Mohammed the borrower

Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.
Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

Of course they didn't use dirham nor ounces. But they weighed, and the units of weights are dirham in Arabic.

Tasleeb on a palm tree is possible, their trunks come in all sizes.

Severing of limbs was practiced, so to suggest it could have happenned as described in the Quran isnt a far fetched possibility.

Saying that something is not accurately describing a phenomenon is not equal to saying it is inaccurate. It could also mean it is speaking in broad terms.

Which nonsense is there in sura 23?

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

Of course they didn't use dirham nor ounces. But they weighed, and the units of weights are dirham in Arabic.
And Ancient Egyptians are not the same as Arabs over a 1500 years later.
They would not recognise a dirham as anything at all other than a strange round piece of metal. No weight, no coin.
Tasleeb on a palm tree is possible, their trunks come in all sizes.
And we know that a Muslim is hiding something and lying to us when he used Arab words mixed with English ones.

So let's just lay bare the deception.

So we are looking at the S-L-B root and it uses in the Qur'an.

we find it here:


Surah 4:157 ... but they killed him not, nor crucified [perfect active] him,

And,

Surah 12:41: ... as for the other, he shall be crucified [imperfect passive].

and with with a shadda on the lam here

Surah 7:124 ... then I shall crucify you together.

Surah 20:71 ... then I shall crucify you upon the trunks of palm-trees

Surah 26:49 ... then I shall crucify you all together

and finally in a passive voice construction here

Surah 5:33 ... they shall be slaughtered, or crucified

The Arabic term for a cross is salib and "to crucify" is salaba, which is also the term used for making the sign of the cross, as in a church.

The word for a stake of a stick is "Watad".

So very obviously the Arabic word for crucifixion used in the Qur'an refers to a cross-shaped instrument of execution. "tasleeb" as eagle has it, derived from that. SALiB is a cross. It would be very difficult to impale a person on a cross [thrusting the vertical beam through the body] because the horizontal beam would be in the way. Impalement is a very old method of punishment. However, crucifixion is a relatively more recent means of killing people, and was not known or used in ancient Egypt. (In fact the death penalty in ancient Egypt was comparatively rare anyway...)
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Fernando »

manfred wrote:And I see the absence of the egg does not seem to concern you much.
Nor, come to think of it, does the absence of the spermatozoon! All this talk about semen is as if the embryo is formed from the bulk of the semen, not just one tiny particle of it plus a (much larger) egg.
The ovum is one of the largest cells in the human body, typically visible to the naked eye without the aid of a microscope or other magnification device. The human ovum measures approximately 0.1 mm in diameter.
Egg cell - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_cell" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

It speaks in broad terms, without the slightest scientific inaccuracy. As already said, there is a hint to the ovule;
Then We made the small drop/nutfa (in 76:2 it describes the singular "nutfa" with the plural "amshajin" denoting it being a blend of components, ie sperm and ovul) into something that clinges/alaqa, then We made the alaqa into mudghata/lump of flesh (which the Quran describes elsewhere as 22:5"formed and unformed" just as the small aggregate of embryonic cells before their complete differentiation), then we made in the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh/lahm."

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

@manfred or whoever is trolling his account

The egyptians did not speak Arabic nor English. Of course they wouldnt recognize an Arabic word. But they weighted their commodities and dirham is used for units of weight. The root SLB is not in the Quran, but in the lexicons and it means, and always will mean;
method of punishement that consists in hanging a person in such a painful way that the body is hardenned and stiffened (as any movement would cause excruciating pain) and results in leaking of bodily fluids
.

This applies to nailing on a cross, impaling or else.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

eagle wrote:Nobody said sura 23 is scientifically accurate nor was it meant to be. What was said is that it does not contain the slightest scientific inaccuracy.
So it is both scientifically accurate and not accurate at the same time... what can can I say to that... that says it all.
But they weighted their commodities and dirham is used for units of weight
You have not provided any evidence at all that a dirham ever was anything other than a coin.

Now let me re-write what you said slightly differently....
The ancient Egyptians weighted their commodities and a kilogram is a unit of weight. Therefore the ancient Egyptians used kilograms...
I am sure this as silly as your argument, you agree?
This applies to nailing on a cross, impaling or else.
Now don't be silly. Even your "definition" which you did not reference says that crucifixion is about HANGING a body somehow. Impaling means inserting something sharp into your backside, and then move that thing into a vertical position, and making the body slide down the pole, piercing your insides and you die from internal bleeding.

Other forms mean tying you up, and forcing the pole unto you until you die from the injuries caused.

Obviously not the same, and obviously not what the Qur'an says. You might as well suggest that sitting down is a form of hanging.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

The person needs to be hanged on the pole or side object with ropes for the torture to work, or he might fall over.

The link to the lexicon as regards dirham beingbused for weights units was given. The egyptians expressed their units of weights in words whose equivalent in Arabic is dirham, in English kilos.

Speaking in broad terms is not the same as speaking accurately. But that does not make the statement inaccurate.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

impaling:

Image

crucifixion (one type):

Image

difference: impalement involves a penetration, crucifixion does not.

So the Egyptian crucifixion in the Qur'an is more a cruci-fiction.


The link to the lexicon as regards dirham beingbused for weights units was given.
where? I must have overlooked that. ... But we have already gone over that. Dirhams are coins. As weight, that is something that came even LATER than the coin.
The egyptians expressed their units of weights in words whose equivalent in Arabic is dirham, in English kilos.
no, they didn't. Egyptians had their own units of weight, different both in name and in size. (a deben, if I remember right), and "dirham" was not used until much later, be it as coin or as weight, and as a weight mostly in Jewish circles, for religious requirements or to weigh silver. No amount of smoke screen hides this anachronism.


Speaking in broad terms is not the same as speaking accurately. But that does not make the statement inaccurate.
The Qur'an is either accurate or not. "Speaking in broad terms" means inaccurate, it is a euphemism for an account lacking in details. And even the "broad terms" do not tally with science, and you need to change the words to even get the roughest concordance.

Also the issue here is that there is nothing miraculous about the Qur'an embryology, not just because it is not even accurate, but because it merely repeats Galen's account from centuries before.

And reading into the text, like you did, finding "hints" of the ovum is just plain funny, and frankly unworthy of people who want to be taken seriously. When understanding an old text, it is not your vivid imagination that counts, but an effort to establish what the AUTHOR tried to say (not what you wish him to say). You do than using context, and by avoiding interpretations to suit your purpose.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

These 2 pictures fit the description of tasleeb which is
a method of punishement that consists in hanging a person in such a painful way that the body is hardenned and stiffened (as any movement would cause excruciating pain) and results in leaking of bodily fluids.


Of course dirham is money, but also a unit of weight as in kilograms or whatever word used by egyptians to weight their commodities.
http://ejtaal.net/aa/#hw4=336,ll=919,ls ... =1,mis=651" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How does speaking in broad terms equals being inaccurate and where does science disagree with sura 23

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

Eagle, I am not sure of you are serious of if you are just pulling my leg. Did you notice the word "hanging"? The impaled person is not hanging in any sense of that word. Would you say a table lamp is "hanging" too?

And, at the danger of repeating myself too often, forgive me if I point out the logical error in your comment about your statement about the dirham...

Your argument says a dirham is occasionally used as a weight, as, by definition, as coin is a standard size piece of metal with a fixed weight.
Then you say Egyptians weighed thing. From this you concluded they used dirhams. This does not follow and is quite absurd. I could, using your logic, say that as they weighed things and a kilogram is a weight, they used kilograms.

Egyptians used different units of weight, of a different size, and with a different name.

We have examples of Egyptian weights also in the British Museum, they are often rings, sometimes cones, or sort of egg shapes, and quite a few are also like a little cow amulet, quite cute really...
They were not used to pay for things, but to determine the values of something... A weighed amount of grain equals a much smaller weighed amount of, say silver, or a yet different amount of meat and so on.

Now have a look what the Qur'an says:
They sold him [Joseph] for a miserable price, for a few dirhams counted out [darahima ma‘dudatin]; in such low estimation did they hold him!
https://www.al-islam.org/enlightening-c ... f-verse-20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The commentary given on this Muslim site says this:

20. “And they sold him for a small price, of a few dirhams counted out, and in him they had no interest.”
They sold Yusuf cheap, for a few dirhams. This is not so surprising, for a common rule among thieves, or those who underhandedly acquire a valuable property, is to promptly sell their easily gotten merchandise usually quickly, for the fear that others may become aware and apprehend them.

The verse says:

“And they sold him for a small price, of a few dirhams counted out...”

Naturally, when someone intends to sell something in a hurry, he cannot obtain a fair price for his goods.

At the end of the verse Allah says:

“…and in him they had no interest.”
Now, unless you are suggesting the price was paid in weighing stones, the translators/commentators are certainly clear that dirhams are coins...

You would not "count out" a weight, that is just plain silly. You would put them on one side of a scale, and then something else on the other, say some silver, or gold...

If the Qur'an was talking about dirhams AS A WEIGHT, it would say "of what".... for example "a few dishams of silver" or "a few dirhams of cloth" or some such thing.

In fact, it does nothing like that. It specifically says some dirhams counted out. That cannot possibly anything to do with any weights, it is clearly a payment with COINS.

We know for a fact that this form of trade did simply not yet exist, and coins as a form of payment, as the Qur'an specifies, were unknown. So this is simply an anachronism.
You cannot just broaden the definition of a "coin" so that any piece of metal could be considered a coin, and therefore, be a "dirham". The fact of the matter is that dirhams did not exist during the time of Joseph. In fact, no coins of any variety existed at that point in history.

Similarly you cannot just broaden the meaning of "crucifixion" to include other types of capital punishment.

This seems to be a standard strategy to "defend" muddles in the Qur'an.... broaden the meaning of thing until the difficulties go away.

I remember a Saudi guy here years back, called debunker, and he told me about the "sperm comes from from between the backbone and the ribs" thing...

Putting his Arab native speaker hat on, he suggested that it does not say "sperm", come forth" nor "between" and certainly not backbone and of course also not "rib"....

He suggested the "creative fluids" are "present in" "all over " "and central to the body"....

He never talked to me again when I laughed...
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

Weight is counted when it is speaking of standardized commodities, like bullions, as was done in those times
to ancient Egypt, coins were unknown before the 6th centuryBCE. The prices of commodities were thus expressed differently, namely in the form of barter, and sometimes the commodity was exchanged with its corresponding value in copper, silver, or gold. The value of the metals were determined either according to their weight, or to the number of pieces that were of a standard weight and quality. The metals were generally handled in the form of rings, linked in a chain. This convenient form in which metals were handled and used for monetary purposes was also known in ancient Mesopotamia.
There is no broadening of the term tasleeb. It means and always will mean,
a method of punishement that consists in hanging a person in such a painful way that the body is hardenned and stiffened (as any movement would cause excruciating pain) and results in leaking of bodily fluids.
This includes crucifixion or impalement or something else. A body attached to a pole is hanging on it.

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

As to the issue of the sperm..

Linguistically, when the Quran addresses the themes of sex or sexual organs, its eloquence necessitates that it does not directly speak of testicles, penis or vagina. There are ample examples, such as 2:222 where it refers to sexual intercourse by using the imagery of the farmer cultivating his tilth with tenderness and deep consideration aforehand, or as "touching" the mate 2:236,237,4:43,5:6,33:49etc. The word for 'touching' is laamastum from the root L-M-S that means skin feeling an object interactively. It is used to mean mainly sex, or at least some form of foreplay.

Other terminologies used in the Quran to refer to sexual intercourse is "covering" the mate 7:189 or in the context of refraining from sex it says "guarding the private parts" 23:5,33:35.
In some instances where the Quran refers to women's sexual organs it literaly speaks of 60:12"what lies between their legs and hands" among other apellations.

86:5-7 speaks of the fluid "coming out", ie exits and all people know from where seminal fluid gushes out from. The determination of the location where the fluid is formed is irrelevant to the point of the verse that is about pointing to man's humble and simple origins despite him growing into a highly complex creature, and how he will inevitably be humbled once again to simple elements then recreated and brought forth to render account. The rejecters of resurrection saw it as a far fetched thing, an impossibility for a human being to be grown back after its death, decay, and return to the earth

So instead of stating that the fluid exits from the penis, it says "from between the sulb and the taraaib".
Sulb stems from S-L-B, implying strength, hardness, firmness, uprightness. Words like the backbone or the saleeb/crucifix (because of standing firmly upright) are derived from it.
Taraaib stems from T-R-B, implying some sort of resemblence, uniformity, harmony, symetry. It is used for example for turab/soil or dust, because dust grains are resembling and corresponding. Elsewhere it denotes how the mates of paradise match oneanother in many aspects 56:37,78:33 and it can similarily describe how certain body parts like the eyes, the hands, the legs, or the ribs etc. are matching. The statement "coming out from between the sulb/backbone and the taraaib/legs or ribs" refers to man's sexual organ just like "what lies between their legs and hands" subtely alludes to women's sexual parts.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

Eagle wrote:Weight is counted when it is speaking of standardized commodities, like bullions, as was done in those times
to ancient Egypt, coins were unknown before the 6th centuryBCE. The prices of commodities were thus expressed differently, namely in the form of barter, and sometimes the commodity was exchanged with its corresponding value in copper, silver, or gold. The value of the metals were determined either according to their weight, or to the number of pieces that were of a standard weight and quality. The metals were generally handled in the form of rings, linked in a chain. This convenient form in which metals were handled and used for monetary purposes was also known in ancient Mesopotamia.
There is no broadening of the term tasleeb. It means and always will mean,
a method of punishement that consists in hanging a person in such a painful way that the body is hardenned and stiffened (as any movement would cause excruciating pain) and results in leaking of bodily fluids.
This includes crucifixion or impalement or something else. A body attached to a pole is hanging on it.
That is again not the full truth... sure, some metals used for payments were often conveniently put together in standard weights, so make the payment process quicker. But you would still have to weigh them to ensure they are the right weight. There was no writing on them saying any ruler guaranteed the value. Also, you could perfectly normally cut a piece off, if it was too big. This is not how a coin is used.

And we have shown that in fact among Muslims it is perfectly accepted that coins were used in ancient Egypt.

As you your "taleeb" definition, for which I have not yet seen you quoting the source. (islamic awareness, as is the post about the sperm) , you surely must be aware that impaling does not involve hanging.

The way you are broadening the definition is by assuming that just any part and not all of the definition is enough to fulfil the condition. for impaling ,Hanging - not met , painful - met , good enough, impaling = crucifixion. If you provide a definition for something, it always means that ALL the parts mentioned ion must be met at the same time.

An impaled body is not hanging, don't be silly. A lamp standing on a table, is that hanging?

Square: 4 sides, 4 right angles, all sides equal length.

This means any shape that only meets one or two of the things mentions and not all three, is NOT a square.

As this thread is really about Mohammed's borrowing, let's leave that sperm thing for now, we had that here many times.

However, the story of Joseph, as we all know also has a source the book of genesis. This does raise the question why Mohammed is re-telling genesis and claim it to be a personal revelation from Allah.

There are several differences and Genesis has more detail, but the sale of Joseph is describes like this:
28 So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt.
What is quite striking is that Genesis is perfectly aware that coins were not used for trade. It says 20 shekels of silver. (there is no "of" anything in the QUr'an, just a few dirhams, it says)

A shekel is about 11 grams... So some silver was WEIGHED to make about 220 grams.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

Nobody was there at the time of the transaction, to know whether the standardized dirhams were weighted or not when the exchange took place. What is known is that the price was a paltry one as denoted with maadudatin meaning the sellers probably didnt even bother weighting the dirhams, any ammount was enough to them. As to Genesis37 there is no "of" nor "shekel" in the Hebrew. It says word for word 20 silver. It implies coins apparently, which is another error...

Whether crucifixion or impalement, these tortures fit the description of tasleeb to the letter. Hanging, as a body hangs on a pole with ropes during the impalement for example, to avoid falling over, leading to the stiffening of the body from pain and leaking of bodily fluids.

Why would 2 documents containing the same core factual information ammount to plagiarism

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

Nobody was there at the time of the transaction, to know whether the standardized dirhams were weighted or not when the exchange took place.
No "dirhams" existed yet. Do I really say this over and over? You need to produce an identifiable minted coin called a "Dirham" which dates from the time of Joseph, and nothing else will be a convincing case.
Whether crucifixion or impalement, these tortures fit the description of tasleeb to the letter. Hanging, as a body hangs on a pole with ropes during the impalement for example, to avoid falling over, leading to the stiffening of the body from pain and leaking of bodily fluids.
Show me the ropes in the picture of the impalement above.

Does the plate you eat from hang on the table? Goodness, this really is getting very silly.

And why is the islamic awareness "definition" holding some sort of semi-divine authority to you? I could write a definition which allows you to conclude that a chicken is a kind of crocodile, but that does not make it true.
Why would 2 documents containing the same core factual information ammount to plagiarism
Copying things without giving the source is plagiarism. When Mohammed retold the story of Joseph he presented it as a "revelation" from an "angel" when in fact he just retold (badly) a story he heard before. This is not truthful. Similarly, if you copy and paste long sections from "islamic awareness" that too is plagiarism.

As to your comment that Genesis does mention "shekel" specifically, true, but in it clear that is an payment is an amount of silver. We know that shekels were meant, because we are told the price for a slave in Leviticus:
A boy between the ages of five and twenty is valued at twenty shekels of silver; a girl of that age is valued at ten shekels of silver.
Lev 27:5

So the reference "20 ... of silver" cannot be anything else. Joseph was sold at the "going rate"...

It is kind of funny how you apply one standard to one text and a different one to another.

The dirham is an anachronism, and there is nothing you can do or say to change that.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

Of course the word dirham didnt exist in ancient Egypt, niether did "kilograms". So how does this affect the fact they used to have units of weights. Or do you mean Egyptians had to speak English and Arabic for them to express weight units in their language. Egyptians weighted their commodities, standardizied metals into bullions according to specific weights and qualities, which could then be counted. Dirham is used for weights http://ejtaal.net/aa/#hw4=336,ll=919,ls ... =1,mis=651" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Quran is right, once more and Genesis is wrong, once more and Leviticus wont save it, or do you mean the Midianite caravan knew Jewish law. It says 20 silver, no "of" and no "shekel". This implies coins which is an error.

A picture was provided a few posts back with a man attached with ropes on a pole and impaled. All such people had to be attached or they would fall over before the torture is achieved. Or do you mean the person wpuld actually purposefuly keep itself balanced until the pole is fully inserted.

For those who read Arabic, for tasleeb
http://lisaan.net/search/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;صلب

Repeating a claim wont make it true.Why would 2 documents containing the same core factual information ammount to plagiarismbor that obe was copied from another

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

No evidence of either a coin nor a weight called a dirham in Egypt at 1800 BC was provided. And, as proven before, the Qur'an obviously speaks of coins, "counted", and this is also the understanding of Muslim interpreters.
The Quran is right, once more and Genesis is wrong, once more and Leviticus wont save it, or do you mean the Midianite caravan knew Jewish law. It says 20 silver, no "of" and no "shekel". This implies coins which is an error.
You can do better than that.

In Hebrew nouns do not get declined. So it does say 20 ... of silver. It implies a weight, and we know what it was because it is given elsewhere, by an author writing later than the two authors of genesis. If he knew how things are done in his own time, you would have to assume that coin got used in Egypt, then un-inventend to be re-invented centuries later. And then, would you believe, you assert that a supposed error in another text proves the Qur'an right...

Even if Genesis said, "and they paid with 20 nice shiny silver coins with a picture of the Queen of England, because their Visa card had been declined, they had not paid the bill", it would not prove anything at all about the Qur'an.

And a dirham being used as a weight does not mean the Qur'an says it is in this case. I plainly says the opposite. It does not say some dirhams of something (like silver) it says some dirhams counted out.

For the last time, there are no coins and no dirhams OF ANY KIND known in ancient Egypt, and it is made abundantly clear that the Qur'an means countable (=coins) Dirhams. It says that. In fact almost all translations by Muslims also reflect that, as do modern commentators and ancient tafsir.

This is about Mohammed's sources, and and not your endless repetition of failed defences....
Why would 2 documents containing the same core factual information ammount to plagiarismbor that obe was copied from another
So Mohammed got is information independently of the Jewish texts? :lotpot:
We narrate to you the most accurate history, by revealing to you this Quran. Although, prior to it, you were of the unaware.
Said Mohammed at the beginning of his version of the Joseph story. This is plainly a lie.

and this bit is interesting
“Kill Joseph, or throw him somewhere in the land, and your father‘s attention will be yours. Afterwards, you will be decent people.”
so According to the Qur'an killing your brother makes you "decent people"....

And Joseph was not sold by his brothers but merely found by a caravan who sold him in Egypt in Mohammed's version... for some dirhams.... :lol:
This of course means that the 20 -- of silver from Genesis are a detail left out in the Qur'an, as Genesis says THE BROTHERS sold Joseph.

So Mohammed not only took the Jewish tale of Joseph, pretending it was his own, he re-told it in a garbled fashion,worse, he pretended this is a NEW story REVEALED to him.

Another clanger Mohammed dropped was that apparently the PARENTS of Joseph went to see him in Egypt. But Rachel, the mother of Joseph, died when Benyamin was born.

Next, I will post another story Mohammed re-told as his own... The Joseph one is at least half way coherent. others are not.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

Islam claims the Quran is perfect, complete and it corrects the bible.
Thus Quran is all you need. Let us put that in test. We have to read the text without relating it to the bible.
011.069
And certainly Our messengers came to Ibrahim with good news. They said: Peace. Peace, said he, and he made no delay in bringing a roasted calf.

011.070
But when he saw that their hands were not extended towards it, he deemed them strange and conceived fear of them. . They said: Fear not, surely we are sent to Lut's people.

011.071
And his wife was standing, so she laughed, then We gave her the good news of Ishaq and after Ishaq of Yaqoub.

011.072
She said: O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Most surely this is a wonderful thing.

011.074
So when fear had gone away from Ibrahim and good news came to him, he began to plead with Us for Lut's people.

011.075
Most surely Ibrahim was forbearing, tender-hearted, oft-returning

011.076
O Ibrahim! leave off this, surely the decree of your Lord has come to pass, and surely there must come to them a chastisement that cannot be averted.

011.077
And when Our messengers came to Lut, he was grieved for them, and he lacked strength to protect them, and said: This is a hard day.

011.078
And his people came to him, rushed on towards him, and already they did evil deeds. He said: O my people! these are my daughters-- they are purer for you, so guard against Allah and do not disgrace me with regard to my guests; is there not among you one right-minded man?

011.079
They said: Certainly you know that we have no claim on your daughters, and most surely you know what we desire.

011.081
They said: O Lut! we are the messengers of your Lord; they shall by no means reach you; so remove your followers in a part of the night-- and let none of you turn back-- except your wife, for surely whatsoever befalls them shall befall her; surely their appointed time is the morning; is not the morning nigh?
Now, let’s see if this makes perfect sense…Here is a rendering of the passage making no assumptions and using no prior knowledge or bible texts…

Messengers came to a certain person named Ibrahim bringing happy news. (The news are not detailed)

The person brought a roasted calf to the guests. They seem not hungry and that made this person Ibrahim, frightened. (Odd response) They responded to him that he should not fear (maybe he thought, they will die of hunger?) and they are sent to Lut's people. (To eat at Lut's people place?)

Ibrahim's wife stood and laughed (due to the overreaction of Ibrahim?) Then she received some Good News from someone called Ishaq and from a person called Yaqoub. (What is the good news of both? And who are they?)

She began complaining about her old age and that of her husband that is too late for them to have a child. Then she felt happy about it.

Ibrahim calmed down and received some other good news (whichever it was?) and pleaded with them for Lut's people (Was Ibrahim insulted that they will eat with Lut's people and not enjoy his own hospitality?)

Ibrahim is a good host.

They ask him to stay out of this as the fate of Lut's people is decided and therefore they are to be punished. (What sort of feast is that?)

A person named Lut felt unhappy about the coming of the messengers for he cannot defend them as he is knackered and had a hard day (weird)…

Lut's people got drunk as it seems and did naughty things and Lut pimped out his daughters to his people so they do not trouble him with his guests.

The people of Lut seem have no interest in his daughters but want something else (food?)

The rest of the passage is a blur. What is moral of the story? Eat only at Ibrahim’s?? Lut’s wife is a lousy cook??

So this is divine revelation?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Nosuperstition »

Now Ioshkafutz of this forum said that he very much dislikes the idea of patents. So why are you people bothered so much about plagarisation of good ideas. pilgrim of the old forum used to frequently say 'ideas have consequences. Good ideas have good consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences '
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

NS, the point is to show, mostly to the Muslims passing by, that what Mohammed claimed to be things he personally "received" as a "revelation, he in fact regurgitated from stories he heard.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Post Reply