Giving the Koran a history

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimmy85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jimmy85

Guest
Christoph Luxenberg is a German scholar and professor of ancient Semitic and Arabic languages [1]. He is the author of The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Koran: a contribution to the decoding of the language of the Qur’an (2007)), and several articles in anthologies about early Islam.

Luxenberg suggests that even the word ‘Koran’ is Syriac, derived from qeryana, a term from the Christian liturgy that means ‘lectionary’ * a book of set liturgical readings.

Luxenberg also says that Koran may have been derivated from christian works that were aimed with the pourpose of doing christian missionary evangelization but taht when they were translated to arabic their meaning was changed.

Luxenberg argues that scholars must start afresh, ignore the old Islamic commentaries, and use only the latest in linguistic and historical methods. He argues that Muhammad was preaching concepts that were new to many of his Arab hearers, concepts that Muhammad had learned from his conversations with the Arabian Jews and Christians, or from the Christians of Syria (where he is believed to have traveled). Hence, if a particular Quranic word or phrase seems meaningless in Arabic, or can be given meaning only by tortured conjectures, it makes sense – he argues – to look to the Aramaic and Syriac languages as well as Arabic.

Traditional Islamic commentary generally limits itself to Arabic lexicology; Luxenberg is proposed to expand the number of languages to be consulted. Luxenberg also argues that the Qur’an is based on earlier texts, namely lectionaries used in the Christian churches of Syria, and that it was the work of several generations to adapt these texts into the Qur’an we know today.

And he claim further discoverys.
more info here:

Giving the Koran a History

Christoph Luxenberg wikipedia
 
The Virgins and the Grapes: the Christian Origins of the Koran
A German scholar of ancient languages takes a new look at the sacred book of Islam. He maintains that it was created by Syro-Aramaic speaking Christians, in order to evangelize the Arabs. And he translates it in a new way

by Sandro Magister
  • That Aramaic was the lingua franca of a vast area of the ancient Middle East is a notion that is by now amply noted by a vast public, thanks to Mel Gibson´s film “The Passion of the Christ,” which everyone watches in that language.
But that Syro-Aramaic was also the root of the Koran, and of the Koran of a primitive Christian system, is a more specialized notion, an almost clandestine one. And it´s more than a little dangerous. The author of the most important book on the subject - a German professor of ancient Semitic and Arabic languages - preferred, out of prudence, to write under the pseudonym of Christoph Luxenberg. A few years ago, one of his colleagues at the University of Nablus in Palestine, Suliman Bashear, was thrown out of the window by his scandalized Muslim students.

In the Europe of the 16th and 17th centuries, mangled by the wars of religion, scholars of the Bible also used to keep a safe distance with pseudonyms. But if, now, the ones doing so are the scholars of the Koran, this is a sign that, for the Muslim holy book as well, the era of historical, linguistic, and philological re-readings has begun.

This is a promising beginning for many reasons. Gerd-Rüdiger Puin, a professor at Saarland University in Germany and another Koran scholar on the philological level, maintains that this type of approach to Islam´s holy book can help to defeat its fundamentalist and Manichean readings, and to bring into a better light its ties with Judaism and Christianity.

The book by “Christoph Luxenberg” came out in 2000 in Germany with the title “Die Syro-Aramäische Lesart des Koran” (“A Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran”), published in Berlin by Das Arabische Buch. It is out of print, and there are no translations in other languages. But a new, updated edition (again in German) is about to arrive in bookstores.

Here follows an interview with the author, published in Germany in the newspaper “Süddeutsche Zeitung” and in Italy in “L´espresso,” no. 11, March 12-18, 2004:

From the Gospel to Islam

An interview with “Christoph Luxenberg” by Alfred Hackensberger

Q. - Professor, why did you think it useful to conduct this re-reading of the Koran?

A. - “Because, in the Koran, there are many obscure points that, from the beginning, even the Arab commentators were not able to explain. Of these passages it is said that only God can comprehend them. Western research on the Koran, which has been conducted in a systematic manner only since about the middle of the 19th century, has always taken as its base the commentaries of the Arab scholars. But these have never gone beyond the etymological explanation of some terms of foreign origin.”

Q. - What makes your method different?

A. - “I began from the idea that the language of the Koran must be studied from an historical-linguistic point of view. When the Koran was composed, Arabic did not exist as a written language; thus it seemed evident to me that it was necessary to take into consideration, above all, Aramaic, which at the time, between the 4th and 7th centuries, was not only the language of written communication, but also the lingua franca of that area of Western Asia.”

Q. - Tell us how you proceeded.

A. - “At first I conducted a ´synchronous´ reading. In other words, I kept in mind both Arabic and Aramaic. Thanks to this procedure, I was able to discover the extent of the previously unsuspected influence of Aramaic upon the language of the Koran: in point of fact, much of what now passes under the name of ´classical Arabic´ is of Aramaic derivation.”

Q. - What do you say, then, about the idea, accepted until now, that the Koran was the first book written in Arabic?

A. - “According to Islamic tradition, the Koran dates back to the 7th century, while the first examples of Arabic literature in the full sense of the phrase are found only two centuries later, at the time of the ´Biography of the Prophet´; that is, of the life of Mohammed as written by Ibn Hisham, who died in 828. We may thus establish that post-Koranic Arabic literature developed by degrees, in the period following the work of al-Khalil bin Ahmad, who died in 786, the founder of Arabic lexicography (kitab al-ayn), and of Sibawwayh, who died in 796, to whom the grammar of classical Arabic is due. Now, if we assume that the composition of the Koran was brought to an end in the year of the Prophet Mohammed´s death, in 632, we find before us an interval of 150 years, during which there is no trace of Arabic literature worthy of note.”

it continues…
 
Q. - So at the time of Mohammed Arabic did not have precise rules, and was not used for written communication. Then how did the Koran come to be written?

A. - “At that time, there were no Arab schools - except, perhaps, for the Christian centers of al-Anbar and al-Hira, in southern Mesopotamia, or what is now Iraq. The Arabs of that region had been Christianized and instructed by Syrian Christians. Their liturgical language was Syro-Aramaic. And this was the vehicle of their culture, and more generally the language of written communication.”

Q. - What is the relationship between this language of culture and the origin of the Koran?

A. - “Beginning in the third century, the Syrian Christians did not limit themselves to bringing their evangelical mission to nearby countries, like Armenia or Persia. They pressed on toward distant territories, all the way to the borders of China and the western coast of India, in addition to the entire Arabian peninsula all the way to Yemen and Ethiopia. It is thus rather probable that, in order to proclaim the Christian message to the Arabic peoples, they would have used (among others) the language of the Bedouins, or Arabic. In order to spread the Gospel, they necessarily made use of a mishmash of languages. But in an era in which Arabic was just an assembly of dialects and had no written form, the missionaries had no choice but to resort to their own literary language and their own culture; that is, to Syro-Aramaic. The result was that the language of the Koran was born as a written Arabic language, but one of Arab-Aramaic derivation.”

Q. - Do you mean that anyone who does not keep the Syro-Aramaic language in mind cannot translate and interpret the Koran correctly?

A. - “Yes. Anyone who wants to make a thorough study of the Koran must have a background in the Syro-Aramaic grammar and literature of that period, the 7th century. Only thus can he identify the original meaning of Arabic expressions whose semantic interpretation can be established definitively only by retranslating them into Syro-Aramaic.”

Q. - Let´s come to the misunderstandings. One of the most glaring errors you cite is that of the virgins promised, in the Islamic paradise, to the suicide bombers.

A. - “We begin from the term ´huri,´ for which the Arabic commentators could not find any meaning other than those heavenly virgins. But if one keeps in mind the derivations from Syro-Aramaic, that expression indicated ´white grapes,´ which is one of the symbolic elements of the Christian paradise, recalled in the Last Supper of Jesus. There´s another Koranic expression, falsely interpreted as ´the children´ or ´the youths´ of paradise: in Aramaic: it designates the fruit of the vine, which in the Koran is compared to pearls. As for the symbols of paradise, these interpretive errors are probably connected to the male monopoly in Koranic commentary and interpretation.”

Q. - By the way, what do you think about the Islamic veil?

A. - “There is a passage in Sura 24, verse 31, which in Arabic reads, ´That they should beat their khumurs against their bags.´ It is an incomprehensible phrase, for which the following interpretation has been sought: ´That they should extend their kerchiefs from their heads to their breasts.´ But if this passage is read in the light of Syro-Aramaic, it simply means: ´They should fasten their belts around their waists.´”

Q. - Does this mean the veil is really a chastity belt?

A. - “Not exactly. It is true that, in the Christian tradition, the belt is associated with chastity: Mary is depicted with a belt fastened around her waist. But in the gospel account of the Last Supper, Christ also ties an apron around his waist before washing the Apostles´ feet. There are clearly many parallels with the Christian faith.”

Q. - You have discovered that Sura 97 of the Koran mentions the Nativity. And in your translation of the famous Sura of Mary, her “birthgiving” is “made legitimate by the Lord.” Moreover, the text contains the invitation to come to the sacred liturgy, to the Mass. Would the Koran, then, be nothing other than an Arabic version of the Christian Bible?
 
A. - “In its origin, the Koran is a Syro-Aramaic liturgical book, with hymns and extracts from Scriptures which might have been used in sacred Christian services. In the second place, one may see in the Koran the beginning of a preaching directed toward transmitting the belief in the Sacred Scriptures to the pagans of Mecca, in the Arabic language. Its socio-political sections, which are not especially related to the original Koran, were added later in Medina. At its beginning, the Koran was not conceived as the foundation of a new religion. It presupposes belief in the Scriptures, and thus functioned merely as an inroad into Arabic society.”

Q. - To many Muslim believers, for whom the Koran is the holy book and the only truth, your conclusions could seem blasphemous. What reactions have you noticed up until now?

A. - “In Pakistan, the sale of the edition of ´Newsweek´ that contained an article on my book was banned. Otherwise, I must say that, in my encounters with Muslims, I have not noticed any hostile attitudes. On the contrary, they have appreciated the commitment of a non-Muslim to studies aimed at an objective comprehension of their sacred text. My work could be judged as blasphemous only by those who decide to cling to errors in the interpretation of the word of God. But in the Koran it is written, ´No one can bring to the right way those whom God induces to error.´”

Q. - Aren´t you afraid of a fatwa, a death sentence like the one pronounced against Salman Rushdie?

A. - “I am not a Muslim, so I don´t run that risk. Besides, I haven´t offended against the Koran”

Q. - But you still preferred to use a pseudonym.

A. - “I did that on the advice of Muslim friends who were afraid that some enthusiastic fundamentalist would act of his own initiative, without waiting for a fatwa.”

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7025&eng=y
 
jimmy85 said:
A. - “In its origin, the Koran is a Syro-Aramaic liturgical book, with hymns and extracts from Scriptures which might have been used in sacred Christian services. In the second place, one may see in the Koran the beginning of a preaching directed toward transmitting the belief in the Sacred Scriptures to the pagans of Mecca, in the Arabic language. Its socio-political sections, which are not especially related to the original Koran, were added later in Medina. At its beginning, the Koran was not conceived as the foundation of a new religion. It presupposes belief in the Scriptures, and thus functioned merely as an inroad into Arabic society.”

Q. - To many Muslim believers, for whom the Koran is the holy book and the only truth, your conclusions could seem blasphemous. What reactions have you noticed up until now?

A. - “In Pakistan, the sale of the edition of ´Newsweek´ that contained an article on my book was banned. Otherwise, I must say that, in my encounters with Muslims, I have not noticed any hostile attitudes. On the contrary, they have appreciated the commitment of a non-Muslim to studies aimed at an objective comprehension of their sacred text. My work could be judged as blasphemous only by those who decide to cling to errors in the interpretation of the word of God. But in the Koran it is written, ´No one can bring to the right way those whom God induces to error.´”

Q. - Aren´t you afraid of a fatwa, a death sentence like the one pronounced against Salman Rushdie?

A. - “I am not a Muslim, so I don´t run that risk. Besides, I haven´t offended against the Koran”

Q. - But you still preferred to use a pseudonym.

A. - “I did that on the advice of Muslim friends who were afraid that some enthusiastic fundamentalist would act of his own initiative, without waiting for a fatwa.”

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7025&eng=y
Click to expand...
take it easy man its a forum not a website ,we want to discuss or i will open anew thread
 
Well I have always thought that the Koran was a holy book about commandments, that had not a clear meaning.
For explample the veil of women and other customs and traditions of Islam etc.
Non muslism people that read the Koran normaly complain about those stuffs, however this new point of view help moderated muslims to give more reasons for a peacefull and nice dialogue with other non muslims religions.

I believe that for a perfect understanding of the Koran one must learn also syriac aramaic in order to have both views the arabic version and the syrio aramaic version of the passages and verses, In order to rebunk fundamentalist verses of the koran that have gave a bad image of the Koran.
and to rebunk the causes that have stirred up the fundamentalist muslism, in order to make Islam a more peacefull religion.
 
Why are you using the spelling “Koran”, rather than “Qur’an”?
 
jimmy85 said:
In the article and in wikipedia it says “Koran” rather than “Qur’an”.
Click to expand...
They say “Koran” because it is an article that was translated from german. anyway I dont see the diference in Koran or Quran, I used to thought the word for it in english was “Koran” and not Quran so im sorry.
 
Just curious.

When I did a google search for Koran, I came up with the following website: Encyclopedia of the Orient. Their article reads as follows:
Koran
Arabic: 'al-qur’anu l-karīm
Other spellings: Qur’an, Quran, Qor’an
Click to expand...
The holy book of Islam. Also referred to in English as “Quran”, or “Qur’an”. The latter is the correct transliteration, but in this article we use the common “Koran”.
The exact meaning of the word “Koran” is not clear for us today, but the three main theories. It may either be connected to the word for ‘collect’; or to the word for ‘tie together’; or perhaps best to the most commonly used word for “read” or “recite,” which is an important verb in the book itself.
Click to expand...
When I typed in “Koran” on Wikipedia, I found that they do NOT have an article under that spelling, but only under the spelling “Qur’an”, to which you will be redirected if you search under the spelling of “Koran”.

Honestly, it isn’t a big deal to me. But I have a number of Muslim friends, and though it isn’t a big deal to any of them either, I have learned that their preference is “Qur’an”. So, that is why I asked. For an article dealing so specifically with language issues, I would think that one would use the preferred transliteration out of the Arabic into English rather than a German translation. But maybe that is the Luxenberg’s point, that we don’t have a “Qur’an” (a “recitation” of the word of God) as Islam would like to think of it, we have a “Koran” of some other type of origin?
 
Grace_Seeker said:
Just curious.

When I did a google search for Koran, I came up with the following website: Encyclopedia of the Orient. Their article reads as follows:

When I typed in “Koran” on Wikipedia, I found that they do NOT have an article under that spelling, but only under the spelling “Qur’an”, to which you will be redirected if you search under the spelling of “Koran”.

Honestly, it isn’t a big deal to me. But I have a number of Muslim friends, and though it isn’t a big deal to any of them either, I have learned that their preference is “Qur’an”. So, that is why I asked. For an article dealing so specifically with language issues, I would think that one would use the preferred transliteration out of the Arabic into English rather than a German translation. But maybe that is the Luxenberg’s point, that we don’t have a “Qur’an” (a “recitation” of the word of God) as Islam would like to think of it, we have a “Koran” of some other type of origin?
Click to expand...
The article is from an itlaian news paper, the real inteview must have been in german however the translation from german or italian to english has nothing to do with Luxemberg nor with the articles of him, due that he is german and he hasnt written on english but his articles were translated in english.

Not even his bestseller book has been translated to english:
“Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran - Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache”
or The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Koran: a contribution to the decoding of the language of the Qur’an.
It is avelable only in german. Therefore his articles were translated to english not by him.

pass auf dich auf,
auf wiedersehen
 
jimmy85 said:
Christoph Luxenberg is a German scholar
Click to expand...
Hi
Arabic is not a dead language, Quran was revealed from GodAllahYHWH on the heart of Muhammad. It has the same text in Arabic from the day one, whatever the denomination. NT is not in the original language ie Araimic or Hebrew, these languages had become half-dead or near dead or completely dead, being revived or revided. Hence the German Professor should devote his enerigies to NTBible or OTBible.
It is true that Arabic is the mother of all languages, there is no harm if the philalogy of all languages of the world is used to understand Scriptures.
Thanks
 
The correct spelling is “Qur’an”, as the word starts with the letter qaaf, not kaaf, they’re pronounced differently. ‘Koran’ is a obscure bastardisation, which is steadily going out of use, like ‘Moslem’.

But to Luxenberg’s theories, they’re *different *I’ll give him that, but don’t really make much sense. His entire argument is based on Aramaic being the main language of the Middle East including the Hejaz, and since there’s very little evidence to support that the whole thing collapses.

The article given is also full of falsities, such as “When the Koran was composed, Arabic did not exist as a written language”. What he actually means is a *standard *Arabic language did not exist, a far cry from what he actually said, which is just like saying when Shakespeare wrote his plays English did not exist as a written language. And his rending of 24:31 as “They should fasten their belts around their waists” is just being silly. So is his claim that ‘houris’ means white grapes not partners, when it’s clear from the context that the later is the correct meaning. How can white grapes be of modest gaze whom no man has touched before…?

But the best way to disprove stuff like this about the Qur’an is to actually read it; as it can be observed that it’s nature is not that of a book Luxenberg is making it out to be, otherwise it would not refer to very specific things in such a passing fashion as the Qur’an characteristically does throughout. It quite simply doesn’t read anything remotely like Christian liturgical readings translated into Arabic.
 
Kadaveri said:
But the best way …about the Qur’an is to actually read it; as it can be observed that it’s nature is not that of a book Luxenberg is making it out to be, otherwise it would not refer to very specific things in such a passing fashion as the Qur’an characteristically does throughout. It quite simply doesn’t read anything remotely like Christian liturgical readings translated into Arabic.
Click to expand...
Hi
I agree with Kadaveri. Anybody who is interested about Quran, first he should read Quran, then he would seldom need anything external. Quran needs no history to support it; though true history does support Quran. It is Quran who purifies the wrongs of the history not otherwise. I would request the Catholics to read Quran, it won’t harm you in anyway, it will increase your understanding. I have read bible from cover to cover, it has stregthened my faith in Islam not weakened it.
May GodAllahYHWh bless you!
Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top