• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Quran Criticism - God's word or manmade?

joe1776

Well-Known Member
...
Now it is your turn to criticise the Quran if you wish to do so :)
Dan, long ago, as a teenager, I had these questions about all the sacred texts. I still have them.

A Creator wants us to know of its existence? Seriously, it can create our world but couldn't find a better way to do that than inspiring the men of a Mideast tribe to write of it in the language of their day? If a Creator exists, isn't it more likely that it doesn't want us aware of its existence?

A Creator wants us to have free will but wants to offer moral guidance, and it can't find a simple, cross-cultural, way that doesn't rely on language to signal us when we are considering a wrongful act? The best it can do is inspire men in a morally immature culture to write down moral guidance?

Incidentally, conscience might be that simple, cross-cultural moral guide that isn't reliant on language. If it is, that would be evidence in favor of a Creator's existence.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
When you say the actions "it" directs you to, are you meaning it as the Quran or it as Islam?
When I wrote it, I meant the Quran but coming to think about it, "it" could also be Islam (or faiths in general).
Either way, the Quran is not important for my judgement about Islam.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Dan, long ago, as a teenager, I had these questions about all the sacred texts. I still have them.

A Creator wants us to know of its existence? Seriously, it can create our world but couldn't find a better way to do that than inspiring the men of a Mideast tribe to write of it in the language of their day? If a Creator exists, isn't it more likely that it doesn't want us aware of its existence?

A Creator wants us to have free will but wants to offer moral guidance, and it can't find a simple, cross-cultural, way that doesn't rely on language to signal us when we are considering a wrongful act. The best it can do is inspire men in a morally immature culture to write down moral guidance?

Incidentally, conscience might be that simple, cross-cultural moral guide that isn't reliant on language. If it is, that would be evidence in favor of a Creator's existence.
I like your critique here a lot, and it is worth bonus points because it applies to all texts alleged to be Creator given, well done :)
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Incidentally, conscience might be that simple, cross-cultural moral guide that isn't reliant on language. If it is, that would be evidence in favor of a Creator's existence.
Conscience, the feeling within is paramount for me in daily life as well when reading verses

So it's not for me. I think it's trite to criticise an old book. I look at what those, who value it, make from it, their interpretation, the actions it directs them to. In short, my critique is with Islam, not the Qur'an.
I just skip verses that feel not good to me. And when there are too many of those in 1 book, I tend to skip the whole book.

And, for sure, it does have quite an impact on my view about the followers how they practise what they preach. Usually I see it separate from (non)Faith/Religion itself. As I do not equate Islam with Muslims, nor Christianity with Christians, nor Hinduism with Hindus, nor Atheism with Atheists.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
How does it cause inconvenience to women? Do you know women who have an urgent wish to be witnesses to such contracts?

:rolleyes:

It's about the idea behind it. That you need double the amount of women to "make up" for not being a man.
That tells us, and the women, they are worth only half a man.

How do you know women are as good as men as witnesses?

Common sense.

The western world thought of that only a couple of centuries ago. Before that women couldn't make a contract or bear witness, regardless of their number.

Yes and today we recognize how ridiculous and immoral that was.

This is all about the presumption that humans have supposedly become more intelligent and simply know better now even though they have no evidence different from those before.

We know and understand a lot more then we did in the past.
Haven't you noticed?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
'O ye who believe! when ye deal with each other in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time reduce them to writing. Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties...
.....And get two witnesses out of your own men and if there are not two men then a man and two women such as ye choose for witnesses so that if one of them errs the other can remind her.'

Even if only interpreted as being a reference to financial transactions, in my opinion this unnecessarily incoveniences women by requiring double the number of women for testimony in the place of one man. One could easily see how a fallible patriarchal human could author such an error, but an omniscient God should know that two women are as suitable for testimony as two men, or that one man and one woman is as suitable for testimony as two men.

Interesting and common apologetics this is. But maybe its a valid question. But I dont know how this is related to the topic in the heading. It should have just be named lets get together and criticise the text of the Quran. :)

Anyway, how is it inconveniencing women? See, this is a requirement for the person writing a contract. If he doesnt wish to inconvenience women, he could get two men. It is about two options.

Anyway, you said "God should know that two women are as suitable for testimony as two men" but you have failed to show where it says "women are unsuitable". You have made that assumption, but its not in the text.

So can you please provide the text where it says "two women are chosen because women are unsuitable"?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Interesting and common apologetics this is. But maybe its a valid question. But I dont know how this is related to the topic in the heading. It should have just be named lets get together and criticise the text of the Quran. :)

Anyway, how is it inconveniencing women? See, this is a requirement for the person writing a contract. If he doesnt wish to inconvenience women, he could get two men. It is about two options.

Anyway, you said "God should know that two women are as suitable for testimony as two men" but you have failed to show where it says "women are unsuitable". You have made that assumption, but its not in the text.

So can you please provide the text where it says "two women are chosen because women are unsuitable"?

It's implied.

If the choice is between either 2 men OR 1 man and 2 women, it is implied that 1 man equals 2 women.
It implies that the word of a woman is worth less then the word of a man.

So in your opinion, why is this so?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Hi,

Ultimately us who don't believe in the Quran don't need to provide a reason for why of course, but for as long as we are free to do so some of us will openly object to submission to the Quran due to various reasons.

If that describes you, by special request from one of our RF members who shall not be named this is the thread for you.

This is your one stop shop for Quran criticism, doesn't matter if it's content criticism, scientific criticism, or any other criticism under the sun.

Since I'm the writer of the OP I get the privelege of picking the lowest hanging fruit for first go.

Firstly though I'd like to tell you about my approach. My approach is that as time goes on and new information comes to light, I believe people will inevitably endeavour to post hoc rationalise the Quran and other texts held as sacred in order to try and make the interpretation of the sacred book sound more appealing to a more modern/more informed audience. But if a text obviously referred to some scientific or other fact it should have been obvious to the earlier interpreters of the book who were faithful and devoted students of it who did not have that hindsight. Therefore ideally one would have the interpretation of the book within the lifetime of it's earliest sources, but failing that, the earlier the translation/interpretation the less post-hoc rationalisation will be expected in my opinion.

Hence the reason I pretty much stick to the Yusuf Ali translation, because it is possibly the earliest scholarly translation we have to English by a faithful widely respected scholar of Islam, therefore I would expect it to have less post-hoc rationalisation than later translations (although I'm inclined to think that even it is likely to have some inevitable degree of post-hoc rationalisation given that it is fairly modern).

So here is the opening criticism, I like it because unlike highly technical criticisms which are less accesible to the common folk this one just requires some basic empathy for women;

From Surah 2. Al-Baqara Translation by Yusuf Ali | Islamic Reference | Alim
Verse 282

'O ye who believe! when ye deal with each other in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time reduce them to writing. Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties...
.....And get two witnesses out of your own men and if there are not two men then a man and two women such as ye choose for witnesses so that if one of them errs the other can remind her.'

Even if only interpreted as being a reference to financial transactions, in my opinion this unnecessarily incoveniences women by requiring double the number of women for testimony in the place of one man. One could easily see how a fallible patriarchal human could author such an error, but an omniscient God should know that two women are as suitable for testimony as two men, or that one man and one woman is as suitable for testimony as two men.

Now it is your turn to criticise the Quran if you wish to do so :)

I enjoy and appreciate Quora, even though it is a manmade place for questions and answers. :)

The Qu'ran bastardizes and changes the Holy Bible, as well as logic and history. Pharoah threatens Moses with crucifixion (not invented for centuries), etc.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Hi,

Ultimately us who don't believe in the Quran don't need to provide a reason for why of course, but for as long as we are free to do so some of us will openly object to submission to the Quran due to various reasons.

If that describes you, by special request from one of our RF members who shall not be named this is the thread for you.

This is your one stop shop for Quran criticism, doesn't matter if it's content criticism, scientific criticism, or any other criticism under the sun.

Since I'm the writer of the OP I get the privelege of picking the lowest hanging fruit for first go.

Firstly though I'd like to tell you about my approach. My approach is that as time goes on and new information comes to light, I believe people will inevitably endeavour to post hoc rationalise the Quran and other texts held as sacred in order to try and make the interpretation of the sacred book sound more appealing to a more modern/more informed audience. But if a text obviously referred to some scientific or other fact it should have been obvious to the earlier interpreters of the book who were faithful and devoted students of it who did not have that hindsight. Therefore ideally one would have the interpretation of the book within the lifetime of it's earliest sources, but failing that, the earlier the translation/interpretation the less post-hoc rationalisation will be expected in my opinion.

Hence the reason I pretty much stick to the Yusuf Ali translation, because it is possibly the earliest scholarly translation we have to English by a faithful widely respected scholar of Islam, therefore I would expect it to have less post-hoc rationalisation than later translations (although I'm inclined to think that even it is likely to have some inevitable degree of post-hoc rationalisation given that it is fairly modern).

So here is the opening criticism, I like it because unlike highly technical criticisms which are less accesible to the common folk this one just requires some basic empathy for women;

From Surah 2. Al-Baqara Translation by Yusuf Ali | Islamic Reference | Alim
Verse 282

'O ye who believe! when ye deal with each other in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time reduce them to writing. Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties...
.....And get two witnesses out of your own men and if there are not two men then a man and two women such as ye choose for witnesses so that if one of them errs the other can remind her.'

Even if only interpreted as being a reference to financial transactions, in my opinion this unnecessarily incoveniences women by requiring double the number of women for testimony in the place of one man. One could easily see how a fallible patriarchal human could author such an error, but an omniscient God should know that two women are as suitable for testimony as two men, or that one man and one woman is as suitable for testimony as two men.

Now it is your turn to criticise the Quran if you wish to do so :)

I agree with BilliardsBall. The Qur'an depends on the Bible for its authority. Yet, when attempts are made to find Muhammad in the Bible, he is nowhere to be found. The conclusion must be that he was a false prophet.
 

Shakeel

Well-Known Member
Because where there is only a man and a woman to witness a contract a second woman will have to be found.
And when you're lost in the jungle or in the middle of the ocean, that might really be an inconvenience.
Imagine you are a lady employed in the contracts department, it will generally be cheaper id imagine to hire two men than one man and two women, so you could potentially face discrimination in employment due to cost considerations.
Yes, if a Muslim was to find people who work as witnesses, they'd choose men. Women's work in an Islamic society is different from your society. I see no reason for a woman to work in a contracts department in the first place. Let alone as someone who is supposed to be a witness.
It is the same of men as it is of women, they are concerned with contracts which affect them.
Are you saying a woman who is concerned about a contract would care if the witnesses are two women (and a man) rather than one woman (and a man)? Or are you saying a woman is so concerned about a contract that she must be a witness and she must do it alone lest another woman will make them all worse witnesses? I fail to see why it would be inconvenient for a woman concerned about a contract. Among Muslims contracts are usually done by men to begin with.
Personal experience working with efficient business women.
Personal opinion then. Are all women equally qualified and efficient business women?
Shows the progress of the western world, doesn't it?
No. Just their indifference to their religion and the moral decay of their societies.

Consider that the Jews and the Christians should have accepted Islam and if they had they would have let women bear witness and make contracts 1400 years ago rather than 200 years ago.
No, it is about the assumption that humanity collectively learns from experiences, and over time it will collectively advance in knowledge, no extra smartness required.
So for some, say, 3000 years there was no learning from experience and advance in knowledge, but in 200 years they suddenly began to learn. And you think that claim doesn't imply they're smarter now?
We have plenty of evidence that bronze age men had more collective knowledge than stone age men, iron age men had more collective knowledge than bronze age men etc.
About women?
Would you say it is a fair assessment that modern man who has reached the moon has more collective knowledge than those for whom air flight was a dream?
I don't know, there's certainly a lot you don't know about what they knew.
 
Last edited:

Shakeel

Well-Known Member
I agree with BilliardsBall. The Qur'an depends on the Bible for its authority. Yet, when attempts are made to find Muhammad in the Bible, he is nowhere to be found. The conclusion must be that he was a false prophet.
Except that he's mentioned by name.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I did not say it was sexist, I said an omniscient God should know that the testimony of one woman is as suitable as the testimony of one man. In my opinion well informed humans know this, so why would we expect a well informed human to be better informed than an omniscient God?

Where does this say it is the testimony of two women that's needed? This is not testimony that's in the verse, its witness or those who come to give Shahada.

How did you decide that both these women are required to come and give "TESTIMONY" which is supposed to happen at a time of dispute or breach of contract, that's the time testimony is required. And who said that both women need to come at that time?

Dont you see you are making up things that are not there?

It is strange that when it comes to the Dual Plural Ayyam you insisted it is a single day to find fault with the Quran, and now you are accepting its two women with this Dual Noun? Now do you see how a dual word in Arabic exists and does not mean "One"? If you insist that this means one too, then your problem is solved isn't it mate? Do you understand?

1. No where in the verse does it say that women are incapable.
2. Nowhere does it say that both need to be there at the time of dispute or breach to provide testimony.

Thus if someone told you these apologetics, they were reading things into the text, not reading them.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I created a .pdf with 8 english translations below each other. Amazing so many differences there are.

I have a number of frames of thought about the OP:

Muslims correctly state that the well known problem of translation applies to Quranic Arabic. I ran across this a while ago which expresses that truth: Traduttore, traditore: Translator, traitor. So my first approach is also to look at many different translations to see if they basically agree. Sometimes they don't like the one that some translate to say that we know the end times are here because the state of Israel came into existence: 17:104.

Also to me, scriptures are products of their time and place. They are designed to uplift people from where they are. But they become obsolete after a time. So if we're going to judge what they say it should be based on the world at the time they came into existence.

The Quran, like the Bible, is self-contradictory in places so people can find something they like by selectively looking at passages such as Jesus was a war monger (who brought a sword).

I've also seen over-literalism. People take passages that can be interpreted symbolically or metaphorically and insist on only the literal translation. Which is true is debatable, of course. And some say the Quran has seven layers of meanings depending on the reader.

As to the origin, it makes sense to me that it came from Muhammad's speech but then was organized and perhaps modified by the people who created the current form we know.
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
A Creator wants us to know of its existence? Seriously, it can create our world but couldn't find a better way to do that than inspiring the men of a Mideast tribe to write of it in the language of their day? If a Creator exists, isn't it more likely that it doesn't want us aware of its existence?

Why would God, if existing not want us to "aware of its existence"?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The Quran, like the Bible, is self-contradictory in places so people can find something they like by selectively looking at passages such as Jesus was a war monger (who brought a sword).

Which internal contradiction are you referring to? Please state the verse, and what is contradicting.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Why would God, if existing not want us to "aware of its existence"?
I don't know. However, IF a Creator wanted us to know of its existence, it could allow each of us to feel its presence so that there would be no doubt. Therefore, logically, since we can't feel its presence, either a Creator doesn't exist OR, it exists but does not want us to know of its existence.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Why would God, if existing not want us to "aware of its existence"?

Because God, if you look at the world and all the religions or lack of them, has in effect what appears to a multi-personality disorder. Now personally I don't find that problematic as I have 3 psychiatric disorders.
And if I have do to God as a positive I believe there is no way to God, many ways and only one. But that is me. :)
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I don't know. However, IF a Creator wanted us to know of its existence, it could allow each of us to feel its existence so that there would be no doubt. Therefore, logically, since we can't feel its existence, either a Creator doesn't exist OR, it exists but does not want us to know of its existence.

I just asked since you said the creator would not want us to know.

Anyway, yes I agree that maybe if a creator exists he could make us know of its existence. Anyway, strangely, do you have any recollection of a research that showed humans have an innate belief in a divine creator or/and an afterlife?

It just seems like you are speaking from your anecdotal thoughts. Of course, I dont mind reading some research if any.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
I just asked since you said the creator would not want us to know.

Anyway, yes I agree that maybe if a creator exists he could make us know of its existence. Anyway, strangely, do you have any recollection of a research that showed humans have an innate belief in a divine creator or/and an afterlife?

It just seems like you are speaking from your anecdotal thoughts. Of course, I dont mind reading some research if any.
An Innate belief? No, I don't have any evidence that people are born with that belief. I see the obvious: children are told by their parents or a cleric that God or Allah exists and this practice is passed along as a tradition, generation after generation.

I do have some evidence which would be anecdotal to you, but for me was extraordinary evidence. I once felt a presence within me who knew everything I had ever done and loved me unconditionally. The presence didn't identify itself, though. I can only speculate on who it was. However, the experience did teach me that -- if a Creator wanted its existence known by all mankind, that would be one effective way to do it.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
An Innate belief? No, I don't have any evidence that people are born with that belief. I see the obvious: children are told by their parents or a cleric that God or Allah exists and this practice is passed along as a tradition, generation after generation.

Thats what you believe. You just made a faith statement. What you stated is not based on research. Do you understand?

I didnt ask for research that people have an innate belief. I asked if YOU have any research to back up your claim that this belief of the divine etc etc are indoctrinated only. Nothing more, nothing else. Any research?
 
Top