Christian/Muslim ThreadsNo Proof Quran Copied from Bible, Gnostic or Jewish Sources
3 things: i) You need to prove that the quraish arabic script exists and it was used officially for written documents of a religious nature because nobody has found such a script. ii) You need to show me the difference between egyptian arabic and quraish arabic iii) you need to show me why the korans at your disposal today are significantly different from the earliest korans.
Do you realise your statements are oxymorons? if Tisdall believed the arabic infancy was the source of the story in the koran why didn't he state so? why don't you quote for all of us where Tisdall did not state that the arabic of the infancy is responsible for the story in the quran? What you are writing is irrelevant and a pack of lies you are quoting a man you are taking out of context and trying to interpret for the defense. Please show us where Tisdall says he has no proof that the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus was not responsible for the story in the quran. I know what it says why don't you quote for us what it says lets all read it together so everybody knows exactly what it says if you have nothing to hide and are representing the defense by all means quote for us what it says. First off you are talking out of silence in complete contrast with what Tisdall himself said do us all the honor of quoting what Tisdall says, you are trying to use Tisdall as a case for the defense If that is the case show me where he states that I have no proof? He gave more than sufficient circumstantial evidence that would suffice any court it's like saying Mohammed had interactions with these christian sects, here is an example of christian sects in arabia here is one of his concubines Mary the copt; for someone like you obviously Mohammed never asked Mary the copt anything to do with religion she was afterall just his concubine he used to rape while Hafsah was away.
Looks like taking things out of context is your forte, if you had bothered to read the chapter you would realise "not consulting any written domcuent" does not mean I am not plagiarising. Here is the full context: Tisdall here is talking about the gospel of thomas the israelite A DIFFERENT APOCRYPHAL GOSPEL, this however is the source for the stories in the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus, and he states that Mohammed was not consulting any written document because his tale in the quran differs from what is in the apocrypha of Thomas the israelite and the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus, in other words he was trying to remember what he had heard or read, am I to believe Mohammed simply was unable to make generalisations of the type you make when you have read something somewhere or heard it somewhere? and you are trying to regurgitate it again ignoring specifics this is what Tisdall means when he says "he wasn't consulting any written documents" "he couldn't get his facts right" Need I remind you of the manner in which Mohammed received his alledge 'revelations' by frothing at the mouth in an epileptic fit and scribes would rush to gather leaves, barks, animal skin or whatever was at hand to write the newest revelation from allah, yes Mohammed wasn't consulting any written document because the deceived masses were expecting a revelation from allah, and they wanted it now so he had to produce he couldn't consult any written documents so he spat out what he knew making generalisations. In that same chapter we have this quote from Tisdall: he further clarifies this " " Do you think Tisdall is contradicting himself when he says this is the sources of the koran and Mohammed wasn't consulting any written documents? PLS TELL ME THIS IS NOT YOUR PROOF THAT TISDALL DOES NOT BELIEVE MOHAMMED USED ANY APOCRYPHAL SOURCE, BECAUSE IT IS SIMPLY LAUGHABLE.
Wait a minute if you are not prepared to state in clear ambiguous terms what proofs you are prepared to accept do you realise you are asking us to prove something you are not prepared to accept any proof for? WHAT THEN IS THE PURPOSE OF THE ENTIRE THREAD WHEN YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT ANY PROOFS SHOWN TO YOU??? Believe it or not I knew you would not be able to answer this question because you simply had not thought it out I have not met a muslim yet that has thought out that question what proofs they will accept that the koran was plagiarised it is the height of stupidity to ask us to give you proof for something you are not prepared to accept any proof for that is why you are unwilling to state in clear unambiguous terms what proofs would suffice, you don't want to know, you don't get any more circular arguments than this. If someone brought a rape victim to you as the judge what you are basically saying is: "show me proof that she was raped" "but this is the man that raped her" "show me proof she was raped" "this is his dna" "show me proof she was raped" or maybe when someone asked you for what kind of proof of the rape you are willing to accept you state "I am not at liberty to reveal" "thats for me to know and for you to find out" it begins to make sense when the rapist is your brother.
It looks like it went over your head Let me take it step by step: Do you know why "the first gospel of the infancy of Jesus" is called the FIRST gospel of the infancy of Jesus? (tell me you are aware that the "first gospel of the infancy of Jesus" is separate from the "arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus"?) What date is the First gospel of the infancy of Jesus dated from? I am not asking you for the dates of all the other infancy gospels I am asking you for the "First gospel of the infancy of Jesus" when is it dated from? Yes the other infancy gospels of unknown origins are dated from 2 century and upwards, do you know why they are dated from the 2nd century and upwards? If the story in the arabic infancy of the gospel of Jesus has verbatim the story contained in the first gospel of the infancy, explain to me how the source of the story does not predate the koran? orally or written. Again Tisdall does not have to spell it out for you as if you were a child if the "arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus" has verbatim the story contained in "the first gospel of the infancy" and the first gospel of the infancy of Jesus is dated to the 2nd century explain to me how the source of the story in the koran does not predate the koran??? Do you have a written style of the quraish? care to show it to us? No scholar has yet found a quraish arabic script By all means show us what you are talking about Before taking leaps before you can walk show me an example of this quraish arabic script and show me where this quraish arabic script was the official written languages of religious documents, it is historically stated that coptic is the official written language for official documents in that era so buddy you have to show me where it says egyptian arabic was the offficial written language during that era, so before you embark of your denial of the antecedent logical fallacies prove to all of us that this quraish arabic script existed, that was also the official language of religious documents. Would you also care to tell us where sura 3 and sura 5 were revealed mecca or medina? For someone who is appearing to be so adamant regarding proofs I find it amazing how you are concocting this story of quraish arabic script and egyptian arabic scripts being the official languages of written documents without any proofs, no offical or unoffical website, absolutely nothing, just your word eh?. Maybe egyptian arabic or lebanese arabic or fulani arabic is also the style of the quraish. Do you have a copy of this quraish script? yes or no? It is not common practice for 56 year old men to have sex with 9 year old girls therefore Mohammed bin abdullah is not a paedophile might as well be what you are telling me. Nice try, do you think all I quoted was restricted to the story of life and death? Help me out here do you think the "tales of the ancients" was restricted to one story? why does your eminent imans and mullahs say those verses meant "BOOKS" that your prophet was plagiarising or did your eminent imams and mullahs including ibn kathir have no knowledge or proofs to say such a thing? Let me refresh your memory:
Are you telling me your eminent imams and mullahs interpreted sura 6:25 and sura 8:31 to refer to the death and resurrection stories only? Were the books restricted to the death and resurrection stories only? Oh I see since the subject of the books is not mentioned it must be dismissed as not pertaining to the stories in the koran right? Is this really the rationale of a muslim??? Type up any line in a search engine you will have plenty of sources, I seriously doubt you even knew what the sirat rasullah was until I mentioned it any reasonable muslim apologetic would know exactly what I am talking about, who wrote it when it was written and who edited it when they hear the sirat rasullah, it is obvious the shoes are too big for you, you are trying to show us you are some really rational objective guy utilising simple logic when the truth is you are not aware of islam's foundation or history and are showing us how dense you are making yourself look to defend a religion that simply defies logic. I am trying to show you how your stance looks like. Here you are telling us that if the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus was written in a language no one has ever found and that there is no evidence that it exists your quraish arabic script, if this phantom quraish arabic script was found in Mecca it was proof that Tisdall would use for certain to claim that the arabic infancy of the gospel of Jesus was available during Mohammed's time in other words you are asking us to prove a negative premise or maybe if it was written in egyptian arabic with no clarification what the official languages were in that era that it was proof that the arabic infancy of the gospel of Jesus was written post islam? Not only are you asking us to provide proof of plagiarism when you are unwilling/and unable to tell us what proof/s you will accept, you are now asking us to prove your denial of the antecedents and negative premise fallacy statements with no proofs whatsoever that a phantom never before seen script in all archaelogy existed and was used for official religious documents . If you want us to argue based on your fallacy premise then my argument for you to show me proof that a fully grown woman having a wet nurse for herself was a normal custom is even more valid than your phantom quraish arabic script no one has ever found, my assumption is the girl in question was a little girl that is why she had a wet nurse, and only dirty old men want to sleep with little girls, and these dirty old men are pedofiles, and these dirty old men who are pedofiles that want to sleep with little girls had their followers amend the real stories of what happened to cover their pedofilic tendencies, if such a person can have his followers cover up his pedofilic tendencies then such a person and his followers are liars, they could as well plagiarise apocryphal scriptures, can you prove me in error? No buddy I have seen this game played out lots of times I know you are not being rational, more like a troll with your mantra of "show me proof", see if you were really objective and told us one proof that you would be willing to accept be it a video tape recording of Mohammed plagiarising apocryphal scriptures, you know perfectly well the moment you commit yourself you will no longer be able to defend islam, so buddy sit in your glass house asking us to give you proof when it is obvious you don't know what that proof is you are willing to accept because because... THERE IS NO PROOF, ISLAM IS TRUTH YOU CANT DENY. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame