Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is there someone here...

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 4:19:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 4:17:08 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
It's not plagiarism if you consider it to be partiality the truth and use it as a source.
Some Christians (and atheists) consider it to be plagiarized to due some similar stories. I await some people to make that claim here if they want.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 5:12:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 4:19:56 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/19/2010 4:17:08 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
It's not plagiarism if you consider it to be partiality the truth and use it as a source.
Some Christians (and atheists) consider it to be plagiarized to due some similar stories. I await some people to make that claim here if they want.

Well it's not plagarised is it... Mohammed clearly identified himself as a continuation of the prophets. The old testament is his, whatever he wants of the new testament is his. Islam predates him according to the Islamic paradignm.

For a non, or critical of Islam view the term plagarism is still tenuous. Inspired, borrowed, stolen, bastardisd. Depends on who you ask.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 5:20:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Plagiarised no, made use of yes, since he messed up and altered many of the stories. That he took fair chunks from Jewish lore is well established, as too certain aspects of Christian sects such as the Samaritans.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 5:26:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 5:12:24 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/19/2010 4:19:56 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/19/2010 4:17:08 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
It's not plagiarism if you consider it to be partiality the truth and use it as a source.
Some Christians (and atheists) consider it to be plagiarized to due some similar stories. I await some people to make that claim here if they want.

Well it's not plagarised is it... Mohammed clearly identified himself as a continuation of the prophets. The old testament is his, whatever he wants of the new testament is his. Islam predates him according to the Islamic paradignm.

For a non, or critical of Islam view the term plagarism is still tenuous. Inspired, borrowed, stolen, bastardisd. Depends on who you ask.
The claim is that the Qur'an is plagiarized because it shares some stories with the . Plagiarized in this context probably means copied, but in an erroneous way. I can refute it easily, which is why I wait for someone to make the claim.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 5:28:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 5:20:45 PM, Puck wrote:
Plagiarised no, made use of yes,
Had a similarity established - there is nothing wrong with it. If someone deals with facts, then there is nothing wrong with mentioning the same as some preceding texts mentioned. In this case, you are right, it is not plagiarized.

since he messed up and altered many of the stories. That he took fair chunks from Jewish lore is well established, as too certain aspects of Christian sects such as the Samaritans.
Explain "messed up."
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 5:29:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 5:26:40 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/19/2010 5:12:24 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/19/2010 4:19:56 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/19/2010 4:17:08 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
It's not plagiarism if you consider it to be partiality the truth and use it as a source.
Some Christians (and atheists) consider it to be plagiarized to due some similar stories. I await some people to make that claim here if they want.

Well it's not plagarised is it... Mohammed clearly identified himself as a continuation of the prophets. The old testament is his, whatever he wants of the new testament is his. Islam predates him according to the Islamic paradignm.

For a non, or critical of Islam view the term plagarism is still tenuous. Inspired, borrowed, stolen, bastardisd. Depends on who you ask.
The claim is that the Qur'an is plagiarized because it shares some stories with the Bible. Plagiarized in this context probably means copied, but in an erroneous way. I can refute it easily, which is why I wait for someone to make the claim.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 5:34:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 5:26:40 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/19/2010 5:12:24 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/19/2010 4:19:56 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/19/2010 4:17:08 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
It's not plagiarism if you consider it to be partiality the truth and use it as a source.
Some Christians (and atheists) consider it to be plagiarized to due some similar stories. I await some people to make that claim here if they want.

Well it's not plagarised is it... Mohammed clearly identified himself as a continuation of the prophets. The old testament is his, whatever he wants of the new testament is his. Islam predates him according to the Islamic paradignm.

For a non, or critical of Islam view the term plagarism is still tenuous. Inspired, borrowed, stolen, bastardisd. Depends on who you ask.
The claim is that the Qur'an is plagiarized because it shares some stories with the . Plagiarized in this context probably means copied, but in an erroneous way. I can refute it easily, which is why I wait for someone to make the claim.

Isn't there a discrepancy between which son is nearly sacrificed to God?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 5:38:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 5:28:23 PM, Mirza wrote:
Explain "messed up."

When you compare to the Talmudic and rabbinical writings of the time he shows a fairly weak grasp of the greater narratives. He confuses names and genealogies and definitely shows his lack of geographical knowledge.

As for 'common founding' ya miss the point. It's not about that he posits the same deity of the Jewish god, it's that when you compare the writings you see evidence of clear taking from the actual narratives told to him - and how they are changed, either erroneously or through political means, of which evidence for both is there. It's not the case that it refers to 'same god so same stories' but 'same stories, altered versions'.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 5:39:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 5:34:39 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/19/2010 5:26:40 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/19/2010 5:12:24 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/19/2010 4:19:56 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/19/2010 4:17:08 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
It's not plagiarism if you consider it to be partiality the truth and use it as a source.
Some Christians (and atheists) consider it to be plagiarized to due some similar stories. I await some people to make that claim here if they want.

Well it's not plagarised is it... Mohammed clearly identified himself as a continuation of the prophets. The old testament is his, whatever he wants of the new testament is his. Islam predates him according to the Islamic paradignm.

For a non, or critical of Islam view the term plagarism is still tenuous. Inspired, borrowed, stolen, bastardisd. Depends on who you ask.
The claim is that the Qur'an is plagiarized because it shares some stories with the . Plagiarized in this context probably means copied, but in an erroneous way. I can refute it easily, which is why I wait for someone to make the claim.

Isn't there a discrepancy between which son is nearly sacrificed to God?
The sons of Abraham (peace be upon them)? I do not see the Qur'an mentioning someone specific, but the hadith say that it is Ishmael. The Christians and Jews say that it is Isaac.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 5:44:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 5:38:01 PM, Puck wrote:
When you compare to the Talmudic and rabbinical writings of the time he shows a fairly weak grasp of the greater narratives. He confuses names and genealogies and definitely shows his lack of geographical knowledge.
Come with examples please.

As for 'common founding' ya miss the point. It's not about that he posits the same deity of the Jewish god, it's that when you compare the writings you see evidence of clear taking from the actual narratives told to him - and how they are changed, either erroneously or through political means, of which evidence for both is there. It's not the case that it refers to 'same god so same stories' but 'same stories, altered versions'.
What he told was never meant to be changed due to politics. When he told stories as the Qur'an instructed, he did because that book deals with facts that are bound to its morality, unlike the Old Testament which contain horrible content. As a matter of fact the stories are not "altered." The facts are the same, but the narrations are different. The ones of OT are both contradictory and monstrous, but the ones in the Qur'an are entirely different when it comes to that. Any copy would have been similar to the text of the OT, but that is not the case. Also, I did not speak of the Jewish god. I clearly spoke about the stories.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 5:57:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 5:44:50 PM, Mirza wrote:
Come with examples please.

Eh there are many. His lack of knowledge about Egypt, his confusion of Mary, David's lineage - there are more but I don't have reference books on me at present.

As for 'common founding' ya miss the point. It's not about that he posits the same deity of the Jewish god, it's that when you compare the writings you see evidence of clear taking from the actual narratives told to him - and how they are changed, either erroneously or through political means, of which evidence for both is there. It's not the case that it refers to 'same god so same stories' but 'same stories, altered versions'.

What he told was never meant to be changed due to politics.

No, *he changed* - that much is clear, he did have a purpose after all to his espoused visions.

The facts are the same, but the narrations are different.

No, he changes or gets wrong 'factual' i.e. concrete aspects of lore, either intentionally or not, most likely not in most cases as his confusion is readily apparent in some Suras.

Also, I did not speak of the Jewish god. I clearly spoke about the stories.

You don't have to. Mohamed got his stories from Jewish communities.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 5:59:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Although if you ever want to bother with the non dogma route and go for evidential study, I can supply some references for ya. :)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 6:05:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 5:57:48 PM, Puck wrote:
Eh there are many. His lack of knowledge about Egypt, his confusion of Mary, David's lineage - there are more but I don't have reference books on me at present.
Let us clarify it - By "he" you mean Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), I would presume. Now, regarding his knowledge, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that he had wrong views of either Egypt, Mary, David's (peace upon him) lineage, or anything of the sort. The only way - which I presume you look at - we can see "if" he is wrong is by looking at the Bible. And by looking at the Bible, we can never conclude that his knowledge was weak on some areas. The Bible is not a good comparison. Furthermore, I am not sure about the names of the books you are referring to, but I can guarantee that they can very well be based on:

a) Comparison to the Bible, where the Bible is deemed as right
b) Citations of unauthentic hadith

and possibly some other similar nonsense. If you can name the books, I would appreciate it.

No, *he changed* - that much is clear, he did have a purpose after all to his espoused visions.
He changed the laws of the nation, he had different views of different stories, but he did not change facts. The facts stand, and we Muslims know that the Qur'an has the facts, not the Bible.

No, he changes or gets wrong 'factual' i.e. concrete aspects of lore, either intentionally or not, most likely not in most cases as his confusion is readily apparent in some Suras.
No, he never got them wrong, nor - for your interest - do we Muslims consider it to be authored by him, but now that you mention Surahs, then you can come with examples of the confusion that is "apparent" in them.

You don't have to. Mohamed got his stories from Jewish communities.
No, he never did. If he did, he would have added ons of similarities to the Torah. Your theory is unsupported by facts (but I cannot blame you due to nonsensical books that we have available).
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 6:05:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 5:59:45 PM, Puck wrote:
Although if you ever want to bother with the non dogma route and go for evidential study, I can supply some references for ya. :)
You can, and I got counter-references ready.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 1:27:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Technically, Islam is no more plagiarized from Christianity than Christianity is from Judaism and the many similar theistic religions before it.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 2:31:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 1:27:49 AM, Ren wrote:
Technically, Islam is no more plagiarized from Christianity than Christianity is from Judaism and the many similar theistic religions before it.

This.

I think both Christianity and Islam took alot of stuff from Judaism. One difference is that Christianity seemed to have taken Pagan elements from the predominant Pagan faiths of the time in order to attract more people. I also have discussed the origins of Islam with several other people. It is very possible that Muhammad was either an Arab Jew or lived among Jews so had easy access to their scriptures and traditions and implemented it into his new faith.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 4:33:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 2:31:06 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This.

I think both Christianity and Islam took alot of stuff from Judaism. One difference is that Christianity seemed to have taken Pagan elements from the predominant Pagan faiths of the time in order to attract more people. I also have discussed the origins of Islam with several other people. It is very possible that Muhammad was either an Arab Jew or lived among Jews so had easy access to their scriptures and traditions and implemented it into his new faith.
This theory, similar to that Puck proposed, is a very false one. Mosaic Law is stricter than Shari'a Law, so why would the beloved Prophet not rule with that? Moreover, the Qur'an is extremely much different to the Torah in many ways. Islam is similar to Judaism, yes, but people fail to realize that there are also many differences. In the Qur'an, for instance, you never find any cases of incest, genocide, rape, etc. The Bible is filled with that, even though the morality stands clear (e.g. do not rape etc.). The mortality in the Qur'an is perfectly fit with all its content. You never find anything that is abnormally violent at all. Moreover, the entire lifestyle of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), if you read about it, makes it very clear what he did and what he never did. Those "Jewish" sources that helped him in copying and other such nonsense are lies against Islam that our scholars have refuted throughout history. We have tons of books dealing with archaeological evidence and all kinds of evidence that one could ask for to prove our case to be true.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 4:54:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 4:33:38 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/20/2010 2:31:06 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This.

I think both Christianity and Islam took alot of stuff from Judaism. One difference is that Christianity seemed to have taken Pagan elements from the predominant Pagan faiths of the time in order to attract more people. I also have discussed the origins of Islam with several other people. It is very possible that Muhammad was either an Arab Jew or lived among Jews so had easy access to their scriptures and traditions and implemented it into his new faith.
This theory, similar to that Puck proposed, is a very false one. Mosaic Law is stricter than Shari'a Law, so why would the beloved Prophet not rule with that? Moreover, the Qur'an is extremely much different to the Torah in many ways. Islam is similar to Judaism, yes, but people fail to realize that there are also many differences. In the Qur'an, for instance, you never find any cases of incest, genocide, rape, etc. The Bible is filled with that, even though the morality stands clear (e.g. do not rape etc.). The mortality in the Qur'an is perfectly fit with all its content. You never find anything that is abnormally violent at all. Moreover, the entire lifestyle of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), if you read about it, makes it very clear what he did and what he never did. Those "Jewish" sources that helped him in copying and other such nonsense are lies against Islam that our scholars have refuted throughout history. We have tons of books dealing with archaeological evidence and all kinds of evidence that one could ask for to prove our case to be true.

Comes after + shared characteristics = derived from in this context.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 5:20:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 4:54:29 AM, Ren wrote:
Comes after + shared characteristics = derived from in this context.
Yes, in a valid way. The Qur'an accepts the earlier revelations. But there are differences, as I said.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 11:47:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 5:20:54 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/20/2010 4:54:29 AM, Ren wrote:
Comes after + shared characteristics = derived from in this context.
Yes, in a valid way. The Qur'an accepts the earlier revelations. But there are differences, as I said.

This may be more a Christian thing as it seems to be an argument used by some Christians, but some of them refer to prophecies about false prophets as stated in the Bible and point out how angels are mentioned as a method of revelation for false prophets. As we know, both Muhammad and Joseph Smith received revelations from angels. I'll like some more info about this from Christians.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 11:49:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 11:47:18 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This may be more a Christian thing as it seems to be an argument used by some Christians, but some of them refer to prophecies about false prophets as stated in the Bible and point out how angels are mentioned as a method of revelation for false prophets. As we know, both Muhammad and Joseph Smith received revelations from angels. I'll like some more info about this from Christians.
Joseph Smith came with tons of false claims. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not, and the Bible prophesied him. Joseph Smith was a mere random man who claimed to be more than a normal man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 11:56:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 11:49:24 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/20/2010 11:47:18 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This may be more a Christian thing as it seems to be an argument used by some Christians, but some of them refer to prophecies about false prophets as stated in the Bible and point out how angels are mentioned as a method of revelation for false prophets. As we know, both Muhammad and Joseph Smith received revelations from angels. I'll like some more info about this from Christians.
Joseph Smith came with tons of false claims. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not, and the Bible prophesied him. Joseph Smith was a mere random man who claimed to be more than a normal man.

I agree that Joseph Smith was definitely a fraud, but I'm less sure about Muhammad. He could be too, possibly.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 1:03:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 11:57:31 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
There is definitely more evidence to back up Muhammad's validity than there is for Joseph Smith.

@you or Mirza

Like what?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 1:08:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 1:03:15 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/20/2010 11:57:31 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
There is definitely more evidence to back up Muhammad's validity than there is for Joseph Smith.

@you or Mirza

Like what?

Well Joseph Smith is just some random man in America while Muhammad is supposably from the bloodline of Ismael so there could have been a prophet from that bloodline. I'm sure there's some other things too, but it's really hard to confirm for sure.
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 1:43:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 3:50:47 PM, Mirza wrote:
... Who believes that the Qur'an has been plagiarized from the Bible?
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. It just quotes the Torah. Plagiarism is a bunch of bunk anyway.
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 1:44:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 11:57:31 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
There is definitely more evidence to back up Muhammad's validity than there is for Joseph Smith.

No there absolutely is not.