For our dear M&M and the topos of tahrif

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Feb 25, 2007 at 07:08

Bogus argument. What you are saying here is:

If the Biblical version of a story "correlates" with the same story in the Qur'an then the story in the Bible must be true.

This is so bogus and you are wrong because of the following:

1. There are many differences in the narrative between let us say the story of Jospeh in Genesis and the story of Joseph in the Qur'an. But this is not what the topos of tahrif is all about.

2. Even the subject of the sacrifice in the Qur'an is not mentioned and it is clear that the Qur'an is not unlike a midrash (do you know what this word really means?) where the author assumes that the reader of the Quranic logias is _already_ familiar with the Biblical narrative. As a matter of fact selecting the subject of the sacrifice in Islam cannot be dated before the 3rd century of islam. And so much for the allegation by Muslims that islam was fully fledged in 632CE when Abul Qasim aka Muhammad the caravan raider and Arabian war lord was dead.

You are clueless about the topos of Tahrif are you?(oh I forgot that you know no Arabic) tahrif means corruption!

So which one is it ? it is either your Allah's claim is correct that the Jews and Christians indeed harafu (past tense of Yuharafu) the Bible or that our dear poster is correct and the Qur'an indeed correlates with the Bible and the Torah and in this case your Allah's allegation about tahrif is bogus. So which one is it?

And before you answer you need to read a lot about tahrif!

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".