More denigration of miracles and baseless character assassination.
Nothing divine can be proven, it relies on faith but faith is not divorced from logical reasoning that leads to its acceptance. For example when the Greek Testament states that earthquakes shook the land during Jesus' last moments and that on the other hand we have Romans who were renouned record keepers and they recorded earthquakes which they called prodigies yet the only ones spoken about around Jesus' era happenned in 37 BCE (too early) and again in 110 CE (too late) then onw can reasonably reject the supposed divine position as false. Same with other supposedly spectacular events witnessed by many such as the eclipse or deads coming back to life and wandering around the streets of Jerusalem etc
The opponent of the divine cannot base his position on "implausibility". The believer will always respond that the divine primary cause of all things may bend its own created rules of "plausibility" at will. The opponent's argument must be to start with the assumptions of the believer and attempt his deconstruction.
The Muslim claims, based on reasonable faith, that the origin of the information is divine, which entails absence of factual errors and inner contradictions of the text. The opponent should then use the same premise to prove him wrong factually and it has already been suggested how that could be attempted.
Tariq Ramadan
Re: Tariq Ramadan
Really?... so people sleeping for 300 years is a historical fact, because it is "reasonable" to believe a text to be of divine origin, based on what the text says about itself?The Muslim claims, based on reasonable faith, that the origin of the information is divine, which entails absence of factual errors and inner contradictions of the text.
What about the other things also taken from the Alexander romance... The place of the setting sun, where there is a muddy pool into which the sun sets, and where there are people? Where is it? And the wall of Gog and Magog, where is that?
This must also be be exactly try, right?
And using a cutlet of beef to solve a murder case, by hitting the corpse with it, also all true?
So Islam is "reasonable", is it?
And there are no factual errors in Qur'an? That really is quite funny, specially since we have have found several hundred of them. What is try is that Muslims simply refuse to acknowledge they exist, but that does not mean they ave gone away.
Have you perhaps, as an act of faith, removed you testicles and then sired a child, to prove that sperm originates in the chest cavity?
Now, that would seriously impress me.
Now, I can accept that you wish to believe absurdities, but if you do, don't pretend it is "reasonable" to do so.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
Re: Tariq Ramadan
As explained, the long sleep miracle was never observed independently and therefore cannot be falsified to a believing audience, contrary to the depictions of the resurrection that have been witnessed and falsified.
To avoid confusing the thread it would be better to open other ones and discuss the so called hundreds of factual errors one by one, among them the few ones passingly alluded to above.
The Alexander Romances has been discredited as a source of the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn due to several reasons including unclear date of composition, spanning between the 4th and 16th centuries, showing the evolving nature of the text. The borrowing claim against the Quran, as will be seen below, has less ground to stand on than the reverse, with the various authors of the romances actually inspiring themselves throughout time by the Quran and its comentaries.
The Alexander romances is thought to be based on the lost Greek writing called Pseudo Callisthenes alluded to earlier in the thread, whose closest copy is a 5th century Armenian translation. What is of concern to Islam critics are the similarities between the Quran and the Syriac translation, of which no manuscript exists prior to the 18th century.
Although originally believed to have been finalized towards the mid 7th century CE, this Syriac legend of Alexander ends with a passage about the gates built by Alexander and stressing parallels between him and Heraclius, the Byzantine Emperor. More importantly this same passage retrospectively "prophecizes" the invasion of the Huns in 515 CE and the coming of Heraclius in 629 CE, leading scholars to assume the passage is a later addition, written as a Byzantine propaganda shortly before the Muslim conquest of Syria. It additionally speaks of an independent and major Arab Kingdom which can only be equated with the early Caliphate, in a clear context where the Persians are contrasted with Sassanids, Greeks with Romans thus pushing the finalization to post date the revelation of the sura, believed to be in Mecca pre-620CE.
Similarily and towards the late 7th century, a Syriac Christian adaption of the Alexander romance called the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius was written as a response to the Muslim invasions equating Gog and Magog with the Muslims.
Other factors have led scholars to push the final composition of the passage further to between the 8th and 15th century, making it a means by which the author(s) sought to console, through parallelisms, the Christians who had lost Constantinople to the Ottomans.
In short besides the Armenian translation which was itself reedited in the 13th century, all other versions have their earliest manuscripts post dating the Quran by centuries. This means that all these texts were written in an Islamic environment, including the Armenian one, which could have affected the later development of the Alexander Romances.
Now although late manuscripts themselves arent problematic, they become so when one attempts establishing a borrowing claim from text to text. Besides the proven additions, it is impossible to determine what the Syriac text looked like towards its earliest potential time of inception. Even if one takes the earliest estimates it still leaves the Syriac author with long enough time to be exposed to the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn, orally or textually, as Islam and Muslims spread their religion to Syria and Mesopotamia, and integrate the Islamic elements so as to fit and embelish the Christian agenda as was done a few decades later in Pseudo-Methodius. Even Josephus and Jerome's respective works with short passages alluding to a wall built by Alexander are known evolving texts and their earliest manuscripts post date the Quran by hundreds of years, and were both finalized when Pseudo-Methodius had gained sweeping influence accross europe.
To avoid confusing the thread it would be better to open other ones and discuss the so called hundreds of factual errors one by one, among them the few ones passingly alluded to above.
The Alexander Romances has been discredited as a source of the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn due to several reasons including unclear date of composition, spanning between the 4th and 16th centuries, showing the evolving nature of the text. The borrowing claim against the Quran, as will be seen below, has less ground to stand on than the reverse, with the various authors of the romances actually inspiring themselves throughout time by the Quran and its comentaries.
The Alexander romances is thought to be based on the lost Greek writing called Pseudo Callisthenes alluded to earlier in the thread, whose closest copy is a 5th century Armenian translation. What is of concern to Islam critics are the similarities between the Quran and the Syriac translation, of which no manuscript exists prior to the 18th century.
Although originally believed to have been finalized towards the mid 7th century CE, this Syriac legend of Alexander ends with a passage about the gates built by Alexander and stressing parallels between him and Heraclius, the Byzantine Emperor. More importantly this same passage retrospectively "prophecizes" the invasion of the Huns in 515 CE and the coming of Heraclius in 629 CE, leading scholars to assume the passage is a later addition, written as a Byzantine propaganda shortly before the Muslim conquest of Syria. It additionally speaks of an independent and major Arab Kingdom which can only be equated with the early Caliphate, in a clear context where the Persians are contrasted with Sassanids, Greeks with Romans thus pushing the finalization to post date the revelation of the sura, believed to be in Mecca pre-620CE.
Similarily and towards the late 7th century, a Syriac Christian adaption of the Alexander romance called the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius was written as a response to the Muslim invasions equating Gog and Magog with the Muslims.
Other factors have led scholars to push the final composition of the passage further to between the 8th and 15th century, making it a means by which the author(s) sought to console, through parallelisms, the Christians who had lost Constantinople to the Ottomans.
In short besides the Armenian translation which was itself reedited in the 13th century, all other versions have their earliest manuscripts post dating the Quran by centuries. This means that all these texts were written in an Islamic environment, including the Armenian one, which could have affected the later development of the Alexander Romances.
Now although late manuscripts themselves arent problematic, they become so when one attempts establishing a borrowing claim from text to text. Besides the proven additions, it is impossible to determine what the Syriac text looked like towards its earliest potential time of inception. Even if one takes the earliest estimates it still leaves the Syriac author with long enough time to be exposed to the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn, orally or textually, as Islam and Muslims spread their religion to Syria and Mesopotamia, and integrate the Islamic elements so as to fit and embelish the Christian agenda as was done a few decades later in Pseudo-Methodius. Even Josephus and Jerome's respective works with short passages alluding to a wall built by Alexander are known evolving texts and their earliest manuscripts post date the Quran by hundreds of years, and were both finalized when Pseudo-Methodius had gained sweeping influence accross europe.
Re: Tariq Ramadan
A long post about nothing in particular...
In the end you want to believe in Greek fairy tales... your choice.
And you can jump up and down if you must, it still does not alter the fact that Mohammed has plagiarised most of his revelations... some from old Greek folk tales, some from Rabbinic literature, some from Christian legends and apocrypha. The evidence is so overwhelming that denying it would simply testify your own lack of judgement.
And as usual you provide no references at all to any of your claims.
A "miracle", if accepted, does need some degree of evidence before you can say that a belief in it is reasonable, some verifiable corroborative evidence perhaps, such as locations, some witness statement perhaps, at a bare minimum. Would you believe any old cock and bull story if there is no concrete evidence that is false? You said yourself if was not observed. So all there is is one more story about sleepers, one of many . No evidence whatever, you say. What a surprise. So you believe in a miracle nobody ever saw? Do you believe in the talking camel as well? Do tell?
And I am still waiting to get from you a photo of the barrier of Gog and Magog, and while you are at it, the pool where the sun sets, with the village next to it. After all, it's all real, right?
And all the stuff about manuscripts is irrelevant, because the stories about Alexander and also the sleepers were in oral circulation all over the middle East and even Europe, when someone wrote them down, they did not pluck the out of the air, they wrote down a folk tale. Mohammed, who could not read, according so some at least, would simple have heard the story told.
There is a 6th century copy of the story of the sleepers in the British Museum, for all to see. So let's put all that smoke screen away, it is not working.
You mention the resurrection as verifiably false. I assume you mean it must be false because the Qur'an says that, and therefore it must be true. The thing is, Mohammed was not there either, so what does know?
I will not make any attempt to "prove" the resurrection to you, as there are a great many ways of interpreting what happened. What we do have about that is the testimony of the gospels, of the apostles, Peter, James, and later Paul, and the effect the resurrection had on the budding Christian community. It is the central belief of Christianity and Paul said without it all our belief would count for nothing at all. I was not there so all I can do is tell you the effect this belief had.
There is certainly overwhelming evidence that this belief in the resurrection, an event that is not possible to adequately describe, certainly not 2000 years later, had a profound effect on the people close to Jesus.
If that is enough to decide that there must be something in it, is for each of us to decide yourself.
There are theological difficulties with the Qu'an's version: So Allah deceives people? How do you know when you are not being deceived? He led the Christians astray? Why? Is he evil? People died for their belief in the resurrection. Why did Allah allow this?
In the end you want to believe in Greek fairy tales... your choice.
And you can jump up and down if you must, it still does not alter the fact that Mohammed has plagiarised most of his revelations... some from old Greek folk tales, some from Rabbinic literature, some from Christian legends and apocrypha. The evidence is so overwhelming that denying it would simply testify your own lack of judgement.
And as usual you provide no references at all to any of your claims.
Nobody needs to "falsify" it. If you say it is factual you need to prove that. In fact the only reason you provide is that the Qur'an says so, which, frankly, is a ludicrous reason.the long sleep miracle was never observed independently and therefore cannot be falsified to a believing audience
A "miracle", if accepted, does need some degree of evidence before you can say that a belief in it is reasonable, some verifiable corroborative evidence perhaps, such as locations, some witness statement perhaps, at a bare minimum. Would you believe any old cock and bull story if there is no concrete evidence that is false? You said yourself if was not observed. So all there is is one more story about sleepers, one of many . No evidence whatever, you say. What a surprise. So you believe in a miracle nobody ever saw? Do you believe in the talking camel as well? Do tell?
And I am still waiting to get from you a photo of the barrier of Gog and Magog, and while you are at it, the pool where the sun sets, with the village next to it. After all, it's all real, right?
And all the stuff about manuscripts is irrelevant, because the stories about Alexander and also the sleepers were in oral circulation all over the middle East and even Europe, when someone wrote them down, they did not pluck the out of the air, they wrote down a folk tale. Mohammed, who could not read, according so some at least, would simple have heard the story told.
There is a 6th century copy of the story of the sleepers in the British Museum, for all to see. So let's put all that smoke screen away, it is not working.
You mention the resurrection as verifiably false. I assume you mean it must be false because the Qur'an says that, and therefore it must be true. The thing is, Mohammed was not there either, so what does know?
I will not make any attempt to "prove" the resurrection to you, as there are a great many ways of interpreting what happened. What we do have about that is the testimony of the gospels, of the apostles, Peter, James, and later Paul, and the effect the resurrection had on the budding Christian community. It is the central belief of Christianity and Paul said without it all our belief would count for nothing at all. I was not there so all I can do is tell you the effect this belief had.
There is certainly overwhelming evidence that this belief in the resurrection, an event that is not possible to adequately describe, certainly not 2000 years later, had a profound effect on the people close to Jesus.
If that is enough to decide that there must be something in it, is for each of us to decide yourself.
There are theological difficulties with the Qu'an's version: So Allah deceives people? How do you know when you are not being deceived? He led the Christians astray? Why? Is he evil? People died for their belief in the resurrection. Why did Allah allow this?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
Re: Tariq Ramadan
All affirmations can be corroborated by those wishing to verify them, as easily as a google search and the total silence, despite the long tirade, to all issues raised and which point to the borrowing theory actually being the reverse, shows that those making their tall claims cannot back them up. There exists for example zero proof that the similarities between the romances and Dhul Qarnayn "were in oral circulation all over the middle East and even Europe, when someone wrote them down" prior to the revelation of sura kahf circa 620CE while plenty evidence exists pointing to the finalization of all available versions, more particularily the passages with Quranic similarities, after the revelation of the sura and the spread of Islam.
An ancient miracle does not need to have been witnessed independently for a believer to reasonably take it as true. The conviction that the source from which the information comes from is divine, is enough to establish all its contents as facts. And since no independent observation can falsify it, it remains fact to a believer. It is not the case for the resurrection and its colorful depictions, as previously proven, not because "the Quran says so" but because those that kept records of the time did.
The side questions will not be treated in this thread so as to avoid the attempt at drowning the core issues in irrelevant tangents. However and as already said, they can be addressed one by one and without fail in seperate threads.
An ancient miracle does not need to have been witnessed independently for a believer to reasonably take it as true. The conviction that the source from which the information comes from is divine, is enough to establish all its contents as facts. And since no independent observation can falsify it, it remains fact to a believer. It is not the case for the resurrection and its colorful depictions, as previously proven, not because "the Quran says so" but because those that kept records of the time did.
The side questions will not be treated in this thread so as to avoid the attempt at drowning the core issues in irrelevant tangents. However and as already said, they can be addressed one by one and without fail in seperate threads.
Re: Tariq Ramadan
first of all, eagle, in case I forget, eid mubarak (tonight, I suppose)An ancient miracle does not need to have been witnessed independently for a believer to reasonably take it as true. The conviction that the source from which the information comes from is divine, is enough to establish all its contents as facts.
Now, I does appear you have a problem to realise circular reasoning...
The "information" you claim to be "divine" is the Qur'an, according to you. And you know this because the Qur'an claims it is. Is that logical?
And "ALL ITS CONTENTS" are facts?
So, please do show me this in connection the barrier of Gog and Magog, for example, or the setting place of the sun. As this is supposed to be a physical entity existent to this day, it should be very easy to do, much easier than the story of the sleepers.
These are all facts you say, so why the reluctance to respond?
If even a simple factual state of affairs is inaccurate, how can a re-telling of an old folk tale be a historical fact?
The claim the QUr'an makes about itself does not "prove" anything nor provide evidence for other claims. It is the other way round. The claim of divine origin is tested by the other claims made, and the Qur'an really fails that miserably.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
Re: Tariq Ramadan
All the Quran's affirmations are taken as facts by the believer, not because "the Quran says so" but because of reasonably concluding that it (the Quran) cannot be man made. If one were to produce refuting evidence the like of which was mentionned for the resurrection, and which is being attempted with the Gog and Magog barrier, then one could argue against "reasonable" faith and speak instead of blind faith and circular reasoning.
As to the barrier and any other issue,
As to the barrier and any other issue,
The side questions will not be treated in this thread so as to avoid the attempt at drowning the core issues in irrelevant tangents. However and as already said, they can be addressed one by one and without fail in seperate threads.
Re: Tariq Ramadan
Hello Eagle
Your quote -
All the Quran's affirmations are taken as facts by the believer, not because "the Quran says so" but because of reasonably concluding that it (the Quran) cannot be man made.
You are contradicting yourself. The "believers" do take as facts by what is written in the Koran because they are unable to see that the Koran can not be written by a deity even though it claims that the sun sets in a muddy pool. No true deity would ever claim that the sun sets in a muddy pool as it is too silly for words. This one claim by "Allah" should alert all readers of the Koran that Islam is false. Believers, including you, believe what they are programmed to believe and not to question. It is all down to comprehensive brainwashing throughout childhood and onwards. After that programming the brain refuses to accepts facts that contradict the earlier programming. It is all down to biology. You have been moulded into the Islamic frame of mind where reason and facts can not make any impression.
sum
Your quote -
All the Quran's affirmations are taken as facts by the believer, not because "the Quran says so" but because of reasonably concluding that it (the Quran) cannot be man made.
You are contradicting yourself. The "believers" do take as facts by what is written in the Koran because they are unable to see that the Koran can not be written by a deity even though it claims that the sun sets in a muddy pool. No true deity would ever claim that the sun sets in a muddy pool as it is too silly for words. This one claim by "Allah" should alert all readers of the Koran that Islam is false. Believers, including you, believe what they are programmed to believe and not to question. It is all down to comprehensive brainwashing throughout childhood and onwards. After that programming the brain refuses to accepts facts that contradict the earlier programming. It is all down to biology. You have been moulded into the Islamic frame of mind where reason and facts can not make any impression.
sum
Re: Tariq Ramadan
eagle, do you think people cannot see through this approach of yours...
1) it is beyond silly to suggest the Qur'an is a book with a divine author. We have refuted that 1000 times. All you need is to read this forum.
2) You said all the Dhul qurnayn stuff is factual.
3) You says miracles, by their nature are often hard to prove. Let's accept that for now.
So I tried to help you. Just prove something that should be be easy to show, a simple physical fact. No great miracle. For example, the barrier of the gog and magog. A wall has been built, it says, It's still there, it says. Here it is. Here you go, the Qur'an was accurate on this account. You should be able to provide a picture, or at least a precise location. But you cannot.
Then the pool of the setting sun, with the people living there. Again you cannot.
So, where does that leave your initial declaration that all of this is factual because it says so in the Qur'an? Where does leave your assertion that the Qur'an is truthful and has a divine author?
The answer is... in complete tatters. So, if it is not too much to ask, please re-think that idea of yours.
seriously?All the Quran's affirmations are taken as facts by the believer, not because "the Quran says so" but because of reasonably concluding that it (the Quran) cannot be man made.
we shall see...."irrelevant tangents"
1) it is beyond silly to suggest the Qur'an is a book with a divine author. We have refuted that 1000 times. All you need is to read this forum.
2) You said all the Dhul qurnayn stuff is factual.
3) You says miracles, by their nature are often hard to prove. Let's accept that for now.
So I tried to help you. Just prove something that should be be easy to show, a simple physical fact. No great miracle. For example, the barrier of the gog and magog. A wall has been built, it says, It's still there, it says. Here it is. Here you go, the Qur'an was accurate on this account. You should be able to provide a picture, or at least a precise location. But you cannot.
Then the pool of the setting sun, with the people living there. Again you cannot.
So, where does that leave your initial declaration that all of this is factual because it says so in the Qur'an? Where does leave your assertion that the Qur'an is truthful and has a divine author?
The answer is... in complete tatters. So, if it is not too much to ask, please re-think that idea of yours.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
Re: Tariq Ramadan
More procrastination. The location if the barrier is an irrelevant tangent to the discussion about the borrowing claims. Open another thread and it will be discussed without fail.
As for now, and in order to avoid further delfections:
The borrowing claim against Dhul Qarnayn
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&p=238637#p238623" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Mary being the literal sister of Harun
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&p=238560&sid ... 37#p238543" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- A Samaritan in Moses' time
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&start=20#p238325" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- An injeel in Moses' time
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&p=238560&sid ... 37#p238555" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- the youths of Ephesus
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&start=20#p238347" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&start=60#p238588" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As for now, and in order to avoid further delfections:
The borrowing claim against Dhul Qarnayn
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&p=238637#p238623" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Mary being the literal sister of Harun
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&p=238560&sid ... 37#p238543" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- A Samaritan in Moses' time
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&start=20#p238325" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- An injeel in Moses' time
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&p=238560&sid ... 37#p238555" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- the youths of Ephesus
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&start=20#p238347" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&start=60#p238588" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Tariq Ramadan
You cannot supply the answer to a simple question, so you seem suddenly very keen to talk about something else.
So the obvious question is, does this claim about veracity stand up to a simple test? Such as, the verification of an object it claims exists, as affirmed in the same part of the text?
When you give a clear answer on this we can gladly revisit the other topics you mention as you have not managed to refute them, and you should have every chance to do that.
It is real, you say It is big. It exists now. So you say. So picture, please. A location I can travel to, please. Where is the gog and magog barrier? Where is the pool into which the sun sets?
Come on, this should be simple.
If you, as in the end you must, agree that there is no such thing and these objects do not exist, then you must also agree that there are things in the Qur'an that are plainly false.
(As well as the various other errors you refer to, and many more... my favourite and most hilarious is the the thing about hitting murder victims with cutlets of beef, and of course that too is "borrowed", do you know?)
It is anything but an "irrelevant tangent". Your reply was that it is a reasonable belief that the Qur'an has a divine author, and therefore much be accurate in what it says, specially if, as you pointed out, it explicitly makes that claim. And this was your reason for claiming historicity of the Qur'an's version of an old folk's tale, while at the same time discounting all earlier versions.The location if the barrier is an irrelevant tangent to the discussion about the borrowing claims. Open another thread and it will be discussed without fail.
So the obvious question is, does this claim about veracity stand up to a simple test? Such as, the verification of an object it claims exists, as affirmed in the same part of the text?
When you give a clear answer on this we can gladly revisit the other topics you mention as you have not managed to refute them, and you should have every chance to do that.
It is real, you say It is big. It exists now. So you say. So picture, please. A location I can travel to, please. Where is the gog and magog barrier? Where is the pool into which the sun sets?
Come on, this should be simple.
If you, as in the end you must, agree that there is no such thing and these objects do not exist, then you must also agree that there are things in the Qur'an that are plainly false.
(As well as the various other errors you refer to, and many more... my favourite and most hilarious is the the thing about hitting murder victims with cutlets of beef, and of course that too is "borrowed", do you know?)
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
Re: Tariq Ramadan
More irrelevancy. How does the existence or not of a barrier, the divine nature or not of the Quran affect the borrowing claim on Dhul Qarnayn.
If the direction of the discussion now is about establishing the nature of the Quran based on absence or presence of a barrier, then it is a tangent to the above and will only be treated in a seperate thread.
If the direction of the discussion now is about establishing the nature of the Quran based on absence or presence of a barrier, then it is a tangent to the above and will only be treated in a seperate thread.
Re: Tariq Ramadan
At the start you frankly admitted that the story was borrowed, you just claimed from somewhere else... but you appear to say more that is was "corrected", and that this one particular version of the story in the Qur'an is a historical fact, but not the others. And you gave the reason for this view by saying that the Qur'an asserts it. Well, what about the other things I mentioned is asserts? If these can be established at least you can say that this particular story is not only "asserted" to be true, but also that other assertions found can be demonstrated to be accurate, giving weight to that belief.
However, if there is no barrier of gog and magog, for example, then you cannot trust the Qur'an as a truthful or reliable source.
You had no qualms of taking this thread and changing it's direction, so you might as well be a man and answer. (Maybe I need to split it... but I wait until it goes quiet...)
But if it embarrasses you to concede this, I take Mohammed's approach and assume your silence to be your consent.
Of course, nothing is stopping you to start your own topic.
However, if there is no barrier of gog and magog, for example, then you cannot trust the Qur'an as a truthful or reliable source.
You had no qualms of taking this thread and changing it's direction, so you might as well be a man and answer. (Maybe I need to split it... but I wait until it goes quiet...)
But if it embarrasses you to concede this, I take Mohammed's approach and assume your silence to be your consent.
Of course, nothing is stopping you to start your own topic.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
Re: Tariq Ramadan
Nobody said the Quran borrowed as much as a letter from some earthly document. Those that did were explained how the borrowing claim might very well be the reverse.
So now that it has been admitted that the nature of the Quran and the existence of the barrier have no bearing on the so called plagiarism issue (whether the Quran is man made or whether no barrier exists it still does not establish the stories were borrowed from the romances), all that is left to do is open the thread where those tangents will be addressed.
So now that it has been admitted that the nature of the Quran and the existence of the barrier have no bearing on the so called plagiarism issue (whether the Quran is man made or whether no barrier exists it still does not establish the stories were borrowed from the romances), all that is left to do is open the thread where those tangents will be addressed.
Re: Tariq Ramadan
Open whatever thread you like, please do, ideally one starting with a picture of the barrier of gog and magog. That really would impress me.Eagle wrote:Nobody said the Quran borrowed as much as a letter from some earthly document. Those that did were explained how the borrowing claim might very well be the reverse.
So now that it has been admitted that the nature of the Quran and the existence of the barrier have no bearing on the so called plagiarism issue (whether the Quran is man made or whether no barrier exists it still does not establish the stories were borrowed from the romances), all that is left to do is open the thread where those tangents will be addressed.
And your unfounded assertion that the Qur'an has no earthly sources, that is just plain silly, sorry. Mohammed has used many sources, from other religions as well as classical, really this is established fact, and you find a great many books on that. You can obfuscate but you cannot cover up what is already known fact. Funny, how you accuse others of being "kafirun" while you yourself do little else here than covering things up, or trying to.
So, as you will not post me a picture of the barrier of gig and magog, I take that as an admission that it does not exist, and the Qur'an is not "factual" on this. This means we cannot trust anything else it tries to sell us as facts, nor indeed anything else.
It's just a book, in parts from words by Mohammed, who in return used any old story he could find, later edited. As to "documents", well, he would have mostly used things he overheard, hence the muddles, such the one with Mary, and several similar clangers like that.
And eagle, please realise that older sources cannot copy the LATER Qur'an. Also, I concede that just one or two little details being similar does not prove plagiarism, but several together do. If two kids have the same mistake in a maths test, it could be a coincidence. But several shared mistakes make that no longer tenable.
It always amazes me how much of your critical faculties you are willing to sacrifice in order to protect an evil man and his pathetic book.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
Re: Tariq Ramadan
All so called older sources were shown to be edited works post dating the Quran and written in an Islamic environment.
The barrier of Dhul Qarnayn
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18228" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The barrier of Dhul Qarnayn
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18228" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Tariq Ramadan
No they most certainly were not. The legend of the sleeps predates the QUr'an and there are several documents telling the story older the qur'an. The fact that there are also later copies and variants is irrelevant.Eagle wrote:All so called older sources were shown to be edited works post dating the Quran and written in an Islamic environment.
The earliest version of this story comes from the Syrian bishop Jacob of Sarug (c. 450 – 521), which is itself derived from an earlier Greek source, now lost. An outline of this tale appears in Gregory of Tours (538–594), and I already references the manuscript in the British Museum, also telling the story, in Syriac, predating Mohammed. Also, long before that, Aristotle had referred to it.
Pieter W. van der Horst (February 2011). Pious Long-Sleepers in Greek, Jewish, and Christian Antiquity
http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums ... /Horst.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And just because you write something it must be true, and you don;t need to give any references? Less me guess, your real name is Allah, and you don;t want me to look up where you copy things from, right?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
Re: Tariq Ramadan
The texts post dating the Quran are the romances.
As to the youths, the issue was not to determine whether the Quran borrowed it, but whether it was an accepted and unquestionned fact for centuries, which it was until a version among other versions was discredited for the reasons already explained. So there is a true story in the Quran, whose core elements have been circulating all over the known world, just as other true facts and stories. Then?
As to the youths, the issue was not to determine whether the Quran borrowed it, but whether it was an accepted and unquestionned fact for centuries, which it was until a version among other versions was discredited for the reasons already explained. So there is a true story in the Quran, whose core elements have been circulating all over the known world, just as other true facts and stories. Then?
Re: Tariq Ramadan
No they do not. Look it up.The texts post dating the Quran are the romances.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
Re: Tariq Ramadan
They do, as shown there
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&start=80#p238623" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&start=80#p238623" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;