Origins of the Quran/Islam - various academic perspectives

[Shad]

One of the quotes that Muslims like using is this verse 5:32, especially with what I have highlighted in red and bold:



What a lot of Muslims are unaware of, unless they have actually bother to read rabbinic literature like the Talmud, then that highlighted quote is a rip off the Babylonian Talmud, Mishnah Sanhedrin 37a:



The Talmud were written several centuries before Muhammad appointed himself as prophet, and they (Talmud and other rabbinic literature) are all based on oral tradition (such as the Oral Torah), as well commentaries made by various rabbis or sages.

Clearly the Qur'an plagiarized idea with non-biblical text with the murder of one person kill all of mankind. A non-prophet rabbi or sage wrote that, and it is not found in the Torah (not found in the Genesis).

If you read the whole passage (referring to Mishnah Sanhedrin 37a), especially the beginning, before "murder" and "saving" of mankind, the passage is clearly a commentary made about the murder of Abel by Cain.

So why would Muhammad include something that clearly come from Talmudic commentary?

He could of thought that the Talmud sources were from God and lacked the education to figure out it wasn't. He was clearly a literalist. This just makes his citation of previous God's works wrong.

 

[paarsurrey]

outhouse said: ↑
That's your problem because it is YOUR personal definition. Muhammad was just the collector of traditions, and even if he did create the text he could have thought he was inspired by god.

Nope it is actually your problem since you lack reading comprehension at a higher level to figure out how different words are applicable. You again change your claims. If Muhammad was only collecting texts then he didn't plagiarize anything but made a compilation.

The point of view of outhouse is wrong here.
Regards

 

[outhouse]

If Muhammad was only collecting texts then he didn't plagiarize anything but made a compilation.

I have always said the authors of the koran, and I have said repeatedly he just sold the text to the people with bloodshed.

 

[Shad]

I have always said the authors of the koran, and I have said repeatedly he just sold the text to the people with bloodshed.

No you made two different statements now try to correct these contradictory statements ad hoc.

 

[outhouse]

No you made two different statements now try to correct these contradictory statements ad hoc.

Oh please, show the quotes you state I made.

 

[Shad]

Oh please, show the quotes you state I made.

First you said Muhammad cousin is the author of the Quran, then it is unknown authors. That is a direct contradiction. You says author in one instance then authors in the next. Another contradiction.

 

[outhouse]

First you said Muhammad cousin is the author of the Quran,

I said its plausible. And it is.

muhammad had to be taught these traditions, what better then a family member who lived in walking distance from the boy?

 

[Shad]

I said its plausible. And it is.

muhammad had to be taught these traditions, what better then a family member who lived in walking distance from the boy?

Sure, I see no issue with this idea. Whether it is correct or not would be very hard to argue as we have no writings linking one figure to the other. Of course it could be completely oral transmission but this doesn't help either of us. However the source linked by Augustus' attempt to show other idea from various "heretical" groups were spread to areas which Muhammad could have picked up in his life time.

 

[outhouse]

. Whether it is correct or not would be very hard to argue as we have no writings linking one figure to the other.

Yes true.

Its all plausibility anyway, its sort of how we look at these grey areas where nothing is known with certainty.

The one certainty we can call fact without worry, is that someone factually taught muhammad biblical mythology.


What our other friend refuses to do is look at who these teachers might have been, and offered we don't know as his best explanation.

 

[outhouse]

other idea from various "heretical" groups were spread to areas which Muhammad could have picked up in his life time.

And no one doubts this, I never have.

I just find having a heretic in walking distance of a 5 year old, very strong things the ancient historians recorded who were biased.

And we know they would never come and say he was taught by a mortal man, no matter how much evidence there was

 

[Shad]

Yes true.

Its all plausibility anyway, its sort of how we look at these grey areas where nothing is known with certainty.

Certainty can be very subjective. Better say we can only make reasonable conclusions.

The one certainty we can call fact without worry, is that someone factually taught muhammad biblical mythology.

In a way yes. We do pass on ideas to the next generation in different forms of "education". He could of learned about these ideas and accepted such ideas as true rather than being taught such ideas are true. People comment on ideas they do not accept as true all the time.

What our other friend refuses to do is look at who these teachers might have been, and offered we don't know as his best explanation.

Well I think we can reasonable conclude that there had to be someone around to communicate some ideas. Also if we entertain the idea that Muhammad could read some idea he could of learned. This is granting the assumption that he could read. However to say for certainty who did what will be very hard to substantiate.

 

[Shad]

I just find having a heretic in walking distance of a 5 year old, very strong things the ancient historians recorded who were biased.

There were heretics all over the area. Byzantium history is very useful to show their reactions to such views.

And we know they would never come and say he was taught by a mortal man, no matter how much evidence there was

We already dismissed God source as it is not part of anything methodology besides religion.

 

[prometheus11]

Sorry to butt in. Just wanted to let you both know that I'm following the conversation and enjoying it! (You both respond and type so fast!)

Great stuff. Good debating etiquette. Thanks!

 

[outhouse]

He could of learned about these ideas and accepted such ideas .

Sort of implies a teacher to some extent.

In your context I think we could say society taught him, if you wanted to go that route. which does not negate what I posited.

I think for there is to much importance that he would just collect traditions, he did more study then just picking up a few things here and there. IMHO

These people studied religion and it was a strong part of their lives.

 

[outhouse]

Well I think we can reasonable conclude that there had to be someone around to communicate some ideas

And when we look at the very limited history on this, one figure more then any other is standing out.

I don't believe in part of my hypothesis that he was the only source or only place the man learned the text from. Like anything else were talking about a life long journey of learning.

said person is just my major source of influence.

How could a family member within walking distance of a small child teaching Arabic heretical bible, and later being the very first person to claim he had divine contact, not be an influence to a man also taught a heretical version of the bible in Arabic.

 

[outhouse]

The true history of the koran is that Arabic people wanted to change the biblical text because they did not believe in all the rhetorical text as written. The contradictions and rhetoric is pretty obvious, and not starting with a strong orthodox faith, and living in a place where no one really cared off the beaten path so to speak.

It was easy to create new text based on previous traditions

 

[Shad]

Sort of implies a teacher to some extent.

I was talking about self-education is which one read various materials on a topic without the aid of direct interaction with individuals.

In your context I think we could say society taught him, if you wanted to go that route. which does not negate what I posited.

Sure. However it does not help much as we must also considered other individuals in said society.

I think for there is to much importance that he would just collect traditions, he did more study then just picking up a few things here and there. IMHO

There is already an established tradition of many groups believing the end times were upon us due to the wars between Byzantium and Persia. The Quran expresses such a view repeatedly.

These people studied religion and it was a strong part of their lives.

True. However just because it was a major part of their lives doesn't mean their beliefs were correct. As per the above. Those that believed the end times due to the Byzantium/Persian wars were wrong. They read more meaning into events then warranted due to a religious bias that dictated so. Likewise the belief in authorship point I mentioned before.

 

[outhouse]

I was talking about self-education

I cant find that plausible. To much material and to many details for one man. Just like the gospel authors this was a community effort IMHO

We would also have to address at some point it had to be much more then that.

That's not how people communicated back then. Everything was an oral tradition for the most part.

 

[outhouse]

There is already an established tradition of many groups believing the end times were upon us due to the wars between Byzantium and Persia. The Quran expresses such a view repeatedly.

Well Yes

The cultural and social anthropology is what formed the koran. It was a product of the environment, and the bible was part of said geographic region. We see other aspects of that region included as well.

 

[use_your_brain]

Well Yes

The cultural and social anthropology is what formed the koran. It was a product of the environment, and the bible was part of said geographic region. We see other aspects of that region included as well.

it was the way Quran be revealed.