Why is the Quran so soulless compared to the Bible and the Talmud? The entire book is repetitive as hell.

Why is the Quran so soulless compared to the Bible and the Talmud?

The entire book is repetitive as hell.

The narrator inconsistently jumps back and forth between “Allah” and “the messenger of Allah”.

90% of the Quran is “Nonbelievers are evil morons who will be tortured for eternity” and “Believers will be rewarded”, interspersed with HIGHLY simplified Bible stories where everyone repeats those statements like robots. It feels less like a history book and more like something written by Jack Chick.

The other 10% is the Quran fellating itself.

>Oh, what a wonderful book the Quran is!
>Oh, see how perfect the Quran is!
>Nothing can compare to the Quran!
>Anyone who doesn’t like the Quran is stupid and evil
>The Quran is so fricking magnificent
>You don’t need anything but the Quran

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Qur'an is not trying to be a history book. It was not even trying to be a book.

  2. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is the point of this thread that it's like the Bible and Talmud?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. When you compare them to Homer all the israeli writing is just fricking garbage.

      All three israeli books alternate between self-jerking off and whining about their opposition.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        God's Word does not serve the servant! God says what you need to hear, not what you want to hear. If only you knew!

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Off topic but Muslim memes are rarely if ever funny mainly because it's just (insert popular character here) being Muslim or just Wojaks. I'm not saying Christians don't also do this but at least you'll get something that's absurd or ironic that's actually kinda funny.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't find Muslims memes funny the same way Arsenal fans don't find Man City memes funny. You just don't support the message. And the meme I posted wasn't meant to be funny.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Muh sports ball
            >Muslim Skeptic
            Are you that British Paki that keeps spamming threads about Salafism
            Also
            >Memes aren't supposed to be funny
            Where do you think you are?

  3. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Koran is less of a book on her own and more of a "correction" of the Bible sort of like
    > "you should read the Bible and then read the Koran and know that the Bible is wrong where ever she contradicts the Koran because the Christians changed it to suit their whims"
    Ofcourse, Christians were calling each other heretics over how they interpreted the word of God, so one can see how Muhamed could think this and use it for his need

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >and use it for his need
      "He does not speak from his own inclination" (Quran)
      "I shall put my words into his mouth" (Deuteronomy)
      "He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come" (John)

  4. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I feel like it should have been two separate books. One with the kino, and the other with the tax rates and other autistic laws.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Christians when they have to follow divine law

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Did you reply to the right comment? What the frick does this have to do with anything? All this guy is talking about is that the Quran might've been better if the legalistic nonsense was detached from the interesting stuff. You're reading SO FAR INTO HIS COMMENT that you assume he's a CHRISTIAN who is complaining about... the 'divine' law... in HIS, not the Muslims', holy text? What gives, moron? How did you arrive at this fantastic interpolation? It's astounding.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Did I hit a nerve? It is not true that many Christians here are antinomian? Xe(don't want to misgender or misreligion) called the divine law autistic didn't xe?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Did I hit a nerve
            No, you're just moronic, and jumping to astonishing conclusions about the people you respond to. That's all

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >‘Amir b. Shahr said : I was with the Negus when his son recited a verse of the Gospel. So I laughed. Thereupon he said : Do you laugh at the word of Allah, the Exalted?
            I never disrespect the Bible. It is better for Christians or ewhoever to not mock the Qur'an

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is the name of that icon in that meme? I had a dream that looked similar to that icon several years ago.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It is not true that many Christians here are antinomian?
            no, there's tons of catholics on /misc/ and even non-catholics like myself don't think sin should be encouraged and should be discouraged as much as possible. but ultimately it's an internal struggle for each person and their faith is what will keep them from sin and is also what saves them, not their lack of sin (because we're all sinners)

  5. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Basically it was compiled after a bunch of people who had it memorized died in battle. When Mohammed was alive it was written down sparingly and mostly memorized. So when he died the muslims had to piece it together verse by verse in something that resembles a book. It's honestly a testament to the early muslims skill that it sounds half way decent.

    t. ex muslim

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I thought the whole point was that they compiled it exactly as it was delivered. I know it wasn't arranged in the same order as it was delivered, but don't Muslims like to bandy it about that it was memorized and recorded 100% precisely? The way you say it was "pieced together to resemble a book" makes it seem like it was sort of thrown together imperfectly, no?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        No it was memorized mostly. The revelation came in fits and spurts. Case in point is sura al alaq. The first half of the sura is the first verses revealed to Mohammed, and the next half is about a dude talking smack in Medina irrc.

        There's even two qurans used by muslims today. The Warsh version used in north Africa and the Hafs version which was put into print in 1924. The uthmanic codex isn't even used today anymore.

        The whole story about it being compiled exactly while it was delivered was made up later. There weren't many writers among the muslims at the time and the thought to compile a book didn't happen in Mohammed's lifetime

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Muslims today make much ado about their Quran being ready, copied, and memorized EXACTLY the same no matter where you are in the world. So do they just not know about these differences, or are they being truly disingenuous about this? I'm thinking specifically of the Muslims who like to debate with Christians about the flaws or corruption in the Bible, without acknowledging any flaws or deviation in the Quran.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            They have to. If the preservation of the Quran is called into question the rest of the religion is also called into question.

            >was made up later.
            no evidence of this, while the Birmingham Qur'an is exactly as the Uthamanic codex and the Sana'a Palimpsest having only very minor variants with no difference in meaning

            >There's even two qurans
            You misunderstand the concept of qiraat. The Uthmanic codex didn't have diacritics, and the qiraat are essentially different ways to read the Uthmanic codex, which is, by concensus, part of the revelation. And there are more than two qiraat. However, there are some very very very minor disagreements as to the rasm(skeleton) of the Qur'anic text, which boils down to how words are spelled.

            If all the qurans were to tumble into the ocean. Which qiraat would the book be reassembled from?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.ugr.es/~mreligio/materiales/Green.Samuel_The-different-arabic-versions-of-the-Quran.pdf

            A quick scan on google sums this up pretty well.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >without acknowledging any flaws or deviation in the Quran.
            There are no flaws or deviations in the Qur'an, Islamic scholars have known about the Qur'anic variants for 1400 years. These variants aren't as significant as the ones in the Gospels.

            They have to. If the preservation of the Quran is called into question the rest of the religion is also called into question.

            [...]
            If all the qurans were to tumble into the ocean. Which qiraat would the book be reassembled from?

            >They have to. If the preservation of the Quran is called into question the rest of the religion is also called into question.
            No Islamic scholar has ever denied the Qiraat and Ahruf. Any layman can read Suyuti's Itqan and read about the variants.

            >If all the qurans were to tumble into the ocean. Which qiraat would the book be reassembled from?
            Probably Hafs, because 90% of Muslims read it exclusively

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No flaws or deviations
            The variants speak to the deviations see..

            https://www.ugr.es/~mreligio/materiales/Green.Samuel_The-different-arabic-versions-of-the-Quran.pdf

            A quick scan on google sums this up pretty well.

            >Probably Hafs
            If there is only one quran that is preserved throughout the ages by Allah himself there is no room for "probably"

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If there is only one quran that is preserved throughout the ages by Allah himself there is no room for "probably"
            Hafs and Warsh and Hamza and Qalan etc. are all the Qur'an. They are recitations of the same text. Do you know what is different in the Qiraat? it is merely the prolongation of certain syllables(malik vs maalik), differences in pronounciation(musa vs muse) and differences in where to stop and pause.

            You are overblowing the significance of the matter.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is impossible to over blow the significance of the matter when the ummah is incapable of coming to consensus over which variant to use. 90% 95% it does not matter. By tradition this is the unchanging word of Allah which was present before even creation. Something unchanging does not have variants, even something so minute as a mark or word.

            Yet if you stand as an Imam in Morocco and start reciting from the Hafs text you WILL be corrected by someone who has memorized the Warsh version.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There are no deviations in the Qur'an
            >There are deviations, but they aren't as significant as the deviations of the Gospels
            So which is it?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Quranic variant
            Hafs: Owner of the day of judgement
            Warsh: King of the day of judgement

            >Biblical variant
            Standard: For there are three that beare record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
            Variant: And there are three that beare witnesse in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one.

            As I said, there are no deviations, because the meaning does not deviate.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            We're not talking about the bible. The bible never makes the claim to be the unchanging word of God. Also any english version of the bible is a translation. The quran was delivered in clear Arabic and the clear Arabic has variations between the texts.

            The unchanging, present with Allah at the beginning of time, word of Allah has variations to the point where you can't even answer to what variant would be used to reconstruct the quran in the event of all the books destruction.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you can't even answer to what variant would be used to reconstruct the quran in the event of all the books destruction.
            I answered Hafs. But there are so many memorizers of the Qur'an on the Earth today that it is impossible for the knowledge of various qiraat to disappear.

            The Orthodox position regarding your reservations is this: The various qiraat are part of revelation, the Qur'an was revealed in multiple ways of recitation, according to the various dialects of the Arabs. They were not mistakes, they were not lapses in the memory of the sahaba and those who followed them. They are part of revelation, as I have said!

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then why if all the dialects are acceptable was the Uthmanic codex compiled in the dialect of the Quraish? Who then burned the other copies.

            All we've gathered in this conversation is that a perfectly preserved book has variations. Even if the consensus amongst scholars says the variations are permissible it entirely shreds the narrative that the Quran is perfectly preserved.

            The answer always comes down to...

            >Which quran is perfectly preserved?

            There is no way around this. Trust me, I tried to reconcile that and many other things on my way out.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Then why if all the dialects are acceptable was the Uthmanic codex compiled in the dialect of the Quraish
            The Qiraat are compatible with the Uthmanic codex, which didn't have diacritics, as I have said. They were read on top of the rasm. In fact, they arose after the compilation.

            >Even if the consensus amongst scholars says the variations are permissible it entirely shreds the narrative that the Quran is perfectly preserved
            As i've said, qiraat are part of the revelation. The Qur'an was revealed in several different modes or dialects.

            >There is no way around this. Trust me, I tried to reconcile that and many other things on my way out.
            You seem to only lack knowledge to me

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            To the contrary. If the Uthmanic codex was compiled and recited in the qurashi dialect it would not be compatible with other qriaat. How can one dialect be interchanged with another if they are not the same?

            Knowledge led me out of Islam. I understand you want to stay obstinate but in reality the qiraat are the least of the religion's worries.

            The worst worry of Islam is the fact that any knowledge finds it's basis in word of mouth. Even down to the nature of revelation as shown in the hadith. Did revelation occur in different dialects? Or did different dialects occur at the time of Zaid's compilation? Allah would know best I suppose, but the evidence isn't there to support the narrative.

            You seem a knowledgeable enough sort though even if you're not looking at the religion with a critical eye. Though you still haven't answered my question.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How can one dialect be interchanged with another if they are not the same?
            Do you know how Chinese is written the same but can be read by people all over China? It was like that. The Arabs spelled words the same, but pronounced it differently, the consonants of words were the same, but vowels different. And the Uthamnic codex only had consonants.

            >you're not looking at the religion with a critical eye.
            I am, so were all the scholars before. We came to a different conclusion. One might say, it is because we dedicate our lives to Islam, that we believe in it. But Iman is not purely belief, but it is sureness! There are times we doubt the religion, when we are in times in darkness, when we seem to be in a dead end. But we have observed the knowledge of religion. How thousands of scholars dedicated their lives to verifying the little facts of the Prophet and the people after him, who spoke of him. The religion is not hearsay! It is not word of mouth! If you doubt the word of man, then return to the word of God:

            Do not fear them, fear Me. That I may complete My favour unto you and you may be guided.

            Just as We have sent a messenger from among you, reciting to you Our verses, purifying you, teaching you the Book and the Wisdom and teaching you that which you did not know.

            So remember Me, I will remember you. And be grateful to Me and do not deny Me.

            O you who believe, seek help through patience and prayer! Indeed Allah is with the patient!

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Qur’an was perfectly preserved and so were all its qiraat. It’s quite simple really.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            They aren't. Ibn Masud and Kab recited the Qur'an differently than Uthman, and Muhammad never legitimized Uthman's recitation unlike Ibn Masud's and Kab's. The 7 qiraats were established long after the time of Muhammad, 200 years after by Ibn Mujahid.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >was made up later.
          no evidence of this, while the Birmingham Qur'an is exactly as the Uthamanic codex and the Sana'a Palimpsest having only very minor variants with no difference in meaning

          >There's even two qurans
          You misunderstand the concept of qiraat. The Uthmanic codex didn't have diacritics, and the qiraat are essentially different ways to read the Uthmanic codex, which is, by concensus, part of the revelation. And there are more than two qiraat. However, there are some very very very minor disagreements as to the rasm(skeleton) of the Qur'anic text, which boils down to how words are spelled.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      You make it seem like those who memorized the Quran only knew a few verses, when in actuality, most if not all of Muhammad's companions memorized the whole Qur'an and could recite it all from memory. This is evident if you actually read the historical sources.

      Those chosen to compile the Qur'an into a definitive edition by Uthman were chosen by virtue of their being scribes of the prophet and experts of the recitation in the different modes that was revelaed to the prophet.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        If the sahaba all knew the entire quran there would be no impetus to compile it into a book. Like I said, sahaba were getting into the bad habit of dying before they could transmit their knowledge.

        Also the Uthmanic codex isn't used today anyway. The vowel notations were added in later versions. On top of that since Uthman was not a prophet and was not incapable of making mistakes in the manner of Mohammed it is entirely possible he destroyed ayat when he burned the other circulating copies of the Quran.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >no impetus to compile it into a book
          There are three reasons for the standardization of the Qur'an.
          1. The deaths of sahaba and with them the knowledge of the ahruf
          2. The expansion of the Islamic empire and believers
          3. Variant readings by non sahaba

          People memorized the whole Qur'an, but variants were beginning to show up in far away places like Egypt and Iraq, so Uthman burned all other Qur'ans, made a standard skeleton for the Qur'an and sent sahabas with these manuscripts to various cities who taught the various ahruf through qiraat.

          >The vowel notations were added in later versions.
          The primary recitation of the Qur'an goes back to Hafs from Asim from Abd Ar-Rahman the Blind from Uthman, Commander of the Believers. Which was memorized, but only written as diacritics a few hundred years after the Prophet.

          >it is entirely possible he destroyed ayat when he burned the other circulating copies of the Quran.
          The Sahaba all trusted him save a few and the khawarij, even Ali and ibn Muawiya. Why shouldn't we trust him?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Uthman order Zaid ibn Thabit to compile the quran. A task Zaid compared to moving a mountain. Fortunately Zaid was one of the sahaba that was chrisened by Mohammed for the other sahaba to learn from. But that makes neither of those men prophets, and not free from error if allah willed.

            And the current recitations of the quran are divided into at least seven different readings. Prompting me to ask again.

            If all the qurans were to tumble into the ocean tomorrow. What would the quran that is reassembled read like?

            And as we know from having an Imam get corrected by someone during prayer, men's minds are prone to forget. Even Mohammed was reminded of ayah he forgot as testified to in sahih hadith, which in and of themselves suffer from being compiled from the memories of men.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why shouldn't we trust him?
            Who's "we"? And why do Muslims always fall back on these absurd appeals to good character?
            >everybody in Mecca respected Muhammad and trusted him implicitly; he was the most trusted and respected man in Mecca; how is it possible that he would abuse this reputation to achieve his personal ambitions or political goals? No, we have made an idealized portrait of his character after he became the most important figure in our religion, and since we say he was impeccably honest, you all must agree that he never could have told even a half-truth about his revelations
            >everybody in the early Muslim community trusted and respected Uthman. All these big names are said to have trusted and respected Uthman implicitly. No, we do not have an idealized picture of the Sahaba after all this time; we say nowadays that Uthman was trusted implicitly trusted by Ali and ibn Muawiya, so you all must agree that Uthman was undeniably trustworthy.
            I don't care how trustworthy these people were said to have been. Couldn't this just be the accretion of centuries of hagiography? This evidence doesn't stand up in court.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't care how trustworthy these people were said to have been.
            This is bugman logic. Don't be a bugman. Humanity relies on one another, through trust and reputation. An atomized apartment dweller wouldn't understand this of course. The religion of Islam is built on volumes of biographies of thousands of people, through succesive heads of state, if you doubt the sahaba, and the thousands of scholars who scrutinized every detail of their lives, then you should doubt yourself!

            >Couldn't this just be the accretion of centuries of hagiography? This evidence doesn't stand up in court.
            No man who has gone through Ibn Hajar's biographical works would say this! And western courts are so lenient regarding testimony, while there were none as strict as the Ahl al-Hadith. If only you people knew!

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >his is bugman logic. Don't be a bugman. Humanity relies on one another, through trust and reputation. An atomized apartment dweller wouldn't understand this of course. The religion of Islam is built on volumes of biographies of thousands of people, through succesive heads of state, if you doubt the sahaba, and the thousands of scholars who scrutinized every detail of their lives, then you should doubt yourself!

            What kind of moronic logic is this?
            People slip anyway, even with the best of intentions, and in no field is "some dudes with massive street cred can vouch that they remember random facts from other guys with street cred" as the exclusive certificate of authenticity.

  6. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    You're reading it as a book, while it should be understood as a oral work. It's going to repeat and rhyme a lot, it was meant to be remember by people who didn't even know how to read.

  7. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    It genuinely does feel like a kneejerk response to the Bible
    Its why you have moronic shit like Jesus going to Heaven on a unicorn

  8. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the Quran is flawless and has no variants because they memorised it 100 percent by heart
    >Actually there were 3 variants but they only have minor deviations so they dont count (nobody is going to read them completely so who cares), also they had to formerly create a standardisation of the Quran hundreds of years after the original one died
    >Also my sources are scholars who have a direct vested interest in making sure nobody calls my Book flawed
    Holy shit the layers of copium. It really is the mental illness of religion. No wonder taqqiya is central to their entire ideology

  9. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Nonbelievers are evil morons who will be tortured for eternity
    You've just illustrated the point.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *