₦airaland Forum

BlackfireX:
Bismil-Aabi wal-Ibni war-Ruuhil-Qudus

Good day to Everyone I will implore you all to open your eyes and minds to decipher the truth for yourselves

It is one thing to make a claim another thing is to present the evidence, anyone can claim whatever buy proof is the difference, I can claim to be the president of Nigeria but without evidence it is a LIE, deception, cover up, incoherent

Now the reason I started this lecture on this topic is to show evidences against a very agelong verbatim of muslims that ALLAH dosent look like nothing among his creation, that is He is not his creation, He is above all nor can he be compared to anything-------Hope you get the claim Now


As a Muslim you are taught this you even parroted it -------THAT ALLAH IS NOT IN HIS CREATION OR ANYTHING LIKE HIS CREATION, HE IS ABOVE ALL


BUT.... if I show you from the islamic sources like Al Quran kareem
Hadiths
Tasfirs and
SIRaT(biography of Qutham known as Muhammad)

That it is all a lie and infact the opposite is what is portrayed

advanceDNA:
Don’t waste your time….they will only see u as islamophobic…
Their religion thrive on lies and violence against those who believes otherwise.. and thats why they threaten those who doubt and see these lies with death
…

advanceDNA:
Don’t waste your time….they will only see u as islamophobic…
Their religion thrive on lies and violence against those who believes otherwise.. and thats why they threaten those who doubt and see these lies with death
…

BlackfireX:
ALLAH HAS BODY PARTS.
--------------------------------------

1.ALLAH HAS 2 RIGHT HANDS:
YES you heard me , FORGET the claim of what the muslims says this is evidence in front of you.Allah has body parts he has 2 right hands, what a majestic being, such a beautiful and glorious 2 right hand, just imagine that.

EVIDENCES:
just will be with Allah on thrones of light on the right hand of the Merciful (al-Rahman), and both of His hands are right hands—those who are just in their rulings, with their families, and in what they are in charge of." (Sahih Muslim 1827)

​Key Phrase: Wa kilta yadayhi yamin (وكلتا يديه يمين) — "And both of His hands are right."


2. ALLAH HAS A SHIN
WHAT is a shin , a shin is your body parts that extend from the knee up and knee down.
In the Last days Allah will raise his cloth up for muslim to see his SHIN....wonderful

Evidence:
in Sahih Bukhari (4919) and Sahih Muslim:
​"I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, 'Our Lord will lay bare His Shin, and then all the Believers, men and women, will prostrate themselves before Him.

You will notice that the white washers will say it is not shin , it is metaphorical... was the event and actors mentioned there metaphorical? No
So shin can't be

3.Allah has a colour:
In one of my topics I posted this " coloured Allah has an allah" is on the islamic section.

In quran 2 vs 138
You will see that Allah has a colour....maybe black or white or rainbow-----I am suspecting rainbow

4.Allah wears a veil:
We are told that Allah s face is covered by a created cloth like veil that covers his face , so that it won't burn down the planets, yet they argue how God can be Jesus in human body, what a confused mullahs
So Allah covers his face with veil like Eleha

5.ALLAH CAN SITS DOWN;

RightChanneI:
..

Gabrielshow26:
You forgot his curly hair🤧.

Gabrielshow26:
You forgot his curly hair🤧.

BlackfireX:
Bismil-Aabi wal-Ibni war-Ruuhil-Qudus

Good day to Everyone I will implore you all to open your eyes and minds to decipher the truth for yourselves

It is one thing to make a claim another thing is to present the evidence, anyone can claim whatever but proof is the difference, I can claim to be the president of Nigeria but without evidence it is a LIE, deception, cover up, incoherent .

Now the reason I started this lecture on this topic is to show evidences against a very agelong verbatim of muslims that ALLAH dosent look like nothing among his creation, that is He is not his creation, He is above all nor can he be compared to anything-------Hope you get the claim Now


As a Muslim you were taught this, you even parroted it -------THAT ALLAH IS NOT IN HIS CREATION OR ANYTHING LIKE HIS CREATION, HE IS ABOVE ALL


BUT.... if I show you from the islamic sources like Al Quran kareem
Hadiths
Tasfirs and
SIRaT(biography of Qutham known as Muhammad)

That it is all a lie and infact the opposite is what is portrayed

Explore2xmore:
All you have written comes from a basic language understanding issue. In classical Arabic, yad and even yamin don't always reduce to physical anatomy. They can express honour, strength, or perfection that's essentially the opposite of deficiency (naqs). That's standard Arabic semantics, not reinterpretation. Same with the shin argument. In Quran 68:42, kashf 'an saq is a known Arabic idiom for severity or distress, widely used in classical poetry. Reading it literally ignores how the language actually functions. In Quran 2:138, sibghah refers to an existing ritual image (baptismal colouring). Classical tafsir such as Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Al-Qurtubi reads it as replacing external ritual with inward fitrah, not talking about literal colour.

On Talmudic borrowing, motif similarity is not transmission. Without a clear chain or pathway, it remains shared cultural space, not copying. Otherwise you'd have to apply the same logic across all ancient religious texts equally.

Crucially, Islamic theology never denied figurative language. It developed detailed interpretive frameworks across Ash'ari, Maturidi, and Athari traditions precisely to handle it. Reducing that to isolated literal readings is not critique but selective extraction, not engagement with the system itself. So the claim that Islamic sources contradict Islamic theology is wrong. They don't and they require it. The interpretive tradition exists because the texts demanded one. And when the Quran calls itself clear, it means its guidance is unambiguous not that every expression in it is literal. Quran 3:7 itself distinguishes between precise verses and allegorical ones. Clarity of purpose and uniformity of register are not the same thing.

Gabrielshow26:
🥱AI slop.
Are you Honesttalk21 in disguise? 👀🤨

Explore2xmore:
Interesting. Is this all you can say and find nothing to counter besides seeking identity?

Gabrielshow26:
Believe me, you don't want to go there. I am highlighting to the reader, perhaps you missed it, that your rebuttal is AI generated redundant script. The same old scripts. I am also calling the reader's attention to a recurring pattern evincing in so called Muslim dawah guys—They don't know their own books.

AntiChristian:
The Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you mates from yourselves, and for the cattle (also) mates. By this means He creates you (in the wombs). There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer. (Qur'an 42:11)

And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him." (Qur'an 112:14)

So all of Allah's attributes are incomparable to anything you can ever imagine!

Explore2xmore:
All you have written comes from a basic language understanding issue. In classical Arabic, yad and even yamin don't always reduce to physical anatomy. They can express honour, strength, or perfection that's essentially the opposite of deficiency (naqs). That's standard Arabic semantics, not reinterpretation. Same with the shin argument. In Quran 68:42, kashf 'an saq is a known Arabic idiom for severity or distress, widely used in classical poetry. Reading it literally ignores how the language actually functions. In Quran 2:138, sibghah refers to an existing ritual image (baptismal colouring). Classical tafsir such as Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Al-Qurtubi reads it as replacing external ritual with inward fitrah, not talking about literal colour.

On Talmudic borrowing, motif similarity is not transmission. Without a clear chain or pathway, it remains shared cultural space, not copying. Otherwise you'd have to apply the same logic across all ancient religious texts equally.

Crucially, Islamic theology never denied figurative language. It developed detailed interpretive frameworks across Ash'ari, Maturidi, and Athari traditions precisely to handle it. Reducing that to isolated literal readings is not critique but selective extraction, not engagement with the system itself. So the claim that Islamic sources contradict Islamic theology is wrong. They don't and they require it. The interpretive tradition exists because the texts demanded one. And when the Quran calls itself clear, it means its guidance is unambiguous not that every expression in it is literal. Quran 3:7 itself distinguishes between precise verses and allegorical ones. Clarity of purpose and uniformity of register are not the same thing.

Gabrielshow26:
Without much talk, remind us again your Quran's claim? I believe one of them being it is divine, emphasis on divine👀, and consequently having no human origin. This claim is rather ridiculous and very easy to dismiss. So if you assert, in your bid to further your incongruity of a religion that this was done due to "shared cultural space". Then we are to believe that the original authors which the Quran "shared their stories due to cultural space" were divinely inspired🥱.

Do you want to go there? Also, as regards clear pathway don't forget, I know you don't know, that the Jews during Mohammed's time taught the Arabs the Torah and possibly the Talmud. Don't also forget that Mohammed's wife's uncle, Waraqah, the Arian christian monk was fluent in hebrew and use to translate it. Even from your own sources we find traces of your prophet being influenced by the stories of the Jews and christians around him, among other things. We also find the people of your prophet antagonizing him by saying he only repeats fables of the ancients. This leads me to my next point.

From your sentiment, do you hold the Alexander Romances as divine? If you do let us know. Your response determines what comes next.

As for figuratively vs literally, that's the problem of your Quran. Your Quran was probably influenced by neo-platonic heretics but because he had plagiarized aspects of the Torah and Injeel where God clearly was described, it becomes hard to reconcile both🤕. He even added fire to the controversy by describing his lord. These two are not reconcilable. Once again, that's your headache. My brief mention of this will act as buffer for a later point of mine.

Let us know🥱

Explore2xmore:
Your initial calling a response "AI slop" without identifying a single concrete error isn't a rebuttal it's avoidance. Once that's set aside, the claims themselves don't hold under consistent scrutiny. Similarity does not prove copying. Texts from the same region and religious environment will naturally share themes.¹ If overlap establishes borrowing, then the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates the Torah by centuries and contains a parallel flood account creates the same problem for your own scripture. Either that standard applies consistently, or it's being applied selectively.
The appeal to Waraqah ibn Nawfal fails on its own timeline. He died shortly after the first revelation. That removes any possibility of sustained transmission across a 23-year prophetic career. A brief encounter is not a pipeline. Pointing to Jewish and Christian presence in Arabia establishes exposure, not authorship. Every prophet operated within a context. If exposure equals invention, ^2athat logic dismantles every tradition shaped by its environment including yours. Quoting accusations like fables of the ancients proves nothing. Every prophetic figure in the Torah and the Gospels faced equivalent charges.^2b Repeating an accusation is not evidence. It's part of a predictable polemical pattern.
On the Logos, the issue remains unanswered[i]3a[/i]. The Gospel of John opens with a Logos framework widely recognised as shaped by Hellenistic philosophy. If engagement with external conceptual categories disqualifies the Qur'an, it must apply here as well. If it doesn't, the standard isn't principled. The question is still on the table. Do you hold the Gospel of John as divinely inspired? The readers are waiting for a direct answer, not a repositioning.^3b
On divine transcendence, the Qur'an states its governing principle explicitly that nothing is like God (42:11). That is not a later theological addition. It sits within the text alongside descriptive language and frames how that language is understood. No textual basis has been offered for reversing that hierarchy.
Again internal disagreement is not unique to Islam.⁴ Early Christianity required centuries of councils; Nicaea, Chalcedon, and sustained doctrinal conflict to articulate its core beliefs. That process is not treated as proof of incoherence in your tradition. It cannot be applied selectively here.
Across this discussion the same pattern repeats. A standard is introduced, then applied in one direction only. Once applied consistently to Gilgamesh, to the Logos, to internal doctrinal development it stops undermining the Qur'an and starts exposing the method itself. The Gilgamesh question is open. The Logos question is open. Both have been asked directly. Neither has been answered directly.^4b Until they are, the reader has everything needed to judge whether this is principled argument or selective pressure applied to one text while others are quietly exempted.
The OP's silence while their position goes undefended is itself a data point the audience has already registered.

Explore2xmore:
Your initial calling a response "AI slop" without identifying a single concrete error isn't a rebuttal it's avoidance. Once that's set aside, the claims themselves don't hold under consistent scrutiny. Similarity does not prove copying. Texts from the same region and religious environment will naturally share themes. If overlap establishes borrowing, then the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates the Torah by centuries and contains a parallel flood account creates the same problem for your own scripture. Either that standard applies consistently, or it's being applied selectively.
The appeal to Waraqah ibn Nawfal fails on its own timeline. He died shortly after the first revelation. That removes any possibility of sustained transmission across a 23-year prophetic career. A brief encounter is not a pipeline. Pointing to Jewish and Christian presence in Arabia establishes exposure, not authorship. Every prophet operated within a context. If exposure equals invention, that logic dismantles every tradition shaped by its environment including yours. Quoting accusations like fables of the ancients proves nothing. Every prophetic figure in the Torah and the Gospels faced equivalent charges. Repeating an accusation is not evidence. It's part of a predictable polemical pattern.
On the Logos, the issue remains unanswered. The Gospel of John opens with a Logos framework widely recognised as shaped by Hellenistic philosophy. If engagement with external conceptual categories disqualifies the Qur'an, it must apply here as well. If it doesn't, the standard isn't principled. The question is still on the table. Do you hold the Gospel of John as divinely inspired? The readers are waiting for a direct answer, not a repositioning.
On divine transcendence, the Qur'an states its governing principle explicitly that nothing is like God (42:11). That is not a later theological addition. It sits within the text alongside descriptive language and frames how that language is understood. No textual basis has been offered for reversing that hierarchy.
Again internal disagreement is not unique to Islam. Early Christianity required centuries of councils; Nicaea, Chalcedon, and sustained doctrinal conflict to articulate its core beliefs. That process is not treated as proof of incoherence in your tradition. It cannot be applied selectively here.
Across this discussion the same pattern repeats. A standard is introduced, then applied in one direction only. Once applied consistently to Gilgamesh, to the Logos, to internal doctrinal development it stops undermining the Qur'an and starts exposing the method itself. The Gilgamesh question is open. The Logos question is open. Both have been asked directly. Neither has been answered directly. Until they are, the reader has everything needed to judge whether this is principled argument or selective pressure applied to one text while others are quietly exempted.
The OP's silence while their position goes undefended is itself a data point the audience has already registered.

Gabrielshow26:
By the way, in addendum, your book, the Quran explicitly claims to be the Umm al-Kitab (Mother of the Book)—a perfect, preserved, uncreated speech. If the text requires centuries of Hadith and conflicting schools of jurisprudence just to be understood, then the claim of "clarity" and "completeness" is a lie🥱. Stop deflecting to the Bible; defend your book's specific claim of being "clear" and "complete"—🤔I should probably add "Divine"😂. Anyone familiar with simple basic history knows John is a human document reflecting its context. The Quran is a divine document, supposedly😂, claiming to be outside of its context. When John uses "Logos," he is using a philosophical framework of his time. He isn't claiming that God is a Greek philosopher but when the Quran repeats flood myths or Alexander the Great fables, it claims these are revelations from an Omniscient Mind🤨—A very ridiculous claim, if you ask me. If the Quran were truly omniscient, it would be correcting the myths, not copying them verbatim from external sources, including the "corrupted" Torah you claim to be fixing🤦🏾‍♂️. This shows you aren't "fixing" the corrupted text; you're just copying the mistakes. Indeed, it's from an omniscient deity 🥱.

Let me also buttress my earlier point, it seems I addressed your banal claims too easy, might as well add some sauce to my earlier points. Once again the issue isn't just one guy, Waraqah. The issue is that the Quranic narrative is steeped in the Arian, Nestorian, and Jewish traditions already present in the Hijaz🤨. Whether it was Waraqah, or the "fables of the ancients" mentioned by the Prophet’s own contemporaries👀...they even went as far as naming him the 👂 just to emphasize he only repeated whatever he heard🤕...the milieu was saturated with these stories. Trying to "debunk" the influence by timing one person's death is a desperate attempt to ignore the entire historical context of 7th-century Arabia🥱, that's even if it existed 👀.

In conclusion, you haven't defended the Quran's claim; you've just proved that you're an expert at "Whataboutism." You haven't explained why a "clear and complete" book needs centuries of Hadith to be understood—Hadiths that came too far to offer any semblance of historicity🥱.
You haven't explained why an "Omniscient" god plagiarizes 7th-century fables and biological myths(emphasis is mine)👀.

Gabrielshow26:
🥱You have said much but little. Now let's address your claims. You seem to think that because the Quran made claims of having no human influence that the bible made such. That's your own misconception as each book is responsible for its claims. If such claims existed in the bible then I would have dignified your comparisons with a suitable response but since such can't be found, I leave you to your folly.

Your entire defense is relied solely on some form of tu quoque fallacy but it failed to account for each book substantiating it own claims🥱. First let's mention some basic facts in Islamic theology, one of which being the Quran doesn't have an human influence. Thus, if we find any human influence, as you so finely put it "through shared cultural themes" then it negates its assertions and proves otherwise that the Quran indeed was man made.

I have made suitable references within your posts so that I can address the necessary ones. [1] like I have said earlier, the Quran claims doesn't warrant it to rely heavily on shared cultural themes since if we were to go by its divinity claim then the original authors which it plagiarized were the ones actually divinely inspired🥱

[2] this is pathetic, as you have built a straw man, I am not concerned with exposure or not but rather on the unprecedented claims made by the Quran. If indeed we find such exposures, and we find multiple such instances then we can conclude the Quran gobbled these stories from external sources and this conclusion contradicts its claims! As simple as that.

[2b] Could you show us examples from the "Every prophet" that faced such claims as citing fables as divine revelations?🤨We would really like to know.🥱

[3] What issue remains unanswered, 😅 Could you point us to where you asked this question, that it was left unanswered? Your Al Agent's hallucinations in full purview🥱. At least, you should have the dignity to proof read whatever it generated for you🥱...

[3b] Of course, I do. Such affirmation doesn't do you any good, 'cuz if you affirm that the Alexander romances were Divine then the Quran becomes nothing more but a plagiarized book🥱. You seriously🤦🏾‍♂️thought bringing up this question was some form of hook 😅—So Ludicrous. This shows that your misconceptions such as projecting the Quran's claims into the bible is totally unfounded. Once again, every book substantiates its claims. We don't negate human authorship because we know that God divinely inspired them but what do you have? A supposed claim that the Quran was written word for word as Jibril dictated it to Mohammed, therefore denying any human influence. Thus if we find any human influence then it can't be Divine🥱.

[4] A deflection, albeit futile as it doesn't address anything. A puerile attempt to apply tu quoque fallacy🥱. I am not concerned with that, my statement was regards the Quran's irreconcilable differences about neo-platonic ideologies and the clear descriptions given.

[4b] "Neither has been answered". Pls show us where you made any such question🥱. Another one of your Al slop. You, obviously,just brought them up, So don't try to backdate them as if they've been posed from the beginning🥱. I guess it's hereditary, the SIN backdates the purported existence of Mohammed into the non-existent Mecca at the purported time; while you backdate new questions as being old🥱.

I know all these circumlocution, just to avoid the obvious, is the only defense you have🥱. But Pls, let us know if you consider the Alexander Romances as divine revelation 🥱? Why are you shy? 😮‍💨 I don't bite🤧.

Explore2xmore:
At this point, the disagreement is not about whether the Qur'an shares motifs with earlier traditions as that is already conceded. The issue is what that fact actually proves.
Resemblance does not imply dependence. The same evidence,shared narratives, cultural proximity, contemporary accusations is equally consistent with two explanations: direct borrowing, or independent revelation engaging a shared world. Both predict identical surface features, so similarity alone selects neither. A transmission chain is required to close that gap. None has been provided.
On Dhul-Qarnayn, structural overlap in a journey narrative is historically unremarkable. What matters is theological content and there the divergence is fundamental. The Romance elevates a ruler toward semi-divine stature; Surah Al-Kahf presents power as contingent, morally governed, and subordinate to divine permanence. That is not borrowing, it is the opposite ideological conclusion drawn from a shared narrative form. The plagiarism hypothesis has to explain that divergence, not just assert proximity.
On copied errors, the argument requires three things: a specific source error, a Qur'anic retention of that same error, and absence of reinterpretive transformation. None of the three has been supplied.
On Arian and Nestorian influence, those systems contradict each other on questions both treated as salvation-critical. If the Qur'an borrowed from both, explain how that produced coherence rather than inherited their contradictions. Selection and harmonisation describes exactly what independent engagement with a shared environment looks like and you have restated the alternative hypothesis while trying to rebut it.
On the asateer witnesses, those same voices attributed the Qur'an simultaneously to sorcery, madness, and human instruction which are mutually exclusive claims. You are citing the one accusation that serves your conclusion while discarding the rest of their testimony. Apply a consistent witness standard or the selective citation carries no evidentiary weight.
What has been established is shared environment, motif overlap, cultural proximity. What has not is a transmission chain, textual dependence, or evidence that uniquely supports borrowing over the alternative.Possibility of influence has been shown. Necessity of derivation has not. That gap is where the entire case sits. The gaps are visible to everyone reading. Fill them or concede them.

BlackfireX:
3 gbosa for AI


All that you posted from alhaji Ai do you even know the meaning or phrases of words used

You implicated yourself the more

Shall I show you?

Explore2xmore:
At this point, the disagreement is not about whether the Qur'an shares motifs with earlier traditions as that is already conceded. The issue is what that fact actually proves.
Resemblance does not imply dependence. The same evidence,shared narratives, cultural proximity, contemporary accusations is equally consistent with two explanations: direct borrowing, or independent revelation engaging a shared world. Both predict identical surface features, so similarity alone selects neither. A transmission chain is required to close that gap. None has been provided.
On Dhul-Qarnayn, structural overlap in a journey narrative is historically unremarkable. What matters is theological content and there the divergence is fundamental. The Romance elevates a ruler toward semi-divine stature; Surah Al-Kahf presents power as contingent, morally governed, and subordinate to divine permanence. That is not borrowing, it is the opposite ideological conclusion drawn from a shared narrative form. The plagiarism hypothesis has to explain that divergence, not just assert proximity.
On copied errors, the argument requires three things: a specific source error, a Qur'anic retention of that same error, and absence of reinterpretive transformation. None of the three has been supplied.
On Arian and Nestorian influence, those systems contradict each other on questions both treated as salvation-critical. If the Qur'an borrowed from both, explain how that produced coherence rather than inherited their contradictions. Selection and harmonisation describes exactly what independent engagement with a shared environment looks like and you have restated the alternative hypothesis while trying to rebut it.
On the asateer witnesses, those same voices attributed the Qur'an simultaneously to sorcery, madness, and human instruction which are mutually exclusive claims. You are citing the one accusation that serves your conclusion while discarding the rest of their testimony. Apply a consistent witness standard or the selective citation carries no evidentiary weight.
What has been established is shared environment, motif overlap, cultural proximity. What has not is a transmission chain, textual dependence, or evidence that uniquely supports borrowing over the alternative.Possibility of influence has been shown. Necessity of derivation has not. That gap is where the entire case sits. The gaps are visible to everyone reading. Fill them or concede them.

Gabrielshow26:
I find this hilarious, it seems watching you and your AI-assistant👀 tag-team these responses is like watching a low-budget movie where the villain keeps insisting he didn't steal the plot, even though the dialogue is identical🤧. You’ve conceded the resemblances, the motifs, and the proximity, yet you’re demanding a "transmission chain" as if we need a signed document from 7th-century Arabia to prove the obvious.🤕

Let me dismantle this "Independent Revelation" fantasy once and for all. 🥱
Throughout your write-up, you argued that shared motifs could just be "independent revelation engaging a shared world." This is the ultimate Special Pleading. In the realm of Naruto, ultimate jutsu🌀😂

Now, if two students turn in the same essay, with the same "surface features," the same errors, and the same structural flow, no teacher on earth accepts the excuse that they "independently engaged with the same topic."👀 Thus, when the Quran repeats the Alexander Romance (Dhul-Qarnayn) or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Jesus breathing life into clay birds🤕), it isn't just "engaging a world"—it is reproducing specific, apocryphal, and historically inaccurate fables that existed only in the human literary environment of the time🤨. What you failed to account for is the fact that an Omniscient God would provide the actual history. A human author solely copies the local legends.🤦🏾‍♂️ The fact that the Quran mirrors the errors and myths of the 7th-century milieu proves it is a product of that milieu, not a correction of it. Consequently, can't be the work of an Omniscient God😮‍💨.

Moving on, I find this claim of yours "that because the Quran adds a "moral lesson" to the Alexander story, it isn't borrowing" ludicrous. That is like saying if I rewrite Batman to make him a pacifist, I didn't borrow the character of Batman🤷.
The structure is the same: the horns, the journey to the setting sun, the muddy spring, the wall against Gog and Magog. These are specific markers of the Syriac Alexander Legend.🤦🏾‍♂️Thus, adding a "theological spin" doesn't prove independence🤨; it proves redaction. Your prophet took a popular pagan/secular legend and "Islamized" it to fit his narrative. That is the definition of human authorship, not divine revelation.🥱

I noticed you demanded a "textual transmission chain" while ignoring the most basic rule of history: Occam’s Razor🤧.
Let's address these premises.
1. We know the stories existed in the region (Arian, Nestorian, Jewish apocrypha).
2. We know the Prophet’s contemporaries accused him of repeating these specific stories ("Fables of the ancients" .
3. We know the Quran contains these stories.👀
Hence, you don't need a "signed contract" to see the influence. Your demand for a "transmission chain" is a desperate attempt to ignore the Elephant in the Room: that your "Eternal Book" looks exactly like a 7th-century scrapbook of regional folklore🥱.

In your bid to defend your prophet, you argued that because contemporaries called him a "madman" and a "sorcerer," their claim about "human instruction" is invalid. Nice shrai😂. People can be wrong about his mental state but right about his sources. If I see you reading a cheat sheet before an exam, I might call you a "genius," a "cheater," or a "wizard." My name-calling doesn't change the fact that you have a cheat sheet🤷. The "Fables of the ancients" (Asateer al-awwaleen, culled from google) is a specific, recurring charge in the Quran itself🤧. Your "omniscient" god spent a lot of time defending against the charge of plagiarism—this is usually a sign that the charge👀 was hitting a little too close to home.

I don't know whether you asking me how borrowing from Arian and Nestorian sources could produce "coherence" was rhetorical or not but the simple truth is that it didn't. We have the Quran as a proof😂. Furthermore, Your "coherence" required 200 years of Hadith, multiple schools of law, and centuries of bloody civil wars (Fitnas) to figure out what the "clear" Quran actually meant😂. If it were coherent and independent, you wouldn't need a massive library of human interpretation to explain why it contradicts itself or repeats regional errors.👀 I definitely have a picture,might as well attempt to post it later, it's a meme about how the Quran brought up a chimera. Let me not waste time man-splaining, you will understand it when you see it. Hopefully it's not taken down by your mods🤧.

In conclusion, you’ve conceded the "shared world." You’ve conceded the "motifs." You’ve conceded the "proximity." You are now just arguing over the word "borrowing"🤦🏾‍♂️ because your theology can't handle the truth😂. In every other field of study—literature, history, law—this level of similarity is called Derivation. Only in Islamic apologetics is it called "independent revelation" .🥱 Definitely, you aren't defending a miracle; you are defending a 7th-century redaction. If the "Mother of the Book" is just a "greatest Hit" of 7th-century regional myths, then your claim of "Divine origin" is officially bankrupt. Better still, "concede the gap, because you certainly can't fill it"👀🥱.

One last thing: Why are you still dodging the question? Do you hold the Alexander Romances as divine? If the stories in them are "independent revelation" when they appear in the Quran, then the original pagan versions must be "inspired" too, right?🤷 Or is Allah just a fan of plagiarizing secular fiction? 🤨🤧

AntiChristian:
The Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you mates from yourselves, and for the cattle (also) mates. By this means He creates you (in the wombs). There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer. (Qur'an 42:11)

And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him." (Qur'an 112:14)

So all of Allah's attributes are incomparable to anything you can ever imagine!