Posted on 04/16/2004 3:38:37 PM PDT by NYer
ROMA – 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.”
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.”
__________
Divine Verses
Koran, in Arabic Qur’an, means recitation or reading. It is an essential element of the Islamic faith that it was always with God and “descended” in its fullness to Mohammed at the moment of his call as a prophet, called the “night of destiny.” It is in Arabic, and it may be ritually recited only in this language. It is divided into 114 Suras, or chapters, and each Sura is divided into verses. The first Sura, called “the unstopping,” is a brief prayer that plays an important role in worship and everyday life. The following Suras are ordered according to length, from longest to shortest. According to the tradition, Mohammed gradually communicated to his faithful the parts of the Koran revealed to him. The oldest Suras are called those “of Mecca”; that later ones, “of Medina.” The most ancient Suras are of a markedly theological character, while the Suras of Medina are more juridical, dictating the ordering of the community. For Sunni Islam,.the Koran may not be put to criticism, given its divine nature: in any case, the “door of interpretation” of the Koran has been closed since the 11th century.
A link to the full text of the Koran, in an English translation:
> The Sacred Koran
__________
An elaborated guide to the new historical-linguistic readings of the Koran, on a page of the blog parapundit.com:
> “Newsweek” Article About Christoph Luxenberg On Koran Banned In Pakistan
And an investigation by Alexander Stille in the “New York Times,” March 4, 2002:
> Scholars Scrutinize the Koran's Origin
__________
The commentary of professor Gian Maria Vian on the interview with “Christoph Luxenberg,” printed on Sunday, March 14 in the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference, “Avvenire”:
> I filologi e il Corano
Gian Maria Vian, a professor of patristic philology at Rome’s “La Sapienza” university, is the author of an important essay on twenty centuries of Christian texts, beginning with Sacred Scripture:
> Quella scrittura che comincia in Galilea (29.8.2001)
__________
In the Muslim world, the view of the Koran peculiar to the Ismailis, open to multiple interpretations and to a positive relationship with the Jewish and Christian faiths:
> The Other Islam. The Peaceful Revolution of the Ismaili Shiites (3.11.2003)
__________
A central question that this investigation raises is the motivation of Uthmân in preparing his redaction of the Qur’ân. Luxenberg presents the two hadîth traditions recounting how Uthmân came to possess the first manuscript. If Luxenberg’s analysis is even in broad outline correct, the content of the Qur’ân was substantially different at the time of Muhammad and Uthmân’s redaction played a part in the misreading of key passages. Were these misreadings intentional or not? The misreadings in general alter the Qur’ân from a book that is more or less harmonious with the New Testament and Syriac Christian liturgy and literature to one that is distinct, of independent origin.
A fascinating thought; imagine how a Koran that celebrates the eucharistic liturgy, rather than the blood-lust of a crazed warlord, may have changed the course of history.
As to whether Uthman's alterations were intentional, I would say there is no doubt -- the Arabs needed a body of law to govern their conquered subjects and elevate themselves above the dhimmis, and the selective bastardization of a text which may or may not have been written by a mythically heroic Arab warlord at the convenient behest of Allah was just the ticket.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
All that is ancient in Arabian tradition derived from the Jews
Beyond these periods, Mahometan tradition is entirely worthless. It is not original, but taken at second hand from the Jews. Mahomet having claimed to be of the seed of Ishmael, the Jewish Rabbins who were gained over to his cause endeavoured to confirm the claim from the genealogies of the Old Testament and of rabbinical tradition. In the attempt to reconcile these with the received notions of the Arabs, Joktan (whom they found in Scripture to be an early immigrant into Arabia) became identified with Cahtan, the great ancestor of the southern tribes; while Mahomet's paternal line (which he himself declared could not be followed beyond Adnan, that is, about a century before the Christian era) was nevertheless traced up by fabricated steps, eighteen centuries farther, to Ishmael2. Both the legends and the ethnological assumptions or Mahometans regarding events prior to the Christian era, being thus derived directly from the Jews, possess no value of their own, and as evidence must be entirely rejected. They consist either of simple plagiarism, or they refer to Arabian personages and events of a very modern date, confounded in a rude and even ludicrous manner with the patriarchal characters and stories of the Old Testament2.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Muir/Life1/chapter2.htm
I need new glasses...
Hell hath no fury greater than a false prophet spurned.
pssst..this thread is from 2004.
most definitely!
Absolutely! I'm truly surprised that more freepes have not participated in this discussion.
My Maronite Catholic pastor is from Lebanon and speaks 8 languages, including Arabic. He also reads Aramaic, Latin, Hebrew and Koine Greek. Earlier this year, he attended a seminar given at a Cathoic College on the topic of Shar'ia. He intentionally brought along another parishioner for support. After the 'convert' finished delivering her presentation to a large audience of Muslims, she asked if there were any questions. My pastor, fully dressed in his clericals, raised his hand. He asked her why the Muslim holy book denied him his right to practice his Catholic faith. She assured him that it did not. He stood there defiantly and read the Sura from the Koran. She blushed and suggested that he had misunderstood it. He assured her that he had not misunderstood anything and then read the same Sura in Arabic. Everyone present turned towards him and then back to her, awaiting her response. Her blush rapidly flared into a violent shade of red. Ignoring his comments, she asked if there were any other questions. Father again raised his hand but she ignored him. He then passed his question to his companion.
Coming from a country where Christians have learned to co-exist with their Muslim neighbors, the Maronite Catholic priests live the words of Jesus Christ. During this summer's 30 day war, Muslims fled north into the Christian villages. There, they were housed, fed, and attended to by the Maronites. They were also invited to attend prayer services at the local Maronite parishes. One of the priests maintains a blog where he posted the most remarkable stories of children asking questions about Jesus. One boy asked him for a cross to wear. The priest told him he would give it to him if his parents gave their permission. They did.
After the cease fire, the Muslims returned to the south but invited the priest to come visit them. He did. On his first visit to their homes, one of the families explained to him that - had the tables been reversed - the Muslims would NEVER have welcomed the Maronite Catholics into their homes. They then proceeded to ply him with questions about Jesus and His teachings.
My pastor often refers to the Muslim faith as a heresy. Heresy, as you know, is a distortion of truth. I believe this German professor has found the key to that heresy but the Imams will fight back from fear of the Truth.
Letter to the Reader
To Muslims
May the Truth Set You Free
Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist. And if you think these conclusions are shocking, wait until you see the evidence.
The critics of this work will claim that Prophet of Doom is offensive, racist, hatemongering, intolerant, and unnecessarily violent. I agree - but I didn't write those parts. They came directly from Islam’s scriptures. If you don't like what Muhammad and Allah said, don't blame me. I'm just the messenger.
Others will say that I cherry-picked the worst of Islam to render an unfair verdict. They will charge that I took the Islamic scriptures out of context to smear Muhammad and Allah. But none of that is true. Over the course of these pages, I quote from almost every surah in the Qur’an - many are presented in their entirety. But more than that, I put each verse in the context of Muhammad’s life, quoting vociferously from the Sunnah as recorded by Bukhari, Muslim, Ishaq, and Tabari - Islam’s earliest and more trusted sources. I even arrange all of this material chronologically, from creation to terror.
Predicting what he called the "Day of Doom" was Muhammad’s most often repeated prophecy. While it did not occur as he foretold in 1110 A.D., it nonetheless came true. Muslims and infidels alike have been doomed by Islam...
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_Islams_Terrorist_Dogma_in_Muhammads_Own_Words.Islam
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.