Common Criticisms of Islam and Muslim "Scholarly" Responses
Introduction
Islamic theology and history have been subject to various criticisms from both secular scholars and adherents of other faiths. This article examines several significant criticisms and presents how Muslim scholars and theologians have responded to these challenges. Despite the Muslim scholars' best attempts to respond to these serious criticisms, the severity of the issues and relative weaknesses of the Muslim scholar responses should prompt all Muslims to abandon their religion.
The "Islamic Dilemma" Regarding the Quran in Relation to Previous Scriptures
The Criticism
Critics identify one "Islamic Dilemma" concerning the Quran's relationship with prior scriptures. The Quran repeatedly claims to confirm the Torah (Tawrat), Psalms (Zabur), and Gospel (Injil) that preceded it. Multiple verses establish this claim:
"And We have sent down to you the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture" (Quran 5:48)
"Say, 'We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims in submission to Him.'" (Quran 3:84)
"And before it was the scripture of Moses to lead and as mercy. And this is a confirming Book in an Arabic tongue" (Quran 46:12)
"It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise... And He revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel" (Quran 3:7, 3:3)
The dilemma arises because the Quran's teachings directly contradict fundamental doctrines found in these earlier scriptures on major theological points:
The Nature of Jesus: The Torah and Gospel present Jesus as divine or the Son of God (John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; John 10:30, "I and the Father are one"), while the Quran explicitly denies this: "They have certainly disbelieved who say, 'Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary'... The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger" (Quran 5:72, 5:75). The Quran states: "Say, 'He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born'" (Quran 112:1-3).
The Crucifixion: The Gospel accounts centrally feature Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection (Matthew 27-28, Mark 15-16, Luke 23-24, John 19-20), while the Quran denies the crucifixion occurred: "And [for] their saying, 'Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.' And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them" (Quran 4:157).
The Trinity: The Gospel of Matthew commands baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19), while the Quran explicitly rejects the Trinity: "So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, 'Three'; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God" (Quran 4:171).
Abrogation vs. Confirmation: Critics argue that the Quran cannot simultaneously "confirm" these scriptures and contradict their core teachings. If the Torah and Gospel are corrupted (tahrif), as many Muslims claim to resolve this contradiction, then the Quran's repeated statements that it confirms them become problematic. Critics ask: How can the Quran confirm scriptures that are corrupted? And if they weren't corrupted when Muhammad received revelation (since the Quran tells Christians and Jews to judge by what's in their scriptures - Quran 5:47, 5:68), when did the corruption occur?
Islamic Scholarly Responses
Muslim scholars have developed several responses to address this dilemma:
Textual Corruption (Tahrif): The most common Islamic response is that the current Torah and Gospel have been corrupted over time and no longer represent the original revelations given to Moses and Jesus. Muslims cite Quran 2:79: "So woe to those who write the 'scripture' with their own hands, then say, 'This is from Allah,' in order to exchange it for a small price." They argue that what the Quran confirms is the original, uncorrupted Torah and Gospel, not the versions that exist today.
Selective Corruption: Some scholars argue that while portions of the Bible have been corrupted, other portions remain authentic. The Quran confirms the authentic portions while correcting the corruptions. They point to Quran 5:46-47, which suggests the Gospel contains guidance and light, implying some authentic content remains.
Interpretive Corruption: Rather than textual alteration, some Muslim scholars argue that Jews and Christians misinterpreted their scriptures. The original texts may have been preserved, but false doctrines (like the Trinity or Jesus's divinity) were read into them through faulty interpretation. The Quran restores the correct understanding.
Confirmation of Core Message: Muslim scholars argue that "confirmation" means affirming the core monotheistic message and basic prophetic teachings (belief in one God, moral law, prophets, judgment), not necessarily confirming every detail or later theological development. They note that the Quran states: "Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light" (Quran 5:44), confirming the original monotheistic core.
Appeals to Biblical Prophecy: Some Muslim apologists point to passages they interpret as prophesying Muhammad (such as Deuteronomy 18:18 about a prophet like Moses, or John 14-16 about the Paraclete/Comforter), arguing these show harmony between scriptures when properly understood.
Critics' Counter-Responses
Critics have responded with several rebuttals:
Manuscript Evidence: Critics point to the extensive manuscript evidence for both the Old and New Testaments, including documents that predate Islam by centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls (dating to 200 BCE - 100 CE) demonstrate that the Hebrew Bible was substantially the same before Islam as it is today. Similarly, early New Testament manuscripts (some from the 2nd century CE) contain the same Christological claims and crucifixion accounts that the Quran contradicts. Critics argue that if these texts were corrupted, it must have happened before Islam, which contradicts the Quran's instruction to Jews and Christians to judge by their existing scriptures (Quran 5:47, 5:68).
The Quran's Own Testimony: Critics note that the Quran itself seems to affirm the reliability of the scriptures available in the 7th century. Quran 10:94 tells Muhammad: "So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you." Critics ask: Why would Allah direct Muhammad to consult scriptures that were already corrupted? Additionally, Quran 5:43 asks, "But how is it that they come to you for judgement while they have the Torah, in which is the judgement of Allah?" This seems to affirm the Torah's authority in Muhammad's time.
The Logical Impossibility: Critics argue that the tahrif doctrine creates more problems than it solves. If the scriptures were corrupted before Muhammad, then the Quran's statements affirming them and telling Christians and Jews to follow them are deeply problematic. If they were corrupted after Muhammad, the manuscript evidence disproves this. Either way, the claim that the Quran "confirms" these scriptures becomes incoherent when it contradicts their central teachings.
Confirmation Means Agreement: Critics contend that "confirmation" in any meaningful sense must mean agreement with, not contradiction of, the confirmed text. If the Quran merely confirms some vague "core message" while contradicting specific historical and theological claims, this strips "confirmation" of any real meaning. The Gospel writers didn't claim Jesus was symbolically divine or that the crucifixion was metaphorical—these are presented as historical events and theological realities. A text that denies these cannot meaningfully be said to "confirm" the Gospel.
The Problem of Core vs. Peripheral: Critics argue that the doctrines the Quran contradicts aren't peripheral details but the very heart of Christian scripture. The divinity of Christ, his crucifixion and resurrection—these aren't later corruptions but foundational claims present in the earliest Christian documents. Paul's letters (written 20-30 years after Jesus) already assert Jesus's divine nature and resurrection (Philippians 2:5-11, 1 Corinthians 15). Critics note it's historically implausible that such core doctrines could be universal corruptions.
Prophecy Claims: Critics respond that the biblical passages Muslims cite as prophecies of Muhammad require significant reinterpretation and are not naturally read as referring to an Arabian prophet 600+ years in the future. Deuteronomy 18:18's "prophet like Moses" more naturally refers to Joshua or subsequent Israelite prophets, and Jesus in the Gospel accounts. The Paraclete in John 14-16 is explicitly identified as the Holy Spirit (John 14:26), not a future human prophet.
The Absence of Evidence: Critics note that there is no historical evidence of a widespread conspiracy to corrupt biblical texts. The manuscripts are geographically dispersed (from Egypt to Syria to Europe) and remarkably consistent with each other, making coordinated corruption implausible. Additionally, early Church fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr (writing in the early 2nd century) already affirmed Christ's divinity and crucifixion, showing these doctrines weren't later inventions.
The Logical Dilemma Restated: Critics reformulate the dilemma: Either (1) the Torah and Gospel were accurate when Muhammad received revelation, in which case the Quran contradicts texts it claims to confirm, or (2) they were already corrupted, in which case the Quran's appeals to them and instructions to follow them are problematic. The tahrif doctrine appears to critics as an ad hoc explanation developed to resolve the contradiction rather than a position supported by historical or manuscript evidence.
The "Islamic Dilemma" Regarding the Quran in Relation to the Concept of Eternality in View of Temporal References
The Criticism
Critics have raised another "Islamic Dilemma" regarding the nature of the Quran. The argument goes as follows: Muslims believe the Quran is the eternal, uncreated word of Allah. However, the Quran contains references to specific historical events, names of individuals, and responses to particular situations that occurred during Muhammad's lifetime. Critics argue that if the Quran is eternal and existed before creation, how can it contain references to temporal events and people who didn't yet exist--and only to the extent existing during the time of and to Muhammad? This appears logically contradictory.
Additionally, critics point to verses in the Quran that seem to be responses to specific challenges Muhammad faced, such as Surah 33:37 regarding Zayd's divorce and Muhammad's subsequent marriage to Zayd's former wife, or Surah 66:1-5 regarding Muhammad's personal domestic matters with his wives.
Islamic Scholarly Responses
Muslim theologians have developed several responses to this criticism:
The Distinction Between Divine Speech and Human Language: Classical Islamic theology, particularly in the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools, distinguishes between Allah's eternal speech (kalam nafsi) and its expression in human language. The eternal attribute of divine speech exists with Allah, but its manifestation in Arabic words and letters occurred in time when it was revealed to Muhammad.
Divine Foreknowledge: Islamic theology maintains that Allah's knowledge encompasses all time—past, present, and future—simultaneously. Therefore, what appears to humans as responses to temporal events were part of Allah's eternal knowledge. The Quran states: "With Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him" (Quran 6:59).
The Purpose of Revelation: Muslim scholars argue that the Quran's connection to historical events demonstrates its practical guidance rather than contradicting its divine origin. The principle of "asbab al-nuzul" (occasions of revelation) shows how eternal divine wisdom addresses human circumstances. Scholar Ibn Taymiyyah argued that divine speech can be both eternal in essence and temporal in its revelation to creation.
Theological Precedents: Muslims note that similar questions arise in Christian theology regarding the eternal Logos (Word) becoming incarnate in time, and in Jewish theology regarding the Torah's pre-existence despite its historical content.
Critics' Counter-Responses
Critics have offered rebuttals to these Islamic scholarly responses:
Regarding Divine Speech vs. Human Language: Critics argue this distinction appears to be a philosophical construct designed to resolve a logical contradiction rather than addressing the fundamental problem. They contend that if the Quran's actual words and letters were created in time, then it cannot be truly eternal and uncreated. The claim that only the "essence" is eternal while the manifestation is created seems to critics like splitting hairs to avoid acknowledging that the Quran itself is a created text.
Regarding Divine Foreknowledge: Critics point out that foreknowledge doesn't resolve the issue of eternality. Even if Allah knew Muhammad would face certain situations, the fact that the eternal Quran contains specific responses to temporal events suggests it was composed for those situations rather than existing eternally. Critics note verses like Surah 80:1-10, where Allah apparently rebukes Muhammad for frowning at a blind man—if this rebuke existed eternally, it seems odd that it addresses a specific temporal action.
Regarding Practical Guidance: Critics argue that claiming the Quran's historical specificity demonstrates its practical nature doesn't address the logical problem of how eternal speech can contain temporal references. They suggest this response changes the subject rather than resolving the contradiction.
Regarding Theological Precedents: Critics note that pointing to similar problems in other religions doesn't resolve the issue for Islam—it merely suggests other religions face analogous logical difficulties. Additionally, many critics would argue that Christian and Jewish theologies also struggle with these contradictions.
Muhammad's Marriage to Aisha
The Criticism
One of the most controversial aspects of Islamic history concerns Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. According to multiple hadith collections considered authentic by mainstream Sunni Islam, Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad at age six and the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old. These accounts appear in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the two most authoritative hadith collections.
Sahih al-Bukhari (5134) states: "The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Rais, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became normal, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, 'Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck.' Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age."
Critics argue that by modern standards, this constitutes child marriage and that Muhammad, as a prophet claimed to be a moral exemplar for all time, should be held to universal moral standards. They contend that a nine-year-old cannot meaningfully consent to marriage.
The Doll Hadith: Additional hadiths provide further details about Aisha's age and activities at the time of marriage. Sahih al-Bukhari (6130) records: "I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Messenger used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me."
Sahih Muslim (Book 8, Hadith 3311) contains a similar narration: "Aisha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah's Messenger and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah's Messenger, whereas Allah's Messenger sent them to her."
Critics point to these hadiths as additional evidence of Aisha's young age and childhood state at the time the marriage was consummated. The fact that she was still playing with dolls—and that her friends would come to play with her—reinforces that she was still very much a child. Islamic jurisprudence itself recognized that playing with dolls was characteristic of pre-pubescent girls, as dolls would otherwise be prohibited as images/idols. Some classical scholars explained that Aisha was given an exemption to play with dolls because she had not yet reached full maturity, which critics argue inadvertently confirms she was not mature enough for marriage.
Islamic Scholarly Responses
Muslim scholars have offered various responses to this criticism:
Historical Context: The most common response emphasizes that marriage at the onset of puberty was normative across virtually all ancient societies, including among Jews, Christians, Greeks, Romans, and Arabs. Scholars note that Aisha was betrothed before Islam was established, following existing Arabian customs. The age of majority was understood differently in pre-modern societies, typically marked by physical maturity rather than chronological age.
Aisha's Own Account: Muslim scholars point out that Aisha herself never expressed any grievance about her marriage in the extensive hadith corpus. She became one of Islam's greatest scholars, narrated over 2,000 hadith, and played a significant political role. They argue her later accomplishments demonstrate she was not harmed by the marriage.
Alternative Chronologies: Some Muslim scholars and historians have challenged the traditional age narrative, arguing for alternate calculations that would make Aisha older at marriage (perhaps 14-19 years old). They cite:
Conflicting reports about her age relative to her sister Asma
The fact that Aisha was initially engaged to someone else before Muhammad
Historical records suggesting different timelines
However, these revisionist views remain minority positions, as the hadith stating she was nine are found in the most authoritative collections.
Moral Relativism vs. Moral Objectivity: Some Muslim scholars argue that moral standards are culturally relative and that judging historical figures by contemporary standards is anachronistic. However, critics counter that if Muhammad is truly a prophet whose example (sunnah) is valid for all times and places, then his actions must be evaluated by principles that transcend particular cultural moments.
Emphasis on Her Maturity: Traditional scholars emphasize that Aisha had reached puberty and was therefore considered an adult by the standards of that society. They note that Islamic law requires physical and mental maturity for marriage, though definitions of these terms have varied.
Regarding the Doll Hadiths: Muslim scholars have offered different explanations for the hadiths about Aisha playing with dolls:
The Exception Argument: Classical Islamic scholars like Imam al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani noted that images and figurines are generally prohibited in Islam, but dolls for young girls were given an exemption specifically because they serve an educational purpose in preparing girls for motherhood. Some scholars argue that this exemption applied to Aisha, and the fact that it was permitted for her doesn't necessarily indicate she hadn't reached puberty—rather, it shows the flexibility of Islamic law for educational toys.
The Timing Question: Some Muslim scholars suggest that these particular incidents of doll-playing may have occurred before the marriage was consummated at age nine, possibly during the betrothal period between ages six and nine. They argue the hadiths don't explicitly state these events occurred after consummation.
Cultural Context of Maturity: Muslim scholars emphasize that reaching physical maturity (puberty) was the key criterion for adulthood in 7th-century Arabia, and activities like playing with dolls don't negate physical maturity. They note that even in more recent history, young teenagers in many cultures engaged in both childlike activities and adult responsibilities simultaneously.
The Educational Purpose: Some scholars argue that playing with dolls was understood as preparation for motherhood and domestic life, thus representing a transitional activity between childhood and adulthood rather than proof of immaturity.
Modern Islamic Legal Reforms: Many contemporary Muslim-majority countries have established minimum marriage ages (typically 16-18), with some scholars arguing these reforms are consistent with Islamic principles of protecting welfare (maslaha) even if they depart from historical practice.
Critics' Counter-Responses
Critics have responded to these Islamic defenses with several arguments:
Regarding Historical Context: Critics acknowledge that child marriage was common in ancient societies but argue this actually undermines rather than supports Muhammad's prophetic claims. They contend that if Muhammad were truly receiving revelation from an all-knowing, morally perfect God, his practices should have transcended the norms of 7th-century Arabia rather than conforming to them. Critics point out that Muhammad did challenge some Arabian customs (such as female infanticide and certain marriage practices), which suggests he had the authority and capacity to reform child marriage as well if it were morally problematic. The fact that he didn't, critics argue, suggests this was a human cultural practice rather than divine guidance.
Regarding Aisha's Own Account: Critics respond that Aisha's later silence or lack of complaint doesn't validate the practice, as individuals in traditional societies often internalized and defended practices that harmed them, especially when those practices were religiously sanctioned and questioning them would be seen as apostasy. Additionally, critics note that Aisha had no alternative frame of reference or language to critique what happened to her, having been socialized into accepting it from childhood. Her achievements later in life, while notable, don't negate concerns about consent and welfare at age nine.
Regarding Alternative Chronologies: Critics point out that these revisionist calculations are rejected by mainstream Islamic scholarship and appear to be motivated by modern discomfort rather than sound historical methodology. The hadith stating Aisha's age are found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim—if Muslims reject these narrations due to moral concerns, it raises questions about the reliability of the entire hadith corpus, which is foundational to Islamic law and practice. Critics see this revisionism as evidence that contemporary Muslims recognize the practice is indefensible by modern standards.
Regarding Moral Relativism: Critics argue that Muslims cannot simultaneously claim that:
Muhammad is the perfect example for all humanity for all time (Quran 33:21)
Muhammad's actions should only be judged by 7th-century standards
If Muhammad's example is truly universal and eternal, critics contend, then his actions must meet universal moral standards, not merely those of his particular time and place. Critics note that Muslims themselves appeal to universal moral principles when criticizing practices in other religions or cultures, suggesting they do believe in objective moral standards.
Regarding Physical Maturity: Critics argue that reaching puberty doesn't equate to the psychological, emotional, or social maturity necessary for marriage and sexual relations. Modern developmental psychology and neuroscience show that brain development, particularly in areas related to judgment and decision-making, continues well into the early twenties. Critics contend that a nine-year-old, regardless of whether she has reached menarche, cannot meaningfully consent to marriage with an adult man in his fifties.
Regarding the Doll Hadiths: Critics respond to Islamic explanations of the doll hadiths with several points:
The Exception Proves Immaturity: Critics argue that the very fact classical scholars felt compelled to explain why Aisha was allowed to play with dolls (given Islam's prohibition on images) inadvertently confirms she was recognized as immature. Ibn Hajar and other scholars explicitly stated the dolls were permitted because she had not yet reached the age of puberty or full maturity. This creates a contradiction: if she had reached full maturity sufficient for marriage, why would she need an exemption to play with dolls?
Contemporary Accounts: Critics note that the doll-playing hadiths don't suggest these were isolated incidents from years earlier. The narrations indicate this was ongoing behavior in Muhammad's presence after marriage, with her playmates regularly coming to visit and play. The natural reading suggests this was part of her regular life as Muhammad's wife.
The Maturity Double Standard: Critics argue that if a nine-year-old playing with dolls and having playdates with other children is considered mature enough for marriage to a middle-aged man, this reveals how different ancient standards were from any reasonable measure of readiness for adult relationships. The fact that Muslim scholars must explain why childlike behavior was acceptable in a wife underscores the problem.
Adult Responsibilities Don't Equal Adult Capacity: Critics reject the argument that girls in traditional societies simultaneously engaged in childlike activities and adult responsibilities. They argue that just because a society imposed adult responsibilities on children doesn't mean those children had adult capacity to handle them. This is precisely what modern child welfare advocates would call exploitation—expecting children to perform adult roles they're not developmentally ready for.
The "Preparation for Motherhood" Argument: Critics find this explanation troubling rather than exculpatory, as it suggests Aisha was being groomed for adult roles while still a child. This reinforces rather than refutes concerns about the appropriateness of the marriage.
Regarding Modern Reforms: Critics argue that while modern minimum marriage age laws are welcome, they implicitly acknowledge that following Muhammad's literal example in this matter would be harmful and wrong. This creates theological tension: if Muslims must deviate from the Prophet's example to meet basic ethical standards, critics question what it means to call him the perfect moral exemplar. Some critics suggest these reforms represent Muslims applying their own moral reasoning to override prophetic precedent, which undermines claims of Muhammad's moral perfection.
The Problem of Contemporary Justification: Critics emphasize that the most troubling aspect isn't merely that this marriage occurred historically, but that it remains in authoritative Islamic texts as part of the Prophet's sunnah (example). They point out that some contemporary Muslims in various countries have cited Muhammad's marriage to Aisha to justify child marriage today, which critics argue demonstrates the real-world harm of maintaining this as part of prophetic precedent. Critics note that child marriage remains legal in several Muslim-majority countries, often with explicit religious justification.
Muhammad's Sexual Conduct
Sahih al-Bukhari 5215: Relations with Multiple Wives in One Night
The Hadith
Sahih al-Bukhari (5215) records: "Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet used to pass by (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives at that time." Another version in Sahih al-Bukhari (268) adds: "Anas bin Malik said, 'The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.' I asked Anas, 'Had the Prophet the strength for it?' Anas replied, 'We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men).'"
The Criticism
Critics raise several concerns about this hadith:
Sexual Objectification: Critics argue that treating sexual relations with nine women in one night as a display of prophetic strength reduces women to objects for male sexual gratification rather than partners in meaningful relationships. The framing—that Muhammad was "given the strength of thirty men"—presents sexuality in terms of male prowess and conquest rather than mutual intimacy and respect.
Physical and Emotional Impossibility: Critics question the physical plausibility and, more importantly, the emotional impossibility of having meaningful intimate relations with nine different women in one night. They argue this sounds more like a legend designed to aggrandize Muhammad's masculinity than a credible historical account. Even if physically possible, critics contend that such behavior demonstrates a view of sexuality focused on male satisfaction rather than mutual relationship.
The Treatment of Wives: Critics argue this hadith reveals a harem-like dynamic where women exist primarily for the sexual availability to one man. The language of "passing by" or "visiting" wives for sexual relations suggests a transactional rather than relational understanding of marriage. Critics note this is inconsistent with modern understandings of consent, dignity, and marital equality.
Prophetic Example: Since Muhammad is considered the "excellent example" (uswa hasana) for Muslims, critics question what lesson this hadith is meant to teach. If it's describing exemplary behavior, it presents a model of sexuality that modern Muslims would likely find problematic. If it's not meant to be emulated, critics ask why it's preserved in the most authoritative hadith collection.
Islamic Scholarly Responses
Muslim scholars have offered various explanations:
Demonstrating Prophetic Blessing: Traditional scholars view this as evidence of Allah's special blessing upon Muhammad, granting him extraordinary physical capacity as a sign of his prophethood. They argue this demonstrates that Muhammad was not an ordinary man but someone endowed with special qualities by Allah.
Fairness and Equity: Some scholars argue this demonstrates Muhammad's commitment to treating all his wives fairly and equitably. In polygamous marriages, Islamic law requires the husband to treat wives equally. By visiting all his wives, Muhammad fulfilled this obligation of fairness.
Not Prescriptive: Most contemporary Muslim scholars emphasize that this hadith is descriptive of Muhammad's unique situation, not prescriptive for ordinary Muslims. Muhammad had special permissions (such as marrying more than four wives) that don't apply to other Muslims. This is understood as particular to his circumstances.
Context of Multiple Marriages: Scholars note that many of Muhammad's marriages were for political alliance, caring for widows, or other social purposes rather than purely romantic or sexual relationships. The nature of these relationships may have been different from modern expectations.
Spiritual Dimension: Some scholars emphasize that for prophets, even physical acts have spiritual dimensions that ordinary people don't experience. What appears purely physical may have had spiritual significance.
Critics' Counter-Responses
Blessing or Boasting: Critics argue that presenting extraordinary sexual capacity as a prophetic blessing reveals problematic assumptions about masculinity and prophethood. They ask why sexual prowess would be considered a sign of prophetic authority rather than, for example, exceptional compassion, wisdom, or moral insight. Critics suggest this reflects cultural values about male virility rather than divine revelation.
Fairness Through Availability: Critics respond that "fairness" in this context means ensuring each wife receives sexual attention, which itself reflects a view of women as dependents entitled to sexual access from their husband rather than autonomous individuals in reciprocal relationships. Modern concepts of fairness in marriage emphasize partnership and mutual decision-making, not equitable distribution of a man's sexual availability.
Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Problem: Critics note that the hadith doesn't just describe Muhammad's actions neutrally—it explicitly frames them as manifestations of special strength and blessing, presented admiringly. The very inclusion in Sahih al-Bukhari and the commentary about "strength of thirty men" suggests this was meant to be viewed positively. If Muslims now say this shouldn't be emulated, critics argue this represents modern moral sensibilities overriding the text's apparent intent.
The Political Marriage Argument: Critics contend that even if some marriages had political or social purposes, the hadith specifically describes sexual relations, not merely political alliances. If these were platonic arrangements, the hadith would be unnecessary and misleading.
Special Permissions Problem: Critics argue that if Muhammad had special permissions that don't apply to other Muslims (more than four wives, not needing consent from existing wives for new marriages), this creates theological problems: either these permissions reveal that Islamic marriage law is pragmatic rather than divinely perfect, or they suggest that fairness and consent requirements can be suspended for sufficient cause. Either conclusion troubles critics.
Sahih Muslim 3371 (8:3240): Sexual Relations with Female Captives
The Hadith
Sahih Muslim (Book 8, Hadith 3371, also numbered 3240 in some editions) records: "Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: 'And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess' (Quran 4:24). Thus, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."
Another version in Sahih Muslim (1438a) states: "Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that during the Battle of Hunain Allah's Messenger sent an army to Autas and they encountered the enemy and fought with them and captured them. Some of the Companions of Allah's Messenger felt reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives because of their polytheist husbands. So Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, sent down the Quranic verse: 'And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess' (Quran 4:24)."
Additionally, Sahih Muslim (1438c) records: "Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that they took captives (women) on the day of Autas who had their husbands. They were reluctant to have relations with them because of their husbands. So this verse was revealed: 'And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.'"
There is also a related hadith about coitus interruptus (withdrawal) in Sahih al-Bukhari (4138) and Sahih Muslim (1438a): "We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Messenger about it and he said, 'Do you really do that?' repeating the question thrice, 'There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.'"
The Criticism
Critics raise severe moral objections to these hadiths:
Sexual Slavery and Rape: Critics argue these hadiths describe and endorse sexual slavery and rape. The women were captured in war, their husbands were present (making them married women), and the Muslim men sought permission to have sexual relations with them. Critics contend that captive women cannot meaningfully consent to sex with their captors—any "consent" given under such circumstances is coerced. Modern international law defines such acts as war crimes.
Quranic Endorsement: The hadiths indicate that when Muslims were reluctant to have sex with married captive women, Allah revealed Quran 4:24 explicitly permitting this practice. Critics argue this shows the Quran directly endorsing sexual slavery and the violation of married women's bodily autonomy. They note this isn't a matter of interpretation—the text explicitly addresses the moral question and permits the practice.
Concern About Husbands, Not Women: Critics find it deeply troubling that the Muslims' hesitation was about the women's husbands being present, not about the women's consent or wellbeing. The ethical concern was violating another man's marital rights, not violating the women themselves. This, critics argue, reveals that women were viewed as property that could be transferred through conquest rather than as persons with inherent rights.
Coitus Interruptus Discussion: Critics note that the follow-up discussion about withdrawal methods shows the Muslims' concern was about pregnancy (and thus financial obligation), not about the fundamental ethics of forcing sex on captive women. Muhammad's response—that whatever souls are destined to exist will exist—addresses the withdrawal question but doesn't challenge the underlying practice of sexual slavery.
Prophetic Silence as Approval: Critics emphasize that Muhammad didn't forbid this practice or express moral concern about it. Instead, according to the hadiths, Allah revealed a verse explicitly permitting it. Critics argue that a prophet receiving divine revelation should have abolished such practices, as slavery and sexual violence are inherently wrong regardless of historical context.
"Right Hand Possesses" Euphemism: Critics note that the Quranic phrase "those whom your right hands possess" (ma malakat aymanukum) is a euphemism for slaves and captives. They argue that framing sexual access to captive women in euphemistic religious language doesn't change the reality of what's being described: legalized rape of enslaved women.
Modern Parallels: Critics draw parallels to contemporary sexual slavery by terrorist groups like ISIS, noting that ISIS explicitly cited these same Quranic verses and hadiths to justify taking Yazidi women as sex slaves. Critics argue that as long as these texts remain authoritative, they provide scriptural justification for sexual violence.
Islamic Scholarly Responses
Muslim scholars have offered various responses to these criticisms:
Historical Context of War: Traditional scholars note that in ancient warfare, capturing enemies and their families was universal practice. The alternatives were often killing captives or leaving them to die. Taking captives provided them with protection, shelter, and sustenance within the Muslim community.
Treatment vs. Status: Scholars emphasize that Islam improved the treatment of captives compared to pre-Islamic practices. Islamic law required captors to feed, clothe, and house captives properly. Many captives could earn or be granted their freedom. Some scholars argue this was a step toward gradual abolition.
Marriage, Not Rape: Traditional Islamic jurisprudence views sexual relations with female captives as occurring within a legal relationship similar to marriage (milk al-yamin, "right hand possession"). Scholars argue this provided women with legal protections and status, including rights to maintenance, inheritance rights for any children, and the possibility of manumission. They distinguish this from modern concepts of slavery.
Consent Through Legal Framework: Some scholars argue that consent operated differently in traditional societies. Once a woman became part of a household through captivity, the legal relationship itself constituted the framework for permissible relations, similar to how marriage contracts established permissible relations.
The Waiting Period (Iddah): Scholars note that Islamic law required a waiting period before relations could occur with captive women, ostensibly to determine if they were pregnant. This waiting period, they argue, shows ethical concern and legal structure rather than immediate violation.
Path to Freedom: Traditional scholars emphasize that bearing a child to her captor made a female captive an "umm walad" (mother of a child), which meant she would be automatically freed upon her master's death and her child would be free and legitimate. This provided a path to freedom and integration into society.
Abolition Through Encouragement: Some contemporary scholars argue that while Islam didn't immediately abolish slavery (which would have been economically catastrophic in that society), it strongly encouraged manumission and created many pathways to freedom. They see this as a progressive approach intended to gradually eliminate slavery.
Modern Irrelevance: Many contemporary Muslim scholars simply state that slavery is abolished in the modern world, and these historical rulings no longer apply. They argue Islam is compatible with universal human rights and modern legal frameworks that prohibit slavery.
Critics' Counter-Responses
Historical Context Doesn't Justify Rape: Critics respond that while capturing enemies may have been common in ancient warfare, this doesn't make sexual violence against captives morally acceptable. They note that moral codes should transcend cultural practices, especially for divine revelation. Critics point out that the Quran claims to be guidance for all humanity for all time—if it's time-bound to 7th-century norms, this undermines its universal claims.
Improvement vs. Abolition: Critics argue that "improving" the treatment of slaves is insufficient. An all-knowing God revealing perfect moral law should have abolished slavery and sexual slavery entirely, as these practices are inherently violations of human dignity. Critics note that the Quran explicitly abolished some pre-Islamic practices (like female infanticide) but chose to regulate rather than abolish slavery.
Legal Framework Doesn't Equal Consent: Critics firmly reject the argument that a legal framework constitutes consent. They argue that calling sexual slavery "marriage" doesn't change its nature. A captive woman whose community has been conquered, whose family may have been killed, who is now the property of her captor, cannot freely consent to sexual relations with that captor regardless of what legal terminology is applied.
The Waiting Period: Critics argue the waiting period (iddah) wasn't primarily about ethical consideration but about property rights—ensuring clarity about paternity and avoiding disputes about children's lineage and inheritance. The fact that men had to wait doesn't negate that the underlying practice was coerced sex with captive women.
Umm Walad Status: Critics respond that making freedom contingent on bearing children to one's captor is itself deeply problematic. This incentivizes captive women to become pregnant by their captors as the only path to freedom, which critics argue compounds rather than ameliorates the injustice. It treats women's reproductive capacity as a commodity to be exploited.
Progressive Revelation Problem: Critics challenge the claim that Islam intended gradual abolition. They note that unlike practices that were explicitly phased out (like alcohol consumption), slavery was never prohibited in the Quran or hadith. Muhammad himself owned slaves and took female captives. If the intent was abolition, critics ask, why didn't Muhammad prohibit it or at least clearly state it should eventually be abolished?
Modern Irrelevance Doesn't Solve the Problem: Critics argue that saying these laws no longer apply doesn't address the fundamental issue: the Quran and authentic hadith explicitly permitted and regulated sexual slavery. If Muslims now recognize this as morally wrong, they're essentially admitting that Quranic ethics were inadequate. Critics contend this creates a theological crisis: either the Quran's moral teachings were perfect (in which case sexual slavery was morally acceptable), or they weren't (in which case the Quran isn't the perfect, eternal word of God).
The ISIS Example: Critics point out that ISIS's use of these exact verses and hadiths to justify sexual slavery shows these aren't merely theoretical problems. When ISIS published its pamphlet "Questions and Answers on Taking Captives and Slaves," it cited Quran 4:24 and similar hadiths. Critics argue that as long as these texts remain canonical and authoritative, they will continue to provide justification for such atrocities. The fact that most Muslims reject ISIS's interpretation doesn't eliminate the textual basis ISIS used.
The Double Standard: Critics note what they see as a double standard: Muslims often critique Biblical passages about slavery or violence as evidence of the Bible's human origin, yet defend similar passages in the Quran as either contextual or misunderstood. Critics argue the same skepticism should apply to both texts.
Consent Is Not Negotiable: Critics emphasize that modern understanding of consent is non-negotiable: it must be freely given, informed, enthusiastic, and revocable. A captive woman under the control of her captor cannot meet any of these criteria. Critics argue that no amount of historical contextualization or legal framework changes this fundamental reality.
The Broader Question of Prophetic Example
The Criticism
Critics argue that if Muhammad is considered "an excellent example" (uswa hasana) for all humanity for all time (Quran 33:21), then all his actions should be morally praiseworthy by universal standards, not merely acceptable by 7th-century Arabian norms. They point to various practices including polygamy, concubinage, and military campaigns as difficult to reconcile with modern ethical standards.
Islamic Responses
Muslim scholars typically respond by distinguishing between:
Universal Principles vs. Contextual Applications: Some aspects of Muhammad's example are universal (honesty, justice, compassion) while others were specific applications in particular circumstances. Not every action of the Prophet is meant to be replicated in all contexts.
Legal Categories: Islamic jurisprudence distinguishes between what is obligatory (wajib), recommended (mustahabb), permissible (mubah), discouraged (makruh), and forbidden (haram). Many of Muhammad's personal practices fall into the "permissible" or "recommended" categories rather than being obligatory for all Muslims.
Progressive Revelation: Some scholars emphasize that Islamic law developed progressively, with practices like slavery being gradually restricted rather than immediately abolished, suggesting an interpretive flexibility for changing contexts.
Critics' Counter-Responses
Critics respond to these distinctions with several objections:
Regarding Universal vs. Contextual: Critics argue that this distinction is often applied selectively and inconsistently. They question who gets to decide which aspects of Muhammad's example are universal and which are contextual, and by what criteria. Critics note that Muslims often cite Muhammad's behavior as authoritative when it aligns with their positions but dismiss it as "contextual" when it doesn't. They argue this appears to be motivated reasoning rather than principled interpretation.
Regarding Legal Categories: Critics contend that certain practices of Muhammad—such as marrying a nine-year-old or taking war captives as concubines—fall into moral categories that transcend legal permissibility. Even if these actions were "permissible" by 7th-century standards or Islamic legal categories, critics argue they would be morally wrong by any objective standard of human welfare and dignity. The fact that Islamic law categorizes them as "permissible" rather than "forbidden" is itself seen as problematic.
Regarding Progressive Revelation: Critics argue that this concept actually undermines Islam's claims. If Islamic law needed to develop progressively due to the limitations of 7th-century Arabian society, this suggests the revelation was constrained by human cultural limitations rather than representing timeless divine wisdom. Critics ask: Why would an all-powerful God need to gradually restrict slavery rather than prohibiting it outright? They contend this sounds more like human moral evolution than divine moral perfection. Additionally, critics note that the "progressive" trajectory appears to have stopped in the 7th century, leaving many practices that Muslims themselves now recognize as needing reform.
The Finality Problem: Critics emphasize that Islam claims Muhammad is the "Seal of the Prophets" (Quran 33:40), meaning the final prophet. If revelation has ended and Muhammad's example is final, critics question how the necessary moral evolution beyond 7th-century norms can occur without either abandoning prophetic precedent or admitting the revelation was incomplete or time-bound rather than eternal and universal.
Conclusion
These debates reflect fundamental questions about how religious communities understand Islamic texts in relation to timeless truth. Defenders of Islam often sidestep the issues or attempt to justify the weaknesses of their texts and their prophet. However, the issues of the internal inconsistencies of the texts and the moral failure of their prophet are so fundamental that Muslims should unequivocally reject their faith and put their trust in Jesus, who provided the most excellent moral example, and the Bible that, despite its numerous human writers spanning centuries, yielded through the influence of the Holy Spirit a text that is coherent and inspiring.
