Why is there almost no historical criticism of the Qur'an despite so much of it for the Bible?

Why is there almost no historical criticism of the Qur'an, meanwhile the Bible has been scrutinized and analyzed to death? Are scholars afraid to criticize the Qu'ran?

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They're probably afraid of learning a crap language just to study a schizo incoherent copy of the Bible?

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The Qur’an contains a lot less narration

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Are scholars afraid to criticize the Qu'ran?
    Yes, more specifically they are afraid of what will happen to them.
    Remember the collective seethe that happened whel Salman Rushdie did just as much as make a novel on the satanic verses? Imagien what would happen if someone implied that the whole Quran is a fake.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >shittalk christianity
    >nothing happens
    >shittalk islam
    >you get aqbar'd

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >meanwhile the Bible has been scrutinized and analyzed to literal death
    That's because the religion of whites has been purposefully murdered

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >That's because the religion of whites has been purposefully murdered
      Exactly, that's precisely what christianity meant to Ancient European religions, the death of them and their ancient root. Glad you get it right. ;^)

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Yes Moshe the people are becoming very well aware of the double standards :^)

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >if you don't worship a israelite, then you're a israelite
          the classic

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Nice man of straw

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              doesn't make you any less retarded, you're accusing me of being a israelite for stating a fact. israeli religion is responssible for the complete erradication of previous european culture and religion, the one that is directly linked and rooted to the current inhabitants of europe.
              Bottom line, europeans are not israelites.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Bottom line, europeans are not israelites.
                Agreed

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Same for the Torah. Christianity gets blamed for everything and more, but at the end of the day when you shitalk it nothing will happen to you.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Torah
      not even a merchant, but if I had a nickel for every time Leviticus alone was criticized I’d be as rich as one

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Not true. a lot of work has been done on the Documentary Hypothesis and analyzing the Dead Sea Scrolls. This isn't about "criticizing" religion, it's about thinking critically about the documents themselves and what their origins are.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Bullshit, secular scholars are basing their research on assumptions since they've already accepted a priori historical materialism and atheism. They refuse to consider miracles as legitimate phenomenon and God as a legitimate force in history.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Jesus Christ anon, most biblical scholars are Christian. Even one of my favorites, Mark Smith, who theorized how biblical monotheism developed through convergence, is a Christian. You're right that they generally "assume" materialism, but supernatural explanations are generally left at the door in all scholarship. If you want to find the most probable explanation for something, why would you decide on a miracle, when a miracle is by definition very improbable? Biblical scholarship is no exception. Scholars are supposed to put aside their biases as much as possible, so they won't assume a supernatural explanation in their work just because it's more comfortable to their worldview.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This

        Bullshit, secular scholars are basing their research on assumptions since they've already accepted a priori historical materialism and atheism. They refuse to consider miracles as legitimate phenomenon and God as a legitimate force in history.

        . Their working hypothesis is that the Bible wasn't written by its authors but rather by several unknown men. They also believe in conspiracy theory such as the Gospels being originally titleless and not written by Matthew/Mark/Luke/John.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Their working hypothesis is that the Bible wasn't written by its authors but rather by several unknown men. They also believe in conspiracy theory such as the Gospels being originally titleless and not written by Matthew/Mark/Luke/John.
          True, but that's not a conspiracy theory. And it's simply a fact that Moses did not write the Torah in 1400 B.C. It's a textual tradition that was copied and edited by scribes for centuries, who no doubt believed they were faithful stewards of a tradition that went back to Moses, particularly Deuteronomy. With what we know now about ancient scribal practices and the Torah itself it's simply not possible that it had one author, that author was Moses, and there were no significant additions after the first edition. The Documentary Hypothesis can be wrong and is regularly criticized by some scholars, but Mosiac authorship as it was understood is now bunk.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Enlightenment grew out of Christian Europe, thinkers criticized nearly every element of cultural orthodoxy including religion.

    And yes criticism of the Quran is a good way to get killed if low status or banished if you are high status, just as it used to be true of the Bible.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't there a huge body of official commentary and appendices to the Quran?

    The Bible isn't "criticized" either, scholars don't go looking for errors, they go looking to reconcile apparent conflicts or puzzles, and to make sure the church teachings fit what the deem proper interpretation

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because the Quran is perfect and complete.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      top kek

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Muslims didn't let their religion fall into the hands of atheists enlightenment thinkers like Western Christians did. Muslims aren't skeptics and don't have a need to categorize everything as factual or not

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone but Muslims knows without a doubt that the Koran is fake and gay so why waste a second of time case closed.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Both muslim and chinese intellectuals are deathly afraid of western academics doing to their mythology what they did to the Christian and Zoroastrian mythologies. Every traditional chronicle on earth is made of pure allegory mixed with hearsay, but in some cultures they take their chronicles to be literal historical fact instead of a picture of events created by fallible humans, and those cultures often treat rational inquiry into the past as a threat to established order (which it is)

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    During the golden days of orientalism, it was studied pretty extensively, much more so the hadith than the Qur'an but still
    These days are gone though and they're not coming back any time soon

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What proof did Muhammad have to offer that these suras did indeed come from the one true God? Two thousand years before, when Moses was asked to go to his people with a message from God, he immediately saw the question of authenticity: “But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice; for they will say, Jehovah hath not appeared unto thee.” Jehovah solved that problem by empowering Moses to perform three signs. Seeing these proofs of authenticity, “the people believed.”—Ex. 4:1-31, AS.

    And for the next forty years the Israelites witnessed many, many more miracles. Particularly was divine power manifested at the time of the giving of the law: thunder, lightning, fire, smoke, trumpet sound and earthquake; all combined to testify that Moses was not an impostor but was indeed a divinely commissioned prophet.—Exodus, chapters 7 through 15; Ex 19:16-18; Deut. 8:14-16.

    When Christ Jesus came, the same question of authenticity arose, and again it was answered unequivocally. So much so that he was able to send to John the assuring report: “The blind are seeing again, and the lame are walking about, the lepers are being cleansed and the deaf are hearing, and the dead are being raised.” And so to the religious leaders of his day Jesus could say: “If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me. But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works.”—Matt. 11:5; John 10:37, 38, NW.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why, even the scoffing, hypocritical and malicious religious leaders received a sign, that of Jonah, or of Jesus’ resurrection after he had lain in the grave for three days. And his followers did even greater signs in that they performed them over a wider area and for a much longer period of time.—Matt. 16:1-4; 28:12-15; John 14:12; Acts 1:3-11; 19:11, 12; 1 Cor. 14:22; 15:1-20.

    Both Moses and Christ Jesus were used to introduce new systems of things and each established himself as God’s prophet by the performance of many signs. But where were the signs establishing Muhammad as God’s prophet and proving that God had introduced a new system of things in Arabia in the first part of the seventh century A.D.? Could Muhammad say, as did Jesus: ‘If you do not believe my message, believe my works, signs, miracles?’ No, he could not, for he had none; none to establish the authenticity of his message.

    Time and again this fact is admitted as his listeners accuse Muhammad of imposture and forgery. See Sura 2:118; 10:38; 11:13; 17:89-93; 21:5, 6, Ali. In view of the many signs the previous prophets had performed, did his listeners not have a right to ask: “Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord”? (Sura 6:37; 13:7, Ali) But they were told: ‘Certainly signs are in the power of God: but what will make you realize that if Signs came, they will not believe?’ “We refrain from sending the Signs, only because the men of former generations treated them as false.”—Sura 6:109; 17:59, Ali.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Repeatedly his listeners were told that Muhammad was merely a warner; but that was only begging the question; they wanted proof that Muhammad was indeed God’s warner by the performance of signs. True, some in former times did not believe in spite of signs, but that did not keep God from sending signs by his prophets. And neither was that fact used by Christ Jesus as an excuse for not giving proof of his divine commission by the performance of signs.—Sura 3:180, 181; 5:36; 9:71, Rodwell.

    In striking contrast with the former prophets who thus “came [to their people] with clear proofs of their mission”, the only sign to which the Quran points (Muslim tradition to the contrary not withstanding) is that of the literary merit of the message itself. “Do they say, ‘He forged it’? Say: ‘Bring then a Sura like unto it.’” And again: “Say, ‘If the whole of mankind and Jinns [Spirits] were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur-an, they could not produce the like thereof.’” (Sura 2:23, 24; 10:37, 38; 17:88, Ali) Say Muslim commentators: “It challenges comparison by its beauty.” “None but God could inspire spiritual truths in such noble language.”

    There are many beautiful passages in the Quran, especially those dealing with God’s attributes, such as the earlier and shorter suras. And no doubt its exalted message in rhymed prose had the greatest attraction for the Arabs at a time when anything that could be strictly called a book may not even have existed in their own language.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yet it cannot be denied that its various parts are of very unequal value. Great literature is not repetitious, but in the Quran time and again the stories of Adam, Moses, Christ Jesus and others are rehearsed, and ever to the same purpose. In Sura 55 the expression (verse) “Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?” occurs no less than 31 times in a total of 78 verses. (Ali) Three out of every four suras warn of hell-fire and punishment after death, and two out of three bring up the subject of its authenticity.

    Even more serious is the lack of coherence in the Quran. There is little coherence between the suras, they being placed in order of length, beginning with the longest ones, although these were written last and compare unfavorably with the first ones. The suras themselves often seem to be a conglomeration of verses, a factor which makes the Quran extremely difficult to understand correctly, for as one authority, A.-Q. H.T. Muhammad, expresses it: “Whoever will give his opinion respecting the [Quran] must be able to discover which Meccan verses are mixed up with Medina Suras and which Medina verses are confounded with Meccan Suras.” Is great literature “mixed up” or “confounded”?

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Coherence is also frequently lacking between the titles and the suras themselves. Sura 29 is entitled “The Spider” although only passing mention is made of this insect in the middle of the sura. The same is true of Sura 16, “The Bee,” and of Sura 27, “The Ant.” In the longest sura, No. 2, “The Heifer” or “The Cow”, we find only some half a dozen verses of 286 dealing with that animal.

    The Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 16, 1907 edition, devotes two pages to a discussion of the literary weaknesses of the Quran (Koran), such as violation of spelling and interruption of thought to gain rhyme, the rhyming of such indelicate subjects as that relating to woman’s menstrual periods, omission of indispensable links, superfluous verbiage, etc. Compare Arabic text of Sura 95:2 and 37:130 with 23:20; 6:85 and 37:123, Ali. Nor is the Quran free from grammatical errors.

    For the historian Carlyle, who had the greatest admiration for his hero-prophet Muhammad, and therefore could not be accused of prejudice, it was incredible and inconceivable that anyone should consider the Quran a literary miracle. Said he, among other things: “It is as toilsome reading as I ever undertook. A wearisome, confused jumble, crude, incondite, . . . written, so far as writing goes, as badly as almost any book ever was.”

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    And Gibbon, the author of the monumental work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, who incidentally was a very harsh critic of so-called Christendom, in his description of the Quran, while admitting that it has some beauty, goes on to say that he was wearied by its “endless incoherent rhapsody of fable, and precept, and declamation”, adding that “the divine attributes exalt the fancy of the Arabian missionary; but his loftiest strains must yield to the sublime simplicity of the book of Job, composed in a remote age, in the same country”. And to which may be added the sermon on the mount, the book of Isaiah, 1 Corinthians chapter 13, and any number of the Psalms and the parables of Jesus.

    But, objects our Muslim friend, you over look the fact that Muhammad was illiterate, and no illiterate person could have produced such a work. True, Muhammad may have been unable to read and write, but the fact remains that he was a very successful businessman who procured in marriage the hand of his employer, a wealthy and cultured widow. His illiteracy would account for the literary weaknesses we have noted in the Quran.

    Nor can it be argued that the translation is at fault. Truly great literature will show through a translation, as is the case with the Bible, which is great literature in any language. Besides, the defects we have noted of repetitiousness, lack of coherence, faulty rhyme, etc., are all inherent in the original Arabic text.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Finally, note the testimony of Islam’s history on this matter. In the compilation of the Quran under the direction of Zaid Ibn Thabit, a contemporary of Muhammad, was the question of authenticity of the various suras and verses decided on literary merit? Not at all, but upon the oaths of those presenting the suras. Nor was opinion always unanimous. Some of the “Companions”, associates of Muhammad who survived him, expressed the strongest doubts that suras 1,113 and 114 belonged in the Quran. Clearly, literary merit was not the determining factor with them.

    Truly, in view of the facts presented it cannot be claimed that the Quran is divinely inspired because of its being a literary miracle.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I've worked with a guy from Sudan that was asked what happens if you throw a rock up. He said it falls down. They said he was wrong, and that the answer was "it falls down because Allah wills it".
    He refused to answer that and his family was threatened with death, now he lives in the US.

    Imagine if he had criticized the quran, kek.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    There is no criticism of the Quran because it's the true religion

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      no

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You don't know anything about Islam.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >"A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter."
          >https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_602
          Mohamed's stories must be rejected based on common sense: he wasn't there, so he isn't allowed to say what happened. The death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ happened hundreds of years before Mohamed was born, hundreds of miles away from where he lived, and he knew none of the participants, didn't speak their language, and was never present. His claims that the Bible is wrong must be 100% rejected as false. That he would even attempt to contradict the Bible shows that the man was a blasphemous, demonic liar.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Over 500 eye-witnesses to the death and resurection of Jesus Christ.
        ?? the fuck
        not a single person saw jesus resurrect himself

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          He's refering to a Pauline creed that says Jesus "appeared" to Peter, James, and 500 brothers.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            which never happened

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              not christfag and just trying to clarify the issue. however this creed does give some insight into experiences that led to the formation of the early church and are probably much more reliable than thw gospel accounts of Jesus's appearances to the deciples.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Source: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >source: an unknown copyist centuries after the supposed fact who copied from an unknown copyist

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Congratulations. You've just described most of history.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    there is, especially in the last 20 years, but since the 70s really. look at the work of Dr. Jay Smith, Robert Spencer, and Patricia Crone, Christoph Luxembourg

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Biblical criticism has been around since the 1600s. The Documentary Hypothesis has been around for over 150 years. Any textual criticism of the Quran would have a lot of catching up to do, and frankly in the West then and more scholars are interested in the Bible.

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    But there is. There's even a guy who came to the conclusion it's just a piece of mistranslated heretical Christian liturgy that was originally written in Syriac.

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    i dont think people had time to read it and question it
    they question what they know or what they think they know

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because the Quran is irrelevant in the West and in an obscure language, and there are few textual variants to the Quran because Muslims dogmatically believe there is one inerrant canon that was transmitted perfectly, and virtually the whole Arab world literally believes the traditional Islamic history of their religion i.e. cooperation is not forthcoming

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Are scholars afraid to criticize the Qu'ran?
    yes, because according islam these are literally allahs words, so to criticize it means you speak against allah.

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    from what my muslim friends have told me, the koran is mostly just rules and guidelines instead of a narrative like the bible. There isn't much to criticizing the koran other than just saying you disagree with those those rules/guidelines

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    because it can't be criticized
    >inb4 proof
    if you're really obssessed but want to actually be useful, read it and try to find flaws

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Proper Quran Is a boring collection of boring fanfictions regarding Abraham and Christ, mixed with very vague indications to the faithfuls. Its more poetry than a proper religious books

    The hadits should be studied instead. But i think its forbidden to translate them from arabic, or nobody bothered to translate hundreds of books regarding boring legalists stuff. So very few people outside muslim scholars have read them

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This. If you try to Google quote-search many hadith quotes from the Sealed Nector book, for example, the only results will be the Sealed Nector, meaning literally no one has translated the rest. And, naturally, the untranslated stuff just happens to be the stuff the terrorists always cite.

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yea it's just self-preservation seeing you get beheaded even today if you publish even a pic of muhammed or whatever. Like why even take the chance when it's just a ghetto copy of other desert religions anyway

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Are scholars afraid to criticize the Qu'ran?
    unironically yes

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    that's because it serves the israelite and does them no harm. if it does, you would see a very different criticism.

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >who is nöldeke
    >who is goldziher
    >who is schacht
    >who is wansbrough
    they've doing tons of criticism since the 19th century

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Serious question to Muslims: Why is the numbering system for the sunnah so confusing? For example, are "al-Bukhari 1241" and "al-Bukhari 2/640" the same, or just quoting the same thing but are from two completely separate documents by al-Bukhari?

Your email address will not be published.