The
Quran, the central
religious text of
Islam, contains references to
more than fifty people and events also found in the
Bible.
Congratulations, you have discovered the little known fact that Islam is part of the Abrahamic tradition.
By thinking this constitutes some kind of supporting point you keep proving:
1) You don't understand what plagiarism is
2) You have very little knowledge on this subject
3) You have an uncritical, uncurious and highly credulous mind
4) You have very little understand of academic history in general (despite pretending that you actually lecture in it)
5) You are very anti-academic; you are currently the creationist posting in a thread about science. That guy that you mock in other threads is you in this thread; the person arguing stubbornly from a perspective of ignorance, lack of understanding and a wilful desire to avoid educating yourself
This is a good read. So here we cannot say the bible was plagiarized, but we can say Abrahamic traditions were plagiarized.
http://wn.com/quran_copied_apocrypha!_blatant_plagiarism!
Quran copied Apocrypha! Blatant Plagiarism!
The Apocryphal gospels which are
plagiarised by the Koran include: The Gospel of James, or Protevangelium (140-170 AD) The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (5th Century- 6th Century AD) The History of Joseph the Carpenter (5th Century AD) The Gospel of The Nativity of Mary The Arabic Gospel of The Infancy of The Saviour (5th Century AD) The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (80-105 AD) All of theses Gospels have stories which were inserted into the 7th Century Koran. Its Undeniable that Christianity had a huge influence upon Islam and the formation of the Koran. As Mohammad knew nothing of Jesus who lived 600 years earlier he had to rely on the Apocryphal stories in his Koran
Why do you keep posting low quality links and think you are bringing something new and insightful to the table that nobody else has considered. Academic articles are 'worthless' but blurbs for a polemical video are 'a good read'.
I repeatedly tried to get you to look at 'The Quran in its historical context' by GS Reynolds (ed.), but you were more interested in trying to prove he was a Muslim apologist than actually go as far as looking even at the table of contents (this is when you failed to understand the difference between a book title and biographical information about the author).
It discusses points such as these in detail and in proper historical context. Reynolds, whose work you dismissed as worthless despite never reading him, advocates trying to understand the meaning of Quranic passages through recourse to the Bible and para-Biblical traditions. There is a school of thought that believes misinterpretations occurred when medieval scholars, lacking in historical understanding of the origins of Islam and knowledge of the Abrahamic traditions tried to carry out exegesis without understanding the material alluded to.
I've linked you to this short article at least 3 times now, but you haven't read it as it is not polemical enough for your agenda. Worth a read though:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/11/reading-the-quran-through-the-bible
If you want to stop being the creationist in the science thread, why don't you read that link and have a look at the book too?
