Has Mohammed misquoted the Bible?

Prompted by a tweet promoting a book called: 'Misquoting Muhammad', I tweeted: 'Mohammed misquoted the Bible in the first place, so what is the problem?'
One dr Aman (@mnaseba) replied: 'where? when? how?'

I decided to answer her by means of a blogpost. The 140 characters of a tweet are not enough to answer her short but excellent questions in the manner they deserve. So here it comes.

Dear dr Aman,
I could just point at the numerous and well known discrepancies between the Bible and the Koran. I will address some points in detail later on but first of all I want to say this:
Pushing all religious notions aside, let us say for the sake of the argument that Mohammed is the author of the Koran.

The Bible (the Old Testament and the New Testament combined) is much older than the Koran. The Koran contains various elements clearly borrowed from the Bible. But they differ sometimes. Mohammed must have misquoted them or the people who have written the Koran years later, from memory, reciting what they have heard from Mohammed himself or from others who heard him saying it, must inadvertently have corrupted the original oral version. Let's go back to the assumption that Mohammed is the author of the Koran; isn't it logical to say that Mohammed misquoted the Bible?

For Christians and Jews the Koran is totally irrelevant. Not so for Muslims and the Bible, the Koran refers to the Bible and they have to explain the differences.

Islamic scholars have a rather strange explanation for these differences. The Jews and the Christians corrupted the Bible.

Why should they have done that? Were they aware of the future content of the Koran and therefore corrupted the Bible with the intention to disqualify the Koran even before it was written? This allegation is really absurd.

Now some discrepancies between the Bible and the Koran:

1. In Sura 3:53 The disciples of Jesus say that they are Muslims. There is no such statement in the New Testament. The word Muslim cannot be found in the Bible.
2. The Koran denies the crucifixion of Jesus (Sura 4: 157). The crucifixion is described in detail in the New Testament. The historian Flavius Josephus mentioned the crucifixion as an historical fact. He also mentions the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist.
3. In Sura 4:172 it is said that the Trinity consists of God, Jesus and Maria. Christian doctrine says that the Holy Trinity consists of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. 1 John 5:7 - 5:8, Matthew 3:16 - 3:17, John 10:30 - 10:36.
4. The birth of John the Baptist, of which Luke writes elaborately in the first chapter of his Gospel, is also mentioned in the Koran, Sura 3:38. Mohammed got it completely wrong here. For instance, the wife of Zacharias is called Elisabeth. Mohammed mixed her up with Maria, the mother of Jesus. Furthermore he adds rather mythical details not mentioned by Luke. Where did he get them from?
5. The Koran claims that Mohammed is the last prophet, Sura 33:41. The Bible doesn't mention a last prophet, on the contrary. Joel 2:28-29, Acts 2:16-18.
6. In Sura 5:117 it is said that Christians worship Maria as a deity. No such thing in the New Testament.

I use a Dutch translation of the Koran. I noticed that the numbering of the verses differs slightly from the English translation.

A final remark about the Koran. Who says the Koran is true? Mohammed does. Who says that Mohammed tells the truth? The Koran. All we have is the supposed revelation of Mohammed. Is there any evidence that Mohammed really had a revelation? In legal terms it is all hearsay.

I wrote this blogpost specially for you, to answer your questions. It is not at all my intention to insult you (assuming you are a Muslim) nor any other Muslim. I just wanted to express myself clearly.

Kind regards,

John Zuyderduyn

Transforming yourself

Be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

I found this icon here

Although the title of this paragraph is a quotation from the Bible, this article is not of a religious nature and can even be read by atheists without giving the slightest offense. The words were written by the Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans (12:2). The idea of renewing the mind can be found in many of Paul's writings. The objective is to change one's thinking for the better. Thinking positively and acquiring a kind and friendly disposition that is what Paul means. (I deliberately omit the religious objectives of Paul, if you are interested you can find them in his writings in the New Testament). In his letter to the Philippians (4:8), he sums it up in these inspiring words: Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things.

What is to be gained by such a renewing of the mind?
Happiness and unhappiness depend on the circumstances you are in, that is true for many people. But is this an absolute truth? Certainly not. It is your reaction to circumstances that makes you either happy or unhappy. If you react without thinking on what is happening around you, then you are governed by circumstances. Controlling your thoughts whatever the circumstances you find yourself in is of the utmost importance. Being in control of your thoughts enables you to make choices. For instance: someone insults you; there are several options open to you. Ignore the insult, answer in a kind manner or give a sharp reply. The first two reactions will probably ease the situation, the latter can lead to a bitter row and before you know it you might be prodded into arguments beyond your control.
The first two reactions are the result of positive thinking, the last one is most likely the result of negative thinking. Which one would you choose?
Positive thinking, as described by Paul in his letter to the Philippians, leads to a calmness of mind enabling you to feel happy even in times of adversity.

How does one renew the mind?
It is not easy to begin with. It requires a kind of spiritual struggle but the rewards are great. It consists of overcoming negative thinking. Every time a negative thought enters your mind you must reject it and replace it by its positive opponent. For instance: instead of fretting about the possibility of losing your job, think of how you can do your job better or start looking for a an other job.
If reading newspapers or watching the news on TV makes you anxious why don't you stop reading disturbing news? Read good books instead or watch informative documentaries. Don't be afraid that you would be intellectually isolated. Really important news will reach you.
A good way of overcoming negative moods is to think of things you can be grateful for, your health, your family or anything else that makes you happy. Being grateful is a perfect barrier against negative thoughts. Gratitude and negative thoughts cannot occupy the mind at the same time.
Gratitude is not a mood exclusively for religious believers. If you are an atheist are you therefor barred from feeling grateful? I think not, however if your answer is yes than you really need a renewing of the mind.

The Netherlands and its manmade province Flevoland

The Netherlands a partially manmade country.

Holland in the early 19th century

A great part of The Netherlands lies below the sea level. To protect the land from inundation by seawater, the low lands are surrounded by dikes. The building of dikes is a very old practice. Pieces of reclaimed land surrounded by dikes are called polders. Creating a polder is called inpolderen. Vast areas were reclaimed from the sea during the 16th, 17th, and 18th century. In the early 19th century the map of Holland shows an inner sea, De Zuiderzee, see map.
The Zuiderzee had an open connection with the North Sea and was therefore a tidal water.

The Zuiderzee had a long coastline made up of very old dikes. The area was not well protected against storms and floods.
Reinforcing all the dikes along the Zuiderzee was considered but rejected because of the enormous investment and work it required.

Afsluitdijk

Dr. Lely, the minister of Waterstaat, found a solution, relatively simple and cheap: one dike, closing the connection between the North Sea and the Zuiderzee. The name of this dike is the Afsluitdijk. It was built between 1927 and 1932. The last gap was closed on the 28th of May 1932. The Zuiderzee changed into a tideless fresh water lake called the IJsselmeer, the water level of which could be controlled. The Afsluitdijk is 32 km long.

Noordoostpolder

The men of the Ministry of Waterstaat then turned their eyes on the IJsselmeer and the plan was to make it completely dry, not at once but in stages. The first stage was the inpoldering of the Noordoostpolder, situated in the north-east section of the IJsselmeer. Inpoldering began in 1936 and was completed in 1942. That was during WWII. Further inpoldering was suspended and only taken up in 1955. The rebuilding of Holland after the destruction of the war was priority number one, inpoldering could wait.

In 1955 the inpoldering of the Flevopolder started and was completed in 1968. The Flevopolder is completely surrounded by water and is in fact an island, the largest manmade island in the world.

Flevoland, a new, manmade province.

Province of Flevoland

On January the 1st, 1986 the Flevopolder and the Noordoostpolder were formed into to the 12th province of The Netherlands with its own arms and flag. This new province was an addition of 10% to the landmass of The Netherlands. Since then some towns were built, Lelystad is the capital of the province. Almere, Zeewolde, Dronten are towns built in the Flevopolder. Emmeloord in the Noordoostpolder was built before 1986.

Lelystad was the first, originally a group of houses for the dike workers, then built according to modern city planning principles. Its architectural beauty is a matter of opinion, some like it, others hate it.

Almere is designed as a dormitory suburb of Amsterdam. Gradually it is developing its own character.

Arms of Flevoland

Flevoland is designed a a large agricultural area.  Farms are still dominantly visible but the landscape is slowly changing into a multipurpose area for light industry, recreational use and a nature reserve.

The original plans for inpoldering of the entire IJsselmeer were abandoned, due to resistance by environmental pressure groups.

The flag of Flevoland

There are plans to create a great island in the North Sea, not far from the coast. It could house a satellite of Schiphol Airport and industries we don't want on the mainland.

The expected rise of the sea level will no doubt prompt the Ministry of Waterstaat to design plans on an ever grander scale.

But there is no reason for the United Kingdom to fear that Holland would gobble up the entire North Sea and so robbing the UK of its island status.

What is the Dutch Polder Model?

What is the Polder Model?

The term relates to the tendency of Dutch politicians to go for consensus. The origin of this expression has to do with the making and maintaining of polders. Polders are pieces of land reclaimed from the sea or lakes and surrounded by a dike. Making polders was already done in the middle ages. It required coordinated action of many people. Those early dike-builders organized themselves in Hoogheemraadschappen, specialized organizations with local governmental powers, thus creating an early form of democracy. The Hoogheemraadschappen were also responsible for the maintenance of the dikes. An area of adjacent polders could turn into an urban area. Landowners were obliged to contribute to the Hoogheemraadschappen (Still today I pay tax to the Hoogheemraadschap of the area in which I live). The threat of inundation was equal for all the inhabitants of the lower regions, regardless of their creed. So Protestants and Roman Catholics had to cooperate.

The Polder Model today.
The Netherlands has many political parties such as CDA (Christian Democrats), VVD (Liberal right wing party), PvdA (Social Democrats), D66 (Left wing Liberals), GroenLinks (Green party), SP (Socialist Party, former Maoists), PVV (the party of the famous or infamous Geert Wilders), SGP (Fundamentalist Christian party), PvdD (Party for the animals -would you believe!-).
I may have forgotten a few independent one-man parties but this sums it up pretty well.

As you can imagine, forming a government after the elections is a difficult job. With so many parties the likelyhood of one party winning an absolute majority is negligible. So two, three or even more parties have to negotiate to form a coalition. After WWII until a few years ago the coalitions were either  right wing coalitions or a left wing coalition. In this period the Christian Democrats were always part of a coalition government. They belonged to the ruling class as well as other main parties who in turn were part of the coalition. These people got to know each other well and in the old polder tradition tried to reach a compromise. The general population grew discontent about the arrogance of power and the uncontrolled influx of foreigners who seem to take over the inner cities and drive out the original inhabitants.

What changed the situation?

Pim Fortuyn in a pensive pose

The arrival of Pim Fortuyn in the political arena changed everything. Fortuyn, a flamboyant homosexual, became very popular because of his clear and eloquently expressed political message. He understood the people and they understood him. He was murdered on the 6th of May 2002 by an animal rights activist, just before the general elections. His newly formed party won a landslide victory and they had to be part of the new government. Fortuyn's followers, now a flock without shepherd made a complete mess of it.

Next came Geert Wilders, just as the old political establishment recovered from the shattering blow Fortuyn had hit them with. First Wilders shook them with the Islam issue, which they so far ignored but now with the elections of September 2012 in sight, Europe and the Euro will be put on the political agenda by Geert Wilders, much to the chagrin of the established parties who are all confessed Eurocrats.

The Netherlands, a republican kingdom

A bit of history.

Revolutionaries erecting the Tree of Freedom in 1795

The Netherlands, or Holland as I will call it from now for the sake of brevity, was in its early independent state a republic established in 1588 during a long and eventually a successful war with Spain. The war's objective was to gain independence from Spain. The republic was ruled by the Staten-Generaal (a ruling counsel), the executive power was laid in the hands of the Stadhouder, a hereditary title granted to the Prince of Orange. This situation lasted until 1795 when under the influence of the French Revolution and the influx of French troops, the Bataafsche Republiek was established. The Prince of Orange fled to England, only to return after the first defeat of Napoleon in 1813.

In the meantime however Holland became a kingdom for the first time in 1806 when Napoleon's brother Louis was made king. Louis was one of the best kings we ever had. He worked hard for the sole interest of his new country. In 1810 Louis was sacked by his brother Napoleon and Holland was incorporated in the Napoleonic empire.

King Willem I in 1813

In 1813 Napoleon was beaten and Holland was liberated. The victorious allies wanted a strong counterbalance on the northern borders of France and the joined Holland and Belgium together and established a new kingdom with the Prince of Orange as king. This kingdom did not last very long and in 1831 Holland and Belgium separated after a short war, resulting in two kingdoms: Belgium and Holland.

A republican kingdom.
King Willem I started as a more or less absolute ruler. The patrician class who had ruled Holland since 1588 until 1795 were not very happy with this state of affairs. Gradually they chiselled the power of the king and his descendants away until the king was reduced to a constitutional monarch in 1848. Then the power was back in the hands of the Patricians (Regenten), just as in the times of the Republic. In those times the Stadhouders (the ancestors of the 19th century kings) were a power to be reckoned with. Some of them were military geniuses and politically very competent.
So in 1848 the Regenten were at the wheel of the republic again although it was disguised as a kingdom with a king without the considerable powers of a Stadhouder.

The republican kingdom in 2012.

Beatrix as a young Queen

Holland is still a kingdom in appearance but it operates as a republic. Queen Beatrix is intelligent and efficient and wields a considerable influence behind the scenes. But she has no real formal power.The late Prince Claus, the husband of Queen Beatrix described the political reality aptly: "Holland is a republic with a hereditary head of state". 

Prince Claus was a man with a great understanding of the political situation, his description of Holland as a republic cannot easily be dismissed as the uttering of a dilettant.

Monarchical republics in 2012
There is a strange sort of similarity between Holland and France.
France is monarchical republic. The French president resembles in the glory of his office, a French king. The powers of the French president are comparable with those of an enlightened ruling king. The same could be said of an American president albeit that his powers are strictly monitored by the American political system.

My first post is a kind of promise

What do I promise?
I promise to write a column every day and post it here. I already have a daily column written in Dutch, you can see it here, if you can read Dutch you may like it. It has an increasing number of daily readers. My promise today concerns a daily column in English to be posted here.

What am I going to write about?
I only know that when I start writing a column. It happens every day when writing my Dutch column. I rise early, take a shower. While singing and splashing an idea pops up and then I start writing. Before breakfast my column is posted. Let's see if it works with a second column. I wonder, but..... I am committed.

See you tomorrow!