Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!husc6!m2c!wpi!araja@m2.csc.ti.com
From: araja@m2.csc.ti.com (Ali Raja)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Biblical corruption - where is the evidence?
Message-ID: <7878@wpi.wpi.edu>
Date: 7 Feb 90 21:06:41 GMT
References: <7714@wpi.wpi.edu>
Sender: shari@wpi.wpi.edu
Lines: 61
Approved: shari@wpi.edu


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.