How convincing is the Qur'an anyway? In which respects?

[Shad]

I said point out the error not the topic.

The topic was the error. Got back and read the post chain....

That doesn't change anything.

It was a response to your comment of "Then we wouldn't have Sea water and fresh water." My comment established you have no idea what the water cycle is.

Try again.

 

[sooda]

There is a thread by @Debater Slayer elsewhere discussing the literary merits of the Qur'an.

However, there is a surprisingly predictable recurrence of claims about the excellence of the Qur'an in other respects.

It is surprising because, to the best of my knowledge, they consistently turn out to be questionable at best, despite the passion and insistence of so many.

Perhaps the best example of how bizarre those claims are is the anecdote of how the Qur'an predicts, apparently accurately by the perception of some, that Makkah is somehow "the center of Earth".

There is also the anecdote told in the Qur'an itself tells about how hard it presumably is to create a text of comparable merit. Needless to say, that is ultimately pure self-promotion with nothing substantial to show for it.

Challenge of the Quran - Wikipedia

Far as religious doctrine go, I must say that the Qur'an is if anything deplorable. Its doctrine is both derivative, self-limiting and seriously misguided, to the point that to this day it insists on the repudiation of LGBT and the defense of "proper" ways for husbands to physically hit their wives.

Then there is the sheer inability of the Qur'an to even acknowledge properly the nature and existence of either atheism or non-Abrahamic religion. Or the necessity of freedom of belief.

All in all, a pretty limited and dismaying text, raised by the sincere if misguided effort of so very many to a role that it can't ever possibly sustain.

Yet the claims that the Qur'an is of "remarkable accuracy" or admirable in other ways persist.

Do we have any true indication that such is or could conceivably be the case?

Well, you're correct. If a husband was very displeased he could strike his wife with a silk kerchief tied to a toothbrush and if that didn't work, he was to divorce her.

 

[sooda]

Most of the posters in this thread are not Christian.



The Ottomans were not some peaceful nation minding it's own business for centuries. ME's decline was not due to external forces of Europe alone but a history which spans centuries.

Most of the Arab world stagnated under the Ottoman Empire.. and they were somewhat apathetic about letting different groups govern themselves.. like in Palestine.

 

[sooda]

While a good deal of what you say in the OP has merit, I would question your contention here.

'Freedom of belief' was not anywhere endorsed in the ancient world of antiquity from which the Qur'an emerged, so I would find it odd to expect it to teach such a radical doctrine.

The Greeks did not tolerate Socrates preaching about an inner deity of 'conscience' to which he had access outside the Athenian gods of the city, so they executed him and persecuted his followers.

The Romans were more 'tolerant' of cultic diversity but didn't believe in freedom of religion: you could keep your native gods, but you had to honour the state religion of the emperor as a living deity and recognise the gods of Rome with sacrifices on top of or subsumed within your native pantheon, or else you'd be variously penalized, depending on the generosity of a given emperor or procurators. Thus we find that worshippers of Magna Mater, the Asiatic Mysteries, Mithraists, Jews and Christians were variously persecuted, executed or simply discriminated against under the Republic and Empire. Freedom of religion, per se, didn't become a legal norm until Constantine passed the Edict of Milan in 313 (that proclaimed to all "religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases" for the first and last time in Roman or Byzantine history), and which stayed in place until Emperors Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius revoked it in 380 by making Catholic Christianity the new state religion in their Edict of Thessalonica.

Theodosius followed this with the prohibition of all pagan sacrifices; and when he was established as sole Emperor (following Gratian's murder by his own troops) a series of edicts were issued in 391 AD - 392 AD abolishing pagan cults and ceremonies, although paganism as such didn't vanish entirely until the sixth century in Byzantium.

Among the early church fathers of Christianity, such as Lactantius and Tertullian, a belief that religion was above all a free choice in accordance with one's conscience first emerges (and was implemented, for nearly 70 years, by the first Christian emperor Constantine in 313), but while it was still paid lip-service to in principle in the Latin West (not the orthodox east), later church leadership departed from it as the state in the West began to prosecute and execute both apostates and heretics with clerical connivance.

Against this background, the Qur'anic teaching doesn't seem at all reactionary: it was actually fairly enlightened - and I say that as someone who is not well-disposed towards other elements of Qur'anic ethical norms. By the time Islam came on the scene in the 7th century, the world of late antiquity was a bleakly intolerant place, from Sassanid Iran (where Zoroastrians were savagely suppressing Syriac Christianity), to the anti-Judaic legislation of certain Byzantine emperors and their corresponding suppression of the lingering traces of paganism, a trend which perhaps reached its apogee in the Western Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne's decision, in 722 A.D. during the Saxon Wars, to order the massacre of 4,500 Saxon pagans and forcibly convert the rest of the Saxon people to Christianity.

We see, for instance, Muhammad stating in the 109th Sura:

Say: O disbelievers!
I worship not that which ye worship;
Nor worship ye that which I worship.
And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

​

While this was a Makkan sura delivered before Muhammad became a military leader who fought idolaters and smashed their statues (according to the traditional Sunnah accounts), verse (ayah) 256 of Al-Baqara which includes the aphorism, "there is no compulsion in religion, the right path has been distinguished from error" is, to my understanding, widely recognised as Medinan in origin.

How one reconciles this with later Hadith, which interpret the infamous and equally Medinan sword verse of the Qur'an ("slay the polytheists wherever you find them") as mandating the slaughter of infidels if they refuse to either convert or pay the poll tax (there are some hadiths which say polytheists can pay the poll tax like Abrahamic people of the book and some which say they must convert or die), is a question better answered by an Islamic theologian.

In context ("slay the polytheists wherever you find them") is about fighting defensive war after the holy days have passed.

 

[Shad]

Most of the Arab world stagnated under the Ottoman Empire.

This happened. The Ottoman Empire failed to modernize and develop in the century preceding it's collapse. Reformist groups gained some ground but were toppled by hardliners in the religious hierarchy and Janissaries. Weak and outright incompetent Sultans had become the status quo for centuries.

and they were somewhat apathetic about letting different groups govern themselves.. like in Palestine.

Depends on the group and distance. The Ottomans used suzerainty in remote areas and as buffer states. Palestine was a key transportation corridor linking Anatolia and Balkan territory with Egypt. It was in proximity to the various Iran/Persia based Empires the Ottomans fought mostly over control of Iraq. There was also a lack of native leadership for centuries as the area had been a battle ground for 4 centuries by various external states so no direct rulers which would swear fealty.

 

[sooda]

This happened. The Ottoman Empire failed to modernize and develop in the century preceding it's collapse. Reformist groups gained some ground but were toppled by hardliners in the religious hierarchy and Janissaries. Weak and outright incompetent Sultans had become the status quo for centuries.



Depends on the group and distance. The Ottomans used suzerainty in remote areas and as buffer states. Palestine was a key transportation corridor linking Anatolia and Balkan territory with Egypt. It was in proximity to the various Iran/Persia based Empires the Ottomans fought mostly over control of Iraq. There was also a lack of native leadership for centuries as the area had been a battle ground for 4 centuries by various external states so no direct rulers which would swear fealty.

So in Palestine the Muslims ran their own community and the Christians ran their community??

 

[Shad]

So in Palestine the Muslims ran their own community and the Christians ran their community??

I was talking about rulers over a large area akin to a King, Amir, Duke, etc. The Ottoman merely used the Mameluke system and replaced the people in those positions with their own.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, there are some amazing scientific revelations in the Quran.

Such as?

I think that the biggest problem in Islam now days is Tribalism.

...or fundamentalism.

Colonial powers drove the Middle East back to the Middle Ages, and that is deplorable.

Sorry, but that is just nonsense.

Countries like Japan have been all but obliterated not even a century ago, and look at where they are at now.

And then there's this little fact:
- amount of nobel prizes collected by 1.3 billion muslims (worldwide - so not just in the middle east): 2. 3, if you also count the one in economics.
- amount of nobel prizes collected by (at most) 15 million jews: HALF of ALL nobel prizes.

Why is this?

Jews didn't even have a country until some 70 years ago.
Before that, they were scattered and presecuted everywhere they went.

Millions of muslims (a LOT more then the 15-ish jewish population) also don't live in the middle east, but in the west. They have access to the best schools, universities, unrestricted access to the internet, etc....

And yet, only 2 Nobel prizes. Why is that?

Clearly, there's more at play here then mere "colonial powers" in the previous centuries.

 

[JJ50]

The Qur'an is as convincing as the Bible.

 

[sooda]

I was talking about rulers over a large area akin to a King, Amir, Duke, etc. The Ottoman merely used the Mameluke system and replaced the people in those positions with their own.

I am trying to think if I know that. Husseini was Emir of Mecca, but had NO following among the tribes. The Turkish garrisons were pretty lethargic.

 

[Nakosis]

Yet the claims that the Qur'an is of "remarkable accuracy" or admirable in other ways persist.

Do we have any true indication that such is or could conceivably be the case?

Just, curious. Have you see anything in this thread to change your mind?

I suspect it is much like horoscopes. Usually enough generalized wording that folks who already believe in astrology can find a way to apply their monthly horoscope to themselves and claim it's accuracy.

 

[LuisDantas]

Just, curious. Have you see anything in this thread to change your mind?

Not really. Then again, I did not expect to.

I suspect it is much like horoscopes. Usually enough generalized wording that folks who already believe in astrology can find a way to apply their monthly horoscope to themselves and claim it's accuracy.

We all should be grateful that people generally know better than to raise astrology to a "complete way of life" or a politically influential movement.

Then again, astrology does not teach to deny marriage rights to unbelievers, nor does it much attempt to justify discrimination or physical punishment, so there is that.

 

[Remté]

Not really. Then again, I did not expect to.



We all should be grateful that people generally know better than to raise astrology to a "complete way of life" or a politically influential movement.

Then again, astrology does not teach to deny marriage rights to unbelievers, nor does it much attempt to justify discrimination or physical punishment, so there is that.

Nor does it bless marriages or establish laws..

 

[Remté]

The Qur'an is as convincing as the Bible.

In what respects?

 

[Shad]

I am trying to think if I know that. Husseini was Emir of Mecca, but had NO following among the tribes. The Turkish garrisons were pretty lethargic.

The Ottoman garrisons didn't represent the best of the military.