Apr 5, 2012 -- 11:29AM, rocketjsquirell wrote:

Lilwabbit

Everyone has a bias. My bias is that I would rather have my faith accurately portrayed by others. Mohammed DID NOT do so. The question up for discussion is “Why is Judaism not portrayed accurately in the Qur'an?”

I have checked a number of translations, they are all about the same and each and everyone of them reflects the same mis-statements.

1. there is absolutely nothing in the text which restricts the characterization contained in the quoted passages to Median Jews and Christians

2. the statements (at least as they refer to Jews) are, in fact, incorrect. Please see responses above by Jastor.

3. Please see Pam's response concerning the world to come

4. How can wisdom be taught with lies, distortions, mis-statements and bad information?

 

I didn't see anything in Pam's answer that would indicate an error in the Qur'án. Nor did any of it address any of my points to you. You're being evasive again.

Kind regards,

LilWabbit

Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:52PM, JAstor wrote:

Oh, I've had many of these on the Discuss Islam thread over the years. Ask Ibn. Indeed, the longest thread in the history of that board is the one I started and participated in almost daily for I think a year or so. Some of its more than 2,000 posts are when Ibn and I got into this topic: namely blatant mistakes by the Quran in quoting either Judaism or the Bible. These include things like Jews believing Ezra was the son of God, Haman in the court of Pharaoh, Ishmael bound to the altar by Abraham, not Isaac, etc.

Yup, the Quranic accounts of "Biblical" are different from the Tanakh. But to state with any confidence which account is historically right is scientifically impossible to establish. Neither book hardly qualifies as objective historical evidence. Hence the impasse. The Epic of Gilgamesh predates the Biblical account of Noah and his Ark by a millennium. The latter obviously draws on the former while containing many deviations from the "original" story. If one is allowed to confidently declare that the latter Biblical account on the great flood must be more correct since it is from God, by right Ibn should have every right to declare that the latter Qur'ánic accounts on the various "Biblical stories" are more correct since the Qur'án is from God and uncorrupted. Of course, both you and I know that both arguments fall flat in their face. I trust you can see that.

Of course, I think they are blatant mistakes. That's part of why I'm Jewish. He thinks he defended them. Otherwise he wouldn't be Muslim. (Of course, deep down he knows I'm right ;-)

Oh, we all know.

Bowingly,

Wabbit

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:50PM, JAstor wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:44PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:52PM, JAstor wrote:

Oh, I've had many of these on the Discuss Islam thread over the years. Ask Ibn. Indeed, the longest thread in the history of that board is the one I started and participated in almost daily for I think a year or so. Some of its more than 2,000 posts are when Ibn and I got into this topic: namely blatant mistakes by the Quran in quoting either Judaism or the Bible. These include things like Jews believing Ezra was the son of God, Haman in the court of Pharaoh, Ishmael bound to the altar by Abraham, not Isaac, etc.

Yup, the Quranic accounts of "Biblical" are different from the Tanakh. But to state with any confidence which account is historically right is scientifically impossible to establish. Neither book hardly qualifies as objective historical evidence.

Well, no. If you have two competing positions, but there is a third position that cannot be called biased toward either, then that third position can tilt the argument. In this case, as stated in an earlier post, there is the Christian position. The Christians were often theologically enemies of the Jews in many ways. They cannot be accused of favoring the Jewish version for Jews' sakes. Yet, their version of the events [e.g. Isaac brought up on altar, not Ishmael] confirms Judaism's, in contradistinction to Islam's. 

Come on! The Christians consider their Bible inerrant and they regard the Old Testament as a veritable history book. No scholarly historian does. If anyone, the Christians do not qualify as objective referees on the matter. That's a ridiculous argument.

Plus the Christians accept the preceding prophets, but none to follow Jesus. How can you call them not biased? They're firmly on the side of the Jews when the Qur'án is concerned, plain and simple.

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:58PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:50PM, JAstor wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:44PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:52PM, JAstor wrote:

Oh, I've had many of these on the Discuss Islam thread over the years. Ask Ibn. Indeed, the longest thread in the history of that board is the one I started and participated in almost daily for I think a year or so. Some of its more than 2,000 posts are when Ibn and I got into this topic: namely blatant mistakes by the Quran in quoting either Judaism or the Bible. These include things like Jews believing Ezra was the son of God, Haman in the court of Pharaoh, Ishmael bound to the altar by Abraham, not Isaac, etc.

Yup, the Quranic accounts of "Biblical" are different from the Tanakh. But to state with any confidence which account is historically right is scientifically impossible to establish. Neither book hardly qualifies as objective historical evidence.

Well, no. If you have two competing positions, but there is a third position that cannot be called biased toward either, then that third position can tilt the argument. In this case, as stated in an earlier post, there is the Christian position. The Christians were often theologically enemies of the Jews in many ways. They cannot be accused of favoring the Jewish version for Jews' sakes. Yet, their version of the events [e.g. Isaac brought up on altar, not Ishmael] confirms Judaism's, in contradistinction to Islam's. 

Come on! The Christians consider their Bible inerrant and they regard the Old Testament as a veritable history book. No scholarly historian does. If anyone, the Christians do not qualify as objective referees on the matter. That's a ridiculous argument.

This is irrelevant. The historicity of the Bible is a separate argument. This is about ascertaining from extant texts which one is original and which one was changed. 

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:58PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Plus the Christians accept the preceding prophets, but none to follow Jesus. How can you call them not biased? They're firmly on the side of the Jews when the Qur'án is concerned, plain and simple.

When they accepted the Jewish version (the "Old" Testament), the Quran and the whole religion of Islam did not exist. Therefore, they did not choose one version so they could fight the Islamic version. The Quran did not exist. Rather they chose it because they thought it was true. That verifies that the text existed -- and it existed as the Jews claim. When Mohammed came along 500 years later he changed the text and altered facts. That's what the Christian acceptance of the "Old" Testament establishes. 

Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:04PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 3:18PM, JAstor wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:58PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Come on! The Christians consider their Bible inerrant and they regard the Old Testament as a veritable history book. No scholarly historian does. If anyone, the Christians do not qualify as objective referees on the matter. That's a ridiculous argument.

This is irrelevant. The historicity of the Bible is a separate argument. This is about ascertaining from extant texts which one is original and which one was changed.

The historicity of the Bible stories is very relevant when discussing which account is the "correct" one. I don't give two hoots as to which account is the more ancient one since many Biblical stories are rooted in more ancient versions. My point is that the Bible is not a history text book. Neither is the Qur'án. Please prove to me with recourse to reliable scholarly reference that the Qur'án is a text based on the Bible. Please prove some minimal scholarship and avoid, at the outset, from making any reference to Christian apologist "scholars" hiding under pseudonyms such as Gerd Puin and Christoph Luxenberg.

Muhammad was inventive for sure. He openly disagreed on many points of doctrine and history with both the Christians and the Jews. But there's simply no objective evidence to suggest that the Qur'ánic deviations from the Bible stories are due to ignorance or careless plagiarism, as convenient as such a state of play would be for a non-Muslim. There are only claims to that effect which are usually propounded by somewhat unscholarly commentators that are either known apologists for other religions or otherwise emotionally positioned against Islam.

Kind regards,

Wabbit

Simply put, did Muhammad have both the Tanach and the NT at his disposal, if not open in front of him when writing the Qur'an?