Christian/Muslim ThreadsNo Proof Quran Copied from Bible, Gnostic or Jewish SourcesIn other words I am unable to respond to Liberate's posts as the rules of debate stipulates because it would involve me reading the entire chapter of the one line that I have taken out of context from islamic-awareness who are my only source of defense and if they don't tackle an issue I am dead at sea, but I will just regurgitate the script I came in with and pretend the other individual is making ad hominem attacks though I don't really know what it means it just sounds nice to say at this point. K buddy do you know what a script is? Do you know that a script is the style a language is written? Did you not stipulate that if the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus was written in quraish (yes quraish script/quraish arabic this is a script) it was proof that it was pre-islam without providing any evidence such a script existed or such a script was utilised for religious documents? Seeing that you ask for the most ridiculous of proofs (in fact you have not brought proof from anything you have said other than to quote one line out of context from Tisdall) and realising that you are unable to justify this ludicrious assumption that such a script existed or such a script was utilised for official religious documents you know claim the script is not the issue? If the script is not the issue why did you bring it up? Isn't this a script? isn't this also a script? Why don't you quote it? Too much work for you? If you quoted it you would realise it says the varying dialects were oral in other words your quraish arabic script does not exist it is an oral dialect so your assumption of egyptian arabic and quraish arabic at the worst are oral dialects there is still no proof such a script existed or was used for official religious documents the readers will also be wondering why you have not responded to any of my posts? you might as well ask us for proof of oral plagiarism, Unless you have something to hide or are afraid of being shown to be someone without any common sense, why have you not responded to the question I asked several times now about suras 3 and 5? If you were to answer it you would realise your far fetched fantasy without any proofs for, is not only untenable but makes no rational sense given the dates and area where the ayats in suras 3 and 5 relating to Jesus making a bird out of clay and speaking in the cradle are concerned my guess is you don't want to tell us where those suras were revealed not because you will be shown for someone who has the least bit of rationale he purports to have (that is a given) but because you don't know and are unable/unwilling to find out you are simply regurgitating the argument from islamic-awareness. Help me out here How do you know Tisdall believed the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus is the source IF HE NEVER STATES SO? The fact that you have tried to defend an idiotic position speaks volumes about your motive for being here you do not even have the awareness to realise when you are making a fool out of yourself but have the nerve to believe you can use Tisdall whose whole book "the sources of the koran" and the chapter concerned the "influence of christianity and christian apocryphal books" as a witness for Mohammed's defense.
Good grief If it was through an oral channel surely that oral channel had a source? If that oral channel had a source is this still not plagiarising? I dare you to name me the source that Tisdall mentioned? I WOULD LIKE YOU TO SHOW ME WHERE TISDALL SAID IT WAS THROUGH AN ORAL CHANNEL (there is a reason for asking this question though I seriously doubt you will bother to answer, yes I know he did say it could have come from an oral channel using Mary the copt as a possible source for Mohammed but in that very chapter he states where the source of that oral channel is from, and the source of that oral channel is a book, do you not see wether Mohammed may have obtained the story orally the source of the story is still a book and the end game is still plagiarism??) What difference does it make if it was transmitted orally or via written documents am I to believe you hold on to the view that it is not plagiarism if it was via oral transmission? the stories are the same as the apocrypha 3 millenia plus earlier than Mohammed, could your prophet read? if your prophet could not read then you will know why Tisdall gave circumstantial evidence of people who had knowledge of the stories in the arabic gospel of the infancy to tell Mohammed. Here again it seems you are unable to realise the logical fallacy you are building around your argument, the first gospel of the infancy of Jesus is traced to the 2nd century, the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus has verbatim word for word the contents in the first gospel of the infancy of Jesus, do you then not realise that regardless of wether the copy of the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus was written in 2005 the very source of that story is in the 2nd century and predates the koran? but even then the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus is traced before the advent of islam because the arabic is so bad, denying the antecedent and making an argument out of a negative premise will only make you look devoid of the rationale you purport to hold. Anybody reading this line on it's own may think you have a valid point, but when they read the very context that you seperated that quote from they would realise you have nothing to stand on, the audience must be wondering why you are unable to quote the full context of that line you have taken out of context, I ask you again to bring forth one individual who agrees with you that Tisdall is contradicting himself in light of the book title book chapter and what he said about the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus being the source for the stories in the koran, just like the emperor has no clothes analogy I could have read or heard that story from someone else and retell the story filling in minute details with the theatre of my mind I would still be plagiarising and not be consulting any written documents that is why Tisdall said Mohammed wasn't consulting any written documents because he couldn't get his facts right in lieu of the stories in the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus and the first gospel of Thomas the Israelite, at this stage I have to assume you are either a troll or simply have no deductive reasoning, this would explain why you are unable to read an item for yourself but are relying on islamic-awareness to devise your argument for you islamic-awareness did not touch on the other aspects of Tisdall's book because like you all they were interested in was taking things out of context. Again I would you to tell me what Tisdall means by the 'legend' (this would involve you reading the start of the chapter to find that the legend is none other than the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus): Again I dare you to explain what "the legend" and "a shortened form of it" means
I am sure islam and the chroniclers of islam's history were interested in heretic christians they simply thought this was what christianity was and knew no better the entire notion of christianity in islam is from christian apocryphal books. Going by the standard of proof you are asking from us no doubt you want a statement from waraqa saying " I am a heretic" before you believe. Lets see: Mary is part of the trinity is a heretic christian belief but this happens to be in your koran Jesus speaking out of a cradle is a heretic christian belief but this happens to be in your koran Jesus making birds out of clay is a heretic christian belief but this happens to be in your koran Jesus asking a palm tree to bow down so Mary could pick it's fruit is a heretic christian belief but this happens to be in your koran. Expecting another prophet to come after Jesus is a heretic christian belief which surprise surprise Waraqa speaks of in the hadith. . No the hadith is very specific that Waraqa knew the gospel (singular not plural) meaning that whoever wrote the koran thought there was one gospel as opposed to the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, muslims today still announce that Jesus was given the injil, is this phantom injil and the Injilu't Tufuliyyah (arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus) one and the same? A dialogue involves two sides this is a one sided argument we are bringing all the proofs yet you are unable to back up anything you have said not one word and are even unable to answer simple questions yet you believe you are in an intellectual discussion defending islam when the truth is you are more like a troll and an amateur troll at that. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame