Injustice in the Quran and the Bible

[jessehove]

Deuteronomy declares that men who rape women should marry them, and the Quran promotes men marrying multiple wives, but not women marrying multiple men. How are we to understand these apparent injustices? Here is my answer:

http://mercyandmessiah.blogspot.ca/2013 ... bible.html

[jessehove]

Muhammad wasn't perfect. He was a man. God might have given him the divine law. But the doesn't mean he applied it perfectly. He applied it the best any human could.

[HaLi8993]

@ Jessehove

Khidr, Al-Ghazali, Ibn Arabi, Tariq Ramadan, Hasan of Basra, Rabia, Muhammad, his early companions and his wives.

R u Muslim??

Muhammad wasn't perfect. He was a man. God might have given him the divine law. But the doesn't mean he applied it perfectly. He applied it the best any human could.

Most of the reports from the majority of scholars state that the Prophets of God were not infallible with regard to minor mistakes, but they were not allowed to persist in them. God would point out their mistakes and correct them. In saying this they are infallible with regard to conveying the Message from God to mankind.

[jessehove]

I am not. I am Christian who likes doing comparative theology with the Abrahamic faiths.

I could accept that Muhammad received the Quran perfectly from God. I cannot accept his interpretation of things are perfect. Perfection dangerously blurs the lines between creature and creator for me. I could accept that Muhammad followed the law better than anyone after him, and for Muslims better then anyone before him, therefore he is the best example. But perfection in its strictest sense should be reserved only for God in his unknowable essence.

[HaLi8993]

@ Jessehove

I am not. I am Christian who likes doing comparative theology with the Abrahamic faiths. 

I could accept that Muhammad received the Quran perfectly from God. I cannot accept his interpretation of things are perfect. Perfection dangerously blurs the lines between creature and creator for me. I could accept that Muhammad followed the law better than anyone after him, and for Muslims better then anyone before him, therefore he is the best example. But perfection in its strictest sense should be reserved only for God in his unknowable essence.

Why are you not Muslim??

If you believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him) received the Quran perfectly from God then you would need to believe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) conveyed the message God commanded him too in its totality.There is many evidence in the Quran that testify to this:

God says:

QURAN 5:99

"Not upon the Messenger is [responsibility] except [for] notification. And Allah knows whatever you reveal and whatever you conceal."

Muhammad (peace be upon him) only conveyed to mankind only what God had approved of him to convey. Do you really believe that God would have let him convey something that was not right?

[jessehove]

I don't believe Muhammad was the seal of the prophets. I would be a pretty heretical Muslim. Even for the liberal ones I follow. lol.

[HaLi8993]

@ Jessehove

I don't believe Muhammad was the seal of the prophets. I would be a pretty heretical Muslim. Even for the liberal ones I follow. lol.

Why don't you believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the seal of the Prophet???

[marketandchurch]

Deuteronomy declares that men who rape women should marry them, and the Quran promotes men marrying multiple wives, but not women marrying multiple men. How are we to understand these apparent injustices? Here is my answer:

http://mercyandmessiah.blogspot.ca/2013 ... bible.html

Well, the term translated as 'rape' that is used in Deuteronomy is not neccesarily mean rape. There is some ambiguity about the term.. and COULD mean what we would call 'statutory rape'. A woman in that position can refuse to marry the man, but the man can not refuse to marry the woman. It's still a little barbaric, but not nearly as much as it being forcible rape.

Absolutely. And it gets even better then that. If she's a married woman, or an engaged women, he is immediately put to death. If she is unwed, he is forced to pay double the price of virginity, and is never allowed to divorce her. Ever.

No where else in the world do they not only offer the above mentioned to the raped girl, but, no where else in the world was a raped woman's dignity and worth FULLY restored following a rape. It states this explicitly in Deuteronomy, when it says you will do nothing of her. 

It was a tremendous price for a man to pay... you're forced to marry what may have been a spur-of-the-moment decision, and you are never allowed to divorce?

If there is any suspicion of rape, she is always given the benefit of the doubt. Fifty shekels of silver is also a lot of coin in those days for the price of virginity, ESPECIALLY if she then choses NOT to marry you.

I personally can't imagine a women who was raped then wanted to marry her rapist, unless it was pre-maritial sex, were caught, and thought that marriage was an easier way out of things. Though whatever it was, rape or pre-marital sex, she is fully absolved of the deed, her father's house enriched, and he is fully liable for an outcome that is not in his control… and if she's really desperate, or has a change of heart towards her rapist, as in he comes from a very wealthy family, she owns his fate.

 She is his wife... which was even more important later on in Israeli life when polygamy was fully fazed out as a possible, morally viable option.

Woman needed to be married off, it was a different social arrangement and she needed children to have worth in society because that then ties her back to her husbands family if anything ever happened to him in battle. Marriage was what happened, its what men and women did, its not like she had a career waiting for her or other extra curricular hobbies to keep her preoccupied. It was your societal duty to marry, have children, etc. The only option for most women throughout history was marriage, most often it was not based on who you were in love with but who had property, who was very skilled and/or had high social value, and other criteria that could then better her standing in life and in her society. 


A woman obviously never chooses to get raped, but what is also never mentioned is the devaluation she undergoes by society for being a raped person, and this is most of the world in 2013, from Africa to Asia to South America, and the MIddle East, and even here in the US. Raped = used, no benefit of the doubt given, and you are ruined. You live with the horror of it, and if you go public, there are far worse societal reactions that are not in your benefit. They did not have DNA testing back then, but the fact that they gave a potentially raped woman the benefit of the doubt while protecting her dignity, and making men responsible and accountable for their actions…, this was a revolution in human history. So it is only barbaric when you hold it up against what is ideal, in the western world, in 2013. Compared to the rest of humanity, at this point in time, and compared to the majority of human history, this is not barbaric at all, but an advancement in Women's Rights, the only kind known in the ancient world.

Deuteronomy 22:23-25, when read under the proper context, also reaffirms the torah's ongoing defense of women, their dignity, and their rights.

[Iam]

[Replying to post 27 by marketandchurch]

When will you two be publishing your translation of the bible, after all even though you believe the bible, when someone brings up any of the many amoral passages, you then run off and believe a different interpretation. I suggest you OFFICIALLY writ your own and it will say what you think it should say. It may cause some dificulty's when you have to make up apologetics for your own book.

[marketandchurch]

[Replying to post 27 by marketandchurch]

When will you two be publishing your translation of the bible, after all even though you believe the bible, when someone brings up any of the many amoral passages, you then run off and believe a different interpretation. I suggest you OFFICIALLY writ your own and it will say what you think it should say. It may cause some dificulty's when you have to make up apologetics for your own book.

Iam, we are just summarizing the tradition and the scholarship of the tradition. For example, all of my opinions on Genesis are largely the work of scholars Gunthar Plaut, Nahum Sarna, and the rabbinic traditions as they've interpreted it over the ages. Of course, I take into account Rashi and Rambam interpretations of the text, but I cannot just settle for their midevil coloring of the text. If you want a crash course on the opinions I write, I highly suggest Christine Hayes free course from Yale University:



The best way to go is Commentaries. This site lists some of the most popular christian & Jewish commentaries available. I've found it incredibly helpful to read scholarly interpretations of the text, & read several of them side by side, for comparison. In any event, here's the list for the book of Genesis. I personally wouldn't go with a book simply because it's ranked higher, but rather, do a little research on the author, read some of his web-available essays, and if you like him, then get the commentary he writes.

http://bestcommentaries.com/genesis/

[Goat]

[Replying to post 27 by marketandchurch]

When will you two be publishing your translation of the bible, after all even though you believe the bible, when someone brings up any of the many amoral passages, you then run off and believe a different interpretation. I suggest you OFFICIALLY writ your own and it will say what you think it should say. It may cause some dificulty's when you have to make up apologetics for your own book.

This is not unknown. I suggest you borrow the Jewish Study Bible, published by the Jewish publication society. where there is commentary about the original Hebrew along side the passages. Now, the commentary on that passage is that with our current understanding of the Hebrew, it's ambiguous. There are terms that definitely mean rape, and there are terms that definitely do not mean rape, but in the case of this passage, the Hebrew is ambiguous..