Origins of the Quran/Islam - various academic perspectives

[Shad]

That is not the definition of plagiarized

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


TAKE ideas is the key phrase and pass it off as ones OWN

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)[2] form parts of Islam's scriptures


And this states islam TOOK biblical events, and used them in its OWN mythology

It wasn't meant to be. It just shows that you do not understand the difference between the two. You claim plagiarism, which is negative, then use a different term which carries none of the negative parameters you argue for. All you have shown is that your wiki source is in conflict regarding it's terminology. This is due to it's nature of using a few citations in order to create a general view. However the page does not have a unified editorial process, anyone can add and/or remove what they wish. These changes will remain until another person decides otherwise. There is no single author thus conflicts over terminology used, as your own posts show, again due to the fact that anyone can be an author on the page. The lack of a single author create a mess as the writing style, use of technical or layman jargon can change from sentence to sentence. Hence why people usually reference the sources of the wiki rather than the wiki itself.

 

[Shad]

non sequitur.

YOU do not get to redefine plagiarize

I didn't. Plagiarism carries a parameter of willful deception since one author is willingly and knowingly presenting another author's work as their own. That is a deception....

 

[outhouse]

Plagiarism carries a parameter of willful deception

Not how it is defined. That is after the fact, one can plagiarize without being deceptive.

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

 

[outhouse]

All you have shown is that your wiki source is in conflict regarding it's terminology

You just don't like it. It states very clearly what happened.


Look we all know islam plagiarized the bible, would you rather use they copied in some places?

Which religions owned the theology of moses and noah and abraham?

And which religion TOOK that and claimed it as the true version?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You just don't like it. It states very clearly what happened.

No .. you just wish to interpret it that way. It's an article about 'Islamic mythology'. We have aready established that mythology, in this context, is not necessarily untrue. It logically follows that the article is NOT claiming the koran was plagarised .. it might be, but it might not..

 

[outhouse]

We have aready established that mythology, in this context, is not necessarily untrue.

No we have not.

Abraham and moses and noah are all mythological characters that have no historicity what so ever.

And islam TOOK these characters and redefined the mythology, not knowing they would get busted in the future for copied mythology

 

[Shad]

Not how it is defined. That is after the fact, one can plagiarize without being deceptive.

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

Yet the Quran claims that such knowledge is from God hence it provides a citation, which is religious belief in previous text authorship, which just makes the citation wrong, not plagiarism

 

[outhouse]

Yet the Quran claims that such knowledge is from God hence it provides a citation, which is religious belief in previous text authorship,

false again


islam teaches that men are the authors of said CORRUPTED traditions.

It states only god gave them the correct version. When we know it was just copied mythology

 

[outhouse]

You cannot make excuses all day long for copied mythology. Noah is copied mythology. As is Moses, as is Adam and Eve

 

[outhouse]

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


TAKE ideas is the key phrase and pass it off as ones OWN

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)[2] form parts of Islam's scriptures


And this states islam TOOK biblical events, and used them in its OWN mythology


There is nothing here you can refute

 

[Shad]

You just don't like it. It states very clearly what happened.

No all I am doing questioning how you term it. You want to call it plagiarism which carries intention you have not established at all.

Look we all know islam plagiarized the bible, would you rather use they copied in some places?

Now you change copy to plagiarism yet have not established any intention for plagiarism at all. You are playing loose with words here treating as if every term you use is identical to plagiarism.

Which religions owned the theology of moses and noah and abraham?

Doesn't matter really as you are attempting to use theology as if it had a copy-right. It doesn't as the Quran acknowledges it as being from a previous "version" of God dictated religion.

And which religion TOOK that and claimed it as the true version?

Islam is not a thing thus can not take anything. You are also treating Islam when it emerged as if it was the same Islam during the Imperial and Modern eras. Both Augustus and I have already dismissed the Imperial and Modern era claims regarding Islam as claimed by Muslims.

 

[outhouse]

You want to call it plagiarism which carries intention

This is only by your personal definition.

It is a verb.

two parts.

Taken

Claimed as own.

Intention factually does not matter

 

[outhouse]

the Quran acknowledges it as being from a previous "version" of God dictated religion.

No it does not.

your moving goal post

 

[Shad]

You cannot make excuses all day long for copied mythology. Noah is copied mythology. As is Moses, as is Adam and Eve

There is a difference between the story of Noah is that the story was change radically then claimed as if it was fact and origin. While the Quran didn't change the stories of Noah to become a new story with a completely different character. The Quran relies on previous tradition, it mentions it repeatedly, but claims it's version are the authentic.

 

[outhouse]

The Quran relies on previous tradition

TOOK

but claims it's version are the authentic.

Its OWN


Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology.

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

 

[Shad]

This is only by your personal definition.

Nope, its called reading comprehension and understanding the phrase "stole and presented as their own" in other words which are more complex than a dictionary citation.. Stealing something and presenting it as your own is a willing deception as 1. The person in question knows they are taking the work of others, 2. They know they are presenting a fraudulent claim.

Intention factually does not matter

Actually it does since if they take someone's work and claim it as they own they are showing they have the intention of claim credit from another person

 

[Shad]

Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology.

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

So, that still isn't plagiarism. All you are doing is take different words and claim all words mean someone willing stole work for a purpose that benefits them, and them only. You have yet to establish your argument. All you do is argue semantics poorly since all words mean plagiarism in your mind. What if Muhammad already believed in that mythology? He stole nothing but is merely stating, commenting, on views he already holds as a religious belief. You argument amounts to that no one that is not Jewish can be a Christian, ever, since Christianity is based on tradition which most Christians were never a part of. No person that is not from Arabia can be a Muslim. Not one can use any tradition which does not have roots within their family history. No one can use any idea that is not native to their origins. No one can believe in anything not from their origins.

 

[outhouse]

I like this.

 

[Shad]

I like this.

That is a great argument from authority. Let me know when Hitchens qualified as a historian, oh wait he didn't. Also do note that the Islam he argued against is one we already dismissed.

 

[outhouse]

This is good

http://endofreligions.blogspot.com/p/islams-plagiarized-christian-origins.html

I am a student of comparative religion who has studied Islam for several years. I have come to the conclusion that the Koran is not the word of any deity and that it was largely plagiarized from various Christian myths, oral traditions, spurious writings and heresies which I shall endeavor to discuss In detail.