Is Quran Biased?

[Soul cu Item]

40 to 60 years is not contemporaneous. Writing about Jesus' life half a century after his death during that time would be like writing about JFK today without the aid of any primary sources, and only rumors, fabrication, and work arounds. Witness testimony is suspect even today with the aid of modern technology. 40 to 60 years is a long time, especially given the time period.

The writers of the gospels were tasked with fitting the square peg of Jesus into the round hole of Jewish theology. They had to bend, mold, and distort, in order to fit their messiah into the long established Jewish theology. Muslim theologians have done the same as Christians with respect to Jesus. Jews reject Jesus because he does not satisfy the requirements to be the Jewish messiah and makes claims that are uncharacteristic of the Jewish messiah (claiming to be god, divine, anything other than just a regular human being).

There are non-Christian sources, which are actually contemporaneous with Jesus, which firmly establish that a Jesus-like figure actually existed.

I think of Paul in The Last Temptation of Christ when thinking of the debate about the historical Jesus: http://youtu.be/kaUuSJx-VDA
Paul invented the idea of Jesus being a god, he did not invent the human being that actually existed. Jesus was more likely a Jewish rabbi who preached an apocalyptic outlook on the world based on the beliefs of John the Baptist. Regardless, Jesus changed the world (arguably for the better). People kill each other less, they are generally nicer to each other, they care less about believing and more about good works. It is irrelevant which god you worship, it only matters that you are good person.

The Quran is a very good example of literature. It is also biased towards Muslims. It promises heavenly benefits to Muslims, while flatly denying these benefits to all those who reject Islam.

Yes muslims as in, who share the same creed/beliefs of Islam of their respective era. But if you meant only muslims who, today, are considered as mohammedans today then your statement is not true.

[Pompey Bum]

40 to 60 years is not contemporaneous.

No, but it's not "long after his death" as you claimed. And the sayings and Passion narrative were contemporaneous (not that there aren't a lot of problems with the historicity of the Passion narrative--contemporaneous does not always equal historically authentic). And even if they weren't, an informant (let alone four of them) collecting contemporaneous stories about a historical figure 40 to 60 years after his death is treat an ancient historian very rarely gets. (Much of what we know about Alexander the Great, for example, comes from Arrian, who wrote more than 400 years after his death). In fact, none of the historians you mention (Tacitus, Josephus, or Suetonius) were contemporaneous with Jesus, yet as you seem to know, their testimony is considered invaluable by ancient historians. And again, the first letters of Paul (who was a contemporary of Jesus) were written 20-30 years before the first Gospel--beginning about 15 or 16 years after the Crucifixion.

16 years ago was 9/11.

The writers of the gospels were tasked with fitting the square peg of Jesus into the round hole of Jewish theology. They had to bend, mold, and distort, in order to fit their messiah into the long established Jewish theology.

Tasked by whom? Judaism and Christianity were not entirely distinct when the synoptic Gospels were written (in any case) and Rabbinic Judaism did not yet exist in a modern (or even Medieval) sense. Were the Saducees, Essenes, and Zealots/Sicarii also bending, molding, and distorting just because another form of Judaism eventually prevailed? Weren't the synoptic Evangelists also working within a Jewish framework?

There are non-Christian sources, which are actually contemporaneous with Jesus, which firmly establish that a Jesus-like figure actually existed.

Jesus was crucified sometime between A.D. 30 and 33. Josephus lived between A.D. 37 and 100, so he was not a contemporary. Tacitus lived between A.D. 56 and 117, so he was not a contemporary. Suetonius lived between around A.D. 69 and 122, so he was not a contemporary. And Mara Bar Sarapion wrote around A.D. 73, has never been shown to have been a contemporary of Jesus' (although from the date it is likely), and may not have been talking about Jesus at all in the fleeting reference me made in a letter to the execution of the "wise king" of the Jews. By contrast, Paul, who lived between around A.D. 5 and 57, was a contemporary. The authors of the Canonical Gospels are unknown, but they were almost certainly contemporaries who at a minimum interacted with those who had known him.

Paul invented the idea of Jesus being a god, he did not invent the human being that actually existed.

In fact, Paul states in one of his earliest letters (2 Corinthians): "this Gospel I have received," which is usually taken by historians to mean that, whether he was right or wrong about Jesus' divinity, he wasn't the one who dreamt up the idea. But since we have no Christian writings before Paul, we don't know who exactly he is talking about. Bottom line: you don't know if he was right or not about Jesus' divinity (although you are certainly welcome to believe what you like about it); the literary evidence (such as it is) is against your claim that Paul made the idea up himself. You would need to provide something to back that position up (a claim by Paul that it was his special insight, for example).

Jesus was more likely a Jewish rabbi who preached an apocalyptic outlook on the world based on the beliefs of John the Baptist.

Again, Rabbinic Judaism as we understand it today did not exist during the Second Temple Period, nor in the immediate aftermath of the Temple's destruction (the period when the Synoptic Gospels were written). The term rabbi existed at the time, but it just meant teacher. So yes, Jesus was a Rabbi in that sense-- but I don't think that is what you meant.

I do, however agree with you (Yay! Yay! Kill the fatted calf!) that Jesus "preached an apocalyptic outlook" and that it was influenced by the teachings of John the Baptist. John may have been an Essene (or he may have been a pre-war radical doing his own thing), but he was certainly a Second Temple Period sectarian rather than a Rabbinic Jew. Jesus and the communities that produced the synoptic Gospels were part of this radical heritage. It is useless for us to speak of "fitting the square peg of Jesus into the round hole of Jewish theology." Neither Jesus nor Second Temple Judaism can be reduced to such simplistic geometry; and moreover, it is anachronistic.

Regardless, Jesus changed the world (arguably for the better). People kill each other less, they are generally nicer to each other, they care less about believing and more about good works. It is irrelevant which god you worship, it only matters that you are good person.

Well, that is one way to look at it. Of course killing and cruelty are still a problem, and some attempts to make people "nicer"--Communism, for example--ended up being bloody-soaked disasters. (Not that Christianity was responsible for Communism, but it does raise the question of whether people can actually act to save themselves). And then there were the Crusades, the Inquisition, the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, and so on. On the whole, I don't share your view about the change that wrought on human behavior, at least historically; but: 1) I am willing to respect it as your belief; and 2) I am personally interested in the potential that Jesus' teaching may have to do what you describe, no matter how badly we've messed it up so far. I am, however, skeptical that human beings are really capable of doing much more than they have done since Jesus' ministry.

"Good works" and being a "good person" is another can of worms. I would be willing talk to you about it if you like, but only in a spirit of friendship and respectful exchange of viewpoints. I almost didn't post on this thread because of some of the pettiness and name calling that was going on (not by you), but so far I have had some intelligent and respectful conversation here. Jonathan, YesNo, and I all have different approaches to these issues, and on a good day we manage to like and learn from each other. And there are others here who use a respectful approach, too. I am assuming that you are one of them.

As far as it being irrelevant which God you worship, I only agree from an anti-works theology point of view. For me, God alone knows our hearts and all the religious fuss we make is (usually) not very important compared to that. There are approaches to God I do not condone, but it's God and not me who gets to sort that out.

In the immortal words of William Blake: Enough! Or too much.

[HCabret]

Biased in what sense? are you talking about the Jewish religion?

The Muslim religion. The Quran is the Muslim holy book.

[HCabret]

It seems there is a confusdion in understanding the terminology of Muslim

According to the Islamic literatures, non-muslims in the pre islamic era, like jews, were considered as muslims and they would surely be able to reap the heavenly rewards if they had obeyed the laws/tenets laid down by the prophets of their time.

Islam has laid down certain principles if one is to be considered as a muslim and the basics are as such as;
belief in the oneness of Allah, the last day of judgement, predestination, His angels, revealed books and prophets,
and as long as you have this faith you are considered as a muslim.

If some reject the precepts which you have listed, either before or after Mohammed's life entitled to reap the benefits of not rejecting those precepts?

[Soul cu Item]

The Muslim religion. The Quran is the Muslim holy book.

Because it would only allow the Muslims (Islamic follower/mohammedans as per your statement) to enjoy the perks of the afterlife, that is, without accounting any of them of their records?
I agree its one of the major misconception concerning Islam belief but this statement cant be further away from truth.

If some reject the precepts which you have listed, either before or after Mohammed's life entitled to reap the benefits of not rejecting those precepts?

First of all, the universality of Muhammed`s message, through Qura`an, is limited to the fact that it is only an open invitation to all, irrespective of anyone's creed, religion, race ( as was the case in the earlier generations gone by.)

Secondly It is not a Noahs Ark wherein who ever dwells is protected from all harm on the day of judgement and granted a direct entrance to paradise even if they flout any or all of the basic principles laid down by God, especially the one that sits at the top, monotheism.
Many naïve Muslims today believe in this notion, which is sad but nevertheless a fact, that they wont be held accountable for any of their sins, though the reality is God will/can pardon all sins ( as HE sees fit) all except ploytheism, Islamic followers included.

[HCabret]

Because it would only allow the Muslims (Islamic follower/mohammedans as per your statement) to enjoy the perks of the afterlife, that is, without accounting any of them of their records?
I agree its one of the major misconception concerning Islam belief but this statement cant be further away from truth.



First of all, the universality of Muhammed`s message, through Qura`an, is limited to the fact that it is only an open invitation to all, irrespective of anyone's creed, religion, race ( as was the case in the earlier generations gone by.)

Secondly It is not a Noahs Ark wherein who ever dwells is protected from all harm on the day of judgement and granted a direct entrance to paradise even if they flout any or all of the basic principles laid down by God, especially the one that sits at the top, monotheism.
Many naïve Muslims today believe in this notion, which is sad but nevertheless a fact, that they wont be held accountable for any of their sins, though the reality is God will/can pardon all sins ( as HE sees fit) all except ploytheism, Islamic followers included.

Which god? why are assuming that the Muslim god has a penis?
Why can't polytheists get into the Muslim afterlife?

[Soul cu Item]

Which god? why are assuming that the Muslim god has a penis?

Because I referred God as He? this question is a different topic from this thread, that requires quite a bit of discussion too, and if you are really looking for the answer, and wont get it anywhere on the net, then start a relevant thread on this issue and lets see if anyone can sort it out.

Why can't polytheists get into the Muslim afterlife?

You mean believer`s afterlife? because there is no such term in the Qura`an as Muslims afterlife.

NO, they wont be shunned altogether on that basis alone, and there are quite a few verses in the Book mentioning they will be given a chance to bring forth those whom they invoked to save them and if they could they would surely have the same result. The verses I can recall now is 6:22 and 14:22.

[HCabret]

Because I referred God as He? this question is a different topic from this thread, that requires quite a bit of discussion too, and if you are really looking for the answer, and wont get it anywhere on the net, then start a relevant thread on this issue and lets see if anyone can sort it out.

this question is most certainly relevant to the OP. Referring to a god as a "he" shows bias towards males. Females are left out to dry.

You mean believer`s afterlife? because there is no such term in the Qura`an as Muslims afterlife.

so then what happens to Muslims after they die?

NO, they wont be shunned altogether on that basis alone, and there are quite a few verses in the Book mentioning they will be given a chance to bring forth those whom they invoked to save them and if they could they would surely have the same result. The verses I can recall now is 6:22 and 14:22.

so it is possible for polytheist a to get into the Muslim afterlife?

[Red Herring]

Are we talking about a religious text here? Of course it's biased.

[Jackson Richardson]

Are we talking about a religious text here? Of course it's biased.

No more than any political or sociological text.

[HCabret]

No more than any political or sociological text.

Bias is not a bad thing. It is a signature of our capability to operate independently of one another as human beings. The Quran is a wonderful book that does a lot of good for a lot of people in this world. I don't like when Muslims (or any groups) paint their point of view as being the universally correct and default position which all people should accept. Individuals should not be forced into their beliefs or lack of beliefs. There is not necessarily a universally correct way of thinking, there are many different soteriological paths and destinations.

[Soul cu Item]

this question is most certainly relevant to the OP. Referring to a god as a "he" shows bias towards males. Females are left out to dry.

This topic requires lengthy discussion since your line of questioning have jumped from the 'anatomy of God' (sic), to him being a male chauvinist? and or misogynist, which surely was not topic the OP started this thread to discuss. So again, if you really want to continue this discussion, start a new thread and lets see if anyone can oblige to help you out.

so then what happens to Muslims after they die?

I didn`t understand your question, can you clarify? or is it the accountability process they have to go through after death? or are you questioning my choice of term for Muslims as believers? If that is so, a true Muslim is a believer and vice versa .
The reason for using the term heaven being the believers eternal abode is that not all Muslims are true believers, just as not all Mohammed`s followers are true Muslims, for example the hypocrites in his time.

so it is possible for polytheist a to get into the Muslim afterlife?

Have you gone through the reference? The answer is there in ;

chapter 6 verse 22
chapter 14 verse 44 and
chapter 7 verse 37.

[HCabret]

This topic requires lengthy discussion since your line of questioning have jumped from the 'anatomy of God' (sic), to him being a male chauvinist? and or misogynist, which surely was not topic the OP started this thread to discuss. So again, if you really want to continue this discussion, start a new thread and lets see if anyone can oblige to help you out.

Is there specific language in the Quran pertaining to the sex organs of the Muslim god or is the usage of the word "him" purposefully denying women the conception of a god being female? By using the word "him" when referring to the Muslim god, you are implying that being male is superior to being female and you are this excluding females from divinity.

I didn`t understand your question, can you clarify? or is it the accountability process they have to go through after death? or are you questioning my choice of term for Muslims as believers? If that is so, a true Muslim is a believer and vice versa .
The reason for using the term heaven being the believers eternal abode is that not all Muslims are true believers, just as not all Mohammed`s followers are true Muslims, for example the hypocrites in his time.

what must a person do or believe to qualifies as a "true believer"?

[Soul cu Item]

what must a person do or believe to qualifies as a "true believer"?

Some of the qualities are mentioned in post #60 while also having steadfast faith in God, not neglecting prayers and charity but the definition of the word true here is when on the day of judgement, ones heart will be pure of polytheism.

[Soul cu Item]

Is there specific language in the Quran pertaining to the sex organs of the Muslim god or is the usage of the word "him" purposefully denying women the conception of a god being female? By using the word "him" when referring to the Muslim god, you are implying that being male is superior to being female and you are this excluding females from divinity.

Just got updated on this issue: http://www.online-literature.com/for...Gender-amp-God...is it still in the forum rules then ? otherwise some minor points on this issue.

To clarify, in islamic doctrines there is no Muslim, Christian or Jewish God- there is just God, One and Only.

Also God, sometimes, refers to Himself as 'We" in Quran but that We is not in plural sense. Islam is clear on this issue that He has no gender, whose masculine styles of speech lies in the grammatical form of the original language of Quran. which is arabic.

I do not know which religion or which God you worship since it is irrelevent to me ( since you are free to believe in denying the concept of God being genderless) worship God in ,but to clarify it is not only Muslims and Quran which refer to God as He but since you are interwested in discussing this topic I could still have a healthy discussion with you in private or give you some links if you want, if its not against the rules.