outhouse
Atheistically
The interpretative method was revealed to Muhammed, not the 'source material'.
No. provide non Islamic sources please. I want real scholarship, not biased apologetic rhetoric.
Revealed is not up for debate here. Its not part of how the previous text were changed. It is also factually not part of any CREDIBLE SCHOLARSHIP
How is someone suppose to discuss existing scripture without someone 1500 years later saying they 'plagiarised' it?
By looking at the truth of how the text came to be. The warriors own family were Christians, and he viewed how these traditions could be changed to better meet the different pagan cultures need. It is all part of understanding why the changes were made to preexisting traditions.
It's pointless to apply modern concepts to periods when such concepts didn't exist.
No. We are trying to understand how the book came to be. Ignoring the truth is not acceptable in any scholarship.
Also seeing it simply as 'plagiarism' is a complete misunderstanding of the historical context in which the Quran emerged. Crude ideological rhetoric isn't of great value in understanding things properly.
Plagiarized factually has nothing to do with ideological rhetoric.
Its NOT UP FOR DEBATE that islam used pre existing traditions. I have provided credible sources.
Using pre existing traditions and changing them, then claiming they are yours alone is factually plagiarizing.
Don't blame me because credible sources make this claim.
Islam used biblical mythology for its own. Not up for debate.