The Problems with the Qur'an

[control.to.win]

I'm interested in knowing the other side of this argument. Usually it's just someone presents an argument for the Qur'an, and it's debated and both sides become more entrenched.

I believe that man is generally prone to accept things as truth that someone tells you. For example, you ask a guy on the street where the closest grocery store is, you assume that he's going to tell you the truth, as a decent human being would. The same doesn't hold true for Religion though, as there are so many different viewpoints. So, it stands to reason that you need more reason to NOT accept a scripture than to ACCEPT one as giving it the benefit of the doubt.

SO, I'm not looking for a debate here. I just would like to know what are the things from the QUR'AN, which you look at and think "I can't accept this point, otherwise I would have given it the benefit of the doubt."

 

[Autodidact]

My first problem is that the evidence indicates that Allah does not exist.

 

[Caladan]

SO, I'm not looking for a debate here. I just would like to know what are the things from the QUR'AN, which you look at and think "I can't accept this point, otherwise I would have given it the benefit of the doubt."

Where do I begin?
many passages of the Qur'an seem to have been written by angry tribal men in the 7th century. regardless of that, I would not give any scripture 'the benefit of the doubt', I would cherish them for their place in human history and culture, but I would still look at idolizing them as a tragic mistake, one from which I hope masses of people will be disillusioned from one day.

 

[control.to.win]

Where do I begin?
many passages of the Qur'an seem to have been written by angry tribal men in the 7th century. regardless of that, I would not give any scripture 'the benefit of the doubt', I would cherish them for their place in human history and culture, but I would still look at idolizing them as a tragic mistake, one from which I hope masses of people will be disillusioned from one day.

So far, I've only got 2 real problems with the Qur'an

1. I don't believe in God in the first place (no-brainer)
2. Certain verses seem like they are no longer relevant to today's society

Is that it? The way I see people post around here, I would have thought there would be a lot more...

 

[xkatz]

There are also some errors in the Quran IMO. One example I can think of is saying that Jewish regard Uzair/Ezra as son of G-d, among other things.

BTW, it's nice to see your open to opposing viewpoints

 

[control.to.win]

Good. If possible, could everyone else also quote specific verses or paraphrase diff. sections of the Qur'an they have a problem with. It would make this thread more informative.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, I'm not too crazy about all the verses that condemn me to eternal fire and command other people to hasten my journey there, but if the whole thing weren't so obviously silly I wouldn't worry about it. I guess my biggest concern is that some people might take it seriously. Uh oh, they do.

 

[Caladan]

So far, I've only got 2 real problems with the Qur'an

1. I don't believe in God in the first place (no-brainer)

And that's where your breakdown in communication fails, while you call this a no-brainer, you simply seem to refuse to realize that there are people who do not believe in God, and the mere idea of treating a text as Divine, especially after reading its content belongs to a fantasy, this is what it is to us. if we don't believe in God, if we don't find the content inspiring as if it was transmitted by a God, calling that a no-brainer is simply refusing the facts.

2. Certain verses seem like they are no longer relevant to today's society

I'd say the text seems like its not relevant for today's society, and I'd like to think it wouldnt be relevant for me if I'd live in the 7th century. who knows perhaps the Qur'ans prose in classical Arabic really is impressive, but the content simply reflects the mind of tribal men who lived in Arabia 1400 years ago.

Is that it? The way I see people post around here, I would have thought there would be a lot more...

Trust me, people are just tired of bringing passages and having to listen to 'oh But you don't see the entire context'.

 

[YmirGF]

Trust me, people are just tired of bringing passages and having to listen to 'oh But you don't see the entire context'.

Further to this point is which translation. What does the text really say? Etc...

In regards to the OP, I have issues with many passages from the Qur'an as well as the superfluous claims that it is inerrant word of God, contains no errors or contradictions, is written for all mankind in all times... etc...

Besides this there is that nasty business between the alleged angel "Gabriel" and Mohammad. The incident simply files in the face of the often mentioned "There is no compulsion in religion. Evidently, for Muhammad there was, therefore "god" isn't really telling the truth as there is most certainly compulsion in religion for some. Given that the "religion of God" (a silly idea, if ever there was one) is allegedly Islam, then it follows that there is indeed compulsion in Islam.... from its very inception.

I also take great exception to the notion that no religion is acceptable to "god" except Islam.

 

[Aquitaine]

I'll admit I haven't personally read the Koran, but I suppose my "problem" with it will be the people who take it as the divine word of God, and then branch out and develope an extremist/literalist outlook, that goes for all other religious books as well though.

So long as people don't take it seriously and as the unalterable word of God etc, then I don't really care much about what's written in it - no more so than I care about what's written in Harry Potter books.

 

[Venatoris]

I think you are starting with a flawed premise. IMO, there is nothing wrong with the Qu'ran, if you see it for what it is, a book. The problems most people have with the Qu'ran really have nothing to do with what is contained therein but rather the emphasis people put on certain aspects of it(and I think this applies to most religious texts). The words don't actually bother anyone until someone uses them to justify their actions or breed animosity among large groups of people. Let's all be honest, if you feel that you must justify your actions, you probably know that what you're doing is wrong.

I love books and I think every single one has intrinsic value but it pains me when I see a book(such as a religious text) being used to divide people, destroy peace, and work against the common good. When you read these books you should take away from them a degree of morality, not rules to enforce on others.

And there's my two cents.

 

[Cypress]

First problem is that the verses are ordered according to their lenght, no according to their context.
I think much of the meaning is lost this way.

Second problem is that critical Quran study does not seem to exist.
There is a tradition of critical Bible study, gathering differnt versions of the texts written at different times by different persons, researching how the text has been changed over the centuries,
seeking out the errors that have been made by the copyists - what is all very important when you deal with texts that have been written down and copied before printing was invented.

Third problem is in close context with problem two:
In the Arabian script with its system of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_diacritics"]diacritics[/URL] the consequences of copyist mistakes must be severe.

Say someone copies an English text by hand and makes a mistake when comming to the word "wing": the copyist erroneously places the . of the i over the n.
Now, in English there is no . over the letter n, so there is no problem to see
1.) that there is an error
2.) where the error occured

But when I look at the Arabian script, I can imagine that misplacement of a . can change the meaning of a whole verse.

Arabic script evolution

I admit that I do not have any knowledge of Arabic, but I cannot imagine that with such a script and because of the long time the text could be copied by hand only, the Quran as it is today is the same text that was written down by the followers of Muhammed.

 

[control.to.win]

Ok, so there''s
The ordering of the verses, from longest to shortest...(I said no debate here, but this is obviously wrong...The first chapter of the Qur'an is Al-fatiha, only a few verses long)

The no compulsion in faith - Muhammad (saw) being forced to be a prophet by God is a new point - never heard that one before.

Also never heard someone say that the Qur'an has sub-standard teachings on morality

Also, on question of specific passages being a problem, I wouldn't ask you to post them if you want to avoid a lengthy discussion. But if you just want to learn what Islam has to say about certain controversial passages, I would suggest going to alislam.org and going to their qur'an search section. It has several commentaries included with the search option that I have personally found very helpful.

 

[battar]

There are numerous holy books in the libraries, from many religions, each claiming to be divine truth. Whichever religion you believe in, it is reasonable to conclude that the books pertaining to the other religions are in fact false. If, for example, you accept the Qu'ran as truth, then the Gospels must contain some inaccuracies.
So if I were to take any holy book, at random, and give it to you, it's a fair bet that whatever your religion is, you are now holding a book which is not all truth. A reasonable man should therefore assume that a holy book contains falsehoods unless proven otherwise, since you already agree that most of them do.

 

[England my lionheart]

I'm interested in knowing the other side of this argument. Usually it's just someone presents an argument for the Qur'an, and it's debated and both sides become more entrenched.

I believe that man is generally prone to accept things as truth that someone tells you. For example, you ask a guy on the street where the closest grocery store is, you assume that he's going to tell you the truth, as a decent human being would. The same doesn't hold true for Religion though, as there are so many different viewpoints. So, it stands to reason that you need more reason to NOT accept a scripture than to ACCEPT one as giving it the benefit of the doubt.

SO, I'm not looking for a debate here. I just would like to know what are the things from the QUR'AN, which you look at and think "I can't accept this point, otherwise I would have given it the benefit of the doubt."

IMO there are a multitude of problems with accepting it as the word of a God,first the advertising says there are no errors in the Qur'an and its in pure Arabic and it has been sent down as a clear message none of which is true for if it was clear there would not be so many sects in Islam.

 

[ZooGirl02]

So far, I've only got 2 real problems with the Qur'an

1. I don't believe in God in the first place (no-brainer)
2. Certain verses seem like they are no longer relevant to today's society

Is that it? The way I see people post around here, I would have thought there would be a lot more...

I'm confused. Why do you list your religion as Muslim if you don't believe in God?

 

[beenie]

I'm confused. Why do you list your religion as Muslim if you don't believe in God?

read control.to.win's post again:

he's listing the problems the first two responders had:

My first problem is that the evidence indicates that Allah does not exist.

Where do I begin?
many passages of the Qur'an seem to have been written by angry tribal men in the 7th century. regardless of that, I would not give any scripture 'the benefit of the doubt', I would cherish them for their place in human history and culture, but I would still look at idolizing them as a tragic mistake, one from which I hope masses of people will be disillusioned from one day.

see? he's referring back to the above to posts and asking for more replies:

So far, I've only got 2 real problems with the Qur'an

1. I don't believe in God in the first place (no-brainer)
2. Certain verses seem like they are no longer relevant to today's society

Is that it? The way I see people post around here, I would have thought there would be a lot more...

 

[YmirGF]

** deleted **

Ah, the overly simplistic approach of the intellectually challenged. :flirt:

 

[YmirGF]

The no compulsion in faith - Muhammad (saw) being forced to be a prophet by God is a new point - never heard that one before.

It's a YmirGF orginal. What can I say?

IF the statement read, "There is almost no compulsion in religion" I wouldn't have issues with it. The point is that it is made as an absolute statement and unfortunately it can easily be demonstrated as being incorrect.


Besides, when Muslim armies arrived at a given destination they would often give the other side three choices.

1. To "revert" and submit to Islam.
2. To accept Dhimmi status with Muslims ruling over them and to pay the jizya.
3. Fight.

Given that this was purely a Muslim tactic, I do not understand how it can be construed as anything BUT compulsion. There was no 4th option of "If you are not interested, we will just go away in peace."

 

[control.to.win]

It's a YmirGF orginal. What can I say?

IF the statement read, "There is almost no compulsion in religion" I wouldn't have issues with it. The point is that it is made as an absolute statement and unfortunately it can easily be demonstrated as being incorrect.


Besides, when Muslim armies arrived at a given destination they would often give the other side three choices.

1. To "revert" and submit to Islam.
2. To accept Dhimmi status with Muslims ruling over them and to pay the jizya.
3. Fight.

Given that this was purely a Muslim tactic, I do not understand how it can be construed as anything BUT compulsion. There was no 4th option of "If you are not interested, we will just go away in peace."

This is a discussion about the Qur'an. Please leave your interpretation of historical facts about Islamic wars for another thread. If you would like an answer to your question, please post it in another thread.

But, l don't agree that it's easily refutable. I just said it was a new point.