3 ms·

If the Qur'an were the subject of the scholarship the Bible has received, or even allowed criticism without the threat of death there will be nothing left of it

If the Qur'an were the subject of the scholarship the Bible has received, or even allowed criticism without the threat of death there will be nothing left of it, with all due respect. In many parts it's a poorly reasoned commentary on stories in the Bible (sometimes way below the level of some apocrypha that have been summarily debunked with little work). So the doubt shoe is on the wrong foot. I can go on and on about how the legitimacy of the Qur'an is inextricably bound to that of the Bible (at least the Law and the Prophets) so that every poverty shown by the Bible is at least a double blow to the status of Qur'an as inspired recitations.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago
> If the Qur'an were the subject of the scholarship the Bible has received, or even allowed criticism without the threat of death there will be nothing left of it, with all due respect. This isn't true at all. There's extensive critical scholarship of the Quran (as many others pointed out). Most of it centers around the fact that Uthman had scholars codify the Quran during his rule. Uthman was a contemporary of the Prophet Muhammad (whereas most Biblical scholars will agree no living contemporary of the Prophet Jesus actually wrote any of the Gospels). In addition, the memorized recitation of the Quran (from which the documents at the time arose) could not have been destroyed the way alternative or miscopied (depends on your belief) versions of the Quran were by Uthman. The fact that none exist nowadays (or at any time in recorded history) bolsters the idea that it really was revealed by the Prophet Muhammad. The authenticity of the Quran is far more sound than the authenticity of the Bible. But this makes sense in terms of the story told by both Christians and Muslims. Christians believe the Prophet Muhammad is a false prophet. A false prophet can manufacture a long work of poetry and convince people to preserve it. So can a true prophet (except instead of manufacturing the work, it is revealed divinely). Christians believe the Quran is derivative of the Bible, the way the Bible is derivative of the Torah. Christians also point out that stories of the Quran match apocrypha that Biblical scholars reject. But this too makes sense in both the Christian and Muslim versions of history. For Christians this is evidence of false prophethood (because the stories needed to be cribbed from other sources). For Muslims, this is evidence of the oneness of God and religion because the religion hasn't changed and the Prophets of God haven't changed, rather the record on them is corrected. And the fact that some Christians don't accept certain apocrypha that matches Muslim beliefs makes sense to Muslims, since the books Christians do accept still aren't authentic in a way (I mean, if John didn't write the Gospel of John, then how many other things in the book could be falsified). Muslims don't rely on the Bible or Torah as they currently stand to verify their beliefs, and they don't see reason to.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago

> If the Qur'an were the subject of the scholarship the Bible has received, or even allowed criticism without the threat of death there will be nothing left of it, with all due respect. This isn't true at all. There's extensive critical scholarship of the Quran (as many others pointed out). Most of it centers around the fact that Uthman had scholars codify the Quran during his rule. Uthman was a contemporary of the Prophet Muhammad (whereas most Biblical scholars will agree no living contemporary of the Prophet Jesus actually wrote any of the Gospels). In addition, the memorized recitation of the Quran (from which the documents at the time arose) could not have been destroyed the way alternative or miscopied (depends on your belief) versions of the Quran were by Uthman. The fact that none exist nowadays (or at any time in recorded history) bolsters the idea that it really was revealed by the Prophet Muhammad. The authenticity of the Quran is far more sound than the authenticity of the Bible. But this makes sense in terms of the story told by both Christians and Muslims. Christians believe the Prophet Muhammad is a false prophet. A false prophet can manufacture a long work of poetry and convince people to preserve it. So can a true prophet (except instead of manufacturing the work, it is revealed divinely). Christians believe the Quran is derivative of the Bible, the way the Bible is derivative of the Torah. Christians also point out that stories of the Quran match apocrypha that Biblical scholars reject. But this too makes sense in both the Christian and Muslim versions of history. For Christians this is evidence of false prophethood (because the stories needed to be cribbed from other sources). For Muslims, this is evidence of the oneness of God and religion because the religion hasn't changed and the Prophets of God haven't changed, rather the record on them is corrected. And the fact that some Christians don't accept certain apocrypha that matches Muslim beliefs makes sense to Muslims, since the books Christians do accept still aren't authentic in a way (I mean, if John didn't write the Gospel of John, then how many other things in the book could be falsified). Muslims don't rely on the Bible or Torah as they currently stand to verify their beliefs, and they don't see reason to.