Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Ref: Why I am not a Muslim [was re: Why I am an atheist/Christian...]
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:23:52 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes:

>>Article 67643 of talk.religion.misc:

>>From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
>>
>>'Scuse me while I butt in here...

>>>I've pointed out in a couple of other articles that the Bible has enough
>>>errors that it's incorrect to call it 'true.'  The Qur'an is free of these
>>>errors because it is from God Himself - it is not even an 'inspired' word
>>>of a man; rather it is direct Divine revelation.
>>
>>Exactly as the typical Christian fundamentalist will claim for the Bible.
>>Your claims for your particular set of scriptures are not different than
>>the claims of the average 'plenary verbal inspiration' (ie God dictated the
>>Bible) evangelical.
>>Why should your claim stand up more than theirs?

>Because the Qur'an and the Bible are not the same book.  Therefore, it is 
>quite reasonable to ask people to judge each book on its own merit.  
Agreed.

>The Bible has some discrepancies; the Qur'an does not.  
I disagree.  As I've said, the people who point out these discrepencies are
usually guilty of proof-texting.  Or, relying on a claim of plenary verbal
inspiration, which I do not.

As for discrepencies, there were at least 5 or so from the Qu'ran posted
here recently.  Not having a copy of the text, I can't say for sure.

>Please do not misinterpret the
>spirit of my post here: I do not intend to come off sounding arrogant or
>derogatory, and I hope you understand that.
Yep.  I do.  You do a good job of staying rational.  That's all anyone
around here can ask for...

>>> Read the Qur'an.  It supersedes the Bible.  It can't hurt you.
>>It superseeds the Bible only for those who believe that it is inspired
>>text.  If I do not believe the Qu'ran is divine revelation, as you put it,
>>then it means nothing more than the Bahgavad Gita, which I have also read.
>                                                                 ^^^^
>By your use of "also" I assume this means you read the Qur'an.  What did you
>find - or not find?

It was a misphrasing of what I meant to say.  I have not read the Qur'an.
What I meant is that I have read the Bahgavad Gita, in addition to the Bible.

You have graciously offered to send me a copy.  I promise to read it when
it arrives.  I am much oblidged.

>>>	Do you know of any other religion so similar to what Jesus
>>>	spoke of, and yet is also at peace with what our minds tell
>>>	us of the natural world?  
>>Yeah, real Christianity.  Jesus' message is exactly what you say.  Any
>>corruptions over the ages are in the same category as the corruptions that
>>have entered Islam...like the Ayatollah Khomeni and his gang, for example.
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Please elaborate with specifics otherwise I can't respond to you.
Hostage taking?  Execution of political dissidents?  Etc.

>>The Bible itself makes no claims to speak to science.  If we understand
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>No, it does.  Explain Genesis for me.  Keep in mind that the Qur'an does
>cover scientific topics here and there - but the difference is that it is
>free of any discrepancies.

No, it doesn't.  The Bible uses literary devices such as allegory,
metaphor, simile, parables, etc.  Only those who demand absolute literalism
have this problem.  I do not.  I look for the message, irrespective of the
particular device used to relate some particular understanding of mans'
relationship with God and man's state in the world.  This is, in my
opinion, what Genesis is trying to show.

>>It is not, IMHO, reasonable to claim, as some scriptural literalists do, that 
>>the Bible is inerrant on ALL topics.  The Bible, like all literature, makes
>>use of allegory, metaphor, poetry, simile, parables, etc.  Nothing wrong
>>with that, and it doesn't mean that it wasn't inspired.  Even direct,
>>plenary verbal inspiration can allow for allegorical and metaphorical
>>stories!  God can do anything, don't ya know.

>You're right again: the Qur'an too uses various allegories, metaphors, etc.
>However, it is stretching it somewhat to call the story of creation in 
>Genesis a parable.

Not at all.  Why is it stretching to call it an allegory or parable?  It is
a poetic description of man's relationship with God and creation.  I don't
see the problem with this at all.  Care to enlighten me?

>Based on your points and mine, I would suggest that you first read the 
>Qur'an so that perhaps we can have some common ground to stand on (I
>attended Catholic high school, and have read most of the Bible).  However,
>this is only a suggestion (and, again, take it in the best of intentions).
Agreed...and since you're sending it, I'll have no excuse!

>>Islam is no more entitled to special pleading than Christiaity.  If you get 
>>to use special pleading, then so do Christians.

>I have not used any 'special pleading', and in fact, I've tried to emphasize
>that there is no need for this in Islam because the Qur'an is truthful.

In ussing 'Special pleading', I am referring to plenary verbal inspiration 
for Christians and the 'God written' status you assign to the Qur'an.  Neither
can ever be proven, and thus fall into a faith-based special pleading.

I look forward to receiving the book.

God Bless.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14784 talk.religion.newage:4051 sci.physics:13540