Comparing Koran, Bible
September 12, 2009 4:34 PM Subscribe
Comparing controversial sections of the Qur'an (Koran), and of the New and Old Testament sections of the Bible.
I'm looking for a resource (ideally a website, could also be a book) that compares contraversial sections of the Quran / Koran and of the New and Old Testament sections of the bible to show that all 3 religious source books have sections that aren't taken literally (word for word) today by the majority of their followers (Jews, Christians, Muslims).
I'm looking to show that taking the controversial sections of the Koran in isolation by themselves (without comparison to similar sections in the Bible) as being "proof" of what Muslims today believe in (e.g. that Muslims believe that they have a holy duty to kill all non-believers) is without basis, as most of today's Muslims don't believe those sections any more than most Christians believe (or follow) outdated sections from the Bible that forbid divorce, allow slaves, forbid eating shellfish, etc. (I admit ignorance about the sections of the Old Testament that modern Jews don't adhere to - I know very little about modern Jewish beliefs other than there are various orthodoxies.)
I'm trying to reconcile what I found when searching, for instance:
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran.htm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/says_about/religious_tolerance.html
Clearly these interpretations are contradictory and both can't be correct. The Skeptics Annotated Bible seems to have a more open and skeptical view of the Bible, but a negatively slanted view of the Qur'an and I don't feel comfortable relying on this source.
I'm looking for a resource (ideally a website, could also be a book) that compares contraversial sections of the Quran / Koran and of the New and Old Testament sections of the bible to show that all 3 religious source books have sections that aren't taken literally (word for word) today by the majority of their followers (Jews, Christians, Muslims).
I'm looking to show that taking the controversial sections of the Koran in isolation by themselves (without comparison to similar sections in the Bible) as being "proof" of what Muslims today believe in (e.g. that Muslims believe that they have a holy duty to kill all non-believers) is without basis, as most of today's Muslims don't believe those sections any more than most Christians believe (or follow) outdated sections from the Bible that forbid divorce, allow slaves, forbid eating shellfish, etc. (I admit ignorance about the sections of the Old Testament that modern Jews don't adhere to - I know very little about modern Jewish beliefs other than there are various orthodoxies.)
I'm trying to reconcile what I found when searching, for instance:
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran.htm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/says_about/religious_tolerance.html
Clearly these interpretations are contradictory and both can't be correct. The Skeptics Annotated Bible seems to have a more open and skeptical view of the Bible, but a negatively slanted view of the Qur'an and I don't feel comfortable relying on this source.
While the qu'ran is a tough read, it's interesting. The one website you found:
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran.htm
has taken the harshest of the quotes quite out of complex - most of the ones that specifically advocate attack are the second half of sections outlining specific offenses.
Example: 4:91 - So in case they do not keep apart from you, and restrain their hands, then take them and kill them where you catch them.
The website you found merely quotes the italicized half of that sentence, and looking up some of the others, that's fairly typical of their approach.
In general, the qu'ran is not a big fan of the non-believers and assumes that they will all go to hell in the end, but most of the statements are of the live-and-let-live variety. Most if not all of the calls to violence are defensive. If you are a muslim and are attacked or persecuted by non-believers, then you can defend yourself, otherwise leave judgement to Allah. The problem comes in the definition of attack or persecution - that is what is used as justification by those committing violent acts in the name of Islam.
As a side note, most muslim extremists are not actually more religious than the moderate muslims - a great source is Who Speaks for Islam. They polled tens-of-thousands of muslims and found those who are violent actually cite political motivations, not the qu'ran.
Sorry I can't help with the bible though - ironically I am technically Christian, but know far more about Islam.
posted by scrute at 5:16 PM on September 12, 2009
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran.htm
has taken the harshest of the quotes quite out of complex - most of the ones that specifically advocate attack are the second half of sections outlining specific offenses.
Example: 4:91 - So in case they do not keep apart from you, and restrain their hands, then take them and kill them where you catch them.
The website you found merely quotes the italicized half of that sentence, and looking up some of the others, that's fairly typical of their approach.
In general, the qu'ran is not a big fan of the non-believers and assumes that they will all go to hell in the end, but most of the statements are of the live-and-let-live variety. Most if not all of the calls to violence are defensive. If you are a muslim and are attacked or persecuted by non-believers, then you can defend yourself, otherwise leave judgement to Allah. The problem comes in the definition of attack or persecution - that is what is used as justification by those committing violent acts in the name of Islam.
As a side note, most muslim extremists are not actually more religious than the moderate muslims - a great source is Who Speaks for Islam. They polled tens-of-thousands of muslims and found those who are violent actually cite political motivations, not the qu'ran.
Sorry I can't help with the bible though - ironically I am technically Christian, but know far more about Islam.
posted by scrute at 5:16 PM on September 12, 2009
I admit ignorance about the sections of the Old Testament that modern Jews don't adhere to - I know very little about modern Jewish beliefs other than there are various orthodoxies.
The example you probably want here is Reform Judaism. They're the largest Jewish denomination in the US, and by and large they don't believe that anyone is obligated to follow halakha — traditional Jewish ritual law, which includes all the commandments in the Torah (a.k.a. the Old Testament). Some Reform Jews see following halakha as a worthwhile thing to do; they just don't think it's obligatory. This often means that they will choose to follow certain rules and practices that resonate with them, and reject the rest. For instance, many American Reform Jews will still light sabbath candles because they like the ritual and feel closer to God when they perform it. But most will also cook, drive a car or even go to work on the sabbath — all of which would be totally off-limits in Orthodox Judaism.
Other Reform Jews go even farther, holding that halakha is an obsolete set of customs and that it's no longer appropriate to follow it at all. Under this school of thought, all that matters is being a monotheist and an ethical person. Of course, being an ethical person will probably include, for instance, not killing and not stealing. But the idea is that you should avoid killing because your conscience tells you it's wrong, and not merely because the Torah forbids it.
Now you're right, there are also disagreements within Orthodox Judaism. But I don't think that will serve you as well for the argument you're trying to make. Those disagreements are on how to follow halakhic law, not on whether or which parts to follow. And they're often on very, very minor points of interpretation. You wouldn't expect to hear an Orthodox rabbi say "Well, the Torah says X, but that's outdated superstition and you can ignore it" — indeed, what separates Orthodox Judaism from other denominations is the belief that the law is fixed and unchanging. Rather, you're likely to hear "The Torah says you must do X and Y. So of course you must do both, but if they ever come into conflict, X is more important" — and the disagreement will come from another Orthodox rabbi saying, "No, I think Y is more important." Similarly, there are disagreements over the scope of some laws, or over how meticulous you need to be to avoid breaking them. But that's still a far cry from declaring any part of the Torah obsolete.
posted by nebulawindphone at 9:32 PM on September 12, 2009
The example you probably want here is Reform Judaism. They're the largest Jewish denomination in the US, and by and large they don't believe that anyone is obligated to follow halakha — traditional Jewish ritual law, which includes all the commandments in the Torah (a.k.a. the Old Testament). Some Reform Jews see following halakha as a worthwhile thing to do; they just don't think it's obligatory. This often means that they will choose to follow certain rules and practices that resonate with them, and reject the rest. For instance, many American Reform Jews will still light sabbath candles because they like the ritual and feel closer to God when they perform it. But most will also cook, drive a car or even go to work on the sabbath — all of which would be totally off-limits in Orthodox Judaism.
Other Reform Jews go even farther, holding that halakha is an obsolete set of customs and that it's no longer appropriate to follow it at all. Under this school of thought, all that matters is being a monotheist and an ethical person. Of course, being an ethical person will probably include, for instance, not killing and not stealing. But the idea is that you should avoid killing because your conscience tells you it's wrong, and not merely because the Torah forbids it.
Now you're right, there are also disagreements within Orthodox Judaism. But I don't think that will serve you as well for the argument you're trying to make. Those disagreements are on how to follow halakhic law, not on whether or which parts to follow. And they're often on very, very minor points of interpretation. You wouldn't expect to hear an Orthodox rabbi say "Well, the Torah says X, but that's outdated superstition and you can ignore it" — indeed, what separates Orthodox Judaism from other denominations is the belief that the law is fixed and unchanging. Rather, you're likely to hear "The Torah says you must do X and Y. So of course you must do both, but if they ever come into conflict, X is more important" — and the disagreement will come from another Orthodox rabbi saying, "No, I think Y is more important." Similarly, there are disagreements over the scope of some laws, or over how meticulous you need to be to avoid breaking them. But that's still a far cry from declaring any part of the Torah obsolete.
posted by nebulawindphone at 9:32 PM on September 12, 2009
Response by poster: Scrute wrote:
Thanks for the link on Who Speaks for Islam. That was helpful! I'm going to get it from the library.
posted by jcdill at 1:32 PM on September 15, 2009
In general, the qu'ran is not a big fan of the non-believers and assumes that they will all go to hell in the end, but most of the statements are of the live-and-let-live variety.The same is true of the bible, which is why I'm looking for a resource that fairly compares the two books.
Thanks for the link on Who Speaks for Islam. That was helpful! I'm going to get it from the library.
posted by jcdill at 1:32 PM on September 15, 2009
Response by poster: jefficator wrote:
posted by jcdill at 1:34 PM on September 15, 2009
You can easily find, for example, overviews on Jesus' view of divorce, but you can also find as many arguments that overlook this view based on Jesus' prior teachings on forgiveness, and others that claim divorce is forbidden.I know - I'm looking for a resource that sums it all up from both books to show that both are full of contradictions and you can't take selected passages out of context to say "this is what THEY believe" because followers of the other book have just as many passages that say similar things.
posted by jcdill at 1:34 PM on September 15, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
I'm afraid your effort is noble but wrong-headed. You can easily find, for example, overviews on Jesus' view of divorce, but you can also find as many arguments that overlook this view based on Jesus' prior teachings on forgiveness, and others that claim divorce is forbidden.
At the end of the day, like members of any religion, some faithful Muslims believe that other religions must be tolerated, and other faithful Muslims believe otherwise. Interestingly, there are also Muslims not opposed to religious freedom, provided the overarching law is sharia in nature.
That being said, I think your essential argument is correct: a book is not a "creed" and pulling verses is not necessarily a means of finding what devotees actually emphasize themselves.
posted by jefficator at 5:01 PM on September 12, 2009