Zeus

[JJWhite]

Exactly so.

I've never met one who thinks that though. Have you?

 

[Catherineanne]

I've never met one who thinks that though. Have you?

It is pretty well essential to Islam to regard the Koran as equal in status and authority with God himself. Therefore, I have never yet met a Moslem - other than those who are not really interested in their faith - who does not do so.

Why do you suppose that unbelievers are not allowed to touch the Koran, for example? If the Koran were only a spoken word, then by definition it could not be touched, and this injunction would be meaningless.

We seem to be straying quite a long way from Zeus; maybe this is better discussed in a new thread somewhere.

 

[JJWhite]

It is pretty well essential to Islam to regard the Koran as equal in status and authority with God himself. Therefore, I have never yet met a Moslem - other than those who are not really interested in their faith - who does not do so.

Why do you suppose that unbelievers are not allowed to touch the Koran, for example? If the Koran were only a spoken word, then by definition it could not be touched, and this injunction would be meaningless.

We seem to be straying quite a long way from Zeus; maybe this is better discussed in a new thread somewhere.

Ha ha... true that we're pretty off topic.

As for the other point though, I believe it stems from your misunderstanding of how a Muslim views the Qur'an. If you were to read any book on our faith that discusses this issue, you will find that what I am saying is true. No Muslim, to my knowledge, believes that the physical books are God incarnate. The injunction is not meaningless. It is out of respect for the perfect message and guidance which we believe it contains. Muslims are supposed to be in a state of ritual purity before we touch it too. All the Prophet said in this regard to Qur'an written on something (to my knowledge) is 'No one should touch it unless they are in a state of purity.' All the rulings about who can and who can't touch it are extrapolated by scholars and there are LOTS of differences of opinions amongst scholars on the details of this issue.

Here is a copy and past answering the question "Can I give a copy of the Qur'an to someone who is interested in learning about Islam?" from one of the most respected 'fatwa' sites Sunni Muslims reference.

Assalamu alaykum
In the name of Allah, the Inspirer of truth.
It would be permissible to give copies of Qur'an to non-Muslims if:

1- their guidance is intended thereof,

2- and a person is reasonably confident that they will not disrespect the copy.

------------------

Would it help if I said this?

'Words' are abstract. They cannot be quantified like voice or paper can be.

And God knows best.

P.S. ummmmmmmm..... maybe I should mention that I used to love reading Greek mythology in grade school.

 

[Catherineanne]

Ha ha... true that we're pretty off topic.

As for the other point though, I believe it stems from your misunderstanding of how a Muslim views the Qur'an. If you were to read any book on our faith that discusses this issue, you will find that what I am saying is true. No Muslim, to my knowledge, believes that the physical books are God incarnate. The injunction is not meaningless. It is out of respect for the perfect message and guidance which we believe it contains.

Perfection is not a function of creation. It is a function of God alone. There is nothing in all of creation which is equal to God, or which shares his perfection. Your Scriptures may be good, as mine may be, but they canot be perfect.

Moslems revere their book as equal to God in perfection, as you say above, and as equal to him in authority. Incarnate means 'in a (human) body, so the fact that you do not use that word means nothing. You have, nonetheless, a paper god, alongside the real one.

Which, as you rightly say, is idolatry.

As for whether I can actually acquire a Koran; that is easy. I can buy one in any bookshop.

I think I ought to say here that this is not only a Moslem failing. Many Christians are beginning to make the same mistake. Because the Bible contains the word of God, they extrapolate from that to regard it as equal in authority to God, and then use it as the last word in any discussion of anything. Fair enough, you might think, but they go further. They use any excerpt from Scripture as proof of any point of view they care to mention, whether it relates to it or not, and then accuse anyone who disagrees with them, of disagreeing with God.

So you are not the only ones, by a long way.

 

[Catherineanne]

I ought to try to bring this topic back on course somewhat, and consider what we might loosely call the pagan 'Scriptures'. A close to authentic form is best found in the Illiad and the Oddysey, but there are many others, of course.

Pagans had a whole series of stories about their gods, which were extremely well known to everyone. We might compare them with stories from our early history, such as King Alfred burning the cakes. Everyone has a rough idea of the story, and the main components, but anyone who wants to can take the basic story and expand on it in his or her own way. This is what Homer does with the legends of his culture.

As a result we do not have one authoritative version, one single Scripture, of pagan legend, and the ancients would have laughed at the very idea. They liked to have the basic stories embroidered and expanded upon, just as we like to hear different interpretations of the Birth of Christ, as long as they retain enough of the original to be recognisable.

So why were pagans happy with this kind of elaboration, while we pretty well obsess over getting the copy exactly right, and having a definitive version?

The answer is to be found in literacy. Paul writes his letters at the very foundation of literacy; he could write himself; not particularly well, but he could and did write.

The majority of people in his time could not leave their words behind them. The written word was for them, as it was for Mohammed, magical. Mohammed could not write, but he may well have seen either the Jewish or more likely some part of the Christian Scriptures. (He couldn't read either, of course.) What he could do was to compose oral poetry, the same as Homer.

Illiterate people are likely to have an inordinate respect for the written word, and ascribe to it power that literate people understand is simply not reasonable. Mohammed imagined his poetry in a book form, even when it remained spoken and recited, as it did for 100 years before finally being written down. He understood that speaking of his words as a book would give them added status to his listeners (also not literate).

 

[JJWhite]

CatherineAnne, I believe we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Insubres]

Who believes in mythological religions? Worshiping the bible which talks about talking snakes, Giants, burning bushes, and 7 headed beasts is the equivalent of believing in centaurs, hydras, nymphs, and Minotaurs. Prove me wrong.

Who believes in mythological religions? Reading the tipitaka or the agamas which talk about a flying man, who is prescient of events occurring far away, who can teleport across vast distances, is sheltered under the hood of a gigantic multiheaded snake, who is the teacher of Gods and men...

 

[_JJM]

2 Tim 3:15-17
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[Wicked Willow]

2 Tim 3:15-17
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

1. The authorship of the so-called "pastoral epistles" is contested, and for a good reason: looking at the style and content of these letters with a scholar's eye, it is highly unlikely that they were written by the same person as the authentic Pauline epistles.

2. Even if we ignore the whole issue of authorship, and assume that it *was* Paul who wrote these verses: there was no Bible at this point in history, especially as far as the "New Testament" was concerned. The only "Holy Scriptures" that were known to people from their childhood back then were the Jewish scriptures - NOT the Pauline epistles, NOT the gospels, NOT revelation, in short: NOT the biblical canon that you are familiar with today.

3. "Inspiration" does not necessarily imply the same level of divine involvement as in the Qur'anic tradition of words being handed down verbatim to a mere mortal vessel.

4. The verses in question can be (should be?) translated differently: ""Every inspired scripture is also useful...[and so on and so forth]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration#cite_note-dodd-2

 

[_JJM]

Hi Willow,

1. The authorship of the so-called "pastoral epistles" is contested, and for a good reason: looking at the style and content of these letters with a scholar's eye, it is highly unlikely that they were written by the same person as the authentic Pauline epistles.

Indeed, even without faith in authenticity, one is confident that all of Paul's letters are of the same author, as the style and message are unique and consistent.

The Pastoral epistles are written by others, yet the theology is in harmony with the Pauline epistles. I have to remember that Paul's epistles were largely written to Gentile audiences who were unfamiliar with the subtleties and nuances of the Hebrew religion. The Pastoral epistles were written by apostles who generally preached directly to the Hebrews.

2. Even if we ignore the whole issue of authorship, and assume that it *was* Paul who wrote these verses: there was no Bible at this point in history, especially as far as the "New Testament" was concerned. The only "Holy Scriptures" that were known to people from their childhood back then were the Jewish scriptures - NOT the Pauline epistles, NOT the gospels, NOT revelation, in short: NOT the biblical canon that you are familiar with today.

Indeed, and I have made this point known to many Christians as well.
I suppose my intention in stating this verse is for those among us who claim the absolute authority of another text (Koran). Christians have strong consolation that the OT scriptures are reliable for us, and uncorrupted, contrary to what Muhammed stated hundreds of years later.

3. "Inspiration" does not necessarily imply the same level of divine involvement as in the Qur'anic tradition of words being handed down verbatim to a mere mortal vessel.

Please elaborate?

4. The verses in question can be (should be?) translated differently: ""Every inspired scripture is also useful...[and so on and so forth]"

Please elaborate?

 

[JJWhite]

Indeed, and I have made this point known to many Christians as well.
I suppose my intention in stating this verse is for those among us who claim the absolute authority of another text (Koran). Christians have strong consolation that the OT scriptures are reliable for us, and uncorrupted, contrary to what Muhammed stated hundreds of years later.

Y'know, with regards to the OT (Torah), I think there may actually be a difference of opinion among Muslim scholars whether the 'tahreef' (change) was in the actual words or only in its interpretation. I feel like I heard that Ibn Taymiyyah was of the opinion that only the intended meaning rather than the actual Hebrew text was corrupted. God knows best. I'm not sure, but it's something one could look into.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Please elaborate?

Divine inspiration does not necessarily amount to direct authorship in the sense of God basically handing out a ready-made book to a mortal agent, whose only task is then to write it down word for word as he is told.
In contrast to the Qur'anic tradition, Christian tradition does not necessarily have a problem with the notion of acknowledging that their canon consists of very diverse texts that bear the marks of both individual authors and specific cultural settings.

 

[Minty]

Who believes in mythological religions? Worshiping the bible which talks about talking snakes, Giants, burning bushes, and 7 headed beasts is the equivalent of believing in centaurs, hydras, nymphs, and Minotaurs. Prove me wrong.

I do However, I will not be attempting to prove you wrong.

Zeus is a part of my pantheon, however he is not one of my patron deities... and who is to say that mythological creatures didn't exist... a myth is just an unproven story. All religions could be considered to be based on myths... if there was empirical evidence to prove otherwise there would be no need for faith.

 

[_JJM]

Y'know, with regards to the OT (Torah), I think there may actually be a difference of opinion among Muslim scholars whether the 'tahreef' (change) was in the actual words or only in its interpretation. I feel like I heard that Ibn Taymiyyah was of the opinion that only the intended meaning rather than the actual Hebrew text was corrupted. God knows best. I'm not sure, but it's something one could look into.

Would this apply to the NT scriptures about Jesus as well?

 

[Wicked Willow]

Would this apply to the NT scriptures about Jesus as well?

From what I've heard from muslims on this forum, they seem to believe that Paul was essentially an impostor who infiltrated Christianity and turned it into something other than strict monotheism; the rest of the NT reflects Paul's influence to varying degrees, but none of it is completely free of it.


Seeing how the Qur'an contains references to apocryphal writings and legends associated with diverse Christian sects beyond the dominant main branches, I suspect that at least parts of their perspective are inheritances from these groups. Apparently, Arabia was far enough removed from the power centres of the church to allow for the continued existence of assorted "heresies" that were suppressed and exterminated elsewhere.

 

[JJWhite]

Would this apply to the NT scriptures about Jesus as well?

I would have to look up his opinion on that. Ah! TOO much to do. I have five kids (four daughters and a son) and I home school the elder two. Since all of my religious instruction was relatively informal (self-study, study groups, random classes, a seminar here and there), I have to do research in order to find these things out, and I'm still learning where the best places to find things are. The only degree I have is a Bachelors in Elementary Education. My specialty is teaching ESL. Studying religion is a hobby.

Anyway, my kids are very annoyed at CF.

The only thing that makes me ASSUME that it would not apply to the NT is that, to my understanding, there are no Aramaic manuscripts available? I'm assuming that's the language in which it was revealed. To my knowledge, Muslims believe that the 'Holy Books' (Qur'an, Torah, Gospel) were all 'revealed' rather than 'inspired'. I would take that to mean that the Gospel would have to be in its original language for us to consider it as authentic in wording. We don't consider the English translation of the Qur'an as Qu'ran, but as an interpretation of it.

And God knows best.

 

[JJWhite]

This is highly disputable (Wickipedia is hardly a religious reference.. ha ha), but an interesting read, nevertheless.

Tahrif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This might be interesting too. To be honest, I didn't read it all. I will try later. But, in the part I read, I think I noticed a typo. In one place that should have read 'Adam' it says 'Nooh' (Noah).

http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=793

 

[Nooj]

The only thing that makes me ASSUME that it would not apply to the NT is that, to my understanding, there are no Aramaic manuscripts available?

The books of the NT were written in Greek.

 

[JJWhite]

The books of the NT were written in Greek.

From what I've heard, and I may be wrong, the NT CONTAINS Gospel translated, but also the words of scholars.

God knows best.

 

[_JJM]

From what I've heard, and I maybe wrong, the NT CONTAINS Gospel translated, but also the words of scholars.

The NT are writings of the apostles and disciples of Jesus, not later scholars.