lakeman

If Abraham or Moses were just fictional characters, completely made up by the authors of the OT then (barring their entrance into the public domain) I could see no way in which using the character names in ones own work would not be plagiarism.

Of course as much as one might try to prove that they are fictional characters it won't be proven.

And since both the writers of the OT and Mohamed claim to be writing about historical events it makes sense to start from that place.

So did Mohamed plagiarized the OT writers just by using the names?

Here are some examples of the use of the name moses in both the bible and in the Quran:

Bible:

"And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God." Exodus 31:18
"When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand as he came down from the mountain, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God." Exodus 34:29
"And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone." Deuteronomy 4:13
"These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me." Deuteronomy 5:22
"And the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words that the LORD had spoken with you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly." Deuteronomy 9:10

Here are some from the Quran:

And We wrote for him on the Tablets (al-alwahi) of everything an admonition, and a distinguishing of everything: 'So take it forcefully, and command thy people to take the fairest of it. I shall show you the habitation of the ungodly. S. 7:145
And when Moses returned to his people, angry and sorrowful, he said, 'Evilly have you done in my place, after me; what, have you outstripped your Lord's commandment?' And he cast down the Tablets (al-alwaha), and laid hold of his brother's head, dragging him to him. He said, 'Son of my mother, surely the people have abased me, and well nigh slain me. Make not my enemies to gloat over me, and put me not among the people of the evildoers. S. 7:150
And when Moses' anger abated in him, he took the Tablets (al-alwaha) and in the inscription of them was guidance, and mercy unto all those who hold their Lord in awe. S. 7:154

The first account from the Bible is said to be written during the life of Moses (mostly by moses or by those chronicling his life). There is no appeal to revelation.




The second account from the Quran is said to be written during the life of Mohamed (after the events) and recorded by his Chroniclers. Since he was not there he says that he learned of this from the Angel Gabriel.


So is the second a plagiarism of the first?

For starters the resemblance in the words used is hardly existent at all. That would be the first thing I would look for: exact quotes simply cut out and pasted into the new work. However they do both contain the name Moses. Did Mohamed steal this characters name from the OT? Well if he heard the account from the Angel who no doubt could have been a direct witness then no. If that is the case then he just recorded what an eyewitness said. If Mohamed learned this from Gabriel it is not a plagiarism.

However, if he heard it from an angel we would expect the account to be free of errors or contradictions with the original material.

The case does not seem too strong to me but there is an alleged contradiction. The argument says that the word for the tablets is a Arabic word that must mean more than two tablets. If this is correct then either an angel is wrong as he was telling this to Mohamed, or the bible was wrong as it records the event, or Mohamed was wrong as he recorded it.

To me the most likely case is that Mohamed was wrong as he wrote an account that he heard from other men. That would be plagiarism. But unfortunately this depends on a number of premises being true. 1. that the word for tablet must mean more than two and 2. that the account in the bible is the correct one (which I personally don't doubt).

Take away the alleged contradiction and one is left with the possibility that Mohamed did actually hear the story from Gabriel and we cannot conclude that it had to be plagiarism.

Maybe there is a better example of the use of the names Moses or Abraham that would show the plagiarism but so far I have not seen it.

Of course we only need to demonstrate that Mohamed did not hear any part of the Quran from Gabriel to demonstrate that he was saying a falsehood when he claimed that it was all told to him from Gabriel. Any intrinsic error in any part would show that it was not revealed from an angel. Furthermore I would say that finding contradictions between the Quran and the Bible would only lead to questions about which is in error. The more productive approach is to find internal errors withing the Quran.

Here is a site that claims to discuss them:

Contradictions Within The Qur'an

If any of these (or others) are right then Gabriel did not reveal the Quran to Mohamed. Then and only then can we say broad similarities are plagiarized.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.
-James Madison-

Advertising

Desidude666

Firstly, Jews are Jewish and Muslims follow Islam, they are different. Let's agree to that.

Now, Christians were needed to convert to Judaism before converting to Christianity, which was mostly made of Gentiles. Muslims did not, let's get that out of the way.

Finally, Mohammed, when using these characters and terminologies did not specifically ever state to his followers or within his Quran that the terms he is using already exist in the Jewish lore and he is merely interpreting the original - so to his readership, this is an original and authentic piece of work.

This is theft, simply put. You are selling someone else's ideas as your own in a different package that is distinct from the original, seriously, why don't you write a story called Gretel and Hansel (inverted names from the original) and sell it as your own? Give it away even. What would you call that?

So minor alterations due to the fact that he couldn't read or write doesn't make it irrelevant then? You do know that he recited it to someone else who was writing down *after* hearing them from his trade-sources and servant - who is said to be Jewish. I am rather surprised that you are reacting as if he wrote the Quran and how minor tweaks in the story would have any proof of his originality in it?

At one had you state that Abraham/Moses may not be historical figures, confirming that they are intellectual property - the second you claim that alterations in the story have certain bearing towards originality - despite actually telling the same story with the same characters under a different label - Islam which today challenges Judaism for converts and undermines the original.

I still don't get your point.



The second account from the Quran is said to be written during the life of Mohamed (after the events) and recorded by his Chroniclers. Since he was not there he says that he learned of this from the Angel Gabriel.

Again, does St. Gabriel exist? And for starters, when he recited the Quran, it was written down by someone else. And that writer did *not* see St. Gabriel. He isn't reporting because no one else is witness to his account. If you want argue further, we could state that the Quran has undergone thousands and thousands of changes and amendments. The versions out there differ greatly due to the divided state of Islam today.

How Shias celebrate Asura and Sunnis don't is a clear example. It's clear theft, in my view, because they are establishing their own system using information derived from another system - which has credited it's authors. You must credit else, you're a stealing theif who steals someone else's ideas to undermine the same person.

Of course the fact that he couldn't read or write or that no one, not even his wife, has seen this angel doesn't dampen your spirits then? Of course, somehow strangely he finds himself at the top of the Muslim order because of which the Saudi monarchy are justifying their rule in Saudi Arabia or his 'successors' appointed, who are basically members of his family. So St. Gabriel does 'appear' to him, fine... even if we take that argument, what about the others?

This was political - and his opposition were better than the modern muslims think because they firstly only banished him, in fact, it is clear that they were reluctant to have him killed because it was against their pagan system. They only wanted to have him killed when he started attacking caravans and undermine their existing protocols.

Of course, the fact also remains that Islam was only officially established when they battled for Mecca and when he conquered Mecca. It had no right to exist - because it was primarily spread on the force of the sword. From Arabia to West/Centra/East Asia - Islam has a single historical trend of the use of violence to spread itself.

Like later Christian crusaders, I may add.

Of course, if you had known that he was illiterate and did not actually write the Quran, you would think otherwise, I am sure. Of course, despite the fact that there are multiple authors of the Quran and that it was written over hundreds of years and not in the cave where Mohammed met St. Gabriel would more or less prove me point.

I have no problems with Muslims. It's a simply a literary bad version of Christianity but I do have problems with people who claim that theirs is the 'True' version and everyone else is impure. This despite the fact that you use someone else' resources to undermine them is a case of real ignorance.

I respect the right to belief but not the process of undermining. You don't prove anything in religion, which initself needs to prove itself.

What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

lakeman

[quote=Desidude666;673722]
Which if it were revealed to him by Gabriel would be true.
Well If I knew two people named Gretel and Hansel and I wrote a story about them it would not be stolen would it?


Um yes I do know that it was recited to someone else I said that in my post. Wat my statement about that not read?

If mohamed had another person write things down for him that changes nothing.

Alterations in the text would demonstrate that it is not a product of revelation from Gabriel. That has not been introduced so far so it cannot be used as evidence that plagiarism was proven on that point.


Perhaps because I never stated that they were not historical figures. I stated the opposite but talked about a hypothetical situation in which they were fictional.

This is the part where I said that Mohamed had others write it down for him. Maybe it was not read because it got mixed in with posts that were not mine.



Right> Does Gabriel exist? If you have no evidence that he does not then the alternative that he does and revealed the Quran to Mohamed is an explanation that negates the possibility of plagiariasm. If Gabrial revealed things to Mohamed who then had others write it down for him the existence of secretaries would not make it plagiarism.

If on the other hand there were thousands of changes to the Quran (a book that cliams to have the unchanging word of Allah) then that would be evidence that it was not revealed by Gabriel. But this would also be the first time it has been presented as evidence so we cannot use it to say that previously a case has been successfully made for plagiarism.


If we believe that Gabriel (not saint) appeared to him then there is no case for plagiarism! the lack of witnesses to Gabriel's appearance does weaken its possibility but does not make it impossible.



This would also negate the possiblilty that it was revealed by Gabriel (still not a saint) and therefor necessitate that it was plagiarized. Howeve this has not been introduced into evidence previously so plagiarism was not previously demonstrated based on this. If it can be shown to us that it was written over hundreds of years then the case will be made.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.
-James Madison-

Desidude666

[quote=lakeman;673780]Again, first you claim that we couldn't prove Abraham existing, now we are talking about your earlier reporting claims - which I have already answered - that they are Jewish literary figures. If you are writing something 'new' about these figures fine - if you story is the same as in where we all know you got it from, that's theft, especially when you want to differentiate yourself and undermine the other.

And despite that, you are giving me this? The man was illiterate and you're arguing over authenticity?

It changes everything - if you've ever seen how thick the Quran actually is. Don't tell me St. Gabriel comes visits him every now and then to check updates.

Having been into writing for a while now, all I can add is it's a fairytale if you think the Quran is a massive literary master piece - like the Bible, which is a canonized compilation, it simply steals information without referencing. Which then tells me that it's plagiarism - and considering it's current stance, it's theft.

Plagiarism has already been proven - because nothing and I mean absolutely *nothing* is credited to another document or literature. If so, we should have seen references, my current accusation is one of theft.

Plagiarism is proven - it's theft now.

So, if it was a widely acknowledge fact that these characters are Jewish concepts and identities belonging to Jewish tribes, what are your perceptions over intellectual property?

Now if we are to borrow these concepts, which are generally understood to be Jewish, and how these are used to differentiate views from Judaism which are used to undermine it in contemporary Islam - we have a situation of borrowing concepts to create new indoctrination concepts which is then used to propose an *alternative* ot Judaism.

It is a 'new' offering as an alternative to Judaism, despite borrwing from Jewish concepts. And this isn't plagiarism or theft?

Ok, let's do away with the 'maybes' and concentrate on what's here. Consider the facts that we are facing. Don't try and defend concepts, try question them. Let's change the way we talk - debating over factualities and not improbables.

Yes, it's still plagiarism and I've already answered this point to you - that he isn't reporting because of the size of the literature and that he would have one rather superhuman memory - in fact, even this is disputed.

If historical accounts are taken into consideration, we are told that Mohammed frequented the caves very often but was visited just a couple of times. So try having someone recite the Quran today and interpret it as widely and indepth as possible and then compare how long an average human being who doesn't even know how to write.

Comparisons can be made - a person doesn't know how to write and that he would need assistance to actually even write... and he remembers a complete book... and what's worse, in poetry?

Again, it's not Gabriel but his trade links. DO you believe that he actually rode a unicorn to 'heaven' and met Abraham or Moses or Yeshua? If not, then don't buy the Gabriel story.

Inspite of even that, it's tiddly winks. It's really plagiarism, consider the facts not probables. Don't defend jsut for the sake of defending plagiarism, instead apply the facts.

What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

sid2112

It's Qur'an, not Koran

Who's awesome? I'm Awesome!

lakeman

[quote=Desidude666;673805][quote=lakeman;673780]It is not proven that they are Jewish fictional literary characters. As long as they could be historical figures then Mohamed's claim that he is reporting on history could be.

It does not matter if he was illiterate since if he had others pen it for him his claim that he received historical facts from an angel has not been countered very well. I believe it can be countered but I am just waiting for that to be done.

That seems to be what he has claimed. If that is not believeable then post that as part of the argument that the book was plagiarized. But holding that thought in one's own mind and then stating the conclusion alone is not a good argument.
I have no such belief that it is a literary masterpiece. But until one has countered the possibility that it is a historical work dictated to scribes and revealed by an angel one has countered nothing and proven no plagiarism.

This is the most wrong thing to have been said in a while. The Quran clearly credits all the information to the angel Gabriel. Since I have put forth an argument against this idea I am qualified to place that into a statement about the book being plagiarized. Anyone who wants to claim that it is plagiarized without first countering the possibility that it was revealed by an angel is not making a good argument.



Um, no it is not widely acknowledged that these are Jewish characters. My belief is that they are Jewish historical figures. Anyone in the world who has first hand information or divinely revealed information about historical facts can state it with out plagiarizing.
No demonstration has been made that these concepts are borrowed rather than divinely inspired. So why not address this and include that in a statement about plagiarism?


Well now some progress is being made. Go on. Is this evidence that Gabriel did not reveal the Quran to Mohamed? If not why bother to say it? Since this was included as a part of the argument it must have some relevance. In fact without discounting Mohamed's claim that the Quran was revealed by Gabriel there is no argument standing.
Ever heard of the Illiad? Completely memorized before being written down.

But yes that would be a remarkable feat. One that would question the actuality of the claim.


Um no I don't buy that. But not because I have an anti-supernatural bias. I don't believe it because the Quran is not an internally consistent document.

Aw, go ahead, admit that one cannot prove plagiarism as long as the alternative of divine revelation is on the table.



And I have already said that I do think it is plagiarism. The point here has always been that no one else on this thread has made a case that holds water that it is plagiarism.

Go ahead you can do it.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.
-James Madison-

Desidude666

Having read all that - just one question before I go on:

Are you arguing for his authenticity based on an understanding that St. Gabriel and all of his (for your information he didn't come to Mohammed to inform him of these stories, he visited him to inform him that he was 'chosen' as a prophet, so all of that revelation argument off the hook) writing was 'rea' or fiction? I need to know your stand on this.

Or are you arguing that all of that is disputed? I mean seriously, you are running round and round and round around the whole argument - despite actually agreeing to a case of "possible" (despite proven) case of plagiarism up there.

As I said, don't argue for the sake of arguing, look at facts and use some common sense, no offense here.

What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

lakeman

I am arguing that one cannot make a case for plagiarism unless one has demonstrated not only that 1) Mohamed used the same names but that he 2) did not use them because his source was an eyewitness and used those names.

You have clearly proven part one. I have stated that I believe part 2. So I believe that it was plagiarized.

What I am waiting for is for you come out and include part two in your argument because part one alone does not cut it. You cannot make a sound case for plagiarism unless you have an answer for the alternatives.

P.S. a saint (St.) is a person who is a Christian ( or in the Catholic church one who is recognized formally as a Christian). An angel is not a saint because they were created as angels and were never people and because they do not have faith ( they know) so are not Christians.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.
-James Madison-

Desidude666

The Torah is already an alternative and I've already given you the hyperlinks for a quick summary of evidence. It's not a report because he is indoctrinating people - new findings. It cannot be reporting because during the time of writing of the book, St. Gabriel wasn't present - he heard it from the angel, then interpreted it later on. So in this case, I think this is where you are not consider the fallacy of your argument at all - that it wasn't written by hearing a report, rather, written years later and was written so by another person altogether. Since Abraham, Moses or Yeshua are terms and characters used as identities of other respective cultures, the use of these characters is clear evidence of plagiarism - especially if there is no reference list in the Quran or a list of documents that one may also find these ideas.

The Quran also states that it is the sole book for such stories, which is evidendly a false claim where it attempts to position itself above it's sources thus clarly exemplifying my case of intellectual theft. As I said, it's already proven beyond doubt.

On the St. issue, for the information, a St. may not necessarily be related to human beings (monks/nuns) who are able to produce 'miracles' and so forth as verified by the Catholic Church, rather, a designation given previously to servants of God, prior to our modern understanding.

It has been a common practice in orthodox communities to address angels as Saints (because they are "Saints"). When Christians used to pray to St. Michael for, say, exorcisms and battles so forth - they addressed most of the Arch Angels as saints. I address them as saints to avoid confusion since I am talking to someone from the Judeo-Christian community especially since names are so common. Technically, even if you type the terms st. gabriel, you should know what I am talking about.

What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

lakeman

I stand corrected. It is not the definition of Saint that I have ever heard but you are correct it is one of them.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.
-James Madison-