Christian/Muslim ThreadsNo Proof Quran Copied from Bible, Gnostic or Jewish SourcesI think by this stage the readers will be wondering if you have your faculties in order. In other words I don't know
Did you or did you not several times state that TISDALL DOES NOT BELIEVE THE ARABIC GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY WAS AVAILABLE DURING THE PROPHET'S TIME??? If you are now stating that Tisdall believes the arabic infancy of the gospel of Jesus is the source for the story in the koran and therefore was available during the prophet's time EXACTLY WHAT ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT? This is what happens when you lie and are trying desperately to cover your tracks even pretending to have misquoted what I said making it look like a typo so it looks like one of your comments so anybody who reads it will glance through it without realising that you have been caught flat out lying. So now you shift focus from the fact that you said Tisdall does not believe the arabic infancy of the gospel of Jesus was available during Mohammed's time you now focus on an improper dysjunctive propositional fallacy argument that Tisdall himself is saying he has no proof!! This is in essence what you are saying: Tisdall does not believe the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus was available during Mohammed's time because he says the style of the arabic is so bad .....I think I made a bobo forget that I said Tisdall does not believe the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus dates to Mohammed's time think I will change my argument Tisdall means he has no proof... THE KORAN IS TRUTH AND THIS IS FACT YOU CANT DENY" Where did Tisdall state he has no proof? Would you care to show us the statement from Tisdall that he has no proof that this was the source of the story in the koran? as logical fallacy arguments go this is as good as it gets, denying the antecedent what Tisdall himself said and the purpose of the entire chapter and book (the sources of the koran) claiming to know Tisdall even better than he knows himself. Where exactly did Tisdall say I have no proof that this is the source of the story in the koran? Are you trying to be ambiguous with Tisdall's work that he doesn't really know what he means? Where exactly did he state he has no proof? What he gave was circumstantial evidence that would suffice any court that christian sects were present in the arabian peninsula albeit apocryphal christians, the rape victims were present when their rapists raped them. He stated coptic christians were available in Mohammed's arabian peninsula giving an example of Mary the copt backing up the "tales of the ancients" in your koran No this is not what I asked I did not ask you for a dictionary definition of plagiarism this is a non sequitur logical fallacy argument , you want to play the semantic game when we are wondering if you have all your faculties in order or are prepared to use them, I am asking what you would accept to be plagiarism, not a dictionary definition what you would accept to be plagiarism regarding your koran, will a videotape evidence of Abu Bakr, Uthman's, Ali's and Zaid's scribes copying apocryphal gospels be what you would accept as evidence of plagiarism relating to your koran? It is a simple question I am not asking you for a definition of plagiarism but what you would consider to be plagiarism relating to your koran. Obviously we both know what your reply will be as non sequitur arguments go THERE IS NO PROOF AND THE KORAN IS TRUTH YOU CAN'T DENY As logical fallacy arguments go you seem to be adept at using them compare with your later statement: You have no problem with the apocrypha on which the arabic infancy of Jesus is based being dated to the 2nd century? Do you then realise what happens to your theory that it wasn't available during Mohammed's time? Lets see if you can spot what you have just committed yourself into: This is from the arabic infancy of the gospel of Jesus http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/ ... nfarab.htm This is from the first gospel of the infancy of Jesus acknowledged to date from the 2nd century http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/ ... nfgos1.htm Maybe you didn't read those two accounts the first time round have a close read at both accounts.... In fact I think it is worth a second read have a close look through the two versions and tell me if you spot it?? arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus
First gospel:
tell me if you do not see them to be PARAPHRASED ALMOST VERBATIM. Are you still wishing to argue that the source of the story in the koran was not available during Mohammed's time when what you agree with to be a 2nd century source has the same story verbatim in the arabic infancy??? Do you now see why Tisdall did not have to spell it out for you? but hey we both know what you are going to say "THERE IS NO PROOF AND THE KORAN IS TRUTH YOU CANT DENY"
This is a logical fallacy based on argumentatum ignorantium maybe you are hoping I am unaware that egypt was christian pre islam and the language of official writings was coptic right up to the 7th century when islam conquered it or maybe you simply don't know, NOBODY HAS BEEN ABLE TO FIND A QURAISH ARABIC SCRIPT not in all archaelogy has a quraish arabic script been unearthed anywhere you want to step up to the mantle and provide evidence that the quraish arabic exists? be my guest the earliest koran dated circa 850 called the kufic script is significantly different from the korans you have today with no diacritical symbols to distinguish vowels or b's,t's,th's Maybe you should read my prior post and see exactly how much you are representing your allah Somehow I knew this was coming so buddy time to put your head in the sand some more: Lets read a little about one of the verses that speaks of the "tales of the ancients": [6] Of them there are some who (pretend to) listen to thee; but We have thrown veils on their hearts, So they understand it not, and deafness in their ears; if they saw every one of the signs, not they will believe in them; in so much that when they come to thee, they (but) dispute with thee; the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." This is the tafsir on sura 6:25: (those who disbelieve say: "These are nothing but tales of the men of old.'') The disbelievers say, what you (O Muhammad ) brought us was taken from the books of those who were before us, meaning plagiarized, http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=6&tid=15218 Let's look at another: [8] When Our Signs are rehearsed to them, they say: "We have heard this (before): if we wished, we could say (words) like these: these are nothing but tales of the ancients." This is the tafsir on sura 8:31 (. ..tales of the ancients) meaning that the Prophet has plagiarized and learned books of ancient people, and this is what he narrated to people, as they claimed... http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=8&tid=20014 and another: [27] "It is true we were promised this,- we and our fathers before (us): these are nothing but tales of the ancients." This is what the tafsir on sura 27:68 says: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=27&tid=38564 and one more for good measure: [46] But (there is one) who says to his parents, "Fie on you! Do ye hold out the promise to me that I shall be raised up, even though generations have passed before me (without rising again)?" And they two seek God's aid, (and rebuke the son): "Woe to thee! Have faith! for the promise of God is true." But he says, "This is nothing but tales of the ancients!" This is what the tafsir on sura 46:17 says: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=46&tid=48541 It is obvious your eminent imams, and mullahs regard these verses to indicate that the unbelievers believe Mohammed was plagiarising books, ofcourse your next logical fallacy is to stupefy exactly which tale of the ancient the unbelievers were referring to then I shall ask you to bring forth one story in your koran that cannot be traced to an arabian fable, zoroastrian, christian or jewish source albeit apocryphal. But we already know what you are going to say ... THERE IS NO PROOF, THE KORAN IS TRUTH YOU CANNOT DENY Yes ofcourse Help us out buddy what does that also mean?? Am I to take it you are a muslim apologist and don't know the sirat rasullah? is this another discussion stalling technique while you wish it goes away? If you don't know the sirat rasullah I suggest you step aside before you make a mockery of your religion some more. Yes ofcourse did you also know: PS I am being tongue in cheek because it is obvious we are talking to a brickwall either out of his depth or showing everyone he is unable to utilise his God given faculties, so buddy I shall ask you the question I asked you in the beginning before we move ahead Do you have any proofs that it is normal for an adult princess to have a wet nurse? Isn't the logical deduction that your best example of a human for all eternity was caught about to abuse/or abusing a little girl and bribed all involved with white linens?? The whole hadith stinks of a cover up. If you are going to dismiss the proofs we have shown you that your koran plagiarised from pseudo gospels equally show us proof that your prophet was not a pedofile. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame