The Quran explicitly, directly states that what Yahweh revealed to Moses about morality is correct. In Surah 2:53 it says "Remember when We gave Moses the Scripture, and the means to distinguish [right and wrong], so that you might be guided." By extension, this means that within Islamic theology the Quran would have to be a continuation of the revelation from Yahweh/Allah, or otherwise it disagrees with the Old Testament writings that it itself says teach righteousness. But this is quite untrue. Just one disparity between the Old Testament and the Quran--just a single contradiction--and the Quran cannot be true, irrespective of the veracity of the Old Testament. And I will indeed show a disparity. There are more, of course, but I only need one to disqualify the entire basis for Muslim theology.
Let's compare the Biblical and Quranic punishments for theft:
Exodus 22:1-4, 7--"'If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing left, he must be sold to pay for his theft . . . If a man gives his neighbor silver or goods for safekeeping and they are stolen from the neighbor's house, the thief, if he is caught, must pay back double."
Surah 5:38--"Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are man or woman, in return for what they have done--a deterrent from God: God has the power to decide."
So, there you have it. While the Bible prescribes as the penalties for theft either 1) monetary restitution of a certain ratio to the victims or 2) temporary servitude to pay off debts if the thief cannot make restitution (lasting up to a maximum of six full years; see Exodus 21:2-3), the Quran prescribes the amputation of a thief's hand. Both punishments cannot be just at the same time; if restitution or servitude is just then cutting off a thief's hand is unjust, and if cutting off a thief's hand is just then financial restitution and servitude are unjust. For one penalty to be just, all different penalties must be intrinsically unjust. Conflicting claims about justice cannot be simultaneously true.
The Bible does prescribe amputation of a hand if a woman grabs a man's penis in a fight (Deuteronomy 25:11-12; by logical extension a man assaulting a woman similarly deserves the same punishment) and if someone, either a man or woman, cuts off the hand of another person in a criminal assault (Exodus 21:23-25). Some Muslims might think that it is hypocritical for Christians to object to the Quran demanding amputation when the Bible demands it for two other crimes. Sound Christian theologians, though, are not objecting that cutting off a hand is universally unjust in criminal punishments, as that would indeed deny what the Bible so clearly teaches, but they are instead pointing out that the Quran's punishment for theft contradicts the very Old Testament that the Quran claims to be consistent with!
The Quran claims to be a continuation of the divine revelation in the Old Testament, yet it contradicts Mosaic Law. This means that, whether or not the Bible is true, the Quran cannot be true. If the Bible is false then the Quran, which claims that the Old Testament is true, cannot be true, and if the Bible is true then the Quran, which claims the Old Testament is true and yet contradicts it, cannot be true.
The Quran. Mohammed. Trans. Haleem, M.A.S. Abdel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment