Talk:Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Christianity Portal Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an is part of the WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 8, 2006. The result of the discussion was KEEP AND CLEANUP.

[edit] Too much quotation ! this article is getting out of hands

Toooo much quoting in this article it's really getting out of hands, too long and unecyclopedic. WP is not the place to simply copy and past hole pages from the Quran and the Bible, otherwise we will end end up with the hole Bible and Quran here.

This entry is simply becoming useless, please help synthetise evry story while showing similiraties and difference in every section's introduction. I also think that this article needs to be splited in may sub-articles with every story becoming an article of its own. If you have some time please also add quotation markup, I have done it in some places but not everywhere, thanks --Khalid hassani 14:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, someone from the university of "cut and paste" has made this article close to useless with the addition of large chunks of quotes. Apart from those quotes, the quotation tags are not necessarily appropriate, as most ppl have paraphrased the source text and summarised the salient points, so they are not quotes from the Bible or the Qur'an as such. You should remove the ones you added unless you are certain you are really tagging quotes from the Bible or Qur'an. -- Benno bne 08:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esther in Quran?

As far as my knowledge of Quran goes, there is no mention of Esther, either by name or by allusion.

[edit] Cain and Abel?

i think the occupations of the brothers and their sacrfices are mixed up. it says cain offers his flock, and abel grain, and that god accepts the sacrifice of grain, i think it's the other way around, why else would cain be told he will no longer be able to til the land?

[edit] Double articles?

On User talk:Sdrawkcab: Hi, your recent article on Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an seems the same as the (intent of the) article The Bible in Islam. Could you please explain. Thanks. IZAK 21:52, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this article is doing more of a comparitive analysis of the literature.--DennisDaniels 17:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraphs

I think the paragraphs may need a little sorting out, having multiple paragraphs instead of huge ones. Would just make it a little easier to read! Good work anyway. violet/riga 23:11, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RE:

I agree with you about the paragraphing - later additions will be better paragraphed.

As to the events, most of them are now done. I'll be adding Jesus within the next few days, and Moses, Joseph and possibly Queen of Sheba will follow after that (thoguh maybe not for a few weeks). Once those have been added then the events will be pretty much completed.

- sdrawkcab

[edit] Allah

I think the title 'Allah' ought to be translated instead of being transliterated into Latin letters. We say "God" when we're talking about the almighty in the biblical narratives, not "El" or "Elohiym" and so forth.--Josiah 22:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I abstain; I personally tend to use "God", but some Muslims feel that "Allah", since it has no plural, is preferable, and I have no particular desire to change all their edits. I think this can reasonably be left up to personal taste, as long as it's not too inconsistent within a single article. - Mustafaa 22:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Allah means God. God means Allah. No diffrence.

Yes, I agree. It should be translated to God in English. Some muslims are worried about translations of words and even Quran since it is considered God's words. (Jul31th-2006 Ahmad)

[edit] Moses' sister

The sister of Moses is named in the Bible. She's Miriam. I think she is named also in the Quran (but I'm not exactly sure about that.) Alensha 16:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mary, mother of Jesus, is called sister of Aaron in the Qur'an. However, Muslims do not see that as literal sister. Jews are quoted in the Qur'an rhetorically asking Mary "O sister of Aaron" (i.e. figuratively "O someone who is pious"; how can you give birth to a illegitimate child , etc.) OneGuy 16:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. Alensha

[edit] Sodom and Gomorrah

This section states as fact something that is disputed by Biblical scholars and which is also an EXTREMELY offensive and damaging to the rights of homosexuals. It is as anachronistic as using the Genesis passage referring to the "children of Ham" (i.e. blacks) as justification for slavery and segregation.

What the men, or people (see below), actually say is for Lot to send out his visitors so that they may "know" them. The Hebrew verb "yada" *is* used in the Bible to figuratively mean "sexual relations"; however, the *vast majority* of times it is used in the literal sense of "getting acquainted" with someone. Lot was the nephew of a powerful foreigner (Abraham), and the township would be uncomfortable with his having unknown visitors without knowing who they are and what they are about. Offering his virgin daughters (and let's not get into the moral repugnance of that, BTW) isn't necessarily to "have sex with them *instead*." It could easily be a way to placate an angry crowd so they wouldn't mistreat his honored guests with potentially violent questioning.

Finally, the Bible later states that the sin of Sodom was "neglect of the poor." (Ezekiel 16:49)

203.59.176.254 wrote:

note

It is in fact a mis-translation for it to be solely men in the above passage, in fact it is a crowd of both sexes. This has been confirmed with a number of re-translations of original hebrew texts.

I checked the New International Version and the New American Bible and didn't find it as the note suggests. Can the person who wrote the note provide a link to a Bible translation that supports that interpretation?

--Tom harrison 12:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You're much more tolerant of uncited and, frankly, not credible POV than I am. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

In the Quran the crowd are both men and women. Maybe this is the same for the Bible Furious Stormrage

[edit] Contradiction regarding Abraham's son

I would sincerely appreciate a clarification on the above due to the following:

Abrahim Promised a Son Biblical Version In the 1st paragraph of the text, it is mentioned that "Abraham lives with his wife Sarah and his son Ishmael in Canaan. One day God tells him that Sarah will bear a son".

My interpretation from this is that Ishmael and Isaac is his first and second son respectively.

However in the heading of Abraham and the Sacrifice on the 1st paragraph of the Biblical version, the following is noted:

"he (Abraham) is to take his only son Isaac to a hill".

How can this be possible when Isaac has an elder brother, which does not make him the only son. Unless if it is supposed to be Ishmael.

Your feedback is highly appreciated. Thank you.

-Arwiz-

Hmm. If I recall correctly, in Christian tradition Ishmael is the son of Abraham by his wife's maid, because Sarah herself can't conceive, and that after having begotten him Abraham repents of turning aside from his wife and drives him out, so that perhaps he doesn't count? Can anyone confirm or deny this? - Donald Ian Rankin

From Genesis chapter 16, verses 4-6, after Hagar became pregnant Hagar despised Sarai. Sarai complained to Abram, who told her to do with Hagar whatever she thought best. Sarai mistreated Hagar, who ran away.Tom harrison 00:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In that culture, Ishmael was only considered a son because Sarah could not conceive. Once Isaac was born from Sarah, Ishmael lost his place as a son. That may or may not make sense to you, but that's the culture. --Ephilei 07:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to clarify that the above event (Gen 16:4-6) you mention took place before Ishmael was born, and as a result of Hagar despising her childless boss. But God told Hagar to return, and to submit to Sarai's authority and gave her a promise of countless decendants.

13 years later God made a specific covenant with Abram, and to mark the occasion God changed the names of Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, then God declares that Sarah will bear a child, and is told to name him Isaac and with him God will establish His covenant.

One year later Isaac is born (Ishmael about 14 y.o.), then shortly after weaning (Ishmael would be about 17), Sarah notes Ishmael's constant persecution of his 3 y.o. half brother. Sarah wanted Ishmael out, Abraham is distressed but is told by God to comply as God will also multiply that line. Then in obedience (no doubt with tears flowing) Abraham sends Ishmael and Hagar out (Genesis 21:14).

Now, God told Abraham, “Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named".

Hopefully this explains why Isaac is said to be the only child, and the child of "Promise" by God's reconing and plan. Further, Ishmael is by power of flesh and human ability, Isaac is by power of God (miracle).

What is the connection and significance with the sacrifice scene? In a nutshell, God promises Abraham a son that he was willing to sacrifice, God promises man a Son that He was willing to sacrifice. Benno bne 02:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ُElizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist

Some muslim scholars said that her name was Elisabat in Arabic. She is the mother of prophet Yahia PBUH (John the Bapitst). According to islamic traidtions Jesus Christ and John the Bapitst or Yahia were cousins. Virgin Mary and Elizaeth were sisters.

[edit] error "No page with that exact title"

In the revert of 12:56, 19 August 2005 by Scottbell, something went wrong with the title. I don't know exactly what, because I couldn't get the page to come up for editing; Wikipedia said there was no page with that exact title. I reverted to the version of 19:16, 14 August 2005 by 144.96.209.12, which seems to work.--Tom harrison 15:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GOD

Is there a reason that in several places GOD is written in capital letters? If there is, this must be explained somewhere why one needs to shout. The article GOD says nothing. It simply redirects to God (pun not intended). Mukadderat 03:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What About Hagar? (Hajar in the Quran)

The table does not mention Hagar (Hajar)? Why?

[edit] Misleading Information

I am far from an expert in the Qur'an, but when it says "Qur'anic version" all readers will presume that the sources are from the Qur'an. Yet in some places it is acknowledged that a particular source is not from the qur'an but from tradition, but in others it is not acknowleged, so this leaves one to wonder if it pertains to only that sentence or to the rest of the passage.

Take for instance "Abraham/Ibrahim and the sacrifice". The singular Qur'anic source cited is Sura 37 102-109. After reading that in the English translations, I read absolutely no mention of Ishmail, although Isaac is named. Yet in the wiki, Ishmail is named. Why then mention Ishmail and completely remove Isaac as it is written in the Qur'an? Does tradition take precedence over the Qur'an? and why the title "Qur'anic version" when this and most likely all others are non-Qur'anic sources? Benno bne 05:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The liberal use of extra quranic sources and what "Scholars of Islam" says or what traditions says, all under the heading "Qur'anic Version" makes this whole article less than acceptable. Benno bne 03:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a comparison between Bible and the Quran, not ahadith. Quoting ahadith in this section under Quran would be similar to qouting Gnostic writings under the Bible. The only difference being that mainstream Muslims do accept the ahadith whereas mainstream Christianity outright rejects extra-canonical writings of the time. But all in all, references to ahadith should be removed and if necessary a new article created for "The Bible and Hadiths" (there is a lot of similarities especially in Shi'ite traditions) or The Quran and Apocrypha. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 00:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article

We must make this article more professional looking. The topic is worthwhile, but the content is too long and hard to read. Can anyone condense the stories focussing just on the parts that stand out in both the Bible and Quran? David Betesh

I want to commend you folks for making this page. It will help bring people to an understanding of one another. Although that may not be the primary goal of wikipedia, it is a welcome side effect.Isaac Crumm 21:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree it kind of looks ridiculous with the plethora of tags that headline the article right now. It certainly doesn't bring you to read the actual article underneath. I propose am moving the tags to the talk page and hope someone or myself will find the time to do some spring cleaning on the article soon. Feer 22:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Revamp

This article has been on my to-do list for a long time and I finally have time for it now. Tell me what you think of the first two sections. Is there a better way to format the narratives? Tables? I'm no good with wiki tables. I removed all the tags because I'll correct everything in the next couple days. --Ephilei 06:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I will restore the tags. you can remove them after the article has been fixed, not because you are planning to fix it soon. Tags are supposed to stay until the problem is solved.--Sefringle 07:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but what about the content? I removed some tags because I am the expert requested, most everything is referenced, and I don't see any original research, just summarizing primary sources. --Ephilei 07:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Small correction, nothing really is referenced. There are no secondary sources confirming any of the references, and if you see the references section, there are no scholars mentioned as sources.--Sefringle 08:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to remove the Christianity and Islam tags (the long, lower tags on the left) because they interfere with the placing of several edit links (making them worthless) and the article is already too long (90k). Other articles on books of the Bible and on surahs don't contain them. State any disagreements. --Ephilei 19:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC) I've accidently stumbled on a bit of controversy in the Qur'an: The refs about Abraham's promised son clearly refer to Isaac in the Qur'an, but 37.101 repeats the promised son story but verse 102 says that the promised son is then the sacrificed son, whom Muslims believe to be Ishmael. Obviously this article isn't the place the subject, but it seems that the promised son story and Abraham's sacrifice story should really be the same. Thoughts? --Ephilei 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that pretty much resolves all our problems- except for the lack of sources.--Sefringle 05:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think it's unsourced. The beginning of every section lists all the references used and a few more are footnoted. Primary sources are still sources. If there's something you think should be sourced specifically, use ^{[citations needed]}. Then maybe I'll understand where you're coming from. --Ephilei 14:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unsourced and original research. You are using two primary sources for comparison which is problematic. It allows you to point out apparent similarities which may not be accepted as similarities by adherents of the religions or scholars. The Bible and Qur'an quotes aren't sources they are just helpful references for readers so they know which verses the scholar is comparing. If it wasn't like this you could run into all types of problems. Like the Similarities between Islam and Nazism: both Hizbullah and Hitler have been known to give roman salutes... the reason yours hasn't created an edit war is because it's not particularly controversial... but that doesn't make it any better sourced. gren グレン 12:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that a real article?! See the section below. --Ephilei 19:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential

Possible additions:

• Joseph done
• John and Elizabeth and Zechariah done
• Mary done
• God done
• Ethics/Commandments done

--Ephilei 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary sources and OR

There seems to be some confusion so I'll clear it up: Primary sources are considered by WP valid sources so long as they don't require expertise. A quote from Wikipedia:Attribution

Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

Primary sources are documents or people close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources. Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. See examples of primary sources.

If you have a criticism, instead of blindly tagging the article, pls read the content and correct it. If you're not willing to put work into it, at least find an example of an aspect Muslims or Christians will disagree on. Tags aren't a method for pushing work onto someone else. I've better things to do. --Ephilei 19:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)