Clivedurdle

Is there a need for an equivalent to BCH looking at Islam here?

We are at the beginnings of a revolution with Koranic studies, which everyone acknowledges has not received the academic treatment the Bible has.

Should there be at least a summary of key thinkers and works?

added by mod: this is taken from a book review by Robert R. PHENIX Jr. and Cornelia B. HORN, available here of Christoph Luxenberg (ps.) Die syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran; Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Qur’Ä?nsprache. Berlin, Germany

John123

Walid Saleh


I have read Luxenberg's work, and since I read German and have taught
Syriac and have been working on Syriac words in the Qur'an for a while,
I have my own assessment of the work. Luxenberg's work has serious
methodological problems, and when one probes it, one soon realizes that
the method itself is not and cannot be followed consistently; indeed,
the work has no leg to stand on. To the extent that one would have
expected a paleographical approach to the Qur'an, this is missing in the
book. The state of Semitic paleography has advanced to the degree that
any Semitic specialist would be astonished to see the liberties
Luxenberg takes with the text of the Qur'an. For his theory to work, the
Qur'an has to be two different things at the same time: on the one hand,
a paleographically frozen seventh century document that represents the
work of Muhammad, and on the other, a garbled text that has been
modified by later Muslim scholars who were clueless as to its meaning.
At a certain moment, the main reason Luxenberg gives to reread the
Qur'an as Syriac is justified merely by the notion that the Qur'an has
to agree with the Bible (it is not clear which Bible, though). When the
Qur'an does not agree with the "Bible," it means we have misunderstood
it, and hence a proper understanding can only come by rereading it in
Syriac. Indeed, one could describe Luxenberg's method as a typological
reading of the Qur'an, a curious development in the search for the
origins of the Qur'an. Essentially, Luxenberg is arguing that Islam is
the result of a philological comedy (or tragedy) of errors. One is
reminded here of Emperor Julian's quip aganist the Christians and the
Christians' apt response; paraphrasing it, one could say that the
Muslims read their scripture and misunderstood it; had they understood
it, they would be Christians.

The work is really claiming that the Qur'an is a mixed Arabic and Syriac
text (this is different from saying that the text is an Arabic text with
Syriac loan words, which no one can dispute). This unstated claim of
Luxenberg is the easiest to refute, since linguistically none of the
features of the Qur'an is anything like those of Syriac. Luxenberg's
work actually belongs to the tradition of "origins" work on the Qur'an
(or better the etymological school of studying the Qur'an) and not the
philological. In many ways it is a culmination of the etymological
method that reveals the absurdity of that method.

Recently Peter Brown, the dean of late antique history, issued a second
updated edition of his The Rise of Western Christendom (2003, it is a
totally different work than the first edition). Another important
neglected work in this same area is Garth Fowden's Empire to
Commonwealth: Consequences of Monotheism in Late Antique Society
(Princeton, 1993) (In many ways Brown builds on Fowden's insight). In
Chapter 12 of the former work, entitled, Christianity in Asia and the
Rise of Islam, Brown gives us his account of how the new religion of
Islam fits into the landscape of that particular moment in history.
Reading Brown and Fowden, both historians, one is struck by how clear
things are that Luxenberg's treatment makes unclear. Islam from its
inception took Christianity and Judaism fully into account in
articulating its world view.


I will be giving my assessment of Luxenberg's work in January at a
conference, and would gladly share my paper with you after I give it
there. Since reading Luxenberg's book, I have been pondering this
puzzle: with such a hopelessly mixed, misread text as Luxenberg claims
the Qur'an was, how did the early Arabs manage, on the basis of such a
work, to offer us the most scientific, linguistic analysis of their
language? Indeed, we still teach Semitic languages using their paradigms
and insights.

To accept Luxenberg's method is to throw out all work done on the Qur'an
before him. I am not only talking about the German school here
(Noeldeke-Schwally-Paret-Neuwirth), but the revisionist
(Wansborough-Cook-Crone)as well. Indeed, Luxenberg would be the new
father of Quranic studies.


For those who know Arabic, Syriac is not hard to learn, so those eager
to judge Luxenberg's work for themselves should take a course on Syriac.
More fruitful would be to take a Semitic paleography course and learn
the rules of Semitic comparative philology straight from the masters. As
for myself, I am betting on Peter Brown.


Yours,

Walid Saleh

Assistant Professor
Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
University of Toronto
Tel. 416-946-3241
Fax: 416-978-3305

Clivedurdle

Why is it curious? The New Testament was written like that, why not the Koran?


Noah

Tempted to respond when I was only using the opening post as an example of the huge debates now existing about Islam, and is there a need for a new debate thread on IIDB? In an identical process to what happened in xianity with the protestant and then later splits, let's look at detail - is the claim that Arabic was not a written language at the time of mohammed correct? - (and by the way - did he actually exist?)!

Oh and talking of comedies, wasn't Atwill arguing something similar?

Why should not a religion starting in the outposts of the Eastern Roman Empire have strong xian - the Empires religion - links? It would be weird if it didn't!

Juliana

I lent Luxenberg's book from the library and read parts of it and found it interesting, however I know too little about the matter to assess it. It seems to have some similarities with Carotta's work on the gospels and the historical Jesus. E.g. Luxenberg thinks that the correct form of 'huris' in the Qur'an is 'hurs' meaning 'white grapes'. And the 'veil' (chumur) is supposed to have originally been a 'belt'. IIRC, Luxenberg argues that Islam originated from an early Christian movement and Carotta thinks that Islam developed as another form of the cult of Divus Iulius (cf. Jesus was Caesar, Final Observations).

I'd like to ask you a question about the Qur'an concerning Sura 4, verse 157. A recent translation renders it as:

“… And they did not crucify him, but a simulacrum (an effigy) was made of him. And those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow…�

Is this a correct translation? I was quite surprised to learn that the Muslims had known long ago that Jesus was not crucified.

Juliana

Clivedurdle

Are not the first two statements above classic examples of Islamic propaganda? Admittedly the second one is someone repeating a belief, (isn't it a pre existing xian heresy?) the first one in assuming a unitary Islam is very naughty for a professor.

The third one is easily tested as a true or false statement.

What if Luxenberg is equivalent to Luther? These views should be tested not poo pooed from what reads as an apologists view.

Following from review of Luxenberg, as far as I see it, means the koran we have - even in Arabic, is an awful translation of what was originally written - and we are being called infidels by a people whose religion is based on sinking sands like this? It is comedy if it were not so tragic!