Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/17/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On 10/17/05, Scott Saylors wrote:
> > Susan Maneck wrote:
> > Gilberto:
> > "And so if there were variant texts like Yemenite fragments
> > which Scott was alluding to, then they would not be the absolutely
> > authentic Quran."
>
> > Susan
> > I'm not sure that follows. It would depend on how significant the
> > differences were between the two.
>
> Gilberto:
> How are you thinking of the term "absolutely authentic" here? If the
> original is absolutely authentic, how can you change the text and have
> the result still be absolutely authentic?
>
> Scott:
> > Time will tell. I have no idea. I do know that Uthman distributed his
> > recension along with an order to destroy by fire previous versio! ns of the
> > Qur'an, so there must have been other version or the order would not have
> > been necessary. Perhaps Uthman just wanted to head of Islam's "Council of
> ! > Nicaea". Perhaps he was concerned with his position in light of the
> > controversy over the succession not passing immediately to Ali.
>
> Scott, please stop. You are being offensive in ways which you don't
> even realize. You'll end up pissing me off even more. And you are
> doing it in a way which is really really ignorant.
>
> Firstly from a Sunni perspective, Uthman was a "saint", one of the
> rightly-guided successors, and one of those who was guaranteed
> paradise. I'm not saying he was perfect or infallible but talking
> about him the way you are is incredibly distasteful.
>
> Secondly, Ali (who from a Shia and even from a Bahai perspective) was
> the first Imam and basically infallible ruled the ! Muslim community
> *after* Uthman, and he also accepted Uthman's recension of the Quran.
> If Uthman had removed some verse from a hypothetical "original Quran"
> which said "Ali is great, follow him" then Ali would have had the
> authority to put it ! back in when we ruled after Uthman. Besides, from
> a Shia perspective, there already *are* verses like that anyway.
>
>
> -Gilberto
> Dear Gilberto,
> I you see this as insult is your perception, not my intent.
And that makes it slightly less offensive. But if you don't make any
effort to change or inform yourself of anything different. And
stubbornly cling to what you are saying then you are more responsible
for what you are saying.
> What may be true from a Sunni point of view and from a Shi'ih point of view
> is only evidence of the division within Islam over the issue of the
> succession.
So this is just another ! potshot which avoids the previous issue.
> Its a scholarly list after all, and scholars have questions.
> Questions are not offensive by themselves.
I think the way you ask them and approach them actually can be.
Especially when they aren't just questions but cast aspersions on
individuals in a certain way.
-Gilberto
Dear Gilberto,
I did not bring up this issue on the list solely for your consideration, Gilberto.
If you perceive aspersions, then you are responsible for your perception, not I.
Regards,
Scott
Arnold J. Toynbee
