Comparing the Bible to the Qur'an.

[stevecanuck]

I've frequently been told that the bible and the Qur'an are basically the same; specifically that one's as bad as the other. Okay, let's compare. I know much more about the Qur'an than the bible, so there will be an understood "as far as I know" attached to all my claims about it and I will accept being corrected by those who have studied it. Let's start with the very basics and go from there:

1. The bible is a collection of books divided into two testaments created over several hundred years in three languages by about 40 authors, some of whom claimed to be inspired by God. The Qur'an is one book authored in 22 years in Arabic out of the mouth of one man claiming that every word is verbatim from God. The former is like a menu, while the latter is a fully-plated meal - no substitutions. This allows for the bible to be read 'a la carte'- I'll order the NT with a side of OT. Hold the Deuteronomy. Many Christians that I know do that very thing.

Note: The first 86 surahs of the Qur'an are from Mecca [610-622], while the last 28 are from Medina [622-632]. I consider those groupings to be de facto testaments, especially due to differences in tone and content, but they are compiled together without regard for chronology so that they appear to be one book.

So far, so good?

 

[exchemist]

...and the cracked record continues to revolve....ZZzzzzzz............

 

[stevecanuck]

...and the cracked record continues to revolve....ZZzzzzzz............

Your inability to contribute to a discussion shouldn't keep you from hanging around and watching how it's done.

 

[YmirGF]

So far, so good?

Actually, it's a fool's errand. Best of luck.

 

[ChristineM]

So far, so good?

It seems the bible is the mire violent of the two books

Someone analysed the Bible and Quran to see which is more violent

 

[YmirGF]

It seems the bible is the mire violent of the two books

Someone analysed the Bible and Quran to see which is more violent

Regardless, it is still a very superficial reading of both texts. Akin to junk information.

 

[ChristineM]

Regardless, it is still a very superficial reading of both texts. Akin to junk information.

I understand the comparison was done using computer analysis / text processing.

 

[YmirGF]

I understand the comparison was done using computer analysis / text processing.

Hehe. Thank goodness people didn't waste their time on this. It's about what I'd expect from a few clock cycles.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Isn’t it the case that the Quran is considered by Moslems to be a revealed text, and thus the literal unexpurgated word of God? Whereas only one book in the Bible - that would be Revelation - claims to be revealed. Bible literalism, which appears to be a more or less exclusively American phenomenon, does muddy that distinction somewhat though.

 

[YmirGF]

I've frequently been told that the bible and the Qur'an are basically the same; specifically that one's as bad as the other.

Whoever told you that isn't being particularly truthful, quite aside from being very biased.

Okay, let's compare. I know much more about the Qur'an than the bible, so there will be an understood "as far as I know" attached to all my claims about it and I will accept being corrected by those who have studied it. Let's start with the very basics and go from there:

Okies.

1. The bible is a collection of books divided into two testaments created over several hundred years in three languages by about 40 authors, some of whom claimed to be inspired by God.

Fair enough. Try to appreciate that the multiple authors is not a weakness, but rather a strength.

The Qur'an is one book authored in 22 years in Arabic out of the mouth of one man claiming that every word is verbatim from God.

And that is precisely the great weakness of the Qur'an. It all came from one guy. If you do not accept the fellow as being "prophet" of god, the entire claim collapses in on itself.

The former is like a menu, while the latter is a fully-plated meal - no substitutions.

Hardly. That said, even I would not be inclined to compare the "Noble" Qur'an to a TV dinner. Some might find that offensive.

This allows for the bible to be read 'a la carte'- I'll order the NT with a side of OT. Hold the Deuteronomy. Many Christians that I know do that very thing.

And... Is there a point you are trying to make here? What could it be?

Note: The first 86 surahs of the Qur'an are from Medina [610-622], while the last 28 are from Medina [622-632]. I consider those groupings to be de facto testaments, especially due to differences in tone and content, but they are compiled together without regard for chronology so that they appear to be one book.

Um, ok. Is anyone really arguing that it's not a single book? Organizing a work, longest to shortest verse, is a pretty unusual way to arrange something of this nature. It's almost like the folks who assembled the Qur'an didn't know what else to do with the material.

So far, so good?

If you think so.

 

[YmirGF]

Isn’t it the case that the Quran is considered by Moslems to be a revealed text, and thus the literal unexpurgated word of God?

Largely correct. The Qur'an is seen as the LITERAL words of god, in Arabic. If I remember correctly, things get muddy when dealing with non-Arabic translations. Now, that does not mean that there aren't a billion ways to interpret what are understood to be God's words. (If my understanding is not correct, folks, feel free to set me straight.)

Whereas only one book in the Bible - that would be Revelation - claims to be revealed. Bible literalism, which appears to be a more or less exclusively American phenomenon, does muddy that distinction somewhat though.

While there are Bible literalists, my understanding is the vast majority of Christians are not.

 

[stevecanuck]

It seems the bible is the more violent of the two books

And that claim is also frequently made.

Someone analysed the Bible and Quran to see which is more violent

This study is looking at entirely the wrong thing. If the goal was to determine "whether or not terrorism connected with Islamic fundamentalism reflects something inherently and distinctly violent about Islam compared to other major religions", it should be comparing each book's commands for adherents to kill rather than counting one-off stories of God's murderous wrath. The story of Noah's ark undoubtedly accounts for the most carnage in God's history, but by itself tells nobody to go out and commit mayhem.

 

[sun rise]

Rather than the OP path, I've found that the Quran repeats stories from both OT and NT Bibles which is reasonable considering that Muslims believe the Bible is corrupted and that the Quran fixes that. But has anyone compared the two from that perspective and noted what differences can be found?

 

[ChristineM]

And that claim is also frequently made.



This study is looking at entirely the wrong thing. If the goal was to determine "whether or not terrorism connected with Islamic fundamentalism reflects something inherently and distinctly violent about Islam compared to other major religions", it should be comparing each book's commands for adherents to kill rather than counting one-off stories of God's murderous wrath. The story of Noah's ark undoubtedly accounts for the most carnage in God's history, but by itself tells nobody to go out and commit mayhem.

It wasn't looking at what instigates terrorism but at violent wording.

 

[stevecanuck]

Whoever told you that isn't being particularly truthful, quite aside from being very biased.

Okies.


Fair enough. Try to appreciate that the multiple authors is not a weakness, but rather a strength.

Interesting take. I guess I never considered that.

And that is precisely the great weakness of the Qur'an. It all came from one guy. If you do not accept the fellow as being "prophet" of god, the entire claim collapses in on itself.

That's the part that amazes me. ONE guy has changed the whole fricken world forever. When you consider that Mohamed offered nothing more than his word (God didn't 'allow' him to perform miracles), the zealotry with which he is believed boggles my mind. If you were to proclaim disbelief in his prophethood on the streets of any Muslim ME city, you might not make it out alive.

Hardly.

Which part did you disagree with?

That said, even I would not be inclined to compare the "Noble" Qur'an to a TV dinner. Some might find that offensive.


And... Is there a point you are trying to make here? What could it be?

Point? That the Qur'an, as the output of one person, is much more likely to further an agenda. The authors of the bible were spread out in both time and space, and therefore could not have had a cohesive plan. Mohamed knew exactly what he wanted and made sure that 'God' wanted the same thing.

Um, ok. Is anyone really arguing that it's not a single book? Organizing a work, longest to shortest verse, is a pretty unusual way to arrange something of this nature. It's almost like the folks who assembled the Qur'an didn't know what else to do with the material.

I have a theory about that. I suspect that the compilers wanted to deflect attention from the first 86 surahs because they're so repetitive, boring, and they contain nothing new except that Mohamed is supposed to be the new leader of the faithful. Also, by putting the 87th surah second, it makes it look as though fighting "in the cause of God" was part of Islam from the start. The first command to fight is in the 197th of 6,236 verses if you consider compilation order. Chronologically it didn't occur until the 13th year.

 

[stevecanuck]

It wasn't looking at what instigates terrorism but at violent wording.

Yes, it was. It says so:

"The project was inspired by the ongoing public debate around whether or not terrorism connected with Islamic fundamentalism reflects something inherently and distinctly violent about Islam compared to other major religions."

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, it was. It says so:

"The project was inspired by the ongoing public debate around whether or not terrorism connected with Islamic fundamentalism reflects something inherently and distinctly violent about Islam compared to other major religions."

Ok

But I don't see how computer text analysis can differentiate between violence that incites terrorism and violence that doesn't.

Maybe now,, with AI such a task would be possible

 

[stevecanuck]

Largely correct. The Qur'an is seen as the LITERAL words of god, in Arabic. If I remember correctly, things get muddy when dealing with non-Arabic translations. Now, that does not mean that there aren't a billion ways to interpret what are understood to be God's words. (If my understanding is not correct, folks, feel free to set me straight.)

There are enough translations available to compare so that you can sort out what the verses say.

 

[stevecanuck]

Rather than the OP path, I've found that the Quran repeats stories from both OT and NT Bibles which is reasonable considering that Muslims believe the Bible is corrupted and that the Quran fixes that.

I think most, if not all, of the bible stories recounted in the Qur'an are from the OT.

But has anyone compared the two from that perspective and noted what differences can be found?

I know that the Qur'an claims that Jews say Ezra is the son of God (9:30). I'm pretty sure that's not true. It also accuses the Jews of killing God's prophets from old. I have no clue who they might be.

 

[stevecanuck]

Ok

But I don't see how computer text analysis can differentiate between violence that incites terrorism and violence that doesn't.

Maybe now,, with AI such a task would be possible

It would have to differentiate between stories and commands. The actual command to kill is explicit in many verses. It would also have to learn a certain amount of coded commands. Muslims are frequently told to "Go forth", or "Go forth in the cause of God", both of which refer to going to battle.