Jesus Christ Forums

[relaxjack]

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

It is a myth that the Quran copied from the Bible, Jewish or Gnostic sources.

This discussion would help to dispel the myth prevailing among some Christains that the Quran borrowed from these sources.

If Christians have anything to prove, I would suggest they start with one particular source (book) first. Thay can add others later if they wish so.

Agree?

The Truth will show itself clear from Error.

salam

[Loki]

okay relaxjack truth clear from error then
here it is...

first stolen story

- The story of the pigeons comes from The 'Thomas' Gospel of the infancy of Jesus Christ'. (Sura 3:49 and 5:11). (wich is also found in the The First Gospel in the infancy of Jesus Christ)

Thomas Gospel of the infancy of Jesus Christ Reference about the Clay birds:
II. 1 This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into pools, and made them straightway clean, and commanded them by his word alone. 2 And having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when he did these things (or made them)...3 And a certain Jew when he saw what Jesus did, playing upon the Sabbath day, departed straightway and told his father Joseph: Lo, thy child is at the brook, and he hath taken clay and fashioned twelve little birds, and hath polluted the Sabbath day. 4 And Joseph came to the place and saw: and cried out to him, saying: Wherefore doest thou these things on the Sabbath, which it is not lawful to do? But Jesus clapped his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping. 5 And when the Jews saw it they were amazed, and departed and told their chief men that which they had seen Jesus do.

First Gospel in the infancy of Jesus Christ Reference about Clay bird reference:
46. Again, on another day, the Lord Jesus was with the boys at a stream of water, and they had again made little fish-ponds. And the Lord Jesus had made twelve sparrows, and had arranged them round His fish-pond, three on each side. And it was the Sabbath-day. Wherefore a Jew, the son of Hanan, coming up, and seeing them thus engaged, said in anger and great indignation: Do you make figures of clay on the Sabbath-day? And he ran quickly, and destroyed their fish-ponds. But when the Lord Jesus clapped His hands over the sparrows which He had made, they flew away chirping. Then the son of Hanan came up to the fish-pond of Jesus also, and kicked it with his shoes, and the water of it vanished away. And the Lord Jesus said to him: As that water has vanished away, so thy life shall likewise vanish away. And immediately that boy dried up.

and these are arguments that this story isn't stolen from the quran, in case you were gonna try to reverse the claim:
- The majority of the traditions contained in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas date to the middle of the second century.
- The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is clearly not the work of the disciple of Jesus mentioned in all four canonical gospels. Thomas is not only not named as author in the earliest manuscripts, but the text was also briefly ascribed to James.
- The text was not written by any first century writer because the author shows virtually no knowledge of jewish life in the time of Jesus
- Also, the text could not have originated in the first century because it is dependent on the Gospel of Luke for the story of Jesus in the temple at age twelve.
_________________
Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still. Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still. Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still. Listen to the words long written down, When the man comes around.

[relaxjack]

So Loki used a Gnostic Gospel to claim that the Quran borrrowed the story of Jesus making a bird into clay.

My question then:

If the Quran borrowed from that source, there must be an Arabic version of the Thomas Infancy of Gospel during the time of the Prophet. There was no Arabic version during that time. I challenge Loki to prove me otherwise.

salam

[Liberate]

[Loki]

thx Liberate

on top of what Liberate said relaxjack, you keep on ranting that these are gnostic gospels but i sincerly doubt that you know what a gnostic gospel is...

since the gospels i mentioned are coptic gospels (egyptian/syrian) and all the gospels muhammed used were coptic gospels in wich he copied from...

And again the arabian penusiline was infested with christians and jews, they are all over the quran and hadith and are mentioned in it's spoils of war. There were orthodox eastern christians and there were many many heretics christians who had been banished to Arabia by the Catholic church as well as hundreds and hundreds of arabian converts... surely you don't believe that none of them spoke arabic - when preaching, reading or copying a coptic gospel?
_________________
Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still. Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still. Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still. Listen to the words long written down, When the man comes around.

[timepass]

to relaxj

does there need to be arabic gospel of thomas in existence so that quran could copy from it.it could be that there were some herectics in arabia or around with whom mohammad got in contact and got this story.


and how do you explain that quran gets mary in trinity instead of holy ghost?
_________________
nothing

[Apple Pie]

Good work guys....!

Like usual...Jack won't be back....
_________________

[relaxjack]

Not so fast, Apple Pie. I must apologise though, I might only be able to reply on weekend.

Liberate has given the link (I am not sure if that is the Gospel of Thomas the Israelite or the Arabic Gosepl of Infancy). But scholars, even those who are very much against Islam, said that the original Gospel of Infancy does not date from the Prophet's time:

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.(Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Quran, Chpt IV)

Loki even made a ridiculous assumption:

since the gospels i mentioned are coptic gospels (egyptian/syrian) and all the gospels muhammed used were coptic gospels in wich he copied from...

I have never seen any scholars, even those anti_islam, gave an open statement like that. Surely, Loki has a proof before he could make such claim?

Liberate said

I suspect regardless of how much proof or evidence we give you, you will give us the standard muslim rhetoric of GIVE ME MORE PROOF.
Of course! You make such a strong accustaion and you want to escape from giving a PROOF? Surely, the Bible does not teach you that.

Again, there is NO PROOF that the Prophet copied from the Gnostic source.

salam

[Liberate]

[Truth Seeker-Joshua]

Peace all....

Very interesting topic Jack...

[Loki]

[relaxjack]

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

1) To Loki: I would like to concentrate first on the Arabic Gospel of Infancy. We can look at your other 'source' later.

2) Tisdall said the Arabic Gospel "so bad that it is hardly possible to believe that it dates from Muhammad's time." How do you interprete that? I read it to mean that it could not have been translated during Muhammd's time. The period of the Quran revelation was the time when the Arabic language was at its prime and the Arabic Gospel could not have been at that level. It is interesting to note when was the first Arabic Gospel (Gnostic or not) translated from Coptic. Search for it.

3) Being an anti-Islam, Tisdall further proposed that it could be from a Coptic source and said (without proof) that Mary the Copt could have taught or told the story to the Prophet.

4) Hence, Tisdall ran away from making a 'scholarly' statemnet that the Arabic Gospel was available during the Prophet's time and instead focused his attack on a supposedly story-teller 'Mary the Copt'.

5) Now, did the story in the Quran of Jesus speaking in the cradle came from Mary the Copt?
The verse concerning Jesus speaking in the cradle is a Makkan verse. Mary-the Copt was sent to the Prophet in the seventh year of Hijrah and by that time this verse was already revealed!

6) There is No Proof that the Prophet copied from the Gnostic or Jewish sources.

salam

[relaxjack]

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

1) To Loki: I would like to concentrate first on the Arabic Gospel of Infancy. We can look at your other 'source' later.

2) Tisdall said the Arabic Gospel "so bad that it is hardly possible to believe that it dates from Muhammad's time." How do you interprete that? I read it to mean that it could not have been translated during Muhammd's time. The period of the Quran revelation was the time when the Arabic language was at its prime and the Arabic Gospel could not have been at that level. It is interesting to note when was the first Arabic Gospel (Gnostic or not) translated from Coptic. Search for it.

3) Being an anti-Islam, Tisdall further proposed that it could be from a Coptic source and said (without proof) that Mary the Copt could have taught or told the story to the Prophet.

4) Hence, Tisdall ran away from making a 'scholarly' statemnet that the Arabic Gospel was available during the Prophet's time and instead focused his attack on a supposedly story-teller 'Mary the Copt'.

5) Now, did the story in the Quran of Jesus speaking in the cradle came from Mary the Copt?
The verse concerning Jesus speaking in the cradle is a Makkan verse. Mary-the Copt was sent to the Prophet in the seventh year of Hijrah and by that time this verse was already revealed!

6) There is No Proof that the Prophet copied from the Gnostic or Jewish sources.

salam

[Loki]

[Liberate]

[Apple Pie]

See Jack run...
_________________

[relaxjack]

My apologies once again for the late reply. I was really caught up in my work and have to work even during weekends.

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

2. If he would believe that the the Gospel has been translated before the Prophet's time, he would have clearly said so. The man was so much against Islam he would not miss to make the outright claim. Strangely, he did not do that. But I have here Mr Liberate who interpreted Tisdall in another way.

3. He went on to say "that there seems little room for doubt that it has been translated into Arabic from the Coptic, in which language it may have been composed." So what? That is not the issue. The onus is on christians like Liberate to PROVE that the Arabic Gospel of Infancy was available during the Prophet's time. I have not seen that evidence yet.

4. Modern scholars (Tisdall wrote this in 1900 and is ourdated) who have studied the Arabic Gospels have a different view of the earliest available Arabic Gospels (the NT or the Gnostics):

Moreover, if Judeo-Christian thought had really made inroads into Jahiliyyan society and culture, the absence of an Arabic translation of the Bible could not be explained. As for the New Testament, it is certain that no Arabic translation of it existed in the fourth century of Hijrah. This is evident from the reference by Ghazzali, who had to resort to a Coptic manuscript to write his Rad, a respectable refutation of the divinity of Jesus according to the Gospel. In translating the work of the Arab philosopher, Rev. Fr. Chidiac searched everywhere for Gospel sources which could have served at the time of the composition of Rad. He finally found a manuscript in the library of Leningrad written about 1060 by a certain Ibn al-Assal as the first edition of a Christian text in Arabic. Thus, there did not exist an Arabic edition of the Gospels at the time of Ghazzali, and, a fortiori, it did not exist during the Pre-Islamic period.

Malik BenNabi, The Qur'ânic Phenomenon, 1983, American Trust Publications, pp 154.

Also:

The oldest known, dated manuscripts containing Arabic translations of the New Testament are in the collections of St. Catherine's monastery at Mt. Sinai. Sinai Arabic MS 151 contains an Arabic version of the Epistles of Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Catholic Epistles. It is the oldest dated New Testament manuscripts. The colophon of this MS informs us that one Bisr Ibn as-Sirri made the translation from Syriac in Damascus during Ramadan of the Higrah year 253, i.e., 867 AD.[11]

Sidney H Griffith, "The Gospel In Arabic: An Enquiry Into Its Appearance In The First Abbasid Century", Oriens Christianus, Volume 69, p. 131-132.

5. Tisdall was probably aware of the difficulty of making his claim that the Arabic Gospel of Infancy was available during the Prophet's time. Liberate was not so careful.

6. Tisdall tried to circumvent his lost cause by resorting to another mean. He said the Prophet might have learn it from Mary the Copt. I have already shown that the verses on the childhood of Jesus were revealed before Mary came.

salam

[Loki]

[relaxjack]

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

My replies to Loki:

1) As we are discussing the date of the Arabic Gospel of Infancy, it is interesting to note what the Catholic Encyclopedia said:

It is impossible to ascertain its date, but it was probably composed before the Mohammedan era.

So, the writer here cannot give any date and make an assumption (probably) written before 'mohammedan era'. What is interesting is that Loki read this, quoted this and hopes the readers here would think 'probably' means 'certainty'.

2) Loki failed to PROVE the Arabic Gospel of Infancy is available during the Prophet's time. He then went on to discuss the Quran' historical collection (which is irrelevant in our discussion of the Arabic Gospel) hoping to divert the attention of the readers.

3) Loki made a bold claim:

All those apocrypha's been long carbon dated, a little research would grant you the evidence you seek (if you really are seeking).

Really? If it is a well-known fact that the Arabic Gospel of Infancy had been carbon-dated, Loki would have no problem telling us the result? What did the carbon-dating tells us of the date of the Arabic Gospel of Infancy.

The Catholic Enclyclopedia cannot give a precise date (even with carbon dating), Tisdall said it could not have been during the prophet's time...we shall wait for Loki's carbon dating then.

I have read many Christians making bold claims and accusations, maybe Loki can prove me wrong that all these are B_S_?

4) So Loki went on to quote other writers to suggest that the Prophet 'borrowed' or 'learnt' some of the stories from other individuals. This is not a new claim. Tisdall mentioned Mary the Copt. Maybe Loki would like to start with one individual firstand we can debate on this?

5) I quoted studies from non-Muslim scholars who said that the New Testament was only translated into Arabic after the death of the Prophet. If the NT, which is the canonical scriptures, was not translated into Arabic in the 9th Century or more, without any PROOF from Loki, I cannot believe the apocryphas (hidden) could be translated into Arabic earlier than the NT. If Loki thinks otherwise, then show us.

6) Loki even misunderstood or has limited knowledge of what Muslims believe of the earlier prophets. The Qurans states that the earlier prophets taught their people to believe in One God and to do away with other gods. The messages were repeated in the Quran. Some of these messages are also found in the Bible and other scriptures. The Quran is used as a Criterion to judge what is True and what is False in the Bible and other scriptures.

7) Loki decided now to do away with Tisdall (His studies are outdated - I agree!). He now proposes that other people and even communities that believe in some of the Gnostic stories and that the Prophet might have learnt from them. Well, as I said.... start from one person and proof to us how/why/where/when the Prophet learnt from him/her.

salam

[Loki]

[relaxjack]

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

1) Since the Catholic Encyclopedia and Tisdall did not confirm that the Arabic Gospel of Infancy is available during the Prophet's time, then we can safely say there is NO PROOF that the Gospel is available and that the Prophet copied the story from that book.

2) Loki said

[Apple Pie]

Greetings relaxjack,

It appears that you are still in denial of what the authors of the Koran have done…

Let’s review the facts of the matter, once more, so that you will have absolutely NO doubt that the Koran (as we know it today) is no more than a Collection of Jewish and Christian scriptures…


We know, from the Classic definition, that “alqur-ana” originally meant “the collection”.

It was only after this, that the Koran took on a more liberal meaning – which Modern Muslims (like yourself) adhere to.

So, what is “the collection” that the Koran claims to be?

Let’s review the word Koran without the definite article…

قُرْآنَ is so called because it has collected the histories of the prophets, and commands and prohibitions, and promises and threats, and the verses or signs, and the chapters.

Again, we see the gathering of prophetic verses, signs, chapters.

This is a vital clue to what “the collection” contains….verses and chapters are from Books.


So…does the Koran mention “book” or “books” within its pages…? Of course.


It mentions it an astounding 151 times.


The Koran uses the word “kitabi”.

Let’s review the classic definition for this word…


كِتَابِ = “kitabi”

“kitabi” definition:

Singular. A thing in which, or on which, one writes; (a book); a written piece of paper or (a record or register; and a written mandate) of skin; a writing, or writ, or thing written. Applied also to the revelation from above; and to a letter, or epistle, which a person writes and sends. A revealed scripture. Written revelation. Book; decree; ordinance, law; write; prescribed; prescribed period; record; letter; term; scripture; teachings; knowledge reverted to a prophet; recorder. Divine prescript, appointment, or ordinance; judgment or sentence; fatal decree, or predestination. It comes from the root “kataba”, which means to write, note, record, prescribe, ordain, destine, decree, transcribe, command, inscribe.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume seven, pp. 2589 - 2591
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 478 - 479

Adding the definite article…

الْكِتَابِ = “al” + “kitabi” = “alkitabi”


And…reviewing the classic definition…

الْكِتَابِ = “alkitabi”

“alkitabi” definition:

Lane references sura 2:2 in his definition:

ذَلِكَ الْكِتَبُ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِلْمُتَّقِينَ

Thalika alkitabu la rayba feehi hudan lilmuttaqeena

That The Book no doubt/suspicion in it, (it is) guidance to the fearing and obeying. (2:2)

“That is the book, or scripture”; as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures; or meaning that is preeminently the book, or scripture. The Pentateuch or Mosaic Law; and the Gospel, or Book of the Gospels; the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians. Divine prescript, appointment, or ordinance; judgment, or sentence; fatal decree or predestination.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, p. 74; volume seven, p. 2590


Thus…it is quite clear, even at this point, and even without performing any scriptural comparison(s) whatsoever, that “the collection” that comprises the Koran, is basically the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

This is beyond any reasonable doubt.



Furthermore, let’s review some Koranic passages that will shed even more clarity on what it claims to be…


الَرَ تِلْكَ آيَاتُ الْكِتَابِ وَقُرْآنٍ مُّبِينٍ

Alif-lam-ra tilka ayatu alkitabi waqur-anin mubeenin

15.1 A L R , that is The Book's inseparable message, and (a) distinct/clear Koran.


Here we have the astounding statement (from the Koranic authors) that the Jewish and Christian scriptures “alkitabi” are inseparable “ayatu” from the Koran.



Compare to this ayah…

طس تِلْكَ آيَاتُ الْقُرْآنِ وَكِتَابٍ مُّبِينٍ

Ta-seen tilka ayatu alqur-ani wakitabin mubeenin

27.1 T S, that is the Koran's inseparable message, and (a) distinct/clear Book.

In order to re-emphasize that the Koran is no more than a collection of Jewish and Christian scriptures, the Koranic authors transposed the order of the same juxtaposed words; this time around claiming that the Koran is inseparable from the “alkitabi”.

Are we beginning to see the picture now….?




And…look at these examples…

وَمَا كَانَ هَـذَا الْقُرْآنُ أَن يُفْتَرَى مِن دُونِ اللّهِ وَلَـكِن تَصْدِيقَ الَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَتَفْصِيلَ الْكِتَابِ لاَ رَيْبَ فِيهِ مِن رَّبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ

Wama kana hatha alqur-anu an yuftara min dooni Allahi walakin tasdeeqa allathee bayna yadayhi watafseela alkitabi la rayba feehi min rabbi alAAalameena

10.37 And this the Koran was/is not that it be fabricated from (by) other than God, and but confirmation (of) what (is) between his hands, and detailing/explaining The Book, no doubt/suspicion in it, (it is) from the creations all together's/(universes') Lord.

The Koran details/explains the Jewish and Christian scriptures…..?


Who would have guessed?






كِتَابٌ فُصِّلَتْ آيَاتُهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ

Kitabun fussilat ayatuhu qur-anan AAarabiyyan liqawmin yaAAlamoona

41.3 A Book its verses were detailed/explained/clarified, an Arabic Koran to a nation reasoning/comprehending/knowing.

The Jewish and Christian scriptures are inseparable from an Arabic Koran….?



There is absolutely no doubt that the authors who penned the Koran (as we know it today) borrowed Biblical material.

In fact, they quite proudly made it a blatant point to say so….


Take care…
_________________

[relaxjack]

Apple Pie can say what he likes. I came here to see what kind of proof Christians have against the accusation of borrowing.... I really do not have time to entertain 'the twisting of scriptures' from people like Apple Pie.

salam

[Loki]

[Apple Pie]

Greetings Relaxjack,

Thanks for mustering a reply…

[relaxjack]

To Loki

1) Loki said there is proof but he has not even given any single proof to say that the Prophet copied from the apocryphas. He made some wonderful suggestions that the Prophet borrowed from 3 or 4 apocryphas, but still failed to show us the evidence which says the books were translated into Arabic during/before the Prophet's time. Why is Loki still clinging on this idea when he has no proof? Give us PROOF if you are sincere!

2) Loki said

[Aburaees]

[relaxjack]

To Aburaees:

[Apple Pie]

Greetings Jack,

Its nice to see that you are unable to refute my posts…what a surprise…kinda reminiscent of old times, is it not…..?

Don’t feel too bad, though, because you are not the first to fail.

The truth stumps ALL Muslims…

Flat-out pancakes them, actually…

Thanks for not letting us down.




Let’s see what we have here…

[Aburaees]

[relaxjack]

Aburaees said

[Loki]

relaxjack,

it's like you deliberatly do not want to use your common sence, but hey... you have every right to use or not use that.

eventually you will always ask me more and more proof till it becomes absurd... when i show you all the heretic gospels that story allready excisted in before muhammed supponsenly came and claimed it new revelation.

then you will ask me how, who and when? see THAT is speculation and i told you that upfront that i can't know all such detail but what we do know is that he most highly likely copied... Waraqa is a possible influence in that, but so are many other people of that period of time. And that is pure speculation you can't not demand from me that i have a picture of Muhammed copying or listening from or to Mr. X.

And again your only nagging about this one 'borrowed' story, but their are COUNTLESS of borrowed once's, i do not base my conclusion upon this one clay bird story... but of tons of borrowings from others, i could go on all day posting them.

But still you will stubbornly reject everything merely because your demand of proof is so absurd it defiles common sence.

And if you don't get the marble story, think again:
marble = muhammed
tar = heretic christian knowledge
pit (of tar) = arabian pensulina

[relaxjack]

It is basically impossible to PROVE that the Prophet borrowed from Gnostic. But it is much easier for people like Loki to ACCUSE the Prophet from borrowing that source.

Actually, I am not trying to be difficult. Loki must understand that this is a matter of FAITH. I have said earlier, even your Christian ethics and belief would not permit you to accuse someone without a proof.

I am not even asking for a tape or video recording. Basically, I asked:

i) If you say he borrowed from the apocryphas, then give us evidence. You can even quote scholars who have made studies on the datings of the books, religious or historical documents, or even your speciality - carbon-datings

ii) If the Prophet was a student of someone, then tell us who was the teacher, how you come to the conclusion that he/she was the teacher. You quoted Waraqa, then you said "so are many other people of that period of time". Are you now saying there was a committee?

Is the above something too difficult for you to prove? Or are the above something which defies common sense?

Why is it that when Christians are unable to substantiate their false accusations, they started throwing insults (tar, marbles, etc)

Loki mentioned "tons of borrowings from others, i could go on all day posting them." Well, you did quoted 80% borrowing but failed to tell the readers how you get the number.

Strangely, Loki made the accusations. He cannot give any backings. Now, he wants me to buy books to prove that I am wrong?

Oh, pleease!

salam

[Liberate]

[Musti]

Is this further evidence of another copied myth??

The link below looks at the rising and seting of the sun in the Koran and similarities with a Christian Legend. Has this been discussed before?




http://www.investigateislam.com/zul1.htm

[relaxjack]

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

To Liberate:

Having discussed tbe topic of Tisdall with Loki, we have concluded that Tisdall, and even the Catholic Encyclopedia, did not specify with certainty that the Arabic Gospel of Infancy existed during the Prophet's time. If you think otherwise, then provide us the link to the studies made on the Gospel which said the apocryphal was in existence in Arabic at that time.

If you do not have that, you are just following Tisdall and other Christian missionaries in pointing fingers without proof.

Liberate added

[Apple Pie]

Greetings relaxjack,

Are you ever going to reply to my posts….?

Looks like you are running away from me (yet) again…

[relaxjack]

Sorry, Apple Pie. My invitation is to objective and sensible readers. Not to people who distorted or twisted scriptures. But, hey... you can call me whatever you want.


Have a nice day.

[Loki]

relaxjack your hopeless

of all wich people like Apple Pie, Liberate, Musti and me showed you, you have proving nothing of the contrary except only exposing your blind stubborness in a borrowed God...

the problem with you -- and i will sound like an silver screen hollywood movie-- is that you can't handle the truth... too afraid to find out things you don't wanna know.

i can give you countless of hard arguments in favor of borrowing but where are your hard arguments wich you think that rule out borrowing? it's not like Muhammed was a 7th century south american who all the sudden had entire knowledge of the Sumerian religion before Europe ever set foot on that continent (cause that would be astouning) yet someone 'revealing' abrahamic knowledge in abrahamic infested region... is not a miracle, even i could of done that...
_________________
Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still. Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still. Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still. Listen to the words long written down, When the man comes around.

[Liberate]

[Loki]

the only thing i said wich you -relaxjack- agreed with, was that Tisdall as well's as the Catholics Encyclopedia are outdated, i never said they were wrong... but that they could be more accurate given this day and age of scriptual research.

and the catholic enyclopedia is still in favor of my opinion in wich the ARAB infancy gospel PREDATES the muhammed era...

I mean if you want to dissprove Tisdall as well as the catholic encyclopedia with new sources... then go ahead, but i'll doubt you'll find any, in fact i have given you 100% certainty that all modern scriptual research about the infancy gospel will confirm these 'outdated' viewpoint of the catholic encyclopedia and tisdall to be correct.
_________________
Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still. Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still. Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still. Listen to the words long written down, When the man comes around.

[Abdullah]

FIrsrt loki, u claim and make ridiculous assumptions that the qur'an is copied, may i ask you who did the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) copy from?


The Arabic version of the Bible was not present at the time of Prophet Muhummad (pbuh). The earliest Arabic version of the Old Testament is that of R. Saadias Gaon of 900 C.E. - more than 250 years after the death of our beloved Prophet. The oldest Arabic version of the new Testament was published by Erpenius in 1616 C.E. - about a thousand years after the demise of our Prophet.

Similarities between the Qur’an and the Bible does not necessarily mean that the former has been copied from the latter. In fact it gives evidence that both of them are based on a common third source; all divine revelations came from the same source - the one universal God. No matter what human changes were introduced into some of these Judeo-Christian and other older religious scriptures that had distorted their originality, there are some areas that have remained free from distortion and thus are common to many religions.

It is true that there are some similar parallels between the Qur’an and the Bible but this is not sufficient to accuse Muhummad (pbuh) of compiling or copying from the Bible. The same logic would then also be applicable to teachings of Christianity and Judaism and thus one could wrongly claim that Jesus (pbuh) was not a genuine Prophet (God forbid) and that he simply copied from the Old Testament.

The similarities between the two signify a common source that is one true God and the continuation of the basic message of monotheism and not that the later prophets have plagiarised from the previous prophets.

If someone copies during an examination he will surely not write in the answer sheet that he has copied from his neighbour or Mr. XYZ. Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) gave due respect and credit to all the previous prophets (pbut). The Qur’an also mentions the various revelations given by Almighty God to different prophets.

[Apple Pie]

Greetings Abdullah,


I’d like to reply to your statements…

[Abdullah]

[Apple Pie]

Greetings Abdullah,


Thanks for your reply…

[Abdullah]

[Apple Pie]

Greetings Abdullah,

Thanks for your reply…

[Aburaees]

[Loki]

Abdullah, the NT nowhere copies OT sources and claims it as new revelation

secondly, the arabic version of the bible was never used as a source for the quran, we agree on that one here... if Muhammed did use the original injil instead of heretic gospels their wouldn't be so many enormous theological errors in the quran

i'll quote you an example, of clear stealing done by muhammed...

The Qur'an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 19 - Mary (600-800AD):

So she conceived him, and she retired with him into a remote place. And the labour pains came upon her at the trunk of a palm tree, and she said, 'O that I had died before this, and been forgotten out of mind!' and he called to her from beneath her 'Grieve not, for thy Lord has placed a stream beneath thy feet, and shake towards thee the trunk of the palm tree, it will drop upon thee fresh dates fit to gather; so eat, and drink, and cheer thine eye; and if thou shouldst see any mortal say, "Verily, I have vowed to the Merciful One a fast, and I will not speak to-day with a human being."' Then she brought it to her people, carrying it; said they, 'O Mary! thou hast done an extraordinary thing! O sister of Aaron! thy father was not a bad man, nor was thy mother a harlot!' And she pointed to him, and they said, 'How are we to speak with one who is in the cradle a child?' He said, 'Verily, I am a servant of God; He has brought me the Book, and He has made me a prophet, and He has made me blessed wherever I be; and He has required of me prayer and almsgiving so long as I live, and piety towards my mother, and has not made me a miserable tyrant; and peace upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised up alive.' That is, Jesus the son of Mary,-by the word of truth whereon ye do dispute!

The Pseudo Gospel Of Matthew (400 AD):

Chapter 20
And it came to pass on the third day of their journey, while they were walking, that the blessed Mary was fatigued by the excessive heat of the sun in the desert; and seeing a palm tree, she said to Joseph: Let me rest a little under the shade of this tree. Joseph therefore made haste, and led her to the palm, and made her come down from her beast. And as the blessed Mary was sitting there, she looked up to the foliage of the palm, and saw it full of fruit, and said to Joseph: I wish it were possible to get some of the fruit of this palm. And Joseph said to her: I wonder that thou sayest this, when thou seest how high the palm tree is; and that thou thinkest of eating of its fruit. I am thinking more of the want of water, because the skins are now empty, and we have none wherewith to refresh ourselves and our cattle. Then the child Jesus, with a joyful countenance, reposing in the bosom of His mother, said to the palm: O tree, bend thy branches, and refresh my mother with thy fruit. And immediately at these words the palm bent its top down to the very feet of the blessed Mary; and they gathered from it fruit, with which they were all refreshed. And after they had gathered all its fruit, it remained bent down, waiting the order to rise from Him who had commanded it to stoop. Then Jesus said to it: Raise thyself, O palm tree, and be strong, and be the companion of my trees, which are in the paradise of my Father; and open from thy roots a vein of water which has been hid in the earth, and let the waters flow, so that we may be satisfied from thee. And it rose up immediately, and at its root there began to come forth a spring of water exceedingly clear and cool and sparkling. And when they saw the spring of water, they rejoiced with great joy, and were satisfied, themselves and all their cattle and their beasts. Wherefore they gave thanks to God.

The First Gospel in the Infancy of Jesus Christ (200-400AD)

1. We find (1) what follows in the book of Joseph the high priest, who lived in the time of Christ. Some say that he is Caiaphas. (2) 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.


and i'm not the only one who made this claim, his early critics claimed exactly that, that muhammed was plagiarizing older stories

"These are nothing but tales of the ancients." 6:25

The similarities are too big to discard, and put this together with the story of the clay bird copied from the infancy gospels, and the hundreds of other indications to minor and big plagiaritism and you would have no other choice to conclude what i and countless of scholars have indicated and are indicating... muhammed was a fraud
_________________
Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still. Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still. Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still. Listen to the words long written down, When the man comes around.

[Abdullah]

[Abdullah]

[Loki]

[Aburaees]

[Abdullah]

[Aburaees]

[Loki]

[relaxjack]

My apologies for the late reply.

Loki and Liberate claimed I am 'stubborn' bec I refused to accept the 'proof' that they have given me. But what proof did they provide me? They claimed the following:

1) They provided statements from Tisdall and the Catholic Encyclopedia. I am surprised I have to repeat the same arguments again. But here goes:

Tisdall said

[Loki]

[relaxjack]

1) Loki wrote:

[relaxjack]

1) Loki wrote:

[relaxjack]

1) Loki wrote:

[Loki]

[Musti]

Relaxjack, why would the disbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients" if the tales of the ancients were not available to Mohammed?

You would only accuse someone of something if it was actually possible. No one would make such accusations if the stories were not known/available during that period. It's like me accusing somebody of causing death by driving before the car was invented. This would be ridiculous and not even worth a response but of course no seriously would say this. The fact that these accusations are made and the Koran feels the need to respond to these accusations seems significant.

[Abdullah]

There is no point argueing with Loki or Aburaes guy, because all theey talk bout are fallacy statement its a waste of time talking to a brick wall.

[Liberate]

[relaxjack]

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". 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."

ii) Because he cannot prove the Arabic Gospel of Infancy was available, he wrote "As, however, Arabic has never been supposed to be the language in which the work was composed, this is a matter of little or no consequence." Why would Tisdall suddenly abandoned the borrowing theory from that Arabic apocryphal? If he has the evidence, he would surely pursue the borrowing text theory here. Yet, he said the Arabic issue is of 'no consequence'?

iii) Tisdall went on to invite gullible Christians to consider the original "language it may have been composed." (If it is really written in Coptic, then what is the problem?).

iv) Tisdall believed that bec the original story was Coptic, it was through someone from Egypt that the Prophet might have learnt it. Tisdall wrote "This explains in what way Muhammad most probably became acquainted with the legend". Tisdall then started talking about Mary the Copt as a possible story-teller.

Is it really difficult for Liberate to comprehend?

2) To Loki:

[Loki]

relaxjack you can repeat a hundreds of times

[Liberate]

[relaxjack]

I came back from the Land of Smiles last Sunday.

Managed to look at some of the replies and my contributions are as follows:

1) To Loki:

i) I am not asking for more proof. I am asking for just ONE proof that you failed to provide. I have already provided some guidelines, like quoting some 'modern scriptural studies' (to quote what you wrote), historical evidence, carbon dating (also your favourite but unfulfilled fantasy). You have not given the readers here any of those.

ii) Where do you get the definition of 'plagiarism'? From the dictionary of Loki? That definition is more like 'copying' rather than 'plagiarism'.

iii) I wrote once that Loki was careless in his arguments. History repeats itself. Where do you get the idea that "Mecca and Medina was infested with heretic christians (banned to the arabian pensulina by the catholic church)." There could be some Christians at Medina but 'infested' with heretic Christians? hmm...

iv) Loki wrote:

[relaxjack]

To LIberate:

1) relaxjack wrote:

[

[relaxjack]

Sorry, I missed the later part of Liberate's arguments.


1) Liberate mentioned sirat rasullah page 180. Can you pls give me more details as in the author, the editor, etc.

2) Liberate quoted

[Loki]

[Abdullah]

[Aineo]

[relaxjack]

1) Loki has now given a more reasonable definition of plagiarism. Let us see if the definition fits the accusation that Muhammad (pbuh) plagiarised from the apocryphals.

To recap, the definition given by Loki:

[Aineo]

[relaxjack]

Dear Aineo

I am aware that the Coptic Church was labelled as heresy by the Catholic Church, although you can read about the Copts and why they are upset bec Christians like you claimed they are out of mainstream Christianity.

Notwithstanding that, you need to provide me more information of

i) Who were the "two monks who greatly influenced Muhammad". In what way did they influence him. How did they influence him (textual/oral). When did they influence him. What makes you think Muhammad (pbuh) would follow a heresy teaching?

ii) The Copts did not take the apocryphal as their divine scripture. As far as I know, they follow the same 'canonical' scriptures as other Christians. What makes you so sure that the 'two monks' followed the Arabic Gospel of Infancy? Do you have any evidence (writings of Copts/other Christians) which claimed that they followed this scripture? Let me know please.

salam

[Aineo]

relaxjack, what I find interesting about the proofs you request is that you refuse to disprove what has been posted. You and other Muslims are advancing the idea that Muhammad was a prophet of Allah and you expect us to take that bit of information on face value without any proof that Muhammad was a prophet of any god. On the other hand when you are confronted with information that disagrees with what you want to believe you insist on names and proof.

I have supplied information that Muhammad was influenced by two Coptic monks, now if you choose to refute this information that is up to you, otherwise I will take this information at face value. However, can you refute this:

[relaxjack]

Aineo wrote:

[Aineo]

You are like a fish out of water when it comes to refuting information found on Muslim Internet sites. Do an Internet search using bahira + muhammad and you will find a plethora of information on this Nestorian monk and his relationship with Muhammad.

BTW, the Coptic Church was not declared a heretical church; what was declared heretical was there stance that Jesus Christ had two natures (both human and divine). The term "Coptic gospels" has to do with the language used in the manuscripts and does not mean the Coptic beliefs are not based on Biblical truth so your professed knowledge of Coptic Christians is in fact flawed.
_________________

[Loki]

[Loki]

[Liberate]

[relaxjack]

To Liberate:

1) The contention here is:
Did Tisdall claimed that the Arabic Gospel of Infancy was available during the Prophet's time at Mecca.

i) He did not confirm/conclude that this is so
ii) I wrote that the Arabic of the Infancy Gospel here is not Quraish and hence not available at Mecca
iii) It is possible that the Arabic Gospel is translated into Egyptian Arabic and not Quraish Arabic
iv) It is not clear when the translation to Arabic was available. It could be pre- or post-Quran.

I would like to make it clear that Tisdall (being an anti_Islam writer) BELIEVED that the Arabic Gospel of Infancy was the source of the Quran.
However, since the apocryphal was not Quraish Arabic and "the style of the Arabic" was "so bad" he did not confirm/conclude/state specifically that the apocryphals was available during the Prophet's time at Mecca. He then focused on the other possible source - Mary the Copt, whom Tisdall thought might be acquainted with the Gospel.

I suggest that Liberate read properly what I wrote.

2) Liberate added

[relaxjack]

To Loki:

1) Please see my reply to Liberate on the 'tales of ancient'.

2) Loki wrote:

[Aineo]

[relaxjack]

To Loki again:

1) If you do not want to discuss the Arabic Gospel of Infancy, that is OK. I think I have also said enuff.

2) As for your definition of plagiarism and how that can be applied to the Prophet, let us see if it applicable:

i) To appropriate the writings or ideas (copying from text or oral transmission)

Well, I am still waiting for the sources. Which text? Waraqa/Mary the Copt? (I have replied they could not be the source of the childhood of Jesus). Loki mentioned the story was known for 400 years. It would seem that it is a fact. If God revealed to Muhammad a 'fact', does that constitute plagiarism? You can argue if turning water into wine is a fact and speaking in the cradle is not.

ii) Represent the end product as one's own.

Loki is correct to say that the Quran comes from Allah. So did Muhammad (pbuh) said the Quran is his creation? How does this fit into your plagiarism definition of 'one's own'?

3) See how careless again Loki can be:

[relaxjack]

To Aineo

[Aineo]

relaxjack, the point is that Muhammad was in contact with both Jews and Christians so it is not only possible but probable that some of his recitations were influenced by both Jews and Christians.

Muhammad also gave the Coptic Church certain guarantees that Muslim's have ignored and violated since his death. This also indicates Muhammad had contact with Christians throughout his life.
_________________

[relaxjack]

Dear Aineo

Maybe I should ask you this: Why would Muhammad borrow from the heretical Christians and the Jews? Jews and Arabs are not exactly the best of friends. Why would he antagonised the Arabs by telling them Jewish stories and lifting up the image of Mary (a Jewess) against his own wife Khadijah?

Similarly, how do you think he would be able to attract the Christians if he were to tell them stories which Christians think are not true and not in their Bible?

Although there are Christians and Jews living in Medina, it is not a sufficient reason to say that he borrowed the stories from them.

[Aineo]

Why would Muhammad plagarize both Jewish and Christian literature? Because Jewish and Christian literature are God's revealed truth and by using these accounts can bridge a gap between all three monotheistic faiths. The majority of Christians alive while Muhammad lived were Catholics and Orthodox who put a lot of faith in myths like the Marian doctrines and by including these traditions he could gain some credibility.

My reference to the Coptic Church deals with how Muslim's pick and choose which of Muhammad's teachings they will obey.
_________________

[relaxjack]

Aineo

You said

[Aineo]

Muhammad used some of David's Psalms and some people who labeled themselves Christians during the time of Muhammad accepted the Gnostic and apocraphyl writings as authentic.

[Liberate]

[relaxjack]

Good afternoon

I see that Libertae is still with Tisdall. Right, let us see what new things are there:

1)

[Aineo]

[Loki]

[relaxjack]

Good Morning Loki

Loki wrote

[Aineo]

[Musti]

What do you guys make of this article on the origins of the Koran?

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/kasem/quran_origin.htm

[Liberate]

[Abdullah]

it is true that both the books of the Bible and the Qur’an cover much common ground. It is also true that in the course of 23 years, verses were revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be on him) on different occasions and that he asked his followers to put these verses in particular places in different chapters. All this is true. But the conclusion of the Christian critics that the Prophet had been memorizing Biblical verses during the first 40 years of his life in order to fabricate the Qur’an is untenable for the following reasons:

1. There was no Arabic translation of the Bible available during the Prophet’s time. For a detailed account of this subject, read the article: Is The Bible Really The Source of The Qur’an?
Ernst Würthwein informs us in his book, The Text Of The Old Testament:
“With the victory of Islam the use of Arabic spread widely and for Jews and Christians in the conquered lands it became the language of daily life. This gave rise to the need of Arabic versions of the Bible, which need was met by a number of versions mainly independent and concerned primarily for interpretation.” (Ernst Würthwein, The Text Of The Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988, pp. 104.)

Thus, the first translations of the Hebrew Bible in Arabic appeared after the advent of Islam. In fact, the oldest dated manuscript of the Old Testament in Arabic dates from the first half of the ninth century.

What about the New Testament?
Sidney H Griffith, who has done extensive research on the appearance of Arabic and the New Testament says:
“The oldest dated manuscript containing the Gospels in Arabic is Sinai Arabic MS 72. Here the text of the four canonical Gospels is marked off according to the lessons of the temporal cycle of the Greek liturgical calendar of the Jerusalem Church. A colophon informs us that the MS was written by Stephen of Ramleh in the year 284 of the Arabs, i.e., 897 AD.” (Sidney H Griffith, The Gospel in Arabic: An Enquiry into Its Appearance in the First Abbasid Century, Oriens Christianus, Volume 69, p. 131-132.)

2. It is well-known that the Prophet did not know how to read or write: he was illiterate. So there was no question of his plagiarizing the Bible, even if an Arabic copy did in fact exist in his time. What then of the charge that he was taught by some Christians?

Allah the Almighty answered the criticism fourteen centuries ago in these verses, which say what means:
*{Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled. Nor does he say [aught] of [his own] desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him. He was taught by One Mighty in power.}* (An-Najm 53:2–5)

To deny the divine origin of the Qur’an missionaries claim that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) knew all the sources—Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hanif and ancient Arab beliefs—before he compiled the Qur’an. However, this ignores the simple fact of his illiteracy that was even acknowledged by the enemies of Islam 1400 years ago. Allah the Almighty also answered this in the Qur’an, when it says what means:
*{And thou wast not [able] to recite a Book before this [Book came] nor art thou [able] to transcribe it with thy right hand: in that case indeed would the talkers of vanities have doubted. Nay here are signs self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge: and none but the unjust reject Our signs.}* (Al-`Ankabut 29:48–49).

Despite all this, the missionaries have been repeating the same arguments, hoping to mislead the gullible. It was common knowledge in Makkah that the Prophet was illiterate, and there is no record of the pagan Arabs in Makkah accusing Muhammad (peace be upon him) of not being illiterate.

The reasons why the whole of the Qur’an was not revealed to the Prophet at one time are well known: (1) It was only reasonable and realistic to reveal the guidance of Allah governing the individual and social lives of the gradually evolving Muslim society at the same pace as its stage-by-stage emergence in space and time. So verses had to be revealed to the Prophet depending upon the contexts demanding divine guidance.

(2) It was easier for the Prophet and his Companions to learn and imbibe the Qur’anic message as it was being revealed in small portions.
_________________
The Old Testament (Torah):
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord is ONE!"
( Deuteronomy 6:4)

The New Testament (The Gospel)
"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is ONE Lord" (Mark 12:29)

The FINAL Testament (The Qu'ran):
"And your God is ONE God: there is no god but He"
(al-Bakarah 2:163)

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,

[Abdullah]

Borrowing Theory Rebuttled here http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/

1-Had the Qur’an been contrived from old scriptures, Muhammad's adversaries would not have ignored the matter and remained silent. They would undoubtedly have seized the opportunity to accuse him to that effect . All their allegations were unfounded and lacked proof. The Qur’an itself has already mentioned these allegations and their refutation.

2-The Qur’an includes many laws, instructions and commands which did not exist in the previous scriptures. Furthermore the Qur’an contains narratives with detailed accounts of previous generations in addition to prophecies which were fulfilled. An example of this was the final outcome of the conflict between the Romans and Persians, the events of which were unknown to Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, his people and the followers of Judaism and Christianity.

3- The Qur’an urged people to acquire knowledge and to respect the human mind and intellect. Accordingly, based on Islam's new teachings and rulings, the Muslims were able, in a very short time, to establish a civilization which replaced the preceding civilization and flourished for many centuries. Had the Qur’an been compiled from the previous divine religions why then did these religions not include the aforementioned precept and teachings and did not play the same role as Islam?

4- The Qur’an is a book the style of which is consistent and eloquent. Had it been compiled from other scriptures it would have been incoherent, contradictory and inconsistent due to the alleged various sources. Moreover, the Qur’an, always addresses one’s sense and reasoning and does not include fables and myths. It relies upon evidence and facts and demands the same of its adversaries: Allah’s says: “Say: Bring your proof, if ye are truthful!” (An-Naml:64) This approach is considered a completely new approach and does not exist in any previous scripture.

In addition to the previous authentic refutation, one may add:

1-The Qur’an related facts totally unknown to the People of the Books. For example it narrated the story of Zakariah and the birth of the Virgin Mary and his guardianship of her. The Qur’an also devoted whole chapter to the Virgin Mary, which is unparalleled in the New Testament. Where could the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, possibly have acquired these facts?

2- It is related in Exodus that it was Pharaoh’s daughter who adopted Moses as a baby, whereas the Qur’an states that Pharaoh’s wife found him and adopted him. We also read Exodus that “Aaron fashioned the gold and moulded the calf …” that was worshipped by the Jews, whereas the Qur’an states that Samiri was the culprit and that Aaron was innocent.

3-If the Qur’an had been derived from the Holy Scriptures of the Jews and Christians, why did Islam reject the principle of the Trinity which is a fundamental belief in Christianity? Why did Islam also reject the belief in the crucifixion of Christ, redemption, inherited sin and the divinity of Christ?

4- The Qur’an presents the Prophets of Allah as ideals of morality and virtue, whereas the Old Testament states that some of them committed sins, and this is incompatible with the veneration accorded to them by Islam.

5- Religious observances commanded in the Qur’an such as praying, fasting, obligatory charity and the pilgrimage to Makkah in addition to the instructions and teachings stated as to the manner of how each observance is to be performed are matters that are unparalleled and are not mentioned in any other religion. The five daily prayers are performed in a certain manner at appointed times with the recital of certain specific verses of the Qur’an. Fasting entails total abstinence from food drink and physical desire from dawn till sunset. Charity varies in quantity and the way that is given. The Pilgrimage entails circling around the Ka`ba, being assembled in great gathering at Mount Arafat, going to and forth seven times between As-Safaa and Al-Marwa, and stoning Satan. These are all religious observances, which are specifically related to Islam. Which religion could possibly have been the source of these religious observances?”

Based on the above, it has become crystal clear to all that Islam, in general, and the Qur'an, in particular, is something great and unique. Needless to say that Islam has made lawful to people things that were previously made totally prohibited. In Sura Al-An`aam, we read: “

Say: I find not in that which is revealed unto me aught prohibited to an eater that he eat thereof, except it be carrion, or blood poured forth, or swineflesh for that verily is foul or the abomination which was immolated to the name of other than Allah. But whoso is compelled (thereto), neither craving nor transgressing, (for him) lo ! your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful. Unto those who are Jews We forbade every animal with claws. And of the oxen and the sheep forbade We unto them the fat thereof save that upon the backs or the entrails, or that which is mixed with the bone. That We awarded them for their rebellion. And lot We verily are Truthful.” (Al-An`aam:145-146)

Almighty Allah makes it clear to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and all Muslims that the Glorious Qur'an is totally different from all previous laws; it is unique in its nature. Allah says:

“ And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced out way.” (Al-Ma’idah:4

Here, we would like to highlight the point that, for example, the Jewish legislation ordered for the killing of a person as a way of accepting his repentance. Accordingly, when a person commited a sin and later wanted to repent, he would be subject to killing as a sign of showing genuine repentance and for his repentance to be accepted. This is mentioned in the Qur’an in the verse that reads: “And when Moses said unto his people:

"O my people! Ye have wronged yourselves by your choosing of the calf (for worship) so turn in penitence to your Creator, and kill (the guilty) yourselves. That will be best for you with your Creator and He will relent toward you. Lo! He is the Relenting, the Merciful.” (Al-Baqarah:54)

In the law imbedded in the Qur'an the case is totally different, for winning Allah's forgiveness needs nothing more than showing repentance and regret for the previous sin; i.e. in order to be forgiven for any sin, a person is asked to show repentance to Allah and make a covenant never to transgress the limits again or to commit any sin. How unique and great the Qur'an is! It can never be claimed that it is fabricated or derived from other laws. It is unique in nature, in rules and in the guidance which it showers on the whole human race."

Some stories (which are also found in the Bible) are related in the Glorious Qur’aan for the benefit of Muslims, to enable them to learn from experience of earlier generations. They also contains specific rulings that are designed to guide the Muslims and their society from falling into that traps that caught their predecessors.
_________________
The Old Testament (Torah):
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord is ONE!"
( Deuteronomy 6:4)

The New Testament (The Gospel)
"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is ONE Lord" (Mark 12:29)

The FINAL Testament (The Qu'ran):
"And your God is ONE God: there is no god but He"
(al-Bakarah 2:163)

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,

[relaxjack]

My reply to Liberate:

1) Why are you being so stubborn, Liberate?
You asked

[Liberate]

[relaxjack]

I am amused at Liberate's obstinate stand on the copying theory. Liberate think that by throwing ad hominem attack he would gain credibility. Let me just state a few things which Liberate is leading the readers the wrong way:

1) Liberate kept asking for Quraish Arabic script. I have already told Liberate many times the SCRIPT is not an issue. It is the language and style of the Quran Arabic vs the Egyptian Arabic. See the Wikipedia Ency. for details

2) Liberate keep getting confused at what I meant by SOURCE. I have told Liberate so many times, Tisdall believed that the Arabic Gospel of Infancy was the SOURCE. However, Tisdall believed that it was more through oral channel rather than textual copying. Tisdall believed it was the same source (apocryphal) but transmitted through oral rather than scriptual.

3) Liberate kept telling the readers the Arabic Gospel of Infancy was borrowed from earlier apocryphals. We all know that. What we want to hear is how the Arabic Gospel of Infancy became available to the Prophet as what Liberate believed

4) Liberate went on even to argue that when Tisdall said that "Mohammed was not consulting any written document" to mean he actually consulted that document. You can see how a person like Liberate will try to change white to black, vice-versa

5) Liberate said there were heretical Christians in Hijaz. But his quoting from hadith pointed out to Jews and Waraqa (there is no historical records that Waraqa is a heretic). Who are the heretical Christians, Liberate?

6) The hadith said that Waraqa knew the Gospels. The hadith did not say he preached the Gospel. Anyway, Waraqa died a few years after the first revelations. Yet, after that the revelations continued.

7) Liberate's obsession with the word 'plagiarised' led him to believe anything. The context is not on the childhood of Jesus but Liberate believe it must be so.

I hope I do not have to repeat the same argument again...

salam

[Liberate]

[Abdullah]

[Loki]

[Aburaees]

From a Muslim point of veiw, any similarity between the Qur'an and another Scripture can be explained by the idea that they come from the same author, namely God.

So from a Muslim point of view this could never be plagerism.

If God says something in one Scripture and then repeats it in the Qur'an, it is not plagerism.

From this point of view it is futile to try and prove plagerism.

What a non-muslim needs to do is prove that the Qur'an did not come from God.

And only when this is done can a non-muslim charge the Qur'an with plagerism.

.

[Liberate]

[relaxjack]

My apologies as I am very busy at the moment and am not able to respond to Liberate's accusations. I also would not like to repeat the same arguments.

I would like to thank Aburaes for his comments on plagiarism (not always you can find a Christian who agrees on certain points. Usually you will find Christians who agree to disagree).

salam

[Abdullah]

[Alpha]

[Abdullah]