|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Perdogg.To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.Zul-Qarnain - What is the argument?I have never claimed that Zul-Qarnain *is* the historical Alexander the Great. I don't know why your move to agree with me in this is considered a rebuttal... The argument is then that the Qur'anic story is clearly taken from the legends about Alexander. There are many many details of the Qur'an account which are nearly verbatim to be found in the Alexander legends. Conclusion: Zul-Qarnain clearly is the Alexander the Great of the legend stories. And because the Qur'an presents the material from the legends as if this were history, it shows that Muhammad could not distinguish between legends and history when he incorporated this material in the Qur'an. This is evidence that the Qur'an is not of divine origin. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Excellent reference, thanks. I’ll put it on my Amazon wishlist.
http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/02/03/1bkk/04b.html
‘...Ms. Crone insists that the Koran and the Islamic tradition present a fundamental paradox. The Koran is a text soaked in monotheistic thinking, filled with stories and references to Abraham, Isaac, Joseph and Jesus, and yet the official history insists that Muhammad, an illiterate camel merchant, received the revelation in Mecca, a remote, sparsely populated part of Arabia, far from the centers of monotheistic thought, in an environment of idol-worshiping Arab Bedouins. Unless one accepts the idea of the angel Gabriel, Ms. Crone says, historians must somehow explain how all these monotheistic stories and ideas found their way into the Koran.
“There are only two possibilities,” Ms. Crone said. “Either there had to be substantial numbers of Jews and Christians in Mecca or the Koran had to have been composed somewhere else.” ...
plagiarism.
