Koran dated to before Muhamad birth.

[Augustus]

I don't trust any Islamic tradition of any kind.


DO NOT put words in my mouth, I NEVER implied or stated.

Then why do you keep demanding people answer a question based on it?

I love when people don't have the first clue about context.

You are defending the religion, that makes it "yours" to defend.


Now you refuse to answer honest questions, and ever muslim I have ever debated does the same thing, so maybe you were a muslim at some point in time?

Like in a previous life? Interesting...

Anyway I'm discussing the accuracy of the term plagiarism, and the reasons why I think you are wrong in using it. If that makes me a Muslim then so be it. Why are people so keen to 'takfir' atheists?

Answers

1. Have answered this repeatedly
2. I'm talking about the Quran and you are bringing the Islamic tradition into it, which you don't trust anyway except when it suits you to.

then whats your problem. You didn't read this very well.

Please can we debate what I actually am saying rather than what you wish I was saying.

.the Qur’ān should not be seen as substitutes for the (Jewish or Christian) Scripture.

tell it to the muslism that refuse any and every part that does not agree with the Koran who claim the koran did not originate from these previous religions they view as corrupted.



Thanks for the bumps, keeping truth on top.

Again, avoidance of the academic source material that has major implications about the accuracy of the term plagiarism.

Careful not to quote out of context also, it is misleading.

I thought you might be interested in it as a keen student of history. Apparently, you prefer rhetoric to understanding though.

If you genuinely are interested in the historiography, let's discuss it.

 

[Augustus]

Does not describe the plagiarism that took place.

It ONLY describes one method of oral traditions. But oral traditions are not how the warrior learned the religion.

Not only that he relatives were Christians, he had to travel no where, he had sources on tap.

You don't appear to understand the quote I provided. It is discussing sitz im leben - the role, usage and context surrounding the Quranic text as it existed and was used in history.

He was collecting written traditions.

You seem very certain on this point, far more certain than any academics that I have read (including one of the articles I posted earlier), any good sources?

Nothing credible there to discuss. Its worthless apologetic rhetoric.

(putatively divinely inspired) is not academia nor is it any part of credible history.

Jesus wept... Apologetic?????

Your entire argument is based on a dictionary definition of plagiarism, quoting WikiIslam and saying "look! similarities!"

You then decide that a well regarded piece of Western academic scholarship is 'worthless apologetic rhetoric', based on no reasoning at all except poor reading comprehension leading to confusion about the use of the word putative. You certainly haven't read the article in any way, and seem to have just decided arbitrarily that it must be dismissed out of hand rather than read with a critical, but open, mind.

You seem to have decided that anyone who presents a view that is different from that of WikiIslam is a Muslim apologist to be dismissed out of hand.

If you read the quote again with an open mind, you might find some interesting and relevant points. Better still, read the whole article and tell me if you still think it is worthless apologetics.

 

[Augustus]

Sure. However many of the verses are repeating traditional stories but claims that these were not picked up within the environment but whispered to by an angel in Mo's ears. That is the difference.

As you noted, I was ignoring the tradition as I was focussing on history and the text of the Quran.

You are ignoring the theology of Islam when I am talking specifically about it and it's claims. This is different than the environment academia sets as there are far more numerous injection of various ideas from various groups into Islam. None of which Islam acknowledges due to its attachment to prophet-hood.

If we use the tradition though, then we also have to accept that the tradition says Muhammed was, in part, correcting earlier traditions. Much of his message had been revealed before, but Jews and Christians had lost track of the true teachings. Similarities can, in theory, be explained in regard to that.

A message from God can take whatever form it likes.

If you are claiming Muhammed plagiarised, then I don't see how this can be supported with recourse to Islamic theology. It is an argument that has to be made from an academic perspective, and for reasons previously stated, I disagree that it is an accurate or useful description.

I'm not defending the historiography or consistency of the tradition, but making a narrow point about the accuracy of the term plagiarism.

 

[Shad]

As you noted, I was ignoring the tradition as I was focussing on history and the text of the Quran.

I understand, you are strictly talking about the history of, which I am right on board with you. I am focusing on some of the theological claims.

If we use the tradition though, then we also have to accept that the tradition says Muhammed was, in part, correcting earlier traditions. Much of his message had been revealed before, but Jews and Christians had lost track of the true teachings. Similarities can, in theory, be explained in regard to that.

I am not using tradition as a source of verification or truth but arguing against part of it claims. This is my treatment of tradition in this regard.

A message from God can take whatever form it likes.

Which is irrelevant to academia

If you are claiming Muhammed plagiarised, then I don't see how this can be supported with recourse to Islamic theology. It is an argument that has to be made from an academic perspective, and for reasons previously stated, I disagree that it is an accurate or useful description.

No I am using it as a comparison and point of contention between the theological claims and what academia has developed.

I'm not defending the historiography or consistency of the tradition, but making a narrow point about the accuracy of the term plagiarism.[/QUOTE]

It is the theological stance which is the grounds for the charge. Now if we dismiss the Allah authorship or change it to a form of inspiration we can shift the text to a form of pseudepigrapha such as the Gospels or some of Paul's letter. Of course this shifts Islam from a strictly believer based interpretation which changes the religion is a major way.

What is your stance regarding authorship? Divine or human?

 

[Shad]

We could ask him/her why the 2 major deities in Judaism are older then the brahma mythology.

My problem with this question is due to oral tradition. If placed within a text or object reference point we can pinpoint a date range. However we both know oral traditions predate object records. Also the development from oral to full text based communication can vary from sudden to slow paced.

 

[Shad]

What it was about in the first place... The similar hits only. You made it about selection, not I. There was nothing to even select for either of us until you added "differences."

Actually there are major difference in the very article you cited within the very parallels it attempts to use.

You don't accept, I respect that.. Same selection bias... You brought the differences into the debate, not I.

You ignored or were unaware of the differences, I was not. I read the article and know the very source it is based on which is from the 18th century. It is the word of Godfrey Higgins.

No links are needed, no credible scholars are needed, all that's needed are the written texts that exist with similarities.

So wrong its not even funny. An education in both languages is required as these are not of the same family grouping nor are the words grounds in the same etymology. Sara has a far different root core and meaning then it does in the comparison text. You are only looking at both texts in English which is not the point of any analysis. This is how your similarities fail as you ignore the languages used preferring your own. You are ignoring linguistics entirely which is the primary method of interpretation of the very texts you are attempting to link together.

If you wanted to talk about differences, say so. Misses, selection bias, differences had NOTHING to do with similarities.

Differences have everything to do with similarities. You see the name Sarah, in English, has similarities to Sarasvati. However you are ignoring the difference meaning each name has. These are not the same. You are ignoring the role the figures play in each text. Brahma is a deity, Abraham is not. Sarasvati is a deity, Sarah is not. Looking 4 direction is about land not a person, you didn't look at the very next verse which provides the reasons for doing so. You did no research, you accept the claims as is, nothing more.

 

[Augustus]

No I am using it as a comparison and point of contention between the theological claims and what academia has developed.

It seems to me though that it relies on both disregarding the tradition re God, but accepting it re how Muhammed claimed he gained his knowledge.

Outwith the Sira, we don't have Muhammed getting his message in a cave from Jibril.

It is the theological stance which is the grounds for the charge. Now if we dismiss the Allah authorship or change it to a form of inspiration we can shift the text to a form of pseudepigrapha such as the Gospels or some of Paul's letter. Of course this shifts Islam from a strictly believer based interpretation which changes the religion is a major way.

What is your stance regarding authorship? Divine or human?

I'm no theist.

It's just the way I see it, academic history can deconstruct the tradition, but deconstructing the tradition removes the basis on which plagiarism can be claimed, unless you are talking plagiarism from a strictly academic position.

Can you give me an example of how you would make the argument in relation to the theological stance please?

 

[Shad]

It seems to me though that it relies on both disregarding the tradition re God, but accepting it re how Muhammed claimed he gained his knowledge.

It is not accepting the claims of authorship rather than rejection tradition as a source of information. Keep in mind the starting point of this discussion before you jumped in was the Islamic claims of authorship from a believer PoV.

Outwith the Sira, we don't have Muhammed getting his message in a cave from Jibril.

Not outwith the Sira but rejection of the claims of the Sira.

I'm no theist.

It's just the way I see it, academic history can deconstruct the tradition, but deconstructing the tradition removes the basis on which plagiarism can be claimed, unless you are talking plagiarism from a strictly academic position.

Can you give me an example of how you would make the argument in relation to the theological stance please?

It does not remove the basis, it acknowledges the basis, makes the charge and moves on strictly human origins.

I assume you mean the Islamic stance. Simple. The claims of divine authorship are a form of pseudepigrapha in which Mo (real author) creates an oral/"text" which is claimed as the work of Allah directly. Just like some of the letters of Paul. Now this does not apply to every part of the Quran. I acknowledge there are specific verses that can not be attributed to another. For example specific Median verses or Sura Al-Fil which is drawn from Maccabees. Where as verse such as 5:32 are lifted from Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 and Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 37a. This is a combination of plagiarism and forgery in the attempt at gain more credibility for what one says while using another's work.

 

[Augustus]

It does not remove the basis, it acknowledges the basis, makes the charge and moves on strictly human origins.

I assume you mean the Islamic stance. Simple. The claims of divine authorship are a form of pseudepigrapha in which Mo (real author) creates an oral/"text" which is claimed as the work of Allah directly. Just like some of the letters of Paul. Now this does not apply to every part of the Quran. I acknowledge there are specific verses that can not be attributed to another. For example specific Median verses or Sura Al-Fil which is drawn from Maccabees. Where as verse such as 5:32 are lifted from Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 and Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 37a. This is a combination of plagiarism and forgery in the attempt at gain more credibility for what one says while using another's work.

But it isn't making claims of complete originality: "Naught is said to thee but what already was said to the Messengers before thee. Surely thy Lord is a Lord of forgiveness and of painful retribution." 41:43

Had the claim been 'this is all new', you would have a point, but when the line is "you've already been told this, but the message got corrupted over time", the existence of textual similarities is to be expected from the POV of the believer.

To a believer, the similarities are not evidence of the text's human origin, if anything, they are confirmation of the truth of its message. So they don't demonstrate plagiarism to the believer.

The unbeliever doesn't believe in divine authorship so, regarding plagiarism, has to answer the questions a) where did Muhammed get his message from b) what did Muhammed say about where he got his message from.

For the unbeliever, the answer to b) is "I don't know, I only know what the tradition says. But then again, I don't trust the accuracy of the tradition."

The tradition likes to overstate the 'backwardness' of the Arabs and their ignorance of monotheism so as to abstract the man from the late-antique environment in which he lived. A man who knew nothing of late-antique theology, was suddenly reciting a discourse on this topic.

To demonstrate plagiarism to the unbeliever, you have to accept one aspect of the believer's POV regarding how Muhammed claimed he had gained his knowledge, but disregard another aspect of the believer's POV about the message actually being from God.

 

[Unification]

Actually there are major difference in the very article you cited within the very parallels it attempts to use.



You ignored or were unaware of the differences, I was not. I read the article and know the very source it is based on which is from the 18th century. It is the word of Godfrey Higgins.



So wrong its not even funny. An education in both languages is required as these are not of the same family grouping nor are the words grounds in the same etymology. Sara has a far different root core and meaning then it does in the comparison text. You are only looking at both texts in English which is not the point of any analysis. This is how your similarities fail as you ignore the languages used preferring your own. You are ignoring linguistics entirely which is the primary method of interpretation of the very texts you are attempting to link together.



Differences have everything to do with similarities. You see the name Sarah, in English, has similarities to Sarasvati. However you are ignoring the difference meaning each name has. These are not the same. You are ignoring the role the figures play in each text. Brahma is a deity, Abraham is not. Sarasvati is a deity, Sarah is not. Looking 4 direction is about land not a person, you didn't look at the very next verse which provides the reasons for doing so. You did no research, you accept the claims as is, nothing more.

Thanks for the response,

I wasn't aware the topic of conversation had anything to do with how the different religions "interpret" the mythology. All religions have their own "different" interpretations of the "similar" text.

You're focusing on the "differences," the "scholars," and now the "interpretations" by the different religions of texts.

Are you saying that all of the similarities are mere coincidence and were not influenced from Sanskrit to Hebrew?

Even these: Isaac and Ishmael from Sanskrit: (Hebrew) Ishaak = (Sanskrit) Ishakhu

(Hebrew) Ishmael = (Sanskrit) Ish-Mahal?

 

[Unification]

Thanks for the response,

I wasn't aware the topic of conversation had anything to do with how the different religions "interpret" the mythology. All religions have their own "different" interpretations of the "similar" text.

You're focusing on the "differences," the "scholars," and now the "interpretations" by the different religions of texts.

Are you saying that all of the similarities are mere coincidence and were not influenced from Sanskrit to Hebrew?

Even these: Isaac and Ishmael from Sanskrit: (Hebrew) Ishaak = (Sanskrit) Ishakhu

(Hebrew) Ishmael = (Sanskrit) Ish-Mahal?

What was "El Shaddai" or "Shad" in Sanskrit?

 

[paarsurrey]

Did Vedic Brahma(Abraham) and Saraswati(Sara) arise before Jewish?

Where-from you got the clue for it? Please
Regards

 

[outhouse]

Had the claim been 'this is all new',

It is all new from an angel to the warrior.

It is falsely claimed to be the only true version. God just decided to give these people the real version and the warrior did not pervert the massage the way they claim the other religions did.

 

[outhouse]

These are plagiarized similarities in text

Bible:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
Genesis 1:1-5 - KJV
Qur'an:

Praise be God, Who created the heavens and the earth, and made the darkness and the light. Yet those who reject Faith hold (others) as equal, with their Guardian-Lord.
Qur'an 6:1
And We appoint the night and the day two portents. Then We make dark the portent of the night, and We make the portent of the day sight-giving, that ye may seek bounty from your Lord, and that ye may know the computation of the years, and the reckoning; and everything have We expounded with a clear expounding.
Qur'an 17:12



Genesis 1:31[edit]
Bible:

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Genesis 1:31 - KJV
Qur'an:

Who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in six Days, then He mounted the Throne. The Beneficent! Ask anyone informed concerning Him!
Qur'an 25:59



DO YOU HAVE ANY CREDIBLE EXAMPLES or just thread derailing?

 

[outhouse]

#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?


Answer the questions


Failure to answer, is failure to accept the historical truth

 

[paarsurrey]

I'll clarify more... Did the "Indian" have "Brahma" and "Saraswati" before the "Jewish" had Abraham and Sara?
Do you see striking parallels in names, without even bringing up the "academic" story parallels?
I hear your child is very wise, maybe she can google it.

You have a good humour sense.
Regards

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Not that factual evidence would change anyone's faith, but here is a new twist on an old game.


http://www.inquisitr.com/2382300/th...-shake-the-foundations-of-islam-scholars-say/


Radiocarbon dating of a Koran manuscript found last month at the University of Birmingham’s Cadbury Research Library suggests that it could predate the Prophet Muhammad.


Radiocarbon analysis carried out by experts at the University of Oxford dated the parchment on which the Koran text was written to the period between 568 A.D. and 645 A.D. with an estimated accuracy of 95.4 percent, according to a release by the University of Birmingham.

You could take the latest date 645CE and it would not predate muhammad if im not mistaken.

 

[paarsurrey]

Parallelism is a fallacious method at identifying an idea, concept, object, etc relationship.
Evidence based on quotes of speculation to further speculation. Aristotle and Megasthenes made assumptions which were wrong and refuted by archaeology. Godfrey Higgins ideas have been refuted for centuries. The rest is parallelism backed by no evidence other than a few similarities. However since archaeology and Biblical scholarship show a link to the culture of the area had a greater impact than any supposed parallel after. Nevermind Abraham is a construct not a real person thus further pushes the article into the occult and poor research.

I liked your above sentences coloured by me in magenta.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm not worried about the names listed, and every human that's ever existed has made assumptions that are wrong...
Fictional or not, what exists are the written text similarities, constructs, concepts, ideas, word origins, their meanings, and where they came from.

Please quote the text similarities.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Isn't that what's been going on here... Parallelism between religions as "plagerism?"

Our resident historian is engaged in such exercises, so far he could not bring any concrete evidences and proofs in this connection, always shifting burden of proof on others.
Regards