They burned Bibles....we didn't riot

[Richardols]

rlg94086:

If their religion says that a book, printed yesterday, is the word which came directly from God, they are illogical and ignorant.

And if an Evangelical Fundamentalist said about Catholicism, “if their religion says that a piece of ordinary bread, ‘consecrated’ yesterday, is the body and blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, they are illogical and ignorant,” would you find that an acceptable opinion?

Such pejoratives as you used are uncalled for.

 

[ybeayf]

Do Muslims make any distinction between the abstract word of God and the actual individual copy of the Koran?

Most schools believe the words of the Qur’an to be the abstract Word of God concretized in a particular linguistic form, though, as I said, the Hanbalis believe the language itself to be part of the Word of God. The Eucharist has no direct analogue to the actual written letters and pages of a Qur’an – it can be thought of as a form of storage, where the Qur’an (recitation) can be pulled from at any time. The information contained in the pages is what is holy, and what makes the pages holy.

If it cannot be bought or sold, how is it distributed?

If you buy a Qur’an, you’re actually buying the bookbinding and any commentary that may be included; the actual words of the Qur’an are free.

Is there some point at which the Koran is officially consecrated as such, at which point it becomes sacred and the norms apply?

Any portion of the Qur’an that is written down automatically attains the status of the Qur’an.

What happens to those Korans that deteriorate and must be disposed of?

They are burned or buried.

What happens to an individual who inadvertantly damages or destroys a Koran?

If it’s truly an accident, then there is no blame, but if it’s a result of carelessness, then a sin has been committed.

 

[ybeayf]

Reading the Bible is a direct experience with God if properly disposed.

But the actual text of the Bible, the information that is contained therein, is not the Word of God – only Christ is the Word. As others have said, if for Christians, Christ is the Word made flesh, for Muslims, the Qur’an is the Word made text.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Is the Koran more important than a human life?

Richardols–It is no more illogical to say that a book is God than to say that a wafer and wine become God after a consecration. However, it doesn’t seem that there is a developed theology claiming that the individual copies of the Koran are God. That’s where the analogy between the Koran and the Eucharist breaks down.

ybeayf–if any portion of the Koran written down becomes the Koran, does that mean that wherever it is quoted on paper, that is the Koran? What about in electrons on a computer? I still don’t see any distinction being made between the abstract words of the Koran and the concrete medium in which it is conveyed.

 

[Brad]

ybeayf:

The Bible is most certainly NOT part of the Word. It is an icon of the Word, and can lead one to an understanding of the Word, but is not the Word Itself. The Word is Christ, the Bible is an icon of Christ.

Put another way, reading the Bible is not a direct experience of Christ, but an indirect one. Receiving the Eucharist is a direct experience. Muslims see reading the Qur’an as a direct experience of God as well – it is how they participate in the divinity.

From Dei Verbum:

1. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

Sacred Scripture is the word of God and thus, part of the Word.

 

[Richardols]

StJeanneDArc:

Richardols–It is no more illogical to say that a book is God than to say that a wafer and wine become God after a consecration. However, it doesn’t seem that there is a developed theology claiming that the individual copies of the Koran are God. That’s where the analogy between the Koran and the Eucharist breaks down.

And a “developed theology” is the sin qua non?

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Richardols:

And a “developed theology” is the sin qua non?

Well, yes. Especially if you’re making comparisons between religions.

 

[ybeayf]

From Dei Verbum:…

I’m still not convinced that the “word of God” (little “w”) being used here is equivalent to the “Word of God” (big “W”). I will concede, though, that an element of Latin Catholic belief is that the scriptures are part of the Word. Doesn’t mean I believe it’s correct, though – in my catechumenate into the Orthodox Church I was specifically taught that the Bible points to the Word, but is not the Word Itself.

I still don’t see any distinction being made between the abstract words of the Koran and the concrete medium in which it is conveyed.

It’s the information that is key. If the ink on a page or the phosphors on a screen are arranged so that the information of the Qur’an is encoded there, then they are holy; if the ink is washed away or the phosphors are turned off, the information is no longer there and so the objects cease to be holy. The information and the medium are not the same, but they cannot be separated. Think of the Eucharist; it’s not an exact analogy, but it can illustrate the point I’m making. To all physical appearances, the bread and wine are just ordinary food, but the Body and Blood of God are in fact there; but if the physical matter is destroyed or digested, the Body and Blood are no longer present, else we would be desecrating the Eucharist every time we visited the lavatory after partaking of communion. In the same way, once the physical matter on which the Qur’an is encoded is destroyed, the information ceases to be present, and so the medium becomes ordinary matter once again.

 

[rlg94086]

Richardols:

And if an Evangelical Fundamentalist said about Catholicism, “if their religion says that a piece of ordinary bread, ‘consecrated’ yesterday, is the body and blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, they are illogical and ignorant,” would you find that an acceptable opinion?

Such pejoratives as you used are uncalled for.

Thank you for your admonition.

I have been told that by evangelicals and I said it when I was an evangelical. Last I checked, we don’t kill people who defile the Eucharist. It’s a scandal, but not a capital offense.

Now, do Muslims believe that an individual copy of the Qur’an is Allah? As others argued, what about the words of the Qur’an on a computer? Is the computer then sacred? What about parts of the text? If someone quotes a portion of the Qur’an in a book, is the book then sacred? Why not?

Do you believe that it is logical and enlightened to kill someone because they throw a book to the ground or flush it in a toilet?

 

[rlg94086]

I heard an interesting proposition today…

If the Muslim world is so offended by desecration of the Qur’an, why don’t we get a crate full of the books and threaten to defile them if they cut another head off? Certainly, they would stop killing the “infidels” to save a Qur’an. No?

 

[ybeayf]

Now, do Muslims believe that an individual copy of the Qur’an is Allah? As others argued, what about the words of the Qur’an on a computer? Is the computer then sacred? What about parts of the text? If someone quotes a portion of the Qur’an in a book, is the book then sacred? Why not?

Dude, did you not read my last post?

If the Muslim world is so offended by desecration of the Qur’an, why don’t we get a crate full of the books and threaten to defile them if they cut another head off? Certainly, they would stop killing the “infidels” to save a Qur’an. No?

No. From their perspective, you’d just be heaping more punishment on your own head. They’re not going to stop fighting just because you’re holding some Qur’ans for ransom; rather, it would just inspire them to fight all the harder.

 

[rlg94086]

ybeayf:

Dude, did you not read my last post?

Dude, I missed it. I was responding to Richardols. I will read it now.

 

[rlg94086]

ybeayf:

It’s the information that is key. If the ink on a page or the phosphors on a screen are arranged so that the information of the Qur’an is encoded there, then they are holy; if the ink is washed away or the phosphors are turned off, the information is no longer there and so the objects cease to be holy. The information and the medium are not the same, but they cannot be separated. Think of the Eucharist; it’s not an exact analogy, but it can illustrate the point I’m making. To all physical appearances, the bread and wine are just ordinary food, but the Body and Blood of God are in fact there; but if the physical matter is destroyed or digested, the Body and Blood are no longer present, else we would be desecrating the Eucharist every time we visited the lavatory after partaking of communion. In the same way, once the physical matter on which the Qur’an is encoded is destroyed, the information ceases to be present, and so the medium becomes ordinary matter once again.

This makes sense, but, again, do they believe the words are just holy? Or, do they believe the words are Allah? Also, does it have to be the whole Qur’an? What about an excerpt?

As you said, it’s not an exact analogy. We believe the Eucharist is Christ incarnate, yet we don’t kill someone for defiling the Eucharist (they’ve damned themselves).

Too bad about the crate of books threat. Back to the drawing board…

 

[ybeayf]

Dude, I missed it. I was responding to Richardols. I will read it now.

No prob, dude. Apologies for snapping.

 

[mpav]

In the NY Sun today an interesting interpretation of why Muslims are so touchy about the Koran.

nysun.com/article/13940

I’m not saying I agree with it, but it makes for intresting reading.

 

[Jay74]

To view the entire article, visit worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44313

Tuesday, May 17, 2005​

Newsweek and the rioters: 2 faces of anti-Americanism
By Dennis Prager​

Posted: May 17, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Newsweek magazine published a scoop last week.

Based on an unnamed source, Newsweek informed the world that American interrogators of suspected Islamic terrorists at Guantanamo Bay had flushed pages of the Quran down a toilet. If this were true, the interrogators would be both morally wrong and stupid. The words of the Quran and the pages on which they are written are considered intrinsically holy to Muslims. .

As it happens, it was not true. Like Dan Rather and CBS News, Newsweek put politics and craving a scoop ahead of truth, not to mention ahead of America’s security.

As I said on my radio show days before Newsweek revealed that its report was baseless, even if the report were true, the magazine was highly irresponsible when it published the report. It could have only one effect: inflaming the wrath of hundreds of millions of Muslims against America.

If an American interrogator of Japanese prisoners desecrated the most sacred Japanese symbols during World War II, it is inconceivable that any American media would have published this information. While American news media were just as interested in scoops in 1944 as they are now, they also had a belief that when America was at war, publishing information injurious to America and especially to its troops was unthinkable.

Such a value is not only not honored by today’s news media, the opposite is more likely the case. The mainstream media oppose the war in Iraq and loathe the Bush administration. Whatever weakens the war effort and embarrasses the president raises a news source’s prestige among its domestic, and especially foreign, peers.

Newsweek is directly responsible for the deaths of innocents and for damaging America. As a typical member of the American news media, Newsweek’s primary loyalties are to profits and to its political-social agenda. We are very fortunate that in America, at least, we now have talk radio and the Internet – the mainstream news media are no longer Americans’ only sources of news. Europe and the rest of the world still rely almost exclusively on news media for their understanding of the world, which is a major reason for their anti-Americanism.

CONTINUED…

 

[Jay74]

…CONTINUED

And now a word about the rioters. They have desecrated their religion and their holy text far more than the alleged flushers of Quranic pages.

Did any Buddhists riot and murder when the Taliban Muslims blew up the irreplaceable giant Buddhist statues in Afghanistan?

Did any Christians riot and murder when an “artist” produced “Piss Christ” – a crucifix immersed in a jar of the “artist’s” urine? When all Christian services and even the wearing of a cross were banned in Saudi Arabia? When Christians are murdered while at prayer in churches by Muslims in Pakistan?

Have any Jews rioted in all the years since it was revealed that Jordanian Muslims used Jewish tombstones in Old Jerusalem as latrines? Or after Palestinians destroyed Joseph’s Tomb in 2000 and set fire to the rebuilt tomb in 2003? It is quite remarkable that many Muslims believe that an American interrogator flushing pages of the Quran is worthy of rioting, but all the torture, slaughter, terror and mass murder done by Muslims in the name of the Quran are unworthy of even a peaceful protest.

Nevertheless, one will have to search extensively for any editorials condemning these primitives in the Western press, let alone in the Muslim press. This is because moral expectations of Muslims are lower than those of other religious groups. Behavior that would be held in contempt if engaged in by Christians or Jews is not only not condemned, it is frequently “understood” when done by Muslims.

That – not phony reports about an American desecrating Quranic pages – should really upset Muslims. It won’t. Just as the CBS and Newsweek debacles won’t upset the American news media.
The lowest of the Muslim world and the elite of the Western world: Anti-Americanism makes strange bedfellows.

To view the entire article, visit worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44313

 

[ybeayf]

One nitpick on that article…

Have any Jews rioted in all the years since it was revealed that Jordanian Muslims used Jewish tombstones in Old Jerusalem as latrines?

Somebody’s not very familiar with ethnic tension in Israel, it seems.

 

[jimmy]

I have to agree with ybeayf. The Bible is not the Word. The Word is Christ, the Eucharist is the Word. If they were desecrating the Eucharist, that would piss me off more than pretty much anything. The bible as the word points to the Word, Jesus Christ. It is not actually The Word.

 

[jimmy]

Brad:

From Dei Verbum:

1. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

Sacred Scripture is the word of God and thus, part of the Word.

You misunderstand this passage. Sacred scripture most certainly is not part of The Word. It is the word, but not the Word. No where in that passage does it equate the bible to being part of the second person of the Trinity. That is what the Word is. It is a big mistake to consider the scriptures as part of the Word.

That passage is talking about the co-importance of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. They are on an equal footing. It says nothing about the Word other than that Jesus Christ, the Word, entrusted the Sacred Tradition to the Apostles