Fascinating article about the amount of violence in both the Qur'an and the Bible. Christians need to look at their book before saying the Qur'an only promotes violence. For those that don't know, the Bible, especially the Old Testiment, is horribly violent. Especially to the unbelievers.
BOSTON GLOBE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It's true that the Old Testament contains plenty of violence.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to see, though, a comparison done using all three of the Muslim sources: Qur'an, Hadith, and the biography (seerah?) of Mohammed.
One could, of course, argue that the violence found in the Old Testament was curtailed to the covenanted people of the nation of Israel. It should also be noted that much of the Old Testament is descriptive, not prescriptive.
ReplyDeleteConstrast this to the revelation of Muhammed, who is considered al-insan al-kamil, that is, the perfect man. He is the gold standard and the man to be emulated by all believers.
It makes a bit of a difference.
Like Amber said, the hadith should also be included...A LOT of violence is mentioned in the hadith...
ReplyDeleteAmber: Shariah is suppose to be the interpretation of the Qur'an and the Sunnah by the Ulamah. Sunnah is more like the biography...and hadith is a shaky thing that somewhat is Sunnah, and is not at the same time. And not all Hadiths, in fact it seems to be at least half, are not even directly related to or from the Prophet.
ReplyDeletelots of violence in weak Hadith that are attributed to companions of the Prophet or possibly things said in his presence that he did not jump up and object to or himself. But of course you have to take Hadith with even less than a grain of salt. Most are found to be incorrect, even if some are often used. Ones that are violent against women for instance are usually proven to be false but people love to use them.
If you added Hadith, Islam would have more. But Hadith is not the Scripture. The article is only comparing scriptures. That would be like if you went and gathered the Dead Sea Scrolls and the rejected Gospels and threw them in for the mix too. Add in some of the books and verses people removed or edited over time like the book of Enoch. It gets to complicated to compare.
but yes in short, the Bible would come out looking better than the Qur'an if you added Hadith. But Hadith is not the "Word of God" or scripture so it cannot be used in the comparison unless you add all the extra stuff within Christianity as well.
And yes even if you did add all that stuff the Qur'an might come out slightly more violent
ReplyDeleteLK,
ReplyDeleteI really wasn't trying to say whose was more violent. It's just, not everything in Islam comes from the Qur'an. While you reject many hadith as weak, there are a lot of Muslims who accept those same hadith as strong. I've been told, multiple times, that you cannot understand the Qur'an without the ahadith and the seerah (which I looked up, and it is another word for the life of Mohammed - his biography). Sunnah is, as you said, the sayings, manners, etc. of Mohammed. Most of which people get from the hadith.
Anyway. I'd be curious to see the comparison because I don't think that you get an accurate idea of what is contained in Muslim 'scripture' (I use the quotes only because I know that only the Qur'an is actually scripture) without including all the texts that Muslims take their faith from.
LK, I agree that the OT is violent - blech! I like Jesus' teachings: You've heard that it has been said "eye for an eye," but I say to you, "Love your enemies" and so forth. It seems he took us to a higher standard. Some may argue that it was because the Jews were under Roman occupation at that time, but Jesus never promoted aggression against those oppressing them. Love your enemy is pretty clear. I guess this is why I follow Jesus as opposed to Joshua (Israelite fighter/leader) or King David. :)
ReplyDeleteI don't think hadith are comparable to non-canonical writings in Christianity. They are more comparable to Roman Catholic Church tradition.
ReplyDeleteAmber: yeah they do that. So yes, Islam would be more violent if you add in all Hadith as well and since many Muslims, although wrongly so, put Hadith at the level of or higher than the Qur'an you might have to add it in.
ReplyDeleteSorry, its a sore subject. Since I read the Qur'an and get one picture of the religion, read hadith and its like I'm looking at a totally different religion all together.
LK: good points about the hadith! You changed my mind.
ReplyDeleteIts true a lot of Muslims follow the hadith (weak and strong) and this is where a lot of violence comes from but at the end of the day, it isn't the Qur'an. Good points!!
CLA: I think thats what i was trying to say and said it wrong the first time LOL Amber has a point though that if you are trying to figure out why one has more violence in its members than the other you would need to look at Shariah and hadith. But I dont think that was the journalist's goal in this case.
ReplyDeleteI think his goal was to prove that both scriptures have a lot of violence
ReplyDeletebut do you know what is main difference among Quran and Bible? when it comes to violence?
ReplyDeletemost, if not all biblical record about the violence are just historical records.
maybe not fine to read, but it is not valid as the order for daily living.
If some moslem says that some verses of Quran are not valid today, he/she is quite close to apostasy.
so that is main difference.
Did anyone read the article? All this stuff is discussed in detail.
ReplyDeleteBIG ANNOUNCEMENT: I have finally started posting on my own blog! I invite you all to stop by :)
ReplyDeletelacks of mentioned article:
ReplyDeletethis article supposes silently two contradicting things at the same time:
1. Quran violence is the same as of the Bible -
that is problem, because the most violent records are found in OT - in so called HISTORICAL books - deemed as interesting, quite important for understanding whole history, but historical records - no Jewish/Christian theologist would take them as the exhortation to today´s everday living.
but THAT is not mentioned in the article... one wonders why.
2.similarly to Bible, the article superficially supposes, that Quran has some obsolete verses that no more apply today - what is in complete contradiction how moslems see their Quran -as valid forever, no part can be revoked, replaced or deemed as obsolete.
or somebody here can cite me relevant tafseer to some of fighting verses that allows them to be considered as obsolete and invalid?
or some invalidating hadith?
I wait for that.
Pasik, Unfortunately, everything I have ever read about the fighting verses vs. the peaceful verses suggests that the peaceful verses were written earlier, so there would certainly be nothing in the Qur'an to render the fighting verses obsolete. The usual explanation is that the peaceful verses were written at a time when Islam was still weak, while the fighting verses were written at a time when Islam was strong (and capable of founding its own state).
ReplyDeleteJust to say I'm an atheist and proud. I haven't read any Islamic scriptures but people here keep going on about how the OT is violent and I completely agree but nobody can say the OT is violent before reading the Talmud. I thought it was some kind of Internet joke until a fellow atheist friend told me the Talmud thing really exists coz she studied Theology and Biblical languages. I bet the Hadith is a bit like Talmud with these sort of verses only with different protagonists in the sentence.
ReplyDeleteSanhedrin 58b. If a gentile hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.
Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."
8. Hilkkoth Akum X1: “Do not save Goyim in danger of death.”
9. Hilkkoth Akum X1: “Show no mercy to the Goyim.”
18. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: “If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible.”
Is this what someone meant by the Dead Sea scrolls or is that a different thing altogether?