-10

There is a lot of debate on this question. Many historians believe Quran does give a picture to the life of Christ. Quran and Islam recognizes Christ as the mighty prophet and revere him in the six articles of faith of Islam.

With this in mind, can the Quran be used as an authoritative source on the life of Christ in answers on this site?

To further this, and ask the likewise question, should the Bible be considered authoritative on the life of Christ in this site? Or should secondary sources be used where history is concerned? and which secondary sources are considered to be authoritative about the life of Christ?

| |
  • 4
    this is a specifically referenced discussion from chat and is being asked here for the specific purpose of resolving a discussion there. the community will be given the opportunity to comment and come to a conclusive answer. – wax eagle Mar 6 '13 at 19:09
  • "Mark 3:11 And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.” 3:12 But he sternly ordered them not to make him known." I am not saying so about Quran, but we need to know where to draw the line . By the way if I am not mistaken this view is similar to freemasonry view – Seek forgiveness Mar 9 '13 at 7:48
12

It seems like the crux of the matter isn't whether or not a source is considered authoritative, but rather for whom.

Nicene Christians (the vast majority of us) consider the 66 - 73 books of Scripture to be canonical, and nothing else. Gnostic Gospels, the Book of Mormon, and the Qu'ran just simply aren't for Nicene Christians.

If the questioner wants a "mainstream" perspective, these sources wouldn't fit that bill.

If the questioner wants a Mormon perspective, it will be called out as such, and identified as such.

If the questioner wants a Gnostic perspective, ditto.

And, if the questioner wants to know what Muslims think, it should be identified as Muslim. Grant you, I'd start thinking that it was off topic for Christianity and on topic for Islam.SE, but if we simply stick with IDENTIFY THE TRADITION YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT, the question answers itself.

| |
  • 4
    Exactly. If our questions are properly scoped, we don't have a problem. This is a better answer than my own. – Jon Ericson Mar 6 '13 at 20:48
  • 3
    You illuminate the real issue. Someone says "I want the muslim perspective ..." on C.SE. How is that possibly on topic here? I just don't see how it could be unless there is a publicly identified group that called themselves Christians AND calls the Quran scripture. I cannot find any. – fгedsbend Mar 6 '13 at 23:28
5

My first instinct is to say no since the Qu'ran is clearly derivative of the Christian account of Jesus. I would be very skeptical of an answer on History.SE that used the Qu'ran as a source for the life of Jesus.

My second instinct is to say maybe. I'm sure there are Christians out there who consider the Qu'ran to be on equal footing with the New Testament. If an answer came from one of those viewpoints, I'd still be skeptical, but I might upvote it anyway.

My third instinct is to ask "Why do you ask?" Frankly, you seem to have a very specific agenda to evangelize proselytize perform Da‘wah on the Stack Exchange network. If you plan on quoting the Qu'ran for that purpose and not so that you can learn about Christianity, then please reconsider.

This is a site for learning about Christianity. If an answer (any answer) fails to support that goal, it ought to be deleted even if it "follows the rules".

| |
  • -1 please read the chatroom discussions , you have only made baseless claims – JesusBoughtIslam Mar 6 '13 at 19:48
  • So to ask in clarification, you support the use of referring to the Quran if it references the life of Christ, specifically? – jcolebrand Mar 6 '13 at 20:39
  • 2
    @jcolebrand: If some group (I don't know which, if any) calls itself Christian and considers the Qu'ran on equal footing to the New Testament as an authority for determining doctrine, than answers from that Christian perspective could use the Qu'ran for any question. But you'd really need to document your sources to pull that trick off. As in, quoting an official document that supports the claim and providing a public link to it. This is clearly fringe territory, so the bar is going to be a bit higher than someone using the New Testament. – Jon Ericson Mar 6 '13 at 20:43
  • 1
    @jcolebrand: By the way, this is one of the reasons I think our questions need to be tightly scoped to particular Christian traditions. We avoid a lot of confusion that way. – Jon Ericson Mar 6 '13 at 20:45
  • Aye, I'm down with that. I was the one that prompted this question be asked on meta to settle a chat dispute, so I felt I would ask for clarity since I wasn't 100% on your answer. – jcolebrand Mar 6 '13 at 22:03
5

My inclination to use the Quran as a source for the historical life of Christ is to equate it with the Gnostic gospels.

Most historians agree that the Gnostic gospels were written centuries after the events they claim to be about. I am not familiar with the Quran, but if it also says something about the historical life of Jesus (not just sayings or parables) then it is in the same category. It was written centuries after the events it claims to be about. Therefore, by general principles of historicity, it is less reliable than a book written nearer to the time frame of its reported events.

So, because only a very small portion of historians consider any of Gnostic gospels for an accurate account of the life of Jesus, primarily because of their estimated written date, the Quran may be treated as a Gnostic gospel in regards to using it as an historical source for the life of Jesus. In contrast, the four gospels that are canonized (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are generally accepted to be between 20 and 200 years of the events they claim happened. Some historians say more some less, but that is another argument, regardless, a manuscript from only 200 years after the events it claims is pretty good in terms of historicity, considering other manuscripts generally taken as fact.

I don't know if this is discussed else where on the meta site here, but I have observed that the Gnostic gospels are only welcome in an answer if they were specifically requested by the asker. I would assume the same for the Quran in light of my reasoning above.

| |
  • I suppose the Book of Mormon has this problem too then. But we allow that one, usually when requested, because Mormons call themselves Christians when Muslims do not (at least I have never heard one do that). – fгedsbend Mar 6 '13 at 20:29
2

It can on Islam.se. But here, where Christian perspectives are expected, no.

The Quaran is not recognized as authoritative in Christianity. This is a site for teaching what Christianity (or some subset of Christianity) teaches on a subject.

Unless you can find a Christian denomination that holds that the Quran is authoritative, it is not considered as such within the scope of this site.

| |
-11

It has been verified by the Christian moderator of History.SE that the new testament is not an authoritative record on the real life of Jesus. Hence one should not be so restrictive due to the reasons mentioned below:


Muslims are also significant believers in Christ and an entire Quranic Chapter is devoted to Mary and he is awaiting second coming in Islam. To a neutral community manager at SE no one should claim his or her own traditions are authentic. Rather all major scriptures should be allowed to be quoted on this site. More ever Muslims understand the Quran to be a explainer of the Gospel as it clarifies and corrects many of the unclear things in the Gospels. This also allows people to interpret one major scripture with another which should be perfectly fine.

Some one claimed that since the bible is older then it is more authentic , It is a fallacious claim as one can have incorrectness even if it is old.

Islam is as significant faith as Christendom and it supersedes past scriptures fulfilling it and confirming it rather then rejecting it. Hence one needs to be more accomodative on who is to be considered as Christian , even if they themselves dont call themselves christians but believe in the traditions of Jesus Christ. Infact even if Jesus would come to earth(as is prophesied) his views wont be acceptable on Christianity.SE because he never claimed to be "Christian" and surely wont call himself "Christian" when he comes and what he will preach wont come from Catholic\Protestant\Jehova...... Gospel.

Summarizing : Allow Muslims to Quote Quran to interpret Biblical verses

| |
  • 1
    This is not an issue of Christians claiming authority over anything, this is an issue of the Qur'an NOT claiming to be representative of Christianity. This site is less about absolute truth than it is about various flavors of Christianity (some of which I believe are heretical, others true). Islam does not have a place among those flavors because it does not make a claim to be Christian, nor does it claim that it's holy book is representative of Christianity. – Caleb Mar 6 '13 at 22:23
  • 2
    Said another way, this is not Jesus.SE or even History.SE, this is Christianity.SE. Whatever claim the Qur'an has on Jesus belongs on Islam.SE by virtue of the fact that that is the the site which represents the group that believes it to be a text with normative implications for its beliefs. Christianity.SE represents a group which does not. – Caleb Mar 6 '13 at 22:27
  • The New Testament canonical books are more 'authentic' to a secular historian. One rule on history accounts is that manuscripts dated closer to the events receive more credibility, albeit subjective. This has nothing to do with religion at all, in fact, and this old axiom does not consider, nor ever intends to consider, God or a prophet writing 'holy' scripture. – fгedsbend Mar 6 '13 at 22:46
  • 5
    If you want to argue that the Quran is doctrinally authoritative to certain Christians you need to prove any such publicly identified group exists first. Is there any sect of Christianity that call themselves christian and take the Quran as scripture? Is there a state or country somewhere that has this christian group listed as an official religion that is practiced by some of its citizens? If you cannot answer these questions then you may only quote the Quran on this site if it is asked. Otherwise, it is unwelcome. – fгedsbend Mar 6 '13 at 22:48
  • You didn't ask, but here's my argument against the Qu'ran's account of the death of Jesus: Easter as a historical event. – Jon Ericson Mar 6 '13 at 22:50
  • @Caleb Your argument has been answered :even if they(Muslims) themselves dont call themselves christians but believe in the traditions of Jesus Christ. Infact even if Jesus would come to earth(as is prophesied) his views wont be acceptable on Christianity.SE because he never claimed to be "Christian" and surely wont call himself "Christian" when he comes and what he will preach wont come from Catholic\Protestant\Jehova...... Gospel. – JesusBoughtIslam Mar 7 '13 at 4:47
  • e.g: If you have a son in your family and he finds the family corrupt and moves out of it,and hence would claim that he is not your son, will it prevent you from calling him your son? and would it prevent him from talking part in a family discussion? – JesusBoughtIslam Mar 7 '13 at 4:54
  • 2
    Are you actually interested in learning something or just preaching Islam to us? This site is not a platform for preaching, ministering, or otherwise witnessing for your religion. It is about learning about Christianity and its various beliefs. Whether you or anybody else here believes them or not is irrelevant. – fгedsbend Mar 10 '13 at 20:36
  • I am not at all preaching , I am making the learning environment to question all the traditions to better understand Jesus and his life – JesusBoughtIslam Mar 11 '13 at 4:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .