-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Origins of the Quran/Islam - various academic perspectives
- Thread starter Augustus
- Start date
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Mythology is fiction .. G-d and His prophets are not..
Augustus
…
Never mind, it all seems to be a bit much for you to comprehend. No point in repeating the same thing over and over again in the hope that you will eventually understand it. If you want to know the answer, you can read my old posts. It's very clearly expressed.
Seeing as all of your argument's steps are flawed anyway, why don't you just make your entire argument in exactly the way you wish to make it and I will explain the flaws in it one final time and then we can leave it at that.
If you don't want to do that, we can leave it at that now instead as you don't really understand anything anyway
outhouse
Atheistically
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
This is the OVERALL academic position
Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology. Stories about Musa (Moses)[1] and Ibrahim (Abraham
This is the OVERALL academic position
outhouse
Atheistically
Nothing you can show with any credibility.
outhouse
Atheistically
they how come you cannot say YES, biblical traditions were copied, some of them almost word for word ??????????
Your personal issue is of no concern to the academic conclusion
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Mmm .. interesting..
I note that the word 'myth' does not necessarily imply falsehood..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
In which case, if the 'myth' is true, then the revelations could INDEED be from G-d, and not copied as you keep on insisting
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Correct. There is no reason a myth cannot also be true. (Although I've never observed such a case).
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Never mind, it all seems to be a bit much for you to comprehend. No point in repeating the same thing over and over again in the hope that you will eventually understand it. If you want to know the answer, you can read my old posts. It's very clearly expressed.
Seeing as all of your argument's steps are flawed anyway, why don't you just make your entire argument in exactly the way you wish to make it and I will explain the flaws in it one final time and then we can leave it at that.
If you don't want to do that, we can leave it at that now instead as you don't really understand anything anyway
I don't understand the pejorative, judgmental stance, here. Do you find this perspective conducive to reasoned debate?
outhouse
Atheistically
Nope it does not. HOWEVER Myths are generally not accurate historical truths either.
In the koran, the only hope of it being accurate, would be dead luck, as plagiarized accounts generally are not even looked at by historians.
Example, a scholar like Bart Ehrman finds no value at all in the koran historically speaking.
Augustus
…
Horses for courses. There has been no reasoned debate as that would require the other person to actually respond to what was said rather than pretending that they said something completely different that doesn't show them that they are wrong.
You don't understand that I've answered the same questions 20+ times, very clearly and in context. I also object to the pompous 'credible academia' shtick used to belittle other posters when the person themselves has no interest in scholarship, wilfully ignores all credible academia that disagrees with his baseless assumptions, and simply wants to engage in anti-Islam polemics under the guise of fair minded historical analysis. Somebody who claims to represent 'academia' and be a tertiary level history lecturer whilst dismissing an entire field of scholarly enquiry as 'worthless' simply because it shows how wrong he is whilst clearly never having read a single academic article in his life.
People who lack integrity and so clearly display double standards can't really argue when these are highlighted.
Why do you try so hard to pretend that I have ever said anything other than that? As the 'outhouse generator' would say 'WE require honesty!'
Other than the 5 or so different articles I quoted that explained why you were wrong as opposed to the zero academic sources you provided to show you were right? The 5 articles that you arbitrarily ignored as being 'cherry picked' despite not being able to find a single article that supported your view which you cribbed off anti-Islam websites.
Instead of this silly focus on trying to get me to use the word 'copied' so you can beat your plagiarism drum, would you like to make your entire argument, and I will once again find some examples of what 'credible academia' has to say regarding it. Surely you should be interested in 'credible academia and knowledge'?
This explains why I find the word 'copied' to be an oversimplification and flawed in terms of the argument you wish to make:
Indeed, a good number of Qur’ānic pericopes look like Arabic ingenious patchworks of Biblical and para-Biblical texts, designed to comment passages or aspects of the Scripture, whereas others look like Arabic translations of liturgical formulas.
This is not unexpected if we have in mind some Late Antique religious practices, namely the well-known fact that Christian Churches followed the Jewish custom of reading publicly the Scriptures, according to the lectionary principle. In other words, people did not read the whole of the Scripture to the assembly, but lectionaries (Syriac qǝryānā, Ǧreading of Scripture in Divine Service”, etymon of Arabic qur’ān), containing selected passages of the Scripture, to be read in the community. Therefore, many of the texts which constitute the Qur’ān should not be seen (at least if we are interested in their original Sitz im Leben) as substitutes for the (Jewish or Christian) Scripture, but rather as a (putatively divinely inspired) commentary of Scripture73. And since this Scripture was not in Arabic, we understand better the role of the Qur’ān, and we also understand better why it insists so much on Arabic (Q 12:2; 13:37; 14:41; 16:103; 26:195; 39:28; 41:3, 44; 42:7; 43:3; 46:12): stressing that there is an Arabic qur’ān supposes that there might be non-Arabic scriptures. Guillaume Dye - Traces of Bilingualism/Multilingualism in Qur’ānic Arabic
outhouse
Atheistically
Then one word would have been not hard for you to say, "YES" but you want to direct this conversation into your own language. You do not get to.
Augustus
…
What a bizarre comment. You are obsessed with this narrow 'plagiarism' perspective as it suits your polemical agenda, and have no intention to view the situation as anything other than a 2D cartoon parody of what might have actually been the real life situation 1400 years ago.
It's like asking someone "have you stopped beating your wife yet? YES or NO?" and considering it disingenuous if they dispute the terms of the question.
Thoughts on this?
Indeed, a good number of Qur’ānic pericopes look like Arabic ingenious patchworks of Biblical and para-Biblical texts, designed to comment passages or aspects of the Scripture, whereas others look like Arabic translations of liturgical formulas.
This is not unexpected if we have in mind some Late Antique religious practices, namely the well-known fact that Christian Churches followed the Jewish custom of reading publicly the Scriptures, according to the lectionary principle. In other words, people did not read the whole of the Scripture to the assembly, but lectionaries (Syriac qǝryānā, Ǧreading of Scripture in Divine Service”, etymon of Arabic qur’ān), containing selected passages of the Scripture, to be read in the community. Therefore, many of the texts which constitute the Qur’ān should not be seen (at least if we are interested in their original Sitz im Leben) as substitutes for the (Jewish or Christian) Scripture, but rather as a (putatively divinely inspired) commentary of Scripture73. And since this Scripture was not in Arabic, we understand better the role of the Qur’ān, and we also understand better why it insists so much on Arabic (Q 12:2; 13:37; 14:41; 16:103; 26:195; 39:28; 41:3, 44; 42:7; 43:3; 46:12): stressing that there is an Arabic qur’ān supposes that there might be non-Arabic scriptures. Guillaume Dye - Traces of Bilingualism/Multilingualism in Qur’ānic Arabic
outhouse
Atheistically
You act like 5 cherry picked academic articles, covers the whole territory and offers a complete view.
It does not. If I only picked 5 articles on the historical Jesus, one would surely possess a biased view on the topic.
BUT NONE OF THIS MATTERS because you refuse to look at it in other peoples view or opinion, even when the conclusions are identical.
You have posted nothing that shows the koran was not plagiarized from biblical text for the most part.
You have not shown that much of the mythology was copied.
Some of the text is almost word for word in places.
outhouse
Atheistically
That only says the style they copied the text in, and parts of how they think they plagiarized it in prose.
outhouse
Atheistically
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
Some text was taken from biblical Apocryphal Sources
Some text was flat out copied
Some text was flat out plagiarized
Some text was inspired from regional religious practices.
Some is fictional
Some is allegory, metaphor, history and rhetoric.
BUT the whole context is that without biblical text existing prior to the compilations of these traditions, there would be no koran.
Once we can admit the biblical traditions were plagiarized, only then can we begin to FOLLOW the trail of knowledge backwards.
Anything else can put up biased road blocks, that stops plausible possibilities. We follow what we know with certainty and go back into plausibility.
AND it is obvious that you are, because without bring it up, you keep bringing up Waraka. You are just trying to stop me before I get there, right or wrong.
Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology. Stories about Musa (Moses)[1] and Ibrahim (Abraham
Some text was taken from biblical Apocryphal Sources
Some text was flat out copied
Some text was flat out plagiarized
Some text was inspired from regional religious practices.
Some is fictional
Some is allegory, metaphor, history and rhetoric.
BUT the whole context is that without biblical text existing prior to the compilations of these traditions, there would be no koran.
Once we can admit the biblical traditions were plagiarized, only then can we begin to FOLLOW the trail of knowledge backwards.
Anything else can put up biased road blocks, that stops plausible possibilities. We follow what we know with certainty and go back into plausibility.
AND it is obvious that you are, because without bring it up, you keep bringing up Waraka. You are just trying to stop me before I get there, right or wrong.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Another way of saying this is that islam plagiarized biblical mythology. That is the academic position. Sorry you PERSONALLY do not like it.
All abrahamic religions are guilty of this to some extent.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
They weren't cherry picked. I simply searched for the term 'Waraqa' on my computer which has 100+ articles stored on it and quoted whatever they said.
I didn't hide the ones that supported your view, apart from Azzi (who I mentioned), they don't exist.
You could very easily find some scholars who support your view, but that's a bit difficult as you haven't ever read anything academic on the subject.
Any accusation of 'cherry picking' without being able to even produce ONE counter example is just the last refuge of a charlatan.
Again, I have invited you to read some of the 30+ articles and books that I have provided you with links to which discuss this issue with 1000 times the evidence that you have brought.
Considering it 'plagiarism' is a result of your ignorance and desire to turn it into some kind of 2D decontextualised, ahistorical cartoon.
As I have said, I am looking at it from an academic perspective, trying to work out the Sitz im Leben of 7th C Arabia, but you are interested in polemics.
Congratulations, you have discovered that Islam grew out of Abrahamic traditions, only several billion people had discovered that previously.
By biased road blocks do you mean 30+ articles written by leading scholars as opposed to your zero articles?
And your reading comprehension is still rather lacking, I said it is plausible, but, absent the unlikely discovery of new evidence, is ultimately unprovable thus academically worthless.
No, it is making a far more insightful point regarding the environment of 7th C Arabia.
You hate reading anything though so you will continue to lack knowledge.
Please spare me the 'academic position' nonsense, we both know you are totally unfamiliar with anything beyond wikipedia and anti-Islam websites. I asked you 10 times to name even ONE scholar who you respected or ONE article you found informative but you were unable to.
That says everything that need to be said.
All bluster, no substance. (and as you would say) FACTUALLY!
Would you like to make the complete argument for your position then? Or are you more concerned with quibbling over trivialities and pretending that you are making reasoned, academic arguments?
I'd still like you to identify a scholar you respect too and even just one good article on the subject as you continually reject every single scholar I cite arbitrarily and without recourse to what they have said.