Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!bes
From: ABBASI@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: The Torah in the Koran
Message-ID: <1990Dec6.010423.6457@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 90 01:04:23 GMT
Sender: bes@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 116
Approved: bes@tybalt.caltech.edu

In article <1990Dec5.083213.2625@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes:
> In article <1990Dec3.154747.19238@wpi.WPI.EDU>
> khan@remus.rutgers.edu (Farrukh Shah Khan) writes:
> 
>>> 2)  If Islam teaches that the Torah has been altered, then why has the
>>>     Koran also not been altered?
>>
>>  Quran has only one Arabic version and that is included in most
>>  reliable translations. Bible (and Torah) have been translated many
>>  times into many other languages and from those other languages into
>>  many other languages and ... The point is (if you understand the
>>  translation process and its problems) that new interpretations for
>>  many concepts changed from one translation to other. There are so
>>  many Christians who do not trust King James version and many other.
>>  This observation itself answers your question.
> 
> Regarding translations:
> 
> Everyone who reads a sacred text is, in a sense, at least a commentator,
> if not a translator.  The difference between interpretation and trans-
> lation per se is that a translation is a transferral into another lang-
> uage of what a given scholar believes the original text says.
> 
> But what if the person purporting to read the original text is not a
> scholar?  He or she probably understands the text imperfectly, and re-
> lies heavily on the judgment of scholars as to what a given text means
> and how it is to be applied.  In Christian tradition, the remedy to
> this problem has been to place the traditional understanding of the
> text in translation, and to make it readily available to the masses
> in this manner.  Jews and Arabs tend to stick with the original, Arabs
> even more so than Jews.
> 
> I see no evidence to support the grandiose claims of Christians, Jews,
> or Arabs that theirs is the better method.  Arrogance, arrogance, ar-
> rogance is all I see.
> 
> Regarding the "alteration" of the Torah:
> 
> Don't Muslims believe that the Quran was essentially dictated by God
> to Muhammed, pronounced by him, and then written down by his followers,
> who essentially memorized everything he said?  And is it not also ar-
> gued that this text has been completely stable since its first writing?
> 
> This assertion seems very interesting to me.  Right at about this same
> time, Jews stabilized the text of the Torah and the Prophets, and gave
> it cantillations.  I wonder whether their efforts were inspired by the
> efforts of Muslims.  Or were both inspired by the previously existing
> methods of Greek scholars attempting to preserve the classic works of
> the great philosophers (which both Arabs and Jews read and understood)?
> 
> Anyway, I have to admit to being a cynic in the sense that the Muslim
> story on God -> Muhammed -> Followers -> Quran transmission seems just
> too perfect to be believed.  I'd like to see some historical documen-
> tation on this, since recently several books have been published docu-
> menting the reverse process.  Evidently, after the dawn of the Islamic
> era, there was a suppression of "incorrect" Quranic copies and tradi-
> tions.  Now "incorrect" is a highly relative term.  We could say that
> the Jews likewise had variant Tora traditions, but that these were ul-
> timately (and justly) suppressed in favor of the Masoretic Text (the
> standard text we all use now).  If there are any Jews online here, maybe
> they can confirm whether this view is actually taken by conservative
> Rabbis.  The point is that the difference between "suppression of er-
> ror" and "fundamental uncertainty about the original text" is all in
> the mind of the beholder.
> 
> Anyway, what I am saying is that historical events are highly uncertain,
> and it is more a matter of ideology what happened a thousand years ago
> than it is of documentable proof.  I admit that I am highly ignorant of
> what happened just yesterday.  I have trouble sometimes remembering
> what I ate for breakfast.  What happened 200 years ago is entirely un-
> known to me except through propaganda distributed by various interested
> parties, or through scholars who (with their own prejudices and hidden
> agendas) pretend to know what really happened.  Is someone going to tell
> me that they really know what happened over a thousand years ago?  Some
> Christian, please tell me why the gospel stories about Jesus' resurrection
> are all so different (you Muslims, go read the 4 gospels some time).  Jews,
> how about telling me why pre-Masoretic Bible manuscripts do not agree?
> Muslims, how about proving to me that your notions of how the Quran was
> written and preserved is not ancient religious propaganda?
> 
> The fact is that none of these questions can be answered without an ir-
> rational element of faith.  Personally, I don't mind that this element
> is present.  But I think that everyone should admit that it is.  It is
> only through this admission that I, personally, manage to hang on to a
> religious faith.  I may be a fool, but it seems logical to me that God's
> existence should not be provable, but should be, in part, a matter of
> whether we are fundamentally willing to believe in things like respon-
> sability for our actions, in altruism, and in a greater good beyond this
> seemingly unjust world.
> 
> -Richard
I am a muslim student,(whatever i write is my own belief and i also have proof
of it from the Qur'an),
Answering your first question, The Qura'an has it's own religious importance
and cannot be changed by assumption,s. It was reveiled to prophet Mohammed 
(p.b.u.h) during the month of ramadan(sacred for fasting), who then passed it o
n to other people when preaching, along with this it was compiled dot to dot as
   revealed. If you are in the erraneous beleive that it was written by a human
(ALLAH forbid), then i can't do much to assist you. However, even in the
ancient days many disbeliever,s tried to prove the Qura'an to be incorrect.
They were asked to write the arabic(contained in The Quran) of the same prose  
and grammatical orientation. There effort was yet a failure, an illogical
argument. The Quran is THE most true book: It describes all the technological
development's that are being proven by man at present day. Isn't that enough 
to satisfy you? It also mentions the destruction that man would create, and 
eventually be edged on the eve of The Day Of Judgement(mentioned as dooms day
in biblical language). The Middle east crisis has stuned the world, people
have realized that there is a possibility of a nuclear war in the Gulf. I think
that's logical enough. It also mentions the corruption that man would get
involved in by his own deeds. He will be given warnings to abstain from it.
The HIV virus that is found in AIDs is a clear warning to tha dangers that sex
has brought to mankind. What applies here is "prevention is better than
avoidance". I think this should clarify your approach towards the purity,
image, and sanctity of our Holy book QURAN.
(P.S/:by "disbelievers" i am reffering to members of other religious groups,
particularly jews who were dominant at that time)