Origins of the Quran/Islam - various academic perspectives

[outhouse]

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.

 

[outhouse]

Example would be Jesus

Much of his legend and mythology in the NT was plagiarized from OT text.

But we follow history backwards with what we know.

Baptism by John and crucifixion, that is the foundation which most work on historical Jesus is done.

 

[Augustus]

Not one has shown anything different to what I state

They worded it different

Firstly, you haven't read any of them so no need to pretend otherwise. If you have, provide a valuable quote of two to support your view.

Secondly, they didn't 'word it differently', they made completely different and vastly more intelligent points than you.

No amount of s can substitute for understanding what you are talking about.

Much of his legend and mythology in the NT was plagiarized from OT text.

Again, back to your facile ideas about 'plagiarism'.

Jews providing new teachings and interpretation of Jewish scripture is not 'plagiarism', unless you wish to destroy the idea of both language and the historical evolution of cultural traditions to the level of internet polemics.

You even pretend that you taught this stuff at tertiary level, you could at least make a serious attempt to demonstrate even a secondary level understanding of the issues.

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.

Before you get where? To the point you realise there is no hard evidence to support this perspective?

 

[outhouse]

Jews providing new teachings and interpretation of Jewish scripture is not 'plagiarism'

Ya, well its not just that, that took place.

Taking OT text and ideas and using them as your own, is plagiarism.

Do you understand rhetorical prose, and how it dictated the text?


1.) Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Mark 12:29
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

This is NOT different interpretation

5.)Isaiah 49:8
This is what the LORD says: "In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances,

2 Corinthians 6:2
For he says, "In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you." I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.

 

[Augustus]

Ya, well its not just that, that took place.

Taking OT text and ideas and using them as your own, is plagiarism.

Do you understand rhetorical prose, and how it dictated the text?

Again, this is a silly simplistic view of history. Do all Jews who comment on scripture or adapt them plagiarise them? Did Greeks who evolved their mythology 'plagiarise' their own mythology?

And rhetoric is a very simple concept, not some arcane mystery that somehow allows you to ignore all other evidence.

Have a read of this and comment on it with recourse to what it says (i.e quotes) rather than simply saying it is useless.

https://www.academia.edu/3689606/_M...te_Antique_Puzzle_Der_Islam_91.2_2014_243-265

Will be a more interesting discussion than you repeating 'plagiarism, plagiarism, plagiarism' while never discussing anything remotely credible.

 

[outhouse]

And rhetoric is a very simple concept

So you do not know the first thing about it ?

It is far from simple.

One could study this one aspect for years and not know it all.

Will be a more interesting discussion than you repeating 'plagiarism, plagiarism, plagiarism' while never discussing anything remotely credible.

Sorry, that is not all there is to the text, I have already stated it is a starting point, not all there is to know.

 

[outhouse]

Again, this is a silly simplistic view of history

Please pay attention.

We are using this as starting point to discuss the topic, if you cannot accept the foundational reality in simply language, you cannot debate.

You admit islam took biblical ideas and used them for their own purposes, claiming the source was god.

 

[Augustus]

So you do not know the first thing about it ?

It is far from simple.

The concept is simple, the execution less so.

Religious scripture is written in rhetorical prose? Wow, never saw that one coming.

ease pay attention.

We are using this as starting point to discuss the topic, if you cannot accept the foundational reality in simply language, you cannot debate.

You admit islam took biblical ideas and used them for their own purposes, claiming the source was god.

You are going back to theology again, you are obsessed with anti-Islamic polemics, rather than looking at actual history of what occurred. God does not exist in the academic paradigm.

Also, it is interesting to note you ignore the academic material and pretend it doesn't exist rather than commenting on it. It's very revealing. (it's a great article btw)

Anyway, unless you reply with something from an academic source, there's no point in continuing this non-discussion.

You have demonstrated you have never read anything credible on the topic and have ignored every single academic source provided to you.

Continue to live in your fantasy world where you are an 'academic' if you will, but until you can demonstrate you have read even ONE article on the topic, there's no point in discussing academic material with you as it appears to be way above your intellectual level.

Feel free to prove me wrong with recourse to scholarly knowledge if you like, if not it's quite clear you are simply an ignorant blowhard. It passed the time for a bit, but it's got pretty boring now so I'll leave you to your fantasy world where you are a well read and knowledgable historian despite lacking knowledge beyond wikipedia.

 

[outhouse]

https://www.academia.edu/3689606/_M...te_Antique_Puzzle_Der_Islam_91.2_2014_243-265

most Byzantine sources displayed gross misunderstanding of matters Islamic, just as Muslim sources generally did of matters Byzantine.

 

[outhouse]

you are obsessed with anti-Islamic polemics

Sorry but you want to sugar coat it.

I follow truth only, and when I do deviate I admit it

 

[outhouse]

This is NOT different interpretation

5.)Isaiah 49:8
This is what the LORD says: "In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances,

2 Corinthians 6:2
For he says, "In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you." I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.

 

[outhouse]

The concept is simple, the execution less so.

It is far from simple or its execution

 

[outhouse]

, there's no point in continuing this non-discussion

That is obvious.

You refuse to discuss the conclusions of these academic sources. Which all show plagiarized traditions. They just explain how and when and why the text was plagiarized.


And you refuse to address this, as others have pointed out

 

[Shad]

Shad said: ↑
Irrational is not about split personalities. I was pointing out that your argumentum ad populum is fallacious as no amount of people believing in something makes it true.


I endorsed the point I coloured in magenta whoever wrote that point. Please
Regards

No problem. Thanks for the clarification. I will try to remember your method of choice for future post.

 

[Shad]

Do all Jews who comment on scripture or adapt them plagiarise them? Did Greeks who evolved their mythology 'plagiarise' their own mythology?

I understand your point. Religious belief in authorship due to environment and perception over time. Consider the axioms of the culture not just your own. The modern concept of public domain and copyright are not applicable. Repetition and assimlation of common themes, ideas, stories, etc were common place.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You refuse to discuss the conclusions of these academic sources..

You speak as if you have multiple sources .. where are they?
Regards discussing conclusions, I thought that you said that it's academic knowledge that the Qur'an is copied mythology..

..nothing to discuss then

 

[outhouse]

Repetition and assimlation of common themes, ideas, stories, etc were common place.

Exactly, its not meant in a negative light, I have already mentioned most every religion did to some extent.

The modern concept of public domain and copyright are not applicable

Which is non sequitur as you stated for these ancient text.

I use the term plagiarism because COPY does not describe the book as a whole, even though there was plenty of "copy" being done.

 

[Shad]

Which is non sequitur as you stated for these ancient text.

I use the term plagiarism because COPY does not describe the book as a whole, even though there was plenty of "copy" being done.

Why not use the word adapted since the ideas within the Quran are adapted for use by a specific audience within Muhammad's environment. Also consider the claims of authorship as a religious belief rather than a claim of knowledge as the Islamic tradition presents it. For example Muhammad learns from either a source text or by oral communication stories about Moses that he believes are authored by God but communicated by humans and have for centuries. When he repeats these verses he, and us, are taking for granted that the audience hold a similar authorship religious belief. So there is no need to state the source as it is already a common belief. In a similar manner as a discussion about a piece of literature in a literature course. People do not mention or use proper citations as it is already blatantly obvious people involved. It only become an issue if this discussion is compiled into a text by other people since they remove or reinterpret what is common knowledge to the participant. This happened with the Quran when it was codified. The role of Gabriel, which is only mentioned in one verse as being involved in transmission (2:97), is also questionable. This could be a theological adaption as many of the stories of Moses and his life are adapted to mirror Muhammad and vice versa. Moses is the one biblical figure which Muhammad tries to emulate. The night journal to Jerusalem for example is a reference to the nighttime exodus of Moses. A minor reference to Gabriel turns into the religious belief that Gabriel is always involved in transmission of every verse mentioned by Muhammad. The common knowledge of the environment is ignored in order create a supernatural knowledge miracle. This is further reinforced by the biographies of Muhammad which attempt to present him as an ignorant illiterate to heighten the miracle narrative driven by a religious belief that emerged later.

 

[outhouse]

Why not use the word adapted since the ideas within the Quran are adapted for use by a specific audience within Muhammad's environment

Because I use the same for all Abrahamic religions. And as far as the koran is concerned, it has the highest amount of plagiarism. It is more a copied religion in my opinion more so then any other. Just changing abrahamic traditions and myths slightly for their own needs.

The Israelites at least created new mythology surrounding many Mesopotamian myths.

Christianity while it Plagiarized the OT text, still bases its religion around the martyred man

And adopted is another name for "took" they took the Abrahamic traditions plagiarized them heavily, and claimed the prophets words are more divine then the source they took it from.

Moses is the one biblical figure which Muhammad tries to emulate.

Understood, a plagiarism in itself of others ideas.


Here is what it comes down to. Israelites created their traditions by plagiarizing and modifying previous traditions. What makes them more original is that their text evolved in their own society. Many of the concepts are original to them.

Christianity again mostly original concepts because the theology and mythology generated around the martyred Galilean, and the Hellenist who plagiarized the OT text for their own needs had been perverting Israelite theology for a long time.

When see Christianity breaking away and evolving in Hellenistic cultures away from Judaism into Judaism light so to speak, still holding Israelite text sacred.


NOT islam, not sacred enough to keep the text as is. They had to plagiarize and copy and rewrite all of it, and then claim there version is the only one creating a huge religious division responsible for millions of death, which are mostly their own! due to a vague plagiarized book that mulsim still murder each other over their literal interpretations.

No religion deserves special pleading when critically examining its origins, sometimes the truth is cold and hard to swallow.

I think most ACADEMIC scholars are afraid to call it what it is, because they know devoted followers will most likely kill anyone that poses with credibility the truth about the religion, that undermines the whole thing with logic and reason.

Only one of the Abrahamic religions is on the news almost nightly, for mass murder, genocide and terrorism on a global scale.

What people were just murdered for what drawing the prophet??? Publically calling the prophet a fake by means of plagiarism would not be to bright for a credible scholar.

 

[Augustus]

The night journal to Jerusalem for example is a reference to the nighttime exodus of Moses.

A couple of interesting articles on the night journey with different interpretations if you are interested:

The relevant narrative in question from the Bookof Exodus(Ch. 19:4) recalls what God 'did to Egypt' in the course of the Jewish flight to freedom, and how He raised the Children of Israel 'on wings of eagles' (al kanfeinesharimin) bringing them close to Him. The Aramaic translation describes how God placed the Israelites on clouds, as if on the wings of birds, and carried them from Pilusin, to be identified with Ramses in Egypt, and brought them to the site of the Beit Mukdasha(Temple)situated in Jerusalem. Thus, as the Yonatan Ben Uziel exegesis continues to explain, the Israelites were brought to the Temple in order to slaughter the Passover sacrifice animal there, that same night returning to Pilusin in Egypt. So the Israelites who were in the desert were brought to Mount Moriah, where the Temple would later stand, and there offered the sacrificial Passover lamb on the altar;thence, they quickly retumed that same night to Egypt. (Noteworthy is that neither the Qur'anic verse about the 'furthestmosque' nor the Targum Yonatan on the Biblical verse from Exodus mention Jerusalem by name, but that may be due to the fact that the city only acquired its special status by virtue of the holy mount itself.)

Note on a Possible Jewish Source for Muhammad's 'Night Journey'
Mordechai Nisan
Arabica
T. 47, Fasc. 2 (2000), pp. 274-277
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4057478


Further, as Stephen Shoemaker has argued, early mu’minūn evidently viewed Muḥammad’s death as an unexpected calamity. He had planned to enter Jerusalem in eschatological triumph, but failed.2 How could Muḥammad be God’s final prophet when he had died in exile from the Holy Land, just like the disobedient Moses? God had instead made Jerusalem the Holy City of Jesus, Romans, and Christians, as Q 17:1-8 confirmed.

To fix this vulnerability, Q 17:1 was interpolated to claim that Muḥammad had made a miraculous journey to Jerusalem. The interpolator adapted a distinctive anti-Chalcedonian pilgrimage tradition: When a holy man could not enter Jerusalem because the city was controlled by heretics, he could instead make a spiritual pilgrimage. As interpolated, Q 17:1 clarified that Muḥammad had not, like Moses, failed to reach Jerusalem. Instead God took him to the city, where he saw its holy signs and encountered the divine presence they embodied (a topos of Christian pilgrimage). Q 17:1 does not describe signs witnessed in heaven. Rather the text describes the servant of God as being shown the signs in Jerusalem itself, embedded in the city’s sacred geography, as revealed by God to the successor Qur’anic prophet.

Like Jesus, Muḥammad had fulfilled his destiny within the Holy City. His nocturnal pilgrimage allowed him to evade the corrupt Christian mushrikūn who controlled Jerusalem, while still claiming the Holy City’s sacred space, just as Peter the Iberian, the hero of Palestinian anti-Chalcedonians (and a central historical personality behind conversion of Arabia Petraea to Christianity), had famously made his own late 5th century nocturnal pilgrimage to Jerusalem, communing with God’s signs in the city while flouting Chalcedonian power.

Muḥammad’s Night Journey in its Palestinian Context – a Perfect Solution to a Forgotten Problem (Q 17:1)

https://www.academia.edu/17318352/M...rfect_Solution_to_a_Forgotten_Problem_Q_17_1_