bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) (02/02/90)
In article <7458@wpi.wpi.edu> tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) writes: >It should be noted, in response to Dave Bakken's denials, that all >modern Biblical *scholars*, as opposed to ideologues, recognize that >the Bible has indeed been heavily modified over the millenia. I'm really glad I took philosophy 101 (elementary logic) in my undergraduate tenure. This way, I know that the word for the above logical fallacy is `poisoning the well'. It does make things simple, though. If anyone has evidence of Biblical continuity , no matter their credentials or how scholarly their evidence, they are an idelogue to be ignored. I'm sure the converse holds for many people, too: If anyone comes out with a detailed attack on the Bible, then they are scholars. This could save people a lot of reading and even thought :-). But had it occurred to you that some or even many or even all dogmatic Biblical critics may also have an ax to grind? It has been my observation that many of them have one of two problems: 1) they refuse to accept the possibility, and indeed are angered and insulted by it, that there could be an infinite God compared to Whom they are (and I am, too) a pea-brain. Or, more often, 2) They refuse to accept the possiblity of the Bible, since it could have serious consequences on their sexual promiscuity. Indeed, Aldous Huxley stated ("Confessions of a Professed Athiest", Report: Perspective on the News, vol 3, June, 1966, p19.) I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. So both sides or neither can be biased, too. > The two incompatible versions of the >creation in Genesis are only the most well-known example. There is one version of creation in Genesis. Chapter one gives the big picture, and chapter two summarizes a bit and then gives a lot more detail into the creation of Adam and Eve. As Gleason Archer notes in "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties", page 69, "... it becomes quite apparent that this [chapter 2] was never intended to be a general creation narrative. Search all the cosmologies of the ancient civilizations of the Near East, and you will never find among them a single creation account that omits all mention of the formation of h sun, moon, and stars or ocean or seas - none of which are referred to in Genesis 2. It is therefore quite obvious that Genesis 1 is the only creation account to be found in Hebrew Scripture and that it is already presupposed as the background for Genesis 2." > Often requirements of jewels, >precious metals, rare spices, and so forth are made which obviously >could not have been performed by the Hebrews at the time of the >Exodus. I'm not sure what you mean here, but it seems clear to me that you believe there is no God and thus discount any sort of supernatural help from Him. -- Dave Bakken Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu 721 Gould-Simpson Bldg UUCP: uunet!arizona!bakken Dept of Computer Science; U of Arizona Phone: +1 602 621 8372 (w) Tucson, AZ 85721 USA FAX: +1 602 621 4246
shari@wpi.wpi.edu (Shari Deiana VanderSpek) (02/02/90)
Moderator's note: This subject is getting off the track of the proposed newsgroup outline. Followups should be directed to soc.religion.christian or talk.religion.misc.
bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) (02/02/90)
I will answer Mr. Moussaoui's claims about Biblical corruption. But first, I wish to preface this with some general comments about what I call ``apparent contradictions'' in the Bible. First, one must realize that the Bible would have to be an exhastive record of history in order to avoid any apparent contradictions. Second, when some western skeptics read a Bible and see something that seems to contradict something else in the Bible, they assume the Bible is wrong. They might know nothing about the native languages, the culture, the background of the audience and the writer, etc., but they assume that the Bible is automatically wrong. That, in my mind, is sheer arrogance. It would be different if the Bible said unequivocally "On day X it rained all day over all of Africa" and in another place "On day X there was no rain over all of Africa" for the same X, then that is a problem. But it is never this clear, as we shall see from my refutations below. In my own readings of the Bible, my list of ``problem passages'' has grown and shrunk as I find answers and more questions, but my questions have been answered so often that I have faith that there indeed an answer to the question I have. I am a rational and educated person (I currently am working on a Ph.D. in computer science), and my heart cannot rejoice in what my mind rejects. So these questions are important to me. >I will try to show SOME examples and evidences to the atleration/corruption >of the Bible. Some years back I bought a "Holy Bible" red letter edition >Revised Standard Edition (RSE) from a local bookstore. >In the preface I find the following: >"Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the end of the nineteenth >century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manu- >scripts more encient that those upon which the King James Version was based, >made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for >revision of the English translation." This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about the large volume of consistent, ancient manuscripts for the Bible. Many of these have been discovered in this century. There is no question that the King James version has problems. It was done a *long* time ago. I talked about the very high degree of scholarship of the recent New International Version (NIV). >In the back of the Bible I find a section titled "The books of the Bible" >in it there is a summary of each book in the old and new testament. For each >book they mention: Title,author, setting and a summary of the book. >I will mention only the author section which caught my attention > >Book Author >---- ------------ >GENESIS One of the "five books of Moses" >EXODUS Generally credited to Moses >LEVITICUS Generally credited to Moses >NUMBERS Generally credited to Moses >DEUTERONOMY Generally credited to Moses >JOSHUA Major part credited to Joshua >JUDGES Possibly Samuel [etc.] > .......etc .... > >One can see from this that the authorship of not even one book is attributed >to God, how can one then claim that the Bible is God's word and look how many >books have been mentioned as UNKNOWN author!! You are incorrect in your semantics. Christians have long held that the Bible was given to man by God, and that he chose and inspired or dictated to particular authors to originally transcribe it. So what if we consider some texts to be Scripture (for a variety of reasons) but are unsure of the human authorship, what does this matter? And I don't understand how this situation is any different that the Qua'ran. Certainly you don't claim to have manuscripts penned by Mohammed (tradition has it he was illiterate). Do you know who wrote the manuscripts you have? I presume not, but rather you believe the Qua'ran is from God so whoever penned the manuscripts is unimportant. >Surely Moses didn't write DEUTERONOMY (at least not all) because in it, it >mentions the death of Moses and who attended his funeral(chap. 34) If God wanted the information in Deuteronomy given to His people, and he chose Moses to transcribe it (since he was their leader), is it really that odd to think God could have someone else complete a portion of Deuteronomy finishing with a record of the last times and burial of Moses? >Ahmed Deedat wrote a booklet "IS THE BIBLE GOD'S WORD" which mentions some >of the errors/atlerations to "God's Word" it is available free from >The Islamic Propagation Center 47/49 Madressa Arcade DURBAN 4001 >phone 329-518 Republic of South Africa. You can also check with your >local Islamic Mosque/Masjid/center in your city they may have a copy. Well, I would recommend "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" by Gleason Archer, Zondervan, 1982, ISBN 0-310-43570-6. It gives quite plausible explanations to a lot of "apparent contradictions" in the Bible. I will take some replies from there and attribute appropriately, since I am no Biblical scholar. Also Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" and "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict", both of which should be available at most Christian bookstores and a few secular ones. >Here are some examples: page 38 > > WHAT DID THE LORD DECREE 3 YEARS FAMINE OR 7 YEARS FAMINE? > >II SAMUEL 24:13: SO Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall >SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three >months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee? The prophet Gad visited David after he had finished a census in a spirit of pride. So Gad warned him with the above from God (note the word "shall" and the question marks) - this was a warning of what could happen and not a statement of what would. To this David replied, "I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into the hands of men." (II Samuel 24:14, NIV). So David was humbled by God's warning, and God spared him. >I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the >LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed >before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; And this is a definite choice of what David had to suffer - given at a later date. God may have reduced the term of famine due to David's earlier humility or some other reason unknown to us. This is paraphrased from Archer, pages 189-90. >pages 35-36 > IS IT GOD OR SATAN >II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, >and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah. > >I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to >number Israel. This one I can handle. Maybe they *both* wanted David to do it, but for different reasons. But let me see what Archer says... He says (on pages 186-188) that Satan definitely wanted to harm David, like he does to anyone else. And David had begun to trust in his resources too much, so God may have wanted David to learn a lesson to trust him. Archer says God's attitude may have been "All right, go ahead and do it. Then you will find out how much good it will do you." >The GENEALOGY OF JESUS? >In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary (PBUH) >is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of >Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus(PBUH). The first >one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second >one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two >lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also >How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe >that Jesus had/has no father. I do know the basics about this question but I will pull the details from Archer, page 316. Matthew, the gospel meant largely for the benefit of the Jews, traces Joseph's ancestry. As Joseph's adopted son, Jesus was his legal heir as far as inheritence was concerned, so it was important to record Joseph's geneology. Note the pattern in this text is "X the father of Y", but in verse 16 this pattern is broken, "and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." This indicates that Mary bore Jesus but Joseph did not father Him. About Luke, Archer notes: Luke 3:23-38, on the other hand, seems to record the genealogical line of Mary herself, carried all the way back beyond the time of Abraham to Adam and the commencement of the human race. This seems to be implied by the wording of v. 23: "Jesus ... being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph." This "as was supposed" indicates that Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph, even though this was commonly assumed by the public. It further calls attention to the mother, Mary, who must of necessity have been the sole human parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a line of ancestors. Her geaneology, is thereupon listed, starting with Heli, who was actually Joseph's father-in-law, in contradistinction to Joseph's own father, Jacob (Matt. 1:16). Mary's line of descent came through Nahum, a son of Bathsheba (or "Bathshua," according to 1 Chron 3:5), the wife of David. Therefore, Jesus was descended naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon. >Now me come to the question, from the above Can somebody says the Bible is >God's word? Clearly not! Yes! > one would also say that these mistakes are God's, >Nay, I don't think a God believing person would dare say that God makes >mistakes, don't you agree? What mistakes? >What do Muslims say about the Bible? >As MusLims, we say that we believe that Allah has revealed the Tawrat to Moses That is interesting. From what I've read of Muslim literature and the Qua'ran, I can see two points (all quotations are from Arberry's interpretation, which is the only one I currently have): 1) The Qua'ran says that God gave Moses the Torah S. 5:47 "Surely We sent down the Torah, ..." S. 32:24 "Indeed, we have Moses the Book ..." 2) The Qua'ran says that no man can change God's word S. 6:34 "No man can change the words of God..." S. 10:65 "There is no changing the words of God..." Interestingly, both Mr. Moussaoui and Mr. Deedat claim that Deuteronomy (which is part of the Torah - the Tawrat, or books of Moses) have been corrupted, in apparent contradiction to the Qua'ran. The only possible Qua'ranic reference I've heard of Biblical corruption is S. 4:47-49, but, looking at the context, it is not clear at all that this is what the Qua'ran is saying here. [etc.] This could go on an awful long time, and I'm not sure how much the readers of s.r.i. care to hit 'n' or I, as a grad student and father and husband, have time to keep these detailed replies up. But I'm game if it keeps on going, and I'll do my best. >Abdenour Moussaoui
gwydion@Dyved.csc.ti.com (Basalat Ali Raja) (02/02/90)
>That is interesting. From what I've read of Muslim literature and the >Qua'ran, I can see two points (all quotations are from Arberry's >interpretation, which is the only one I currently have): > > 1) The Qua'ran says that God gave Moses the Torah > S. 5:47 "Surely We sent down the Torah, ..." > S. 32:24 "Indeed, we have Moses the Book ..." > 2) The Qua'ran says that no man can change God's word > S. 6:34 "No man can change the words of God..." > S. 10:65 "There is no changing the words of God..." > >Interestingly, both Mr. Moussaoui and Mr. Deedat claim that Deuteronomy >(which is part of the Torah - the Tawrat, or books of Moses) have been >corrupted, in apparent contradiction to the Qua'ran. The only possible >Qua'ranic reference I've heard of Biblical corruption is S. 4:47-49, but, >looking at the context, it is not clear at all that this is what the Qua'ran >is saying here. This is not very difficult to reconcile - assume that statement 2 is made at a certain point of time. As such, it logically "protects" all of God's word present at that point, and in the future. It makes no statements about Words of God in the past. Thus, the Torah is not covered by this statement.
araja@m2.csc.ti.com (Ali Raja) (02/03/90)
In article <7364@wpi.wpi.edu> bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes: >I'm curious about this. I've heard Muslims say this, but they never >seem to have any details (consider how slanderous and blasphemous >they would consider it if someone had voiced similar questions as to >the validity of the Qua'ran or Mohammed, even if details were provided). I think you have a fundamental misconception about Islam. If someone voiced similar question about the validity of the Quran or of Mohammed without anything to support his statements; then he would most likely be simply ignored. If he provided details then these details would be closely examined. All adherents to any particular religion claim that their religion has been challenged and that the challenge was fruitless. So, at the risk of braggadocio, I'll ask you the same. Can you really provide any details that show that the Quran is corrupted? It seems to me that your own faith demands that this corruption exist. Can you point out to us where this is?
bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) (02/06/90)
In article <7546@wpi.wpi.edu> gwydion@Dyved.csc.ti.com (Basalat Ali Raja) writes: > >>That is interesting. From what I've read of Muslim literature and the >>Qua'ran, I can see two points (all quotations are from Arberry's >>interpretation, which is the only one I currently have): >> >> 1) The Qua'ran says that God gave Moses the Torah >> S. 5:47 "Surely We sent down the Torah, ..." >> S. 32:24 "Indeed, we have Moses the Book ..." >> 2) The Qua'ran says that no man can change God's word >> S. 6:34 "No man can change the words of God..." >> S. 10:65 "There is no changing the words of God..." >> >>Interestingly, both Mr. Moussaoui and Mr. Deedat claim that Deuteronomy >>(which is part of the Torah - the Tawrat, or books of Moses) have been >>corrupted, in apparent contradiction to the Qua'ran. The only possible >>Qua'ranic reference I've heard of Biblical corruption is S. 4:47-49, but, >>looking at the context, it is not clear at all that this is what the Qua'ran >>is saying here. >This is not very difficult to reconcile - assume that statement 2 >is made at a certain point of time. As such, it logically "protects" >all of God's word present at that point, and in the future. It >makes no statements about Words of God in the past. Thus, the >Torah is not covered by this statement. I do not see how you can arrive at that. Looking at both the verses and their contexts, I see nothing about the verses in #2 above that would inticate a non-universal time domain. "No man can change the words of God" sounds clearly like a statement of fact describing how the world works. I see nothing at all that limits its time domain. If God gives a universal law that nobody can change His word, then I don't see how the fact that he chose to give it to man at time X permits this law of God to be void before He chose to give it to man. -- Dave Bakken Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu 721 Gould-Simpson Bldg UUCP: uunet!arizona!bakken Dept of Computer Science; U of Arizona Phone: +1 602 621 8372 (w) Tucson, AZ 85721 USA FAX: +1 602 621 4246
sadeghi@oxy.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) (02/06/90)
bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) Writes: >I think we all can have misconceptions from time to time, and one of the >really good things about the net is that it is a place where these >misconceptions may be challenged and corrected. But in this particular >case I don't think I have a misconception. While I can't claim direct >statistical knowledge of how Muslims react to someone challenging Qur'anic >validity, I do believe that in general Muslims definitely react more >strongly than followers of other religions when someone insults or >challenges their religion. The recent events that contrast this were >the releases of "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Satanic Verses". >There were Muslims all over calling for the death of Rushdie. And not just >uneducated peasants in a third world country. I was listening to a talk >show here about the book and a Muslim woman called in and said that he >should die (her english was pretty good, so I assume she had been exposed >to western tolerance some, no matter where she originally came from). >And I read that Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens) also called for Rushdie's >death from London (he has done some of my favorite songs, including >"Morning Has Broken". His death call made me sad since his great >sensitivity, as evidenced by his songs, didn't translate into tolernace). The American media did much to create the impression that you have by giving a amazing amount of coverage to those Moslems who did agree with the late Imam Khomeini's decree and ignoring all others. Let me give you some examples. In Shi'i Islam the highest religious rank is "ayatollah ozma" (Grand Ayatollah). At the time of the Rushdie Hoopla there were six ayatollah ozmas. Imam Khomeini was the only ayatollah ozma who gave the decree. When some of the other ayatollah ozmas were interviewed, they said that since they hadn't read the book they had nothing to say about it. The only ayatollah ozma who said anything that could be interpreted as supporting Imam Khomeini was Montazeri. He praised Imam Khomeini's "firm stance" against the West, but never explicitly supported the death decree. The fact is that many supporters of Imam Khomeini disagreed with the decree. For example, the Moslem Students Association at UCLA 's periodical had expressed support for the Islamic Revolution of Iran and Imam Khomeini during the 10th anniversary of Revolution, only a short while before the Rushdie affair. But during the Rushdie affair they expressed disagreement with the decree. >Contrast this with the "Last Temptation of Christ". I think it was >at least as offensive to Christians as Rushdie's work was to Muslims >(indeed, I think it was more offensive, at least much more lengthy and >graphic, from what I've been told). Christians were calling for >movie theaters not to show the movie as a matter of good taste, but >few if any even questioned the right of the film to be produced. >The director became a celebrity of sorts with the media and was on a >lot of talk shows. Do you think Rushdie was invited to tell his side >of the story in any Muslim countries (not that the US is a Christian >country)? I haven't seen the movie myself, but I have read several reviews about it. I understand that: 1) It did _not_ portray Jesus Christ as an impostor and a liar. 2) It expressed the view that Jesus, like all other human beings, was subject to temptation into sin: BUT, according to the film, JESUS OVERCAME THE TEMPTATION. 3) It didn't use abusive language (such as calling St. Mary --God forgive me-- a prostitute, or calling the Christ's closests companions such as Paul, Mark, etc. such epithets as "bum" or "monsterous" I could understand how Christians could feel offended by the film and sympathize with them. But I don't think the film was as offending as Rushdie's book. Another point is that no Christian was murdered during the protests over the movie. However, many Moslems were killed in India and Pakistan. Imam Khomeini's statement came _only_ after these deaths, although the book had already been out for months. >Dave Bakken Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu >721 Gould-Simpson Bldg UUCP: uunet!arizona!bakken >Dept of Computer Science; U of Arizona Phone: +1 602 621 8372 (w) >Tucson, AZ 85721 USA FAX: +1 602 621 4246
tim@toad.com (Tim Maroney) (02/06/90)
In article <7526@wpi.wpi.edu> the moderator writes: > >Moderator's note: > >This subject is getting off the track of the proposed newsgroup outline. >Followups should be directed to soc.religion.christian or talk.religion.misc. Fear not. Since there have been only two replies and neither of them contained a single point of substance, merely hand-waving about how the scholastic positions "have been refuted" (apparently, in ways that these two inerrantist Christians do not think it is important to share with us), I feel no obligation to continue the discussion. We do not get the two newsgroups you mentioned here, unfortunately, but in the absence of any substantial response I would not continue even if we did.... -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion." - Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
gwydion@rice.edu (Basalat Ali Raja) (02/08/90)
In article <7710@wpi.wpi.edu> bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes: >I do not see how you can arrive at that. Looking at both the verses >and their contexts, I see nothing about the verses in #2 above that >would inticate a non-universal time domain. "No man can change the >words of God" sounds clearly like a statement of fact describing how >the world works. I see nothing at all that limits its time domain. >If God gives a universal law that nobody can change His word, then >I don't see how the fact that he chose to give it to man at time X >permits this law of God to be void before He chose to give it to man. What is the "Word of God"? It is the Quran, and nothing else right now. The Torah and the Injeel, in their present forms, are NOT the Word of God. The originals might or might not be preserved - there is no non-religious evidence that I have at this time. It depends on whether you interpret the statement "no man can change the Word of God" as a law that has been established, or a statement that is logically true. My interpretation is that of a law. It seems that you prefer it as a statement. On the whole, I cannot seem to escape the conclusion that mine makes more sense.
bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) (02/08/90)
In article <7588@wpi.wpi.edu> araja@m2.csc.ti.com (Ali Raja) writes: >In article <7364@wpi.wpi.edu> bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes: >>[ I was talking about the Islamic tennent of Biblical corruption] >>I'm curious about this. I've heard Muslims say this, but they never >>seem to have any details (consider how slanderous and blasphemous >>they would consider it if someone had voiced similar questions as to >>the validity of the Qua'ran or Mohammed, even if details were provided). > >I think you have a fundamental misconception about Islam. If someone >voiced similar question about the validity of the Quran or of Mohammed >without anything to support his statements; then he would most likely >be simply ignored. If he provided details then these details would be >closely examined. All adherents to any particular religion claim that >their religion has been challenged and that the challenge was fruitless. I think we all can have misconceptions from time to time, and one of the really good things about the net is that it is a place where these misconceptions may be challenged and corrected. But in this particular case I don't think I have a misconception. While I can't claim direct statistical knowledge of how Muslims react to someone challenging Qur'anic validity, I do believe that in general Muslims definitely react more strongly than followers of other religions when someone insults or challenges their religion. The recent events that contrast this were the releases of "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Satanic Verses". There were Muslims all over calling for the death of Rushdie. And not just uneducated peasants in a third world country. I was listening to a talk show here about the book and a Muslim woman called in and said that he should die (her english was pretty good, so I assume she had been exposed to western tolerance some, no matter where she originally came from). And I read that Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens) also called for Rushdie's death from London (he has done some of my favorite songs, including "Morning Has Broken". His death call made me sad since his great sensitivity, as evidenced by his songs, didn't translate into tolernace). Contrast this with the "Last Temptation of Christ". I think it was at least as offensive to Christians as Rushdie's work was to Muslims (indeed, I think it was more offensive, at least much more lengthy and graphic, from what I've been told). Christians were calling for movie theaters not to show the movie as a matter of good taste, but few if any even questioned the right of the film to be produced. The director became a celebrity of sorts with the media and was on a lot of talk shows. Do you think Rushdie was invited to tell his side of the story in any Muslim countries (not that the US is a Christian country)? >So, at the risk of braggadocio, I'll ask you the same. Can you really >provide any details that show that the Quran is corrupted? It seems to >me that your own faith demands that this corruption exist. Can you >point out to us where this is? No, my faith doesn't demand this. I simply don't think that the Qur'an is the word of God. It may be completely devoid of any sort of corruption, but I don't think the original was from God. On the other side of the proverbial coin, however, I do think that Muslims have a problem when it comes to Biblical corruption (see my followup to your other posting; I was going to drop it but now I'll folllow up). The Old Testament gives specific prohpesies about Christ (see Psalm 22, for example - it describes the crucifiction in great detail. Verse 16 says "... they have pierced my hands and feet. This Psalm was dated ca. 1000BC, 800 years before the Romans introduced crucifiction into the area). And Jesus' claims to divinity have to be discounted by Biblical corruption, too. -- Dave Bakken Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu 721 Gould-Simpson Bldg UUCP: uunet!arizona!bakken Dept of Computer Science; U of Arizona Phone: +1 602 621 8372 (w) Tucson, AZ 85721 USA FAX: +1 602 621 4246
araja@m2.csc.ti.com (Ali Raja) (02/08/90)
In article <7714@wpi.wpi.edu> bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes: >And I read that Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens) also called for Rushdie's >death from London (he has done some of my favorite songs, including >"Morning Has Broken". His death call made me sad since his great >sensitivity, as evidenced by his songs, didn't translate into tolernace). I found that part rather amusing. As it turns out, he had been rather doubtful as to the acceptability of his songs - from what I have heard him say, he feels that teenagers indulge far too much in idol-worship; as he was the idol in question, this made him acutely uncomfortable. Anyway, Yusuf did not call for Rushdie's death. He said that Khomeni's call for his death would make life difficult for Rushdie. Given Rushdie's behaviour, he seemed to approve of this. You can accuse him of lack of sympathy for, and in fact, taking delight at, the misfortunes of a man that he considers to be a blasphemer. You cannot accuse him of calling illegitimately for his death. >The director became a celebrity of sorts with the media and was on a >lot of talk shows. Do you think Rushdie was invited to tell his side >of the story in any Muslim countries (not that the US is a Christian >country)? What side of the story is this? This is not the first tongue-in-cheek book he had written. This was the first time he had made fun of the Prophet, though - and one does not do that without having the Muslim world standing up and denouncing one, each Muslim in his own fashion. I wonder... have you read the book? >No, my faith doesn't demand this. I simply don't think that the Qur'an >is the word of God. It may be completely devoid of any sort of corruption, >but I don't think the original was from God. On the other side of the >proverbial coin, however, I do think that Muslims have a problem >when it comes to Biblical corruption (see my followup to >your other posting; I was going to drop it but now I'll folllow up). Christians do not have a problem with Muslim Scriptures. Muslims have a problem with Christian Scriptures. Assuming that both parties contain rational human beings, is it not possible to detect a pattern from this? Muslims view religion as more a science than anything else - it has to follow the rules of logic just like any other discipline. Thus, doing a fine-toothcomb analysis of scriptures is not an uncommon thing in Islam. This is possibly one of the reasons why Muslims attempt to apply their methodology to Christian Scriptures, and do not find themselves to be satisfied. One can argue that there are emotional, non-logical reasons for these, which I suppose is possible. That, only time will tell. >The Old Testament gives specific prohpesies about Christ (see Psalm >22, for example - it describes the crucifiction in great detail. Verse >16 says "... they have pierced my hands and feet. This Psalm was dated >ca. 1000BC, 800 years before the Romans introduced crucifiction into >the area). And Jesus' claims to divinity have to be discounted by >Biblical corruption, too. Um. This is another interesting topic for debate. Where did Jesus lay claim to divinity? I know the places, etc. However, I think that the evidence is nowhere near as clearcut as you would seem to feel.
shari@wpi.wpi.edu (Shari Deiana VanderSpek) (02/10/90)
In article <7878@wpi.wpi.edu> araja@m2.csc.ti.com (Ali Raja) writes: >Anyway, Yusuf did not call for Rushdie's death. He said that Khomeni's >call for his death would make life difficult for Rushdie. Given Rushdie's >behaviour, he seemed to approve of this. You can accuse him of lack of >sympathy for, and in fact, taking delight at, the misfortunes of a man >that he considers to be a blasphemer. You cannot accuse him of calling >illegitimately for his death. I heard a television news broadcast that quoted him (i.e. in front of the camera) while all the furor over this affair was in the news. And either I'm losing my marbles (which my self-diagnostics say is possible but unlikely :-} ) or he said one of two very close things: 1) He called for Rushdie's death, or 2) He agreed that Rushdie should die. In my mind there is little difference, and both make me sad. BTW your use of the word "illegitimately" puzzled me - could someone else legitimately call for Rushdie's death, or is there another circumstance in which Yusuf Islam could make a legitimate call for someone's death? >>The director became a celebrity of sorts with the media and was on a >>lot of talk shows. Do you think Rushdie was invited to tell his side >>of the story in any Muslim countries (not that the US is a Christian >>country)? >What side of the story is this? This is not the first tongue-in-cheek >book he had written. This was the first time he had made fun of the >Prophet, though - and one does not do that without having the Muslim world >standing up and denouncing one, each Muslim in his own fashion. I >wonder... have you read the book? Oh, maybe the sort of hogwash that the ``Temptation'' director was saying. Like Muslims shouldn't be offended and this should actually help them strengthen their faith. Or telling about the deep artistic meanings of the book. Also, denouncing Rushdie is one thing - many Christians have denounced the producers and sponsors of ``Last Temptation of Christ.'' But calling for someone's death or rioting is another thing entirely. No, I didn't read the book - I've never seen a good reason to. I have read a number of reviews and synopses, though, so I do think I know why it is offensive. Actually it was offensive to me, too. It would have been such even if it only insulted Muhammad, since that is a pointless irritation to Muslims. But it also insulted Abraham. Have you read it, Basalat? >>No, my faith doesn't demand this. I simply don't think that the Qur'an >>is the word of God. It may be completely devoid of any sort of corruption, >>but I don't think the original was from God. On the other side of the >>proverbial coin, however, I do think that Muslims have a problem >>when it comes to Biblical corruption (see my followup to >>your other posting; I was going to drop it but now I'll folllow up). >Christians do not have a problem with Muslim Scriptures. Muslims have >a problem with Christian Scriptures. Assuming that both parties contain >rational human beings, is it not possible to detect a pattern from this? I'm not sure what you mean here. Christians don't have a problem with Qur'anic corruption (or lack thereof) simply because they don't think its the word of God and thus don't care too much whether it has been corrupted. Muslims, however, do have a problem with the Bible, however, since it contradicts the Qur'an (or vice versa, if you prefer) but yet they still believe much of it to be from God. Thus, to avoid a contradiction they must say that the Bible has been corrupted. By they way you worded the above paragraph were you trying to set up some syllogism that the "pattern" somehow shows that the Qur'an is uncorrupted or Islam is the true religion? >Muslims view religion as more a science than anything else - it has to >follow the rules of logic just like any other discipline. Thus, doing >a fine-toothcomb analysis of scriptures is not an uncommon thing in >Islam. This is possibly one of the reasons why Muslims attempt to apply >their methodology to Christian Scriptures, and do not find themselves >to be satisfied. One can argue that there are emotional, non-logical >reasons for these, which I suppose is possible. That, only time will >tell. What methadology? (I'm not saying there isn't any, I just have no idea about what sort of rigorous criteria the Qur'an and Bible are subjected to, other than ``the Bible must be wrong''). And how will time tell? >> And Jesus' claims to divinity have to be discounted by >>Biblical corruption, too. >Um. This is another interesting topic for debate. Where did Jesus >lay claim to divinity? I know the places, etc. However, I think that >the evidence is nowhere near as clearcut as you would seem to feel. I'll hold off on the details unless this new can of worms would be of interest to the net. I have heard a number of arguments against Jesus' divinity, both from Muslims and from ``Christian'' cults (who deny Jesus' divinity and stress works rather than God's grace as a means for salvation; the Jehova's Witnesses and the LDS (aka Mormons) are prime examples). But I think the Biblical evidence speaks strongly of Jesus' divinity. Um, is this sort of thread (either the way it has gone or the possibility of a ``divinity of Christ'' thread) of much interest to readers of soc.religion.islam? Please send me email if you feel strongly either way. I'm not sure I have time for a whole lot more (lets see, its 4 weeks into the semester so a grad student like me can't be more than 8 weeks behind ... :-} ), but I certainly don't want to spend time if few people care. And, on an unrelated note, I've had requests for more info on Rashad Khalifa's death and the surrounding speculation and issues, so I'll try to dig up more info on this this weekend and post it. -- Dave Bakken Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu 721 Gould-Simpson Bldg UUCP: uunet!arizona!bakken Dept of Computer Science; U of Arizona Phone: +1 602 621 8372 (w) Tucson, AZ 85721 USA FAX: +1 602 621 4246