Koran dated to before Muhamad birth.

[Unification]

The flood was common mythology not knowledge.

Akkadians plagiarized Sumerian accounts.
Babylonians plagiarized both accounts.
Israelites plagiarized all accounts
islam plagiarized the biblical mythology

When viewed fundamentally and historically, correct.

Or common metaphysical internal knowledge derived from the same one source in mind.

 

[paarsurrey]

Someone 1500 years ago providing interpretation/commentary on pre existing religious traditions is not plagiarism in any useful sense of the word.
Which credible sources make the 'plagiarism' claim? I've honestly never seen it used by any scholars. It is the sort of claim made for ideological reasons, rather than a reasoned analysis. Maybe some credible scholars do make the claim, but, even amongst the more radical revisionists, the term is never used as far as I know. Sources?
This is because they realise there is a big difference between the Quran and 'plagiarism'.
According to your logic, the pastor plagiarises the Bible, rabbis plagiarise the Torah, etc.
You are assuming that discourse based on pre-existing tradition always = plagiarism. This is a simplistic and inaccurate way of viewing things. This is why almost all credible scholars don't use the term.
How is an Abrahamic monotheist supposed to discuss Abrahamic monotheism without referring to anything recognisable as Abrahamic monotheism in his discourse?

The OP seems still entrenched in the school/college/university precincts, is welcome to come out in the open and mature, real and polite world.
Regards

 

[outhouse]

Or common metaphysical internal knowledge derived from the same one source in mind.

Word salad with no real meaning what so ever.

 

[outhouse]

Outhouse,

I think the major issue here is that people are not understanding that you are attacking the theological claims not the implications of such claims. Simply put that the text is written by the divine aka Allah. Although I could be completely wrong and misinterpreting you. Maybe clarification is in order?

It seems to me that everyone arguing from an academic view has already dismissed the divine claims but seems to ignore the claims themselves as if has no value.

If you read up on this you end up seeing this repeated ad nauseam while debating any muslim.

Muslims are trained very early in life on how to argue and debate the theology by agreeing with biblical text when it matches their book, and to disagree when there is a contradiction.

As well they are trained to ignore questions that they cannot answer if a positive light cannot be shed on islam. So you will see them trying their best with all their heart, no matter how much circular rhetoric and ignoring it takes, combined with misdirection. They cannot answer direct questions if the answer does not agree with central tenants of islam.

So what your seeing is an effort narrowed into only what is acceptable, despite the real definition and conclusion being much larger then discussed.


Have you noticed they refuse to answer 2 straight simple question's ?


They have been trained not to answer.


When looking at fanaticism and fundamentalism in different religions, each have different typical methods of refusing academia. With education one see's the answer before the question is even asked.

 

[outhouse]

The OP seems still entrenched in the school/college/university precincts

So you don't have the ability or knowledge to answer these 2 questions in a straight forward manner honestly??????

So we have the influence of pre-existing traditions and incorporated biblical mythology including Moses and Abraham.

#1 Who's ideas or work did these traditions belong to originally?

#2 Does islam claim these are the true traditions received from the man?

 

[paarsurrey]

pla·gia·rize
[ˈplājəˌrīz]
VERB

1. take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own.

Please provide the link for other meaning.
Regards

 

[outhouse]

Please provide the link for other meaning.
Regards

So you don't have the ability or knowledge to answer these 2 questions in a straight forward manner honestly??????

So we have the influence of pre-existing traditions and incorporated biblical mythology including Moses and Abraham.

#1 Who's ideas or work did these traditions belong to originally?

#2 Does islam claim these are the true traditions received from the man?

 

[paarsurrey]

The adaptation and evolution of common religious tradition in pre-modern societies is not best though of as plagiarism. You are thinking of the ancient world as if it were the modern world with copyrights, intellectual property laws, academic referencing and legal ownership of ideas. You think that discussing something = plagiarising it.

Explaining the meaning of or reinterpreting common mythology is not plagiarism. Providing commentary on existing tradition is not plagiarism. Saying an angel told you is not plagiarism.

The reformation wasn't plagiarism. Arianism wasn't plagiarism. The Sunni/Shia divide wasn't plagiarism.

Your understanding of plagiarism is facile and seemingly used for rhetorical rather than logical reasons.

Did you manage to find any credible scholars who use the term 'plagiarism'? There is a reason for this...

He cannot find one . The OP is obsessed with the rhetoric rather than the logical reasoning. I endorse your viewpoint.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

pla·gia·rize
[ˈplājəˌrīz]
VERB

1. take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own.

The site where-from OP plagiarized one meaning without providing a link, must have other meanings also, as it is numbered 1. that does not suit him.
Isn't it plagiarization?
Pleas provide the link, no compulsion, however. Just say sorry for this plagiarization. Wouldn't you?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

How 'pagan' the Arabs were is a contentious and debated issue. The audience of the Quran appears to be people well acquainted with the Abrahamic traditions
The answer to that question is not 'because it was plagiarised'.
Actually, much of it relates to non-canonical gospels and non scriptural mythology as well as the Bible. It is a discourse based on the late antique religious and political milieu, and in part, polemic, against certain religious trends - such as the polytheism of 'monotheists'.
You have a dictionary and can copy the definition of plagiarism, that is admirable. But, as I have explained, I disagree that this is an example of plagiarism. You are using a very simplistic and distorted concept of plagiarism.
All credible scholars seem to agree on this point. You and anti-Islam websites disagree with the scholarly consensus.
Without quoting a dictionary definition again, can you explain why all credible scholars avoid the term 'plagiarised'? Why don't they think it is accurate to use the term 'plagiarised'? Why is your understanding better than that of every major scholar in the field?

The OP seems helpless, cannot quote from major scholars in the field pointed out by you.
Regards

 

[Shad]

He cannot find one . The OP is obsessed with the rhetoric rather than the logical reasoning. I endorse your viewpoint.
Regards

You are also endorsing an academic view which contradicts your religion as the academic view does not consider any God claims. It strictly put the religion in related to humans and a construct of humans.

 

[SuperScript22]

The OP seems helpless, cannot quote from major scholars in the field pointed out by you.
Regards

I don't think it's OP only, I think religious people in general. Frankly I think such people should stick to debating between themselves, because their religion does not work when you debate it with common sense and will ultimately fail in the discussion.

 

[Unification]

Word salad with no real meaning what so ever.

Word salads are fantasy and mythological... Oh wait... you were using your own parable and symbolism.

 

[outhouse]

The OP seems helpless

Who is helpless here


So you don't have the ability or knowledge to answer these 2 questions in a straight forward manner honestly??????

So we have the influence of pre-existing traditions and incorporated biblical mythology including Moses and Abraham.

#1 Who's ideas or work did these traditions belong to originally?

#2 Does islam claim these are the true traditions received from the man?

 

[outhouse]

The site where-from OP

When my 4 year old wanted to know something she used this really cool feature called GOOGLE.

You have refuted nothing with your ad nauseam personal attacks on academia.

I never claimed it my own definition, so your factually in error again.

 

[outhouse]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize

Full Definition of PLAGIARIZE

transitive verb

: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source


intransitive verb

: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
— pla·gia·riz·er noun


And the warrior is guilty on all accounts. islam used biblical pre existing traditions and mythology incorporated it into their own theology, then claimed it was the most true version.

EXACTLY AS STATED ABOVE

#1 Who's ideas or work did these traditions belong to originally?

#2 Does islam claim these are the true traditions received from the man?

 

[paarsurrey]

Yesterday at 11:58 PM #400
pla·gia·rize
[ˈplājəˌrīz]

VERB

1. take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own.

The site where-from OP plagiarized one meaning without providing a link, must have other meanings also, as it is numbered 1. that does not suit him.
Isn't it plagiarization?
Pleas provide the link, no compulsion, however. Just say sorry for this plagiarization. Wouldn't you?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
Full Definition of PLAGIARIZE
transitive verb

: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive verb
: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
— pla·gia·riz·er noun
And the warrior is guilty on all accounts. islam used biblical pre existing traditions and mythology incorporated it into their own theology, then claimed it was the most true version.
EXACTLY AS STATED ABOVE
#1 Who's ideas or work did these traditions belong to originally?
#2 Does islam claim these are the true traditions received from the man?

By comparison we can see the difference; OP plagiarized in Post #400 the meaning of the world "pla·gia·rize[ˈplājəˌrīz]" without providing the link, when insisted for the same he quoted from merriam- webster instead .
I won't judge the OP for owning the meaning or stealing the same from some site in post #400, as that would be impolite.
I just request him to provide the original link, no compulsion whatsoever. It is just a friendly discussion to find the truth.

Regards

 

[columbus]

And they aren't plagiarised if they are new.

I don't understand why you are having so much trouble grasping the meaning of "plagiarised" in this context.
If I wrote a story about a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins using his magic ring to slay a dragon in Moria and rescue the wizard Gandalf it would be plagiarism.

When Muhammad did the same thing with previous works it was also plagiarism. He invented new versions of old works, using the characters, places, and concepts from other religious traditions.
Call it whatever you want, but it is not just commentary. Plagiarism seems quite appropriate to me.
Tom

 

[outhouse]

I don't understand why you are having so much trouble grasping the meaning of "plagiarised" in this context.
If I wrote a story about a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins using his magic ring to slay a dragon in Moria and rescue the wizard Gandalf it would be plagiarism.

When Muhammad did the same thing with previous works it was also plagiarism. He invented new versions of old works, using the characters, places, and concepts from other religious traditions.
Call it whatever you want, but it is not just commentary. Plagiarism seems quite appropriate to me.
Tom

I mean no disrespect either by using that term, its just how I see the book was created. My interest is in historicity only.


I fully understand no muslim would never accept this no matter how well defined.

I even posted in my OP that no matter how credible the date may be, that it wont change the faith of any muslim.

 

[Unification]

We can see ink that was once used but faded.

Different light spectrums as you know bring out original text.

On this piece, and the time frames involved it all looks original.


The KEY factor here is Islamic tradition shows the koran was compiled in its current form in the year 653 by Uthman.

So dating of 568 AD and 645 AD. is very informative.

Other key features are the fact the early text was written on ANIMAL SKIN.


Keith Small, from Oxford’s Bodleian Library, was blunt, “This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Quran’s genesis,

Which repeats and confirms what I have stated is already common knowledge of plagiarization that took place.

Now please provide evidence and sources that Muhammed's historical birthdate was accurate without using POE... just because a piece of writing(biography) says so. The evidence you have provided for the Quran but lack the evidence of the author.