You never provided any source, only your opinion so, as you said, no source, it is worthless.
Nope, I provided logical deduction(s) from sources which are grounded. It is (unfortunately) not your case, as you modify them.
All of this has no source that you can provide, apart from the name Muhajirun that show up on at least 1 papyri but it doesn't explain the dating era that mention the Believers. On top of that, if the chiefs were not identified, how can you be sure of their faith. You can give your opinion of what you think they had but you cannot give any source.
One can logically think that if there was identified chiefs denoted as Christians/Jews/, view the numerous sources one have, there would have been attestations of what you affirms.
There is
none. Like Gallez who invent his "messianists" Ebionites, you invent a "coalition of faith" (is that right?) whose there is not a piece of attestations, like you've invented what it arranges you to fit (at all cost) your amateur opinion.
So, in 710/715, according to Penn and you, the muslims didn't accept the Psalms even though the Quran,
Penn does not use this very word , "
following that
YOU use. He uses
authoritative. Get a dictionary to see the difference. Penn is a scholar, he chooses prudently (as I do) his words. For him, they do not follow the Torah, simply because if he would have thought it, he would have write it.
He did not.
Since you have an academia account,
ask him. I'm sure he will correct you as I do.
Again you invent/ change the words used, not only in the sources (Quran, etc) but also in scholar articles. You do that (maybe) unconscionably to fit your amateur opinion (at all cost) to confirm your views. Unfortunately, it does not work like that.
I can only repeat what Penn already said (yawn...)
John and the Emir states on multiple occasions that Muslims accept the Torah as authoritative but not other writings in the Hebrew ScriptureIn the beginning of the 8th.c nobody (outside Muhajirun) has access to the Quran. The John author affirms then what he thinks is the truth, namely that they consider
authoritative only the Thorah. (therefore not the Psalms). He is wrong, because he has not the informations that the Quran is accepting Psalms.
But, as you are an amateur, you do not know this very fact. One can think that even John of Damascus (d.730) has never read a Quran. His knowledge comes from his conversations with muhajirun in Damascus where he was a member of the court. Again, you do not know that. And therefore... (yawn...)
All is normal here: the Quran which speaks only of the Torah as authoritative" I said that in the frame of what John said about Hebrew text (and I forgot he Pslams...). John mistaken about the Psalm (which are an Hebrew text) but I am not mistaken as the Gospel is not. That is why, yes, for the Quran the only Hebrew text as authoritative are the Torah and the Psalms. And nothing else.
We already had that discussion on this issue because the Quran also mention the Psalms and the Gospel as revelation from Allah. Eventhough you try and bend the text, you only achieve to show your internal contradictions on the topic.
?
This is the exact translation from Penn.
He also inquired, “Why, when the gospel is one, is the faith diverse?” The blessed one answered, “Just as the Torah is one and the same and is accepted by us Christians, by you Hagarenes, by the Jews, and by the Samaritans, but each people differs in faith, so also concerning the gospel’s faith: each sect understands and interprets it differently, and not like us.”
And?
Christianity follows the Thorah? You sure of that Marc?
You're Christian, right ? You follow the Thorah?
Nope but you accept it as authoritative.
"And the glorious emir said, “I want you to do one of three [things]: either show me that your laws are written in the gospel and be guided by them or submit to the Hagarene law."
The text clearly state that there was an understanding that the Arab faith derived from the Jewish religion but differed from it.
Yes it is what the texts wants to show : the Jews (yawn...) Like Sebeos.
You are right for Sebeos who put a lot of emphasis on the Jews but you are totally wrong with the dispute between the Patriarch and the Emir (you have no read the introduction done by Penn on this. It is not at all about the Jews
It is.
The muhajirun are naturally targeted since they are in charge, but the responsible of the religious situation, that the muhajirun are not Christians are targeted as well : the Jews who are denoted as their friends and advisers, therefore more or less involved in their faith. It is the dimension what lies under the apparent dialogue between Christians and Muslim. As the dialogue is totally fiction as Penn observes, there is no reason to "promote Christianity" eagerly in 710, Christianity is not menaced as such. It will be menaced much worst later.
Same retro projecting pattern as Sebeos : the author of Sebeos retro projects his account to the real time of Sebeos (640/60) whereas he is writing in the middle of the 8th.
John author does the same (710/15) in an account retro projected in 640. The common point of both stories : the Jews. Which are denoted 1/ the instigators, etc., of the conquest, 2/ the friends and advisers of the Arabs regarding their faith.
The Patriarch or whoever wrote it, in a text that is totally or partially fabricated it doesn't really matter, a point you still don't get, has written an apologetic text targeted at Christians in order to promote Christian theology. But what the text says about the faith of the Arabs or some of them is free from inter-religious prejudice ; this is information gathered and mentioned as it was understood ; was it lost in transmission ? No one can know but it does kill any assumption of Arabs following the Quran as we know it today and as you imply this book was in the 630's. You didn't pick this up because you have your own theory and this text goes against it.
1/There is no factual reason to "promote Christianity" eagerly in 710, Christianity is not menaced
as such. It will be menaced much worst later.
2/ What he says matches what one Syriac
literati can know about the Arab faith in the beginning of 8 th c.
2/ I (never) spoke of "book/codex" but of texts. Again you modify words, etc.
Then you suggest that John author is not aware, in the beginning of the 8th c., that the muhajirun have no texts. I think the contrary as Radio carbon C14 indicates it. I consider (like Penn) that
this text is a later text and not a 640/60/70/80/690 text. There is no logical reason that a
literati ,as John author, was not cognizant,
not necessarily of the "Quran" but of existence, rumours, etc., of some texts owned by the muhajirun.
Which lies under the "dialogue" of the John author is to indicate to its reader that the Jews are involved, that it is because of them that they have all the mess.
Penn is not interested in what the text says but to understand if it is the transcription of a real event or not.
that is
why he does not conclude on some of the information brought by the text on the religion of those Arabs.
Yes, it's logic.
Ask him on academia.
I don't know to what you are replying so I cannot comment
Me : Arabs very knew that it was not the land of the Jews any more since ages. The "Holy Land" was not in Jews hands and they have Q 2,127
Marc : Source ? None
Me :Arabs live in Palestine ( as the soldatesque for the Romans vs the Persians) and are slowly Christianized since the middle of the 5th c (at least) and they would have known nothing of the land they live in? You sure of that? They speak to nobody? Does not go in liturgical service where the Bible is read in Syriac or Greek? Nobody has explained to them the stuff? Marc... you're really an amateur then? It's true?
Apart from the fact you seem to imply faith has something to do in the Arabs invasion, there is no need to fulfil what was written. Q 2:127 is about an event in the past, not a prophecy to implement.
1/ Of course, for the leaders, as a natural thing, but not in jihad, etc., and not in the way and frame the 9th narratives will tell it.
2/ You do not know the Late Antique mentality.
Topic: Qur'anic studies today