How does the Qur'an stack up to the Bible?

[I Ratant]

I was thinking on this passing down of story by chant...
I can recall pretty much word for word some of the songs that were popular in the early '40s.
I expect in a culture where word-of-mouth was the method of spreading news, that recalling what one had heard -accurately- would be stressed.
But also when the book was assembled from these recollections, it would be human to leave out those that didn't fit the biases of the editors, and enhance those that did.

 

[HansMustermann]

For anybody else like me that wasn't aware of the source for the opening post:

It's Numbers 31:17
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=29&version=31

The targeted group is the Midianites. They seem to be a group that Moses and the Israelis fleeing Egypt came across in the desert. Apparently they had been bad to the Israelis and the Moses wanted his armies to seek vengeance. Initially his army just killed all the adult men, but God as per Moses thought this wasn't sufficient and that all the boys and non-virgin women should be killed also.

Actually, the way I had understood it, the Midianites had been in fact pretty nice and hospitable to Moses's men.

So some of the hebrews took wives from Midian, and some of those moved to Midian and converted to their wives' religion.

So the good Lord gave a plague. Of course, not to the hebrews who had converted, not even to the Midianites, but to the still faithful hebrews. You know, because apparently that's his idea of justice. Why bother punishing the guilty, when smiting a few of your own minions vents frustration just as well?

(Real Evil Overlord material there. And not the kind that's read the Evil Overlord's List.)

So first the plague is lifted because some dude takes a spear and kills a man and his wife in their own home. Apparently just because the victim was the last guy to marry a midianite woman.

Note: nowhere is it mentioned that he also gave up his religion or anything. In fact, since he came back with her to Moses's theocratic flock, it's probably safe to assume that she converted to Judaism instead.

Anyway, no trial, no chance to defend oneself in court, no proper stoning. Remember that the whole stoning deal was because of the "thou shalt not kill" part. So they used stoning so, because no individual stone was lethal, no individual guy who had thrown a stone was guilty of killing anyone. (Gotta love that kind of logic)

But this time, you know, a guy just takes a spear and kills a couple in their own home. Common premeditated murder at its finest. Exactly what the Lord had forbidden.

So _obviously_ the Lord is pleased and lifts the plague.

But the Midianites were still guilty of the grievous crime of, you know, being nice to the hebrews and marrying their daughters to the hebrews. And for that the Lord orders the complete genocide of the Midianites.

I don't know, man... the Bible has much morally objectionable stuff, but this for me takes the crown.

 

[HansMustermann]

So, let's see, what divine morals can we learn from the OT:

- that breaking the 10 commandments or for that matter the laws of the land is ok, if it's done in the name of the Lord. Murder in his name pleases him, you know? (I guess doctor-shooters must really make him proud.)

- that if some plague or other natural misfortune befalls you, it's ok to blame some scapegoat and kill them

- that executing prisoners is ok

- that killing children is ok (no lower limit is given for those murdered boys from Midian)

- that killing non-combatants is ok (no exception is made for the old or disabled of Midian, and the execution of the non-virgin women is explicitly ordered)

- that rape is ok and an apropriate thing to do in a war (the virgin ones are given to the soldiers)

- very likely even paedophilia (no lower limit is given for those virgin women)

- brutal and complete genocide is ok

- that, basically, if some guys marry Indian or Chinese women and/or convert to Buddhism, well, we should probably nuke India and China. I mean, come on, that was the whole "crime" of the Midianites too.

Etc.

... and that's just from one chapter.

I dunno, man, I believe that the Islam or any other religion would have a really hard time topping _that_. Maybe the thugs of Kali can almost stack up to that, though even those didn't manage genocide. Amateurs

 

[fuelair]

Try to think of it as comparing two feces. Both stink so you have to go for color and texture to try to differentiate them.

 

[SezMe]

Anyway, I guess I was struck by the bit about the Q'ran's power as an orally transmitted story as opposed to a written story. If you don't know Arabic and can never experience it as poetry in the orginial language, what is its real power?

It would seem the Indonesians, for example, would be able to answer that question.

 

[photon]

Anyway, I guess I was struck by the bit about the Q'ran's power as an orally transmitted story as opposed to a written story. If you don't know Arabic and can never experience it as poetry in the orginial language, what is its real power?

It is true that all Muslims are in agreement that to appreciate the true beauty of the Quran you have to be able to read and understand it in Arabic because of the frequent use of poetry therein. But the Quran is not just poetry, hence the translations are not completely useless. For example, the verse:

[2:275] Those who devour usury will not stand except as stands one whom the Evil one by his touch Hath driven to madness. That is because they say: "Trade is like usury," but Allah hath permitted trade and forbidden usury. Those who after receiving direction from their Lord, desist, shall be pardoned for the past; their case is for Allah (to judge); but those who repeat (The offence) are companions of the Fire: They will abide therein (for ever).


the verse is pretty clear in meaning, regardless of the poetic nature (or lack thereof) of the translation.

 

[SezMe]

It is true that all Muslims are in agreement that to appreciate the true beauty of the Quran you have to be able to read and understand it in Arabic because of the frequent use of poetry therein.

Per my post above, I question this. How do you know "all" Muslims are in agreement. Do you have some evidence?

 

[photon]

Per my post above, I question this. How do you know "all" Muslims are in agreement. Do you have some evidence?

You would have to listen to some audio recitations of the Quran. Preferably some surahs from the last couple of chapters. If you do, you will hear the rhyming nature of the verses. This poetry is completely lost in all translations. I was just pointing out this obvious fact that the poetic nature of the surahs (which is clearly not simply an accident) is lost upon translation. Hence, I don't see how it's possible for any Muslim to argue that a translation of the Quran is comparable in poetic value to the original Arabic form, when you are clearly losing the poetry upon translation.

You can also google "beauty of the quran arabic" and read any of the dozens of relevant links that discuss the beauty of the Quranic reciation in Arabic.

 

[SezMe]

My point is that you are arguing that all non-arabic muslims do not and cannot completely grasp the Quran so I am asking if non-arabic muslims do, in fact, agree that they cannot access the essential nature of the Quran.

BTW, welcome to the fora.

 

[photon]

My point is that you are arguing that all non-arabic muslims do not and cannot completely grasp the Quran

No, that is not what I was arguing for. I was referring specifically to the difficulty in grasping the poetic nature of the Quranic verses, not their meaning. I said: "It is true that all Muslims are in agreement that to appreciate the true beauty of the Quran you have to be able to read and understand it in Arabic because of the frequent use of poetry therein."

BTW, welcome to the fora.

Thanks.

 

[ixolite]

I get how that makes the Koran bad, but I don't get how it makes it worse than the OT.

"Isn't there one person in the city worth saving?"
"Well, yeah, the guy who offered to let a mob gang-rape his daughters."
"Oh, yeah, him! He's worthy! What about his wife?"
"Maybe, providing she doesn't look back as she's fleeing the city."
"Yeah, that would be bad."

-- typical moral lesson from the Old Testament

Is there an OT/NT commandment where YHVH orders the believers to kill the unbelievers as a general rule? IIRC not. There are stories (most of them probably myths which never happend anyway) where the Israelis murder other tribes, but those are stories, not orders for all time from YHVH. (The only ones being the 10 commandments.) Same with the other stuff I mentioned.

very likely even paedophilia (no lower limit is given for those virgin women)

IIRC the jewish minimum age for marriage is 12 for girls and 13 for boys, I don't recall this being in the bible though.

 

[HansMustermann]

Is there an OT/NT commandment where YHVH orders the believers to kill the unbelievers as a general rule? IIRC not. There are stories (most of them probably myths which never happend anyway) where the Israelis murder other tribes, but those are stories, not orders for all time from YHVH. (The only ones being the 10 commandments.) Same with the other stuff I mentioned.

1. Except those "stories" are taken as lessons for what to do.

E.g., when God smites Onan for practicing birth control, nobody takes it as, "oh, that's one story that happened only once. The Lord doesn't care even if you jack off until you get RSI, as long as you're not Onan." No, that's taken as a lesson in what the Lord doesn't want you to do.

E.g., when God nukes Sodom and Gommorah, nobody takes it as an "oh, that was a one time thing, you know. You can take it up the rear end until you walk bow-legged, as far as the Lord is concerned." If they bring up that story at all, it's invariably to mean "the Lord hates that kind of thing."

Those stories aren't in there just for entertainment sake, but precisely to tell you something.

So I'm going to say that most likely it's not the bible that's OK, it's you who's cherry-picking from it. Same as everyone else.

2. Even _if_ I were to take them as one-time things, then it paints the picture of a God who's utterly inconsistent and demands today what he forbade yesterday. One day he forbids murder, then the next day he demands murder, then I'm supposed to believe that suddenly it's forbidden again.

Until when? Until another random whim hits him?

What moral lessons can be learned from a God who can't even make his mind whether he likes or dislikes murder?

And what's the point in following some rules, when not even he knows if he'll still like the same rules tomorrow?

IIRC the jewish minimum age for marriage is 12 for girls and 13 for boys, I don't recall this being in the bible though.

The point I'm making is this: Moses didn't say "rape the girls over 12." (Despicable as that would be in its own right.) Moses said, basically, "rape all the virgin females." No other qualifier about age or anything.

 

[FireGarden]

I get how that makes the Koran bad, but I don't get how it makes it worse than the OT.

"Isn't there one person in the city worth saving?"
"Well, yeah, the guy who offered to let a mob gang-rape his daughters."
"Oh, yeah, him! He's worthy! What about his wife?"
"Maybe, providing she doesn't look back as she's fleeing the city."
"Yeah, that would be bad."

-- typical moral lesson from the Old Testament

Meant to comment on this earlier, but forget until ixolite quoted it.

The story of Lot is in the Quran, too.
For those who like stories retold and retold, wiki has collected them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Lot


As for the bits in brackets... my Arabic isn't good enough to decode the original, but it's here at sacred texts:
http://sacred-texts.com/isl/quran/01107.htm

78. And his people came rushing towards him, and they had been long in the habit of practising abominations. He said: "O my people! Here are my daughters: they are purer for you (if ye marry)! Now fear Allah, and cover me not with shame about my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?"

 

[Scorpion]

With regard to the opening post asking if the quran is better or worse than the bible.
The quran is clearly stolen from the bible, and from other looted manuscripts. The quran is pure plagiarism, but it adds a new level of cruelty in the lurid descriptions of hellfire. It is also filled with rules of war, and sura 8 says one fifth of the spoils of war belong to Muhammad.
I regard the quran as a book of lies made up by Muhammad to scare silly Arabs into fighting his battles for him, and there is only one meaning in the entire quran which is summed up in the phrase " Obey Allah and the messenger". In other words, obey Muhammad or he will set Allah on to you.

 

[Scorpion]

Having compared the bible story of Joseph in the bibles Genesis with the Quran, I can just about follow the story as described in sura 12, but as far as I can see, anyone who did not know the Genesis story, or who did not have the Yusuf Ali translation with commentary, could possibly make sense of the tale of Joseph, as told in the Quran.

In the bible books of Genesis from chapter thirty seven to chapter fifty. the entire fourteen chapters are about Joseph. There are four hundred and fifty verses about the story in the bible, but in the quran sura 12 there are only one hundred and eleven verses.

The quranic version of the bible story of Joseph is a mumbling, incoherent, ill considered, and inaccurate muddle, and it does not even tell you who Joseph is. It just launches into Josephs dream at verse 4, after three verses that attempt to explain the story is being revealed in Arabic, presumably to make it available to Arabs.

The entire sura is peppered with completely unnecessary references to Allah which clutter the narrative, if you can call it a narrative. Because the bible story is clear and lucid, and rich in detail, and it has a comprehensible flow to it.


Sura 12.4 launches into a description of Josephs dream, with no explanation of who he is or how many brothers he has. What is more the dream described is the second of two dreams that are told in Genesis. But the entire point of the dream is that the eleven stars bowing down to Joseph are his eleven brothers. Genesis explains Josephs family tree so you can realize this, but the Quran says nothing about the matter. The Genesis story also says that Jacob made a coat of many colours for Joseph, and that is why his brothers were jealous of him, but the quran gives no reason or motives for Josephs brothers to hate him. Nor does it explain that Joseph has one other brother named Benjamin who had the same mother as himself, but the other ten brothers are step brothers. Nor does sura 12 explain this issue at any time, including when Joseph sends for him from Egypt.

So when Josephs brothers state at sura 12.8 When they said:" Verily Joseph and his brother are dearer to our father than we are, many though we be. Lo! our father is in plain aberration":
This makes absolutely no sense whatever to anyone that has not read the full account in Genesis.

Later in the story Joseph is put in power in Egypt, but sura 12 says nothing about him filling the granaries for seven years, it simply changes the subject to when his brothers amble into Egypt to trade, (sura 12.58) and it does not explain they are there because it is now during the seven years of famine. Then Joseph ask his brothers to send for a brother of their father, this again makes no sense without an explanation of the family background.

How much more obvious can it be that the Quran is plagiarism, and it was taken from the Bible and other earlier sources. It is clear to me that Muhammad had Genesis read to him and sura 12 is his half remembered rehash of the story of Joseph.

 

[A'isha]

Allusion and reference is not "plagiarism", especially when the author of the Qur'an explicitly positions it as being in the same religious tradition as Judaism and Christianity before it.

The brief nature of the references indicates that the Qur'an was addressed to an audience that, while not necessarily composed of adherents of those two earlier religions, were at least familiar with their milieu, and so didn't need those stories repeated to them in their entirety to understand the context.

 

[Scorpion]

Well here is a story in the quran that is obviously stolen from a fiction book.
The story in the quran concerning Jesus childhood, about an incident where he makes a clay bird and brings it to life is not a part of the Christian bible, and the original texts are considered apocryphal. They are regarded by Christian scholars as having been written in around 150AD, as propaganda by the early Christians, attempting to fill in the missing years of Jesus life.So what are these stories doing in the quran claiming to be a message from God?

The following are two verses in the quran that contain the references.
From the Yusuf Ali translation.

003.049 "And (appoint him) an apostle to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by God's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in
your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;

005.110 Then will God say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold ! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'


As can be seen the quran speaks of only one bird, and says Jesus breathed life into it. But the only historical text that contains such a story speaks of 12 birds, and they were brought to life by Jesus commanding them to "Go". Therefore the quran does not even get the facts of the original fictional document correct. Added to this the New Testament states that Jesus did his first miracle at a time he was around thirty years old. (John 2.11)

Here is the relevant text, translated from Greek and written in, The Apocryphal New Testament, by M.R.James, published by Oxford:Clarendon press, 1924.
The stories of Thomas the Israelite, (not St Thomas of the bible) the philosopher, concerning the works of the childhood of the Lord.

1. I, Thomas the Israelite, tell you, and all the brethren that are Gentile, the works of the childhood of our Lord Jesus Christ and his mighty deeds, and all that he did when he was born in our land.
2.1 This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of a brook: and he gathered together the water that flowed there into pools, and made them clean, and commanded them by his word alone.
2.2 Having made soft clay, he fashioned twelve sparrows. It was the Sabbath when he did these things. And there were also many other little children playing with him.
2.3. A certain Jew when he saw what Jesus did, playing upon the Sabbath day, departed and told his father Joseph: your child is at the brook, and he has taken clay and fashioned twelve little birds, and has polluted the Sabbath day.
2.4. Joseph came to the place and saw: and cried out to him, saying: Why do you do these things on the Sabbath, which it is not lawful to do? But Jesus clapped his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping.
2.5 when the Jews saw it they were amazed, and departed and told their chief men that which they had seen Jesus do.

There is a reference to this story, and the flaws in it in the book.
The original sources of the quran. by William St Clair Tisdall.
This book is in the public domain and can be found on the Internet.

 

[A'isha]

Well here is a story in the quran that is obviously stolen from a fiction book.
The story in the quran concerning Jesus childhood, about an incident where he makes a clay bird and brings it to life is not a part of the Christian bible, and the original texts are considered apocryphal. They are regarded by Christian scholars as having been written in around 150AD, as propaganda by the early Christians, attempting to fill in the missing years of Jesus life.So what are these stories doing in the quran claiming to be a message from God?

Er, because what we know now to be a later interpolated tradition wasn't necessarily known as such circa 600 AD? The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the story of Jesus and the sparrows was immensely popular and widespread in Late Antiquity and even through the medieval period.

EDIT: The Syriac Infancy Gospel, containing the same stories, was contemporaneous with the Qur'an, so the stories were definitely circulating within the Christian communities in or near the Hejaz in several forms, making the Qur'an's reference to them entirely unsurprising.

 

[Craig B]

Is there an OT/NT commandment where YHVH orders the believers to kill the unbelievers as a general rule? IIRC not. There are stories (most of them probably myths which never happend anyway) where the Israelis murder other tribes, but those are stories, not orders for all time from YHVH. (The only ones being the 10 commandments.) Same with the other stuff I mentioned.


IIRC the jewish minimum age for marriage is 12 for girls and 13 for boys, I don't recall this being in the bible though.

There are even more disquieting things in certain Talmudic passages.

R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. (Sanh. 55b)
A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation. . . .(Yeb. 57b)
A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanh. 69a, 69b)
It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas surely was with them. (Yeb. 60b)

 

[Craig B]

Is there an OT/NT commandment where YHVH orders the believers to kill the unbelievers as a general rule? IIRC not. There are stories (most of them probably myths which never happend anyway) where the Israelis murder other tribes, but those are stories, not orders for all time from YHVH. (The only ones being the 10 commandments.) Same with the other stuff I mentioned.

But they are orders from YHWH, and have formed the basis for later legal concepts.

Numbers 31 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”

And Amalekites are to be slain for all time. Such commands are no longer attended to by any sane people, Jews or otherwise.