Islam in the Tanakh and the Bible

[Fatihah]

well it was the 7th century Judaism and Christianity were very well established, and i would not use the word Plagarism ,more like assimilation.Its much easier to convert people with a religion they already have a grasp of ,than something completely alien.Then when anyone does start to make enquiries, you can say the older scripture is corrupted.

Response: But how would that make it much easier? If it's a clear forgery or assimilation then that would make a person not believe. How do you see it as the other way around? If someone today claimed prophethood and tried to convert me or other muslims with verses identical or similar to the qur'an, that would not make someone believe in them. Naturally, one would accuse them of forgery and call them a false prophet.

 

[Gharib]

Until you demonstrate the truthfulness of your claims then it IS propaganda.

I don’t like the sound of that…

is this the best you can come up with?

i thought you said you were out of here last time, remember?

 

[Green Gaia]

History of Religion

 

[Gharib]

History of Religion

that history was written by people who were never there, so how can that be reliable? because they say so?

 

[YmirGF]

Response: But how would that make it much easier? If it's a clear forgery or assimilation then that would make a person not believe. How do you see it as the other way around? If someone today claimed prophethood and tried to convert me or other muslims with verses identical or similar to the qur'an, that would not make someone believe in them. Naturally, one would accuse them of forgery and call them a false prophet.

But, Fatihah, for the early part of his career, Muhammad was viewed as a nutcase and no one really took him seriously.

 

[themadhair]

i thought you said you were out of here last time, remember?

Do you see me debating? Interestingly making claims with no substantiating isn't debating so that makes at least two of is.

 

[Gharib]

But, Fatihah, for the early part of his career, Muhammad was viewed as a nutcase and no one really took him seriously.

he was El Emin, "the trustworthy one", your statement is so, so wrong.

 

[Green Gaia]

that history was written by people who were never there, so how can that be reliable? because they say so?

Do you know anything about the study of history?

Why should I believe your holy book? Because it says so?

 

[Gharib]

Do you see me debating? Interestingly making claims with no substantiating isn't debating so that makes at least two of is.

so you just trhow the bait, and then let the fish to kill eachother over it?

and when someone turns to you, you are out of here, why is that?

 

[Gharib]

Do you know anything about the study of history?

yeah sure, it is made by people who were never there.

Why should I believe your holy book? Because it says so?

no, not because of that.

 

[YmirGF]

he was El Emin, "the trustworthy one", your statement is so, so wrong.

I seem to recall Wild Mo' had to leave Mecca because things were getting a little hot for him there. That would make your claim somewhat irrelevant, my friend.

 

[Green Gaia]

yeah sure, it is made by people who were never there.

So you don't believe ANY history books or historical accounts?

 

[Gharib]

I seem to recall Wild Mo' had to leave Mecca because things were getting a little hot for him there. That would make your claim somewhat irrelevant, my friend.

who's WILD MO' and was this during the time of Muhammed (saws) or are you just trying to change the subject?
it seems you are, what does someone have to do with what Muhammed (saws) was called before he was a prophet?

 

[Gharib]

So you don't believe ANY history books or historical accounts?

sure i do, i never said i don't. some histories are actually written by people who witness the actual history making moments.

 

[themadhair]

so you just trhow the bait, and then let the fish to kill eachother over it?

The only contribution I had was Zoroastrianism but I know little about it.

and when someone turns to you, you are out of here, why is that?

Probably because when someone makes a claim without sufficient evidence, and appears unaware of that insufficiency of evidence, a debate is clearly not possible. I am interested in the topic and hope, probably rather naively, that if I mock the lack of actual debate on one side it may help inspire some.

 

[Green Gaia]

sure i do, i never said i don't. some histories are actually written by people who witness the actual history making moments.

So you only believe first-hand accounts of people who are currently living?

 

[Gharib]

So you only believe first-hand accounts of people who are currently living?

both living and dead.

 

[Green Gaia]

sure i do, i never said i don't. some histories are actually written by people who witness the actual history making moments.

Ok. Show me a peer-reviewed, non-religious historical document that proves Islam is the oldest religion even though it was founded AFTER Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism.

 

[Gharib]

The only contribution I had was Zoroastrianism but I know little about it.

Probably because when someone makes a claim without sufficient evidence, and appears unaware of that insufficiency of evidence, a debate is clearly not possible. I am interested in the topic and hope, probably rather naively, that if I mock the lack of actual debate on one side it may help inspire some.

alright, what would you like to debate?

 

[Gharib]

Ok. Show me a peer-reviewed, non-religious historical document that proves Islam is the oldest religion even though it was founded AFTER Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism.

hey, nice question, give me some spacce to think about it ok, probably 5-10 min will be good.