by asking if the critic has read the Qur’an in the original Arabic, as though all the difficulties of their Sacred Text will somehow disappear once the reader has mastered the holy language and has direct experience, aural and visual, of the very words of God, to which no translation can do justice.
However, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs or Arabic speaking peoples. The non-Arabic speaking nations of Indonesia with a population of 197 million, Pakistan with 133 million, Iran with 62 million, Turkey with 62 million, India with a Muslim population of about 95 million, out- number by far the total number of native Arabic speakers in about thirty countries in the world estimated as 150 million. Many educated Muslims whose native tongue is not Arabic do learn it in order to read the Qur’an, but then again the vast majority does not understand Arabic, even though many do learn parts of the Qur’an by heart without understanding a word.
In other words, the majority of Muslims have to read the Qur’an in translation in order to understand it. Contrary to what one might think, there have been translations of the Qur’an into, for instance, Persian since the tenth or eleventh century, and there are translations into Turkish and Urdu. The Qur’an has now been translated into over a hundred languages, many of them by Muslims themselves, despite some sort of disapproval from the religious authorities. 
Even for contemporary Arabic –speaking peoples, reading the Qur’an is far from being a straightforward matter. The Qur’an is putatively (in fact it is very difficult to decide exactly what the language of the Qur’an is) written in what we call Classical Arabic (CA), but modern Arab populations, leaving aside the problem of illiteracy in Arab countries , do not speak, read, or write, let alone think in Classical Arabic (CA). We are confronted with the phenomenon of diglossia , that is to say, a situation where two varieties of the same language live side by side. The two variations are high and low. High Arabic is sometimes called Modern Literary Arabic or Modern Standard Arabic, and is learned through formal education in school like Latin or Sanskrit, and would be used in sermon, university lecture, news broadcast and for mass media purposes. Low Arabic or Colloquial Arabic is a dialect which native speakers acquire as a mother tongue, and is used at home conversing with family and friends, and is also used in radio or television soap opera. But as Kaye points out, "the differences between many colloquials and the classical language are so great that a fallah (= farmer or peasant) who had never been to school could hardly understand more than a few scattered words and expressions in it without great difficulty. One could assemble dozens of so-called Arabs (fallahin or peasants) in a room, who have never been exposed to the classical language, so that not one could properly understand the other." 
Though some scholars do allow for some change and decay, they paint a totally misleading picture of the actual linguistic situation in modern Arabic speaking societies. These scholars imply that anyone able to read a modern Arabic newspaper should have no difficulties with the Qur’an or any classical Arabic text. They seem totally insensitive "to the evolution of the language, to changes in the usage and meaning of terms over the very long period and in the very broad area in which Classical Arabic has been used."  Anyone who has lived in the
As Kaye puts it, "In support of the hypothesis that modern standard Arabic is ill-defined is the so-called ‘mixed’ language or ‘Inter-Arabic’ being used in the speeches of, say, President Bourguiba of Tunisia, noting that very few native speakers of Arabic from any Arab country can really ever master the intricacies of Classical Arabic grammar in such a way as to extemporaneously give a formal speech in it." 
Pierre Larcher  has pointed out that wherever you have a linguistic situation where two varieties of the same language coexist, you are also likely to get all sorts of linguistic mixtures, leading some linguists to talk of triglossia. Gustav Meiseles  even talks of quadriglossia: between Literary Arabic and Vernacular Arabic, he distinguishes a Sub-Standard Arabic and an Educated Spoken Arabic. Still others speak of pluri- or multi- or polyglossia, viewed as a continuum. 
The style of the Qur’an is difficult, totally unlike the prose of today, and the Qur’an would be largely incomprehensible without glossaries, indeed entire commentaries. In conclusion, even the most educated of Arabs will need some sort of a translation if he or she wished to make sense of that most gnomic, elusive and allusive of holy scriptures, the Qur’an.
You are asked aggressively, "do you know Arabic?" Then you are told triumphantly, "You have to read the Qur’an in the original Arabic to understand it fully." Non-Muslims, Western free thinkers and atheists are usually reduced to sullen silence with these Muslim tactics; they indeed become rather coy and self-defensive when it comes to criticism of Islam; they feebly complain “who am I to criticise Islam? I do not know any Arabic.” And yet they are quite happy to criticise Christianity. How many Western freethinkers and atheists know Hebrew? How many even know what the language of Esra chapter 4 verses 6-8 is? Or in what language the New Testament was written? Of course, Muslims are also free in their criticism of the Bible and Christianity without knowing a word of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
So let me summarise: You do not need to know Arabic to criticise Islam or the Qur’an. Paul Kurtz does not know Arabic but he did a great job on Islam in his book The Transcendental Temptation.  You only need a critical sense, critical thought and scepticism. Second, there are translations of the Qur’an, by Muslims themselves, so Muslims cannot claim that there has been deliberate tampering of the text by infidel translators. Third, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs, and are not Arabic speakers. So a majority of Muslims also have to rely on translations. Finally, the language of the Qur’an is some form of Classical Arabic  which is totally different from the spoken Arabic of today, so even Muslim Arabs have to rely on translations to understand their holy text. Arabic is a Semitic language related to Hebrew and Aramaic, and is no easier but also no more difficult to translate than any other language. Of course, there are all sorts of difficulties with the language of the Qur’an, but these difficulties have been recognized by Muslim scholars themselves. The Qur’an is indeed a rather opaque text but it is opaque to everyone. Even Muslim scholars do not understand a fifth of it.
1. See Appendix, Bibliography of Translations, in Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period, edd. Beeston, Johnstone et al,
3. Charles Ferguson, Diglossia, Word, Vol.15, No.2 pp325-340, Aug.1959; William Marçais, La diglossie arabe, L’Enseignement public –Revue Pédagogique, tome 104, no 12, 1930, pp.401-409; Alan S. Kaye,Arabic, in The Major Languages of South Asia, The Middle East and Africa, ed. Bernard Comrie, London, Routledge, 1990, p.181
4. Ibid., p.173.
5. B.Lewis, Islam and the West,
6. It is in fact becoming more and more westernized, i.e. de-semitized under the influence of the international news agencies.
7. P.Larcher,Les Incertitudes de
8. Kaye, op. cit. p.183.
10. Gustav Meiseles, Educated Spoken Arabic and the Arabic Language Continuum, Archivum Linguisticum, vol. XI, Number 2, 1980, pp.118-142;quoted in P.Larcher,see note 10 above.
11. A.S.Kaye, Formal vs. Informal in Arabic : Diglossia, Triglossia, Tetraglossia, etc., Polyglossia –Multiglossia Viewed as a Continuum, ZAL, 27, 1994, pp.47-66.
12. P.Kurtz, The Transcendental Temptation, Prometheus Books,
13. There seems to be some controversy as to what the language of the Qur’an really is, see my introduction to What the Qur’an Really Says., Prometheus Books,
2. Out of context
Let us now turn to another argument or defensive tactic used by Muslims: the “you have quoted out of context” defense. What do they mean by “You have quoted out of context”? This could mean two things: first, the historical context to which the various verses refer, or second, the textual context, the actual place in a particular chapter that the verse quoted comes from. The historical context argument is not available in fact to Muslims, since the Qur’an is the eternal word of God and true and valid for always. Thus for Muslims themselves there is no historical context. Of course, non-Muslims can legitimately and do avail themselves of the historical or cultural context to argue, for instance, that Islamic culture as a whole is anti-woman. Muslims did contradict themselves when they introduced the notion of abrogation, when a historically earlier verse was cancelled by a later one. This idea of abrogation was concocted to deal with the many contradictions in the Qur’an. What is more, it certainly backfires for those liberal Muslims who wish to give a moderate interpretation to the Qur’an since all the verses advocating tolerance (there are some but not many) have been abrogated by the verses of the sword.
Out of Context Argument Used Against Muslims Themselves:
Now for the textual context. First, of course, this argument could be turned against Muslims themselves. When they produce a verse preaching tolerance, we could also say that they have quoted out of context, or more pertinently (1) that such a verse has been cancelled by a more belligerent and intolerant one, (2) that in the overall context of the Qur’an and the whole theological construct that we call Islam (i.e. in the widest possible context),the tolerant verses are anomalous, or have no meaning, since Muslim theologians ignored them completely in developing Islamic Law, or that (3) the verses do not say what they seem to say.
For instance, after September 11, 2001, many Muslims and apologists of Islam glibly came out with the following Qur’anic quote to show that Islam and the Qur’an disapproved of violence and killing: Sura 5.32:
“Whoever killed a human being shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind ”.
Unfortunately, these wonderful sounding words are being quoted out of context. Here is the entire quote: 5.32:
“That was why We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as though he had saved all mankind. Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of them committed great evils in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country.”
The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. Behave or else is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated and banished!
Behind the textual context argument is thus the legitimate suspicion that by quoting only a short passage from the Qur’an I have somehow distorted its real meaning. I have, so the accusation goes, lifted the offending quote from the chapter in which it was embedded, and hence, somehow altered its true sense. What does “context” mean here? Do I have to quote the sentence before the offending passage, and the sentence after? Perhaps two sentences before and after? The whole chapter? Ultimately, of course, the entire Qur’an is the context.
The context, far from helping Muslims get out of difficulties only makes the barbaric principle apparent in the offending quote more obvious, as we have seen from Sura 5.32 just quoted. Let us take some other examples.Does the Qur’an say that men have the right to physically beat their wives or not? I say yes, and quote the following verses to prove my point:
Sura 4.34: ”As for those [women] from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge [or beat] them ”
This translation comes from a Muslim. Have I somehow distorted the meaning of these lines? Let us have a wider textual context:
Sura 4.34: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. God is high, supreme.”
If anything, the wider textual context makes things worse for those apologists of Islam who wish to minimize the misogyny of the Qur’an. The oppression of women has divine sanction, women must obey God and their men, who have divine authorization to scourge them. One Muslim translator, Yusuf Ali, clearly disturbed by this verseadds the word “lightly “in brackets after “beat “even though there is no “lightly “in the original Arabic. An objective reading of the entire Qur’an (that is the total context) makes grim reading as far as the position of women is concerned. There are at least forty passages in the Qur’an that are misogynistic in character.
Finally, of course, many of the verses that we shall quote later advocating killing of unbelievers were taken by Muslims themselves to develop the theory of Jihad. Muslim scholars themselves referred to sura 8.67, 8.39, and Sura 2.216 to justify Holy War. Again the context makes it clear that it is the battle field that is being referred to, and not some absurd moral struggle; these early Muslims were warriors after booty, land and women not some existential heroes from the pages of Albert Camus or Jean-Paul Sartre. Let us take another example: Sura 9. Here I have tried to use where possible translations by Muslims or Arabophone scholars, to avoid the accusation of using infidel translations. However, many Muslim translators have a tendency to soften down the harshness of the original Arabic, particularly in translating the Arabic word jahada, e.g. Sura 9.73. Maulana Muhammad Ali, of the Ahmadiyyah sect, translates this passage as:
“O Prophet, strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them. And their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.”
In a footnote of an apologetic nature, Muhammad Ali rules out the meaning “fighting” for jahada. However, the Iraqi non-Muslim scholar Dawood in his Penguin translation renders this passage as:
“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”
How do we settle the meaning of this verse? The whole context of Sura 9 indeed makes it clear that “make war“in the literal and not some metaphorical sense is meant. Let us take another verse from this Sura, Sura 9.5:
“Then, when the sacred months have passed away, kill the idolaters wherever you find them …”
These words are usually cited to show what fate awaits idolaters. Well, what of the context? The words immediately after these just quoted say,
“and seize them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.”
Ah, you might say, you have deliberately left out the words that come after those. Let us quote them then,
“If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.”
Surely these are words of tolerance, you plead. Hardly: they are saying that if they become Muslims then they will be left in peace. In fact, the whole sura, the whole context, is totally intolerant; and is indeed the source of many totalitarian Islamic laws and principles, such as the concepts of Jihad and dhimmis, the latter proclaiming the inferior status of Christians and Jews in an Islamic state. All our quotes from the Arabic sources in Part One also, of course, provide the historical context of raids, massacres, booty, and assassinations, which make it crystal clear that real bloody fighting is being advocated.
First the idolaters, how can you trust them?
Most of them are evildoers (9. 8); fight them (9. 12, 14); they must not visit mosques (9. 18); they are unclean (9. 28); you may fight the idolaters even during the sacred months (9.36). It is not for the Prophet, and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin after it has become clear they are people of hell-fire. (9.113)
So much for forgiveness! Even your parents are to be shunned if they do not embrace Islam:
9. 23 “O you who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you takes them for friends, such are wrong-doers.”
In other words if you are friendly with your parents who are not Muslims, you are being immoral.
The theory of Jihad is derived from verses 5 and 6 already quoted but also from the following verses:
9. 38 - 39: Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: ‘March in the cause of God ’, you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? Few indeed are the blessings of this life, compared to those of the life to come. If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men.
9. 41: Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of God, with your wealth and with your persons. 9. 73: Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal harshly with them.
The word that I have translated as fight is jahid. Some translators translate it as go forth or strive. Dawood translates it as fight, as does Penrice in his Dictionary and Glossary of the Qur’an, where it is defined as: “To strive, contend with, fight –especially against the enemies of Islam”. While Hans Wehr in his celebrated Arabic dictionary translates it as “endeavour, strive; to fight; to wage holy war against the infidels.”
As for the intolerance against Jews and Christians, and their inferior status as dhimmis, we have IX verses 29 –35:
“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.
“The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are!
“They make of their clerics and their monks, and of the Messiah, the son of Mary, Lords besides God; though they were ordered to serve one God only. There is no god but Him. Exalted be He above those whom they deify besides Him!….
“It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters may dislike it.
“O you who believe ! Lo! Many of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar men from the way of Allah; They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of painful doom …”
The moral of all the above is clear: Islam is the only true religion, Jews and Christians are devious and money-grubbing, who are not to be trusted, and even have to pay a tax in the most humiliating way. I do not think I need quote any more from Sura 9, although it goes on in this vein verse after verse.
3. Go to the Original Sources
When you do debate with a Muslim make sure you are armed with all your references from the original Arabic sources. The major sources are all available in English, and are the Qur’an, the Sira or the Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq, and the Hadith, the sayings and deeds of the Prophet and his companions. You must make the effort to familiarize yourself with these. Start with the Qur’an. It is not a very long text, about four hundred pages in the Penguin translation. Acquire at least four different translations, at least one of which should be by a Muslim. Yusuf Ali and, despite his name, Marmaduke Pickthall were Muslims, and their translations are easily available in paperbacks. At least one should be by someone whose mother tongue was Arabic, such as N.J.Dawood, an Iraqi scholar whose translation is quite readable. If you read French, I strongly advise you to acquire and read Regis Blachere’s translation - it has copious footnotes which reveal the opaqueness of the Holy text, and the grammatical errors of the original Arabic.
If you have read the Qur’an, you are already better informed of its contents than the majority of Muslims. Indeed, many Muslims have been genuinely surprised when I have apprised them of the verses preaching war, intolerance, hatred of Jews and Christians, misogyny, cruel punishments, etc. When you do read the Qur’an, read it with a highlighter in hand, and mark or underline the passages which preach intolerance, or which reveal injustice, cruelty and violence, absurdities, insults to women, contradictions, anti-Semitism, homophobic attitudes, superstitions, and, to be scrupulously fair, passages which teach morally acceptable principles. Someone has already undertaken just such a task at:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Qur’an/int/long.html . Our diligent skeptic found 511 passages of injustice, 384 of intolerance, 320 of cruelty and violence, 46 insults to women and just 60 passages of morally acceptable principles.
Here are some anti-Jewish sentiments from the Qur’an:
2.61: ….Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon them (that is, the Jews), and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah’s revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression.
4.44-46: Have you not seen those who have received a portion of the Scripture? They purchase error, and they want you to go astray from the path. But Allah knows best who your enemies are, and it is sufficient to have Allah as a friend. It is sufficient to have Allah as a helper. Some of the Jews pervert words from their meanings, and say, ‘We hear and we disobey’, and ‘Hear without hearing,’ and ‘Heed us!’ twisting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said, ‘We have heard and obey,’, or ‘Hear and observe us’ it would have been better for them and more upright. But Allah had cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.
4.160-161: And for the evildoing of the Jews, We have forbidden them some good things that were previously permitted them, and because of their barring many from Allah’s way. And for their taking usury which was prohibited for them, and because of their consuming people’s wealth under false pretense. We have prepared for the unbelievers among them a painful punishment.
9.29-31: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture [Jews and Christians] as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah has forbidden by His Messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute [poll-tax] readily, and are utterly subdued. The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Those are the words of their mouths, conforming to the words of the unbelievers before them. Allah attack them! How perverse they are! They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords besides Allah, and so too the Messiah son of Mary, though they were commanded to serve but one God. There is no God but He. Allah is exalted above that which they deify beside Him.
9.34: O you who believe ! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of a painful doom.
5.63-64: Why do not the rabbis and the priests forbid their evil-speaking and devouring of illicit gain? Verily evil is their handiwork. The Jews say, “Allah’s hands are fettered.” Their hands are fettered, and they are cursed for what they have said! On the contrary, His hands are spread open. He bestows as He wills. That which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the arrogance and unbelief of many among them. We have cast enmity and hatred among them until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they light the fire of war, Allah extinguishes it. They hasten to spread corruption throughout the earth, but Allah does not love corrupters!
5.70-71: We made a covenant with the Israelites and sent forth apostles among them. But whenever an apostle came to them with a message that did not suit their fancies, some they accused of lying and others they put to death. They thought no harm would follow: they were blind and deaf. God is ever watching their actions.
5.82: Indeed, you will surely find that the most vehement of men in enmity to those who believe are the Jews and the polytheists.
5.51: O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who takes them for friends is one of them.
5.57: O you who believe! Choose not for friends such of those who received the Scripture [Jews and Christians] before you, and of the disbelievers, as make jest and sport of your religion. But keep your duty to Allah of you are true believers.
5.59: Say: O, People of the Scripture [Jews and Christians]! Do you blame us for aught else than that we believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed aforetime, and because most of you are evildoers?
5.66:….Among them [Jews and Christians] there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.
33.26: He brought down from their strongholds those who had supported them from among the People of the Book [Jews of Bani Qurayza ] and cast terror into their hearts, so that some you killed and others you took captive.
5.60: Say:‘ Shall I tell you who will receive a worse reward from God ? Those whom [i.e. Jews] God has cursed and with whom He has been angry, transforming them into apes and swine, and those who serve the devil. Worse is the plight of these, and they have strayed farther from the right path.’
Then pass onto the oldest source on the life of the Prophet, the Sira by Ibn Ishaq as quoted by Ibn Hisham. It is also available in an English translation. Again read it, with the same skeptical attitude and a highlighter in hand. It makes for very depressing reading. The biography is full of violence, cruelty, intolerance and anti-Semitism. Here are some of the passages from the Sira revealing Muhammad’s hatred of the Jews :
1. “Kill any Jews that falls into your power” said the Prophet: p.369
2. The killing of Ibn Sunayna, and its admiration leading someone to convert to Islam: p.369
3. The killing of Sallam ibn Abu’l –Huqayq: pp.482-483
4. The assassination of Ka‘b b.al-Ashraf ,who wrote verses against Muhammad: pp.364-369
5. The raid against the Jewish tribe of the Banu‘l-Nadir, and their banishment. pp.437-445
6. The extermination of the Banu Qurayza, between 600-800 men. pp.461-469
7. The killing of alYusayr. pp.665-666
Finally, pass onto the Hadith or Traditions, which are also, fortunately, available in English. The collection by Bukhari, who died in
Thus furnished with precise references to and quotes from the Qur’an, the Sira and the Hadith, you are well-equipped to criticise Islam, and ready to debate any Muslim