Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

**Al-manar** · 05-03-2010

Peace

The following comparative study is the harvest of my personal reflection on the two books that are believed by about half of the population of the world to be God's inspired word.....

the study is throughly ,would be by topics (items),and the focus would be mostly on the textual disagreements ...

Item :1

Adam

A- Unlike the Quran that views Adam as been taught the names of everything by God, the bible would view Adam as the one who chose the names of the creatures !

Genesis 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
He taught Adam all the names of everything. ( Quran 2:31).

B- according to the bible Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame, according to the Quran when they disobeyed they became naked and felt ashamed

Genesis 2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Holy Quran 20:121 In the result, they both ate of the tree, and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew together, for their covering, leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam disobey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced.

c - The seductive argument of Satan in the Quranic narrative is that God prohibited the tree for not giving the chance to Adam and Eve to be in higher ranks as angels or eteranal beings ....,while the bible would view Satan as mere repeating the words of God seeing the the prohibition if they eat it their eyes will be opened, and they will be like God, knowing good and evil."

D- Man is better than the Angels?

Though the fact that Angels bowed to Adam in respect ,and God taught him the names that the Angels were ignorant of ,it seems Adam felt himself inferior to the angels ,and been seduced by Satan who would argue that the tree would make Adam and his wife Angels etc....

The bible too ... Psalm 8:4 what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

TILL NEXT ITEM ..........

PEACE

**جوري** · 07-17-2010

he is right.. life is about contrast not similitude.. how would you appreciate daylight unless you had night, or a cool breeze unless you walked in the sweltering terrain, of satiation without hunger, quench without thirst.. in fact these are also the things that make us appreciate Islam so much, comparing it to the medieval and illogical convictions of others makes us all the more grateful for the gift Allah swt has bestowed upon mankind to drive them from the dark ages into the light..

all the best

**aadil77** · 07-17-2010

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Please tell me that you are jesting with regard to the part in bold print.

well I'm sure you've watched some of these interfaith dialogues you get, all it is a repetative series of acknowledging similarities that members of each faith find in the others, it gets boring - people in the audience literally fall asleep

but I suppose they serve their purpose and can be useful

**Pygoscelis** · 07-17-2010

Originally Posted by aadil77

well I'm sure you've watched some of these interfaith dialogues you get, all it is a repetative series of acknowledging similarities that members of each faith find in the others, it gets boring - people in the audience literally fall asleep

but I suppose they serve their purpose and can be useful

Not all similarities, differences too. And even the similarities will not necesarily lead to love fests. Both Islam and Christianity hate on homosexuality, for example. One similarity that will not bring joy to anyone.

**Grace Seeker** · 07-17-2010

I respectfully disagree that life is about one as opposed to the other [referencing contrast and similitude here]. There is a time and a place for both in life. Just as one steers away from the darkness, one needs to move into the light. To only see differences and to have nothing in common means that there is no point of connection by which we may approach each other to share what truth we may have with one another. To live without that which we share in common, is to always see only the other in people. Indeed, it might be to even fail to recognize that the other is human and that we have at least that in common. Without a recognition of our common humanness, there is no motive to share the truth about the human condition, our common fallenness, our equal need for living in submission to God. It is to abandon the other who does not already share the same beliefs that you do, to a life in which those beliefs are never shared with him/her. Could one who lives in accordance with the will of Allah, ever live in such a way that he only saw people as others not even in need of coming to the same knowledge of Allah that he/she already has? I think not. To say that life is about contrast, and to leave out similitudes that which we have in common, such as our common need for Allah, seems to me antithetical to the Islamic way of life.

**جوري** · 07-17-2010

ideologies and beliefs aren't about appreciation of humanness-- one needs to recognize what philosophies and ideas fail and are frankly erroneous and move away from them. We only get one life, that shouldn't be squandered on frivolities..
Also it isn't about this being wrong and this being right.. everything has truth in it, it is a matter which truth will get me to my desired destination. Which truth is more truthful and in concert with man's fitrah.. Would you go back to taking 21 painful rabies vaccines to accomplish what you can in just three?

If we accept that religion is from God and in his wisdom he didn't reveal all at once but in intervals for what is suitable and at the end when man is wise enough to carry the message, to understand it and to live it preserved it free from error, from absurdity, why would anyone in their right mind go back to medieval practices which have been abrogated to that which is better..

It is imperative for threads like these to exist to have a detailed side by side comparison so one has no doubt to verity and accuracy.. and this is exactly the sort of message that will be held against us in the day of recompense, so take heed that all has been explained to you in every finite detail as it might in fact be a witness against you on that day!

all the best

**glo** · 07-17-2010

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Well, I have already written a number of things, and stored them for posting later if this thread had ended up being of that nature. I'll be glad to post them as the start of a new thread, but first I have to find them. You see, I moved recently, and they are on a flash drive floating around in the bottom of an as yet unopened box.

Oh, those pesky unopened boxes ... and a flash drive is such a tiny thing too!

Looks like everybody is waiting for you to start that thread, Grace Seeker.

**Grace Seeker** · 07-17-2010

Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

If we accept that religion is from God and in his wisdom he didn't reveal all at once but in intervals for what is suitable and at the end when man is wise enough to carry the message, to understand it and to live it preserved it free from error, from absurdity, why would anyone in their right mind go back to medieval practices which have been abrogated to that which is better..

And what of those who don't accept the premise you begin with. How does one share truth with that person? Doesn't one want to find that which they share in common so as to have a discussion? Then, if one is able to identify that both are at least seekers of truth, one can begin to compare and contrast what one's understanding of truth is. But until there is common ground, at least a common language -- and here I don't mean just a common spoken language but an agreement with regard to how one should attempt to communicate -- one cannot have a conversation in which one shares one's views of the truth with regard to God or anything else.

**جوري** · 07-17-2010

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

And what of those who don't accept the premise you begin with. How does one share truth with that person? Doesn't one want to find that which they share in common so as to have a discussion? Then, if one is able to identify that both are at least seekers of truth, one can begin to compare and contrast what one's understanding of truth is. But until there is common ground, at least a common language -- and here I don't mean just a common spoken language but an agreement with regard to how one should attempt to communicate -- one cannot have a conversation in which one shares one's views of the truth with regard to God or anything else.

The premise starts with contemplation, and cognitive content of said contemplation to be held as true.. you are right in that some premises are too convoluted for one to be able to accept them whatsoever, in such a case each soul is both responsible and held in pledge for its own deeds, and then there a zillion other things outside of religion in which one can 'amicably agree' with those who don't share the faith as Dr. idris put it best:

'' in Islam a distinction is made between beliefs and believers. As far as beliefs are concerned there is absolutely no compromise: any belief that contradicts Islam is false, and must be criticized. But those who adhere to such false beliefs are to be tolerated, nicely treated and invited to the truth in the best of ways. It is because of this that Jews and Christians found their safest haven in the Muslim world long before the West started to talk about human rights and freedom of religion. “Jews familiar with history might note that from Spain to Baghdad, it was the Islamic world that offered the Jews of the Middle Ages a fair degree of toleration -- not the Christian West’, so tells us Richard Cohen in an article in the Post.; non-Muslims continue to live peacefully among Muslims. Islamic teachings, corroborated by our historical experience, teach us that the best atmosphere for the spread of Islam is the peaceful atmosphere.''

all the best

**Zafran** · 07-18-2010

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Not all similarities, differences too. And even the similarities will not necesarily lead to love fests. Both Islam and Christianity hate on homosexuality, for example. One similarity that will not bring joy to anyone.

Not fully true - there is a big debate in England about the church on making homosexuality ok.

**Pygoscelis** · 07-18-2010

Originally Posted by Zafran

Not fully true - there is a big debate in England about the church on making homosexuality ok.

Wow really? I would like to see how this particular sect tries to rectify that with the bible, and with all those other sects of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam as well) that hold homosexuality as abomination (in some sects punishable by death).

**Grace Seeker** · 07-18-2010

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Wow really? I would like to see how this particular sect tries to rectify that with the bible, and with all those other sects of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam as well) that hold homosexuality as abomination (in some sects punishable by death).

Actually, there are a lot of Christian groups that seem to have no trouble with homosexuality. Recently the Lutheran Church (ELCA) denomination even approved openly homosexual persons serving as pastors in their churches, though each local church is free to endorse or not endorse that denominational decision as a matter of congregational policy. I'll not bore you with the thinking behind that, but you can find it discussed on numerous threads at christianforums.com.

That's probably a significant difference between the Qur'an and the Bible -- the manner in which those who accept them as authoritive texts utilize them.

**Zafran** · 07-18-2010

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Wow really? I would like to see how this particular sect tries to rectify that with the bible, and with all those other sects of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam as well) that hold homosexuality as abomination (in some sects punishable by death).

Its not realy a sect - its the church of England. There could be split in the near future as some people in the church are unhappy with the archbishop.

**Ramadhan** · 07-18-2010

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Wow really? I would like to see how this particular sect tries to rectify that with the bible, and with all those other sects of Christianity (and Judaism and Islam as well) that hold homosexuality as abomination (in some sects punishable by death).

Well, I am not sure if a survey has been conducted, but it seems majority christians have accepted that homosexuality are to be tolerated.
Argentina, a catholic country through and through (92% of population are catholics), has just passed laws legalizing GAY MARRIAGE a week ago.

**Ramadhan** · 07-18-2010

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

That's probably a significant difference between the Qur'an and the Bible -- the manner in which those who accept them as authoritive texts utilize them.

True.
the Qur'an is the definitive words from God, while the bible was written by unknown men who surrendered to their desires and personal interests while incorporating bits and pieces of what jesus pbuh taught.

**Pygoscelis** · 07-18-2010

I think that is a key difference between modern christians and modern muslims, the christians are more "interpretive" and will ignore certain parts of the bible that clash with modern sensibility whereas muslims don't do that too much with the quran. But if you trace christian history it used to be the same way muslims are today so maybe future muslims will be more "interpretive" like modern day christians and come to ignore certain parts of the quran that may clash with the societal values at the time.

**Al-manar** · 07-18-2010

Originally Posted by Hugo

It is true that that the Jews persecuted and even killed the prophets but also preserved their message.

Including some shameful details which weren't part of their message neither the truth...
your original argument was , just as they included such shameful details,then they must have told the truth.....

but we don't think that way,even some christians courageously deny that such shameful details should reflect God's message...

Grace seeker courageously noted that...

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

I hate that story(the story of the curse of Noah), too. And I agree that it reflects poorly on God as well. I have to confess that this is when it is important to realize that I am not a Biblical literalist and do not believe in a dictation theory with regard to the production of the biblical text. I tend to see the hand of the authors more than that of God in the projections that they put forth with regard to how God viewed these events.

some writers would project some imaginary details for a purpose: eg;

Originally Posted by wikipedia

.
Some Biblical scholars see the "curse of Canaan" story as an early Hebrew rationalization for Israel's conquest and enslavement of the Canaanites, who were presumed to descend from Canaan.The "curse of Ham" had been used by some members of Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of Black African ancestry, who were believed to be descendants of Ham.

Originally Posted by Hugo

The idea that prophets are in some way perfect is an entirely Islamic invention and Job makes clear what our attitude should be - if you can, tell us where this Islamic dogma comes from.

Islamic dogma?!

The majority of Islamic scholars believe the prophets were protected from commiting major sins, but were exposed to minor sins,mistakes...there is nothing in Quran or sunna that suggest (The prophet with zero mistakes),or (a pervert prophet) as well....

other posts I skipped to keep on topic...

**Al-manar** · 07-18-2010

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Well, I have already written a number of things, and stored them for posting later if this thread had ended up being of that nature. .

And I invite you to post them right here, they are supposed similarities between Quran and Bible ,aren't they?

though I don't know what is the nature of such similarities ,but I feel that most of those that believed so, shouldn't be viewed as similarities.....

I personally found the field of similarities is so narrow and the field of differences far richer.....anyway , I promise you to share the discussion whether you post here or another thread...

**Ramadhan** · 07-18-2010

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

I think that is a key difference between modern christians and modern muslims, the christians are more "interpretive" and will ignore certain parts of the bible that clash with modern sensibility whereas muslims don't do that too much with the quran. But if you trace christian history it used to be the same way muslims are today so maybe future muslims will be more "interpretive" like modern day christians and come to ignore certain parts of the quran that may clash with the societal values at the time.

I don't think you really understand the history of christianity, otherwise you would have known that reinterpreting jesus' message has been done by christians since the early years right after jesus was raised to heaven. Modern day christians who you called "interpretive" merely continuation of christian tradition who have to keep reinterpreting and twist the bible to conform with society attitude of the day, from paul's attempt to make jesus teachings to be more palatable to the greeks to roman emperors sanctioning certain sects of christianity to medieval roman catholics to protestantism/reform all the way the present day christians who go bend over backwards to appease modern living including gay marriage etc.

And this all happened because jesus message was not properly and strictly preserved and recorded when he was alive, and then totally destroyed by paul, who never met jesus, who claimed that he received divine guidance in his dreams and totally abrograted jesus' teachings and raised him as god.
since then christians think that as long as they accept jesus as their savior, everything else does not matter and they will go to heaven, hence you will get mainstream christians who will try to fit christianity into society all the time.

Meanwhile, contrast that to muslims who believe that the Qur'an is the direct speech of God, which is 100% preserved and stays intact from the time of the prophet SAW until now where millions of muslims memorize completely the Qur'an, as well as the hadiths, collection of the prophet SAW sayings and actions which are preserved with 100% transmissions known along with the credibilities of the transmitters.
Since the time of Rasulullah saw, mainstream muslims (ahlusunnah al jamaah) hold fast to the Qur'an and hadiths without trying to "reinterpret" and/pr twist the meanings.
You will always have fractions and sects who will keep trying to do otherwise, however.

**Zafran** · 07-18-2010

salaam

this isnt about "interpretation" this is about changing christainity to suit ones desires. Plain and simple. On the homosexual issue.

peace.

**Grace Seeker** · 07-19-2010

Originally Posted by naidamar

True.
the Qur'an is the definitive words from God, while the bible was written by unknown men who surrendered to their desires and personal interests while incorporating bits and pieces of what jesus pbuh taught.

I understand that you believe this to be true. It also is different than what I said.

What I said can be true -- that manner in which Christians accept the Bible as an authoritative text varies from the manner in which Muslims accept the Qur'an as an authoritative text -- without the view you hold of the Bible needing to be true. For instance, I don't think that many Christians would agree that the Bible is the product of people who surrendered to their own desires and personal interests when writing the Bible any more than the Muslim would think the Qur'an the product of such writing.

Rather, what I said is that both groups view their own texts as authoritative. But though both groups view them their texts authoritatively, the way in which they use their respective texts, the process of interpretation, application, and others ways of approaching the text are very different.