relaxjack wrote:My reply to Liberate:
1) Why are you being so stubborn, Liberate?
You asked
Where is the proof that the quraish wrote religious documents in quraish? where is the proof this quraish arabic script exists?
The Quran was revealed to Muhammad (pbuh) who is Quraish and written in Quraish Arabic. This is an established fact within Islamic historical writings and even anti Islam writers like Arthur Jeffrey admitted (see answering-islam website).
2) I quoted from Wikipedia which really should have opened your eyes with a distinction between "Literary Arabic" (Fusha or Quranic Arabic) and "dialectical" or "colloquial" Arabic (Egyptian, Libyan, Morrocan, etc).
Yet, you highlighted some aspects of it:
..."Colloquial" or "dialectal" Arabic refers to the many national or regional dialects/languages derived from Classical Arabic, spoken daily across North Africa (Egypt, Libya, Sudan,etc) and the Middle East, which constitute the everyday spoken language. These sometimes differ enough to be mutually incomprehensible. These dialects are not frequently written, although a certain amount of literature (particularly plays and poetry) exists in many of them, notably Egypt and Lebanon.
The text shows that in the modern world, "dialects" are not frequently written... but these dialects still exists in Egypt and Lebanon.
If dialects are not frequently written then why are you asking for proof of quraish arabic as opposed to egyptian arabic for proof that the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus was pre or post islam? You are the one who is being obnoxious to the point of ridiculous I have seen the game played out many a time.
Just tell Artheur Jeffrey or your answering-islam website how the Quran is not written in Quraish Arabic.
Buddy again I ask you where is the proof such a quraish script exists? where is the proof official religious documents were written in a never before seen quraish script or egyptian arabic?
3) Liberate wrote:
Quote:
Tisdall believed the arabic infancy was the source of the story in the koran why didn't he state so?
Do you not see that the two bold statement above are contradictory?
HOW ON EARTH WOULD TISDALL BELIEVE THE ARABIC INFANCY WAS THE SOURCE IF THE NEVER STATES SO?
Seriously. Are you really interested in intellectual debate or simply wanted to waste my time?
Please don't make me laugh, this is an intellectual debate? you think you are an intellectual when you don't even know what an oxymoron is and are making a fool out of yourself? Is your idea of a debate to repeat "THERE IS NO PROOF, THE KORAN IS TRUTH YOU CANNOT DENY" without so much as confronting the proofs that has been shown to you other than to take quotes completely out of context you are one to talk about time wasting, Is this really your idea of an intellectual debate?
I have written several times that
i) Tisdall believed that the source was the Arabic Gospel of Infancy
K BUDDY HELP ME OUT HERE HOW DO YOU KNOW TISDALL BELIEVED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE ARABIC GOSPEL OF THE THE INFANCY OF JESUS IS THE SOURCE FOR THE STORY IN THE KORAN
IF HE NEVER STATES SO?
ii) He did not confirm/conclude that the apocryphal was available to the Prophet
Where on earth did he not conclude that the apocryphal was the source when he stated several times it was the source? pls for your own integrity that you are not a laughing stock show us where Tisdall is saying "I cannot confirm the apocryphal was available during Mohammed's time"
iii) He jumped to the assumption of "oral transmission" instead of "textual borrowing".
No he did not, he gave circumstantial evidence of heretic christian sects being around Mohammed who would have had access or known the legend contained in the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus such as Mary the copt.
In essence, Tisdall believed that the apocryphal Gospel was the source, but in teh absence of proof,
Where on earth did Tisdall say He believed the apocryphal gospel was the source but he didn't have any proof?
he believed that the story (that can be found in the original Coptic language) could have been told to the Prophet through maybe Mary the Copt.
He gave circumstantial evidence and he even elaborated what he meant:
Of course it is possible that he had others besides Mary who told him Coptic legends, but, whoever his informant or informants may have been, it is clear that the source of the story of the miracle is the one we have mentioned.
The very source for the story in the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus is traced to the 2nd century (the first gospel of the infancy) preceding islam by 4 centuries when the story is the same as mentioned in the koran the proof of plagiarism is beyond any reasonable doubt like the "emperor has no clothes" analogy I do not need a manuscript copy of the "emperor has no clothes" in my hand in danish or even have a written document of the "emperor has no clothes" to consult once I have read or heard the story I can make general assumptions of the story filling in the details with the theatre of my mind just like Mohammed or whoever wrote the koran did, this is what Tisdall is saying when he says "
Mohammed was not consulting any written document" I dare you to bring forth anybody who agrees with you that it means something else when Tisdall in that very chapter says that the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus is the source of the story.
4) I really do not wish to repeat my argument on Tisdall conclusion. To be fair, this discussion is for all interested readers. To all - Please read the conclusion of Tisdall clearly to understand why he stated that Muhammad (pbuh) "was not consulting any written documents". Also linked this to my argument in (3) above.
Again you choose to ignore what I said (ignoring it does not make the truth go away), I find it truly amazing you would dare to use Tisdall for the defense:
Ok buddy let's take this step by step
Quote:
We notice here again that, while the legend is evidently the same as that briefly referred to in the Qur'an, yet the difference is sufficient to prove that Muhammad was reproducing a shortened form of it from memory, and was not consulting any written document.
Can you tell me what Tisdall meant when he says "while the legend is evidently the same as that briefly referred to in the quran" what legend is he talking about?
what does he mean when he says "Mohammed was reproducing a shortened form of it from memory" help us out here buddy and tell us what it means that Mohammed was reproducing from memory.
Say I read an english version of the emperor has no clothes and I told it to someone else, if they wanted to find the original source of that story they would trace it right back to the original danish Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, I need not consult any written documents to tell a generalised version of the story once I have read it or heard it from someone else or even have an original danish manuscript in my hands for proof that I plagiarised the story, I can still be plagiarising from Hans Christian Anderson and still not be consulting any written documents.
I have to say of all the muslim apologists that come here and many make absolutely terrible deductions you by far are in a league of your own.
can you explain to me what Tisdall means when in that same chapter he states the source where Mohammed got this story from is:
Quote:
Of course it is possible that he had others besides Mary who told him Coptic legends, but, whoever his informant or informants may have been, it is clear that the source of the story of the miracle is the one we have mentioned.
Buddy bring forth one individual who reads that chapter and agrees with you that Tisdall does not believe the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus is not the source of the story or Tisdall is saying he has no proof, this just shows you the lengths you are prepared to go to regardless of how much of an embrassment you make of yourself.
5) Quote:
I have asked Loki before - textual criticism of the text which you claimed he copied from
You simply listed down the list of apocryphals and tell me this is 'textual criticism'? I have seen many Christian writers state the same thing and you expect Muslims to believe them?
I don't expect you to believe a word I say what I expected (well no longer since it is obvious it is beyond your capabilities) was to provide reasons to counter it, reasons with proof and not appeals to desperation.
6) There is no history of Christian proselytisation or evangelisation in Mecca during the Prophet's time. You can check Abdullah's response and also islamic-awareness website.
There were heretic christians in the hijaz this is truth you cannot deny.
What you quoted is basically some Jews who "read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims". (Notice they did not read from Arabic Torah).
Let's argue over semantics why don't we.
That is understandable since Jews were present at Medina and the Jews might be discussing religious issues with regards to Quranic refernce to Jews.
For someone who is so hard bent on proof to the point that it becomes ridiculous when we have shown you simple rational explanations to support the case of plagiarism, why are you interjecting your own personal opinions of what you think is happening without any proof? Using a page from your own ridiculous method of arguing where is the proof that jews discussed religious issues in regards to quranic reference? Yes I know it's a ridiculous question giving the context which is precisely what you are doing when we give you more than adequate proof with logical explanations. You are now saying the jews did not read from an arabic Torah and the point? the case is plagiarism oral or written it is still plagiarism.
I think no Muslims is denying that. But you should actually look at the Prophet's response. There are common grounds between Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
It is an insult to believe there is common ground between a slave trader child molester, rapist and Christ.
Coming back to the story of Jesus childhood, how was the hadith (the Jews) and Waraqa a proof that the Prophet borrowed the story from them? There are no indication from the hadith that the Prophet borrowed the story of Jesus childhood from them.
Case in point, you state the jews might have been discussing religious issues in reference to the koran, but for some strange reason Waraqa never discussed the 'gospel' he was translating with Mohammed just how ridiculous are you willing to sink?
7) Even the Quran did not say that the "tales of the ancient" refers to the childhood of Jesus. You have given us the Surahs. Maybe you can tell us the context of the revelations and how that could have been linked to the story of Jesus childhood.
Buddy then show me the proper context when it says plagiarised books? Am I to take it those plagiarised books have nothing to do with biblical tales? where is the proof the broad sense of "
plagiarised books" have nothing to do with biblical stories whatsoever again I dare you to show me what reasons you have to say this given your emiment imams and mullahs including Ibn Kathir understand those verses to mean
"plagiarised books" your prophet was copying those stories from:
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
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
Since it looks like we have to take things step by step with you would you mind to tell me what "
plagiarised books" mean if they do not refer to tales in the koran which includes biblical stories bring forth your sources for plagiarised books meaning something else. Remember these are muslims saying this not westernised missionaries but your fellow muslims.
8) The issue was on the result of carbon dating of the Arabic Gospel of Infancy. I have not seen any despite some Christians claimed otherwise.
Again the source for the story in the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus is dated to the 2nd century (the first gospel of the infancy), this predates the koran the fact that the story is the same is the reason why the case for plagiarism is without a shadow of a doubt wether orally or written the true God does not reveal plagiarised fables and myths sent via epileptic fits as divine revelation.
9) By the way I notice you have avoided answering the question when suras 3 and 5 were revealed? Mecca or Medina?
Which verses are you talking about?
Which verses do you think I am talking about? the plagiarised stories of Jesus making animals out of clay and talking in the cradle are the verses I am talking about, remember you were trying to prove that if the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus was written in quraish in Mecca it was proof that it was pre-islam which Tisdall would have used (ofcourse there is no such proof such an arabic script existed or was used for official religious documents) or if it was written in egyptian arabic it was proof that it was post islam:
Nevertheless, the Quran was reveled in excellent Arabic (in the Quraish dialect) and not in Egyptian Arabic. If the argument is of textual plagiarism, then it is more logical to assume that the apocryphal must have been translated in Quriash Arabic in Mecca during or before MUhammad's (pbuh) time. If the Arabic Gospel of Infancy is Quraish, Tisdall would certain have jumped to the conclusion that the apocryphal was available during the Prophet's time and he would certainly state so to back his claim. You ceratinly do not see him make that claim.
So buddy would you care to tell us when the suras in question sura 3:49 and 5:110 were revealed Mecca or Medina?
10) First, I do not think it is called "sirat rasullah". You cannot even quote the right book.
It's a little too late 2 posts down the line to now claim I didn't get the name right, you have never heard of the book that is why it took several days for you to find out the proper name, instead of focusing on the allegation which I notice you have already dismissed because of the isnad
Secondly, who is the author? Ibn Ishaq was supposed to be the writer. However, some volumes of his work are non-existent and your refernce could probably have been edited by other writers. That is why I asked for clarification.
The edition was done by Hisham Ishaq's student and he edited that which he thought was shameful, in other words he edited it to make islam look good.
Arguments from ignorance
denial of the antecedents
Argument from a negative premise
Argument from desperation
Lies
Thridly, the hadith lacks proper isnad. You cannot just give any hadith to Muslims and tell them to accept it.
Oh goody would you care to tell us when naming isnad was initiated? I am hoping with your powerful deductive reasoning you would realise this is a trick question.