relaxjack wrote:1) To Liberate:
You even misinterpreted me. I did not say that Tisdall "does not believe it (the Arabic Gospel of Infancy) is not the source for the story in the koran".
Then help us out buddy what exactly are we arguing about?
This is what you said earlier:
My reply to Liberate:
1. Please read Tisdall message carefully. First, he said the Gospel of Infancy could not have dated from the Prophet's time
You further emphasized this in a later post:
Tisdall did not say the Arabic Gospel of Infancy was available during the Prophet's time.
If you now believe that Tisdall's arguments was based on the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus being responsible for the story in the koran
what exactly have you been arguing about?
When you have made up your mind on what to believe let me know,
2. If he would believe that the the Gospel has been translated before the Prophet's time, he would have clearly said so
How clear do you want him to be? Where in his entire article does he state that the story was only translated
after the prophet? what makes you think he is not stating it was translated
before with all his futher comments?
You are arguing above that he said it is not responsible for the story in the koran because Tisdall says it doesn't date to Mohammed's time period, you now say it is responsible for the story in the koran which one is it? trying to be ambiguous with Tisdall's work as if Tisdall himself does not know what he is talking about is not very guileful of you. If Tisdall is not being clear how do you know Tisdall is saying the story in the koran is plagiarsed from the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus?
It is becoming clear you are only responding to posts that may have been covered in islamic-awareness so I shall elaborate on the same question I asked you which you side stepped with a dictionary definition
What proof will YOU accept of plagiarism?
He was an anti-islam writer and it was probably his mission to destroy Islam. The problem is: Tisdall did not have any PROOF to say that the Arabic Gospel of Infancy was available during the Prophet's time.
That is why he wrote:
i) "The style of the Arabic of this apocryphal Gospel, however, is so bad that it is hardly possible to believe that it dates from Muhammad's time."
I must admit I have not heard such a logical fallacy statement like this in a long time I am a little perplexed you would be ready to copy and paste from islamic-awareness and be oblivious to the development of the arabic script pre and post Mohammed:
Think about this relaxjack
DO YOU THINK THE STYLE OF THE ARABIC WILL BE BAD BEFORE OR AFTER MOHAMMED?
Was the arabic language fully developed before or after Mohammed?
2) To Loki:
And when these apocryphas are practiccly surrounding muhammed you assume that it was impossible for him to come into contact with them... aren't you a bit naieve?...
No. I am not being naive. I am trying to be objective and practical.
You are as objective and practical as blood coming out of a stone you are showing everybody with each successive posting that for the sake of your religious identity you are devoid of logic.
If Loki said the "apocryphas are practiccly surrounding muhammed" then being an objective person , I seek Loki's proof?
Read your quran "
these are but tales of the ancients" why on earth would the unbelievers say these if they didn't know the tales Mohammed was regurgitating?
What does Loki mean by "practiccly surrounding muhammed". Is loki saying that the apocryphal was widely distributed at Mecca and medina?
I suggest you read about the syrian nestorians and interestingly which scriptures they believed in.
Till now, Loki has been blabbering about the copying theory from the apocryphal but has not given a single proof. And I am only asking for proof.
We have given you more than enough proofs to satisfy the most objective of readers so help us out and describe in clear unambiguous terms (not dictionary definitions) what proofs you would agree with to be plagiarism.
Loki said
there is no 'dichotomy' i cleary said, all wich muhammed copied is done in the style of hearsay, remember muhammed his tales were written down by other while muhammed was preaching (not reading other materials) the fact that he repeats known stories is plagiarism and the fact that he doesn't repeat it exactly how it should is because it's hearsay.
and
The quran is the prime evidence of plagiarism, what makes you so blind that you do not see?
Let me ask Loki: How do you present your case of PLAGIARISM, in this context, to the readers? You use big words, surely you must be able to defend your statement?
Let's use very simple words:
Mohammed or whoever composed the koran (lets face it your religion says he didn't write the koran, maybe it was Zaid, or Uthman or Abu Bakr or Ali and their scribes)If this is a rape case the writers of the koran are the rapists, and the apocryphal gospels are their rape victims the rape victims were present at the locations where their rapists raped them.
Loki wrote:
In that same regard because i can't proof where he got all his sources from (for you know, that could of been many people and many sources) doesn't mean Muhammed didn't have any sources.
So, in short, Loki CANNOT PROVE that the Prophet copied or borrowed from any sources... but as with many anti-Islam Christians, he BELIEVES that the Prophet might have some sources. You see the contradiction?
Story a is told in the apocrypha
your koran regurgitates story a
your koran regurgitates the unbelievers/pagans/jews quoting that they have heard story a before
Story a is in the scriptures of the heretic christian sects living in arabia.
Not to mention that story a is like the story of snow white and the seven dwarfs, cinderella or the three little pigs would God send divine revelation as these aesop fables?
Like Loki and Liberate, there are people who believe that someone taught the Prophet. However, if Loki and Liberate still lingers on the teacher-student hyphothesis, then tell us who is the teacher and provide us the evidence. Again, that wouldn't be so difficult, would it?
Time to stick your head in the desert and scream "give me more proofs"
From the sirat rasullah page 180:
"According to my information the apostle used often to sit at al-Marwa at the booth of a young Christian called Jabr (2), a slave of B. al-Hadrami and they used to say "The one who teaches Muhammad most of what he brings is Jabr the Christian, slave of the B. al-Hadrami." Then God revealed in reference to their words "We well know that they say, "Only a mortal teaches him"." The tongue of him at whom they hint is foreign, and this is a clear Arabic tongue. (3)
Did Mohammed write the koran?
If he did not write the koran who did?
when you realise the koran was written by men without any prophetic mandate from Mohammed or allah and their stories in the koran were already well known to the people in the arabian peninsula the case of plagiarism is beyond any reasonable doubt compounded with a prophet with no prophecies to his name whose lifestyle is beyond immoral for a so called "spiritual holy man". As they say plaigiarism is the highest compliment.
The source of this story is "The Arabic Infancy Gospel". There exists a whole collection of stories and fables classified as "Infancy Gospels". Later ones were based upon earlier ones. The Arabic Infancy Gospel is based upon earlier Infancy Gospels were created from the second century onward. Here is the quote from The Arabic Infancy Gospel:
"We find what follows in the book of Joseph the high priest, who lived in the time of Christ. Some say that he is Caiaphas. He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world."
One scholar - J. K. Elliot writes regarding the dating of the Arabic Infancy Gospel, in "The Apocryphal New Testament", page 100:
"This is another collection of material that has made use of the Protevangelium of James (PJ) and Infancy Thomas. Chapters 1 - 10 are based up PJ, and 36-55 shows many similarities with Thomas... In between (i.e. chapters 11-35) the author has drawn on a large collection of fantasies, the origin of which is likely to be Egyptian.
"...the Arabic is likely to go back to a Syrian archetype, which could be of he fifth - sixth century." [30] (J. K. Elliot, "The Apocryphal New Testament", (editor) Oxford.)
M. R. James in "The Apocryphal New Testament", pub. by Oxford, writes on page 38 regarding "The Protevangelium of James",
"Origen mentions the Book of James as stating that the brethren of the Lord" were sons of Joseph by a former wife. This is the first mention of it and shows us that the book is as old as the second century." [31] (M. R. James "The Apocryphal New Testament", Oxford.)
Regarding the composition date of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Helmut Koester writes in "Ancient Christian Gospels" on page 311:
"That this writing existed in some form in the 2nd century is not certain but also not improbable. [32](Helmut Koester, "Ancient Christian Gospels", Trinity Press International. )
And Elliot writes regarding the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas",
"Wright's Syriac text is based on a fifth century manuscript that is close to Greek A.
Hennecke writes in "New Testament Apocrypha", pub. by Lutterworth, page 369:
"The basis of all the vast later literature constituting the apocryphal infancy gospels is the so called Protevangelium of James, probably of the 2nd century, particularly for the birth, childhood and motherhood of Mary, and the Gospel of Thomas, not much later in its original form, for the miracles of the child Jesus." [33](E. Hennecke, "New Testament Apocrypha", edited by W. Schneemelcher, translated by R. McL. Wilson, published by Lutterworth. )
Fables through time have changed, and Muhammad repeated one of the variations of Jesus speaking in the cradle. Thus the fable of Jesus speaking in the cradle predates Islam.
..."
I would like you to bring forth one scholar who disagrees with the above scholars that the infancy gospels are pre islam let us analyse what he has to say but this might be asking too much as you would have to leave islamic-awareness and read an item for yourself.
The encyclopedia britannica says:
"Western Scholars who have analyzed the contents of the various revelation have shown that much of the narrative material concerning biblical persona and events differs from the biblical account and seems to have come from later Christian and above all, from Jewish sources, (e.g. Midrash). Other motifs, such as the idea of the impending judgment and the descriptions of paradise agree with standard topics in the missionary preaching of the contemporary Syriac church fathers. THE DEPENDENCE NEED NOT, HOWEVER, BE OF A LITERARY KIND, BUT MIGHT BE DUE TO INFLUENCE FROM ORAL TRADITIONS."
Even though the written plagiarised material is numerous and significant for any objective individual I guess no doubt you will expect us to provide written proof of oral plagiarism?