How does the Qur'an stack up to the Bible?

OK, so like many others here, I've been trying to read the Bible, and, uh, well...







Yeah. That sums it up nicely.

Anyway, after spending way too much time at both Bible Gateway and The Brick Testament, I've decided that maybe the Qur'an might be a better bet. 'Cause, you know, the Muslims moderates are always insisting it's so lovely and full of laws insisting you think critically and love your neighbor and doesn't contain evil at all. Now, granted, this is exactly what Christians and Jews say of the... work referred to above, but whatever, I'm feeling naive, so I might as well give it a try. Before I venture further into it, however, let me ask those of you who have read it to tell me what to expect. Is it better than the OT? Better than the NT? What should I expect?

ETA: Wow, we've got this right at the first page:


Granted, the parentheses are an interpretation (I think), but still... can you spell foreshadowing?

Try reading it first instead of using starting this thread as an excuse to bash it for you beforehand.

You've already formed an opinion. Why are you asking?

I'm not bashing it. I'm asking a question. There's no law stating I can't ask questions about a movie, book, song or other work before delving into it myself. In fact, this is common practice. Should I buy this CD? You've watched the new Star Trek film, right, is it any good? Harry Potter seems really childish, but should I give it a chance?


ETA:

You've already formed an opinion.

Click to expand...

My opinion/hypothesis, not stated in the OP, is that there will probably be a huge improvement over the OT and maybe even the NT, seeing it took form in a later time, but that there will still be a lot of bad stuff down the road.

What do you mean by "better"? I found it to be an interesting complement to the OT, but other than that the language is a little more poetic than the NT, but the message is basically the same. "We're right, they're wrong."

One thing to watch out for is the translation (are you reading it in English or Norwegian?). There are as many different translations of the Qur'an as there are of the bible, and some of them seem to be specifically written so as to minimize the shock of some of the nastier passages (such as the bit about beating one's wife).

I've actually read a translation of the Quran, though sadly I no longer have it. So this is just from memory.

On the whole, I'm not left with the impression that it's any worse than any other religion.

In a sense, I think it's more coherent than the Bible, since it's what one single guy preached, as opposed to a collection of retcons and changing myths over the span of a thousand years or more.

Do note though, that it's not 100% coherent though, or even close. I'm just saying "more coherent than the Bible", i.e., pretty much on par with saying that someone is more honest than Uri Geller

It contains a dose of verses which are less than certain to have been actually said by the prophet (the whole thing was collected some time after his death, not in real time after each speech) and even the so called "satanic verses." (Also of Salman Rushdie fame) Supposedly there the devil tricked the guy that he's the other party and gave him awfully wrong orders.

And bear in mind that you can't have any major religion if it's not malleable like Play Doh. It can support pretty much any twist you want to support.

E.g., historically the Islam has been fairly benevolent towards at least the other two abrahamic religions. The Jews for example did a lot better under the Cordoba caliphate than under Spain, and christian serfs escaped to the turkish lands were generally treated better than in their own christian lands.

Or the saracens were pretty benevolent to the christians in Jerusalem and allowed christian pilgrims to come and go as they wish. Though they did ask for a tax to enter the city. But they were smart enough to not slay the goose that lays golden eggs, so you'd be fairly well treated as a ticket-buying christian pilgrim in their lands.

And of course you can find the verses that support that.

But the Wahhabi sect which begat the modern fundamentalists is also just as muslim, and can find the verses to support _their_ interpretation.

Or in the Barbary wars a major issue was that the Barbary states took christian slaves, and thought that they have full support in the Quran for that. But the funny thing is that equally you can find support for the idea that they _shouldn't_.

So, basically, as I was saying it's Play Doh, like any other religion.

In case you don't know much about it, it claims to be basically Judaism 3.0, with Christianity being Judaism 2.0. Or rather a deviation from what Judaism 2.0 was supposed to be. They do recognize Jesus as a prophet, along with all the prophets of the OT, but IIRC not as "son of god" or anything equally silly. On the whole, IMHO it's really more of a sequel to Judaism than Christianity, and really pretty much a sequel rather than continuation.

"In case you don't know much about it, it claims to be basically Judaism 3.0, with Christianity being Judaism 2.0. Or rather a deviation from what Judaism 2.0 was supposed to be. They do recognize Jesus as a prophet, along with all the prophets of the OT, but IIRC not as "son of god" or anything equally silly. On the whole, IMHO it's really more of a sequel to Judaism than Christianity, and really pretty much a sequel rather than continuation."
,
That's my take on it also.
Basically an updated form of Judaism, with some Arabic culture specific conditions added.
And can be interpreted any old way the Imam or Mullah wishes.

For anybody else like me that wasn't aware of the source for the opening post:

It's Numbers 31:17
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=29&version=31

The targeted group is the Midianites. They seem to be a group that Moses and the Israelis fleeing Egypt came across in the desert. Apparently they had been bad to the Israelis and the Moses wanted his armies to seek vengeance. Initially his army just killed all the adult men, but God as per Moses thought this wasn't sufficient and that all the boys and non-virgin women should be killed also.

Note, I don't think any of this happened. I think the whole Moses thing is almost a complete fabrication.

Is it better than the OT?

Click to expand...

No. Imo it's even worse. In the Koran you have not only the (explicit) permission of pedophilia (Q 65:4 + 33:49), but also the (general) order to murder infidels (Q 9:5), as well as the permission of violence against women (Q 4:34).

ixolite said:

No. Imo it's even worse. In the Koran you have not only the (explicit) permission of pedophilia (Q 65:4 + 33:49), but also the (general) order to murder infidels (Q 9:5), as well as the permission of violence against women (Q 4:34).

Click to expand...

I get how that makes the Koran bad, but I don't get how it makes it worse than the OT.

"Isn't there one person in the city worth saving?"
"Well, yeah, the guy who offered to let a mob gang-rape his daughters."
"Oh, yeah, him! He's worthy! What about his wife?"
"Maybe, providing she doesn't look back as she's fleeing the city."
"Yeah, that would be bad."

-- typical moral lesson from the Old Testament

when I read it the only conclusion I came to is that it is written for normal uneducated people to read while the bible was written to be read by educated priests

I've been reading a biography of Mohammad which has been interesting on a number of levels. First, I guess I hadn't fully realized how culturally volitile the Arabian penninsula was at that time. Pagan, Jewish, Christian influences abounded and each clearly had some influence on Mohamad.

Another intersting assertion in the bio is that the Q'ran was orginally designed as a oral communication of Allah/God's words. Mohammed recited god's word and did so, apparently, almost as a chant and very much in keeping with the oral/story telling tradition of the Arabian people. The point was that the Q'ran (which, I gather literally means recitation) wasn't writen down until after Mohamad had died. The bio suggested that the power of the Q'ran was in the words and the recitation and cant. That listening to it is like hearing a song and can be almost trance inducing (which leads me to wonder if it is ever possible than to translate it out of the Arabic for seemingly the Arabic give it its power, and if it can't be tranlated out of the Arabic faithfully, how can it be the universal word of god?).

The novelty of Mohamad's preaching, apparently, wasn't apparently in his call for fealty to Allah (the High God of Mecca -- and not unlike the Torah's various incarnations of god who is superior to other gods but not quite clearly a sole god), but rather in Mohamad's incorporation of God's judgement and life after death. The pagan Arabs', seemingly, believed that Gods were eternal and people only had this life to live. That the suggestion that there was life after death and of god's judgement on this life as a measuring factor for how one would enjoy or suffer eternity, was apparently a profoundly revolutionary vision for 7th Century Arabs.

Anyway, I guess I was struck by the bit about the Q'ran's power as an orally transmitted story as opposed to a written story. If you don't know Arabic and can never experience it as poetry in the orginial language, what is its real power?

Generally speaking, I found the Qur'an (though admittedly its translation into English) to be tediously repetitive and generally inferior to both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures in terms of narrative. While the Qur'an is roughly the same length as the New Testament, it contains much less material becuse of its repetition. Apparently, the archangel Gabriel forgot that he had already revealed particular stories to the Prophet and thus repeated himself over and over again. One of thse stories is about how Iblis (pronounced ihb-LEESE), one of the jinn, refused to bow to Adam as commanded by God. For his disobedience, Iblis is condemned and driven out by God and becomes Satan. He later revenges hmself by tempting Adam and Eve as the serpent.

While some of the narratives of the Old Testament are at least partially historical, all of the narratives of the Qur'an are myth, often cobbled from many sources. For example, Surah al-Kahf ("the cave," Surah 18) contains three stories. One of them, about a group of pious youths who sleep for over 100 years in a cave, is based on a sixth century Christian legend, "The Seven Sleepers of Ephasis." Another tells how Duh'l-Qarnayn ("two horns") a.k.a. Alexander the Great, put up an iron gate at a pass in the Caucasus to keep out Gog and Magog, who were molesting the civilized lands. This story and the gate are alluded to by Josephus in his "Jewish Wars." The third story tells of Moses journeying with a semi-divine being who is probably a pagan Arabic presonage called al-Khidir, "the Green One," a version ofthe Green Man. The story may derive from a Jewish tale of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi travelling with the prophet Elijah, or that story may derive from the one in the Qur'an. Elijah could be compared to al-Khidir, since Elijah, having been caught up into heaven, didn't die and thus, like al Khidir, was thus ever-young (or evergreen). Surah 18 has the virtue of having fairly well developed narratives. Most narratives in the Qur'an are fragmentary and allusive.

The Qur'an is also excessively self-refencing, particularly in the openings of the surahs. Here are a few examples. The surahs are listed by number. For example Q2 is surah 2. The "Q" stands for Qur'an.

Q2:2a This is a Scripture in which there is no doubt.

Q11:1 This is a Scripture whose verses are perfacted, then set out clearly from One who is wise, all aware.

Q12:1, 2 These are the verses of the Scripture that makes things clear - We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an so that you may understand.

Q15:1 These are the verses of the Scripture, a Qur'an that makes things clear.

Q32:2 This Scripture, free from all doubt, has been sent down from the Lord of the Worlds.

Q40:2 This Scripture is sent down from God, the Almighty, the All Knowing . . .

Q45:2 This Scripture is sent down from God, the Mighty, the Wise.

TimCallahan said:

While the Qur'an is roughly the same length as the New Testament, it contains much less material becuse of its repetition. Apparently, the archangel Gabriel forgot that he had already revealed particular stories to the Prophet and thus repeated himself over and over again.

Click to expand...

I found that annoying, too.

While some of the narratives of the Old Testament are at least partially historical, all of the narratives of the Qur'an are myth, often cobbled from many sources.

Click to expand...

Plenty of myths given, much as parables are given.
But there are some historical stories. The local histories are the ones that come to mind at the moment: Mohammed being accused of just retelling fairy-tales of the ancients; various battles/politcal disagreements. There's also the prediction given in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar-Rum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_the_prediction_in_Sura_al-Rum

The pagans in Mecca were having a laugh because the Romans, followers of the One and Only Abrahamic God, had just lost to pagan Persians. The Quran predicts a turn around within a few years.

Don't you think the repetition is as much a function as the fact that it was an verbally transmitted story...like Homer?

And another thing which I thought was strange...
The suras are collected pretty much in order of length. (The opening sura, al-fatiha, is short. Given the meaning of the word, it would have been silly to put it at the end!).

Surely choronological order would have been best. Even if some had to be left out because no-one knew when they were written. Or ordered according to topic, though that would mean splitting Suras (which weren't necessarily "revealed" all in one go anyhow. In fact, I don't know why verses are collected in suras the way they are.)

As it is... the early Suras tend to be short, and therefore towards the end of the book.

headscratcher4 said:

Don't you think the repetition is as much a function as the fact that it was an verbally transmitted story...like Homer?

Click to expand...

That may be a factor.
I also find Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik annoying. I forget which movement, but it is absolutely brilliant, brilliant, brilliant... Then it starts again. No! If I wanted to hear it again, I'd hit a button and start the track again. Why didn't Mozart think of that?

OTOH, I listen to heavy metal. I don't mind the repetition there.

I think you need two korans for a bible - otherwise the table will wobble.

TimCallahan said:

... While the Qur'an is roughly the same length as the New Testament, it contains much less material because of its repetition....

Click to expand...

I wonder if that is true. Matthew and Luke repeat most of what is in Mark and there is some other shared material between Matthew and Luke so there is much less material dealing directly with the life of Jesus in the NT than is assumed by many people I suspect. The repeated sections of the NT also belie the idea that there are four independent sources about the life of Jesus in the NT.

Safe-Keeper said:

Anyway, after spending way too much time at both Bible Gateway and The Brick Testament, I've decided that maybe the Qur'an might be a better bet.

Click to expand...

The Skeptic's Annotated Quran might interest you. The same site also contains an annotated Bible and Book of Mormon.

TimCallahan said:

The third story tells of Moses journeying with a semi-divine being who is probably a pagan Arabic presonage called al-Khidir, "the Green One," a version ofthe Green Man. The story may derive from a Jewish tale of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi travelling with the prophet Elijah, or that story may derive from the one in the Qur'an. Elijah could be compared to al-Khidir, since Elijah, having been caught up into heaven, didn't die and thus, like al Khidir, was thus ever-young (or evergreen). Surah 18 has the virtue of having fairly well developed narratives. Most narratives in the Qur'an are fragmentary and allusive.

Click to expand...

At one point I became strangely obsessed (long story) about learning about al-Khidir and all of his manifestations (some believed that St George was an incarnation of the same being). The stories you reference about Moses and al-Khidir seem designed to quell skepticism regarding acts of god that are seemingly immoral or nonsensical.

headscratcher4 said:

Don't you think the repetition is as much a function as the fact that it was an verbally transmitted story...like Homer?

Click to expand...

Its tradition and dates to the days when compositions were set down on clay tablets, it became neccesary to repeat each end passage at the start of each new tablet so that the text was read in the correct order, page numbers weren't invented then

I was thinking on this passing down of story by chant...
I can recall pretty much word for word some of the songs that were popular in the early '40s.
I expect in a culture where word-of-mouth was the method of spreading news, that recalling what one had heard -accurately- would be stressed.
But also when the book was assembled from these recollections, it would be human to leave out those that didn't fit the biases of the editors, and enhance those that did.

davefoc said:

For anybody else like me that wasn't aware of the source for the opening post:

It's Numbers 31:17
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=29&version=31

The targeted group is the Midianites. They seem to be a group that Moses and the Israelis fleeing Egypt came across in the desert. Apparently they had been bad to the Israelis and the Moses wanted his armies to seek vengeance. Initially his army just killed all the adult men, but God as per Moses thought this wasn't sufficient and that all the boys and non-virgin women should be killed also.

Click to expand...

Actually, the way I had understood it, the Midianites had been in fact pretty nice and hospitable to Moses's men.

So some of the hebrews took wives from Midian, and some of those moved to Midian and converted to their wives' religion.

So the good Lord gave a plague. Of course, not to the hebrews who had converted, not even to the Midianites, but to the still faithful hebrews. You know, because apparently that's his idea of justice. Why bother punishing the guilty, when smiting a few of your own minions vents frustration just as well?

(Real Evil Overlord material there. And not the kind that's read the Evil Overlord's List.)

So first the plague is lifted because some dude takes a spear and kills a man and his wife in their own home. Apparently just because the victim was the last guy to marry a midianite woman.

Note: nowhere is it mentioned that he also gave up his religion or anything. In fact, since he came back with her to Moses's theocratic flock, it's probably safe to assume that she converted to Judaism instead.

Anyway, no trial, no chance to defend oneself in court, no proper stoning. Remember that the whole stoning deal was because of the "thou shalt not kill" part. So they used stoning so, because no individual stone was lethal, no individual guy who had thrown a stone was guilty of killing anyone. (Gotta love that kind of logic)

But this time, you know, a guy just takes a spear and kills a couple in their own home. Common premeditated murder at its finest. Exactly what the Lord had forbidden.

So _obviously_ the Lord is pleased and lifts the plague.

But the Midianites were still guilty of the grievous crime of, you know, being nice to the hebrews and marrying their daughters to the hebrews. And for that the Lord orders the complete genocide of the Midianites.

I don't know, man... the Bible has much morally objectionable stuff, but this for me takes the crown.

So, let's see, what divine morals can we learn from the OT:

- that breaking the 10 commandments or for that matter the laws of the land is ok, if it's done in the name of the Lord. Murder in his name pleases him, you know? (I guess doctor-shooters must really make him proud.)

- that if some plague or other natural misfortune befalls you, it's ok to blame some scapegoat and kill them

- that executing prisoners is ok

- that killing children is ok (no lower limit is given for those murdered boys from Midian)

- that killing non-combatants is ok (no exception is made for the old or disabled of Midian, and the execution of the non-virgin women is explicitly ordered)

- that rape is ok and an apropriate thing to do in a war (the virgin ones are given to the soldiers)

- very likely even paedophilia (no lower limit is given for those virgin women)

- brutal and complete genocide is ok

- that, basically, if some guys marry Indian or Chinese women and/or convert to Buddhism, well, we should probably nuke India and China. I mean, come on, that was the whole "crime" of the Midianites too.

Etc.

... and that's just from one chapter.

I dunno, man, I believe that the Islam or any other religion would have a really hard time topping _that_. Maybe the thugs of Kali can almost stack up to that, though even those didn't manage genocide. Amateurs

Try to think of it as comparing two feces. Both stink so you have to go for color and texture to try to differentiate them.

headscratcher4 said:

Anyway, I guess I was struck by the bit about the Q'ran's power as an orally transmitted story as opposed to a written story. If you don't know Arabic and can never experience it as poetry in the orginial language, what is its real power?

Click to expand...

It would seem the Indonesians, for example, would be able to answer that question.

headscratcher4 said:

Anyway, I guess I was struck by the bit about the Q'ran's power as an orally transmitted story as opposed to a written story. If you don't know Arabic and can never experience it as poetry in the orginial language, what is its real power?

Click to expand...

It is true that all Muslims are in agreement that to appreciate the true beauty of the Quran you have to be able to read and understand it in Arabic because of the frequent use of poetry therein. But the Quran is not just poetry, hence the translations are not completely useless. For example, the verse:

[2:275] Those who devour usury will not stand except as stands one whom the Evil one by his touch Hath driven to madness. That is because they say: "Trade is like usury," but Allah hath permitted trade and forbidden usury. Those who after receiving direction from their Lord, desist, shall be pardoned for the past; their case is for Allah (to judge); but those who repeat (The offence) are companions of the Fire: They will abide therein (for ever).


the verse is pretty clear in meaning, regardless of the poetic nature (or lack thereof) of the translation.

photon said:

It is true that all Muslims are in agreement that to appreciate the true beauty of the Quran you have to be able to read and understand it in Arabic because of the frequent use of poetry therein.

Click to expand...

Per my post above, I question this. How do you know "all" Muslims are in agreement. Do you have some evidence?

SezMe said:

Per my post above, I question this. How do you know "all" Muslims are in agreement. Do you have some evidence?

Click to expand...

You would have to listen to some audio recitations of the Quran. Preferably some surahs from the last couple of chapters. If you do, you will hear the rhyming nature of the verses. This poetry is completely lost in all translations. I was just pointing out this obvious fact that the poetic nature of the surahs (which is clearly not simply an accident) is lost upon translation. Hence, I don't see how it's possible for any Muslim to argue that a translation of the Quran is comparable in poetic value to the original Arabic form, when you are clearly losing the poetry upon translation.

You can also google "beauty of the quran arabic" and read any of the dozens of relevant links that discuss the beauty of the Quranic reciation in Arabic.

My point is that you are arguing that all non-arabic muslims do not and cannot completely grasp the Quran so I am asking if non-arabic muslims do, in fact, agree that they cannot access the essential nature of the Quran.

BTW, welcome to the fora.

SezMe said:

My point is that you are arguing that all non-arabic muslims do not and cannot completely grasp the Quran

Click to expand...

No, that is not what I was arguing for. I was referring specifically to the difficulty in grasping the poetic nature of the Quranic verses, not their meaning. I said: "It is true that all Muslims are in agreement that to appreciate the true beauty of the Quran you have to be able to read and understand it in Arabic because of the frequent use of poetry therein."

SezMe said:

BTW, welcome to the fora.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

linusrichard said:

I get how that makes the Koran bad, but I don't get how it makes it worse than the OT.

"Isn't there one person in the city worth saving?"
"Well, yeah, the guy who offered to let a mob gang-rape his daughters."
"Oh, yeah, him! He's worthy! What about his wife?"
"Maybe, providing she doesn't look back as she's fleeing the city."
"Yeah, that would be bad."

-- typical moral lesson from the Old Testament

Click to expand...

Is there an OT/NT commandment where YHVH orders the believers to kill the unbelievers as a general rule? IIRC not. There are stories (most of them probably myths which never happend anyway) where the Israelis murder other tribes, but those are stories, not orders for all time from YHVH. (The only ones being the 10 commandments.) Same with the other stuff I mentioned.

very likely even paedophilia (no lower limit is given for those virgin women)

Click to expand...

IIRC the jewish minimum age for marriage is 12 for girls and 13 for boys, I don't recall this being in the bible though.

ixolite said:

Is there an OT/NT commandment where YHVH orders the believers to kill the unbelievers as a general rule? IIRC not. There are stories (most of them probably myths which never happend anyway) where the Israelis murder other tribes, but those are stories, not orders for all time from YHVH. (The only ones being the 10 commandments.) Same with the other stuff I mentioned.

Click to expand...

1. Except those "stories" are taken as lessons for what to do.

E.g., when God smites Onan for practicing birth control, nobody takes it as, "oh, that's one story that happened only once. The Lord doesn't care even if you jack off until you get RSI, as long as you're not Onan." No, that's taken as a lesson in what the Lord doesn't want you to do.

E.g., when God nukes Sodom and Gommorah, nobody takes it as an "oh, that was a one time thing, you know. You can take it up the rear end until you walk bow-legged, as far as the Lord is concerned." If they bring up that story at all, it's invariably to mean "the Lord hates that kind of thing."

Those stories aren't in there just for entertainment sake, but precisely to tell you something.

So I'm going to say that most likely it's not the bible that's OK, it's you who's cherry-picking from it. Same as everyone else.

2. Even _if_ I were to take them as one-time things, then it paints the picture of a God who's utterly inconsistent and demands today what he forbade yesterday. One day he forbids murder, then the next day he demands murder, then I'm supposed to believe that suddenly it's forbidden again.

Until when? Until another random whim hits him?

What moral lessons can be learned from a God who can't even make his mind whether he likes or dislikes murder?

And what's the point in following some rules, when not even he knows if he'll still like the same rules tomorrow?

ixolite said:

IIRC the jewish minimum age for marriage is 12 for girls and 13 for boys, I don't recall this being in the bible though.

Click to expand...

The point I'm making is this: Moses didn't say "rape the girls over 12." (Despicable as that would be in its own right.) Moses said, basically, "rape all the virgin females." No other qualifier about age or anything.

linusrichard said:

I get how that makes the Koran bad, but I don't get how it makes it worse than the OT.

"Isn't there one person in the city worth saving?"
"Well, yeah, the guy who offered to let a mob gang-rape his daughters."
"Oh, yeah, him! He's worthy! What about his wife?"
"Maybe, providing she doesn't look back as she's fleeing the city."
"Yeah, that would be bad."

-- typical moral lesson from the Old Testament

Click to expand...

Meant to comment on this earlier, but forget until ixolite quoted it.

The story of Lot is in the Quran, too.
For those who like stories retold and retold, wiki has collected them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Lot


As for the bits in brackets... my Arabic isn't good enough to decode the original, but it's here at sacred texts:
http://sacred-texts.com/isl/quran/01107.htm

Yusuf Ali's translation said:

78. And his people came rushing towards him, and they had been long in the habit of practising abominations. He said: "O my people! Here are my daughters: they are purer for you (if ye marry)! Now fear Allah, and cover me not with shame about my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?"

Click to expand...

With regard to the opening post asking if the quran is better or worse than the bible.
The quran is clearly stolen from the bible, and from other looted manuscripts. The quran is pure plagiarism, but it adds a new level of cruelty in the lurid descriptions of hellfire. It is also filled with rules of war, and sura 8 says one fifth of the spoils of war belong to Muhammad.
I regard the quran as a book of lies made up by Muhammad to scare silly Arabs into fighting his battles for him, and there is only one meaning in the entire quran which is summed up in the phrase " Obey Allah and the messenger". In other words, obey Muhammad or he will set Allah on to you.

Having compared the bible story of Joseph in the bibles Genesis with the Quran, I can just about follow the story as described in sura 12, but as far as I can see, anyone who did not know the Genesis story, or who did not have the Yusuf Ali translation with commentary, could possibly make sense of the tale of Joseph, as told in the Quran.

In the bible books of Genesis from chapter thirty seven to chapter fifty. the entire fourteen chapters are about Joseph. There are four hundred and fifty verses about the story in the bible, but in the quran sura 12 there are only one hundred and eleven verses.

The quranic version of the bible story of Joseph is a mumbling, incoherent, ill considered, and inaccurate muddle, and it does not even tell you who Joseph is. It just launches into Josephs dream at verse 4, after three verses that attempt to explain the story is being revealed in Arabic, presumably to make it available to Arabs.

The entire sura is peppered with completely unnecessary references to Allah which clutter the narrative, if you can call it a narrative. Because the bible story is clear and lucid, and rich in detail, and it has a comprehensible flow to it.


Sura 12.4 launches into a description of Josephs dream, with no explanation of who he is or how many brothers he has. What is more the dream described is the second of two dreams that are told in Genesis. But the entire point of the dream is that the eleven stars bowing down to Joseph are his eleven brothers. Genesis explains Josephs family tree so you can realize this, but the Quran says nothing about the matter. The Genesis story also says that Jacob made a coat of many colours for Joseph, and that is why his brothers were jealous of him, but the quran gives no reason or motives for Josephs brothers to hate him. Nor does it explain that Joseph has one other brother named Benjamin who had the same mother as himself, but the other ten brothers are step brothers. Nor does sura 12 explain this issue at any time, including when Joseph sends for him from Egypt.

So when Josephs brothers state at sura 12.8 When they said:" Verily Joseph and his brother are dearer to our father than we are, many though we be. Lo! our father is in plain aberration":
This makes absolutely no sense whatever to anyone that has not read the full account in Genesis.

Later in the story Joseph is put in power in Egypt, but sura 12 says nothing about him filling the granaries for seven years, it simply changes the subject to when his brothers amble into Egypt to trade, (sura 12.58) and it does not explain they are there because it is now during the seven years of famine. Then Joseph ask his brothers to send for a brother of their father, this again makes no sense without an explanation of the family background.

How much more obvious can it be that the Quran is plagiarism, and it was taken from the Bible and other earlier sources. It is clear to me that Muhammad had Genesis read to him and sura 12 is his half remembered rehash of the story of Joseph.

Allusion and reference is not "plagiarism", especially when the author of the Qur'an explicitly positions it as being in the same religious tradition as Judaism and Christianity before it.

The brief nature of the references indicates that the Qur'an was addressed to an audience that, while not necessarily composed of adherents of those two earlier religions, were at least familiar with their milieu, and so didn't need those stories repeated to them in their entirety to understand the context.

Well here is a story in the quran that is obviously stolen from a fiction book.
The story in the quran concerning Jesus childhood, about an incident where he makes a clay bird and brings it to life is not a part of the Christian bible, and the original texts are considered apocryphal. They are regarded by Christian scholars as having been written in around 150AD, as propaganda by the early Christians, attempting to fill in the missing years of Jesus life.So what are these stories doing in the quran claiming to be a message from God?

The following are two verses in the quran that contain the references.
From the Yusuf Ali translation.

003.049 "And (appoint him) an apostle to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by God's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in
your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;

005.110 Then will God say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold ! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'


As can be seen the quran speaks of only one bird, and says Jesus breathed life into it. But the only historical text that contains such a story speaks of 12 birds, and they were brought to life by Jesus commanding them to "Go". Therefore the quran does not even get the facts of the original fictional document correct. Added to this the New Testament states that Jesus did his first miracle at a time he was around thirty years old. (John 2.11)

Here is the relevant text, translated from Greek and written in, The Apocryphal New Testament, by M.R.James, published by Oxford:Clarendon press, 1924.
The stories of Thomas the Israelite, (not St Thomas of the bible) the philosopher, concerning the works of the childhood of the Lord.

1. I, Thomas the Israelite, tell you, and all the brethren that are Gentile, the works of the childhood of our Lord Jesus Christ and his mighty deeds, and all that he did when he was born in our land.
2.1 This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of a brook: and he gathered together the water that flowed there into pools, and made them clean, and commanded them by his word alone.
2.2 Having made soft clay, he fashioned twelve sparrows. It was the Sabbath when he did these things. And there were also many other little children playing with him.
2.3. A certain Jew when he saw what Jesus did, playing upon the Sabbath day, departed and told his father Joseph: your child is at the brook, and he has taken clay and fashioned twelve little birds, and has polluted the Sabbath day.
2.4. Joseph came to the place and saw: and cried out to him, saying: Why do you do these things on the Sabbath, which it is not lawful to do? But Jesus clapped his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping.
2.5 when the Jews saw it they were amazed, and departed and told their chief men that which they had seen Jesus do.

There is a reference to this story, and the flaws in it in the book.
The original sources of the quran. by William St Clair Tisdall.
This book is in the public domain and can be found on the Internet.

Scorpion said:

Well here is a story in the quran that is obviously stolen from a fiction book.
The story in the quran concerning Jesus childhood, about an incident where he makes a clay bird and brings it to life is not a part of the Christian bible, and the original texts are considered apocryphal. They are regarded by Christian scholars as having been written in around 150AD, as propaganda by the early Christians, attempting to fill in the missing years of Jesus life.So what are these stories doing in the quran claiming to be a message from God?

Click to expand...

Er, because what we know now to be a later interpolated tradition wasn't necessarily known as such circa 600 AD? The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the story of Jesus and the sparrows was immensely popular and widespread in Late Antiquity and even through the medieval period.

EDIT: The Syriac Infancy Gospel, containing the same stories, was contemporaneous with the Qur'an, so the stories were definitely circulating within the Christian communities in or near the Hejaz in several forms, making the Qur'an's reference to them entirely unsurprising.

ixolite said:

Is there an OT/NT commandment where YHVH orders the believers to kill the unbelievers as a general rule? IIRC not. There are stories (most of them probably myths which never happend anyway) where the Israelis murder other tribes, but those are stories, not orders for all time from YHVH. (The only ones being the 10 commandments.) Same with the other stuff I mentioned.


IIRC the jewish minimum age for marriage is 12 for girls and 13 for boys, I don't recall this being in the bible though.

Click to expand...

There are even more disquieting things in certain Talmudic passages.

R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. (Sanh. 55b)
A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation. . . .(Yeb. 57b)
A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanh. 69a, 69b)
It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas surely was with them. (Yeb. 60b)

Click to expand...

ixolite said:

Is there an OT/NT commandment where YHVH orders the believers to kill the unbelievers as a general rule? IIRC not. There are stories (most of them probably myths which never happend anyway) where the Israelis murder other tribes, but those are stories, not orders for all time from YHVH. (The only ones being the 10 commandments.) Same with the other stuff I mentioned.

Click to expand...

But they are orders from YHWH, and have formed the basis for later legal concepts.

Numbers 31 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”

Click to expand...

And Amalekites are to be slain for all time. Such commands are no longer attended to by any sane people, Jews or otherwise.