Would you delete a copy of the Koran?

[m-reader]

Originally Posted by AprilHare

There has been controversy recently in the press (and parts of the the rabidly religious world) about people burning the Koran (and other religious books).
Would you delete a copy of the Koran from your liseuse?
Do you believe it would resonate as badly as burning a paper copy of the book?

Deleting a copy of an e-book off your e-reader is hardly the same thing as physically burning a paper book.

[Mrgauth]

Originally Posted by MJK2111

I have not read the book, and don't believe I ever will. It's not my type of fiction.

Wish I had thought of that. Good one.

[carld]

Originally Posted by m-reader

Deleting a copy of an e-book off your e-reader is hardly the same thing as physically burning a paper book.

I asked this question of a friend of mind. She said, from what she understood, all copies of the Koran are sacred, so deleting an ebook version would in-fact be the same as burning one. I'm skeptical, but *shrug*.

[Logseman]

Originally Posted by carld

I asked this question of a friend of mind. She said, from what she understood, all copies of the Koran are sacred, so deleting an ebook version would in-fact be the same as burning one. I'm skeptical, but *shrug*.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an

Muslims also consider the original Arabic verbal text to be the final revelation of God.

[carld]

Is there a particular part of the Wikipedia article you intended to point out? Otherwise I'm not seeing the point of linking generic encyclopedia entry on the Koran. Also could you explain how the line you quoted relates to digital form? Because I'm not understanding your point.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by carld

I asked this question of a friend of mind. She said, from what she understood, all copies of the Koran are sacred, so deleting an ebook version would in-fact be the same as burning one. I'm skeptical, but *shrug*.

I would assume then that any Muslim who had a copy of the Qu'ran on their reader could never sell it, or else would have to sell it without deleting the content first.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by carld

I asked this question of a friend of mind. She said, from what she understood, all copies of the Koran are sacred, so deleting an ebook version would in-fact be the same as burning one. I'm skeptical, but *shrug*.

(Just re-read what I'm about to post, and want to prefix it with this is just train-of-thought-meandering, not having a dig at you or your friend, given you have no visual or audio clues to my intent, just the words)

So... going on your friend's understanding, if you back your data up, including your books, and use some kind of cyclical backup routine, would overwriting the backups that include the koran count as destroying a copy?

If so, surely the people who were protesting against one person organising a koran burning day would be better off directing their energies at all the companies that sell/offer online copies of the koran? It is still quite common for companies to overwrite backup tapes on a regular basis, and even get rid of them when they fail.

And on top of that you have all the companies out there who aren't involved in the book industry in any shape, but who have staff who keep electronic copies of the koran on the network, which will then get backed up, and at some point overwritten, and quite probably deleted when that person leaves.

(We were having a similar discussion to this at work the other week, not about book burning vs book deleting, but how people's perceptions of the physical world informs their perceptions of the electronic world, even to the point that it becomes a major hindrance; and how using physical world analogies hasn't actually helped matters in the long run.)

[carld]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

So... going on your friend's understanding, if you back your data up, including your books, and use some kind of cyclical backup routine, would overwriting the backups that include the koran count as destroying a copy?

Well, for me, and this is speaking completely hypothetically here, I would treat it analogous to a physical copy. if I owned a copy of the Koran, then that's what I would have, one legitimate copy of the book. Backing up the book wouldn't really matter in my way of thinking because it wouldn't create another legitimate and therefor sacred copy of the text.

[Logseman]

Originally Posted by carld

Is there a particular part of the Wikipedia article you intended to point out? Otherwise I'm not seeing the point of linking generic encyclopedia entry on the Koran. Also could you explain how the line you quoted relates to digital form? Because I'm not understanding your point.

I happened to quote part of the generic article: I apologise for not stressing that. My point is that since Islam considers the Qu'ran as the very word of God, it's sacred and it shouldn't be deleted or changed in any way..

[parafluie]

I'd be far more likely to read it!

I'm interested in learning more about Muslims because I'm interested in diversity. I have had many Muslim students as well as Buddhists, and want to know their beliefs and their history. I studied Greek, and Roman myths, as well as some old Egyptian, on through the Jewish and Christian stories, and Celtic and Pagan beliefs. Each civilization shares common themes, myths and traditions and holidays.

So, I would want to gain knowledge, not destroy it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Logseman

I happened to quote part of the generic article: I apologise for not stressing that. My point is that since Islam considers the Qu'ran as the very word of God, it's sacred and it shouldn't be deleted or changed in any way..

That is of course a pretty standard "disclaimer" that many sacred texts make. Eg, the following from the book of Revelation in the Bible:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That is of course a pretty standard "disclaimer" that many sacred texts make. Eg, the following from the book of Revelation in the Bible:

Although it's probably true that most Bible-believers believe the author was referring to the Bible as a whole, I believe the author of those words intended them to refer only to his Book of Revelation; not the entire collection we know today as the Christian Bible. Remember; most scholars believe it was written toward the close of the first century, when there was not as yet a universally accepted New Testament canon.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Although it's probably true that most Bible-believers believe the author was referring to the Bible as a whole, I believe the author of those words intended them to refer only to his Book of Revelation; not the entire collection we know today as the Christian Bible. Remember; most scholars believe it was written toward the close of the first century, when there was not as yet a universally accepted New Testament canon.

Yes, it's pretty obvious that the author is referring to his own "book of prophesy". The disparate collection of texts that now forms the "New Testament" wasn't formally "finalized" until the Council of Tent in 1546.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Logseman

I happened to quote part of the generic article: I apologise for not stressing that. My point is that since Islam considers the Qu'ran as the very word of God, it's sacred and it shouldn't be deleted or changed in any way..

Ahh okay, that wasn't the part I was questioning, it was the idea that a digital copy was equally sacred to Muslims. That's the part I was doubtful about.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by carld

Ahh okay, that wasn't the part I was questioning, it was the idea that a digital copy was equally sacred to Muslims. That's the part I was doubtful about.

I, for one, am still doubtful and don't think the question has been settled.

In Christianity, the Bible is considered the word of God as well. Deleting from it (or adding to it) is a bad thing -- I interpret this as equivalent to Islam's "it's sacred and shouldn't be deleted or changed" -- and people who do so are generally considered cults.

The previous citation from Revelation is the Biblical admonition, but that is about changing the actual text of the book. That was about that book, but you can expand it, for example, to someone deleting Genesis and saying that they still have a complete Bible: suddenly the whole Free Will/Sin/Fall thing doesn't matter. Or to someone completely changing the John 1 from "And the Word was God" to "And the Word was like God."

However, there is nothing wrong with deleting your Bible wholesale (or destroying your own paper copy). It's changing parts and selling it as the real thing that's bad. Dan Brown sold a lot of books making claims that this is exactly what the Catholic Church did c. 300AD; it's so wrong, it actually provided a hook to draw a huge audience and make Brown a millionaire (regardless of the fact that there are Bible manuscripts prior to 300AD still in existence which completely refute these claims in Brown's stories.).

Again, I don't know Islam. But we need to be precise here. Saying the text is sacred doesn't necessarily mean the actual printed / digital text: the medium. In the case of the Bible, it means the words themselves: the message. It's still very possible it's the same for Islam and the Koran. Go ahead and add/delete your copy of the text, but don't change what the text says.

-Pie