Difference in the historical information of different scripture?

Feb 2019
70
Chicago
#11
The Quran is the protected word of God, the the beating a women verse, if you go to the Arabic word, there are many things it can translate into, daraba - set an example, or to seperate are a few examples. Humanity's lack of understanding and knowledge cannot be used as an mistake with scripture, albeit in some cases that can be true.
Thank you for your perspective. I am open to better interpretations but the interpretation of Quran by Yousuf Ali which was recognized by the Saudi Government as most authentic translates the word as beating. Additionally Karen Amstrong whose research works on Islam and Quran have been well received in the Islamic world stated that Mohammed approved wife beating for historical reasons. Apparently women were considered man's property in the 7th century Arabia and Mohammed couldn't reform the practice of wife beating overnight. He needed men to fight wars and he sensed they would rebel against him if he asked them to give up rights over women - their property. This is according to Karen Amstrong in one of her books. Which is why I was saying the scriptures can be corrupted for various reasons. In 2016, the Council of Islamic Ideology proposed a bill - ironically named the Protection of Women against Violence Act - that actually included exceptions for "lightly beating" defiant wives. (source) . Why would God turn Jews in to apes for not practicing the Sabbath while so many Muslims get away without saying the daily obligatory prayers 5 times a day. How much of made up stuff in the Quran is really protected by God. When, where and how many Jews became apes. Details please.
 
Sep 2018
70
usa
#12
I actually did a bit of a talk about Pharaoh's daughter in my study group.

The Bible had mentioned a similar conundrum of calling her the daughter while the Qur'an calls her the wife. I don't believe the scriptures conflict each other generally (I can name a few exceptions but usually not)
So...
My solution is, why not both? Pharaohs had a lot of incest. Sorry to lead it down that road but it's true. Marrying their own daughters wasn't super uncommon.
As to Mozahem... Do you have a verse that mentions his name? I can only seem to find it in commentary and do not remember ever coming across it in my studies.
where did the 'bint muzahim' originated from?
 
Feb 2019
70
Chicago
#13
thanks Larry, Venu, and Yousefy.
My question is not about why Abdul Baha chose Exudes over Quran; I do not know, maybe He was talking to Jews. Also, I do not know about the "laws" in Quran or Bible which look , at least with our modern standards, unaccepted.
What is interesting for me is only how/why the "historic account" in two scripture differ. I would be glad to know the answer.
Historic accounts can differ for any number of reasons - the most important one being lack of authentic historical records. In many such cases it would up to the individual to make up their mind. The four gospels of the Bible state that Jesus was crucified and then resurrected himself after 3 days. But the Quran says Jesus was not crucified but someone else was in his place. So Quran also rules out the resurrection of Jesus. In this case, I trust the testimony of the disciples of Jesus because they had no reason to spread false stories and they evolved to become saintly souls. They were certainly not hallucinating. Jesus himself said on an earlier occasion when the Jews wanted him to prove his divinity that if they were to destroy his bodily temple, he would build it back in 3 days. Mohammed did not personally write the Quran. He was illiterate. He received the verses from Allah and recited them to his followers and made them memorize the verses. But the followers would also fight wars for him and sometimes they would get killed. And the new converts weren't memorizing the Quran exactly as Mohammed wanted them to. These challenges created multiple versions of the Quran and led the Caliph to pick one and destroy the rest. That's how we ended up with the current version of the Quran and so I don't subscribe to the notion that every verse of the Quran came from God. There are a lot of questionable verses in the Quran especially with the heaven having wine and virgins. What use would the soul of a dead Muslim man have for wine and virgins in heaven when his dead body lies on Earth. I would think one would need a body to make use of wine and Virgins.
 
Mar 2015
216
Bend area, Oregon
#14
Considering the scriptures of the holy Books of the world, there are some who take the literal road to understanding, some who take the path of symbolism and metaphor, and some who take the middle way.

Best to all in their approach toward better understandings.

-LR
 
Feb 2019
70
Chicago
#15
I will be happy if anyone can offer esoteric interpretations of the following Quran verses

And besides them will be chaste women, restraining their glances, with big eyes (of wonder and beauty). - Quran 37:48

They will recline (with ease) on Thrones (of dignity) arranged in ranks; and We shall join them to Companions, with beautiful big and lustrous eyes. - Quran 52:20

"And (there are) fair ones with wide, lovely eyes,-" - Quran 56:22

"And voluptuous women of equal age;" - Quran 78:33

"In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched;-" - Quran 55:56

"Companions restrained (as to their glances), in (goodly) pavilions;- Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?- Whom no man or Jinn before them has touched;-" - Quran 55:72-74

"Then We have made them virgins" - Quran 56:36

While I am open to esoteric interpretations of these verses, I am also willing to consider the cultural influences on people that shape their imagination of heaven. In the 7th century Arab culture, when one tribe would win a battle against another, the victors would take women from the enemy camp as sex slaves. This custom finds acceptance in the Quran at multiple places and muslims have practiced it all over the world where they fought jihad. The Quran euphemistically calls these sex slaves as "those whom your right hands possess". Quite clearly any civilized society would not treat women this way. We are looking at men that had no control over their sex drives and if we read the Hadiths, it becomes very clear how desperate these men for sex. I suspect the 7th century Arab culture had much to do with the Quran's description of the heaven's maidens. There is no evidence to suggest that Jesus or Buddha ever taught about people going to heaven and enjoying sense pleasures there. On the contrary they trained their inner circle of disciples if not everyone to practice complete celibacy which greatly helps in rapid spiritual progress so the soul can be reunited with God. Can someone point me to the Quran verses where the goal of human life is described as knowing God or reuniting with God which is what the world major religions teach. That's the core of any true religion.

O SON OF BEING! Thy Paradise is My love; thy heavenly home, reunion with Me. Enter therein and tarry not. This is that which hath been destined for thee in Our kingdom above and Our exalted dominion. - Bahaullah
 
Feb 2019
70
Chicago
#16
The Quran is the protected word of God.......
Some of the challenges that early Muslims including the first Caliphs had in preserving the authenticity of Allah's divine revelations are well documented here with good historical references: History of the Quran - Wikipedia

Given this information and the questionable verses in the Quran, there is just no way a rational person like myself would accept that every word in the Quran came from God. Of course, most muslims would disagree with me but not one of them will be able to explain how a soul without a physical body will enjoy the pleasures of wine and virgins in the Quran's version of heaven. I can show you many Hadiths and other commentary from Islamic scholars detailing explicit sexual acts between the muslim men that supposedly will go to heaven (after death on earth) and the heavenly virgins. How on earth did they follow the teachings of Quran and end up with an utter inability to think rationally? Isn't a religion supposed to improve one's intellect?
 
Sep 2010
4,461
Normanton Far North Queensland
#17
Given this information and the questionable verses in the Quran, there is just no way a rational person like myself would accept that every word in the Quran came from God.
From a Baha'i perspective there is no doubt as to the authenticity of the quran; These are lengthy quotes, but I post them to show, that as a Baha'i we do not have to doubt, we just have to unravel the secrets enshrined within.

"...the Qur'án was an impregnable stronghold unto the people of Muhammad. In His days, whosoever entered therein, was shielded from the devilish assaults, the menacing darts, the soul-devouring doubts, and blasphemous whisperings of the enemy. Upon him was also bestowed a portion of the everlasting and goodly fruits — the fruits of wisdom, from the divine Tree. To him was given to drink the incorruptible waters of the river of knowledge, and to taste the wine of the mysteries of divine Unity.

"All the things that people required in connection with the Revelation of Muhammad and His laws were to be found revealed and manifest in that Ridván of resplendent glory. That Book constitutes an abiding testimony to its people after Muhammad, inasmuch as its decrees are indisputable, and its promise unfailing. All have been enjoined to follow the precepts of that Book until "the year sixty"1 — the year of the advent of God's wondrous Manifestation. That Book is the Book which unfailingly leadeth the seeker unto the Ridván of the divine Presence, and causeth him that hath forsaken his country and is treading the seeker's path to enter the Tabernacle of everlasting reunion. Its guidance can never err, its testimony no other testimony can excel. All other traditions, all other books and records, are bereft of such distinction, inasmuch as both the traditions and they that have spoken them are confirmed and proven solely by the text of that Book. Moreover, the traditions themselves grievously differ, and their obscurities are manifold.

"Muhammad, Himself, as the end of His mission drew nigh, spoke these words: "Verily, I leave amongst you My twin weighty testimonies: The Book of God and My Family." Although many traditions had been revealed by that Source of Prophethood and Mine of divine Guidance, yet He mentioned only that Book, thereby appointing it as the mightiest instrument and surest testimony for the seekers; a guide for the people until the Day of Resurrection."

(Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Íqán, pars. 220-222)
"Consider, how He hath appointed and decreed this self-same Book, the Qur'án, as a guidance unto all that are in heaven and on earth. He, the divine Being, and unknowable Essence, hath, Himself, testified that this Book is, beyond all doubt and uncertainty, the guide of all mankind until the Day of Resurrection. And now, We ask, is it fair for this people to view with doubt and misgiving this most weighty Testimony, the divine origin of which God hath proclaimed, and pronounced it to be the embodiment of truth? Is it fair for them to turn away from the thing which He hath appointed as the supreme Instrument of guidance for attainment unto the loftiest summits of knowledge, and to seek aught else but that Book? How can they allow men's absurd and foolish sayings to sow the seeds of distrust in their minds? How can they any longer idly contend that a certain person hath spoken this or that way, or that a certain thing did not come to pass? Had there been anything conceivable besides the Book of God which could prove a more potent instrument and a surer guide to mankind, would He have failed to reveal it in that verse?

"It is incumbent upon us not to depart from God's irresistible injunction and fixed decree, as revealed in the above-mentioned verse. We should acknowledge the holy and wondrous Scriptures, for failing to do this we have failed to acknowledge the truth of this blessed verse. For it is evident that whoso hath failed to acknowledge the truth of the Qur'án hath in reality failed to acknowledge the truth of the preceding Scriptures. This is but the manifest implication of the verse. Were We to expound its inner meanings and unfold its hidden mysteries, eternity would never suffice to exhaust their import, nor would the universe be capable of hearing them! God verily testifieth to the truth of Our saying!"

(Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Íqán, pars. 224-225)
"...the unfailing testimony of God to both the East and the West is none other than the Qur'án. Were it beyond the comprehension of men, how could it have been declared as a universal testimony unto all people?"

(Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Íqán, par. 232)

Regards Tony
 
Aug 2014
1,368
Blue Planet
#18
thanks for everyone's comments and I very much enjoyed reading your idea, @Saveyist .
Where did I read about Mozahem, Bithiah's father? well, it was mentioned in WikiPedia. After you asked, I looked for the exact source and found out it is mentioned in a few Islamic books of the past, and even Muslims have still debates considering whose daughter Bithiah has been. so yes, It could well be an insect case; being both Pharaoh's daughter and his wife.
I also discovered that in Quran the name is never mentioned, and in the story of Moses, Quran has referred to Bithiah only as "Pharaoh's wife".
 
Aug 2014
1,368
Blue Planet
#19
n how a soul without a physical body will enjoy the pleasures of wine and virgins in the Quran's version of heaven?
I think the kind of metaphors and symbols in Quran has just been the kind of stuff people in that special part of the world on those times needed. They had to be encouraged in some way to do good. and then later on, when they reached the stage in which they could understand better, God explained the symbolisms in Baha'i Scripture.
 
Jun 2014
1,061
Wisconsin
#20
I was now reading some lines by Abdul Baha in which He is discussing the matter of equality of men and women (sorry I cannot provide the exact quote because I was reading the Persian Version خطابات جلد 2 ص 134). There, He brings examples of some specially great women in history; He mentions Christ's mother, Mary Magdalena, AND Bithiah "daughter" of Pharaoh. That was so weird and new to me, because in Quran, Bithiah is mentioned to be Pharaoh's wife, and the daughter of Mozahem. This is the woman who later on caught moses from water and kept Him in the palace. Then I searched more and saw that in the Book of Exodus, the same Bithiah who saves Moses, is Pharaoh's daughter rather than his wife, and there is no mention of any man named "Mozahem".

Apart from the fact that Abdul Baha has chosen the Exodus version over Quran's version of the story, I wonder how a historical fact can be mentioned so differently in two scripture? How can, in one book, Bithiah be the daughter of Mozahem and in another one the daughter of Pharaoh?

I would be glad to know your explanations.
To answer the specific topic of this thread (there's a lot of deviation from the original topic going on. :p

Maryamr, I think I have this figured out:

Bithiah is mentioned in the Bible and other Jewish sources as the daughter of Pharaoh, and is also apparently mentioned by 'Abdu'l-Baha as the daughter of the Pharaoh.

The Quran mentions Pharaohs wife, but the name I see given in Islamic sources is Asiya and it is she who is said to be Muzahim's daughter.

I can't find a single source in which these two people are equated as one person. Am I missing something?? If so please let me know.

So from what I can tell this is how it all is laid out:

egypt.png

(Also as Saveyist pointed out, there's a very strong chance Pharaoh and Asiya would probably have been blood related. Likely siblings or close cousins...)

the interpretation of Quran by Yousuf Ali which was recognized by the Saudi Government as most authentic translates the word as beating.
I do think the word there is beating, but I won't go into that much right now as I think that really deserves it's own thread on the subject, rather than muddling this thread with two topics.

But I'd like address your choice of Quranic translation... Personally I prefer Sahih International, but I use a few others to cross-reference because I've not found a single translation I think is 100% perfect (such a thing likely does not exist).

However Yousuf Ali is specifically the worst translation of the Quran I have ever seen in my life. In one part of the translation it discusses the topic of a man committing adultery with a woman. It is worded as "two people" committing the act, but (because Arabic is a gender-neutral language) Yousuf Ali translate-mangles "two people" into "two men", despite the fact that the entire verse was meant to talk about adultery between man and woman, thus the translation confuses the entire verse. So I strongly advise against using that translation whenever I see it cited. :p It's just one of the worst ones out there.

As for the topic of the translation's endorsement... I personally wouldn't put much stake into the endorsement of the regime that is actively trying to transform Islam as a whole into extreme fundamentalism and regularly funds the most radical and terroristic sects of the religion. To me "recognized by the Saudis" should be a phrase that calls that thing into question, it shouldn't be a phrase that confirms quality.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads