Is the Qur'an an Inferior Copy of the Bible?

[Sha'irullah]

Please offer a reason for why you believe the Qur'an or Bible is better. If so try dissecting the opinions of your claims.

The following is my personal viewpoint as of now.

۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞ ۞​

This has been a big issue with me for quite a while and after sifting through some literature as of recently from Qur'anic scholars I have been rather split on the exact nature of the Bible and Qur'an.

When one reads the Bible he/she gets an immediate disconnect from reality if they are able to keep a secular mindset when reading it.

But when reading the Qur'an one gets an immediate feel that he or she is reading a mandate from an individual.

The obvious difference in this issue is that the Bible is openly mythological in its literary content while the Qur'an is absolutely serious and narrow. The Bible (primary OT) does not give mandates to mankind whatsoever but instead gives elaborate tales of God's interactions with human beings.

The Qur'an supposedly gives mandates to the reader from God and propagates opinions with absolute certainty and attempts to provide resolve to any form of critique of its content. The Qur'an does its best to force its opinions upon the reader leaving little room to avoid its commandments.


The striking issue is that the Qur'an gets its source material from the Tanakh and primary the Tawrat. All of these accounts are purely unsubstantiated and mythological and have not provided any evidence to tie their events into known history. Their is constant reiteration of the fables told in the Original Testament that appear n the Qur'an although occasionally slightly altered(sometimes dramatically).

When one reads the Pentateuch they realize that the Qur'anic explitives that originated in the Tawrah are heavily lessened and edited. Much like a cinematic piece that it is dedicated to action scenarios the Qur'an only keeps the scenarios of the stories that were desired. It is essentially a reduced version of the Tawrah that has been reconfigured as a compilation of desired events that are recited in a historical manner despite their mythological nature.


Despite such disadvantages the Qur'an has there is one thing it absolutely trumps the Tawrat, Nevi'im, Ketuvim, Injil, Pauline Epistles and later prophetic books.
It is that the commands of the Qur'an exist in a clear language and are void of questioning or critical contemplation. The Qur'an is not vague in the theology it provides the reader and offers absolute certainty of this.
The Bible is filled with stories, allegories, myths, historic claims, poetry, songs, narrations and spiritual concerns and from this commandments are extracted once they are processed. The only exceptions to this are the Pauline Epistles which are significantly clear in authoritativeness.
The Qur'an is essentially one long compilation of epistles designed to invoke fear and auto-proselytization of the reader to the book's words and divine mandates.

But this is also a major discrepancy with the expectations of the reader. Does one wants Divine Commandment or Divine Speculation? No human reasoning is found in following the commandments of a supposed god but true spirituality or "God" can be found in something that permits thinking, rationalizing, and contemplating.
Although I find no divine influence in the Bible I do believe that the usage of stories, allegories, myths, historic claims, folklore, poetry, and songs in it offer much spiritual progression then any book spending 80 of its suwar giving commandments and the last 30 giving duas, metaphysics and spirituality is entirely bankrupt of any sort of spiritual progress.

I have now redact all of my previous statements about the Qur'an as of lately. I have always skipped the Bible based on the religions formed around it and it has no occurred to many that DIFFERENT religions are formed from the Bible but only 1 is formed from the Qur'an and even then does the 1 religion outsources its textual basis.

TO BE CONTINUED..........

 

[moodys]

I'm sure it depends who you question, Christians are going to side with the Bible and Moslems are going to side with the koran, that much is obvious.

 

[Tarheeler]

None are superior; they are different books for different religions.

The Torah for Jews.
The Christian Bible for Christians.
The Qur'an for Muslims.

 

[Sha'irullah]

None are superior; they are different books for different religions.

The Torah for Jews.
The Christian Bible for Christians.
The Qur'an for Muslims.

But do take notice of how each tries tying itself with the original which would be the Tarah. The very fact that the Qur'an does its best to assimilate itself as the replacement of the Tawrat makes it an inferior copy if you ask me. You cannot view them as separate pieces of literature.

Each one is trying to be the sequel to the other. But just like any trilogy the last one is does the worst job at completing the first one.:yes:

 

[moodys]

But do take notice of how each tries tying itself with the original which would be the Tarah. The very fact that the Qur'an does its best to assimilate itself as the replacement of the Tawrat makes it an inferior copy if you ask me. You cannot view them as separate pieces of literature.

Each one is trying to be the sequel to the other. But just like any trilogy the last one is does the worst job at completing the first one.:yes:

I guess we'll find out when we pass away what book or books were superior.

 

[Tarheeler]

But do take notice of how each tries tying itself with the original which would be the Tarah. The very fact that the Qur'an does its best to assimilate itself as the replacement of the Tawrat makes it an inferior copy if you ask me. You cannot view them as separate pieces of literature.

Of course I can. Sure, they build upon the systems that came before them, but so did Judaism. We see allusions to Egyptian, Sumerian, and other cultures and systems in the Torah.

You're free to see it however you like, but it certainly isn't the only way.

Each one is trying to be the sequel to the other. But just like any trilogy the last one is does the worst job at completing the first one.:yes:

I that each is trying to explain the same thing to different groups with significantly different social and cultural foundations.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Of course I can. Sure, they build upon the systems that came before them, but so did Judaism. We see allusions to Egyptian, Sumerian, and other cultures and systems in the Torah.

You're free to see it however you like, but it certainly isn't the only way.



I that each is trying to explain the same thing to different groups with significantly different social and cultural foundations.

Well the issue is not your view. I believe you are unaware of this to a certain extent because you may have never been a Christian or a Muslim. But each of these faiths tries espousing itself upon the original text being the Tanakh or to a more limited extent the Tawrat.

The Bible and Qur'an want to be acknowledge by the Tawrat and each other in order to confirm themselves as being the true continuation and fulfillment of the original text.

So for me it is necessary to compare them in order to decide why you are picking one over the other. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are a "Trinity" by merely existing .

I am not trying to force an answer out of you I am just trying to encourage you that there is an importance in picking one over the other

 

[Tarheeler]

Well the issue is not your view.

You asked for my view.

And, for the record, I spent my first 30 years as a Southern Baptist and another four in serious study of various religions before approaching a rabbi to talk about conversion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. "The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' " 'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' " 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "

I take it that Jesus would say let both grow up together, because you have good and bad people mixed in. If you try to separate them out you'll destroy good people along with the bad.

 

[Tarheeler]

Well the issue is not your view. I believe you are unaware of this to a certain extent because you may have never been a Christian or a Muslim. But each of these faiths tries espousing itself upon the original text being the Tanakh or to a more limited extent the Tawrat.

The Bible and Qur'an want to be acknowledge by the Tawrat and each other in order to confirm themselves as being the true continuation and fulfillment of the original text.

So for me it is necessary to compare them in order to decide why you are picking one over the other. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are a "Trinity" by merely existing .

I am not trying to force an answer out of you I am just trying to encourage you that there is an importance in picking one over the other

Did some more thinking.

I did compare them, both in my post to you and in my life when I started to doubt Christianity. And, at that point, I worked at getting "back to the basics" so to speak, and that helped to lead me to Judaism.

But it still doesn't mean that one is superior to another; it means that one appealed to me more than another. I agreed with what it taught more readily and more connection with it than the other.

So I do see the point in choosing one over the other, but I don't see the need to qualify it the way you have. I think there's truth in all of them, and people connect with them in different ways. Just because I'm not a Christian or Muslim doesn't mean that I find the Christian Bible or Qur'an to be inferior, wrong, or full of lies; it means that I don't connect with them the same I way do the Torah. Like i said in my earlier post, there are fundamental differences between each Holy Book, and they (at least in my mind) can't be directly compared to each other. They have to be taken as individual works that introduce ideas in a way that is tailored to the groups they were written for.


But I understand if this isn't the direction you want this thread to go in.

 

[Sha'irullah]

.............CONTINUATION


I would like to add on a further note that the Qur'an has one aspect which lures me to its charm. The Qur'an is entirely written in poetic prose and perfectly so. Its recitation in canonical Arabic is absolutely marvelous and pertains such a musical nature that it ca be fully memorized with aid of this literary structure.

Another issue facing the Qur'an the Qur'an is it is highly disorganized and incomplete without Tafsir and additional narrations.

 

[Sha'irullah]

You asked for my view.

And, for the record, I spent my first 30 years as a Southern Baptist and another four in serious study of various religions before approaching a rabbi to talk about conversion.

Typo, sorry about that. I did not meant to add that as it should have read read "The issue is your view".
Also your experience as a Baptist should aid you in this discussion for specific reasons

 

[Tarheeler]

Typo, sorry about that. I did not meant to add that as it should have read read "The issue is your view".
Also your experience as a Baptist should aid you in this discussion for specific reasons

It does. We just come to different conclusions.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Did some more thinking.

I did compare them, both in my post to you and in my life when I started to doubt Christianity. And, at that point, I worked at getting "back to the basics" so to speak, and that helped to lead me to Judaism.

But it still doesn't mean that one is superior to another; it means that one appealed to me more than another. I agreed with what it taught more readily and more connection with it than the other.

So I do see the point in choosing one over the other, but I don't see the need to qualify it the way you have. I think there's truth in all of them, and people connect with them in different ways. Just because I'm not a Christian or Muslim doesn't mean that I find the Christian Bible or Qur'an to be inferior, wrong, or full of lies; it means that I don't connect with them the same I way do the Torah. Like i said in my earlier post, there are fundamental differences between each Holy Book, and they (at least in my mind) can't be directly compared to each other. They have to be taken as individual works that introduce ideas in a way that is tailored to the groups they were written for.

Well do keep in mind we are only referring to the texts itself and not the religion because most Christians, Jews and Muslims pick and choose from their faith to begin with . Very little point in comparing them.

Also I guess this is because you are a theist but as a Deist I see all 3 books as mutually the same. I do not think any of them are filled with lies nor do I have any contempt for them but I do believe they are primitive in most respects and should not be taken as anything but mythological in nature. This is not a bad thing for me at all because I myself love reading them a lot.

But you are viewing this as a competition between faiths. I view this as an assessment of 2(3 if you separate Tanakh) literary works based on secular and the value of textual content.

But I understand if this isn't the direction you want this thread to go in.

Don't fret over things like this. A discussion is a discussion and I am not picky about topics to be honest. As long as you are willing to debate I am willing to reply . Simple minded people like myself are far more gracious for people like yourself shan't we come across a horrid person dwindling a discussion with ignorance.

 

[Tarheeler]

Well do keep in mind we are only referring to the texts itself and not the religion because most Christians, Jews and Muslims pick and choose from their faith to begin with . Very little point in comparing them.

Also I guess this is because you are a theist but as a Deist I see all 3 books as mutually the same. I do not think any of them are filled with lies nor do I have any contempt for them but I do believe they are primitive in most respects and should not be taken as anything but mythological in nature. This is not a bad thing for me at all because I myself love reading them a lot.

But you are viewing this as a competition between faiths. I view this as an assessment of 2(3 if you separate Tanakh) literary works based on secular and the value of textual content.

I really don't see how you can get this from what I've posted. I don't see any of it as a "competition".

Don't fret over things like this. A discussion is a discussion and I am not picky about topics to be honest. As long as you are willing to debate I am willing to reply . Simple minded people like myself are far more gracious for people like yourself shan't we come across a horrid person dwindling a discussion with ignorance.

Not a fret in the world.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Please offer a reason for why you believe the Qur'an or Bible is better.

Please offer a reason for this petty and juvenile attempt to pit one against the other.

 

[sojourner]

It is not the aim of either work to be "superlative."

 

[Sha'irullah]

Please offer a reason for this petty and juvenile attempt to pit one against the other.

Well please offer a reason why film critics pit cinema productions against each other and rate them.

If you consider my question juvenile and petty then you and I are equally petty when ww rate things and their value. This occurs with entertainment, products and even people.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It is not the aim of either work to be "superlative."

True, but as human beings we will hold certain expectations of these books.
You are viewing this as a clash of ideologies while I am viewing this as a clash between literary value.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Oh. Well for literary value I'd say the Bible is good for some people but only parts of it are for everybody, because its so old. Its like reading Canterbury Tales only older, so that the 1st time reading is not all that great. Genesis is very cool, but there's no Narrator. There's no category for it either. Is it fiction? Is it science? What is it? The Psalms are nearly impenetrable. Ecclesiastes is clever but depressing. Proverbs is very nice, yet parts of it are quite alien. Extensive commentaries are available for all of the books. Extensive. Multiple. Commentaries. No wonder NFL football games are so popular on Sundays.