Qur'an statement sparks outrage

[Sting]

Where's the tolerance? Surely they should discuss it with the Bishop before jumping to conclusions based on him being misquoted?

http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Quran-statement-sparks-outrage-20100924

Cairo - A senior Coptic bishop has caused a furore in Egypt by suggesting that some verses in the Qur'an, the Muslim holy book, were inserted at a date after it was first set down, press reports said on Friday.

Bishop Bishoy, secretary of the Coptic Church's Holy Synod, suggested last week that certain verses of the Qur'an had been inserted into the holy book after the death of the Prophet Mohammed, implying doubt over their validity.

Muslims believe the Qur'an was handed down to Mohammed verbatim by the Archangel Gabriel over a period of around 23 years.

During a recent meeting with the Egyptian ambassador in Cyprus, attended by some media, Bishoy said certain verses of the Qur'an contradict the Christian faith and that he believed they were added later by one of Mohammed's early successors, Caliph Uthman Ibn Affan.

The remarks sparked outrage among both Christian and Muslim leaders, saying they could lead to sectarian tension, and Bishoy told a lecture on Wednesday there had been a misunderstanding.

"My question as to whether some verses of the Qur'an were inserted after the death of the prophet is not a criticism or accusation," he said. "It is merely a question about a certain verse that I believe contradicts the Christian faith," Bishoy told an audience in Fayoum, south of Cairo, in statements carried by al-Masry al-Youm.

"I don't understand how that can be turned into an attack on Islam," Bishoy said, insisting his remarks had been taken out of context.

Sources at Cairo's Al-Azhar - Sunni Islam's highest seat of learning - told the independent daily al-Masry al-Youm that the institution's head, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, was preparing a "strong response" to Bishoy's remarks.

Tayeb is said to be "very angry" at Bishoy's statements because "it is the job of religious leaders to ensure national unity", the paper said.

Salem Abdel Geleel, deputy minister at the ministry of religious endowments, also criticised the comments.

"The faith of Muslims is a red line that can in no way be discussed by a non-Muslim ... Just as we do not discuss the faith of non-Muslims," Abdel Geleel said in a statement carried by the opposition daily Al-Wafd.

The Egyptian constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but there is great sensitivity when it comes to religious matters. Simmering tensions occasionally flare up into violent incidents between Muslims and Christians in Egypt.

Three Egyptian Muslims are currently on trial for gunning down six Copts after they came out of Christmas services in Nagaa Hammadi in southern Egypt.

Coptic Christians make up around 6- 10% of the 80 million population and complain of systematic marginalisation and discrimination. - AFP

 

[Necuno]

yes mad ?

 

[Frankie]

Salem Abdel Geleel, deputy minister at the ministry of religious endowments, also criticised the comments.

"The faith of Muslims is a red line that can in no way be discussed by a non-Muslim ... Just as we do not discuss the faith of non-Muslims," Abdel Geleel said in a statement carried by the opposition daily Al-Wafd.

ROFL - WTF

 

[LazyLion]

LOL... they've been saying this about the Bible as well for centuries... and we learned to deal with it and grapple with the issue. Surely that requires some kind of faith instead of a knee-jerk blind hatred reaction?

Legend says that the Qur'an was memorised for many years rather than being written down... and when it was written down... thirteen editions were made and the best was voted on and all the others destroyed.

So yeah... not really a recipe for literary accuracy.

Why can't faithful Muslims live by the spirit of their Holy Texts and practice the Peace and Honour spoken of in the Text rather than the intolerance and hatred. So what if an [-]infidel[/-] says something bad about your Holy Book... he is going to Hell anyway isn't he?

 

[ponder]

Pretty much the same as the New Testament. Council of Nicaea decided on which gospels to include & which to exclude.

 

[LazyLion]

Pretty much the same as the New Testament. Council of Nicaea decided on which gospels to include & which to exclude.

um, yeah... did you read the first line of my post?

they've been saying this about the Bible as well for centuries... and we learned to deal with it and grapple with the issue.

 

[Frankie]

LOL... they've been saying this about the Bible as well for centuries... and we learned to deal with it and grapple with the issue. Surely that requires some kind of faith instead of a knee-jerk blind hatred reaction?

Legend says that the Qur'an was memorised for many years rather than being written down... and when it was written down... thirteen editions were made and the best was voted on and all the others destroyed.

So yeah... not really a recipe for literary accuracy.

Why can't faithful Muslims live by the spirit of their Holy Texts and practice the Peace and Honour spoken of in the Text rather than the intolerance and hatred. So what if an [-]infidel[/-] says something bad about your Holy Book... he is going to Hell anyway isn't he?

That nutjob hillbilly clergyman in the US could have helped with that

Could you imagine if some day they found out that the wrong versions were destroyed

 

[Sting]

Could you imagine if some day they found out that the wrong versions were destroyed

Which is why no-one may query it!!!

 

[wayfarer]

Legend says that the Qur'an was memorised for many years rather than being written down... and when it was written down... thirteen editions were made and the best was voted on and all the others destroyed.

Well, this legend has some truth at its core, but has many twists too.

The process of the Prophet Muhammad making the Quran public involved him reciting it to specifically chosen scribes (Zayd ibn Thabit being a senior one), who recorded every word and read it back to him for error-checking. When Prophet Muhammad died, the entire Quran was in written form but not yet bound together in book form.

It is true, though, that thousands of people also memorised the Quran in this early period.

Nevertheless, the written unbound Quran was eventually bound and made widely available less than two decades after the Prophet's death. During this time many unofficial scribes (or passers-by who wrote down what they happened to hear of the prophet's Quranic recitation) checked their respective versions against the official versions, and erroneous copies were discarded or corrected. It should be noted that the identities of the official scribes were clearly and unambiguously indicated by prophet in various hadith. However, this process gave rise to many interesting modern day legends, all seeking to discredit the originality of the Quran.

So regarding your legend, there were many more than 13 unofficial versions. I reiterate, the hadiths give clear indications as to who the official scribes were.

Why can't faithful Muslims live by the spirit of their Holy Texts and practice the Peace and Honour spoken of in the Text rather than the intolerance and hatred. So what if an [-]infidel[/-] says something bad about your Holy Book... he is going to Hell anyway isn't he?

Muslims believe that there are no ultimate guarantees regarding heaven and hell. Decisions and Knowledge of this nature is God's domain. By and large, faithful Muslims do live as you exhort them to, but there are always exceptions to the rule.

The Bishop has a right to his opinion. He has no historical basis for this view though, but he simply cannot choose to espouse otherwise, as this would require him to eschew a common Christian view: that the Quran is a plagiarised and somewhat distorted Bible. Perhaps the particular verses the Bishop refers to has been so significantly "distorted" from the Bible and Christian doctrine, that it must have occurred after the prophetic era. A distortion of a distortion, if you like.

 

[Dave.W]

LOL... they've been saying this about the Bible as well for centuries... and we learned to deal with it and grapple with the issue.

It isn't so much that we have learned to grapple with the issue. It is that the issue is a non issue, but then the sort of people that talk about the nicaean council and creed like it discredits the bible are not the sort of people you'd expect have done an objective study of the history of the bible and the church. Rather they are generally the sort of people that think reading fiction gives them the right to make statements of historical fact.

 

[Sting]

The Bishop has a right to his opinion. He has no historical basis for this view though, but he simply cannot choose to espouse otherwise, as this would require him to eschew a common Christian view: that the Quran is a plagiarised and somewhat distorted Bible. Perhaps the particular verses the Bishop refers to has been so significantly "distorted" from the Bible and Christian doctrine, that it must have occurred after the prophetic era. A distortion of a distortion, if you like.

Thanks for the informative reply.

Is the above then not a good example of what has occurred? They have not clearly defined the context in which the Coptic Bishop stated his opinions and his comments are therefore being distorted, as he claims?

 

[wayfarer]

Thanks for the informative reply.

Is the above then not a good example of what has occurred? They have not clearly defined the context in which the Coptic Bishop stated his opinions and his comments are therefore being distorted, as he claims?

His claim is that his statements have been misinterpreted, not distorted. Misinterpretation would imply a blameless error, while active distortion would imply deliberate deception.

I think that the way in which some statements in the article is posited leads the reader to a particular view that may not be accurate. The first 3 or 4 lines after the bolded part in the original demonstrates this.

Firstly

Sources at Cairo's Al-Azhar - Sunni Islam's highest seat of learning - told the independent daily al-Masry al-Youm that the institution's head, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, was preparing a "strong response" to Bishoy's remarks.

Sources? Which sources? Top secret anonymous sources? A "strong response". Why the quotation marks? Is this "source" being quoted.

And

Tayeb is said to be "very angry" at Bishoy's statements because "it is the job of religious leaders to ensure national unity", the paper said.

Tayeb is said to be "very angry"... Why paint Muslims as angry reactionary types? This stereotype is very common in the media, and popular too. He may have been very disappointed in the Bishop, but I seriously doubt that is was very angry . While no scholar myself, I have moved in Islamic scholarly circles, and I can tell you that this "anger" is not consistent with the standard Muslim scholarly reaction to incidents such as these; it is especially not consistent with what one would expect from the head of one of Islam's most prestigious scholarly institutions.

What about

"The faith of Muslims is a red line that can in no way be discussed by a non-Muslim...

?

I think that this statement requires further clarification. Religious texts are intensive and extensive pieces of literature, with numerous interpretive possibilities. It is rare for people outside of the respective religions to have committed to studying the texts to such a degree as to authoritatively pass judgement on what is coherently authentic and what isn't. The Bible is not the criteria for measuring the Quran's consistency or validity. Islam has its own primary texts and systems for this. I think that is what is meant here. This does not mean that the Bishop may never criticise the Quran or challenge Islam.

Also, one may glean from the article that the reason why the Muslim scholars have so strongly opposed the Bishop's statements is not because he criticised the Quran per se, but because much greater repsonsibility and common sense is expected from a religious leader than to make statements such as these at that specific forum, with full knowledge of the inter-religious unrest that presently exists there.

 

[markings]

"The faith of Muslims is a red line that can in no way be discussed by a non-Muslim ... Just as we do not discuss the faith of non-Muslims," Abdel Geleel said in a statement carried by the opposition daily Al-Wafd.

Labelling some people as infidels is already far beyond any discussion.
When one jumps to fixed conclusions according to set rules then discussions are not necessary and it is meaningless to say "we do not discuss ..".

 

[Sting]

Labelling some people as infidels is already far beyond any discussion.
When one jumps to fixed conclusions according to set rules then discussions are not necessary and it is meaningless to say "we do not discuss ..".

The difference is that Tayeb is a respected scholar and Galeel is a politician. I know which one I would rather listen to in this instance.

 

[ponder]

um, yeah... did you read the first line of my post?

Yes Gary I did. I was just adding to what you said

I find religion very interesting from a research & debate perspective. Just to add many of the gospels in & out of the bible were never written by those that spread them but written by followers up to several hundred years later.

Apologies, I created some confusion here.

 

[Biright]

Islam is now being analyzed and picked apart like all other religions and they don't like it. To hell with that every body is entitled to their opinion and if Islam is fragile then revenge and killing is the only way to keep it alive. Rule by fear has never worked so time will soon correct this and Muslims will have to take it where it hurts most.

 

[Balstrome]

The only way for Islam to stay in this new world, is for it to have a total reformation as Christianity did with Martian Luther. And that means removal of the problem parts of Islam and reteaching the new way to everyone. Either that or it can continue to be a 4th century religion of intolerance with all the baggage that goes with that. Remove the concept of Jihad, install real equality of sexes, acknowledge that sexual preferences other than traditional ones are acceptable. And start to join the modern world, or be left behind further and further. Yes, and those man-dresses have to go.

 

[BacchusZA]

Wayfarer, I have to say your comments in this thread have been some of the more rational, reasonable, and just good old fashioned sensible and untainted by hysterical, reactionary bull**** with regards to Islam that I've read on this forum, or pretty much anywhere in fact, from any particular perspective.

+10 points

 

[Sting]

Wayfarer, I have to say your comments in this thread have been some of the more rational, reasonable, and just good old fashioned sensible and untainted by hysterical, reactionary bull**** with regards to Islam that I've read on this forum, or pretty much anywhere in fact, from any particular perspective.

+10 points

I agree. It's always a pleasure reading his responses.

 

[Dixie]

I agree. It's always a pleasure reading his responses.

You can add me as a fan as well. I thoroughly enjoy reading his posts amidst all the emotional spew...