Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Newsweek on the Qur'an vs. the Bible
While Christianity Today examines how Christian and Muslim views of God differ, Newsweek's cover story looks at the two religions' books. "As sacred texts … the Bible and the Qur'an could not be more different," writes Kenneth L. Woodward. "Like the Bible, the Qur'an asserts its own divine authority. But whereas Jews and Christians regard the Biblical text as the words of divinely inspired human authors, Muslims regard the Qur'an … as the eternal words of Allah himself. Thus, Muhammad is the conduit for God's words, not their composer. … If Christ is the word made flesh, the Qur'an is the word made book."

Woodward also examines the difference between the two books' treatment of religious violence:

The Bible, too, has its stories of violence in the name of the Lord. The God of the early Biblical books is fierce indeed in his support of the Israelite warriors, drowning enemies in the sea. But these stories do not have the force of divine commands. Nor are they considered God's own eternal words, as Muslims believe Qur'anic verses to be. Moreover, Israeli commandos do not cite the Hebrew prophet Joshua as they go into battle, but Muslim insurgents can readily invoke the example of their Prophet, Muhammad, who was a military commander himself. And while the Crusaders may have fought with the cross on their shields, they did not—could not—cite words from Jesus to justify their slaughters.

Woodward has really done a tremendous job in this piece (though there are a few small errors—such as saying that Abraham's father is not named in the Bible). Those interested in more should also check out The Atlantic Monthly's January 1999 cover story, "What Is the Koran?" Newsweek's Web site also offers the usual extras, including audio bits of Woodward talking more about the Qur'an.

Bill would allow churches to directly endorse, oppose candidates
U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) is pushing to repeal a 48-year-old law barring ministers from supporting or opposing political candidates from the pulpit. In fact, Jones has made it his "signature issue." The 1954 law "took away the freedom of our preachers, priests, and rabbis," Jones told The New York Times. "The cause has been taken up by more than 12 religious conservative lobbying groups and is becoming a frequent topic on Christian talk shows on radio and television," reports the Times' Laurie Goodstein, but she doesn't name most of them (those groups she does mention are associated with Pat Robertson: the American Center for Law and Justice and The 700 Club). Jones's bill, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, has found support of its own in the House: it has 112 cosponsors. An editorial in yesterday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette attacks the bill. "The suggestion that American priests, pastors, rabbis and even mullahs are tongue-tied is laughable," the paper says. "Over the past half-century there has been abundant religious witness on everything from poverty to civil rights to globalization to the war against terrorism. … Congress should continue to keep partisan politics out of the pews—at least when those pews are paid for with tax-exempt funds."

Shocking headline of the day
Trinity Backs Out of Easter Service (Los Angeles Times) Don't worry. God will still be there. It's just that the Trinity Broadcasting Network, having won the rights to the Hollywood Bowl, released them when faced with community outrage. What strikes Weblog is that TBN would bow to public criticism. Has any cable network been more subject to public ridicule? (Whether TBN deserves it Weblog will leave to the reader.) Maybe there's a clue in TBN President Paul Crouch's letter releasing rights to the Hollywood Bowl. He complained that he was becoming "an unwilling victim of false accusations, lascivious innuendo and the whirlwind of negative reporting in the media." Huh? Weblog checks a lot of media, and hasn't seen evidence of this whirlwind—though there were whispers that someone was working on a major piece on the network. What were all these "lascivious innuendos" Crouch mentioned? Was Trinity blackmailed? As always, Weblog's e-mail inbox is open.

next page... |  1 of 3

February (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46