Koran dated to before Muhamad birth.

[outhouse]

Muslim and Islam are separate.

non sequitur to my statement.

I never stated or implied they were the same


Academic Comprehension is mandatory in a debate

 

[Shad]

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

I was just pointing out that there is a theological side to consider. After all Augustus is arguing from a position in which the theological claims have no value as facts. However by doing so he is reinterpreting the theological narratives as commentary, as if it was commentary on of the bible, when Islam is not such thing.There are claims, directives, codes of conduct, laws, etc. These go well beyond commentary. It is a religion not commentary as if holding no theological or divine claims/values.

 

[Unification]

non sequitur to my statement.

I never stated or implied they were the same


Academic Comprehension is mandatory in a debate

"No muslim can refuse this or they are not muslim."

A Muslim can refuse Islam.

 

[Augustus]

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

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

Jesus wept.

Of all the greatest scholars in the field, only you have noticed it is 'plagiarism'? Or does everyone else knows it's plagiarism yet doesn't use the term plagiarism for some unknown reason?

Find me just one credible scholar who uses the term and maybe there is a point in continuing the discussion. Otherwise it is a waste of time.

I was just pointing out that there is a theological side to consider. After all Augustus is arguing from a position in which the theological claims have no value. However by doing so he is reinterpreting the theological narratives as commentary, as if it was commentary on of the bible, when Islam is not such thing. There are claims, directives, codes of conduct, laws, etc. These go well beyond commentary. It is a religion not commentary as if holding no theological or divine claims/values.

From God or otherwise, it is a commentary. Where it is not a commentary, where is the 'plagiarism'?

 

[Shad]

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

It a theological text making claims about reality and to introduce a new "true" religion as the other religion are false and/or corrupted. That is not commentary.

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).

Since the theological claims have zero value in academia. It has already ignored the key foundation of Islam as not worth considering. That the book is a produce of Allah thus divine. Hence why I made a clear distinction between the theology of the text versus the academic views of it. Outhouse is addressing the theological claims via academic information where as you are using academic information to reinterpret the theological claims with in it.

So if looking at the theology within the narrative it presents while dismiss/rejecting the divine claims then it is plagiarism as Mo claims to knowledge are not from humans but from the divine. Just as if I were to repeat Einstein's theory of General Relativity but claimed my knowledge is from the divine not from human sources. I am plagiarizing. Plagiarizing can be as simple as not providing a citation for the sources I used or not paraphrasing a quote enough. Keep in mind every verse is from Allah, not a human, as per theology.

 

[outhouse]

I was just pointing out that there is a theological side to consider. After all Augustus is arguing from a position in which the theological claims have no value. However by doing so he is reinterpreting the theological narratives as commentary, as if it was commentary on of the bible, when Islam is not such thing. There are claims, directives, codes of conduct, laws, etc. These go well beyond commentary. It is a religion not commentary as if holding no theological or divine claims/values.

Muslims are trained very early in life on how to argue and debate the theology by agreeing with biblical text when it matches their book, and to disagree when there is a contradiction.

As well they are trained to ignore questions that they cannot answer if a positive light cannot be shed on islam. So you will see them trying their best with all their heart, no matter how much circular rhetoric and ignoring it takes, combined with misdirection. They cannot answer direct questions if the answer does not agree with central tenants of islam.

So what your seeing is an effort narrowed into only what is acceptable, despite the real definition and conclusion being much larger then discussed.

 

[outhouse]

Answer the questions honestly and in a straight forward manner.

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.

 

[Shad]

From God or otherwise, it is a commentary. Where it is not a commentary, where is the 'plagiarism'?

No as it contain directives, laws, codes of conduct, religious implication, natural implication. These all go beyond commentary. New laws are not commentary. Correction of religion, in which previous ones are claims to be corrupted not proven, is not commentary. It is a new interpretation of religion in comparison to the previous views. That is not commentary. Tafsirs are commentary since it is addressing specific sources/text/verse which the Quran rarely does. When it does it usually has the sources wrong as per it's idea of the Trinity in comparison to what Christians view of the Trinity.

 

[outhouse]

why don't academic scholars use the term plagiarism?

Non sequitur.

Scholars don't use the term pseudoscience for creation accounts in the bible, but that does not mean creation happened.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus wept.

Where did this non historical rhetoric originate?

 

[Augustus]

New laws are not commentary.

And they aren't plagiarised if they are new.

Since the theological claims have zero value in academia. It has already ignored the key foundation of Islam as not worth considering. That the book is a produce of Allah thus divine. Hence why I made a clear distinction between the theology of the text while the academic views of it. Outhouse is addressing the theological claims via academic information where as you are using academic information to reinterpret the theological claims with in it.

I'm saying that the term plagiarised is wrong. Every serious academic seems agreed on this point. Unless anyone can provide me with any evidence that suggests every single scholar is an incompetent buffoon who missed out the most obvious thing imaginable, I'll just assume that they don't actually consider the term plagiarism valid.

I've explained, repeatedly, why I find the term invalid, and I've seen no reason to change my mind as people only present a facile interpretation of the concept as it relates to perceived historical events as an alternative.

Feel free to consider it plagiarism, it's just that I don't and neither does any credible scholar.

No further need to argue the toss.

 

[Shad]

And they aren't plagiarised if they are new.

Keep in mind I never said the whole text was plagiarized. There are obvious context dependent verses specific to a time, place and/or location.

I'm saying that the term plagiarised is wrong. Every serious academic seems agreed on this point. Unless anyone can provide me with any evidence that suggests every single scholar is an incompetent buffoon who missed out the most obvious thing imaginable, I'll just assume that they don't actually consider the term plagiarism valid.

If focusing on the theological claims follow by narratives it is. For example the "Flood" is known plagiarism as it takes a preexisting story, reinterpreted it then uses it for it's own religious purpose and presents it as it's own. There is no mention of Sumerian or Babylonia sources which predate Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Stories which follow many of all the religion's narratives and plot points. Even down to specific figures bios. Islam presents these stories as it's own rather from any human source. Mo didn't get these stories from people. Every single story is from Allah's "mouth". No the scholars do not agree with you as they already ruled that Islam is based on an environment different from the one Islam claims and presents. The theologcal claims have no value, only the environment in which these were made does.

Simple question. Was Islam, according to it's own claims, reveled to one person or not? If yes then that is the definition of plagiarism. If no then Islams claims have no value but are even greater forms of plagiarism which includes a ghost writer.

I've explained, repeatedly, why I find the term invalid, and I've seen no reason to change my mind other than a facile interpretation of the concept as it relates to perceived historical events.

You have already accepted the claim by taking a position of academia versus that of Islam.

Feel free to consider it plagiarism, it's just that I don't and neither does any credible scholar.

No further need to argue the toss.

See above.

 

[Augustus]

Simple question. Was Islam, according to it's own claims, reveled to one person or not? If yes then that is the definition of plagiarism. If no then Islams claims have no value but are even greater forms of plagiarism which includes a ghost writer.

Anything deemed 'common knowledge' is exempt from charges of plagiarism.

My opinion is that this was 'common knowledge', can you explain why it was not common knowledge?

For example, the flood is common knowledge as it appears in multiple traditions.

 

[paarsurrey]

The onus on the OP
The onus of proving following verses of Mingana Collection and the existing Quran have been copied word for word from earlier texts rests now on the OP:
Mingana Collection verses 19:92-96

[19:92]Because they ascribe a son to the Gracious God.
[19:93]Whereas it becomes not the Gracious God to take unto Himself a son.
[19:94]There is none in the heavens and the earth but he shall come to the Gracious God as a bondman.
[19:95]Verily, He comprehends them by His knowledge and has numbered them all fully.
[19:96]And each of them shall come to Him singly on the Day of Resurrection.
www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=19&verse=92
Please.

Regards

 

[Shad]

Anything deemed 'common knowledge' is exempt from charges of plagiarism.

False. If I repeat E=mc2 as if it were my own work without any external information except from the divine I am plagiarizing by not giving credit to the people. More so repeating stories which themselves are plagiarized is to double down as it takes the first form of plagiarism as anything but plagiarism. Then it goes on to repeat these claims with no reference to the plagiarized sources or the original.

My opinion is that this was 'common knowledge', can you explain why it was not common knowledge?

I have no issues with it being common knowledge. However Islam does not make this claim at all. Like I said you are reinterpreting the theological claims via academia which Islam itself makes zero claims of. You are stating position directly opposite to what Islam claims. You are not cross-reference the theological claims with the academic views but creating new theology as you go.

For example, the flood is common knowledge as it appears in multiple traditions.

Yes. However the Abrahamic version are known to be plagiarized as it takes the common story, reinterpreted, adds, subtracts, modifies, etc the source story to conform to a specific religion rather then following the originals. The Flood myth within 3 religions is a prime example plagiarism. This is different from non-specific flood stories from say China which have nothing to do with the ones from the Abrahamic religions

 

[Unification]

Answer the questions honestly and in a straight forward manner.

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.

1. All of the texts, for different religions claim to be divinely inspired, a man or woman writing them under influence within a higher minded state/ under divine intervention, etc. (A prophet) They would then all belong to the same one source, not a particular tradition. No plagerism then if they belong to the one and same divine source. Moses, Abraham, etc. would come from the same one source, just written in different texts and with different words. Semantics. Each tradition would have their own text from their own prophet, in which that prophet's ideas and work came from the same one source within their mind with the same internal goals in common.
The same one source would NOT plagerism. That is why "scholars" don't use the term plagerism.

2. The texts commonly referred to as the "X"- Old Testament for Christianity, "Y"- for Islam, and "Z" for Judaism... Just a few examples... When we slap labels as to "WHO's" texts they belong to, they become plagerism in our minds. If "Islam" claims these are ONLY the true texts and their's, they become plagerism.

And if they came from the same one source, we've established that most if not all of that source did not intend it to be as a history book, as evidence suggests otherwise.

Every text has a flood story with semantics of words. If it came from the same one source, and it's obvious mythology and isn't history... Then that same one source would be what every human has in common. Parable and poetry for some kind of flooding within the mind. A metaphysical meaning as opposed to a literal, or historical meaning.

 

[outhouse]

For example, the flood is common knowledge as it appears in multiple traditions.

The flood was common mythology not knowledge.

Akkadians plagiarized Sumerian accounts.
Babylonians plagiarized both accounts.
Israelites plagiarized all accounts
islam plagiarized the biblical mythology

 

[outhouse]

Answer the questions honestly and in a straight forward manner.

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.

 

[paarsurrey]

The goal of this thread is not to bring up the plagiarized accounts.
It is to understand how the book so important to islam came to be, and what this new evidence does or does not do to help us better understand the events that took place.

Then kindly indicate the scriptures from which the following were copied, as this collection the OP and other scholars hinted existed before the birht of Muhammad:
Mingana Collection verses 19:92-96
[19:92]Because they ascribe a son to the Gracious God.
[19:93]Whereas it becomes not the Gracious God to take unto Himself a son.
[19:94]There is none in the heavens and the earth but he shall come to the Gracious God as a bondman.
[19:95]Verily, He comprehends them by His knowledge and has numbered them all fully.
[19:96]And each of them shall come to Him singly on the Day of Resurrection.
www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=19&verse=92
Please.

Regards

 

[Shad]

Outhouse,

I think the major issue here is that people are not understanding that you are attacking the theological claims not the implications of such claims. Simply put that the text is written by the divine aka Allah. Although I could be completely wrong and misinterpreting you. Maybe clarification is in order?

It seems to me that everyone arguing from an academic view has already dismissed the divine claims but seems to ignore the claims themselves as if has no value.