Koran dated to before Muhamad birth.

[outhouse]

reinterpreting common mythology is not plagiarism

islam did not reinterpret biblical mythology it is viewed by many as perverting it for its own theological needs. And by claiming it was the true version coming directly from one warrior, is admission to plagiarizing.

It purposely changed it so it could claim it was the true version, that is plagiarized by its own claim of being true

 

[Augustus]

islam did not reinterpret biblical mythology it perverted it for its own theological needs. And by claiming it was the true version coming directly from one warrior, is admission to plagiarizing.

It purposely changed it so it could claim it was the true version, that is plagiarized by its own claim of being true

The Quran is a discourse/commentary of various religious traditions that were well known in the late antique Middle East. You can't pass off stories as your own if people actually know the stories. What you can do is to explain the meaning or make rhetorical points using the material. Seeing as this is about the Birmingham Quran, look at Surat Ta-Ha, is this a 'plagiarism' of the story of Moses and Adam, or a rhetorical discourse on the stories of Moses and Adam?

People using the word 'plagiarised' - anti-Islam websites, you.

People not using the word 'plagiarised' - credible academics in multiple fields such as history, linguistics and theology.

Why don't academics use the phrase plagiarised? Why don't even the most radical revisionists use the word plagiarised? Can you even find a single credible source to support you, never mind the balance of scholarly opinion?

 

[outhouse]

You can't pass off stories as your own if people actually know the stories.

When your force your religion on pagans with a sword they have no choice, and do not know the traditions.

 

[outhouse]

Why don't academics use the phrase plagiarised?

pla·gia·rize
[ˈplājəˌrīz]

VERB

1. take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own.

Did the warrior pass of this new tradition as his own? Oh yes he did.


What was his source? oh gee I don't know that is a tough one, but ill go for "the bible for a thousand alex!"


Ask yourself Augustus, why doesn't one credible scholar in the whole world use the Koran as a historical source for Jesus or Israelite history?

Because plagiarized theology 600 year later has no historical value.

 

[FearGod]

you just don't understand. This is factually not an atheist position or opinion.

This is credible knowledge.

You didn't understand what i had said

Knowledge is power, don't debate unarmed.

After the last ice age population levels were to low for nomadic people to exist.

Around 13,500 years ago RIGHT after the least ice age the population started to rise and agriculture started.

Soon after these nomadic people turned into semi nomadic. This went on until about 6000 years ago when the good climates increased food production and human population's became large enough TO FORM A CIVILIZATION.

Did you go to grade school? Here our children are taught these facts at a very early age. This is now considered common knowledge.

But they lived in the ice free world during the ice era which was suitable for living, but no evidence for intelligence, not even reading and writing.

What about Africa , why no civilization existed except in the last few thousands of years and the ice age has nothing to do with Africa.

 

[outhouse]

Uh oh! credible sources oh my.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_and_Quranic_narratives

From a modern scholarly perspective, similarities between Biblical and Quranic accounts of the same person or event are evidence for the influence of pre-existing traditions on the composition of the Quran

 

[Augustus]

When your force your religion on pagans with a sword they have no choice, and do not know the traditions.

How 'pagan' the Arabs were is a contentious and debated issue. The audience of the Quran appears to be people well acquainted with the Abrahamic traditions

Ask yourself Augustus, why doesn't one credible scholar in the whole world use the Koran as a historical source for Jesus or Israelite history?

Because plagiarized theology 600 year later has no historical value.

The answer to that question is not 'because it was plagiarised'.

What was his source? oh gee I don't know that is a tough one, but ill go for "the bible for a thousand alex!"

Actually, much of it relates to non-cannonical gospels and non scriptural mythology as well as the Bible. It is a discourse based on the late antique religious and political milieu, and in part, polemic, against certain religious trends - such as the polytheism of 'monotheists'.

You have a dictionary and can copy the definition of plagiarism, that is admirable. But, as I have explained, I disagree that this is an example of plagiarism. You are using a very simplistic and distorted concept of plagiarism.

All credible scholars seem to agree on this point. You and anti-Islam websites disagree with the scholarly consensus.

Without quoting a dictionary definition again, can you explain why all credible scholars avoid the term 'plagiarised'? Why don't they think it is accurate to use the term 'plagiarised'? Why is your understanding better than that of every major scholar in the field?

 

[outhouse]

Actually, much of it relates to non-cannonical gospels and non scriptural mythology as well as the Bible.

I never stated they only plagiarized the bible. We see many text plagiarized in its compilation.

all credible scholars avoid the term 'plagiarised'?

They don't need to use the word plagiarized, because the words they use mean the SAME EXACT THING.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_and_Quranic_narratives

From a modern scholarly perspective, similarities between Biblical and Quranic accounts of the same person or event are evidence for the influence of pre-existing traditions on the composition of the Quran

So we have the influence of pre-existing traditions and incorporated biblical mythology including Moses and Abraham.

= plagairized

 

[outhouse]

I disagree that this is an example of plagiarism

Then you have some explaining of how previous well known Abrahamic traditions ended up in these later text you value.

Then what is the main source of islamic traditions, knowing some of the words are almost identical to the bible ?

Does islam claim these are the true traditions received from the man?

 

[Augustus]

They don't need to use the word plagiarized, because the words they use mean the SAME EXACT THING.

Then surely it must have been used by someone at some point if it means exactly the same thing. Find me an example.

So we have the influence of pre-existing traditions and incorporated biblical mythology including Moses and Abraham.

= plagairized

Even the Islamic narrative, never mind critical scholarship, knows about the relationship between the Quran and existing tradition.

Repeating that it is plagiarism doesn't make it so.

Do you understand the difference between the point being made by this scholar and plagiarism?

"From a literary point of view, we should talk of Qur’ānic Psalms, as well as Qur’ānic madrāšē, memrē, and soḡiyāthā72. I don’t mean that the texts I am inclined to call Qur’ānic Psalms, madrāšē, and so on, are a servile borrowing of Syriac literary traditions – far from that: they are adapted, not without creativity, to the context of Arabic language and literature (e.g. Syriac verse is based on syllabic count, contrary to Arabic poetry and Arabic saǧ‘). But – and this is crucial –, they share compositional features with their Syriac/Aramaic homologs, they draw from them a good part of their verbal, phraseological and thematic repertoire, and, also, they play a similar role: they are suited for narrative or paraenetic compositions, and they are used in homiletic or liturgical settings. 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, “reading 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 Scripture. 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]

Do you understand the difference between the point being made by this scholar and plagiarism?

They are not differences. They are similarities. It is another way of saying it was plagiarized.

The reason this scholar is not using the word plagiarized is because they are going into exact details of the plagiarized material.

 

[outhouse]

Does islam claim these are the true traditions received from the man?

 

[Shad]

Do you understand the difference between the point being made by this scholar and plagiarism?

"From a literary point of view, we should talk of Qur’ānic Psalms, as well as Qur’ānic madrāšē, memrē, and soḡiyāthā72. I don’t mean that the texts I am inclined to call Qur’ānic Psalms, madrāšē, and so on, are a servile borrowing of Syriac literary traditions – far from that: they are adapted, not without creativity, to the context of Arabic language and literature (e.g. Syriac verse is based on syllabic count, contrary to Arabic poetry and Arabic saǧ‘). But – and this is crucial –, they share compositional features with their Syriac/Aramaic homologs, they draw from them a good part of their verbal, phraseological and thematic repertoire, and, also, they play a similar role: they are suited for narrative or paraenetic compositions, and they are used in homiletic or liturgical settings. 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, “reading 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 Scripture. 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

Keep in mind the difference between the theological views and those from academia. While academia makes a clear case for the religious environment of the area at the time, and time before it. The theological narrative does not as the source of this information is from Allah rather than picking up knowledge from humans. Keep in mind the author making claims of knowledge rather than the environment of the book itself.

 

[Augustus]

They are not differences. They are similarities. It is another way of saying it was plagiarized.

The reason this scholar is not using the word plagiarized is because they are going into exact details of the plagiarized material.

So every serious scholar avoids the term 'plagiarised' simply because they mean plagiarised but don't choose to use the term as they choose another way of saying plagiarised?

Every serious scholar, independently, conforms to some unwritten rule that only anti-Islam websites manage to avoid?

Seriously?

Keep in mind the difference between the theological views and those from academia. While academia makes a clear case for the religious environment of the area at the time, and time before it. The theological narrative does not as the source of this information is from Allah rather than picking up knowledge from humans. Keep in mind the author making claims of knowledge rather than the environment of the book itself.

If the source is God or Muhammed the man it makes no difference (or anyone else). It is still a distinctive religious commentary.

 

[outhouse]

Does islam claim these are the true traditions received from the man?



You cannot hide from the elephant in the room by any misdirection of an argument.

 

[Shad]

If the source is God or Muhammed the man it makes no difference (or anyone else). It is still a distinctive religious commentary.

Which only gives credit to two entities, one really, Allah. However since Allah is not considered at all within academia these claims become plagiarism as these stories are not a product of an environment. Like I said if you look at the theology then outhouse is right. If the theology of divine creative writing is ignored then no. Keep in mind the source of information is different thus should be treated differently.

Keep in mind when looking at Islam without it's theological claims there are no issue. However this is not the same version of Islam people follow.

 

[outhouse]

However this is not the same version of Islam people follow.

That is 100% correct, without a divine source there is no islam. No muslim can refuse this or they are not muslim

 

[Augustus]

Which only gives credit to two entities, one really, Allah. However since Allah is not considered at all within academia these claims become plagiarism as these stories are not a product of an environment. Like I said if you look at the theology then outhouse is right. If the theology of divine creative writing is ignored then no. Keep in mind the source of information is different thus should be treated differently.

It is the interpretation/discourse that is distinctive, not the stories. The Quran is a commentary not a story book.

I'll go back to the same point as there is no point on repeating my previous analysis, why don't academic scholars use the term plagiarism? I'm still waiting for even a single example of its usage, never mind anything approaching a consensus (even if we only included the revisionists in this consensus).

 

[outhouse]

So we have the influence of pre-existing traditions and incorporated biblical mythology including Moses and Abraham.

#1 Who's ideas or work did these traditions belong to originally?

#2 Does islam claim these are the true traditions received from the man?



Failure to answer these 2 questions honestly, defaults to admission of plagiarism.

 

[Unification]

That is 100% correct, without a divine source there is no islam. No muslim can refuse this or they are not muslim

Muslim and Islam are separate.