Origins of the Quran/Islam - various academic perspectives

[Shad]

Have you read this? It's worth a look if you haven't.

The Syriac milieu of the Quran: The recasting of Biblical narratives
Witzum, Jospeh (via proquest)

Not this specific paper but other papers which like narratives and themes with Syriac traditions and texts. Thanks for the reference

 

[Shad]

There is no source with history more reliable of times of Muhammad than the Quran. An historian cannot write history besides the source from the thin air. It is for this that I say that in matters of religion the historians are just quacks and they know it. Please
Regards

How so since the Quran barely mentions Muhammad at all. You need ahadith to even create a biography of Muhammad let alone the history of Islam's expansion within Arabia. Historians and their work trumps the dogma you have been taught as if it was fact.

 

[outhouse]

Then you should stop using the term plagiarized as it means fraud

Look at the definition, it says NOTHING of the word fraud


It says taking someone else ideas and passing them off as your own, just like islam did.

 

[outhouse]

Yes but that includes the process. How, where, when and by who were this "heretical" beliefs developed. How, where, when and by who did these ideas become part of Islam.

Everything OP has brought says we do not know, OR we cannot know.

Things here are based on plausibility. Not certainties.


One thing is certain, the bible was copied in places. Factual and not up for debate.

 

[Shad]

Look at the definition, it says NOTHING of the word fraud

It doesn't need to as it blatantly obvious. Presenting another author's work as your own is to willing decieve people for personal gain which is also the definition of fraud minus the author bit as one is specific.

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

It says taking someone else ideas and passing them off as your own, just like islam did.

Again take into consideration my point about religious belief in authorship. If one already believes in this concept along with whatever text fall under this believe it is not plagiarism. It is merely commentary on what people already believed beforehand.

 

[outhouse]

How does one plagiarize their own traditions?

They did not

They TOOK Christian and Jewish text and massacred it under their own name

 

[Shad]

Everything OP has brought says we do not know, OR we cannot know.

No considering a few source make very credible argument linking the Quran with previous texts.

One thing is certain, the bible was copied in places. Factual and not up for debate.

Is commenting on a belief one already holds plagiarism?

 

[outhouse]

Again take into consideration my point about religious belief in authorship. If one already believes in this concept along with whatever text fall under this believe it is not plagiarism. It is merely commentary on what people already believed beforehand.

Sorry does not work like that.

They literally copied text in same places. They took the bible and rewrote it claiming their god given version is correct.

 

[outhouse]

Is commenting on a belief one already holds plagiarism?

Factually it was not the same belief as the one copied and rewritten taking others mythology as your own, and claiming god is the author

 

[Shad]

They did not

They TOOK Christian and Jewish text and massacred it under their own name

Not really since there already links with previous "distortion" of these text by Christians and Jews. Christian and Jew that were already in Arabia. What if Muhammad already believed these sources were correct? The Quran would just be commentary on his own beliefs

 

[outhouse]

islam incorporated biblical mythology into its own mythology.

Not up for debate.


That is the definition of plagiarism

 

[outhouse]

What if Muhammad already believed these sources were correct?

That would mean he collected previous traditions that were plagiarized by someone else.

 

[Shad]

Sorry does not work like that.

They literally copied text in same places. They took the bible and rewrote it claiming their god given version is correct.

No one here is arguing for Islamic tradition. I am not. I already dismissed the claims. Hence why I mention religious belief in authorship of previous texts. Augustus already poked holes in Islamic exegesis.

 

[outhouse]

Not really since there already links with previous "distortion" of these text by Christians and Jews. Christian and Jew that were already in Arabia.

They were not Christian and Jews if they went outside orthodoxy and perverted the original meaning plagiarizing their own text.

 

[Shad]

islam incorporated biblical mythology into its own mythology.

Not up for debate.


That is the definition of plagiarism

No it isn't.

 

[outhouse]

No one here is arguing for Islamic tradition.

non sequitur.


Someone copied and plagiarized text


Example Noah is a plagiarized version of Mesopotamian traditions. So is adam and eve

And many other biblical aspects

 

[Shad]

They were not Christian and Jews if they went outside orthodoxy and perverted the original meaning plagiarizing their own text.

So Gnostic Christians are not Christians since they do not follow orthodoxy? You are holding a priori in which orthodox is is correct and anyone not following this strict orthodoxy is not a true Christian or Jew. Scottman's fallacy

 

[outhouse]

No it isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mythology

Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology. Stories about Musa (Moses)[1] and Ibrahim (Abraham)[2] form parts of Islam's scriptures


this simply means islam TOOK many biblical events, and used it for THEIR mythology

 

[outhouse]

So Gnostic Christians are not Christians since they do not follow orthodoxy?

By the early 4th century, gnostics were kicked out the church and officially forbidden to meet, by the mid 4th century their books were widely banned and by the late 4th century Gnosticism carried a death penalty in the Roman empire

 

[outhouse]

So Gnostic Christians are not Christians since they do not follow orthodoxy?

This is almost as nonsensical as claiming Christians are really Jews because they still follow the text of Judaism

They are gnostics not really christians