Augustus
…
Plagiarism can never be 'not negative'. It is an accusation of dishonesty and theft of intellectual property. Two things having similarities is not necessarily plagiarism, the context is all important.
If you think a charge of plagiarism (without qualification) can be 'not negative', perhaps you are misunderstanding the term.
Cultures and religions always occur from adaptation of existing cultures to peoples distinct needs.
When my RF namesake Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus claimed his divine status, this was done through connection with the existing gods. Deifying Julius was a break with tradition and a radical innovation, but it was made to look as much as possible like a continuation of tradition. Part of what allowed them to be divine was their outward veneration of tradition and the gods.
Likewise, any hypothetical new religion in the late antique Middle East could only occur as a continuation of previous tradition. The divide between the religious and the mundane was not as distinct as it is today. There wasn't 'history' and then theology for most people, they were one and the same thing.
A hypothetical prophet teaching a completely new religion, with a different God, different mythology and history would find it almost impossible to get any following. Only new religions that operate within the existing paradigm are possible: iterations and evolutions not virgin territory.
You couldn't be a successful prophet without acknowledging Abraham, Noah and Moses as your spiritual forefathers.
This is a problem caused purely by your being completely unfamiliar with any academic material. It's better to read them than to assume something must be the case. Islamic studies is one of the most dynamic areas of the humanities/social sciences with all sorts of differing and contradictory views and scholarly disputes.
Wansborough, Nevo and Koren, Crone and Cook, Luxenberg (fair enough a pseudonym), Schacht etc hardly kowtow(ed) to Islamic orthodoxy.
It's certainly not the case that only brave "scholars" like Robert Spencer are willing to "tell it like it is". You have jumped to the conclusion that all scholars are simply spineless apologists on several occasions. Read them and you might be surprised.
It's not that they secretly agree with you but are afraid to admit it, maybe it's just that they don't agree with you. Try to be open-minded and think as to why this might be the case, even just as a thought experiment.
What makes you think Islam didn't evolve in 'their own society'
This is part of the problem, you dislike Islam and want to attack and discredit it. You want to show Mo was a fraud and a cheat who "plagiarised and perverted" and so your bias makes you unwilling to look at the situation critically. You have already decided on the answer, and see no need for further enquiry.
Instead of thinking about history, you are focusing on polemics against the Islamic tradition and theology.
Without realising it, you are basing much of your argument on theology. You act as if Islam emerged fully formed, just as in the way the tradition teaches it. You just see a cartoonish version though where a dishonest plagiariser copies a load of Waraqa's texts and 'reveals' it to a bunch of credulous disciples who don't know any better as they are unfamiliar with the source material. You treat the Arabs as 'outsiders' to the traditions, people who are stealing the culture of others rather than participating in an evolution of their own cultural environement.
The Islamic tradition and academic history are two very different things though. From an academic perspective, much of the tradition is 2+ centuries late and appears to have been created for exegetic purposes. As such, it is often not given much credibility in terms of working out what the real events of 7th C Arabia actually were.
The classical exegetes simply don't know how to interpret numerous parts of the Quran; some of them have as many of 10+ completely different interpretations from different scholars. Often, aspects of the sirah appear to have been built around offering explanations for these, often unconvincingly.
This is a very good, short and non-technical article by Gabriel S Reynolds with some examples (I know you have decided that I am an apologist who only links to apologists and you must instinctively try to refute everything I say, I've absolutely no idea why you decided this, but if you actually read some of them with an open mind you will quickly see otherwise):
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/11/reading-the-quran-through-the-bible
Another case is the Qur’an’s reference to the laughter of Sarah (a name that does not appear in the text; the only woman given a name in the Qur’an is Mary). In Genesis, Sarah laughs after she hears the annunciation of Isaac’s birth, but the Qur’an refers to her laughter first. Accordingly, Muslim commentators struggle to explain why she laughed. One famous commentator, the tenth-century al-Tabari, wonders if she laughed out of frustration when the visitors would not eat the food she prepared or if she laughed out of relief when she realized that the visitors did not have the habits of the Sodomites. Yet the reader who knows the Bible will understand that Sarah laughed out of surprise at the promise of a son in her old age, even if the Qur’an—for the sake of a rhyme in Arabic—reports these events in reverse order.
In such cases the Qur’an seems to count on its audience’s knowledge of the Bible. Indeed, by taking a liberty with the order of the story, the Qur’an seems utterly confident in that knowledge. It expects that the reader has the Qur’an in one hand and the Bible in the other.
its a BIASED view.