> > Therefore, the *importance* of the literal, perfect accuracy of the Qur'an
> > may be overstated by the Muslim community.
> That's a totally seperate question. What you are saying about the
> Quran doesn't follow from what you are saying about the Gospels,
> especially given what the Bahai writings themselves say about the
> Quran.
At least we agree that the inaccuracy of the Bible wasn't the most important quality of the Bible, since the Bible is still considered the Book (they are called People of the Book). If inaccuracy isn't the most important thing, then why is accuracy the most important thing?
Therefore I propose that the concept of accurate or inaccurate isn't all that important to the Qur'an. This leaves open the door for the Aqdas.
What's more, as Susan mentioned, everyone was illiterate during the time of Jesus, so a "Book" similar to the Qur'an wasn't necessary for the people of that time.
I think you are looking at the concept of "Book" with your present-day eyes, and not considering the history and condition of the people of the past.
My points void your argument that "the Qur'an is wholly authentic therefore there is no need for the Aqdas".
Regards,
Hajir
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
