• 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

outhouse

Atheistically
The Quran contains aspects of Biblical and para-Biblical traditions, [ is more] accurate and non-controversial. [than saying it plagiarises them]"

Many people use the term plagiarize, it is just not an academic term. It is being polite.

Its like saying the resurrection of jesus is mythology. That is what took place, but academia wont use the term mythology either.
 

use_your_brain

Active Member
There are two parts to the definition of plagiarism

Plagiarism is not a problem it is history that has repeated itself for thousands of years, most every religion that has ever existed plagiarized concepts and claimed them as their own.

If the koran was not plagiarized, it would be called the bible.

islam is passing the copied text off as its own divine revelation, but that is not an academic position.

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)


Please notice the key phrase ITS OWN

pla·gia·rize
[ˈplājəˌrīz]
VERB
  1. take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own.
The mythology about Abraham and Moses are true, they did true exist.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
And it is your guess also, right?

Its not a guess.

We already know Abraham and noah and moses did not exist as written

Israelites were polytheist long after the time of Abraham whom we know was a literary creation.

Israelites evolved from displaced Canaanites, there never was an exodus or conquest, which means no moses as leader

There was no flood of noah, no noah, no ship. we know where and when the mythology started
 

use_your_brain

Active Member
Its not a guess.

We already know Abraham and noah and moses did not exist as written

Israelites were polytheist long after the time of Abraham whom we know was a literary creation.

Israelites evolved from displaced Canaanites, there never was an exodus or conquest, which means no moses as leader

There was no flood of noah, no noah, no ship. we know where and when the mythology started
Who said Abraham and Moses did not exist? You? Who are you? a scientist? Have you produce such a scientific text about it?
 

use_your_brain

Active Member
What part of they factually do not have historicity as ever existing, don't you understand?

Do you now what a fact is?
The facts are pieces information that can be discovered and examined. And, yes, the facts about Abraham and Moses do exist. You don't know about that, right?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member

The most damning passage, and one that must ultimately lead to a rejection of Muhammad as a prophet of God, is Sura 4:155 ff. In this passage, Muhammad makes it clear that he does not believe that Jesus was crucified. Yet Jesus' crucifixion is a central theme in the Bible.

One of the many convincing and beautiful things about the Bible is that it took nearly 1500 years to compile - not 23 years. No man could have achieved this alone. It required a chosen people, the descendents of Abraham (through Isaac), to maintain a continuous narrative and credible history. Muhammad was not an Israelite and would not have been chosen by God as a prophet. All the literary prophets were Israelites or Jews.

It should not be overlooked that the Quran is a supposed prophecy based on law. But Jesus, as the Saviour of the world, claims to have fulfilled the law. Why then, would the 'final prophet' of God return people to a condition under the law, rather than providing grace? It make no sense.
 
Last edited:

use_your_brain

Active Member
The most damning passage, and one that must ultimately lead to a rejection of Muhammad as a prophet of God, is Sura 4:155 ff. In this passage, Muhammad makes it clear that he does not believe that Jesus was crucified. Yet Jesus' crucifixion is a central theme in the Bible.

One of the many convincing and beautiful things about the Bible is that it took nearly 1500 years to compile - not 23 years. No man could have achieved this alone. It required a chosen people, the descendents of Abraham (through Isaac), to maintain a continuous narrative and credible history. Muhammad was not an Israelite and would not have been chosen by God as a prophet. All the literary prophets were Israelites or Jews.

It should not be overlooked that the Quran is a supposed prophecy based on law. But Jesus, as the Saviour of the world, claims to have fulfilled the law. Why then, would the 'final prophet' of God return people to a condition under the law, not under grace? It make no sense.
The Saint Peter, the disciple of Jesus, witnessed that jesus was not crucified. The same thing with other disciple, Barnabas.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
What do they say about Abraham and Moses?

That moses as leader of the Israelites cannot be substantiated verbatim

That they do not even try to make Abraham a historical character and that they gave up all hope a long time ago, because they know he was a literary creation.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
The Saint Peter, the disciple of Jesus, witnessed that jesus was not crucified. The same thing with other disciple, Barnabas.

The real peter the follower of jesus never wrote a word.

Not one part of the NT has any eyewitnesses that wrote a single word.

There are no credible muslim scholars in the whole world, that have anything credible about Jesus. It is as fact as a historical fact can be that jesus was crucified.
 
Top