Does The Holy Qur'an (Koran) need to a 'New Testament'?

Great Debates
1

The ousted conservative Australian prime minister and staunch U.S. military ally, Tony Abbott, recently wrote that Islam required a “reformation”:

The Australian

Anyone who has ever taken even a cursory glance at the Qur’an, will attest to some the bellicose and barbarous passages it contains –

“As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.” (Sûrah 3:56)

Now, suffice it to say, much of these ‘less-than-savoury’ edicts are meant to be taken in the broader context of the dogma being preached. However, it is also abundantly clear that those who are already susceptible to anti-social behaviour or are, frankly, non compus mentis, will certainly cherry-pick such text in order to buttress whatever their particular bent may be. Which, of course, is to say nothing of the so-called ‘scholars’ who usurp the Islamic scripture and use their eisegesic bastardisation of it as a tool for recruitment of the gullible and vulnerable.

Paradoxically, Islam’s enduring strength does indeed lie in its undiluted and intractable nature. But this resilience through obstinance also serves as its Achilles’s heal – its ingravescent incompatibility with modernity. Something that has been borne out, often egregiously; from he fall of the Ottoman Empire, to this day.

As such, my contention is that Moslems should embark on a said “reformation” of the religion – specifically: re-writing the Qur’an such that it more reflects modern, “moderate” thinking and can be reconciled with a global world. So that its words are less open to fundamentalist interpretation / molestation and that a clear distinction can be made between real Islam and the diabolical diction the likes of “Daesh” promulgate.

“Not all Moslems are terrorists” and “That’s not Islam” are examples of insultingly obvious - to both Moslems and non Moslems alike - dismissals of the core issue of a religious dogma whose ‘raw’ interpretation is given to extremist abuse. Until this ‘pig in the mosque’ is addressed (and redressed), no compromise between religion and secular, civil society can ever truly be arrived at.

Attacking the “terrorists” is merely triaging the wound – the symptom. Religion is the cause and must be confronted accordingly.

2

I’d say superstition needs to be recognized as such. But failing that modifying the text might be a good idea in theory but the memes that make up Islam appear robust.

3

This should be fun.

(And, yes, you’re correct that the Islamic world needs to accept secular tolerance. 'Round these parts, that makes you a bigot. Hope you’re ready for it.)

4

Having a New Testament didn’t help Christianity much.

5

Cite?

6

Any religious dogma has some “raw” interpretation that lends itself to extremist abuse. Look at all the violence Christians have managed to justify using language in the New Testament about Jesus “scourging” the moneychangers from the Temple and “bringing not peace but a sword”, etc., not to mention all the saber-rattling in the Book of Revelation.

Despite what Stringbean claims, everybody around these parts in fact agrees that the Islamic world needs to accept secular tolerance. Advocating secular tolerance is not the same thing as being a bigot against Islam, although the two positions do sometimes go together.

7

This. For most of history, people claiming to be inspired by Christianity were conspicuously more aggressive and violent towards those practising Islam than vice versa. Right now it may be other way around, but I don’t think that tells us anything very profound about the nature of Islam.

Sure, there are violent passsages in the Qu’ran but, then, there are violent passages in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. And, yes, there are also more benign passages in the Judeo-Christian scriptures (and not just in the New Testament) but, equally, there are benign passages in the Qu’ran.

If Abbot thinks that people fight because of words in a book, then he’s even stupider than I have thought up to now. People fight for land, for oil, for other resources, for wealth, for power - to assert power over others, or to escape power asserted over themselves. They fight for largely material considerations. They may explain their actions in terms of (religious or non-religious) philosophies, but their cause is basically a material one. Adding to their scriptures or other revered writings is not going to change anything fundamental about the dynamics that lead to violence.

8

:dubious: If you think that the Christian New Testament is somehow exempt from “bellicose and barbarous” threats about what the Deity plans to do to unbelievers, I’ve got some bad news for you.

To take just a few examples:

9

It looks to me like you’re mixing your metaphors, or something. If Islam requires a reformation, wouldn’t that mean they need a “95 theses” rather than a “New Testament”?

10

Also, the idea that the Protestant Reformation somehow “tamed” Christianity is itself pretty suspect. Almost exactly a century after Luther nailed his theses to the door of the church, Europe was gripped by one of the longest (to this day) and bloodiest (until WWI) military conflicts in its history: The Thirty Years War. It could be argued that that conflict is what finally bled Europe of its taste for religious schism, but if the answer to Islamic extremism is decades of merciless slaughter between two largely identical religious factions… well, they seem to be handling that one pretty well on their own already.

11

How about a Bill of Rights instead?
Muslim Reform Movement declaration press conference:YouTube.

Muslim Reform Movement decries radical Islam, calls for equality:

The declaration:

12

Isn’t the Koran already a new Testament?

13

These are more or less afterlife penalties. Head to John’s Revelation if you want more of that.

But the Qur’an has a number of references which suggest a more immediate, earthly visitation of wrath upon those opposed to Islam–and not from the almighty according to his methods, but from Islamic believers as they are able to kill:

Sura 2: 191:
وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُم مِّنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ وَلاَ تُقَاتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَاتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ كَذَلِكَ جَزَاء الْكَافِرِي

(Ali):
“And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.”

The other issue is that Qur’an is treated as a plenary verbal dictation from Allah. New Testament believers would have a little more leeway in the interpretation of passages written by observers (although some conservative Christian sects also accept a plenary verbal dictation of the New Testament). This makes it a little more tough to create a New Testament of the Qur’an because it would be at direct odds with Allah’s voice versus direct odds with secondary recorders as with the Old Testament (and check out the book of Joshua if you are looking for OT atrocities committed against pagans in the name of the Lord).

Almost any religious scholar within any religion finds wiggle room for nuttier statements interpreted in the light of modern values. In the above passage from the Qur’an, for example, I believe one softer interpretation creates a context of specific defense versus simply sallying forth to kill Kafirs.

Still, Islam in general has more weasling to do with passages from the Qur’an than those clinging to the New Testament. Neither scripture seems to have been particularly effective in preventing the masses from doing what they damn well please in the name of their scriptures. :slight_smile:

14

Protip: Anytime you read a passage that starts with “And”, before you get all bent out of shape and think that X religion is evil, you need to ask yourself: What came before the “and”?

15

Sura 2:190: Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
Yeah, that’s really cheerful. I get the idea of not crossing certain lines even if your opponents do, but I’m curious if me just being a Jewish atheist is transgressive in and of itself.
Anyway, not to single out Islam - all religions should be reformed into insignificance, preferably nonexistence.

16

Surely the problem is wahabbism/salifism - not only is the Koran the word of God, but all interpretation has to be done in the mindset of a 7th century Meccan.

17

Oh and tony abbott - WTF australia? Does Oz have a nasty reactionary caste that doesnt travel?

18

That is an unfounded and wholly unjustified accusation! :mad:

Some of them travel quite a bit.

19

One of the problems on here people tend to comment from the papers not from knowledge so it is good to see that you have read the Quran. The problem with the Quran is that it has become lost and rewritten from memory at least three times so we do not have any original material to check it against, so yes Islam does need a messenger from God to reform what is being taught (as Jesus reformed the teachings of the Old Testament. It is also important to read about Sharia Law

20

Amen I admire your courage and understand the massive step that you have taken in making this stand I pray that the God of Abraham sends angels to protect you

Tobias Malachi