New or old is irrelevant. The claims of sources of knowledge, divine, is what matters. The Alexander Legends are not part of the messages from God. The Jewish sources are from the Talmud, and Josephus, which is commentary by humans. In Christianity it is not part of any message but again commentary and pseudo-gospels. These stories were assimilated not dictated to or based on any of the 3 religions.
If one finds tradition unreliable this does not mean it can not be used as a reference source. You are confusing the divine authorship claims and rejection of the claims as rejection of the material itself. This is never the case as even forgeries such as Paul's letters contain meaning for the religion, narratives, points of focus, etc. It is merely stating that the claims are used to gain authority and attention that Mo lacked. It is one of the primary reasons for writing a pseudepigrapha text. Using a person or God which people see as an authority gives weight to one with no such authority or acknowledgement of the masses. As such with Paul's letters. Paul is a figure of authority, his name carries weight within Christianity thus people will pay attntion if they think the author is Paul. This is likewise for many claims regarding God, which is the highest authority. If the audience believes in said God then a figure speaking as a conduit of God gains authority and credibility they do not have without God.
Still not quite sure what perspective you are arguing from.
Do you believe someone looking at it from a secular historical perspective should view it as plagiarism? Or only from within the Islamic traditional paradigm?
The tradition can be used as a reference source, but the Sira turns into hagiography and what appears to be traditions and interpretations that have been added at a later point. As such, what Muhammed himself claimed is unknown. It is not definitively attested to in the Quran.
What the tradition has later added is often dubious, and how the material that became the Quran was utilised and viewed in reality is certainly contentious.
We both agree the tradition is often dubious.
We both acknowledge similarities and are aware of the extent of these similarities in recourse to specific examples.
We both agree the religion is a product of late antiquity.
We disagree in that you believe this must reflect plagiarism, whereas I think that we lack the understanding of what Muhammed himself claimed as to the source of his knowledge of the Biblical, para-Biblical and mythological material.
I don't see how recourse to tradition solves this question from an academic POV.
If we go to an Islamic POV, I also don't see how it can 'prove' plagiarism either. You can criticise the Islamic tradition, but the believer always has the God card to play to refute plagiarism.
Only the Islamic tradition minus God seems to support the idea, but this is neither the believer or unbeliever's POV, but a hybrid of the two. Both the believer and the unbeliever can legitimately reject 'proven' plagiarism from within their own paradigm.
