|
if I recall, between 644 and 656, so between 12 and 24 years after Muhammad's death. Qur'an actually means "Recitation," and it is supposed to be the direct recitation of Allah, through the angel Gabriel (I think it was Gabriel) into Muhammad's ear, over a period of years.
Uthman organized the many passages, surah (pl of sura), according to length, not time, so the organization is confusing. I believe the point was supposed to be that no passage was more important than any other, so the order didn't matter. Until then, people memorized the Qur'an. Uthman caught flack over writing it down, and was eventually assassinated while he sat in his home reading the Qur'an, basically during a civil war caused by a lot of factors.
The Qur'an isn't a just book. This is what's hardest to get westerners to understand, because we automatically compare it to the Bible. The Bible, though, is a collection of texts over centuries, and even the most fundamental followers who see it as the direct word of God don't give it exactly the same connotation as the Qur'an has for Muslims. To Islam, the Qur'an is a relic as much as a book. The words in it are not just the words of Allah, but they are sacred and divine. Muslim theologians debate the nature of the Qur'an the way Christians try to understand the Incarnation of Jesus. Is the Qur'an eternal? Was it around at the beginning of Creation, in Allah's mind, even as part of Allah? This is a complicated theological question because, briefly, Allah is singular and without attributes, so saying the Qur'an was always in Allah is like saying the Qur'an is another god, or that it is in some ways like the Christian Trinity (A point Christian theologians don't miss when they are given flack by Muslims for polytheism), a part of Allah that is equal and co-eternal. It gets more complicated than I understand, but my point is, it's not a book. It's the Word of God, in the same way that Jesus himself is the "Word of God" (according the John).
Burning it is literally burning the word of Allah.
Burning the Bible wouldn't be equivalent. For a Catholic, burning the Eucharist might be the same. For a Protestant, I don't know an equivalent. Protestants don't really have a sacred element the way Catholics do.
On the other hand, what will be burnt are translations of the Qur'an, and translations are not the word of Allah, because they are translated by man. Only in Arabic is the Qur'an really the Qur'an. Translations are considered interpretations. The intent is still disgusting, but there is at least that.
I'm not Muslim, either. I don't believe in any god, or rather, I believe in gods as metaphors for things we can't define. Because of that, I think most religions capture those elements well, so I have the highest respect for them (though not for all of their followers). I hate to see this. It's not hard to become informed, to understand. I'm sure my description isn't exactly the way a Muslim would describe the Qur'an (not that all Muslims would agree with each other--Islam is no different than any other religion in diversity of beliefs and levels of understanding, and levels of apathy), but I don't think it's far off. I'm just trying to put it into perspective, I guess.
The minister in Gainesville is evil. He's an egomaniac trying to burn the world because it doesn't acknowledge him as king. He has created his version of God in his own image, one of selfishness and ego, and that all probably hides an insecure awareness that he is really insignificant. This act is his attempt to pretend he is significant, and he is willing to rip out people's hearts and endanger their lives to become his own little deity for a short time.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
