Contrasting the Bible and the Quran

Imagine you are in a cafe - in this case one shall say in San Diego as that is where the author has the most experience in this regard. It is culturally diverse and generates a great deal of attention from the nearby Muslim community as it is located near the Islamic Center of San Diego and caters to just such an audience. Meanwhile, the television is playing a 24-hour news network such as FOX News or CNN and as usually happens it cuts out to a news break at the top of the hour, explaining how a car bomb recently went off in Bangladesh with Islamic militants as the chief suspects.

One person remarks on the violence of Islam - to which another man, fresh from Friday prayer, takes objection.

"You know," he remarks, recalling an internet study he recently looked at, "the Bible has more violent verses in it than the Quran."

At first the Christian is not dismayed, for he too has seen this study. "Yes, but because the Bible has more verses, a higher percentage of the Quran's verses are violent, meaning that the Quran has a higher statistical ratio of violence than the Bible."

The Muslim frowns. "Islam, however, is a religion of peace, as said so in the Quran and by Muhammed the Prophet, peace be upon him."

"What of the Quranic verse that says to cut the unbeliever at the neck?" the Christian asks - easily falling into a rather poor and unresearched debate tactic. Naturally the Muslim responds.

"It is taken out of context," he says.

"How is it taken out of context? What could mitigate that?"

"What could mitigate that?" the Christian asks accusingly.

"Well allow me to ask, what could mitigate, 'When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.'?" the Muslim responds, leaving the Christian with his jaw on the floor and unable to answer. Usually however they will respond, "Well that's the Old Testament, that's different from the New" or any other variant of a failed argument that fundamentally weakens their position.

It is important in many ways to understand one key fundamental difference between the Bible and the Quran. The intent of this article is not to vilify one religion or another but simply to explain the difference between both religions' holy books. In this case, Christians will often, due primarily to a lifetime exposure to the Bible and a limited understanding of Islam, assume that the Bible is fundamentally similar to the Quran. This falls into problems, however, in that the two are speaking in different voices.

This does not necessarily mean that they are both spoken of by different divine sparks, but rather that they are written with different formats in mind.

According to Islamic doctrine, the Quran is the absolute word of God or Allah, the final and absolute instruction from him, sent through Muhammad the Messenger, and to act as a kind of solemn code. In both its intent and reception, it is a direct dialogue between author and reader. In many regards, one can consider it a field manual for life according to Islamic theology - what is written in the Quran is the intent and word of God himself and should be treated as such. It is not a narrative, but rather a demand that one heed to what is inside.

In contrast, the Bible is a collection of stories, narratives, and explanations. The above quote, for example, appears in the book of Deuteronomy - a book attributed to Moses as a historical narrative. Specifically, it is in Chapter Twenty. Whereas the Quran acts as a sole and uncontested commandment, the Bible is usually, and mostly, books explaining events that have happened.

This may seem subtle, but it is an important literary difference. The twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy is an important example of this, because it is often quoted as Christian theology, when it is more appropriately Judeo-Christian history. These words spoken were not end all be all, indefinite commands to be carried out at any point in history, but a specific order given at a time in history. In essence, it would be akin to assuming that America must retain its slavery - because of a dialogue that occurred between Thomas Jefferson and Southern Plantation Owners after the Revolution.

This distinction is often overlooked and therefore remains dangerous - if taken out of context one could easily twist it and manipulate it for their own conniving ends, or likewise it could undo an entire argument because of one's own misunderstanding of the texts they are hoping to appeal to.

Therefore it is important to remember that when dealing with the Quran it is meant to be taken as a dialogue between author and reader - the Bible is often meant to be a collective history of dialogues between its characters that are not necessarily direct commandments.