Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!bes
From: goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: The Torah in the Koran
Keywords: changes
Message-ID: <1990Dec5.083213.2625@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 5 Dec 90 08:32:13 GMT
Sender: bes@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 91
Approved: bes@tybalt.caltech.edu


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