# Reading > Religious Texts >  Is Quran Biased?

## Nazish

I'm reading The Quran Translated by M.Marmaduke Pickthall. Its a page turner since the language is so easy to understand than the usual english translations of the Holy Quran. 

Anyone who wishes to read the English Quran, I would say just go for it !

The only question I would like to ask, is that Is Quran biased with respect to religion? As in It favours Muslims and advises us not to trust Jews with our secrets.
Hope I'd get some useful and scholarly responses here.

----------


## Dodo25

> The only question I would like to ask, is that Is Quran biased with respect to religion? As in It favours Muslims and advises us not to trust Jews with our secrets.
> Hope I'd get some useful and scholarly responses here.


There are many holy books. Christians have the Bible, Jews the Torah (and Talmud), Hinduists the Vedas, Mormons the Book of Mormon etc... Muslims have the Qu'ran (and the Hadiths). 

Each holy book tells a different story. They're all mutually contradicting, and many of the books preach intolerance towards other religions (especially Torah/Old Testament and the Qu'ran). The books can't all be right, and there's no reason to simply assume that one must be right. 

If Muslims 100%ly believe the Qu'ran is the literal truth, Christians 100%ly believe the Bible is the literal truth, and Jews 100%ly believe the Torah + Talmud is the literal truth, it'll just end in bloodsheds; besides, simple logic shows that at least two out of three would kill in vain for the wrong religion. 

I strongly suggest to approach the matter with an open mind. 

The Bible for instance has some very rough passages favoring genocide, oppression of women, rape and other atrocities. Yet the Christian denominations have become modernized, ideas from the Enlightenment have been incorporated. The church now doesn't blindly and literally follow the Bible, it has evolved, and to some extent adjusted to the new circumstances.

----------


## YesNo

> The only question I would like to ask, is that Is Quran biased with respect to religion? As in It favours Muslims and advises us not to trust Jews with our secrets.
> Hope I'd get some useful and scholarly responses here.


Yes, the Quran is biased. 

Not only that, it attempts to create divisions among people based on those who have "faith" in it. In particular, Surah 109 comes to mind.

----------


## Nazish

I never meant to start anything controversial here. I believe all those who read Quran come to know that indeed it is the last book, the very last revelation from God. The reason for this biasness is to let people from other religion know that what they're doing is wrong by not believing in what is right. Quran tells us about the truth of all the Prophets before Muhammad (May peace and blessings be upon him) as Muslims (those who surrender to God) except for the polytheists.
It is for people of wisdom to understand and believe. I would particularly like an Islamic scholar to comment over it.

----------


## orgoo

no it's not
Quran teaches us how to be good with others and at the same time how to be strong
it teaches us that ( we must believe in all the prophets before Mohammed peace be upon him and all the prophets)

now u r reading the translation of the meaning of the Quran so u can judge by yourself
I hope the translation that u r reading is good because there is some mistakes we found it because of misunderstanding
by the way Islam has just one book which is Quran and Hadeethes is not the Holy Book ,it is Mohammed speeches
the first reference is Quran then if we don't understand anything or we want more explanation or we want to know what he said or how he behaves ....... we read Hadeeths

----------


## Nazish

"And We gave him Ishaque (Isaac) and Yaqub (Jacob) We showed the path to all of them and showed the path to Nuh (Noah) before them, and of his progeny, to Daud (David) and Suleman (Solomon) and Ayub (Job) and Yusuf (Joseph) and Musa (Moses) and Haroon (Aaron), and thus We recompense the righteous. And to Zakaria (Zacharia) and Yahya (John) and Isa (Jesus) and Ilyas (Elias). These are all entitled to be Our near ones (righteous). And to Ismail and Yasa (Elisha) and Yunus (Jonah) and Lot, And to each one We preferred above all in his time. And also to some of their fathers and their progeny and some of their brothers, and We chose them and showed them the straight path. This is the guidance of Allah. He gives whom He will of His bondmen, and if they would have committed polytheism, then surely, all that they had already done would have been destroyed." 
6:84-88 


"There have come to you the eye Opener arguments from your Lord, then whosoever saw it, then it is for his own good and whosoever became blind, then it is for his own bad and I am not a guardian over you." 6:104




> no it's not
> Quran teaches us how to be good with others and at the same time how to be strong
> it teaches us that ( we must believe in all the prophets before Mohammed peace be upon him and all the prophets)
> 
> now u r reading the translation of the meaning of the Quran so u can judge by yourself
> I hope the translation that u r reading is good because there is some mistakes we found it because of misunderstanding
> by the way Islam has just one book which is Quran and Hadeethes is not the Holy Book ,it is Mohammed speeches
> the first reference is Quran then if we don't understand anything or we want more explanation or we want to know what he said or how he behaves ....... we read Hadeeths



I second you. Islam teaches religious tolerance as it wants us to believe that all that was revealed to the prophets before Mohammad (peace and blessing be upon him) was from Allah too.

----------


## Dodo25

> I second you. Islam teaches religious tolerance as it wants us to believe that all that was revealed to the prophets before Mohammad (peace and blessing be upon him) was from Allah too.


With all due respect, that's absurd. I'm glad if you interpret it that way, but if you actually read the Qu'ran, you'll find that Islam doesn't do that. There's the death penalty for apostasy, the lesser jihad, the prejudices against Jews you alluded to yourself, and of course shariah law. 

It teaches tolerance UP TO THAT POINT where Muhammad actually wrote the Qu'ran, but afterwards, as you say as 'last prophet', the presented choice is either Islam or damnation. 

Again, I very much welcome it if muslims advocate religious tolerance, I'm just emphasizing that it's not really in the Qu'ran. And that's quite scary, to be honest.

----------


## orgoo

> With all due respect, that's absurd. I'm glad if you interpret it that way, but if you actually read the Qu'ran, you'll find that Islam doesn't do that. There's the death penalty for apostasy, the lesser jihad, the prejudices against Jews you alluded to yourself, and of course shariah law. 
> 
> It teaches tolerance UP TO THAT POINT where Muhammad actually wrote the Qu'ran, but afterwards, as you say as 'last prophet', the presented choice is either Islam or damnation. 
> 
> Again, I very much welcome it if muslims advocate religious tolerance, I'm just emphasizing that it's not really in the Qu'ran. And that's quite scary, to be honest.


With all due respect, but the death penalty is not in the Quran,it is in Hadeeth which means is a human speech ,and there is kinds of the reality of Hadeeth some of them are weak and so on, and if this Hadeeth is 100 percent true the penalty applied under conditions you can look for it but the important thing is that ( this penalty not in the Quran)


jihad also not to fight innocent people or people that are live with us ,jihad when people fight us normally any person will eliminate ,will defend and will fight against those who r trying to take his home,his family,his nation and his stability
the same is when someone harm your kid ,,, what u want him to do?
cry , stay alone? sure u want him protect him self

the same is applied on Jews if they fight us we have to protect our selves and vice versa

Prophet Mohammed when he dead،his knife was bonded with Jew person ..what that means?
it means there is good ties between each others 

nice talk to you but I have exam I have 2 study :Smile:

----------


## aliengirl

> The only question I would like to ask, is that Is Quran biased with respect to religion? As in It favours Muslims and advises us not to trust Jews with our secrets.
> Hope I'd get some useful and scholarly responses here.



Tell me the name of any religious book or any religious scholar who is not biased in favor of the idea it/he/she propagates. 


@ Dodo - It is a mistaken notion that Muhammad(peace be upon him) wrote the Holy Quran. He did not know how to read and write. Of course you are free to believe or not to believe in him but you must not twist or misrepresent facts. When I approach any religious text, first of all I keep in my mind how the people who believe in it regard it. It helps me to understand them better.

----------


## arrytus

When I think about the Qura'an I like to think about how a middle aged man overnight start spouting out poetry like Shakespeare.

----------


## Dodo25

> @ Dodo - It is a mistaken notion that Muhammad(peace be upon him) wrote the Holy Quran. He did not know how to read and write. Of course you are free to believe or not to believe in him but you must not twist or misrepresent facts. When I approach any religious text, first of all I keep in my mind how the people who believe in it regard it. It helps me to understand them better.


As far as I know, the only alternative to Muhammad is Allah. And you won't get me to say that because I think it's wrong, and I'm definitely not misrepresenting facts. Facts are founded in science and reason, not in faith. 

I appreciate your criticism though, I'm now more aware of how Muslims see the matter.

----------


## aliengirl

Thank you for your appreciation. You understood it right. Muslims believe that Quran is the word of Allah. I would again repeat that everyone is perfectly free to believe or disbelieve it.

----------


## Olive

> and many of the books preach intolerance towards other religions (especially Torah/Old Testament and the Qu'ran).


"[060:008] God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth those who are just.

[060:009] God only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong."





> The books can't all be right, and there's no reason to simply assume that one must be right.


there's a reason but It's not that simple, If someone can believe it's from the Creator of the universe, then it's not a big matter to simply believe in every thing in it, right??





> If Muslims 100%ly believe the Qu'ran is the literal truth, Christians 100%ly believe the Bible is the literal truth, and Jews 100%ly believe the Torah + Talmud is the literal truth, it'll just end in bloodsheds; besides, simple logic shows that at least two out of three would kill in vain for the wrong religion.


why does it have to be blood shedding??!!! each can believe in what they want 100% but still all can live TOGETHER in PEACE...




> Yes, the Quran is biased. 
> 
> Not only that, it attempts to create divisions among people based on those who have "faith" in it. In particular, Surah 109 comes to mind.


"Surely, those who (profess to) believe (in Islam), and those who
follow the Jewish faith, the Christians and the Sabians, whosoever
(of these truly) believes in Allah(God) and the Last Day and acts righteously
shall have their reward with their Lord, and shall have nothing to fear,
nor shall they grieve" The Holy Qura'n.

"and certain it is that either we or ye are on right guidance or in manifest error!" The Holy Qur'an.

I'll just let you judge .. could it be biased the book that include such words?????

another quote  :Smile: 

"if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind" The Qur'an




> of course you are free to believe or not to believe in him but you must not twist or misrepresent facts. When i approach any religious text, first of all i keep in my mind how the people who believe in it regard it. It helps me to understand them better.


completely agree  :Smile:

----------


## Nazish

> "Surely, those who (profess to) believe (in Islam), and those who
> follow the Jewish faith, the Christians and the Sabians, whosoever
> (of these truly) believes in Allah(God) and the Last Day and acts righteously
> shall have their reward with their Lord, and shall have nothing to fear,
> nor shall they grieve" The Holy Qura'n.


Nice verses  :Smile:  
I had started this thread for hope of learning some thing useful. But I think I posted it at the wrong place. It just started a fiery debate outta nothing at all. 
This thread is closed now. I request all of you not to post any more replies.
Thanks !

----------


## SFG75

There isn't anything wrong with taking a position or having an inherent bias. Making a case for a given position is admirable, being wishy-washy is not. I am currently reading the Koran and I'm about half-way through. There are some pithy sections that I enjoy immensely. Among them;




> Help ye one another in righteousness and piety, but help ye not one another in sin and rancour:. . .


Al-Maeda
5.002




> . . .let not hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice.


Al-Maeda
5.008




> With Him are the keys of the unseen, the treasures that none knoweth but He.


Al-Anaam
6.059

As for friendly criticism, I have to say that the repeated mentioning of the exodus and warnings about "people of the Book" is at worst tiresome and in the least, repetitive. There are parts that remind of the book of Leviticus in regards to conduct for living and how to arrange contractual affairs. I wish there was more aesthetic literary beauty along the lines of what I have quoted above. I have yet to find a book of Psalms in that regard, though the works of Jalaladin Rumi will have to suffice.

----------


## caddy_caddy

Well,reading is one thing and understanding is another thing .




> The only question I would like to ask, is that Is Quran biased with respect to religion?


It depends on our standpoints . Again I 'm saying when u read a verse you should ask first about the occasion of the revelation of that verse . 






> I wish there was more aesthetic literary beauty along the lines of what I have quoted above.


SFG75, I assure you can find such an aesthetic beauty in the original language but not in English for sure or any other translated one .

----------


## Kant

As an opening, I have not read all of any holy book, but I am a Christian.

Also, I do recognize that selectively quoting parts of any religion, novel, speech, or anything that is said by man, or God, can be used to transform the original message into something hateful. For instance, take the following quotation:




> Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other! From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two againstor two in favor and three against.


How can the book where this passage comes from be peaceful and teach tolerance? With no knowledge of where this quotation comes from, one would be forced to conclude that the message of the entire work is intolerance and hatred.

However, that quotation comes from the Bible, which all clear minded people recognize as a peaceful work. It is Luck 12:51-52.

The argument that I am trying to make is that in order to make a decision whether a work is biased or teaches a bad message one must look at the
entire work as a whole. As literary readers, this argument should be self evident.

With that argument in collective understanding, I believe that the Qu'ran is biased and that it does not t each tolerance except to those who are Muslim. One must remember that Islam, and the Qu'ran practice abrogation. That means that later statements and principles usurp and replace older principles. Thus, Sura 9:5, aka the Sura of the Sword, replaces other, older suras. 




> 9:5 When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.


How can this be tolerance? The Qu'ran specifically calls for the death of un-believers. The only tolerant part is if the un-believer converts and pays a tax. Islam calls for everyone to be either killed or a member of Islam, no other religion can exist in the world.

Yes, this is selectively quoting the work, but it is more than that. This sura is at the heart of the Qu'ran's message and the teachings of the religion. This sura does not transform the original intent of the work, it beings that intent to light.

For further clarification, here is some more evidence, all of which are at the heart of Islam and thusly the Qu'ran. There is a story where Mohammed is approached by a prostitute, forgive me for I cannot remember where, and the prostitute asks to be forgiven for her sins. Mohammad replies that she should be stoned and will never be forgiven for her sins. In the Bible, New Testament, the same type of scenerio is given and Jesus forgives the prostitute for her sins for she loves Jesus.

Look at the differences between the prostitutes story and add to it dhimmitude, the House of War and the House of Islam, total subjection of women, jihad, and the overt racism found in the Qu'ran I am forced to conclude that Islam is not a peaceful religion. All of these ideas and formal preachings are unique, to my knowledge, to Islam. No other religion calls for the servitude or death of other religions. Is that not intolerance?

With that said, I also do not believe that it is pure evil. The Five Tenets of Islam are very appealing, and peaceful. Also, the religion calls for helping the poor, sick, and dejected (so long as they are Muslim).

I hope that anyone reading this does not think that I am giving a free pass to Christianity, for I am not. Christians of past eras have done horrible things. Some, but not all, include the Inquisition, the Crusades (though I think they get a bad rap), and the persecution of Jews. Those times, however, are in the past for Christianity. One must remember that the Christian religion has developed over time and has adjusted to the modern world. I fail to see this in Islam.

And the basis for Islam's continuation of what is, essentially, a 14th century culture is that Islam is tied down by the Qu'ran. As the "final" word of God, there is no reason for Islam to develop and grow. Remember, Christianity had two Great Schisms, a Reformation, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, and numerous offshoots. Islam has had one Great Schism, and that is it. Shariah has tied Islam to a world gone by and the religion fails to see that the world around it has changed.

For evidence, look at Iran, and the entire Middle East today. Nearly every country has been backward in development. Nearly all are going through revolution and revolt. Libya is about to enter civil war, Iran is a theocracy that boarders on the world envisioned in 1984, and Egypt has just gone through a revolt that will lead to revolution. All of these countries have one thing in common, Islam.

It is my hope that after reading this others will question me, respectfully, and take what I say with a grain of salt. I do not intend to harm or disrespect anyone. This is simply my beliefs and convictions after careful consideration. Yes, I need more knowledge, but this is how I see it as of 22 Feb.

----------


## nida

i disagree with you nazish, because i do not believe that by creating this thread you have done something wrong, or to close it is right, though one should respect the religious sentiments of others.
i have read Quran in urdu myself, not in english, of course apart from arabic text. i do not believe that Quran is biased. since i was taught kalma, i believe strongly in Allah, and when i read Quran after reciting it in arabic, i considered it as a guidance manual for me, like the information manual we get with all the things we purchase. at some places i got confused, i questioined myself, i read other books, and i got answers. when you read Quran at first, it appears biased as it teaches us that jews and christians are not our friend. but it also says that muslim men can marry the "parsa" women of "ahl-e-kitab", is it biased? when it allows you to eat and drink with them, as far as you abstain from alcohol, is it biased? when it sometimes directly sometimes indirectly teaches you to behave nicely with all non-muslims as long as they are peaceful, is it biased? i think the problem is that we all are interpreting the translations as we desire, forgetting the original manuscript. i respect all books, i have a tiny-bit knowledge about bible as well. but i believe in Quran and i believe it seems difficult, its orders appear burdensome, but in the long-run it is true, not biased.

----------


## libernaut

I have yet to read the glorious koran, but i do like the concept of jinn being able to have free will to do either good or evil. and they are definitely real.

----------


## AbdulWahid Hami

Quran is a very prestigious books of the muslims. It is not biased at all, as some people feel about it. It is all just a matter of faith that one puts in somewhere. If you know how to read Quran you can easily pass through a lot of difficult situations in life easily.

----------


## caddy_caddy

Mohammed is approached by a prostitute, forgive me for I cannot remember where, and the prostitute asks to be forgiven for her sins. Mohammad replies that she should be stoned and will never be forgiven for her sinS

this is a mere lie . Many wrote lies about Prophet Muhammad. He was the most merciful man on earth. You should check the reliability of the source where you read this information . 


NB: I'll research your questions and try to find answers in the " ARABIC SOURCES"

----------


## YesNo

I liked the quote in your signature, caddy_caddy. 

_I don't know myself;you don't know yourself .
I don't know you ; you don't know me .
Don't be stupid and pretend the opposite --Ibrahim Alzenedy_
I can't imagine that Mohammed would want someone who was repenting of their sins, whatever they were, to be stoned, but it makes me wonder if there are any sins he would not forgive.

----------


## Ayla1496

Aren't you supposed to know that? You are a muslim, aren't you?

----------


## YesNo

I'm not a muslim, but I am curious about Mohammed and if there might be any sins he would not forgive.

----------


## caddy_caddy

> I liked the quote in your signature, caddy_caddy. 
> 
> _I don't know myself;you don't know yourself .
> I don't know you ; you don't know me .
> Don't be stupid and pretend the opposite --Ibrahim Alzenedy_
> I can't imagine that Mohammed would want someone who was repenting of their sins, whatever they were, to be stoned, but it makes me wonder if there are any sins he would not forgive.


Bty Mohammad is not the one who forgives like in Christianity you go to a priest and confess your sins to be forgiven. Allah /God is the only one who guarentees repentance and gives forgiveness. So, when the woman went to Muhammad she was asking NOT FOR FORGIVENESS because she had already repented . I researched the story and here you are how it goes:
The woman was not a prostitute. Her name was " ALGAMEDYA"and she was a virtuous woman and the wife of one of the prophet's disciples. She adulterated and got pregnant. She went to Mohammad after her repentance asking for " purification through death " in front of everyone. He ignored her demand and asked her to leave to deliver her baby. After she delivered her baby she came back again asking for purification ; he ignored her again and ask her to take care of her son and to breastfeed him. She did so and came back after two years with her son and asked him for purification again . He asked the people " who can take this boy into custody and he will be my companion in heaven like these two (his fingers)? After that he ordered them to stone her to death and he prayed on her. Omar Ebn Alkhatan was upset because the prophet prayed on an adulteress and he asked him : how could you pray on her ? the prophet replied : she repented and her repentance equals the repentance of 70 men. There is no repentance better than hers. She, who gave herself to Allah"


The only unpardonable sin is polytheism.

----------


## Jackson Richardson

> Bty Mohammad is not the one who forgives like in Christianity you go to a priest and confess your sins to be forgiven..


Protestant Christians would not agree, In classic Calvinist theology we are all sinners. By God's grace and faith in Christ and his sacrificial death, some may be reckoned as righteous but not through any works of their own.

I'm a Christian but not a Calvinist and I may be being unfair to their position.

----------


## Eupalinos

> He was the most merciful man on earth."





> After that he ordered them to stone her to death and he prayed on her.


Compare with John 8:7. Yet Mohammad was the 'most merciful man on earth'.




> The only unpardonable sin is polytheism.


Polytheism almost by nature encourages a plurality of perspectives. It is why Anaximander looking at fish fossils in the 6 century BCE has the cognitive freedom to posit animal evolution.

----------


## YesNo

> Bty Mohammad is not the one who forgives like in Christianity you go to a priest and confess your sins to be forgiven. Allah /God is the only one who guarentees repentance and gives forgiveness. So, when the woman went to Muhammad she was asking NOT FOR FORGIVENESS because she had already repented .


That makes sense.




> I researched the story and here you are how it goes:
> The woman was not a prostitute. Her name was " ALGAMEDYA"and she was a virtuous woman and the wife of one of the prophet's disciples. She adulterated and got pregnant. She went to Mohammad after her repentance asking for " purification through death " in front of everyone. He ignored her demand and asked her to leave to deliver her baby. After she delivered her baby she came back again asking for purification ; he ignored her again and ask her to take care of her son and to breastfeed him. She did so and came back after two years with her son and asked him for purification again . He asked the people " who can take this boy into custody and he will be my companion in heaven like these two (his fingers)? After that he ordered them to stone her to death and he prayed on her. Omar Ebn Alkhatan was upset because the prophet prayed on an adulteress and he asked him : how could you pray on her ? the prophet replied : she repented and her repentance equals the repentance of 70 men. There is no repentance better than hers. She, who gave herself to Allah"


It seems to me Mohammed should have forced her to live as her purification penance. By having her stoned he set a precedent that others would follow. 




> The only unpardonable sin is polytheism.


I wonder if the Christian trinity is a form of polytheism?

----------


## HCabret

> Quran is a very prestigious books of the muslims. It is not biased at all, as some people feel about it. It is all just a matter of faith that one puts in somewhere. If you know how to read Quran you can easily pass through a lot of difficult situations in life easily.


What about people that are not muslim? isnt the Quran biased towards muslims? can non-muslims reap the promised rewards of the Quran?

----------


## HCabret

> I wonder if the Christian trinity is a form of polytheism?


it is for Unitarians.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> The only unpardonable sin is polytheism.


... and what of us atheists, those who believe in no Gods?

btw, how many times was Muhammad married?.. how young were these girls he married?

At least with the myth of Jesus Christ, one can find virtue and exquisite sacrifice. Even an atheist can appreciate a good story well told. Muhammad, even taking into account a different historical context; was a child molester with a gift for hellfire rhetoric.
There is no place for the Muslim religion in any modern society.

----------


## Jackson Richardson

It is nice to hear even Iain recognising the possible virtues of Christianity. It is pity he has to do it at the same time as crudely insulting followers of another creed rather than making courteous criticism.

Here in the UK there are many Muslims in public positions, members of both houses of parliament, judges, mayors, councillors etc, only too keen to demonstrate their support of society. I'd far rather have them than the irresponsible fundamentalist evangelicals who have such an alarming following in the US.

----------


## JCamilo

Why would be married more than once be relevant to an atheist? 

And your claims are absurd. The Quran is an exceptional book, a very well written story and Muhammad is linked with several good stories. He may be not a great character as Jesus in the gospels, but his story is quite awesome and filled with virtue. I have no idea what has place in the modern world, but you should notice Islam is already a major part of it. The ignorance towards it is a bigger problem than the age of consent 14 centuries ago.

----------


## Jackson Richardson

I understand that although Muslims say that the style of the Arabic of the Quran is matchless, they would not say it is "well written" as they believe it is not a human composition.

For Christians the revelation of God is the person of Jesus Christ (the Word became flesh) and the witness to that revelation is the Bible. For Muslims it is the other way round, the Quran is the revelation of God and the witness is the Prophet.

The chapters (suras) are not presented in the order of a continuous narrative but in order of length. I wouldn't say it was a well written story therefore.

However Islam has provided a way of life and an imaginative framework that has sustained thousands of good people through their lives, often in difficult circumstance.

----------


## HCabret

> ... and what of us atheists, those who believe in no Gods?
> 
> btw, how many times was Muhammad married?.. how young were these girls he married?
> 
> At least with the myth of Jesus Christ, one can find virtue and exquisite sacrifice. Even an atheist can appreciate a good story well told. Muhammad, even taking into account a different historical context; was a child molester with a gift for hellfire rhetoric.
> There is no place for the Muslim religion in any modern society.


what is "the myth of Jesus Christ"?

----------


## HCabret

> Why would be married more than once be relevant to an atheist? 
> 
> And your claims are absurd. The Quran is an exceptional book, a very well written story and Muhammad is linked with several good stories. He may be not a great character as Jesus in the gospels, but his story is quite awesome and filled with virtue. I have no idea what has place in the modern world, but you should notice Islam is already a major part of it. The ignorance towards it is a bigger problem than the age of consent 14 centuries ago.


Jesus is the second most commonly mentioned person in the Quran. Jesus is an extremely important part of Islam.

----------


## Jackson Richardson

> what is "the myth of Jesus Christ"?


Iain Sparrow is an atheist and I am a catholic Christian so we disagree on very important issues. But I'll try to answer for him. "The myth of Jesus Christ" means the story of Jesus as presented in the Christian scriptures: God is known to us in the life of an itinerant wonder working rabbi in C1 Palestine under Roman occupation who is put to death. His followers then believe he has overcome death and in some way this give them new energy and a sense that they are reconciled to God despite all their sins, inadequacies and mortality.

Iain has called that a myth because it is historically unprovable.

I accept that the Incarnation (the Word was made flesh) and the Resurrection are not historically provable facts. But I put my faith in them.


I know Jesus and his mother are held in high esteem in Islam. At the house of Mary at Ephesus I've seen Muslim women making their prayers. But for Islam, Jesus is the penultimate prophet. For Christianity he is the revelation of God, "the express image of the Father", "the Word made flesh" (to quote our scriptures). The account of the birth of Jesus in the Quran is inconsistent with the stories in the New Testament.

----------


## HCabret

> Iain Sparrow is an atheist and I am a catholic Christian so we disagree on very important issues. But I'll try to answer for him. "The myth of Jesus Christ" means the story of Jesus as presented in the Christian scriptures: God is known to us in the life of an itinerant wonder working rabbi in C1 Palestine under Roman occupation who is put to death. His followers then believe he has overcome death and in some way this give them new energy and a sense that they are reconciled to God despite all their sins, inadequacies and mortality.
> 
> Iain has called that a myth because it is historically unprovable.
> 
> I accept that the Incarnation (the Word was made flesh) and the Resurrection are not historically provable facts. But I put my faith in them.
> 
> 
> I know Jesus and his mother are held in high esteem in Islam. At the house of Mary at Ephesus I've seen Muslim women making their prayers. But for Islam, Jesus is the penultimate prophet. For Christianity he is the revelation of God, "the express image of the Father", "the Word made flesh" (to quote our scriptures). The account of the birth of Jesus in the Quran is inconsistent with the stories in the New Testament.


It is scholarly consensus that Jesus actually existed. 

Unitarian Christians reject the idea that Jesus was a god. They believe that he was only human. The idea that Jesus was a god is not consistent with most human's outlook in either religion or history. Trinitarians don't have a monopoly on Jesus.

----------


## Jackson Richardson

Of course Jesus existed. Whether he was God incarnate and was raised from the dead are not historically provable. The gospels, our only source for the life of Jesus, are not straight biography. They are written in the light of belief that in the life and death of Jesus "God was in the world reconciling it to himself".

I'd be interested in Iain Sparrow's version of the story of Jesus which he finds so moving.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> One must remember that the Christian religion has developed over time and has adjusted to the modern world. I fail to see this in Islam.


If that is the case, then how did many offshoots, deviant sects branched out of Islam?

----------


## Soul cu Item

> It seems to me Mohammed should have forced her to live as her purification penance. By having her stoned he set a precedent that others would follow.


It doesn't work like that. Islam is not about whims and desires, he (Muhammed) was only following the divine law.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> Muhammad, even taking into account a different historical context; was a child molester 
> .


Searched in google for this and it took just 0.77 seconds for the links refuting this misconception. You can try too.

----------


## YesNo

> It is scholarly consensus that Jesus actually existed. 
> 
> Unitarian Christians reject the idea that Jesus was a god. They believe that he was only human. The idea that Jesus was a god is not consistent with most human's outlook in either religion or history. Trinitarians don't have a monopoly on Jesus.


Bart Ehrman calls people who claim that Jesus did not exist "mythicists", I assume, because they are trying to generate myths themselves: http://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462...makes-his-case

For what it's worth, I even think Krishna existed, although one has to go back even further the Jesus. Whether either of these people were incarnations of a deity is a matter of faith.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> What about people that are not muslim? isnt the Quran biased towards muslims? can non-muslims reap the promised rewards of the Quran?


Need some clarifications. Are you asking about the non muslims that existed before the advent of Islam or non muslims as of today?

----------


## HCabret

> Need some clarifications. Are you asking about the non muslims that existed before the advent of Islam or non muslims as of today?


either or. Both groups of people are not Muslim. Both groups are able to reap the benefits of being Muslim.

----------


## HCabret

> Of course Jesus existed. Whether he was God incarnate and was raised from the dead are not historically provable. The gospels, our only source for the life of Jesus, are not straight biography. They are written in the light of belief that in the life and death of Jesus "God was in the world reconciling it to himself".
> 
> I'd be interested in Iain Sparrow's version of the story of Jesus which he finds so moving.


there are many non-gospel sources for the historicity of Jesus. Josephus. Tacitus. Mara bar Sarapion. Suetonius. 

Everything is provable.

----------


## HCabret

> Bart Ehrman calls people who claim that Jesus did not exist "mythicists", I assume, because they are trying to generate myths themselves: http://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462...makes-his-case
> 
> For what it's worth, I even think Krishna existed, although one has to go back even further the Jesus. Whether either of these people were incarnations of a deity is a matter of faith.


On basis do you claim that Krishna ever existed?

----------


## YesNo

> On basis do you claim that Krishna ever existed?


Just some youtube videos I saw a while back. You could search for something similar. I can't remember any more which ones they were.

----------


## Jackson Richardson

There are contemporary references to Jesus, but for details of his life and ministry the gospels are our only detailed source although their intention is not primarily historical but theological.

I have seen some Hare Krisha booklet trying to give historical dates to Krishna.

To return to the question "Is the Qumran biased?". I don't understand the question. It is like asking "Is the American Constitution biased?" or "Is the Communist Manifesto biased?"

----------


## Jackson Richardson

Here is a quote from my book review of Nicholas Buxton's _Tantalus and the Pelican_ in the book reviews, relevant to this myth versus history concern.


“We live our lives according to and within stories ... story telling is what we do because we are human: it makes us human. The supposedly distinct boundary between truth and fiction now seems blurred at best. It is all stories. This is not to say that religious stories are merely stories in comparison with something else that is really true. I mean there are only stories.”

----------


## HCabret

> There are contemporary references to Jesus, but for details of his life and ministry the gospels are our only detailed source although their intention is not primarily historical but theological.
> 
> I have seen some Hare Krisha booklet trying to give historical dates to Krishna.
> 
> To return to the question "Is the Qumran biased?". I don't understand the question. It is like asking "Is the American Constitution biased?" or "Is the Communist Manifesto biased?"


the Gospels are not contemporaneous with Jesus. All of them were written long after his death. 

The Quran is biased towards a particular religion. This is is not inherently good or bad, it just is. The Quran is not a universal document. A small percentage of humans are Muslims and even fewer have actually read any part of the Quran.

----------


## HCabret

> Here is a quote from my book review of Nicholas Buxton's _Tantalus and the Pelican_ in the book reviews, relevant to this myth versus history concern.
> 
> 
> “We live our lives according to and within stories ... story telling is what we do because we are human: it makes us human. The supposedly distinct boundary between truth and fiction now seems blurred at best. It is all stories. This is not to say that religious stories are merely stories in comparison with something else that is really true. I mean there are only stories.”


I like this quote. That's why I believe that everything is real. Things that aren't real, don't exist, and therefore are not a part of 'everything'. There is a historical Jesus, multiple literary Jesuses, and even more religious Jesuses. Jesus is real. Myths are real. Reality is subjective.

----------


## Pompey Bum

> the Gospels are not contemporaneous with Jesus. All of them were written long after his death.


Not exactly. The scholarly consensus is that the Canonical Gospels were written in second half of the first century, about 40-60 years after the Crucifixion, and that they combined the testimony of witnesses; rumors and claims; collected sayings of the historical Jesus; and documentary (written) sources, including the so-called "Passion narrative," which may have circulated immediately after his execution. The author of The Gospel of Luke, who seems also to be the author of the Acts of the Apostles, may have written the latter book in the early second century, or they may originally have been one book from that time. That Gospel of Luke annunciates the apparent intent of all the Canonical Gospels: to establish a written record of Jesus now that the generation that knew him was passing away. So "long after his death" is not an accurate description of when the Canonical Gospels were written. (One might compare them, for example, to the earliest Buddhist Sutras, which were written (or at least written _down_) centuries after the historical Siddhartha). 

I would also add that some of the authentic letters of Paul are 20 to 30 years older than the earliest Gospel, and they some historical information about Jesus (though not as much as we would like). One should also mention the many non-Canonical Gospels written in the 2nd century, and the sayings collection known as The Gospel of Thomas, which some scholars believe to be from the 1st century, or to represent an authentic sayings collection of Jesus made in his lifetime, which was worked adopted to the theology of a certain group in the 2nd Century.

To all this, I add the caveat to which Jonathan has already alluded: the Gospels are theological tracts with historicity that must be critically teased out of them. They are not primarily biographies (even Luke, which tries to impress Greek intellectuals by claiming to be). They cannot be taken uncritically, nor do apparent inconsistencies in order of narrative affect their historical credibility. 

I refer you to the work of the great historian Rudolf Bultmann and his student Helmut Koester if you are interested in the minutia.

----------


## Jackson Richardson

That's a fine summary, apart from the bit about the gospel of Thomas. I did a diploma in Religious Studies with a paper on the NT, and Pompey's summary agrees with what non-fundamentalist scholars generally held then.


I'd prefer the Canadian scholar E P Sanders' _The Historical Figure of Jesus_ - I've not read Bultmann, as I suspect what I've heard of him, but if he is the source of Pompey's comments, he can't be all wrong. 

As regards the quote about stories from Nick Buxton - yes, we only have stories, but that doesn't mean all stories are valid or helpful or (to be very old fashioned) true.

----------


## Pompey Bum

> That's a fine summary, apart from the bit about the gospel of Thomas.


Thanks. I'll amend "many scholars" to "certain prominent scholars" if it makes you feel better. Thomas may be a theologically worked-over version of Q, but even if it is not, it is a theologically worked-over collection of some documentary source of Jesus' sayings, (most of which I assume you consider authentic since they appear in the Canonical Gospels with different interpretations). Your not liking the interpretations it received in the 2nd century doesn't mean that it was not derived from the sayings source that seems to have been used by the author of Matthew and Luke--and which you presumably would have liked. It is possible, of course, that it derived from some other collection of Jesus' sayings (that is, which shared the sayings with Q), but would that really matter? 




> I've not read Bultmann, as I suspect what I've heard of him, but if he is the source of Pompey's comments, he can't be all wrong.


Thanks again. Bultmann was probably the most important Biblical scholar of the 20th century, so that may be the highest compliment I've ever received.  :Smile:  He was also a prominent Lutheran, which may explain why some on those on your side of the aisle didn't recommend him to you as enthusiastically as my teachers did to me. I knew Bultmann's student Koester personally (both as a professor and earlier as the father of a High School friend) which may account for my own Bultmania. Of course, the issue our academic camps pales before the importance of engaging with the material _for ourselves_: something I know we both do.

----------


## HCabret

> Not exactly. The scholarly consensus is that the Canonical Gospels were written in second half of the first century, about 40-60 years after the Crucifixion, and that they combined the testimony of witnesses; rumors and claims; collected sayings of the historical Jesus; and documentary (written) sources, including the so-called "Passion narrative," which may have circulated immediately after his execution. The author of The Gospel of Luke, who seems also to be the author of the Acts of the Apostles, may have written the latter book in the early second century, or they may originally have been one book from that time. That Gospel of Luke annunciates the apparent intent of all the Canonical Gospels: to establish a written record of Jesus now that the generation that knew him was passing away. So "long after his death" is not an accurate description of when the Canonical Gospels were written. (One might compare them, for example, to the earliest Buddhist Sutras, which were written (or at least written _down_) centuries after the historical Siddhartha). 
> 
> I would also add that some of the authentic letters of Paul are 20 to 30 years older than the earliest Gospel, and they some historical information about Jesus (though not as much as we would like). One should also mention the many non-Canonical Gospels written in the 2nd century, and the sayings collection known as The Gospel of Thomas, which some scholars believe to be from the 1st century, or to represent an authentic sayings collection of Jesus made in his lifetime, which was worked adopted to the theology of a certain group in the 2nd Century.
> 
> To all this, I add the caveat to which Jonathan has already alluded: the Gospels are theological tracts with historicity that must be critically teased out of them. They are not primarily biographies (even Luke, which tries to impress Greek intellectuals by claiming to be). They cannot be taken uncritically, nor do apparent inconsistencies in order of narrative affect their historical credibility. 
> 
> I refer you to the work of the great historian Rudolf Bultmann and his student Helmut Koester if you are interested in the minutia.


40 to 60 years is not contemporaneous. Writing about Jesus' life half a century after his death during that time would be like writing about JFK today without the aid of any primary sources, and only rumors, fabrication, and work arounds. Witness testimony is suspect even today with the aid of modern technology. 40 to 60 years is a long time, especially given the time period.

The writers of the gospels were tasked with fitting the square peg of Jesus into the round hole of Jewish theology. They had to bend, mold, and distort, in order to fit their messiah into the long established Jewish theology. Muslim theologians have done the same as Christians with respect to Jesus. Jews reject Jesus because he does not satisfy the requirements to be the Jewish messiah and makes claims that are uncharacteristic of the Jewish messiah (claiming to be god, divine, anything other than just a regular human being). 

There are non-Christian sources, which are actually contemporaneous with Jesus, which firmly establish that a Jesus-like figure actually existed. 

I think of Paul in The Last Temptation of Christ when thinking of the debate about the historical Jesus: http://youtu.be/kaUuSJx-VDA 
Paul invented the idea of Jesus being a god, he did not invent the human being that actually existed. Jesus was more likely a Jewish rabbi who preached an apocalyptic outlook on the world based on the beliefs of John the Baptist. Regardless, Jesus changed the world (arguably for the better). People kill each other less, they are generally nicer to each other, they care less about believing and more about good works. It is irrelevant which god you worship, it only matters that you are good person.

The Quran is a very good example of literature. It is also biased towards Muslims. It promises heavenly benefits to Muslims, while flatly denying these benefits to all those who reject Islam.

----------


## YesNo

> Here is a quote from my book review of Nicholas Buxton's _Tantalus and the Pelican_ in the book reviews, relevant to this myth versus history concern.
> 
> 
> “We live our lives according to and within stories ... story telling is what we do because we are human: it makes us human. The supposedly distinct boundary between truth and fiction now seems blurred at best. It is all stories. This is not to say that religious stories are merely stories in comparison with something else that is really true. I mean there are only stories.”


I agree that all we have are stories, but in general I don't act as if I believe that.

For example, I also believe in stuff I call "facts", such as, the distance from a star to us that someone measured. Should I find out later that distance was miscalculated I become aware that my facts aren't any more than stories. But that is only if I am lucky enough to have some of the facts contradicted to remove my gullibility in them. 

Another example on the other extreme, I wonder how many people believe that Jesus actually walked on water or that he really appeared in a room in such a way that one of the apostles could put his finger into his wounds. These stories contradict what I accept as "facts" and so I consider them to be "myths" or "metaphors" of something or other. But suppose I hear about a woman who saw her dead son manifest to her in a room so realistically that he physically picked her up before vanishing again. Now the story about Jesus appearing is not so unbelievable. Suppose I hear of someone else walking on water. Now the walking on water idea gains credibility. 

There are only stories, but I split them into different categories. On one extreme I have fact stories, which I believe in without realizing it but which may be false. On the other extreme I have myth stories, which I have to consciously strain myself to believe in but which may be true.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> There are contemporary references to Jesus, but for details of his life and ministry the gospels are our only detailed source although their intention is not primarily historical but theological.
> 
> I have seen some Hare Krisha booklet trying to give historical dates to Krishna.
> 
> *To return to the question "Is the Qumran biased?". I don't understand the question.* It is like asking "Is the American Constitution biased?" or "Is the Communist Manifesto biased?"


Neither do I but, if we do stretch the boundaries of our perceptions in understanding the question, the OP had doubts that why Jews were regarded as untrustworthy and why were they specifically singled out for this treatment. Is it?

If it is so, then we also have to mention their treachery during the battle of the trench. The jews made a pact with the muslims in defending their city( Madinah) against the outsiders but in fact helped them in penetrating the city and their defences to eventually destroy the muslim population.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> the Gospels are not contemporaneous with Jesus. All of them were written long after his death. 
> 
> *The Quran is biased towards a particular religion. This is is not inherently good or bad, it just is.* The Quran is not a universal document. A small percentage of humans are Muslims and even fewer have actually read any part of the Quran.


Biased in what sense? are you talking about the Jewish religion?

----------


## Soul cu Item

> either or. Both groups of people are not Muslim. Both groups are able to reap the benefits of being Muslim.


 It seems there is a confusdion in understanding the terminology of Muslim 

According to the Islamic literatures, _non-muslims_ in the pre islamic era, like jews, were considered as muslims and they would surely be able to reap the heavenly rewards if they had obeyed the laws/tenets laid down by the prophets of their time.

Islam has laid down certain principles if one is to be considered as a muslim and the basics are as such as;
belief in the oneness of Allah, the last day of judgement, predestination, His angels, revealed books and prophets,
and as long as you have this faith you are considered as a muslim.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> 40 to 60 years is not contemporaneous. Writing about Jesus' life half a century after his death during that time would be like writing about JFK today without the aid of any primary sources, and only rumors, fabrication, and work arounds. Witness testimony is suspect even today with the aid of modern technology. 40 to 60 years is a long time, especially given the time period.
> 
> The writers of the gospels were tasked with fitting the square peg of Jesus into the round hole of Jewish theology. They had to bend, mold, and distort, in order to fit their messiah into the long established Jewish theology. Muslim theologians have done the same as Christians with respect to Jesus. Jews reject Jesus because he does not satisfy the requirements to be the Jewish messiah and makes claims that are uncharacteristic of the Jewish messiah (claiming to be god, divine, anything other than just a regular human being). 
> 
> There are non-Christian sources, which are actually contemporaneous with Jesus, which firmly establish that a Jesus-like figure actually existed. 
> 
> I think of Paul in The Last Temptation of Christ when thinking of the debate about the historical Jesus: http://youtu.be/kaUuSJx-VDA 
> Paul invented the idea of Jesus being a god, he did not invent the human being that actually existed. Jesus was more likely a Jewish rabbi who preached an apocalyptic outlook on the world based on the beliefs of John the Baptist. Regardless, Jesus changed the world (arguably for the better). People kill each other less, they are generally nicer to each other, they care less about believing and more about good works. It is irrelevant which god you worship, it only matters that you are good person.
> 
> *The Quran is a very good example of literature. It is also biased towards Muslims. It promises heavenly benefits to Muslims, while flatly denying these benefits to all those who reject Islam*.


Yes muslims as in, who share the same creed/beliefs of Islam of their respective era. But if you meant only muslims who, today, are considered as _mohammedans_ today then your statement is not true.

----------


## Pompey Bum

> 40 to 60 years is not contemporaneous.


No, but it's not "long after his death" as you claimed. And the sayings and Passion narrative were contemporaneous (not that there aren't a lot of problems with the historicity of the Passion narrative--contemporaneous does not always equal historically authentic). And even if they weren't, an informant (let alone four of them) collecting contemporaneous stories about a historical figure 40 to 60 years after his death is treat an ancient historian very rarely gets. (Much of what we know about Alexander the Great, for example, comes from Arrian, who wrote more than 400 years after his death). In fact, none of the historians you mention (Tacitus, Josephus, or Suetonius) were contemporaneous with Jesus, yet as you seem to know, their testimony is considered invaluable by ancient historians. And again, the first letters of Paul (who _was_ a contemporary of Jesus) were written 20-30 years before the first Gospel--beginning about 15 or 16 years after the Crucifixion. 

16 years ago was 9/11.




> The writers of the gospels were tasked with fitting the square peg of Jesus into the round hole of Jewish theology. They had to bend, mold, and distort, in order to fit their messiah into the long established Jewish theology.


Tasked by whom? Judaism and Christianity were not entirely distinct when the synoptic Gospels were written (in any case) and Rabbinic Judaism did not yet exist in a modern (or even Medieval) sense. Were the Saducees, Essenes, and Zealots/Sicarii also bending, molding, and distorting just because another form of Judaism eventually prevailed? Weren't the synoptic Evangelists also working within a Jewish framework? 




> There are non-Christian sources, which are actually contemporaneous with Jesus, which firmly establish that a Jesus-like figure actually existed.


Jesus was crucified sometime between A.D. 30 and 33. Josephus lived between A.D. 37 and 100, so he was not a contemporary. Tacitus lived between A.D. 56 and 117, so he was not a contemporary. Suetonius lived between around A.D. 69 and 122, so he was not a contemporary. And Mara Bar Sarapion wrote around A.D. 73, has never been shown to have been a contemporary of Jesus' (although from the date it is likely), and may not have been talking about Jesus at all in the fleeting reference me made in a letter to the execution of the "wise king" of the Jews. By contrast, Paul, who lived between around A.D. 5 and 57, was a contemporary. The authors of the Canonical Gospels are unknown, but they were almost certainly contemporaries who at a minimum interacted with those who had known him. 




> Paul invented the idea of Jesus being a god, he did not invent the human being that actually existed.


In fact, Paul states in one of his earliest letters (2 Corinthians): "this Gospel I have received," which is usually taken by historians to mean that, whether he was right or wrong about Jesus' divinity, he wasn't the one who dreamt up the idea. But since we have no Christian writings before Paul, we don't know who exactly he is talking about. Bottom line: you don't know if he was right or not about Jesus' divinity (although you are certainly welcome to believe what you like about it); the literary evidence (such as it is) is against your claim that Paul made the idea up himself. You would need to provide something to back that position up (a claim by Paul that it was his special insight, for example).




> Jesus was more likely a Jewish rabbi who preached an apocalyptic outlook on the world based on the beliefs of John the Baptist.


Again, Rabbinic Judaism as we understand it today did not exist during the Second Temple Period, nor in the immediate aftermath of the Temple's destruction (the period when the Synoptic Gospels were written). The term rabbi existed at the time, but it just meant teacher. So yes, Jesus was a Rabbi in that sense-- but I don't think that is what you meant. 

I do, however agree with you (Yay! Yay! Kill the fatted calf!) that Jesus "preached an apocalyptic outlook" and that it was influenced by the teachings of John the Baptist. John may have been an Essene (or he may have been a pre-war radical doing his own thing), but he was certainly a Second Temple Period sectarian rather than a Rabbinic Jew. Jesus and the communities that produced the synoptic Gospels were part of this radical heritage. It is useless for us to speak of "fitting the square peg of Jesus into the round hole of Jewish theology." Neither Jesus nor Second Temple Judaism can be reduced to such simplistic geometry; and moreover, it is anachronistic. 




> Regardless, Jesus changed the world (arguably for the better). People kill each other less, they are generally nicer to each other, they care less about believing and more about good works. It is irrelevant which god you worship, it only matters that you are good person.


Well, that is one way to look at it. Of course killing and cruelty are still a problem, and some attempts to make people "nicer"--Communism, for example--ended up being bloody-soaked disasters. (Not that Christianity was responsible for Communism, but it does raise the question of whether people can actually act to save themselves). And then there were the Crusades, the Inquisition, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, and so on. On the whole, I don't share your view about the change that wrought on human behavior, at least historically; but: 1) I am willing to respect it as your belief; and 2) I am personally interested in the potential that Jesus' teaching may have to do what you describe, no matter how badly we've messed it up so far. I am, however, skeptical that human beings are really capable of doing much more than they have done since Jesus' ministry.

"Good works" and being a "good person" is another can of worms. I would be willing talk to you about it if you like, but only in a spirit of friendship and respectful exchange of viewpoints. I almost didn't post on this thread because of some of the pettiness and name calling that was going on (not by you), but so far I have had some intelligent and respectful conversation here. Jonathan, YesNo, and I all have different approaches to these issues, and on a good day we manage to like and learn from each other. And there are others here who use a respectful approach, too. I am assuming that you are one of them. 

As far as it being irrelevant which God you worship, I only agree from an anti-works theology point of view. For me, God alone knows our hearts and all the religious fuss we make is (usually) not very important compared to that. There are approaches to God I do not condone, but it's God and not me who gets to sort that out. 

In the immortal words of William Blake: Enough! Or too much.

----------


## HCabret

> Biased in what sense? are you talking about the Jewish religion?


The Muslim religion. The Quran is the Muslim holy book.

----------


## HCabret

> It seems there is a confusdion in understanding the terminology of Muslim 
> 
> According to the Islamic literatures, _non-muslims_ in the pre islamic era, like jews, were considered as muslims and they would surely be able to reap the heavenly rewards if they had obeyed the laws/tenets laid down by the prophets of their time.
> 
> Islam has laid down certain principles if one is to be considered as a muslim and the basics are as such as;
> belief in the oneness of Allah, the last day of judgement, predestination, His angels, revealed books and prophets,
> and as long as you have this faith you are considered as a muslim.


If some reject the precepts which you have listed, either before or after Mohammed's life entitled to reap the benefits of not rejecting those precepts?

----------


## Soul cu Item

> The Muslim religion. The Quran is the Muslim holy book.


Because it would only allow the Muslims (Islamic follower/mohammedans as per your statement) to enjoy the perks of the afterlife, that is, without accounting any of them of their records? 
I agree its one of the major misconception concerning Islam belief but this statement cant be further away from truth.




> If some reject the precepts which you have listed, either before or after Mohammed's life entitled to reap the benefits of not rejecting those precepts?


First of all, the universality of Muhammed`s message, through Qura`an, is limited to the fact that it is only an open invitation to all, irrespective of anyone's creed, religion, race ( as was the case in the earlier generations gone by.)

Secondly It is not a Noahs Ark wherein who ever dwells is protected from all harm on the day of judgement and granted a direct entrance to paradise even if they flout any or all of the basic principles laid down by God, especially the one that sits at the top, monotheism.
Many naïve Muslims today believe in this notion, which is sad but nevertheless a fact, that they wont be held accountable for any of their sins, though the reality is God will/can pardon all sins ( as HE sees fit) all except ploytheism, Islamic followers included.

----------


## HCabret

> Because it would only allow the Muslims (Islamic follower/mohammedans as per your statement) to enjoy the perks of the afterlife, that is, without accounting any of them of their records? 
> I agree its one of the major misconception concerning Islam belief but this statement cant be further away from truth.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the universality of Muhammed`s message, through Qura`an, is limited to the fact that it is only an open invitation to all, irrespective of anyone's creed, religion, race ( as was the case in the earlier generations gone by.)
> 
> Secondly It is not a Noahs Ark wherein who ever dwells is protected from all harm on the day of judgement and granted a direct entrance to paradise even if they flout any or all of the basic principles laid down by God, especially the one that sits at the top, monotheism.
> Many naïve Muslims today believe in this notion, which is sad but nevertheless a fact, that they wont be held accountable for any of their sins, though the reality is God will/can pardon all sins ( as HE sees fit) all except ploytheism, Islamic followers included.


Which god? why are assuming that the Muslim god has a penis? 
Why can't polytheists get into the Muslim afterlife?

----------


## Soul cu Item

> Which god? why are assuming that the Muslim god has a penis?


Because I referred God as He? this question is a different topic from this thread, that requires quite a bit of discussion too, and if you are really looking for the answer, and wont get it anywhere on the net, then start a relevant thread on this issue and lets see if anyone can sort it out.




> Why can't polytheists get into the Muslim afterlife?


You mean believer`s afterlife? because there is no such term in the Qura`an as _Muslims afterlife_.

NO, they wont be shunned altogether on that basis alone, and there are quite a few verses in the Book mentioning they will be given a chance to bring forth those whom they invoked to save them and if they could they would surely have the same result. The verses I can recall now is 6:22 and 14:22.

----------


## HCabret

> Because I referred God as He? this question is a different topic from this thread, that requires quite a bit of discussion too, and if you are really looking for the answer, and wont get it anywhere on the net, then start a relevant thread on this issue and lets see if anyone can sort it out.


this question is most certainly relevant to the OP. Referring to a god as a "he" shows bias towards males. Females are left out to dry. 






> You mean believer`s afterlife? because there is no such term in the Qura`an as _Muslims afterlife_.


so then what happens to Muslims after they die? 




> NO, they wont be shunned altogether on that basis alone, and there are quite a few verses in the Book mentioning they will be given a chance to bring forth those whom they invoked to save them and if they could they would surely have the same result. The verses I can recall now is 6:22 and 14:22.


so it is possible for polytheist a to get into the Muslim afterlife?

----------


## Red Herring

Are we talking about a religious text here? Of course it's biased.

----------


## Jackson Richardson

> Are we talking about a religious text here? Of course it's biased.


No more than any political or sociological text.

----------


## HCabret

> No more than any political or sociological text.


Bias is not a bad thing. It is a signature of our capability to operate independently of one another as human beings. The Quran is a wonderful book that does a lot of good for a lot of people in this world. I don't like when Muslims (or any groups) paint their point of view as being the universally correct and default position which all people should accept. Individuals should not be forced into their beliefs or lack of beliefs. There is not necessarily a universally correct way of thinking, there are many different soteriological paths and destinations.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> this question is most certainly relevant to the OP. Referring to a god as a "he" shows bias towards males. Females are left out to dry.


This topic requires lengthy discussion since your line of questioning have jumped from the '_anatomy of God_' (sic), to him being a male chauvinist? and or misogynist, which surely was not topic the OP started this thread to discuss. So again, if you really want to continue this discussion, start a new thread and lets see if anyone can oblige to help you out.





> so then what happens to Muslims after they die?


I didn`t understand your question, can you clarify? or is it the accountability process they have to go through after death? or are you questioning my choice of term for Muslims as believers? If that is so, a true Muslim is a believer and vice versa . 
The reason for using the term heaven being the believers eternal abode is that not all Muslims are true believers, just as not all Mohammed`s followers are true Muslims, for example the hypocrites in his time.




> so it is possible for polytheist a to get into the Muslim afterlife?


Have you gone through the reference? The answer is there in ; 

chapter 6 verse 22 
chapter 14 verse 44 and 
chapter 7 verse 37.

----------


## HCabret

> This topic requires lengthy discussion since your line of questioning have jumped from the '_anatomy of God_' (sic), to him being a male chauvinist? and or misogynist, which surely was not topic the OP started this thread to discuss. So again, if you really want to continue this discussion, start a new thread and lets see if anyone can oblige to help you out.


Is there specific language in the Quran pertaining to the sex organs of the Muslim god or is the usage of the word "him" purposefully denying women the conception of a god being female? By using the word "him" when referring to the Muslim god, you are implying that being male is superior to being female and you are this excluding females from divinity. 







> I didn`t understand your question, can you clarify? or is it the accountability process they have to go through after death? or are you questioning my choice of term for Muslims as believers? If that is so, a true Muslim is a believer and vice versa . 
> The reason for using the term heaven being the believers eternal abode is that not all Muslims are true believers, just as not all Mohammed`s followers are true Muslims, for example the hypocrites in his time.


what must a person do or believe to qualifies as a "true believer"?

----------


## Soul cu Item

> what must a person do or believe to qualifies as a "true believer"?


Some of the qualities are mentioned in post #60 while also having steadfast faith in God, not neglecting prayers and charity but the definition of the word true here is when on the day of judgement, ones heart will be pure of polytheism.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> Is there specific language in the Quran pertaining to the sex organs of the Muslim god or is the usage of the word "him" purposefully denying women the conception of a god being female? By using the word "him" when referring to the Muslim god, you are implying that being male is superior to being female and you are this excluding females from divinity.


Just got updated on this issue: http://www.online-literature.com/for...Gender-amp-God...is it still in the forum rules then ? otherwise some minor points on this issue.

To clarify, in islamic doctrines there is no Muslim, Christian or Jewish God- there is just God, One and Only.

Also God, sometimes, refers to Himself as 'We" in Quran but that We is not in plural sense. Islam is clear on this issue that He has no gender, whose masculine styles of speech lies in the grammatical form of the original language of Quran. which is arabic.

I do not know which religion or which God you worship since it is irrelevent to me ( since you are free to believe in denying the concept of God being genderless) worship God in ,but to clarify it is not only Muslims and Quran which refer to God as He but since you are interwested in discussing this topic I could still have a healthy discussion with you in private or give you some links if you want, if its not against the rules.

----------


## HCabret

> Just got updated on this issue: http://www.online-literature.com/for...=gender+of+god...is it still in the forum rules then ? otherwise some minor points on this issue.
> 
> To clarify, in islamic doctrines there is no Muslim, Christian or Jewish God- there is just God, One and Only.
> 
> Also God, sometimes, refers to Himself as 'We" in Quran but that We is not in plural sense. Islam is clear on this issue that He has no gender, whose masculine styles of speech lies in the grammatical form of the original language of Quran. which is arabic.
> 
> I do not know which religion or which God you worship since it is irrelevent to me ( since you are free to believe in denying the concept of God being genderless) worship God in ,but to clarify it is not only Muslims and Quran which refer to God as He but since you are interwested in discussing this topic I could still have a healthy discussion with you in private or give you some links if you want, if its not against the rules.


the question at hand in this thread is whether or not the Quran is biased. I have taken the position that it is. It explicitly excludes both non-Muslims and women from it's telling. The main character of the Quran (the Muslim god) is a male, as well as the main human characters which are also male (Moses, Jesus, Abraham, Adam, etc). 

The Quran is not a universal document and does not conform to the conceptions of religion which the vast majority of human beings hold. It is biased towards Muslims, while excluding all those who are not.

----------


## HCabret

> Some of the qualities are mentioned in post #60 while also having steadfast faith in God, not neglecting prayers and charity but the definition of the word true here is when on the day of judgement, ones heart will be pure of polytheism.


faith in which god? what's wrong with polytheism?

----------


## mona amon

> the question at hand in this thread is whether or not the Quran is biased. I have taken the position that it is. It explicitly excludes both non-Muslims and women from it's telling. The main character of the Quran (the Muslim god) is a male, as well as the main human characters which are also male (Moses, Jesus, Abraham, Adam, etc). 
> 
> The Quran is not a universal document and does not conform to the conceptions of religion which the vast majority of human beings hold. It is biased towards Muslims, while excluding all those who are not.


Why are you singling out Muslims? Which major monotheistic religion does not refer to God as 'He' and is not biased towards the male and all the other things you said?

----------


## Jackson Richardson

The Quran, like the Communist Manifesto, is an analysis of the human condition with a strong recommendation as to the appropriate action in the circumstances. It is not biased towards Muslims. It is saying all humans should follow its recommendations, which will mean they would then be Muslims.

Twenty years ago I studied modern Christian theology with a feminist theologian. Many women say they have found meaning and encouragement through being Muslims.

----------


## HCabret

> Why are you singling out Muslims? Which major monotheistic religion does not refer to God as 'He' and is not biased towards the male and all the other things you said?


the topic of this thread is about whether Quran is biased or not. The Quran is the Muslim holy text. There are many female Hindu gods and there are no gods in Jainism or Buddhism. The usage of masculine language in the text if the Quran is a sign a bias towards males. The Quran was written by males about males for the benefit of males.

----------


## HCabret

> The Quran, like the Communist Manifesto, is an analysis of the human condition with a strong recommendation as to the appropriate action in the circumstances. It is not biased towards Muslims. It is saying all humans should follow its recommendations, which will mean they would then be Muslims.


The fact that the Quran implores people to give up their own beliefs and instead adopt Islam is bias. A universal piece of literature would not force people to give up their beliefs. 




> Twenty years ago I studied modern Christian theology with a feminist theologian. Many women say they have found meaning and encouragement through being Muslims.


I never said they hadn't. Islam and the Quran is a long ways away from Goddess Worship and The Mists of Avalon, however. 

I'm not saying it is wrong to refer to any given deity as a "He", I'm just pointing it out that said deity does not act from a female point of view.

----------


## Jackson Richardson

Rather than say "The Quran is biased" why not say "Islam is intolerant and exclusive"?

----------


## HCabret

> Rather than say "The Quran is biased" why not say "Islam is intolerant and exclusive"?


beacause the topic of this thread is whether or not the Quran is biased or not. This is a literature forum, not a forum for discussing the merits of any given religion.

----------


## Sk A Hakim

Quran says: Oh MAnkind! 
Quran says: Oh the Believers! 
Quran says: Oh the Disbelievers!

Quran calls all. Otherwise it won't refer it as a guidance for 'mankind.'

Quran only prohibits friendship with those, who have fought the followers of truth on account of religion or made the Truthfuls leave their homeland. Otherwise, it says: Allah loves those, who deal in equity.

----------


## HCabret

> Quran says: Oh MAnkind! 
> Quran says: Oh the Believers! 
> Quran says: Oh the Disbelievers!
> 
> Quran calls all. Otherwise it won't refer it as a guidance for 'mankind.'
> 
> Quran only prohibits friendship with those, who have fought the followers of truth on account of religion or made the Truthfuls leave their homeland. Otherwise, it says: Allah loves those, who deal in equity.


The Quran requires that all humans follow only one god, while completely disrespecting all others gods. Does the Muslim god love those who reject "him"?

----------


## HCabret

Duplicate

----------


## Soul cu Item

> the question at hand in this thread is whether or not the Quran is biased. I have taken the position that it is. It explicitly excludes both non-Muslims and women from it's telling.


 
Many verses in third chapter of Quran mentions non muslims in a good light and portrays them as possessing positive attitude and appreciates their good characterisitc . 

Exclusion of women? really? if that is case then why is chapter # 19 named after Saint Mary, another chapter #4 is titled as The Women and also why in other chapter 23 and 33 the issues pertaining discuseed in detail?




> The main character of the Quran (the Muslim god) is a male,


According to you? Well you are free to believe whether male or female but do not present your reasoning as facts.





> as well as the main human characters which are also male (Moses, Jesus, Abraham, Adam, etc).


Womenfolk is consider a main part of Islam doctrines and literature, and appreciates their sacrifices and dignity. These Quranic verses considers and stresses on them ( Saint Mary, Pharoah`s wife, Prophets wives) being an ideal and an example, in piety, for the present and coming generations, male and female.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> faith in which god?


Which God you want to discuss on?




> what's wrong with polytheism?



Have you even gone through the references give in post # 72? the references given there are sufficient enough to answer your whys and ifs regarding polytheism. If you had do let us know which translation you refer to.

----------


## HCabret

> Many verses in third chapter of Quran mentions non muslims in a good light and portrays them as possessing positive attitude and appreciates their good characterisitc .


does it portray polytheists in a positive light? 




> Exclusion of women? really? if that is case then why is chapter # 19 named after Saint Mary, another chapter #4 is titled as The Women and also why in other chapter 23 and 33 the issues pertaining discuseed in detail?


how many other women characters are there? 






> According to you? Well you are free to believe whether male or female but do not present your reasoning as facts.


does the Quran not use male pronouns when referring to the "God" character? 







> Womenfolk is consider a main part of Islam doctrines and literature, and appreciates their sacrifices and dignity. These Quranic verses considers and stresses on them ( Saint Mary, Pharoah`s wife, Prophets wives) being an ideal and an example, in piety, for the present and coming generations, male and female.


"Womenfolk"? Are males and females presented as being equal in Quran? is there a male god and a female god?

----------


## HCabret

> Which God you want to discuss on?


oh. that god. 







> Have you even gone through the references give in post # 72? the references given there are sufficient enough to answer your whys and ifs regarding polytheism. If you had do let us know which translation you refer to.


I'm just asking. The Quran is not a feminist text whatsoever. It heavily favors the male point of view and disregards female contributions to society.

----------


## Soul cu Item

[QUOTE=HCabret;1301555]does it portray polytheists in a positive light? 

non muslims inclusive of polytheists. 





> "Womenfolk"? Are males and females presented as being equal in Quran?


define equal?




> is there a male god and a female god?


refer to post # 75

----------


## Soul cu Item

> The fact that the Quran implores people to give up their own beliefs and instead adopt Islam is bias. A universal piece of literature would not force people to give up their beliefs.


Implore? Force? Really where? *Can you bring any proof for your allegations*? the point is you are making numerous numbers of preposterous claims to support your misconceptions before making a thorough research. It seems your judgement are based on your line of reasoning alone.

In chapter # 109:

1 - Say, "O disbelievers,
2 - I do not worship what you worship.
3 - Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
4 - Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.

5 - Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
6 - For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."


A question, which Quran translation are you using that is, IF you are using one, can you tell us?




> Islam and the Quran is a long ways away from Goddess Worship and The Mists of Avalon, however.


There is no concept in Islamic religion of its followers even converting to worshipping a male or female form, ever. Btw goddess is not the feminine expression of God.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> beacause the topic of this thread is whether or not the Quran is biased or not. This is a literature forum, not a forum for discussing the merits of any given religion.





> There are many female Hindu gods and there are no gods in Jainism or Buddhism. The usage of masculine language in the text if the Quran is a sign a bias towards males.


Your comments in this post contradicts the one you made in previously. So what are you implying that ( those who are) having a female god will have a positive impact on the treatment of the female subjects? 

Arent you championing certain principles and morals of a said given religion , in the face of another, by resorting to cutting and pasting others beliefs, (which according to your line of reasoning is faulty) to demerit it?

----------


## HCabret

> non muslims inclusive of polytheists.


so the the Quran endorses, or at least tolerates, polytheism? 







> define equal?


1.
a person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality.
"we all treat each other as equals"
synonyms:	equivalent, peer, fellow, coequal, like; More

----------


## Soul cu Item

> The Quran was 
> 1-*written by males*
> 
> 2-*about males* 
> 
> 3-*for the benefit of males.*



1- This has already been clarified in one of the earliest posts of this thread, refer to post #9 

2- only males? there is a verse in Quran which was revealed, as a proof of a woman's innocence ( who was slandered) and thus clarifying and restoring her dignity.

3- as mentioned before, in various chapters ( 23 & 33) there are verses concerning women dealing on there day to day issues and offering solutions to it.

Posts after posts of twisting facts, selectively resorting interpret doctrines out of context (simply on the basis of ones line of reasoning that" as they thought so, so it is"), it is high time to be be respectful of others sensitive beliefs by at least researching about some * facts*.






> the topic of this thread is about whether Quran is biased or not. The Quran is the Muslim holy text. *There are many female Hindu gods and there are no gods in Jainism or Buddhism.*  The usage of masculine language in the text if the Quran is a sign a bias towards males.


Really!! are you comparing one religion to another? Presenting ones merit(according to you) to demerit another?

This is not a preschool playground where kids squabble on ones superiority by claiming the superhuman strength of ones father or fighting whose Mom sings a better lullaby.

----------


## HCabret

> Implore? Force? Really where? *Can you bring any proof for your allegations*? the point is you are making numerous numbers of preposterous claims to support your misconceptions before making a thorough research. It seems your judgement are based on your line of reasoning alone.


The Quran requires that people worship only one god and that they follow a certain set of religious rules and laws. 




> the point is you are making numerous numbers of preposterous claims to support your misconceptions before making a thorough research. It seems your judgement are based on your line of reasoning alone becuase there is no such verse saying in Quran


I am only asking. Does the Quran allow polytheists into the Muslim afterlife or not? Are women allowed to be in positions of authority? 





> There is no concept in Islamic religion of its followers even converting to worshipping a male or female form, ever. Btw goddess is not the feminine expression of God.


The word "goddess" refers to a female deity. There are many female gods in other literature, but the Quran does not feature a single female god.

----------


## HCabret

> 1- This has already been clarified in one of the earliest posts of this thread, refer to post # 9.
> 
> Posts after posts of twisting facts, selectively resorting interpret doctrines out of context (simply on the basis of ones line of reasoning that" as they thought so, so it is"), it is high time to be be respectful of others sensitive beliefs by at least researching about some * facts*.
> 
> 2- only males? there is a verse in Quran which was revealed, as a proof of a woman's innocence ( who was slandered) and thus clarifying and restoring her dignity.
> 
> 3- as mentioned before, in various chapters ( 23 & 33) there are verses concerning women dealing on there day to day issues and offering solutions to it.
> 
> Posts after posts of twisting facts, selectively resorting interpret doctrines out of context (simply on the basis of ones line of reasoning that" as they thought so, so it is"), it is high time to be be respectful of others sensitive beliefs by at least researching about some * facts*.
> ...


This thread, and entire forum, is about literature, not religion. Bias is a not bad thing, as I stated before. The Quran is biased towards Muslims to the detriment of those who reject Islam. 

The Quran, in the context of this thread and forum, is an example of medieval Arab literature and not an infallible, uncritiqueable holy text. The Quran is open to interpretation, as is any of other piece of literature. I appreciate that you hold an opinion which differs from my own; I hope that you understand that you position is not shared by either me or the majority of humanity. Most people accept the Quean as great work of world literature, but not as a divine creation.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> This thread, and entire forum, is about literature, not religion. Bias is a not bad thing, as I stated before. The Quran is biased towards Muslims to the detriment of those who reject Islam. 
> 
> The Quran, in the context of this thread and forum, is an example of medieval Arab literature and not an infallible, uncritiqueable holy text. The Quran is open to interpretation, as is any of other piece of literature. I appreciate that you hold an opinion which differs from my own; *I hope that you understand that you position is not shared by either me or the majority of humanity.*



Of course, you or anyone is free to believe in or reject any concept, doctrines ( as stated in in previous posts) and no one is forcing or imploring anyone to give up their faith.





> Most people accept the Quean as great work of world literature, but not as a divine creation.


Yes and the other,more than 20 percent of the world population, consider it to be a divine revelation and its not a matter concern what others think so.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> The Quran requires that people worship only one god and that they follow a certain set of religious rules and laws. 
> 
> I am only asking. Does the Quran allow polytheists into the Muslim afterlife or not? Are women allowed to be in positions of authority? 
> 
> 
> *The word "goddess" refers to a female deity. There are many female gods in other literature, but the Quran does not feature a single female god.*


So what. If your or anyone`s belief is inclined towards faith(s) that considers there Supreme entity to be either a male or female, you are free in your selection. No one is imposing their set of beliefs on anyone.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> The Quran is not a universal document and does not conform to the conceptions of religion which the vast majority of human beings hold. It is biased towards Muslims, while excluding all those who are not.


It seems after every lengthy discussion its back to square one.




> The Quran requires that people worship only one god and that they follow a certain set of religious rules and laws. 
> 
> I am only asking. Does the Quran allow polytheists into the Muslim afterlife or not? Are women allowed to be in positions of authority?


Asking? Does this post below, seems like making an inquiry?




> The *fact* that the Quran implores people to give up their own beliefs and instead adopt Islam is bias. A universal piece of literature would not force people to give up their beliefs.


Can your quote the source? or which author`s translaton you are using?

Since it is obvious from your comments and posts that you do not refer to/quote from the original text in Arabic, where it doesn't recommends or encourages forcible conversion of non Muslims nor in any in the translated works of Pickthall, Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali, Abdalqadir as-Sufi, Muhammad Asad, Abdul Majid Daryabadi , Arthur Arberry , M.A.S. Abdel-Haleem, Muhammad Taqi Usmani , Dr. Ahmad Zaki Hammad , Wahiduddin Khan, Sarwar and many other who are reputed scholars and professionals in their own right.


As stated before, everyone is free to have their own set of beliefs and theories but just not at the expense of twisting and misinterpreting facts.It is time consuming to research and collect reliable sources, so if you are interested in prolonging this the discussion it would be better if you first brought evidence of the *facts* that you made in post above and enlighten us in which translated work was that fallacious judgment based on.

----------


## HCabret

> It seems after every lengthy discussion its back to square one.
> 
> 
> 
> Asking? Does this post below, seems like making an inquiry?
> 
> 
> 
> Can your quote the source? or which author`s translaton you are using?
> ...


What facts am I missing? Does the Quran actually endorse polytheism? Or are polytheists going to the Muslim "hell"?

----------


## HCabret

> Of course, you or anyone is free to believe in or reject any concept, doctrines ( as stated in in previous posts) and no one is forcing or imploring anyone to give up their faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and the other,more than 20 percent of the world population, consider it to be a divine revelation and its not a matter concern what others think so.


The Quran is not uncritiqueable. It is open to interpretation, just like any other piece of literature. There is no single, correct way to interpret what it says. The Quran is not infallible anymore than other religious texts like the Protestant Bible, the God Delusion, or the Rig Veda. The vast majority of humanity rejects the concept that the Quran has a divine origin, and this forum is not a place for proselytizing religion, it is a place to discuss literature.

----------


## JCamilo

Ah, for god's sake. You are just attacking the book. Some of your claims are very strange. Anyone who reads the Quran knows woman are not excluded from the narrative of the book. They are often mentioned - which does not imply the Quran have a moderm feminist view (time for the borges's camel joke) - and that it is a universal book. Several themes are universal concern. Claiming it is biased towards an interpretation of the truth therefore not unviersal will just exclude every book, be it Plato, the bible, Shakespeare or Peanuts from "Universal" as all of them are biased towards their idea of truth. Books are not universal because everyone will agree with them, because they use themes or characters with universal appeals. Muhammad is one of those characters (and Jesus, Mary, Moses) and the themes are universal (the Quran have a lot of themes, some are very specific to the region or time, but so are some pages of Hamlet or Don Quixote). 

And frankly, most of the book, specially considering that indeed the focus of the book are the followers of Islam, is quite tolerant. There is one or another momment of harshness, specially considering it was written during war times, but most of the momments it just claims God will judge harsher disbelievers. Boo-hoo, that is so terrible. If you do not believe God why would you care about his after-life judgment anyways. 

Have you even read the book that you are attacking?

----------


## Soul cu Item

You ask repetitive questions. Many posts, earlier in this thread, has quoted Quranic verses out of context (not you, since you have never given any reference to your claims discussed in this thread up till now) ) to distort it completely. It is still not clear what your motive was by making a comparison between two major religions of the world, which differ in many respects.

Do you even have any credible sources/references to your claims especially in post # 81? for the unth time lets us know which source you refer to?

----------


## HCabret

> Ah, for god's sake. You are just attacking the book. Some of your claims are very strange. Anyone who reads the Quran knows woman are not excluded from the narrative of the book. They are often mentioned - which does not imply the Quran have a moderm feminist view (time for the borges's camel joke) - and that it is a universal book. Several themes are universal concern. Claiming it is biased towards an interpretation of the truth therefore not unviersal will just exclude every book, be it Plato, the bible, Shakespeare or Peanuts from "Universal" as all of them are biased towards their idea of truth. Books are not universal because everyone will agree with them, because they use themes or characters with universal appeals. Muhammad is one of those characters (and Jesus, Mary, Moses) and the themes are universal (the Quran have a lot of themes, some are very specific to the region or time, but so are some pages of Hamlet or Don Quixote). 
> 
> And frankly, most of the book, specially considering that indeed the focus of the book are the followers of Islam, is quite tolerant. There is one or another momment of harshness, specially considering it was written during war times, but most of the momments it just claims God will judge harsher disbelievers. Boo-hoo, that is so terrible. If you do not believe God why would you care about his after-life judgment anyways. 
> 
> Have you even read the book that you are attacking?


Bias is not a bad thing. The Quran was written for Muslims, therefore it is biased towards Muslims. That's not a bad thing, it just is. 

Women are portrayed as being subordinate to men. Women are expected to be modest and obedient to their male husband. Homosexuality is portrayed in a negative light in the Quran, as is polytheism. Why can't the Muslim god just accept everyone and just "believers"? 

FYI, I accept the existence of many different deities.

----------


## HCabret

> You ask repetitive questions. Many posts, earlier in this thread, has quoted Quranic verses out of context (not you, since you have never given any reference to your claims discussed in this thread up till now) ) to distort it completely. It is still not clear what your motive was by making a comparison between two major religions of the world, which differ in many respects.
> 
> Do you even have any credible sources/references to your claims especially in post # 81? for the unth time lets us know which source you refer to?


There isn't only one way to interpret the Quran. Just because you disagree with someone's literary analysis does not make it wrong. For the purposes of this thread, the Quran is not non-fiction and is open to literary analysis as is an other work which is discussed on this forum. My "motive" is to take the negative position of the question which is posed in the OP. 

There is no requirement for me unconditional sing the praises of any work of literature and I intend to critically analyze the Quran from a variety of perspectives, as I would with any other piece of literature.

----------


## JCamilo

There is what? four lines about homosexuality in the Quran, it is hardly a main topic (or even a cause of huge scandal) of the book. 

Yes, Bias is not a bad thing. Everything is biased, but if you have a bias towards something before knowing about it, then it is bad. That is why I ask again "Have you read the book you are attacking?"

p.s. you should stop to hide behind the "Literary analyses", you have not presented one at all. Knocking on the same keys as "not for woman" "treat homosexuals badly" is attacking the religious content of the book. Nothing even to do with the philosophy behind it.

----------


## HCabret

> There is what? four lines about homosexuality in the Quran, it is hardly a main topic (or even a cause of huge scandal) of the book.


so homosexuality is an off limits topic? which parts of the Quran am I allowed to talk about? 




> Yes, Bias is not a bad thing. Everything is biased, but if you have a bias towards something before knowing about it, then it is bad. That is why I ask again "Have you read the book you are attacking?"


i have not read the entirety of the Quran. I was not aware that I was "attacking" anything. That being said, the Quran is not above being attacked or critiqued anymore than any other piece of literature. The question of this thread is not whether or not anyone biased agai at Islam, it is whether the author of the book had any biases against any particular individual and/or group.




> p.s. you should stop to hide behind the "Literary analyses", you have not presented one at all. Knocking on the same keys as "not for woman" "treat homosexuals badly" is attacking the religious content of the book. Nothing even to do with the philosophy behind it.


the whole point of this thread and forum is to analyze literature. If I can't even discuss literature on a literature forum, what is the point of being here at all? 

The religious content of the Quean is critiqueable, just as any other portion of the text is open to discussion. The section in which this thread is found is called "Religious Texts". 

What is wrong with treating women, polytheists, and homosexuals as being equal to true Muslim believers?

----------


## HCabret

There is only a single female character with a name in the Quran and her notability comes due to whom her son is. This women is portrayed as being either a virgin and/or completely asexual. It also shows her as having a death wish. 

Virtually all other women in the Quran are nameless wives and mothers. None are portrayed as being fully independent, nor are any portrayed in any position of authority. 

The God character in the book massacres an entire city of people for their acceptance of homosexuality. There are seven mentions of this (7:80–84, 11:77–83, 21:74, 22:43, 26:165–175, 27:56–59, and 29:27–33). 

Polytheism is only "unforgivable" sin found in the Quran. "Shirk" is the worst of all the "wrongs" which a person could do according to the Quran. 

The Quran is far from being a positive depiction of women, homosexual people, and especially polytheists. The author of the Quran obviously has a bias against these groups.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> The* fact* that the Quran implores people to give up their own beliefs and instead adopt Islam is bias. A universal piece of literature would not force people to give up their beliefs.


And what are those facts? Can you enlighten us about it? After thousands of years being _hidden_ from numerous religious scholars and its detractors, it appeared recently.

NB:

It is obvious from the comments posted by this user, in the absence of any proof till date, that it has (the comments) beautifully managed to portray Islam negatively. In the face of credible references this user has resorted to begin asking repetitive questions and have never backed its claim made in the above post, an attitude hardly conducive for discussion, a style being envious towards islam.

----------


## HCabret

> And what are those facts? Can you enlighten us about it? After thousands of years being _hidden_ from numerous religious scholars and its detractors, it appeared recently.


4:89, 5:33, 47:20-21. Monotheism is an absolute requirement of all Muslims according to the Quran. Polytheism is constantly portrayed in a negative light in the Quran. 




> It is obvious from the comments posted by this user, in the absence of any proof till date, that it has (the comments) beautifully managed to portray Islam negatively. In the face of credible references this user has resorted to begin asking repetitive questions and have never backed its claim made in the above post, an attitude hardly conducive for discussion, a style being envious towards islam.


There is no mandate in the rules of this forum that any particular religion be portrayed in only a positive light. Both Islam and the Quran are fully open to criticism, here on this forum and everywhere else.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> There isn't only one way to interpret the Quran. Just because you disagree with someone's literary analysis does not make it wrong. For the purposes of this thread, the Quran is not non-fiction and is open to literary analysis as is an other work which is discussed on this forum. My "motive" is to take the negative position of the question which is posed in the OP.


Sure, thus many translations, but also interpretation according to ones whims and desires is a big NO and that still does not give you the authority to do so

What if that "literary analysis" has been made randomly?





> *4:89, 5:33, 47:20-21.* Monotheism is an absolute requirement of all Muslims according to the Quran. Polytheism is constantly portrayed in a negative light in the Quran. 
> 
> 
> There is no mandate in the rules of this forum that any particular religion be portrayed in only a positive light. Both Islam and the Quran are fully open to criticism, here on this forum and everywhere else.


Are these verses your proof for of Islam demanding forcible conversion? you have just selectively mentioned verses that supports your motive and that too out of context.

If you want your future posts taken seriously and be responded too, trying posting something credible. Your comments and posts and selectively measured references show hatred towards Islam though it might not be your intention, maybe the real problem lies in your choice of translation. Can we know it?

PS: choice of translation does not mean ones personal interpretation of a the Book.

----------


## HCabret

> Sure, thus many translations, but also interpretation according to ones whims and desires is a big NO and that still does not give you the authority to do so
> 
> What if that "literary analysis" has been made randomly?


there is no wrong way to interpret any work of literature. There are many different ways to view the motivations of literary characters and the thematic qualities of a work. There is no authority which can legislate interpretation of literature. I am sorry that you disagree with my interpretation, but simply because you disagree with it, does not make it wrong. 







> Are these verses your proof for of Islam demanding forcible conversion? you have just selectively mentioned verses that supports your motive and that too out of context.


they are quotes showing how Islam is being portrayed as superior to non-Muslim religions. Am I not allowed to cite the Quran as a means of backing up my argument? 




> If you want your future posts taken seriously and be responded too, trying posting something credible. Your comments and posts and selectively measured references show hatred towards Islam though it might not be your intention, maybe the real problem lies in your choice of translation. Can we know it?


Which parts of the Quran am I allowed to cite? Show me where in the Quran, feminism, homosexuality, and/or polytheism are portrayed positively. Neither the Quran, nor Islam, are above criticism and both are fully open to critique. 




> PS: choice of translation does not mean ones personal interpretation of a the Book.


Nor did I say otherwise.

----------


## YesNo

It occurred to me that I don't have any "sacred texts". Or maybe my list of sacred texts is fluid being a list of whatever I happen to be biased enough toward to like at the moment.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> there is no wrong way to interpret any work of literature. There are many different ways to view the motivations of literary characters and the thematic qualities of a work. There is no authority which can legislate interpretation of literature. I am sorry that you disagree with my interpretation, but simply because you disagree with it, does not make it wrong.



It was obvious all along that it was your version of interpretation. There may be different ways to express Quran, only in the selection of words, but the core theme is the same if there is any doubts scholars revert back to the original text in Arabic, where the concept of coercion ( which you so claimed) does not exist.

I am sure those fallacious judgements concerning forcible conversion , made in the heat of the moment and which you cover it as “literal analysis” was not to incite anyone or concerning anything.




> they are quotes showing how Islam is being portrayed as superior to non-Muslim religions. Am I not allowed to cite the Quran as a means of backing up my argument? 
> 
> Which parts of the Quran am I allowed to cite? Show me where in the Quran, feminism, homosexuality, and/or polytheism are portrayed positively. Neither the Quran, nor Islam, are above criticism and both are fully open to critique.


Islam does not demand that you wage an all out war against polytheism. The verses on fighting polytheist was related to the pagan Arabs, mainly around the time of wa,r and since most newly converters to Islam were subjected to inhuman and barbaric tortures by them.

Do you want to say if someone fights you, you stay put? One should not act in self defense?

----------


## HCabret

> It was obvious all along that it was your version of interpretation.


I am glad that my intention to give my own personal interpretation if a book came across as being obviously such. 


> There may be different ways to express Quran, only in the selection of words, but the core theme is the same if there is any doubts scholars revert back to the original text in Arabic, where the concept of coercion ( which you so claimed) does not exist.


You do not have a monopoly on interpreting the thematic qualities of any particular piece of literature. There are many different outlooks concerning the literary themes of the Quran.




> I am sure those fallacious judgements concerning forcible conversion , made in the heat of the moment and which you cover it as “literal analysis” was not to incite anyone or concerning anything.


All I have done is give my opinion concerning a piece of literature on a literature forum. I am sorry that my opinion does not align with your view. 






> Islam does not demand that you wage an all out war against polytheism.


Nor did I say otherwise. I said that the Quran portrays polytheism as being a bad thing. 




> The verses on fighting polytheist was related to the pagan Arabs, mainly around the time of wa,r and since most newly converters to Islam were subjected to inhuman and barbaric tortures by them.


So you do admit that the Quran portrays polytheism in a negative light? 




> Do you want to say if someone fights you, you stay put? One should not act in self defense?


I personally am against violence, but I will not claim that any other particular person agrees with me, as I can only speak for myself. How is this relevant to the literary analysis of the Quran or Medieval Arab literature?

----------


## JCamilo

> so homosexuality is an off limits topic? which parts of the Quran am I allowed to talk about?


What about topics relevant to the book? Or do you also waste your time talking about the topic of animalcruelty on Don Quixote?




> i have not read the entirety of the Quran. I was not aware that I was "attacking" anything. That being said, the Quran is not above being attacked or critiqued anymore than any other piece of literature. The question of this thread is not whether or not anyone biased agai at Islam, it is whether the author of the book had any biases against any particular individual and/or group.


You are fanatically attacking a book you didnt read. That is ridiculous. You are producing anything close to a literary critic. In fact,the only bias here is your own. A bad kind of bias, as you are showing pure prejudice. 




> the whole point of this thread and forum is to analyze literature. If I can't even discuss literature on a literature forum, what is the point of being here at all?


You are not analysing literature. You are just attacking religious dogmas you consider wrong. All you do here is talk in the religious ground about the book. 




> The religious content of the Quean is critiqueable, just as any other portion of the text is open to discussion. The section in which this thread is found is called "Religious Texts".


Then stop claiming otherwise, that your attacks on Quran are because any literary text deserve critics. 




> What is wrong with treating women, polytheists, and homosexuals as being equal to true Muslim believers?


Muhammad improved the treatment towards woman at his time. Only blind fanatism would demand it to be an improvement 15 centuries after it. Your critic seems to be those silly new atheists, devoid of any historical and social context, which is a toll for a good literary critic. You are just googling and quoting other sites, which is funny when you do not notice Lot tale is about disobedience, not mainly homosexuality, as his wife died and she is not homosexual.

----------


## Soul cu Item

> I am glad that my intention to give my own personal interpretation if a book came across as being obviously such. You do not have a monopoly on interpreting the thematic qualities of any particular piece of literature. There are many different outlooks concerning the literary themes of the Quran.


For Islamic followers/Mohammedans the correct definition lies in the original Arabic scriptures not basically in the interpretations by humans and scholars do revert back to the it but when in doubt, rather than by their personal views( not even if they are a native Arab).
Scholars who translated Quarn had gone through a lengthy academic process, mastering the pronounciations, vocabulary and grammatical connotations. Each translations many vary in the it style it has been presented but the core message theme is the same because they always had the same source at hand, Arabic scripture, even though most of the authors came from different backgrounds, culture, eras and time zones and even some did not share the same faith.





> All I have done is give my opinion concerning a piece of literature on a literature forum. I am sorry that my opinion does not align with your view.


So, in a way, you saying your personal views and judgments were based ( and you are free to) on your own personal interpretations, not derived from your referring the original scripture and its background?






> *Nor did I say otherwise. I said that the Quran portrays polytheism as being a bad thing. 
> 
> So you do admit that the Quran portrays polytheism in a negative light?* 
> 
> 
> I personally am against violence, but I will not claim that any other particular person agrees with me, as I can only speak for myself. How is this relevant to the literary analysis of the Quran or Medieval Arab literature?


In Quran, when there are more than one individual or a group of people, God sometimes converses in second or third person, referring to the persons concerned by their honorific title, tribe and faith. 

The two parties who were at loggerheads ( Mohammed and his followers and Pagans Arabs) shared and were of the same language, lineage creed, race, city ,tribe, culture and they even shared the same belief up until that point.Imagine how odd and confusing it would have been if they were referred as, ”O ye dwellers of Makkah” or as “ O ye Arabs”. The only difference between them was their faith, one practicing monotheism and the other polytheism, not necessarily to impose ones superiority over other.

This style of speech is still used in among modern Arabic literature and individuals

----------


## Munshie

Nazish

All religions are biased. They are all soap ads of a sort claiming their product washes whiter than the rest.

----------


## HCabret

> Nazish
> 
> All religions are biased. They are all soap ads of a sort claiming their product washes whiter than the rest.


this thread is about whether or not the Quran is biased, not whether any particular religion is biased or not.

----------


## Munshie

YesNo

While I agree that the Quran is biased you are incorrect in suggesting that it is peculiar to that holy text. It doesn't take long to dig up quotes from the Bible that are against other ethnic groups. Witness the exhortations in the Bible to kill/massacre various groups. The Phillistine jibe (derived from the Bible) has been shown by archaelologists to be misguided. The Phillistines were quite a cultured people as it so happens.

----------


## Munshie

Nazish

You don't need an Islamic Scholar to verify Islam's stance regarding this matter. That is the position adopted by all Muslims. 

That said, there are other ways of looking at the matter - the most obvious one being that Christians cribbed from the Jewish texts and Muslims copied from the Christian and Jewish texts with alterations to suit their needs. The Jews weren't particularly original either, as many people have argued. They stole a great many of their ideas (like the 10 commandments, the great flood etc.) from other people of the middle east. It might be useful for you check out some of the videos on YouTube by AronRa that go into this matter in more detail. Archaelogical evidence definitely shows that many of the ideas in the Bible (old and new testaments) had their antecedents in older cultures of the middle east.

----------


## Munshie

orgoo

I think your comment about the Hadithes is misleading, particularly to those who have no grounding in Islam. 

Firstly the Prophet himself forbade the writing down of the hadithes during his lifetime.The earliest hadithes wwere written several centuries after the death of the Prophet. 

Even Muslim agree that some of the hadithes are unreliable.Furthermore there are extremely varying interpretations of the hadithes and therefore widely varying ideas and practices within Islam.

----------


## HCabret

> Nazish
> 
> You don't need an Islamic Scholar to verify Islam's stance regarding this matter. That is the position adopted by all Muslims. 
> 
> That said, there are other ways of looking at the matter - the most obvious one being that Christians cribbed from the Jewish texts and Muslims copied from the Christian and Jewish texts with alterations to suit their needs. The Jews weren't particularly original either, as many people have argued. They stole a great many of their ideas (like the 10 commandments, the great flood etc.) from other people of the middle east. It might be useful for you check out some of the videos on YouTube by AronRa that go into this matter in more detail. Archaelogical evidence definitely shows that many of the ideas in the Bible (old and new testaments) had their antecedents in older cultures of the middle east.


The view point of Muslims is only one of many ways to view the Quran.

----------


## HCabret

> YesNo
> 
> While I agree that the Quran is biased you are incorrect in suggesting that it is peculiar to that holy text. It doesn't take long to dig up quotes from the Bible that are against other ethnic groups. Witness the exhortations in the Bible to kill/massacre various groups. The Phillistine jibe (derived from the Bible) has been shown by archaelologists to be misguided. The Phillistines were quite a cultured people as it so happens.


Which "Bible"? There are many different books with that title.

----------


## Munshie

HCabret

Islam is a a particular religon. Islam belongs to the group 'all religions'. My statement's meaning is very clear. It was worded in the way it was for the specific reason that we are operating in a world characterised by islamophobia (a subject I have written about and lectured at De Montfort University for 15 years) and I do not wish my comment to be used as ammunition by Islamophobes. But if you wish to be pedantic, yes Islam is biased. But I repeat, as a religion it is not alone in this.

----------


## Munshie

HCabret

You can take whatever Bible you want that includes the Old Testament. If you want precise quotes, I can do that for you in a couple of days.  :Smile:

----------


## Munshie

HCabret

And is it wrong to point out that it is biased and it shares that characteristic with other religions? IMO your complaint is more about feeling threatened by the descriptor applying to your own faith too.

----------


## HCabret

> HCabret
> 
> You can take whatever Bible you want that includes the Old Testament. If you want precise quotes, I can do that for you in a couple of days.


what about the bibles that don't include the "Old Testament"?

----------


## HCabret

> HCabret
> 
> And is it wrong to point out that it is biased and it shares that characteristic with other religions? IMO your complaint is more about feeling threatened by the descriptor applying to your own faith too.


This thread is about the Quran, not about any bibles.

----------


## ayatinstitute

There isn't only one way to interpret the Quran. Just because you disagree with someone's literary analysis does not make it wrong. For the purposes of this thread, the Quran is not non-fiction and is open to literary analysis as is an other work which is discussed on this forum. My "motive" is to take the negative position of the question which is posed in the OP.

----------


## ayatinstitute

I would also add that some of the authentic letters of Paul are 20 to 30 years older than the earliest Gospel, and they some historical information about Jesus (though not as much as we would like). One should also mention the many non-Canonical Gospels written in the 2nd century, and the sayings collection known as The Gospel of Thomas, which some scholars believe to be from the 1st century, or to represent an authentic sayings collection of Jesus made in his lifetime, which was worked adopted to the theology of a certain group in the 2nd Century.

----------


## desiresjab

Moslems enjoy religious bias like any bunch. Bias against other groups is one of the world's great recreations. Racial bias is rich with humor and tradition. Many prefer it to religious bias, which for good reason has its share of loyal adherents and admirers. Most moslems prefer religious bias. They have not yet advanced to pigment bias. Give 'em time. The majority of moslems are primitive people about level with the pilgrims when they hit Plymouth Rock. Moslems were burying their scat in the dunes a mere generation ago with the camels.

A moslem's religious bias involves chopping off the odd head, of course. Do not be worried by that peccadillo. It only honors Allah (piece of pie upon him) to do so. A Christian's religion involves burning the odd witch. It honors the son and the father, but especially the holy ghost. Such peccadillos are part of the small price we pay for the prominent advantages of religion.

The main exports of modern moslem countries are oil and hairy legs. These are also their two main cultural contributions.

----------

