False. It follows the Abrahamic tradition almost in full.
No one states it is the only source, your reading into it and then defending it just like an apologist defends mythology.
As I said:
It contains aspects of the Bible but also aspects of non-cannonical Gospels, Midrashic teachings, non-scriptual Christian myth (Alexander romance, & sleepers of Ephasus) and Christian Church orders (Didascalia Apostolorum), etc.
Thus no credible scholar would make the statement "its source was the Bible", as it is so much more than that.
You are presenting an oversimplistic view.
Your not a scholar, it more then good enough for you.
But I am familiar with the scholarly literature. I doubt you have read a single scholarly article or book on the topic. If you have, which would you recommend?
So when you post in many threads talking about 'credible scholarship', 'academia' and such like you really mean 'outhouse's opinion based on wikipedia'.
Spoken like a muslim creationist.
You don't read the link did you, and have no idea who Stephen Shoemaker is. If you did you would realise how silly that point was
[great website btw, you can learn a lot there and get more familiar with
actual scholarship]
It is only historical where historicity can be determined. It is not credible on its own, nor is it devoid of possible history.
But you have no credible knowledge or education in determining what is and is not historical, based on your own words.
Strange that I seem to know far more than you though. You boast of your academic training and sophistication yet never do anything beyond quoting wikipedia and misunderstanding any genuinely academic material that others post. You are also very, very credulous in a way that no trained historian would be.
You have not refuted this in any way.
The text did not come from nowhere, it did not come out of thin air. Muhammad had to be taught this information, he factually had to have a teacher.
#1 YES OR NO?????????
the koran has copied mythology from the bible. That means we look at who muhammad knew that had biblical knowledge and wrote in Arabic.
#2 YES OR NO????????? and then who do we know about?
So far I have quoted from Gerhard Bowering and Guillaume Dye (google them to find out who they are) saying that it is plausible but speculative and lacks evidence. This is the academic consensus on the topic. I have also explained why this is the case - it relies purely on the Sirah to be true, yet the Sirah is more theology than history.
So far, you have repeated it must be true because you are not familiar enough with scholarship to realise the whole range of alternatives being proposed.
As I keep asking you to recommend me some academic sources to read, I'll assume you have never read any and have zero credibility on this topic as you demonstrate with every post on the topic. You only have a superficial understanding of the one theory you are proposing
I'll also assume that your professed love of academic history is just a lie made up for rhetorical purposes as you, to use your favourite phrase are 'rejecting academia' at the moment.
If you want to start a thread discussing this topic with the proviso that everything must be referenced to an academic source I'll happily take up the task of displaying your lack of knowledge on the topic.
