Yes or No only
#1 Did some of the ideas and traditions used in the Koran originally belong to the bible?
#2 Did the warrior claim these traditions were revealed to him and not learned?
Plagiarized is not up for debate.
Yes/no, not up for debate (and in bold too!). Did you really say you were paid to teach people earlier?
so your question (again) seeing as answers have become non-answers or avoidance now.
1. Yes, and other non-canonical gospels and related mythology. You have actually read some of my posts I assume?
2. I don't know. You rely on the sira to know this point, not the Quran. You have rejected the tradition, but you also want to force people to operate from within its paradigm. The Quran is ambiguous on this topic. It says Muhammed is a prophet, an apostle of God and a messenger. It says he is divinely inspired. It also seems to suggest that his audience were familiar with the Biblical narrative. You do understand that these things don't preclude him having knowledge of scripture prior to revelation? If the audience were familiar with the stories, then it is not unreasonable to consider that Muhammed himself might have been familiar. If Muhammed actually lived in an environment different to that described in the Sira, we have to start questioning other claims of the Sira. This is where it becomes history rather than theology.
Isnt that like captain obvious waking up and bumping his head.
We already know facts wont change faith, so again NON SEQIUTUR
You might want to work out the meaning of non sequitur before writing it in caps.
Anyway, just to confirm, are you claiming that, from a secular academic perspective, it is undeniable that the Quran is plagiarised? Or can it be logically argued that there is a that plagiarism is not an accurate description.
Sir, I dont think you have a clue what your talking about.
The link in question was not yours.
It was to a non academic piece of fiction produced not by anyone credible.
OK, it wasn't clear as you didn't quote and put it directly after a reply to me. You also previously labelled this branch of academic study 'apologetics', so it is fits into the bigger picture quite nicely.
What is your attitude towards the 'apologetics' that you previously dismissed? Let's forget the Islamic tradition for a minute, and focus just on the Quran in it's historical, real life context. You said that this was what you cared about: "My interest is in historicity only"
So we are going to forget the Sira, and thus are unaware of how Muhammed claimed to to know about the theological debates of late antique Arabia.
Again:
"a good number of Qur’ānic pericopes look like Arabic ingenious patchworks of Biblical and para- Biblical texts, designed to comment passages or aspects of the Scripture, whereas others look like Arabic translations of liturgical formulas.
This is not unexpected if we have in mind some Late Antique religious practices,
namely the well-known fact that Christian Churches followed the Jewish custom of reading publicly the Scriptures, according to the lectionary principle. In other words,
people did not read the whole of the Scripture to the assembly, but lectionaries (
Syriac qǝryānā, “reading of Scripture in Divine Service”, etymon of Arabic qur’ān), containing selected passages of the Scripture, to be read in the community. Therefore, many of the texts which constitute the Qur’ān should not be seen (at least if we are interested in their original Sitz im Leben) as substitutes for the (Jewish or Christian) Scripture, but rather as a (putatively divinely inspired) commentary of Scripture."
Quran might well be an etymon of the Syriac for 'reading of scripture in divine service'.
Muhammed, as the messenger of God, and the source of the Quran would thus be the one 'reading scripture in divine service'. He would be the one providing the commentary on the scripture.
As we can see, there are similarities between the Bible and the Quran. If we read the Quran, many Surahs use Biblical stories to make theological arguments. Is it not at least possible, that Muhammed's Quran is a discourse which was people knew was evidently based on scripture, rather than a sneaky, fraudulent plagiarism of the scripture where he found some texts that nobody knew about and tried to pass them off as his own?
