Bible and Quran

Submitted by John Bastile (Malaysia), Nov 28, 2005 at 22:18

The Scholar,


You assumed that I'm Christian and I'm an American. I may or may not be.

When I mentioned about polygamy in Islam, you told me that King David and Solomon had many wives. What's your argumental proposition?

a) If the Bible is wrong then the Quran is right?
b) Old Testament allowed savagery. Therefore, it's halal for muslims?


Yes, the Old Testament is also a history book. You know what history means right? It means knowledge of what happened in the past. King Solomon had many wives. Today's Christians – both fundamental and secular don't. These are facts. Why are you jumping up and down? Christians are not as fanatic about the Bible they way muslims are about the Quran. One story about a Quran being flushed down the toilet and muslims around the world went amok. Some were killed. Please flush a Bible down the toilet if it makes you happy. I'm sure no one will bother killing you.

Many years ago, before I learnt the truth about Islam, I happened to be in a muslim fair. There was a booth trying to sell stones. I was told that Mohammed used stones to wash himself after "doing nature's business". Therefore, good muslims today should allow emulate the perfect man in using stones. I mean, toilet paper is the invention of the kaffirs. Scholar, the mindset of a muslim is differrent from all other humans. You quoted some verses in Old Testament. We don't see them practiced today. We see your verses in the Quran and Sunnah but we see them practiced today.

Yes, the Old Testament contains myths. Some borrowed from the Babylonians. Especially the story of Noah. It was a version of the Epics of Galgamesh from Babylonians. There's a footnote in one Bible. We took it and we referenced it. We didn't turn around and accused the original author of altering it. We didn't say "Curse to the Babyloninas". Of course, we didn't say "Kill all Babylonians, wherever you find them". The Jews were help captives in Babylon for some long time. The authors of the stories in the Old Testament were influenced by pagan cultures. To make the people understand the religion during those days, you "personalize" God. Meaning that you used the analogy of a God having "human characteristics". It's an easier transition for people with a certain level of education. Muslims should know that. Allah was also personalized with "human characteristics". Lots of hate for unbelievers. Garden of Paradise promising rewards filled with meeting human's basic instincts of food, wine and sex.

Before you jumped with joy, I'll had you know that Mohammed, in turn, took the Bible's story and retold it his version. With added spice. Satan coming through the mouth of a donkey!!

Yup, Jesus didn't come to abolish the laws in the Old Testament. However, when He was asked to apply the law in one incidence (when an adultress was presented for stoning), he went down to write something on the ground. The Hand of God which wrote the Ten Commandments now is writing the New Testament. Let the first person without sin throw the first stone. Your argument of "ommission" is not as valid and grave as the argument of "commission".

My dear Scholar, divine laws do not change. Christians do not worship a God who does not hesitate to give divine revelations that favor only one person. I mean, what's the point of God giving divine revelations that say – People: you can only marry up to four. Your prophet can have sex with whom he pleases. Yes, divine revelations so he can marry his adopted son's wife. Divine revelations that conditioned that the accuser of rape needs to produce 4 pious male muslim witnesses. What fortune for Aishah. Her accusers totaled only 3.

Like you said: "The rule in Islam is:

[17:33] "Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - EXCEPT FOR JUST CAUSE. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand retaliation or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life, for he is helped (by the Law)."

[22:39] "Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made BECAUSE THEY ARE OPPRESSED, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them."

See the loophole? Is that why muslims always take the view that they are oppressed? So that they can fight? I mean, No enemy of Islam means no Jihad. No Jihad means no Perpetual virgins. Therefore, permission to fight comes if you are oppressed. So, what's the game plan? Go bomb the World Trade Center and then wait for the enemy of Islam to come. Video cam the oppression and then call for Jihad?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".