Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!m2c!wpi!shari From: shari@wpi.wpi.edu (Shari Deiana VanderSpek) Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam Subject: Re: Biblical corruption - where is the evidence? Message-ID: <8049@wpi.wpi.edu> Date: 10 Feb 90 00:07:17 GMT Reply-To: bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Lines: 113 Approved: sadeghi@oxy.edu 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