A new philological study of Qur'an
John Berg
"This work demonstrates to all exegetes of the Qur'an the power of the
scientific method of philology and its value in producing a clearer text of
the Qur'an. Scholars of the first rank will now be forced to question the
assumption that, from a philological perspective, the Islamic tradition is
mostly reliable, as though it were immune to the human error that pervades
the transmission of every written artifact. If biblical scholarship is any
indication, the future of Qur'anic studies is more or less decided by this
work."
He's writing about:
Christoph Luxenberg (ps.) Die syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran; Ein
Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Qur'ansprache. Berlin, Germany: Das
Arabische Buch, First Edition, 2000. Pp. ix + 306, bibliography on pp.
307-311, no index. Paperback, Euros 29.70, no price available in US Dollars.
ISBN 3-86093-274-8.
Robert R. PHENIX Jr. and Cornelia B. HORN
University of St. Thomas
Department of Theology
John Roach Center 153
2115 Summit Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55107
You may read the review at:
http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html
Some findings:
a. "At the time of Muhammad, Arabic was not a written language. Syro-Aramaic
or Syriac was the language of written communication in the Near East from
the second to the seventh centuries A.D. Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, was
the language of Edessa, a city-state in upper Mesopotamia"
b. "No part of the method rests on a blind acceptance of religious or
traditional assumptions of any kind, especially with respect to the Arabian
commentators. Until now, Western critical commentators of the first rank
have not been critical enough in this regard and Luxenberg directly and
indirectly through his conclusions proves that their trust was betrayed.
Hence any argument that seeks to prove Luxenberg's findings incorrect cannot
assume that the earliest Arabian commentators understood correctly the
grammar and lexicon of the Arabic of the Qur'an. This is an important
contribution of the study. "
c. "His chief source among the Arabian commentators is the earliest
commentary on the Qur'an, that of Tabari.2 Tabari had no Arabic dictionary
that he could consult, and so he had to rely on oral tradition and on
commentators closer to the time of Muhammad whose lost works his citations
in part preserve." As a result I know have a point on a timeline that
addresses such issues as; earliest Qur'an, earliest Arabic dictionary, the
study of the Qur'an's verses from internal evidence, etc.
d. "His base text is the canonical edition of the Qur'an published in Cairo
in 1923-24, taken without the vowel marks. "
e. "He demonstrates that there were originally only six letters to
distinguish some twenty-six sounds. " My question about vowels here on
s.r.i.
f. "This process of determining the value of each letter of the Qur'an
unfolded over some three hundred years. This is known from the oldest
manuscripts of the Qur'an which do not have the diacritical points
distinguishing readings of a single consonant. By the time these became
commonly used, Arabian commentators were no longer aware that many words
were either straight Aramaic or were calques peculiar to Meccan Arabic. From
this resulted the difficulties that the Qur'an posed to even the earliest
Arabian commentators. "
g."A central question that this investigation raises is the motivation of
cUthman in preparing his redaction of the Qur'an. Luxenberg presents the two
hadith traditions recounting how cUthman came to possess the first
manuscript. If Luxenberg's analysis is even in broad outline correct, the
content of the Qur'an was substantially different at the time of Muhammad
and cUthman's redaction played a part in the misreading of key passages.
Were these misreadings intentional or not? "
A reminder that all the quotes are from the review. The notes to the review
are useful to establish a time-line.
--
John Berg
john...@mchsi.com
Yusuf B Gursey
: Christoph Luxenberg (ps.) Die syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran; Ein
in spite of the claims of the book and its reviewer, "western" scholarship
taking early islamic sources seriously and contradicting the basic premise
of this book continues in orientalist journals. there is work done
in comparing passages of the Qur'an to the New testament, including
referencing syriac, but without doing the violence to the canonical text
done in Luxenberg's work. I have yet to see a favorable review of this
book by a specialist in islamic history and arabic language, which the
reviewer mentioned does not seem to be.
SwiftP
by the likes of Daniel Pipes and the like against the Quran. This, as
the philological revolutionary nature of the Quran itself is a sheer
miracle.
See the following:
http://www.quran.org.uk/ieb_quran_literature.htm
http://www.islamanswers.net/Quran/wordOfGod.htm
Glad that this issue was raised, because my faith has just
strengthened due to it.
Altway
J.B. has posted an article on SRI, entitled "A new philological study of the
Quran". This quotes a Western scholar's criticism of the Quran, which states
that the verses of the Quran originally had a different meaning to what they
are given today. What is your opinion on this and does the article not
deserve a reply?
Comment:-
(1) There is nothing new about this. We have been through it before. There
are many opinions and people do quote things that agree with their
prejudices and ignore all other opinions. Many other opinions could have
been selected that contradict the one's selected by J.B. His selection
merely tells us about the mind of J.B. Replies will not change this.
(2) These are mostly speculations by persons who do not really have any idea
what they are dealing with because they do not follow the instructions as to
how the Quran should be read. Their opinions are based on false conventional
assumptions by which they select some facts and ignore others. There is a
difference between those who want to understand and apply the message in the
Quran and those who merely wish to the study the words. The difference is
between those who eat the fruit and those who study the skin. All this has
been pointed out numerou times before, but critics appear to be unable to
comprehend this or merely suppress it out of their consciousness.
(3) Many of us know that the meaning of words does indeed change over time.
Therefore, what people understand when reading the Quran unaided is not
necessarily how it was originally understood or meant to be understood. But
there is a body of explanatory traditions, both oral and written, that is
transmitted down the ages from the Prophet. But yes, an increasingly fewer
percentage Muslims appear to know about it.
(4) In the past, we have had a Dr. Hagar on SRI, who was considered a
scholar of the Quran in the West, and considered himself an expert. He tried
to persuade us that some of the words in the Quran should be given the
Aramaic and other meanings which they are supposed to have had in the past
rather than the meaning that they are given in the Quran. He came to certain
absurd interpretations of the verses, ignoring the fact that those meaning
were completely contradicted by the rest of the Quran. This like
misinterpreting what was meant in the past by the term "gay" when the
present meaning is applied. I do not, therefore, have much respect for such
"scholars" who make superficial studies and regard them as irrelevant.
(5) It is remarkeable that persons such as J.B. should spend so much time
and effort on a subject he does not believe in and which has no relevance to
him. The motive, it seems highly probable, is other than seeking truth. It
requires other more appropriate treatment.
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
Yusuf B Gursey
> A reviewer writes:
(to go into all the points by the reviewer if the book is impossible,
many more relevant points about the faults of the book ought to
be made)
>
> c. "His chief source among the Arabian commentators is the earliest
> commentary on the Qur'an, that of Tabari.2 Tabari had no Arabic dictionary
> that he could consult, and so he had to rely on oral tradition and on
well, meanings of words are established by "oral tradition", i.e. by
the way people use them
> commentators closer to the time of Muhammad whose lost works his citations
so? what's wrong with that?
> in part preserve." As a result I know have a point on a timeline that
> addresses such issues as; earliest Qur'an, earliest Arabic dictionary, the
> study of the Qur'an's verses from internal evidence, etc.
by the time of Tabari here (late 9th - early 10th cen.) was a
vigorous lexicograhical and a grammatical tradition before
(8th cent.), when the first arabic dictionary was written. at
this time there were qur'an comentaries as well. in the 10th
cent. arabic is quite clear to current readers. certainly at the
time of the early grammarians and lexicographers there were
informants (i.e. common people) who spoke and used a form of
arabic that was more conservative in terms of grammar and
vocabulary and it was this speech that was utilized in the
dictionaries and grammars, as well as in Qur'an commentaries.
modern linguists and historians take the early arab philologists
seriously and they exhbited a considerbale sophistication for
their time. with modern linguistic methods and modern criticism
they are confirmed and believed, with the usual qualification
of anything not being absolute.
perhaps the author is trying to wriggle his way claiming the
original manuscript of the dictionary has not been found etc.
>
> d. "His base text is the canonical edition of the Qur'an published in Cairo
> in 1923-24, taken without the vowel marks. "
well. if one feels free to change around the text at will, one
can arrive at just about any conclusion one desires.
>
> e. "He demonstrates that there were originally only six letters to
> distinguish some twenty-six sounds. " My question about vowels here on
> s.r.i.
the number of vowel (or for that matter consonant phonemes in the
*language* is independent of what is represented inthe *script*.
classical arabic has 28 consonant phonemes and six (including length)
vowels, 34 phonemes (loosely: primary sounds).
in the current script, together with the vowel and other signs,
these can be represented accurately for standard arabic. I don't
know how the writer came up with 26. it seems reasonable for western
syriac (who cares about arabic! ;) ).
some pre-islamic bedouin and yemenis used the south semitic script
with 28 consonants and wrote some (what came to be) non-standard
arabic in pre-islamic times. knowledge of this script (and partialy
a dialect that was written in it) survived amongst some medieval
scholars into a not so early time into the islamic era. thus, there
is a body of evidence available to modern scholars (and to some
extent to medieval islamic scholars as well)that is independent
of the reading (or alledged misreading) of the arabic script.
the allegation that pre-islamic arabic is totally unknown outside
islamic tradition is false (not to mention a few pre-islamic
inscriptions in the arabic script itself).
other arabs, influenced by the Nabataean arabs wrote in a derivative
of the Aramaic alphabet with 21 consonants. in the transition of this
alphabet to the arabic alphabet some letters became difficult to
distinguish. thus occasionaly dots were used to distinguish them and
also to distinguish phonemes not found in aramaic but found in
arabic. these were occasionally used *in the 1st cent. AH as well*.
in the 8th cent. the dots became regular usage and the current
alphabet was essentially established. at the same time vowel and
other pronouciation signs were established and these came to be
regularly used in Qur'anic texts. without the dots there are 14 -16
(depending on final shapes or not) well distinct letters. to get
the number 6, confusion beyond that of a carefuly written manuscript
would have to be reckoned.
the following inscriptions have occassional use of dots
and are very early:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/jones.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/muwinsc1.html
this early Qur'an uses occassional dots:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/VaAr1605.html
in this early Qur'an dots are quite regular:
http://faculty.washington.edu/wheelerb/quran/maili.html
(please, no argument taht these are from or associated wiht an
islamic website, as they reproduce modern articles and artifacts
accepted by them).
Luxenberg also rejects, or seems to reject, any parallel oral
tradition for the Qur'an and the evidence, as well as reason,
is against this rejection. there is no inconsistency about
reports of an oral tradition and reports of an earlier written
tradition.
>
> f. "This process of determining the value of each letter of the Qur'an
> unfolded over some three hundred years. This is known from the oldest
the completion of an "unfolding" doesn't mean "there were none"
before that.
> manuscripts of the Qur'an which do not have the diacritical points
there are no major contradictions, only very few minor variations,
and not in the examples he cites, between the available qur'anic
readings. actually I know of no variation in dotting, but a few
variations in vowel marks (at any rate these don't form the basis
of Luxenberg's thesis) . also see above for the early availability
of dots.
> distinguishing readings of a single consonant. By the time these became
> commonly used, Arabian commentators were no longer aware that many words
> were either straight Aramaic or were calques peculiar to Meccan Arabic. From
> this resulted the difficulties that the Qur'an posed to even the earliest
> Arabian commentators. "
it's really irrrelevant what the etymology is, meaning is determined
by usage. a "kid" is normally a "child" rather than a "young goat",
regardless of its original meaning. the common semitic verb for
"to jump, leap" in arabic (except in one pre-islamic dialect) is from
the original semitic word for "to sit". this does not mean that when
arabs, today or yesterday, say "leap, jump" they really mean "sit"
(the change of meaning cannot be attributed to "misunderstanding" or
"guessing" on the part of medieval philologists either, since they
were aware of the other meaning as well). true, some medieval
philologists made mistakes about the *etymology* of certain words
and imparted an arabic etymology when there was none, but that does
not neccessarily mean they got the *meaning* wrong (some actually
acknowledged words of non-arabic origin in the qur'an). when there
is a shift of meaning, it does not neccessarily mean that the shift
of meaning took place during the time of the commentators. the shift
could have occured before Muhammad or a wholly new meaning may have
been imparted by the Qur'an itself. this last part is particulary
true for religious terminology.
linguistically, one also has grave doubts about everything that
Luxenberg assigns as "borrowings" as at least some of the words
considered are really "cognates", or very old borrowings, i.e.
a result of the common ancestry at some point of syriac and arabic.
also what Luxenberg considers "difficulties" is questionable (the
reviewer alledges that only "repointing is done in "difficult" or
"obscure" passages). I don't find anything difficult or obscure of
the much discussed "Houri" passage as in the canonical text. the
only "difficulty" it seems is that it sounds "un-christian" to the
author and it fails in his theory of a christian source of it.
moreover, the claim that arabic << Hu:r >> was understood to be
"virgins of Paradise" is false. it was in fact known that it refered
to the attribute of whiteness (you don't have to refer to syriac to
find that out) . it's just that "virgin" is concluded, for the
particular beings concerned, from the following text. it is in fact
widely known that arabic Hu:riyya(t) and persian Hu:ri: (from older
persian Hu:re:) are post-Qur'anic words. Qur'an commentaries are
not usually word for word literal translations but are meant to
convey the general meaning. using non-literal or even false modern
translations (some of which may use post qur'anic or post-classical
meanings (again the comment about etymology vs. meaning) are thus
simply in error without any fault of the medieval scholars).
including them in the discussion, which Luxenberg does, is just
polemics, which seems to be part of the motivation) and is irrelevant
in a scholarly study and thus should not have been included (though
I have doubts that scholarship is the real object of the book).
finally a general comment about "revisionist" theories is in order.
crackpots, fringe theorists, net-loons, polemicists, "conspiracy
theorists" in any subject require an impossible "absolute" proof
standard theories, while failing to meet this criterion way off
the mark for their own and they are ready to pounce on any of
the usual acknowledgments of the limitations of knowledge by
mainstream experts in the field. in public forums, scientists and
mainstream scholars are at a distinct disadvantage by such
"disclaimers". crackpots, loons etc. confidently pontificate about
their theories as fact, while scientists, ready to believe just
about anything given sufficient evidence, frankly admit to certain
limitations in knowledge. the crackpots declare to their opponents
"your disclaimers are in order" while the reality is that their
*claims* that are at the very least *unwarrented*. no amount
of evidence is ever sufficent, in the view of crackpots, to at
the very least *discount* their theories. this goes for people who
believe in extraterrestrials visiting the Earth, as well as
crackpots writing on the internet on the history of islam
(particularly in the non-academic oriented (though avowedly religious
oriented) alt.religion.* or soc.religion.* hierarchy.
in the case of the supporters of Luxenberg's theory and the theory
itself there is glaring lack of any evidence for an original
"christianizing syriac proto-Qur'an". one wonders what vast
political machinery in early medieval times was able to suppress
it so thoroughly. while evidence for variant readings and
non-canonical text is there, because people were able to report
and refer to them, the stated destruction was not complete as
alledged. one would have expected christianizing supporters to have
put up a fight, even to have survived in remoter regions and
that there would be accounts of them (at least hostile) or at least
an account of a struggle against them. the point remaining is
that there was no "central authority" politically powerful and
with vast resources of repression at its disposal and that the
early islamic community did suffer known schisms both political
and religous but the basic text of the Qur'an remained essentially
unchallenged.
for those desiring to be secular but amateur historians of islam
it is recommended that they adopt as a basic framework the view
held by the majority of their proffessional and secular counterparts
as long as the present state of knowledge persists. in the main, this
would not be in contradiction with the non-supernatural portion of
traditional accounts.
John Berg
originally had a different meaning to what they are given today." That
would be contrary to my meaning. No one is capable TODAY of saying what the
original Qur'an said. I can certainly say that when a Persian poet of the
14th century used his word for "star" it did not have the body of knowledge
about stars that this 21st century mind has. It's equally clear that a poet
of the 6th century had no sense of "sun" as "star," a helio-centric system
of planets moving through space, or a "planet" as a place to which one may
might go.
You may read the review for yourself at:
http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html
The book itself is in German but is expected in English.
Actually this same discussion has been on-going on alt.religion.islam for a
much longer time (same subject used) and many issues from the review have
not been addressed:
1. The early translation of the Fundus into Arabic many generations later.
2. The growing doubts about the reliability of Arabic tradition.
3. The validity of the earliest hard documentation by Tabari.
4. The two mutually exclusive traditions of how Uthman obtained his earlier
Qur'an.
To summarize my present position, I have no idea what the original Qur'an
says but neither does any Muslim. In the current contemporary canonical
Arabic Qur'an there may be a single verse exactly as Muhammad recited.
There may be more. Which ones are they?
--
John Berg
john...@mchsi.com
"Altway" <hsa...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f93b...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
Christoph Heger
> (4) In the past, we have had a Dr. Hagar on SRI,
For some not so short time I had participated in SRI on a fairly
regular basis. I even had some discussions with Mr. Aziz, too. So I
wonder why he mispells my name, which is Heger, not Hagar. In sharp
contrast to his bad memory insofar, he considers himself competent to
add some snide remarks about me.
> who was considered a scholar of the Quran in the West,
As we say in German: Among the blind ones, who has one eye is king.
> and considered himself an expert.
I never said so. I only forwarded some results of scholarly research
which seemed to have been unknown to this forum.
> He tried to persuade us that some of the words in the Quran should be given
> the Aramaic and other meanings which they are supposed to have had in the past
> rather than the meaning that they are given in the Quran.
More or less right - since this is one of the methods in Luxenberg's
book which have displayed itself very successfull in clarifying a lot
of Koranic passages which have been "dark" before.
I may point to words like "kaswarah", "kauthar", which have been given
quite fanciful meanings in later Islamic scholarship.
> He came to certain absurd interpretations of the verses,
Says Mr. Aziz who himself admittedly has no competence at all in
Arabic (nor, of course, of Syriac)!
So John Berg was alright to point out a scholarly review of the most
important work by Christoph Luxenberg at:
http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html
Though Luxenberg doesn't deal with the word "furqân" in the Koran,
this word undoubtedly is a Syriac loan word, too, and its original
Syriac meaning gives a a lot of Koranic passages a sense much more
appropriate to the context than the meaning "criterion", which is a
later invention of Muslim Koran exegesis.
More about "furqân" in surah 25:1 you may find here:
http://home.t-online.de/home/Christoph.Heger/sura25_1.html
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Altway
> No one is capable TODAY of saying what the
> original Qur'an said.
Comment:-
Do you suppose you know everyone. And do you suppose you
know what they understand?
> I can certainly say that when a Persian poet of the
>14th century used his word for "star" it did not have the body of
knowledge about stars that this 21st century mind has. It's equally clear
that a poet of the 6th century had no sense of "sun" as "star," a
helio-centric system of planets moving through space, or a "planet" as a
place to which one may might go.
Comment:-
Yes, it is certainly the case that experiences and knowledge have changed.
This has been pointed out several times here on SRI and that is why
continuous reformulation and explanation are required. There is no question
of that.
But when the "Persian Poet" in the 7th century referred to the "star" he
certainly was not thinking of the 21st century meaning. Nor do poets think
of it in the same way as astronomers do. Therefore, in order to understand
what the Poet of the 7th century was saying you have to understand his works
through a continuous tradition and comments of those who
have studied his works. And certainly you must not impose your
21st century prejudices on it.
But the star remains the star no matter how ideas about it change. The fact
that people today have one set of ideas does not invalidate the set of ideas
people had in the past, specially when the point of view is different
between those who see it as a purely impersonal material object and those
who see it as having a spiritual significance. There is also a difference
between bare fact and values.
You are making the same mistake as the one you are trying to persuade
us has taken place - you have a 21st century idea of what a Book is
in the case of the Quran.
> To summarize my present position, I have no idea what the original Qur'an
says but neither does any Muslim. In the current
contemporary canonical. Arabic Qur'an there may be a single verse exactly as
Muhammad recited. Theremay be more.
Which ones are they?
Comment:-
You can speak only for yourself. You cannot possibly speak about
"any Muslim". That is unjustifiable wishful thinking.
I have no doubt that, like yourself, many Muslims and ex-muslims
also have the superficial views like yours conditioned by your culture
and education.
Others are still steeped in the traditional ways of thinking. Still others
have a foot in each camp and are able to bridge the gap to various degrees.
Your present position is based on ignorance about the nature of the Quran.
And your opinion about is irrelevant both to yourself and to most Muslims.
To you it is a book like others written or compiled by human authors that
lived centuries ago. To Muslims it is the Word of God, something that
transforms when understood and absorbed, and not paper and ink.
The Quran states that it will be preserved and that anything that is caused
to be forgotten will be replaced with something similar or with what is
better. These statements are not included in the Quran frivolously as they
could be easily refuted by arguments such as yours. Moreover, this is
not a circular argument as you suppose - it is not the Quran
speaking about itself, it is the promise of God.
There is, therefore, a much more sophisticated meaning to them.
The Quran is exactly as it is meant to be.
It deals with Universals and Eternals and has
great depths of meaning that need to be explored through study, meditation
and reasoning.
It is not static and requires us to seek knowledge and
understanding and expand our capacities of consciousness,
conscience and will.
That is how it is to be read and understood. Those people who, like
you, do not understand it that way are not reading the Quran, but something
in their own imagination.
The purpose of the Quran was and is to bring change and
development, and it would be a contradiction of this purpose to
suppose that it stopped those changes or was made obsolete
by them.
So yes those who stuck to superficial interpretations in the past
like some traditionalists (in the narrow sense of the word), are wrong.
But those who stick to superficial interpretations in the present like you
and some of the Western academic scholars, are equally wrong.
If you cannot understand this, there is not much we can do about it.
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
Yusuf B Gursey
> originally had a different meaning to what they are given today." That
> would be contrary to my meaning. No one is capable TODAY of saying what
the
well, theoretically one can get a fair idea. that's what historical
investigation is about.
> original Qur'an said. I can certainly say that when a Persian poet of
the
> 14th century used his word for "star" it did not have the body of
knowledge
> about stars that this 21st century mind has. It's equally clear that a
poet
> of the 6th century had no sense of "sun" as "star," a helio-centric
system
> of planets moving through space, or a "planet" as a place to which one
may
> might go.
people, even scientists, can switch to the "Aristotelian -
Ptolemaic - common sense mode" when need be, like when
reading poetry. you are going beyond "meanings of words"
and are going into social-psychology etc., which is not
really what is being discussed.
>
> You may read the review for yourself at:
>
> http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html
that's posted for the umpteenth time.
there's also this short review - base don the review,
that is less favorable:
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.03.15/arts4.html
>
> The book itself is in German but is expected in English.
>
> Actually this same discussion has been on-going on alt.religion.islam
for a
> much longer time (same subject used) and many issues from the review
have
> not been addressed:
they have. it doesn't make a difference to you.
> 1. The early translation of the Fundus into Arabic many generations
later.
"early" together with "many generations later" doesn't make sense.
at any rate, that there was a translation at all, is not the working
hypothesis of most orientalists. there are passages that seem to be
based on translations, IIRC a single line that is a translation of a
Psalm, but these aren't enough to make the work in general a
"translation." these influences may have come at the time of
composition (in arabic that is, as is generally assumed), at the
same time being given a new twist. this is more or less the
mainstream view.
> 2. The growing doubts about the reliability of Arabic tradition.
all scientific people express "doubts", but there are also
"confirmations". it is not an absolute matter either way.
"whatever contradicts tradition must be true" is not an axiom to
be followed.
> 3. The validity of the earliest hard documentation by Tabari.
huh?
> 4. The two mutually exclusive traditions of how Uthman obtained his
earlier
> Qur'an.
actually many are able to extract the main elements from these various
accounts.
>
> To summarize my present position, I have no idea what the original
Qur'an
> says but neither does any Muslim. In the current contemporary canonical
for purposes of religion, it is just a matter of belief.
> Arabic Qur'an there may be a single verse exactly as Muhammad recited.
> There may be more. Which ones are they?
a historian would not pose the question that since it is unanswerable.
most would accept the current recension as a good approximation,
done for the most part in good faith in reproducing the original
recitation and may comment over the consistency or plausibility
of one alternative (modern or traditional) over the other.
academic discussions over newsgroups, particularly in faith-based
ones are not fruitful. discussions are polemical and polarized between
the "faithful" and the "revisionists" who grip at any straw to
disagree with the first group. "pick and choose" positions, such
as the Enc. of Islam II article on "Furkan" (furqa:n) are unpopular
and may be used by one or both sides for their aims, but frequently
to establish a scientific fact that is what one has to do. that
article in Enc. of Islam II is academic and "picks and chooses". it
goes beyond just a syriac etymology, goes on to analyze how it was
used in the text and shows how it was treated (in the Qur'an) as
an arabic word, gving its sense as an arabic word. Newsgroups,
where everyone is suspected of "bias", "truth" is not determined
by concensus as in the scientific community but by the one who
has the most stamina for argument are usually not the best way
to learn about the current state of academic scholarship. there
are a few newsgroups that work well for that. as for
soc.religion.islam , one can benefit from it to learn about
islam as the practitioners understand it.
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barkatuhu:
> the following inscriptions have occassional use of dots
> and are very early:
This is true. An article was published some time ago in al-Atlal (Saudi
Arabian Journal of Archeology), where a pre-Islamic inscription from
3rd-4th century CE was reconsidered by two Western scholars. They showed
that this inscription is in Arabic and has occasional dotting. This
itself is quite interesting. There are many examples of papyri, coins,
inscriptions and Qur'anic Mss from 1st century of hijra that show dotting.
If we were to consider Syriac, the dotting of it came after the advent of
Islam around end of seventh or beginning of 8th century CE. This is enough
to turn a part of Luxenberg's thesis upside down.
> in the case of the supporters of Luxenberg's theory and the theory
> itself there is glaring lack of any evidence for an original
> "christianizing syriac proto-Qur'an". one wonders what vast
> political machinery in early medieval times was able to suppress
> it so thoroughly. while evidence for variant readings and
Apart from the lack of evidence, we also have the problem of circular
argumentation by Luxenberg. It has been point out by Angelika Neuwirth in
her review of Luxenberg's work in "Qur'an and History - A Disputed
Relationship. Some Reflections on Qur'anic History and History in the
Qur'an", Journal of Qur'anic Studies, 2003, Volume V, Issue I, pp. 1-18.
She says:
"The method (of Luxenberg) presupposes its very results: the facticity of
a Syriac layer underlying the Arabic text. Much of his material relies on
obvious circular argument.... This is an extremely pretentious hypothesis
which is unfortunately relying on rather modest foundations."
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/luxreview1.html
Furthermore, de Blois discusses many examples of 'new readings' of
Luxenberg and shows the howlers [Journal of Qur'anic Studies, 2003,
Volume V, Issue 1, pp. 92-97]. He says:
"[A]ny reader who wants to take the trouble to plough through Luxenberg's
'new reading' of any of the numerous passages discussed in this book will
concede that the 'new reading' does not actually make better sense than a
straight classical Arabic reading of the traditional text. It is a reading
that is potentially attractive only in its novelty, or shall I say its
perversity, not in that it sheds any light on the meaning of the book or
on the history of Islam.... He is someone who evidently speaks some Arabic
dialect, has a passable, but not flawless command of classical Arabic,
knows enough Syriac so as to be able to consult a dictionary, but is
innocent of any real understanding of the methodology of comparative
Semitic linguistics. His book is not a work of scholarship but of
dilettantism."
More of it is at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/luxreview2.html
Wassalam
Saifullah
Christoph Heger
y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote in message news:<222ae656.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > c. "His chief source among the Arabian commentators is the earliest
> > commentary on the Qur'an, that of Tabari.2 Tabari had no Arabic dictionary
> > that he could consult, and so he had to rely on oral tradition and on
>
> well, meanings of words are established by "oral tradition", i.e. by
> the way people use them
The problem now is (1) a general one: that we cannot know what the
"oral tradition" might have been in those early times, and (2) a
particular one: that a lot of words, as admitted by the early
commentators, were not established by "oral tradition", instead they
made some fanciful guesses what they might mean.
> by the time of Tabari here (late 9th - early 10th cen.) was a
> vigorous lexicograhical and a grammatical tradition before
> (8th cent.), when the first arabic dictionary was written. at
> this time there were qur'an comentaries as well.
Tabari, however, wrote his commentary without the possibility to look
say into the Lisan. Luxenberg however extensively uses the Lisan - and
he finds a lot of fine traditions, which only have not been understood
when the Lisan was written.
> in the 10th cent. arabic is quite clear to current readers.
That's a circular argument! A lot of fanciful semantics and
grammatical rules had been accepted in the meantime - more so in the
Classical or Standard Arabic, less so in the various vernaculars.
The problem now always has been that the Koranic language nevertheless
remained to be felt as strange, the text remained to a good portion
incomprehensible, and the meaning which was given to those
incomprensible passages could only given to them by violating the
grammar and lexic of Classical Arabic.
> certainly at the time of the early grammarians and lexicographers there
> were informants (i.e. common people) who spoke and used a form of
> arabic that was more conservative in terms of grammar and
> vocabulary and it was this speech that was utilized in the
> dictionaries and grammars, as well as in Qur'an commentaries.
Classical Arabic never has been a "spoken language" in the sense of a
daily vernacular, it always has been the language of only poets (and
later of literati). Concerning the argument of "oral tradition", see
below.
> modern linguists and historians take the early arab philologists
> seriously and they exhbited a considerbale sophistication for
> their time.
With some qualifications! The linguistic knowledge of these scholars
of old was rather poor. They had no idea of Hebrew and Aramaic, the
etymology of the words they dealt with were unknown to them and so on.
An eminent German arabicist, August Fischer, - I think every student
learning Arabic, at least in Germany, knows his "Arabische
Chrestomathie" - once wrote (in ZDMG vol. 60 (1906), p. 373; my
translation): "Actually we are entitled to believe the oldest
Muslimeen, in view of their absolute lack of erudition in literary
matters, to have been capable of any stupidity in matters of Qur'an
exegesis."
> with modern linguistic methods and modern criticism
> they are confirmed and believed, with the usual qualification
> of anything not being absolute.
There surely are a lot of interesting observations made by these old
Arabic (and Persian!) scholars, but on the whole they have been
utterly wrong: not to realize or not willing or not permitted to
realize the reality concerning Classical Arabic and the language of
the Koran. They even faked a good portion of the so called Old Arabic
Poetry to present examples for their curious grammatical rules. Even
worse, they distorted a good portion of the genuine Old Arabic poems
beyond recognition; this fact even was known to the Arabic poet
Al-Ma'arri some centuries later.
> perhaps the author is trying to wriggle his way claiming the
> original manuscript of the dictionary has not been found etc.
> ...
>
> >
> > d. "His base text is the canonical edition of the Qur'an published in Cairo
> > in 1923-24, taken without the vowel marks. "
>
> well. if one feels free to change around the text at will, one
> can arrive at just about any conclusion one desires.
Luxenberg refers to the Cairo Standard Edition of the Koran, but
realizing that only its rasm can be considered as more or less
reliable, i.e. the script without later additions like vowel signs,
diacritical points, tashdeeds, corrections of defective writing and so
on. The "changing of the text" was not done by Luxenberg, but by the
old grammarians, who by the way not seldom were also ambitious
politicians. They added the various signs and did so till in the 8th
or possibly even the 9th century.
> other arabs, influenced by the Nabataean arabs wrote in a derivative
> of the Aramaic alphabet with 21 consonants. in the transition of this
> alphabet to the arabic alphabet some letters became difficult to
> distinguish. thus occasionaly dots were used to distinguish them and
> also to distinguish phonemes not found in aramaic but found in
> arabic. these were occasionally used *in the 1st cent. AH as well*.
> in the 8th cent. the dots became regular usage and the current
> alphabet was essentially established. ...
The use of vowel signs can already be traced back to Aramaic (Syriac)
manuscripts.
> the following inscriptions have occassional use of dots
> and are very early:
>
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/jones.html
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/muwinsc1.html
Curiously enough this occasional usage is not where it was most needed
to exclude an ambiguity, but really "occasionally". This is also the
case in the following example:
> this early Qur'an uses occassional dots:
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/VaAr1605.html
It even is striking that - perhaps for reasons of reverence toward the
"holy text" - the addition of any marks apparently was done more
reluctantly in the Koran than in other written notes like the above
ones.
> in this early Qur'an dots are quite regular:
>
> http://faculty.washington.edu/wheelerb/quran/maili.html
Even here the dots are though added more often, by no means added on a
regular basis.
By the way, in those Korans with Hijazi or Ma'il script an additional
ambiguity is to be observed: Letters kaaf and daal are not to be
discerned.
> > f. "This process of determining the value of each letter of the Qur'an
> > unfolded over some three hundred years. This is known from the oldest
>
> the completion of an "unfolding" doesn't mean "there were none"
> before that.
>
> > manuscripts of the Qur'an which do not have the diacritical points
>
> there are no major contradictions, only very few minor variations,
The research on the Sanaa Korans by far has not been completed. So we
have to wait whether "contradictions", i.e. differences in the rasm
will be to be realized. But "minor variations" is a big understatement
in view of the fact that the vast ambiguity of the rasm allows a lot
of very different understandings of the text.
> and not in the examples he cites, between the available qur'anic
> readings. actually I know of no variation in dotting, but a few
> variations in vowel marks (at any rate these don't form the basis
> of Luxenberg's thesis).
Luxenberg so far has not referred to any manuscripts, only to the
Cairo Standard Edition. He is going to do so, however, in his
forthcoming book. And I can say you, there are some really interesting
variations.
> > distinguishing readings of a single consonant. By the time these became
> > commonly used, Arabian commentators were no longer aware that many words
> > were either straight Aramaic or were calques peculiar to Meccan Arabic. From
> > this resulted the difficulties that the Qur'an posed to even the earliest
> > Arabian commentators. "
>
> it's really irrrelevant what the etymology is, meaning is determined
> by usage.
Etymology by no means is irrelevant. On the contrary, it shows how the
actual usage must have changed in the course of time. It is one of the
greatest deficiencies of Arabic scholarship, Islamic as well as
Western scholarship, that we still don't have an etymological
dictionary of the Arabic language(s).
> also what Luxenberg considers "difficulties" is questionable (the
> reviewer alledges that only "repointing is done in "difficult" or
> "obscure" passages).
The "darkness" of these passages, Luxenberg deals with, hardly is
questionable. You only have to look at the difficulties Tabari has in
explaining them.
> I don't find anything difficult or obscure of the much discussed
> "Houri" passage as in the canonical text.
You don't? I am amazed.
Isn't it a difficulty (one of the most easily to be realized) that the
Koran in another passage has the promise that husband and wife will be
united in paradise. Do you imagine the wife in paradise being amused
to see her husband entertained by kind of celestial brothel?
> the only "difficulty" it seems is that it sounds "un-christian" to the
> author
No, these arguments are totally absent in Luxenberg's book.
> moreover, the claim that arabic << Hu:r >> was understood to be
> "virgins of Paradise" is false. it was in fact known that it refered
> to the attribute of whiteness (you don't have to refer to syriac to
> find that out) . it's just that "virgin" is concluded, for the
> particular beings concerned, from the following text.
And that is exactly, what Luxenberg says: It just was concluded - and
it was concluded erroneously.
> it is in fact widely known that arabic Hu:riyya(t) and persian Hu:ri:
> (from older persian Hu:re:) are post-Qur'anic words.
No contradiction!
> Qur'an commentaries are not usually word for word literal
> translations but are meant to convey the general meaning.
And this alleged "general meaning" as given by the commentaries is
erroneous in the case of the "Huwr `iyn" in Surah 44:54 and 52:20.
They are no "white-eyed (maidens)".
> using non-literal or even false modern translations (some of which may use
> post qur'anic or post-classical meanings (again the comment about
> etymology vs. meaning) are thus simply in error without any fault of
> the medieval scholars).
That argument is hardly understandable! Modern translations follow
just the post-Koranic meanings, namely the post-Koranic commentaries
of the Koran, and always repeat their errors - what Luxenberg does
not!
> I have doubts that scholarship is the real object of the book).
This suspicion of yours is gratuitious and irrelevant. Even if the
"real object" of the book were anything else than scholarship,
Luxenberg's arguments would remain valid and critics would be asked to
deal with them and to refute them in a scholarly manner.
> finally a general comment about "revisionist" theories is in order.
> crackpots, fringe theorists, net-loons, polemicists, "conspiracy
> theorists" ...
The "revisionist theories" are irrelevant in dealing with Luxenberg's
analysis of the Koranic text. Nevertheless this name-calling against
respected scholars is not warranted.
> in the case of the supporters of Luxenberg's theory and the theory
> itself there is glaring lack of any evidence for an original
> "christianizing syriac proto-Qur'an".
The proof of the pudding is in eating it. I only am amazed that people
ask for an archeological document of the "Ur-Koran", whereas we even
don't have such a document of the later Muhammadan Koran or at least
the alleged later Uthmanic recension of it - previous to the (revised)
Koranic documents of the Marwanide period.
> one wonders what vast political machinery in early medieval times was able to
> suppress it so thoroughly.
Luxenberg doesn't speak of a suppression, but of the later Muslims'
inability to understand the Syriacisms due to the defective script in
the transmitted text of the Koran. It is however no question that a
rigid censorship actually was executed in early-Islam times:
destroying of deviating Koran manuscripts, of whole collections of
thousands of poems etc.
> while evidence for variant readings and non-canonical text is there,
Only those non-canonical variants were transmitted which were
incomprehensible or for other reasons "innoxious". In a lot of cases,
however, Günter Lüling was able to clarify the real and very
interesting sense of the non-canonical variants.
> ... one would have expected christianizing supporters to have
> put up a fight, even to have survived in remoter regions and
> that there would be accounts of them (at least hostile) or at least
> an account of a struggle against them.
Such traces can be seen till in our times: The Shia to some degree was
a movement with Christian relics in it, and the early Shia vigorously
protested the alleged alteration of the Koran. Due to its political
weakness in those early times the Shia was in no position to elaborate
this view in academies, schools, and so on. Nevertheless the reproach
against the Koran still is alive in at least parts of the Shii family,
like for instance the (Turkish) Alevites.
> the point remaining is that there was no "central authority" politically
> powerful and with vast resources of repression at its disposal
Islamic historiography tells us that for instance Caliph Uthman was
powerful enough to enforce his edict that all rival Koran manuscripts
are to be destroyed ("washed off"). And this is not the only case.
> and that the early islamic community did suffer known schisms both
> political and religous but the basic text of the Qur'an remained
> essentially unchallenged.
That's not true. The Koran was challenged, even "essentially".
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barkatuhu:
> If we were to consider Syriac, the dotting of it came after the advent of
> Islam around end of seventh or beginning of 8th century CE. This is enough
> to turn a part of Luxenberg's thesis upside down.
A slight correction as well as observation. It has been frequently claimed
that Syriac gave rise to dotting as well as vowelling system in Arabic. As
for the dotting Syriac only contains couple of letters with dots, i.e.,
dalat and resh. By comparison, Arabic contains a total of 15 dotted
characters. Thus, the idea that Arabs borrowed a multitude of dots from
Syriac is rather a difficult proposition with clear evidence of
pre-Islamic as well as early Islamic use of dots in inscriptions, papyri,
coins, Qur'anic Mss. etc.
As for the diacritical marks, the development in Syriac is certainly
post-Islamic. In fact, Abu al-Aswad al-Du'ali (d. 69 H/688 CE) dotted the
entire Mushaf in the reign of Mu'waiyya (c. 50 H/670 CE). Ibn Sirin (d.
110 H/728 CE), according to al-Dani, possessed a Mushaf originally dotted
by Yahya b. Ya`mar (d. 90 H/708 CE). In Syriac, Jacob of Raha (d. 708 CE)
is credited to have invented the first set of markings and Theophilus
invented the second set in 8th century.
Furthermore, if Aramaic was so wide-spread in Arabia during the advent of
Islam, according to Luxenburg, why is that we see bilingual Arabic papyri
in Arabic and Greek and not Arabic and Aramaic/Syriac? One should also add
the recent presentation of Dr. Dutton at SOAS (at the Qur'an Conference,
last week) on the presence of the washed off pre-`Uthmanic variants as
seen in Mss containing post-`Uthmanic Qur'ans. If Qur'an was indeed
originally in Aramaic, then why is that there is no evidence to support
it. Something to think about.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Christoph Heger
"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.58L.0...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barkatuhu:
>
> > the following inscriptions have occassional use of dots
> > and are very early:
>
> This is true. An article was published some time ago in al-Atlal (Saudi
> Arabian Journal of Archeology), where a pre-Islamic inscription from
> 3rd-4th century CE was reconsidered by two Western scholars. They showed
> that this inscription is in Arabic and has occasional dotting. This
> itself is quite interesting. There are many examples of papyri, coins,
> inscriptions and Qur'anic Mss from 1st century of hijra that show dotting.
> If we were to consider Syriac, the dotting of it came after the advent of
> Islam around end of seventh or beginning of 8th century CE. This is enough
> to turn a part of Luxenberg's thesis upside down.
This is not true. Luxenberg's emendations of some erroneously
attributed diacritical points in the transmitted Koran are of minor
importance for his method. For instance his re-interpretation of surah
96 does without any alteration of these diacritical points. By the
way, Syriac is in much lesser need of "dotting", its letters don't
display the high ambiguity of the Arabic letters (where b, t, th, n
and y are not to differentiate without diacritical points).
> ..., we also have the problem of circular argumentation by Luxenberg.
People who use this reproach of "circular argumentation" seem to be
unaware of the difference between the "circulus viciosus", the
"vicious circle" or "devil's circle", which doesn't show anything,
because it is the logical fault of "petitio principii", and the
"circulus hermeneuticus", the "hermeneutical circle" which is an
legitimate and indispensible means in linguistic scholarship, as
already Aristotle had seen clearly.
> It has been point out by Angelika Neuwirth in her review of Luxenberg's
> work in "Qur'an and History - A Disputed Relationship. Some Reflections
> on Qur'anic History and History in the Qur'an", Journal of Qur'anic
> Studies, 2003, Volume V, Issue I, pp. 1-18.
Angelika Neuwirth lacks any presupposition to judge Luxenberg's work:
She is not familiar with Syriac.
> She says:
>
> "The method (of Luxenberg) presupposes its very results: the facticity of
> a Syriac layer underlying the Arabic text. Much of his material relies on
> obvious circular argument.... This is an extremely pretentious hypothesis
> which is unfortunately relying on rather modest foundations."
Due to her inability in Syriac Neuwirth avoids to deal with any
concrete argument of Luxenberg's.
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/luxreview1.html
This review by Angelika Neuwirth is a joke.
You should compare it with the detailed review by Robert R. Phenix Jr.
and Cornelia B. Horn in HUGOYE: JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES Vol. 6, No.
1, January 2003, which is presented here:
http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html
Or compare it with the review by Rainer Nabielek, "Weintrauben statt
Jungfrauen aïs paradiesische Freude : zu einer neuen Lesart des Korans
und ihrem Stellenwert innerhalb der modemen Koranforschung", INAMO
Informationsprojekt Naher und Mittlerer Osten, 23-24, 2000, p. 66-72,
which unfortunately till now is not to be seen on any website.
> Furthermore, de Blois discusses many examples of 'new readings' of
> Luxenberg and shows the howlers [Journal of Qur'anic Studies, 2003,
> Volume V, Issue 1, pp. 92-97].
François de Blois, who mainly is known in Iranic scholarship, at least
seems to have some knowledge in Syriac linguistic and so he deals with
a few points in Luxenberg's book. Unfortunately, his review is even
more despicable than Neuwirth's - because of its meanness: Already in
his first attempt to discredit Luxenberg as scholar de Blois
intentionally misrepresents Luxenberg's argumentation by omitting a
decisive point (Compare Luxenberg's page 32 with de Blois's
representation of the argument about surah 11:24 and 39:29: hal
yastawiyaani mathalan!).
Even worse: de Blois isn't ashamed to endanger the pseudonym of
Luxenberg, who has all rights to choose such a pseudonym to protect
himself and his family.
For a really enlighted review you may read:
Rémi Brague "Le Coran : sortir du cercle ?" in: Critique n° 671, avril
2003, pp.232-251. You can download it (together with some minor
orthographic mistakes, apparently due to the scanning procedure) from
this site:
http://phronesis.org/IMG/rtf/Brague-Luxenberg-RTF.rtf
Rémi Brague is Professor at the universities of Paris and Munich and
an highly respected expert on Islamic philosophy.
Now once more to de Blois:
> He says:
>
> "[A]ny reader who wants to take the trouble to plough through Luxenberg's
> 'new reading' of any of the numerous passages discussed in this book will
> concede that the 'new reading' does not actually make better sense than a
> straight classical Arabic reading of the traditional text.
Apart from those parts which make no sense at all! To give a minor
example, already known to this forum: words like "qaswarah" which
simply had not been in existence before some fanciful Koran Readers
invented it.
Eventually de Blois has the nerve to tell people that:
> He is someone who evidently speaks some Arabic dialect, has a passable,
> but not flawless command of classical Arabic,
I have the honour to know Christoph Luxenberg personally and can tell
you that his erudition in Arabic, vernacular as well as Classical
Arabic, is undisputed by all collegues of his.
> knows enough Syriac so as to be able to consult a dictionary, but is
> innocent of any real understanding of the methodology of comparative
> Semitic linguistics.
Ridiculous!
> His book is not a work of scholarship but of dilettantism."
These envious dilettanti should be cautious that they will not be
exposed in the course of the further discussion, especially when
Luxenberg will publish his next book, showing documentary evidence.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
John Berg
to have gone "off-track" between the date of my initial message and the date
of this one.
Between Muhammad's first recitation to his death and presumed last
revelation, each small region in his traveling range had an argot reflecting
the languages spoken by the people. Illiteracy was endemic. There were no
or few books because there were a tiny fraction of the population who could
read. Learning writing for the people of this region was silly in view of
the number of readers; learning reading, even sillier. Recitation was the
major mode of mass communication and recites often benefited from the dole
of the local leader. (That's why Persian poetry has the feel of a football
cheer, with the recite as the cheerleader: "Hurrah for ourside and out
breath doesn't smell but those enemy breaths stink".) Reciters had a
motivation to record memory aids and the primitive reinvention of writing in
the Middle east probably reflected the observation of other peoples reading
and writing. One hopes we'll find among the writings of other more advanced
civilizations reference to the history of this region between 550 and 800
AD.
What was recorded reflected the argots and regions in which it was recorded.
A recent thread on recitation versus recorded text reflects a frightening
aberrance of logic. However, one can imagine in our subject time a listener
challenging a reciter's reading of his own notes which might have
idiosyncratic consonants and vague vowels. If A, the listener, says that
what B, the reciter, said was not what the Prophet said, would you, as
judge, picked the listener A over the listener B with notes?
>From my studies I now know that the Qur'an was written in Arabic--sometime
after 800. It was translated from the fundus which was probably in many
argots. Tradition probably was influential, judging by the retrospective
need to show how reliable it used to be. Muslims have much invested in the
validity of oral transmission of tradition. But this is an important point:
I am not "attacking" a single verse but writing from the general to the
specific. If someone in 750 AD called his collection of the Qur'anic fundus
the "Qur'an," I can not specifically name him or state the language of his
collection. But I know that those who translated selections of this fundus
into the Arabic and inserted pious assertions to convince the people of its
validity called it the Qur'an. How much more gloss was added we many never
know. Perhaps we will find some such collection hidden away from those who
would destroy it.
We search for the first Qur'an. With it we could enumerate every word,
assign it meaning, denotation, connotations, and dates of first occurrence.
Christoph Heger has based his study on what he considers the earliest
Qur'an. And we still haven't learned how consistent it is with the
contemporary canonical form. From what I've read, Muslim scholars have not
even produced a commonly agreed upon critical Arabic version. It's
reasonable to believe that they are hiding less then they say.
--
John Berg
john...@mchsi.com
"John Berg" <john...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:WSihb.713961$YN5.608914@sccrnsc01...
Yusuf B Gursey
the main points are best answered in the reviews that were posted, so for
the moment I don't find it neccessary to go over the details.
only a few points.
one thing more. you can have syriac with arabic loanwords or arabic with
syriac loanwords. you can't have a mixed bag of arbitrary syriac or
arabic (which is what the reviewer syas "inflectional endings and all").
: Classical Arabic never has been a "spoken language" in the sense of a
read what I said. it was *based* on *various* certain spoken forms.
we know this form *comparative* (on *cognates* loanwords) semitics.
: daily vernacular, it always has been the language of only poets (and
: later of literati). Concerning the argument of "oral tradition", see
: below.
:> modern linguists and historians take the early arab philologists
:> seriously and they exhbited a considerbale sophistication for
:> their time.
: With some qualifications! The linguistic knowledge of these scholars
: of old was rather poor. They had no idea of Hebrew and Aramaic, the
etymology is irrelevant if you know the *usage*.
: etymology of the words they dealt with were unknown to them and so on.
: An eminent German arabicist, August Fischer, - I think every student
: learning Arabic, at least in Germany, knows his "Arabische
: Chrestomathie" - once wrote (in ZDMG vol. 60 (1906), p. 373; my
note the date.
:> I don't find anything difficult or obscure of the much discussed
:> "Houri" passage as in the canonical text.
: You don't? I am amazed.
: Isn't it a difficulty (one of the most easily to be realized) that the
: Koran in another passage has the promise that husband and wife will be
: united in paradise. Do you imagine the wife in paradise being amused
: to see her husband entertained by kind of celestial brothel?
well, it sounds that way to modern readers, but this was a matter of
course in the palaces of many societies (including non-muslim ones) until
very recently, with the emperor having only one or few wives and a host of
concubines.
again, this is subjective scrupples, and christian or modern scrupples.
Heaven described as royal life is actually found in modern critcal works.
:> the only "difficulty" it seems is that it sounds "un-christian" to the
:> author
: No, these arguments are totally absent in Luxenberg's book.
the argument may not be explicitly stated, but for a thesis that argues
that the Qur'an was originally a christian tract this does pose a problem.
so the book spends a hefty fraction just on this passage.
:> moreover, the claim that arabic << Hu:r >> was understood to be
:> "virgins of Paradise" is false. it was in fact known that it refered
:> to the attribute of whiteness (you don't have to refer to syriac to
:> find that out) . it's just that "virgin" is concluded, for the
:> particular beings concerned, from the following text.
: And that is exactly, what Luxenberg says: It just was concluded - and
: it was concluded erroneously.
no. it was not concluded for the *word* Hu:r . "virgin" was concluded for
the context.
"erroneous" is the claim of Luxenberg.
:> it is in fact widely known that arabic Hu:riyya(t) and persian Hu:ri:
:> (from older persian Hu:re:) are post-Qur'anic words.
: No contradiction!
it shows the polemical nature of the work.
it creates the impresion that the *word* was misunderstood. it wasn't.
: That argument is hardly understandable! Modern translations follow
: just the post-Koranic meanings, namely the post-Koranic commentaries
: of the Koran, and always repeat their errors - what Luxenberg does
: not!
a *literal* commentary would not do that for the *word*
:> I have doubts that scholarship is the real object of the book).
: This suspicion of yours is gratuitious and irrelevant. Even if the
: "real object" of the book were anything else than scholarship,
: Luxenberg's arguments would remain valid and critics would be asked to
: deal with them and to refute them in a scholarly manner.
which has been done!
: The "revisionist theories" are irrelevant in dealing with Luxenberg's
a "revisionist theory" is simply one that goes againstwhat is accpeted,
which is what Luxenberg's work is.
: against the Koran still is alive in at least parts of the Shii family,
: like for instance the (Turkish) Alevites.
I am very familair with them. they do in general accpet the Qur'an as it
is, excpet contending that Ali ought ot have been mentioned. one turkish
Alevi attempted to re-order the Qur'an but the overwhelming majority did
not pay any attention (with perhaps a handful of fringe groups excepted).
the work was regarded by theologians as unscholarly.
1MAN4ALL
> The problem now is (1) a general one: that we cannot know what the
> "oral tradition" might have been in those early times, and (2) a
> particular one: that a lot of words, as admitted by the early
> commentators, were not established by "oral tradition", instead they
> made some fanciful guesses what they might mean.
What you are referring to is a common problem with every language. To
accept what you are implying, no book written in ancient times can
ever be fully understood! Doubt can be created about any word. Just
because a word has many meanings it does not mean that is
"incomprehensible." Your arguments on this subject_ for the past
several months_ are based on many fallacies which I shall rebut as
follows:
1. You (and Orientalists) are taking words in isolation and forgetting
that words are not only interpreted by their dictionary definitions
but also by the context in which they occur.
2. All languages have words that have shades of meanings, but that
does not mean that those meanings negate each other. It is often the
sum total of those meanings which define a word. Take for example the
word "Love." Webster defines it as "(1): strong affection for another
arising out of kinship or personal ties (2): attraction based on
sexual desire: affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3): affection
based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests (4): warm
attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion (5) a: the object of attachment,
devotion, or admiration." Now, all of these meanings can be added up
to convey what a man may feel for a woman. So if you prefer meaning
(1) and I like (3), it does not mean that the word "love" or the
concept is incomprehensible and we are "guessing" as to what it means.
3. The etymology of a word can sometimes refine the meaning of a word
but that is not always the case, especially if the word has been
adopted from another language. Take for example the word "host" in
English, which is derived from three different Latin words "hostis"
(army) and "hospes" (host, guest, stranger), and "hostia" (animal
sacrificed). So when the Bible says, "Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon
come, he, and all his 'host', against Jerusalem, and pitched against
it..." the obvious meaning is "army" and not sacrificed animals. And
when you use the word in such common phrases such as "host of
details", "hosts of heaven", the etymological meaning is irrelevant
and one has to look at the context.
4. Nearly all languages have borrowed words from other/older
languages. But once a word has been adopted, it has a new 'identity'
and one cannot go back to the original language to define the word in
the new language; one has to look at the way in which the adopting
culture has interpreted it. Take for example the word "gruel" which is
adopted from the Old French meaning "meal." But in colloquial
language, when you add the suffix "-ing" as in "grueling" it means
"exhausting" or "punishing."
5. Many Orientalists' theories, which are critical of Quran, are based
on untenable assumptions that Muslims "must have" invented the Quran
and 'jahili' poetry or have been lying though the ages about their
religion, for which no evidence is ever provided. They have set up
such a high standard for Islamic texts_ "extant" sources, preferably
from pagan/atheistic sources_ that no other culture can possibly meet
that requirement. They forget_ or purposely ignore_ that historical
analysis should consists of looking for internal consistencies and
evaluation based on other sources of information, not inventing
theories based on assumptions or "what ifs". If you build a hypothesis
by selectively cutting out facts that contradict your own theory, that
is not scholarship but political and religious activism.
I suggest that you take Shakespeare's Hamlet or any book and try to do
with it what some Orientalists have tried to do with Quran_ which is
to look at the etymological meanings and foreign origins of each word_
and then realize how ridiculous an exercise that is. Somehow when it
comes to Islam or Quran, the critics start playing dumb...and that is
why they rarely get a response from serious scholars. But even dumber
is our media which presents the most ridiculous of these charges as
great scholarly works.
> > by the time of Tabari here (late 9th - early 10th cen.) was a
> > vigorous lexicograhical and a grammatical tradition before
> > (8th cent.), when the first arabic dictionary was written. at
> > this time there were qur'an comentaries as well.
>
> Tabari, however, wrote his commentary without the possibility to look
> say into the Lisan. Luxenberg however extensively uses the Lisan - and
> he finds a lot of fine traditions, which only have not been understood
> when the Lisan was written.
Tabari himself was great grammarian. According to Yaqut's "Irshad
al-arib ila ma'rifat al adib (Mu'jam al-udaba')," edited by
Margoliouth, "The work [Tafsir] became very famous. Abu al-Abbas Ahmad
b. Yahya Tha'lab and Abu al Abbas Muhammad. Yazid al-Mubarrad, the
great authorities on grammar and semantics (i'rab and ma'ani), were
still at the time, as were other expert Arab grammarians such as Aby
Ja'far al-Rustami , Abu Hasan b. Kaysan, al-Mufaddal b. Salamah,
al-Ja'd, and Abu Ishaq al-Zajjaj. The Tafsir achieved wide
distribution in East and West. All contemporary scholars read it, and
all considered it truly excellent." [For secondary reference see, The
History of al-Tabari, Volume 1, page 107].
> > in the 10th cent. arabic is quite clear to current readers.
>
> That's a circular argument! A lot of fanciful semantics and
> grammatical rules had been accepted in the meantime - more so in the
> Classical or Standard Arabic, less so in the various vernaculars.
All evidence is to the contrary and throughout history there have been
many great many Muslim scholars who studied and debated the language
and, specifically, the so-called foreign words in Quran. According to
Frank Resenthal's introduction to The History of al-Tabari, "It could
easily be deducted from his Tafsir that he [Tabari] was well versed in
grammar and lexicography. Excellence was claimed for him also in other
fields of philology classified among the Arab linguistic sciences. His
personal contacts with philologists of all descriptions were quite
numerous, if much less so than his contacts with traditionists and
legal scholars....His interest in foreign languages deserve notice, in
particular, because it is connected with his attitude toward the
intensely debated question of the occurrence of non-Arabic words in
the Quran...In Tafsir he discusses the relationship of Persian and
Arabic (I,7) and the Ethiopic loan words (I,6-8). From al-Farra, he
learned that 'fatih' or 'fattah' apparently meant "judge" in the
language of Uman (IX,3, l.12, ad Qur. 8.89), clearly a South Arabian
(South Semitic) term. Musa could be derived from Coptic "water" and
"tree" (moou and sei[?]} (I,222, l.2, ad Qur. 2:51). He was aware of
the fanciful suggestion that 'taha' is "O man" in Nabataean/Syriac
(XVI, 102, f., ad Qur. 20.2), but he apparently rejected the
(Byzantine) Greek derivation of 'firdaws (XVI,29,l.22 ad Qur.
18:107)...Tabari seems to have enjoyed discussing evidential verses in
Tafsir and, especially, in Tahdhib for the explanation of rare words
in traditions. He inserted poetical quotations in History when they
served to enliven the narrative or to support the historical
argument..."
That the issue of foreign words in Quran was brought to light not by
Western scholars but by early Muslims themselves is also exemplified
by Imam Shafi'i explanation in his Risala. His explanation, as I have
summarized, is as follows:
1. To say that Quran has Arabic words is like saying that there are
words in Quran which Arabs cannot understand.
2. Arabic is "the richest and most extensive" in vocabulary. No one
scholar is expected to know all the words, but if knowledge of all
scholars is gathered together there "no portion of it [Quran] will
escapes anyone, so that there is always someone who knows it."
3. "We do not deny that [there may exist] in foreign tongues certain
words, whether acquired or transmitted, which may be similar to those
of the Arab tongue, just as some words in one foreign tongue may be
similar to those in other, although these tongues are spoken in
separate countries and are different and unrelated to one another
despite the similarity in some of the words."
4. "Since tongues vary so much that different people cannot understand
one another, some must adopt the language of the others."
5. Quran itself has answered this issue a number of times. See Quran
XLI,44; XVI,105; XIII, 37; XXVI, 192-195; XXXIX,29. [If Quran was
being revealed in a language that the Companions of the Prophet
(s.a.w) didn't understand, they could easily have objected to these
verses.]
> The problem now always has been that the Koranic language nevertheless
> remained to be felt as strange, the text remained to a good portion
> incomprehensible, and the meaning which was given to those
> incomprensible passages could only given to them by violating the
> grammar and lexic of Classical Arabic.
The only people who are finding it "incomprehensible" are some Western
authors who are making the mistakes that I have outlined above.
> Classical Arabic never has been a "spoken language" in the sense of a
> daily vernacular, it always has been the language of only poets (and
> later of literati). Concerning the argument of "oral tradition", see
> below.
I have already answered that in my previous response to you.
> With some qualifications! The linguistic knowledge of these scholars
> of old was rather poor. They had no idea of Hebrew and Aramaic, the
> etymology of the words they dealt with were unknown to them and so on.
That is assuming that all Arabic is derived from Hebrew and Aramaic
and any linguistics professor would tell you that is false.
> An eminent German arabicist, August Fischer, - I think every student
> learning Arabic, at least in Germany, knows his "Arabische
> Chrestomathie" - once wrote (in ZDMG vol. 60 (1906), p. 373; my
> translation): "Actually we are entitled to believe the oldest
> Muslimeen, in view of their absolute lack of erudition in literary
> matters, to have been capable of any stupidity in matters of Qur'an
> exegesis."
Sounds like an ignorant statement to me. Opinions are not facts.
> > with modern linguistic methods and modern criticism
> > they are confirmed and believed, with the usual qualification
> > of anything not being absolute.
>
> There surely are a lot of interesting observations made by these old
> Arabic (and Persian!) scholars, but on the whole they have been
> utterly wrong: not to realize or not willing or not permitted to
> realize the reality concerning Classical Arabic and the language of
> the Koran. They even faked a good portion of the so called Old Arabic
> Poetry to present examples for their curious grammatical rules.
Where is the historical evidence that Muslims faked rules of grammar?
> Even
> worse, they distorted a good portion of the genuine Old Arabic poems
> beyond recognition; this fact even was known to the Arabic poet
> Al-Ma'arri some centuries later.
It is possible that some poems were forgotten and were later changed
but that is hardly any proof that Muslims deliberately distorted
jahili poetry to make it compatible with Quran.
> Luxenberg refers to the Cairo Standard Edition of the Koran, but
> realizing that only its rasm can be considered as more or less
> reliable, i.e. the script without later additions like vowel signs,
> diacritical points, tashdeeds, corrections of defective writing and so
> on. The "changing of the text" was not done by Luxenberg, but by the
> old grammarians, who by the way not seldom were also ambitious
> politicians. They added the various signs and did so till in the 8th
> or possibly even the 9th century.
All these things have been discussed and debated by Muslims. The
ignorant fools keep pretending that this is something that was
discovered by Orientalists. What we are discussing is the writing of
the Quran not the oral tradition or the meanings which have long been
interpreted.
As this post is getting very long, let me end here. But I think I have
already answered most of your comments. If you feel that I should have
answered any of your comments that I snipped, please do let me know.
Christoph Heger
misrepresantation of an important argument of Luxenberg's:
> ... (Compare Luxenberg's page 32 with de Blois's
> representation of the argument about surah 11:24 and 39:29: hal
> yastawiyaani mathalan!).
Correction: It is page 30, not 32.
I apologize for the typo and all inconvenience.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Yusuf B Gursey
> This thread's discussion of the new philological study of the Qur'an seems
> to have gone "off-track" between the date of my initial message and the date
> of this one.
I'll continue the utter futility of objectivley discussing a historical or
linguistic subject on this forum perhaps one more time. these subjects are
better brought up on more academic forums or lists or newsgroups, or at
least those that bring it up should have better preparation before asking
and should ask with the view of getting an answer - whatever it is in
mind, rather than using it as a litmus test for the respondants views. too
often a in this forum and a few others like alt.religion.islam one is a
"fundie" if one accepts just about any of the traditional accounts
in the literature of islamic civilization, and a "modern' if one
subscribes to any theory however crackpot that contradicts it, and "the
more it contradicts the more it must truer" is the operating mode (and
"while you are at it you ought to through in some ethnic stereotyping, as
in the post I am responding to, is the rule of thumb). well, in this
atmosphere intellectual discussion is pointless.
nevertheless, to amuse myself one more time:
firstly, I am going to disregard "the words of wisdom"(!) by Herr
Luxenberg, so those otherwise inclined, just be happy that Herr Luxenberg
has come along to set things right :)
>
> Between Muhammad's first recitation to his death and presumed last
> revelation, each small region in his traveling range had an argot reflecting
> the languages spoken by the people. Illiteracy was endemic. There were no
well, every region has and had its own "argot". argot is the lowest
sociolect used by marginal elements of society, usually criminal, usually
used when discussing illegal or taboo matters. this probably was true for
ancient arabia as well, since classical arabic even had a word for these
bedouin outcasts. however, the "argot" will probably be never known to us,
an argot is rarely written (except in the screenplays of modern R-rated
movies).
arabia does offer a not inconsiderable number of inscriptions in both
nabatean or arabic as weell as south semitic script. from these and from
oral poetry (one can distinguihs to some extent genuine poems from
forgeries by archaicisms in the language) and from the dialectological
pattern recorded a century or two later, one can get a fair idea of the
actual speech of Muhammad's time and locality.
the history of language in Arabia, excluding the southern rim roughly goes
like this:
at a certain point the peninsula was dominated by semitic idioms (to avoid
any quibble about language vs. dialect) quite similar to what we know as
Arabic, but differening from each other most strinkingly by teh differnece
in the definite article which could be al- , am- (yemen) or ha-/han- (if
a few others have not been discovered). the al- speech was that of the
sedentary
Nabateans, among others, and gained an ascendancy over the others, and
this was true of the nabatean (later arabic) alphabet over the
south-semitic script used by the others. by the time of Muhammad the al-
speech had driven the others out (or nearly so) except in yemen, and had
established some sort of literary standard used by poets and to a limited
extent in writing. we know arabic documents (frequently bilingual) of the
early islamic era dating as early as 22 AH, as shown before. by this time
some of the speech of the northern settled regions bordering or near
Syria, Iraq diverged somewhat on the direction of the modern colloquials.
we call these various forms of speech "Arabic", since the speakers were
called arabs by themselves (from inscriptions) and by some of their
neighbors (i.e. in ancient yemen), and because these idioms were in a
large part mutually intelligible. furthermore, some doucments like the
Qur'an use the term "Arabic" for the language and so do some traditions.
there seems nothing anomalous in this. as for the Qur'an itself, it is
written in a manner close to the poetic standard (arisen through an
intermingling of dialects), but showing some of the characteristics of
the local dialect of Hijaz as well.
a century or two later, arabic was standardized by picking and choosing
characteristics from various types of speech selected from the Qur'an, old
poetry and informants (generally bedouins form the more southern regions).
the speech of he settled north seesm to have diverged to some degree from
the old arabian informal standard, and was not a major source for the
selections of the grammarians. through their works on the dialects of
their day, pre-islamic epigraphy and modern linguistics, one can get a
fair idea of the speech of Muhammad's time.
incidentally the peculiar dialect of yemen (Himyari) and its script
(musnad) survived to a degree into the islamic era to be recorded by arab
scholars. traces of it survive in modern yemeni colloquial.
but of Luxenberg the Saviour has coem, assuring us that things were really
nice and Syriac and nice and Christian, wereit not for those Arabs who
changed it!
> or few books because there were a tiny fraction of the population who could
actually amongs the oldest inscriptions in southsemeitic script there is
considerable casual graffiti which goes like "so and so, son (or daughter)
of so and so, drew this young-she-camel" (and such a drawing follows)
indicatingeveryday use of writing by at least commoner people.
> read. Learning writing for the people of this region was silly in view of
> the number of readers; learning reading, even sillier. Recitation was the
> major mode of mass communication and recites often benefited from the dole
> of the local leader. (That's why Persian poetry has the feel of a football
(notice the obligatory ethnic stereotyping)
> cheer, with the recite as the cheerleader: "Hurrah for ourside and out
you must have went to games by extremely sophisticated people!
> breath doesn't smell but those enemy breaths stink".) Reciters had a
(something else stinks here)
> motivation to record memory aids and the primitive reinvention of writing in
> the Middle east probably reflected the observation of other peoples reading
> and writing. One hopes we'll find among the writings of other more advanced
> civilizations reference to the history of this region between 550 and 800
> AD.
>
> What was recorded reflected the argots and regions in which it was recorded.
>
certainly not "argots". what you perhaps mean is "dialects"
> >From my studies I now know that the Qur'an was written in Arabic--sometime
what studies? second hand accounts of Luxenberg's book, USENET posts,
websites of dubious credentials?
> after 800. It was translated from the fundus which was probably in many
this is not accepted by most historians.
there are certainly dated muslim arabic inscriptions, as well as at least
fragements of the qur'an much earlier.
> argots. Tradition probably was influential, judging by the retrospective
> need to show how reliable it used to be. Muslims have much invested in the
> validity of oral transmission of tradition. But this is an important point:
according to experts, an oral tradition combined with textual preservation
and commentary has kept the text quite intact. according M. Cook, who is
known as a skeptic.
> I am not "attacking" a single verse but writing from the general to the
> specific. If someone in 750 AD called his collection of the Qur'anic fundus
> the "Qur'an," I can not specifically name him or state the language of his
that's a limitation on your knowledge, not others.
> collection. But I know that those who translated selections of this fundus
> into the Arabic and inserted pious assertions to convince the people of its
incidentally, according to reputable western historians, there is no
obvious (or proven) insertion.
but according to Herr luxenberg, things were nice and rosy and that once
Christian tract is altered beyond recognition.
> validity called it the Qur'an. How much more gloss was added we many never
> know. Perhaps we will find some such collection hidden away from those who
> would destroy it.
>
> We search for the first Qur'an. With it we could enumerate every word,
> assign it meaning, denotation, connotations, and dates of first occurrence.
> Christoph Heger has based his study on what he considers the earliest
> Qur'an. And we still haven't learned how consistent it is with the
> contemporary canonical form. From what I've read, Muslim scholars have not
> even produced a commonly agreed upon critical Arabic version. It's
Christoph Heger in ARI gave refernce to a voluminous one.
Shibli Zaman
wa ba`d,
Dear and Respected SRI readers,
After receiving repeated emails regarding this thread I will jump in
and add the following comments. Unfortunately, due to time constraints
and limited internet access over the next month or so I will not be
able to follow up. After this, I don't think I'll have to anyways...
christo...@onlinehome.de (Christoph Heger) wrote in message news:<23a0d3d0.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> This is not true. Luxenberg's emendations of some erroneously
> attributed diacritical points in the transmitted Koran are of minor
> importance for his method. For instance his re-interpretation of surah
> 96 does without any alteration of these diacritical points. By the
No, what -you- say is not true. I have the book here and it heavily
relies on diacritical marks for it's arguments:
On page 64 he plays with dots to say "zanīm" should be "ratīm"
(doubles the dot on the nūn and removes it from the zay) so that he
can tie it to the Syriac *verb* ratīmoā which he erroneously
transliterates as "rtīmā". This error shows that, first of all, he
doesn't know Syriac. Second, he is either using a lexicon that doesn't
have voweling or he doesn't even know how to read voweling, hence, his
transliteration which is a dead giveaway that he doesn't know a zekōfō
from a petōkhō.
Also, another evidence that he is just hopping a lexicon is his
complete lack of understanding in Syriac grammar. In order to
construct the sentence as he wants (as a noun), the word would not be
"rtīmā" or even "ratīmoā, but it would be either:
1) retmoā (resh/revōtzō,taw,mīm/zekōfō,alef)
2) ratmoā (resh/petōchō,taw,mīm/zekōfō,alef)
3) rotmoā (resh/zekōfō,taw,mīm/zekōfō,alef)
However, this erroneous "rtīmā" is simply an error of his that does
not exist in Syriac.
This is just one example. He does the same on pages 62-65 with "`atal"
becoming "`āl". He does it on pp 72-74 with "muzjāt" which he turns
into "murjāt" (he also doesn't know Arabic and this is blatantly clear
with his constantly mixing up -āt and -iyah suffixes. TONS of errors
throughout the book on this). On page 92 "laHada" becomes "lajadah",
etc, etc, etc.
If I go on we'll end up with an entire book. Yes, that was a hint...
> way, Syriac is in much lesser need of "dotting", its letters don't
> display the high ambiguity of the Arabic letters (where b, t, th, n
> and y are not to differentiate without diacritical points).
This is absolutely false. Not only are the diacritical marks and
vocalizations crucial, the letters themselves can be extremely
ambiguous. In Syriac orthography there have been monumental textual
errors in confusing the kāf and the bet, semkhat and het, etc. With
all due respect, what are you talking about? Why do you so often take
advantage of the fact that your readers aren't even remotely familiar
with Syriac? When you and I debated regarding your erroneous
association of the Arabic "nathīr" with the Syriac "nadīr" (it's
Syriac cognate is "nazdehr" not "nadīr" as was proven) in the presence
of a CHRISTIAN Assyrian who was fluent in Syriac whose side did he
take? Lest I remind you, it was not yours. Must I check you on this
every single year?
This game of yours and the so-called "Luxenberg's" will not last long.
It'll be refuted thoroughly and fizzle before his book is even
translated into English (I hear they're having tons of problems with
this task and for good reason).
> > ..., we also have the problem of circular argumentation by Luxenberg.
>
> People who use this reproach of "circular argumentation" seem to be
> unaware of the difference between the "circulus viciosus", the
> "vicious circle" or "devil's circle", which doesn't show anything,
> because it is the logical fault of "petitio principii", and the
> "circulus hermeneuticus", the "hermeneutical circle" which is an
> legitimate and indispensible means in linguistic scholarship, as
> already Aristotle had seen clearly.
Ummmm, yeah. Okay, that has a lot to do with what we're talking about?
> Angelika Neuwirth lacks any presupposition to judge Luxenberg's work:
> She is not familiar with Syriac.
And you know this how?
> This review by Angelika Neuwirth is a joke.
>
> You should compare it with the detailed review by Robert R. Phenix Jr.
> and Cornelia B. Horn in HUGOYE: JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES Vol. 6, No.
> 1, January 2003, which is presented here:
>
> http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html
Now *this* review is the joke. All they did was parrot pieces from the
book which are so erroneous one wonders how even a Lebanese Christian
(which Luxenberg is) who is only familiar with vernacular Arabic can
make such HUGE errors. Don't say there are none. Even a layman who
skims through the table of contents will see these errors (i.e.
"at-tawrīyah" in Arabic script being transliterated as "at-tawrāt" in
latin script, etc.)
> Or compare it with the review by Rainer Nabielek, "Weintrauben statt
> Jungfrauen aļs paradiesische Freude : zu einer neuen Lesart des Korans
> und ihrem Stellenwert innerhalb der modemen Koranforschung", INAMO
> Informationsprojekt Naher und Mittlerer Osten, 23-24, 2000, p. 66-72,
> which unfortunately till now is not to be seen on any website.
Yes, and that is just oh so accessible to the readers of this
newsgroup, right?
> Franēois de Blois, who mainly is known in Iranic scholarship, at least
> seems to have some knowledge in Syriac linguistic and so he deals with
> a few points in Luxenberg's book. Unfortunately, his review is even
Yes, obviously more familiar than Luxenberg as he correctly points out
what you criticize as inaccurate saying:
> more despicable than Neuwirth's - because of its meanness: Already in
> his first attempt to discredit Luxenberg as scholar de Blois
> intentionally misrepresents Luxenberg's argumentation by omitting a
> decisive point (Compare Luxenberg's page 32 with de Blois's
> representation of the argument about surah 11:24 and 39:29: hal
> yastawiyaani mathalan!).
Actually, how someone can fit so many errors into such a short
paragraph as Luxenberg has done on this particular subject is amazing.
Not only is Francois de Blois' criticism accurate but he HELD BACK.
There is MORE. For example in the SAME paragraph Luxenberg has in
Arabic script "hal yastawī al-mathalān" which he transliterates in
Latin script as "hal yastawī L-mathalān" which have two completely
DIFFERENT meanings, and are not even grammatically feasible! The
alef-lām is the definite article in Arabic as in "the", whereas, the
lām alone is an indicative preposition as in "for". Yes, there's even
MORE, but now I am holding back. Who on earth has the time? Oh yeah,
you do. Sorry. I don't.
> Even worse: de Blois isn't ashamed to endanger the pseudonym of
> Luxenberg, who has all rights to choose such a pseudonym to protect
> himself and his family.
Give me a BREAK. Please name just ONE time in the entire modern
criminal history of the Western hemisphere when any scholar (or
wannabe-scholar) was killed by Muslims. Just ONE. The only reason he
is anonymous is to remove any consequences to his credibility.
Even Salman Rushdie is alive and well in NY and he had an erroneous
fatwah of death placed on him by the Ayatollah (for political
reasons). This is all just a big sham.
> Apart from those parts which make no sense at all! To give a minor
> example, already known to this forum: words like "qaswarah" which
> simply had not been in existence before some fanciful Koran Readers
> invented it.
The only reason you've been able to parrot this one for so long is
that I just haven't had enough time to address it. Now after getting
so many emails I am going to close the case once and for all.
The commentators of the Qur'ān have stated clearly through
authenticated narrators that the word "qaswarah" is a reference to
archers and archery. The narrations about it meaning "lion" are all
minority opinions and/or not authentic.
"Allaah has said: 'farratu(n)' meaning to escape and flee 'min
qaswarah' meaning from the archers that shoot arrows at them. Some of
the scholars of (Arabic) linguistics have said, 'Verily, qaswarah
comes from archer and it's plural is qaswarah.' Similarly have said
Sa`īd ibn Jubayr, `Ikrimah, Mujāhid, Qatādah and DaHāk (all leading
companions, their companions, and primary commentators - Shibli).
Kīsān has said, 'They are archers and hunters.'.."
[al-Jāmi`ū li-aHkām al-Qur'ān, al-QurTubī]
This is the opinion of the overwhelming majority. There are reports
attributed to Ibn `Abbās and Abū Hurayrah that "qaswarah" means "lion"
but they are few, many of them are not authentic, and they are the
minority. In the `Ulūm al-Qur'ān the ijma`ah of the SaHābah and/or
tabi`īn takes precedence.
Thus, this word refers to arrows and archery. What were arrows made of
in ancient Semitic and Hamitic cultures?
"Obsidian was quite plentiful as a raw material and was worked on the
spot, the evidence for this being pyramidal cores, crested blades and
core tablets (See Page 528 and 529 ibid). Not only were there obsidian
blades and flakes but also small borers and arrowhead tangs. One piece
has been analysed from Judaidah which was found to have come from the
Ciftlik source (See Page 65). The chipped stone industry is in general
quite similar to what we know of the material from Ras Shamra V B and
V A although there are differences in the types of sickle blades
preferred at each site and the quantities of obsidian present, a
function of ease of communication with and distance from the sources."
[The Neolithic of the Levant (1978), A.M.T. Moore (Oxford University),
Chapter 5 (Pages 307 - 313), Neolithic 3 Tell Judaidah, Pre-History
and Archaeology Glossary, Excerpts and Definitions and Addendums]
Obsidian and it's related pumice are magmatic rock which have been
used in the making of blades and arrowheads from prehistoric North
America to the prehistoric Middle East.
And in Syriac we have the following:
"qasrā (qāf,semkhat,resh,alef): kiss(h)ris (Shibli: Greek text,
imperfect form of kis(h)ris for which the LSJ says the derivative is
unknown), PUMICE STONE.."
[A Compendius Syriac Dictionary Founded Upon The Thesaurus Syriacus of
R. Payne Smith, Edited by J. Payne Smith (Mrs. Margoliouth), p. 512]
End of story. However, I am sure you'll wait until you -think- people
forgot that I wrote this and you'll start repeating the same thing
over again.
As a cautionary note it is extremely vital to mention that Arabic was
a language that developed from Nabataean and NOT Syriac. Both
Nabataean and Syriac are Aramaic subdialects that developed IN TANDEM,
but in ENTIRELY different geo-historical contexts! The only striking
thing they have in common is that they both evolved from Aramaic (as
is likely with Biblical Hebrew, though that is a long "chicken and the
egg" argument).
So MY methodology in REFUTING Luxenberg is as follows:
1) Let it be known that Syriac did NOT beget Arabic, but Arabic came
from Nabataean (called "an-NabaTīyyah" in Arabic) which is an entirely
different language. This is testified to thoroughly in competent
scholarship and in the Arabic lexica both classical and modern. The
similarities between Arabic, Syriac are matters of COGNATES and not
Syriac parental etymons which trickled into the Qur'ān. An example of
a cognate is the English "petrify" which comes from the Greek "petros"
for stone, but NOT from the French "petrifier"! The French did not get
it from Anglo-Saxony, nor did the Anglo-Saxons get it from the French.
They both got it from Greek. What if I were to postulate that the King
James AV 1611 Bible was originally a French romance due to these
COGNATES? What if I said Shakespeare was actually a French
revolutionary writing perverted stories to destroy the rival England?
It would be utterly preposterous. The difference between cognates and
etymons MUST be understand or else you fall victim to a fancy
imagination. Luxenberg remains absolutely clueless in this issue.
2) Refute Luxenberg ANYWAYS using his OWN methodology. This is
achieved by proving that his usage of Syriac words is absolutely
erroneous. The words he claims have a different meaning in Syriac than
as used in the Qur'ān mean the SAME THING in both Syriac and in the
Qur'ān. I've done this above by showing that the Qur'ānic "qaswarah".
So even though the entire foundation of his theory is linguistically
and historically absurd, for the sake of argument I can destroy his
theories regarding the vocabulary of teh Qur'ān ANYWAYS using Syriac
(even though it's erroneous to use it). Had Luxenberg known Syriac
beyond a layman's level none of this would even be necessary to begin
with.
Either way, Luxenberg, Luling, Mingana, etc, all lose.
> Eventually de Blois has the nerve to tell people that:
>
> > He is someone who evidently speaks some Arabic dialect, has a passable,
> > but not flawless command of classical Arabic,
>
> I have the honour to know Christoph Luxenberg personally and can tell
> you that his erudition in Arabic, vernacular as well as Classical
> Arabic, is undisputed by all collegues of his.
And I know Professor Xavier and he really does have a telepathy driven
supermachine called Cerebro and Magneto really did try and take
control of it. Come on, Doc. I'm sorry, but any personal testimony has
just as much weight in the context of this discussion. We go by what
we see in his book and it sure aint pretty. I've already outlined a
FEW of his bungles above.
> > knows enough Syriac so as to be able to consult a dictionary, but is
> > innocent of any real understanding of the methodology of comparative
> > Semitic linguistics.
>
> Ridiculous!
Really? Honestly, I don't think you are that well versed in Syriac
either (in spite of what you perpetrate) and that's why you think its
"ridiculous".
> > His book is not a work of scholarship but of dilettantism."
>
> These envious dilettanti should be cautious that they will not be
> exposed in the course of the further discussion, especially when
> Luxenberg will publish his next book, showing documentary evidence.
And we will be ready to point out those errors too. If he learns
enough Syriac to be competent in the language he'll more than likely
back off from printing any more books based on his extremely flawed
methodology.
You're an incredibly smart man, Dr. Heger. Its a shame you don't
utilize your brilliance in a way to help mankind rather than being
motivated by your obvious hatred for Muslims. May God remove any such
discord from your heart and remove your hatred.
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.NET
http://www.nessia.org
Zuiko Azumazi
"Yusuf B Gursey" <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:bnmr8m$dpq$1...@pcls4.std.com...
<snip>
> I'll continue the utter futility of objectivley discussing a historical or
> linguistic subject on this forum perhaps one more time. these subjects are
<snip>
Questions:-
You observations are quite correct. Most respondents in this thread, Muslim
or otherwise, do not or will not acknowledge that "philology" is a "science"
in its own right, which is a self-evident truth. Biased mixing of
"philology" with theocracy, covert jingoism, or mere idle speculation, is a
sign of the rank amateur. Do we all agree? For isn't philology the "
humanistic study of language and literature" and linguistics "the scientific
study of language", two distinct learned disciplines? What meaningful
"debate" can ensue without "study" or the acquisition of the desired
scientific "knowledge"? In the Islamic context, Arabic is a language like
any other, so should its linguistic analysis be treated accordingly and,
over all, be governed by the same "philological" rules that apply to all
languages?
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot
explain to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves.
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Denis Giron
>
>
> [...]
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/luxreview2.html
Both these reviews were interesting, but I wanted to make a brief
comment on the second one (by de Blois). Particularly of interest was
the following:
"But in the eyes of our author, the Aramaic suffixes -â and -ê are
'represented' in the Qur'an not only by alif, but also by ha'. Thus
[p. 34] Arabic (xalîfatun) is 'the phonetic transcription' of Syriac
hlyp' (hlîfâ). Unfortunately, no reasonis given for why, in this
'phonetic transcription', the Aramaic laryngeal h is not 'transcribed'
by the phonetically identical Arabic laryngeal h, but by x."
Mr. de Blois writes such with a tone that is meant to mock Luxenberg,
but here (unlike in other instances), I am at a loss for exactly where
the problem is. It seems that de Blois' comments are to be taken as
insinuating that if khaleefa was really taken from the Aramaic
Hleefaa, the Qur'anic term would employ a Haa (Xaa) rather than a
khaa. Of course, aside from the pronunciation difference, the only
difference between these respective sixth and seventh letters of the
alif-baa is a single dot. The distinction between these two letters
does not exist in Syriac (or Hebrew for that matter, which has
essentially the exact same alphabet as Syriac/Aramaic).
If this is what is intended in de Blois' comments, it would imply that
he wishes to argue that if one has an Arabic word that employs a khaa
as one of the radicals of the trilateral root from which it is
derived, a corresponding word in another Semitic language (such as
Syriac or Hebrew) would not employ a Haa (Xaa), or its rough
equivalent, in its root. So in other words, you have a word in Arabic,
and a corresponding word in Syriac (or some other Semitic language,
like Hebrew) - then de Blois seems to wish to argue that if the Arabic
word employs a khaa, and the other word employs its language's
equivalent of the Arabic Haa, then this serves as a defeator for one
being the same as the other (or being borrowed from the other
language).
I doubt that this is what de Blois wishes to argue if he is in fact
familiar with "the methodology of comparative Semitic linguistics."
For example, the word for "brother" in Arabic is "akh," while the
corresponding word in Hebrew is "ach". The Hebrew employs the chet,
which corresponds with the Arabic Haa, but the Arabic word employs a
khaa, not a Haa. The Arabic word for sister is "ukht," and the Hebrew
word for sister is "achot". If you take the way "achot" is spelled in
the Bible, it is alef-chet-tav, which corresponds with the Arabic
letters alif-Haa-taa (i.e. the eact same spelling as ukht if ukht had
a Haa instead of a khaa). Obviously these words are the same (either
one language took it from the other, or they both draw it from a
common source, such as an earlier Semitic language). Are we to believe
that the Hebrew ach/achot is not the same as the Arabic akh/ukht
because the Hebrew employs the language's equivalent of a Haa?
It would be a silly argument, as of course the Hebrew alphabet
(alef-bet) does not have an equivalent of the khaa, and the same is
the case with the Syriac alphabet! Think of the khaa-baa-alif root in
Arabic, which is for "to hide, conceal" - the same root exists in
Hebrew and Aramaic, only with the Haa (chet/khet - eighth letter of
both the Hebrew and Syriac alphabets) in place of the khaa. There's
also the khaa-baa-sad root in Arabic, for "churn, mix," which exists
in Hebrew and Aramaic with the Haa instead. The same for the
khaa-raa-baa root, for "destroy." Another example might be the Arabic
"khidr" (bridal room, tent), which corresponds exactly with the Hebrew
"cheder," even though the Hebrew employs its equivalent of the Haa.
As was already stated, the difference between the khaa and the Haa
that one finds in Arabic does not exist in Syriac (or Hebrew for that
matter - though maybe one could argue that in modern Hebrew a kaf
without a dagesh is the same as the Arabic khaa, but I would reply
"not exactly..."). Mr. de Blois wants to know why, if Luxenberg wishes
to connect these words, the Arabic one employs a khaa while the Syriac
employs the language's equivalent of the Haa in place of the khaa.
Even if Luxenberg never gives an answer, this does not negate the
connection. We can cite literally hundreds (if not thousands) of words
that correspond to one another in Arabic and Syriac, yet the Arabic
counterpart employs a khaa, while the Syriac employs its equivalent of
the Haa.
By whatever method these words reached both languages (either one
language borrowed from the other, or ultimately it goes back to a
common source), it is nonetheless the case that at one point the word
originally employed either a khaa or a Haa, but then that changed when
it entered the language that diverges from whatever the original may
have been. In other words, this shift is perfectly natural, as it has
apparently happened numerous times.
Moving along, I found the following from de Blois to be quite
interesting:
"I think, however, that any reader who wants to take the trouble to
plough through Luxenberg's 'new reading' of any of the numerous
passages discussed in this book will concede that the 'new reading'
does not actually make better sense than a straight classical Arabic
reading of the traditional text."
Whether or not Luxenberg's new reading of any given passage makes
better sense is, I believe, a matter that is still up for debate.
Nonetheless, the above comment hits on a certain methodological
problem that I would like to touch on. Let us suppose, for a moment,
that a specific new Syriac reading of the Qur'an makes more sense for
a given passage than does the traditional Muslim approach. This could
be any argument, such as Dr. Heger's own furqaan argument...
http://home.t-online.de/home/Christoph.Heger/sura25_1.html
...or one of the many examples offered by Luxenberg. Again, we are
supposing, for the sake of argument, that the new Syriac reading makes
more sense. Does this in fact mean that the Syriac reading represents
the original intentions of the author? Actually, the answer is no. The
problem is as follows: we have a passage from the Qur'an that is not
wholly coherent. A commentator (this could be a traditional Islamic
commentator, like maybe al-Qurtubee, or a 'revisionist' sort of
commentator, like Luxenberg or Dr. Heger) then inserts meanings for
the words, and creates a consistent sentence. However, as comes up in
undergraduate classes on logic, there is a difference between
something being consistent, and that same thing actually corresponding
with some fact of the matter (Bertrand Russell summed up the
difference between consistency and correspondence best by noting that
it is possible for one to construct a consistent fiction).
What this means is that even if the explanation makes sense (even if
it makes MORE sense than any of the other available explanations),
this does not mean it reflects what the author's original intention
was. This could be explained quite well by looking at the furqaan
debate that took place between Dr. Heger on the one hand, and Shibli
Zaman and MENJ on the other. Take the Qur'anic word and also take into
account its Syriac replacement that has been recommended. Now note
that modern Muslims that speak Arabic have had their language
influenced by their respective brand of Islamic theology. These modern
Muslims employ this Qur'anic phrase with a very specific intended
meaning (the meaning drawn from the theology they have been exposed to
or developed themselves). Even if their intended usage of the relevant
Qur'anic word is wholly different in meaning from the meanings of the
Syriac replacement, it is nonethess the case that there are probably
many sentences uttered by them that can still be coherent even if you
replace the relevant word with the Syriac replacement, ESPECIALLY if
these sentences are taken in isolation.
So, with furqaan specifically, imagine the thousands of instances
where "furqaan" is used in a sentence in every day speech among modern
Muslim Arabs. A fraction of those sentences will still be coherent
even if you pretend "salvation" was the intended meaning. Thus, by
noting this we realize that it is possible to insert a meaning into a
sentence that was NOT intended by the author, and the setence remains
coherent, which proves that coherence does not imply the actual
intended usage of the author. Of course, to focus too hard on this
point may put the debate in an odd place, as the original intention or
meaning becomes encased in an unopenable black box. Nonetheless, we
see that the debate surrounding any given passage cannot rely solely
on coherence (as often both explanations are coherent/consistent).
Instead, I would think constructions of the root need to be taken into
account (is the word part of a common Arabic construction, like the
way qaatil, kaafir, muslim, mulhid, mushrik, follow a certain
structre?). With a word like furqaan, for example, is this a common
Arabic construction? Is there a method by which you take an Arabic
root XYZ, and construct a word XuYZaan? Similar questions might be
asked for other relevant words under similar discussion...
-Denis Giron
Mike Craney
"Shibli Zaman" <shi...@zaman.net> wrote in message
news:6186442d.0310...@posting.google.com...
>
> This game of yours and the so-called "Luxenberg's" will not last long.
> It'll be refuted thoroughly and fizzle before his book is even
> translated into English (I hear they're having tons of problems with
> this task and for good reason).
You should hope not.
If you (by this I mean, Muslims) are to have any hope of your religion
becoming "universal", (or, at least, taken seriously by the West after these
last few years of very bad publicity) then the Quran *must* be subjected to
the same level of critical scrutiny as has the Old and New Testaments. If,
as you say, Luxenberg is "refuted" before the translation, then the
refutation will be viewed with great suspicion by the West, if not
rejection, as the "refutation" will obviously be trivial and specious.
>
> Give me a BREAK. Please name just ONE time in the entire modern
> criminal history of the Western hemisphere when any scholar (or
> wannabe-scholar) was killed by Muslims. Just ONE. The only reason he
> is anonymous is to remove any consequences to his credibility.
>
> Even Salman Rushdie is alive and well in NY and he had an erroneous
> fatwah of death placed on him by the Ayatollah (for political
> reasons). This is all just a big sham.
On 9/09/01 Salman Rushdie spoke in Houston, Texas. Outside the place where
he spoke were dozens of Muslims carrying "Death to Rushdie" signs. He was
accompanied by security before, during, and after his talk.
Now, perhaps you will argue that picketing Rushdie speeches is simply an
upper middle class activity these days undertaken by bored, secular Muslims
so they will feel better about themselves. Doesn't matter. To us observers,
it is an expression of a barbaric nature that *should* have no place in a
religion that bills itself as "peaceful." Thus, the fact that Rushdie is
still alive is rather irrelevant -- to we observers, it simply means that
these barbaric factions haven't been successful -- yet; and, as such, men
such as Luxemberg have good reason to use a pseudonym.
>
>
> As a cautionary note it is extremely vital to mention that Arabic was
> a language that developed from Nabataean and NOT Syriac.
Good point.
>
> You're an incredibly smart man, Dr. Heger. Its a shame you don't
> utilize your brilliance in a way to help mankind rather than being
> motivated by your obvious hatred for Muslims. May God remove any such
> discord from your heart and remove your hatred.
I read Dr. Heger often, and reject this notion. After taking the time to
develop such a well-thought-out and scholarly rebuttal, one wonders why you
felt the need to end with a logical fallacy such as this. It is incumbent on
all parties involved to realize that a critical analysis of the Quran that
refutes long-held Muslim teachings about it is NOT an attack on Islam -- it
is merely a critical analysis of a piece of ancient literature.
The way that critical analysis is interpreted, well, that's for the
interpreter to decide.
Mike
Altway
"Yusuf B Gursey" <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote
seems to have gone "off-track" between the date of my initial message and
the date of this one.
> I'll continue the utter futility of objectivley discussing a historical or
> linguistic subject on this forum perhaps one more time. these subjects are
better brought up on more academic forums or lists or newsgroups, or at
least those that bring it up should have better preparation before asking
and should ask with the view of getting an answer - whatever it is in mind.
Comment:-
The word "Quran" indicates that it is a recitation.
When the Prophet (saw) was asked to read was it a
book made of paper and ink containing words?
The answer is: No
The Quran tells us:-
"Nay, but it (the Quran) is a clear revelation in the hearts of those who
are endowed with knowledge, and none deny Our revelations save the
wrongdoers (or unjust)." 29:24
"Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with a right
reading, those believe in it. And whoso disbelieves in it, those are the
losers." 2:121
So, as Mr. Berg is not writing about the Quran as understood above, his
opinions are wholly irrelevant to the Quran -
they are off track as Mr Berg appears to have become vaguely aware.
These opinions do not really belong on this site as Yusuf B Gursey has noted
and should not have been posted here.
Apart from this, the idea that the Prophet (saw) did not instruct his
followers as to how the Quran should be understood and applied and that this
was not transmitted cannot be credited.
In so far as Hagar and Luxenberg and the like do not read the Quran
according to how it is meant to be read, and do not follow the
interpretations and applications of the Prophet as transmitted orally and in
writing, their speculations about it are nonsense and should be treated as
such.
The Quran was meant for Muslims i.e. believers. What possible
purpose can the opinions of these non-believers have either for Muslims or
for Hagar, Luxenberg, Berg and other unbelievers.
Is it not an utterly futile effort?.
Hamid S. Aziz
John Berg
"developing" and Arabic probably owes contemporary man's knowledge of it
because of the
Qur'an and the waves of conquest it motivated or was used to motivate. Our
discussion here and the efforts to distract from "facts" to "cant" took me
back
to the days when I was dating my wife. When I asked her a question she
didn't want to answer, she would look thoughtful and ask me why I asked that
question. Generally wrapped up in the importance of my own ideas, I would
answer and enter into her conversation. Ten minutes later I would realize
that I had been directed away from my question.
However at this point I can see where some of us agree.
Agreement 1. No information in hard form is available about the period of
Islam between 550 AD and 622 AD. We have no idea what part of today's
canonical Qur'an is really traceable in concrete documentation from the
blackout period. However we know what many Muslims would like to believe
was revealed.
Agreement 2. We may still find material from the fundus that was not
destroyed by Muslims during their period of creativity. (I've forgotten now
what the ratio of hadith from the 800s to hadith in the 900s: was it one to
ten?). But non-Muslims are more likely to find and report this information.
Agreement 3. Stuck with the "blacked out" period, philology has shown it
self to be a tool for determining the history of the blacked out period from
the Qur'an. However, offering opinion rather than facts won't do. Let's
work to find ever older Qur'an. Let's move closer and closer to the real
facts. Only those that want to hide the facts, or those who fear the
finding of facts can argue against searching for the earliest Qur'an.
Agreement 4. Much of the fundus was not written in Arabic (could not have
been) and rulers ordered a translation to Arabic in the 10th century.
Creating a
chronological consistent history was not effected and the Arabic Qur'an was
compiled from material and polished by pious men who "glossed" the original.
But this process has made it necessary to obfuscate time in any discussion
of events. Even the verses are in a haphazard order. Again, finding
earlier Qur'an may help us understand both the peaceful Mohammad and the
despotic one.
Agreement 5. We do have a canonical modern Qur'an. It is in Arabic. When
we collect earlier Qur'ans back through time, will we find it consistent?
The
modern Qur'an appears to be a plan for world domination but when was this
viewpoint added?. Muslims have the burden of proof about its consistency.
All people have the task to seek more facts.
John Berg
john...@mchsi.com
Yusuf B Gursey
: In Muhammad's lifetime, Arabic, the language, was not developed but
: "developing" and Arabic probably owes contemporary man's knowledge of it
all languages are developing all the time.
if one can accept that Beowulf was written in (Old) English, one can
accept (at least the possibility) that the Qur'an was written in (old)
arabic. the only possible objection you may raise is whether the people
called themselves arabs, which in fact they did, as is known from
authentic historical sources.
I don't think many people in the academic world would agree with most
of your statements, except perhaps that more archeaology in Arabia may
yield interestig results. I suggest that if you are sincere and not jsut
a polemicist, you learn more on this field and in the field of arabic from
books and other academic sources. repeating questions on USENET won't get
you anywhere. however, form your analogy from your personal life, you seem
to just want a polemic until somebody "signs on the dotted line" rather
than a scholarly discussion. if you post ona religion based group, you
shouldn't complain on getting faith-based answers.
Altway
"Mike Craney" <mcrane...@nospamsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:x%xob.311$mf4...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> If you (by this I mean, Muslims) are to have any hope of your religion
becoming "universal", (or, at least, taken seriously by the West after
these
last few years of very bad publicity) then the Quran *must* be subjected to
the same level of critical scrutiny as has the Old and New Testaments.
Comment:-
Islam is Universal already in several senses:-
(1) People of all races are Muslim.
(2) There are Muslims in most, if not all countries or nations.
(3) Islam recognises all Prophets and religions as originally taught.
(4) Islam continues to make converts everywhere.
Certainly the same kind of scrutiny of the Quran that was given to the Old
and New Testaments will continue whether or not it "must". But this kind of
scrutiny has not prevented people from being Jews and Christians, much less
will it prevent people from being Muslim - The Quran is not like the Old
and New Testaments, which are reports and comments by third parties.
But apart from this the fact remains that people read and accept these
scriptures because of the teachings and truths which they recognise in them
and not because of other considerations, specially when they are
speculations.
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
Altway
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fa1654f$0$21649$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> You observations are quite correct. Most respondents in this thread,
Muslim or otherwise, do not or will not acknowledge that "philology" is a
"science" in its own right, which is a self-evident truth.
Comment:-
The problem is not whether Philology is a science but whether it is
relevant to the subject under discussion, in this case religious faith, or
more specifically Muslim faith. Is Philology relevant to the facts in
Economics or Astronomy or Physics?
You say Science is "self-evident truth"?
Really!
You do not appear to know much about science!
Science is an attempt to describe the phenomenon of nature
as accurately and usefully as possible. It is a progressive
process so that at no time can it be said that it is true,
but there may be progressive approximation to it.
But Philology is certainly not a science like physics
where accuracy is ensured by mathematical rigour
and experimental testing. Instead it allows for a great
amount of guesswork, speculation and the intervention
of personal prejudices.
But what do you understand by "truth"?
Is it the same thing as what the Quran calls truth?
Does it refer to descriptions or experiences or things as they are?
Do you think that science can have any meaning apart from scientists?
Do you understand the description in the same way as the scientist
who makes the description.
Does the description in a text book of physics resemble
the world you experience around you?
Is your perception of things the same as the nature of those things?
And does your behaviour reflect your knowledge or wice versa?
Unless these questions are settled you do not really know what
you are speaking about.
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
Altway
"John Berg" <john...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:SmBob.71823$HS4.629440@attbi_s01...
>..took me back to the days when I was dating my wife.
When I asked her a question she
didn't want to answer, she would look thoughtful and
ask me why I asked that question. Generally wrapped up in the importance of
my own ideas, I would
answer and enter into her conversation.
Ten minutes later I would realize
that I had been directed away from my question.
Comment:-
You are partly like your wife in your attempt to distract
from the real concern of the Quran, and you have not yet
realised this and have not asked or answered the question
Why you are asking the question and making the distraction.
> However at this point I can see where some of us agree.
Comment:-
Yes you can always find people that will agree to various extents,
depending on their knowledge and what they understand.
But also people who will not.
So you can select them as you wish.
Hamid S. Aziz
Yusuf B Gursey
news:<6186442d.0310...@posting.google.com>...
I am not strongly disagreeing with you, and broadly speaking,
I woudl agree with you. nevertheless, I think sufficient
criticism of Luxenberg has been made, and these minor points
I intend to make don't detract from it. critique of shibli's
post shoudl not neccessarily imply support for Luxenberg's points.
> with Syriac? When you and I debated regarding your erroneous
> association of the Arabic "nathīr" with the Syriac "nadīr" (it's
is this archived somewhere? I would like to read it.
at any rate, I don't think that particular argument depends
on a syriac origin for na*dh*i:r .
> "at-tawrīyah" in Arabic script being transliterated as "at-tawrāt" in
the consonnatal skeleton < twry(t) > is found in the Qur'an,
to be read tawra:(t) , or more properly tawra"t , i.e. with imala
on the a: .
> latin script, etc.)
> Not only is Francois de Blois' criticism accurate but he HELD BACK.
> There is MORE. For example in the SAME paragraph Luxenberg has in
> Arabic script "hal yastawī al-mathalān" which he transliterates in
> Latin script as "hal yastawī L-mathalān" which have two completely
I think that was just a quirk of transcription, the result of not
grpahically indicating in latin script that a wasla (elision of
an initial hamza) takes place in arabic.
what you say folllwing isn't intended by Luxenberg:
> DIFFERENT meanings, and are not even grammatically feasible! The
> alef-lām is the definite article in Arabic as in "the", whereas, the
> lām alone is an indicative preposition as in "for". Yes, there's even
> The commentators of the Qur'ān have stated clearly through
> authenticated narrators that the word "qaswarah" is a reference to
> archers and archery. The narrations about it meaning "lion" are all
> minority opinions and/or not authentic.
the commnetators give a plausible etymology of "hunter" (and
it could possibly even have been one of the dozens of rare poetic
words for "lion" in arabic as well)
(let me add that I don't knwo the modern linguists opinion
concerning this word, I am merley stating what *may* be plausible,
no tneccessarily what it actually meant).
what follows gets off-track:
> Obsidian and it's related pumice are magmatic rock which have been
> used in the making of blades and arrowheads from prehistoric North
> America to the prehistoric Middle East.
obsidian is not that similar to pumice but both have a volcanic
origin. obsidian is from lava (magma thrown into the air) that
cools very rapidly forming a hard and solid "glass"
(non-crystaline solid).
pumice is formed soemwhat similarly but with gases in the lava,
but with gasses in the lava, so it is full of holes when
solidified. it's used as an abrasive, I haven't heard it used
for sharp tools.
>
> And in Syriac we have the following:
>
> "qasrā (qāf,semkhat,resh,alef): kiss(h)ris (Shibli: Greek text,
> imperfect form of kis(h)ris for which the LSJ says the derivative is
> unknown), PUMICE STONE.."
> [A Compendius Syriac Dictionary Founded Upon The Thesaurus Syriacus of
> R. Payne Smith, Edited by J. Payne Smith (Mrs. Margoliouth), p. 512]
the dictionary implies that the word entered syriac through greek.
greek words in arabic usually ome via syriac.
if it is the origin of an arabic word as described above, arabic
would likely have borrowed it from syriac.
> As a cautionary note it is extremely vital to mention that Arabic was
> a language that developed from Nabataean and NOT Syriac. Both
there are two types of Nabataean in terms of language:
Nabataean arabic, which was the spoken language of the Nabataeans,
only rarely written.
Nabataean Aramaic, which was the aramaic dialect used by them
for formal purposes.
Nabataean arabic may have lent prestige the al- definite article
arabic dialects of the early 1st millenium that later became
the basis of pre-islamic poetry, the language of the Qur'an
and bedouin dialects selected by the medieval grammarians. but
Nabataean arabic itself had by that time diverged too strongly
in the direction of the modern colloquials and was ignored as a
primary source to base standard classical arabic and the
gramamrians prefered more conservative bedouin speech spoken
mostly in the south of the former Nabataean realm.
> Nabataean and Syriac are Aramaic subdialects that developed IN TANDEM,
Nabataean aramaic.
> but in ENTIRELY different geo-historical contexts! The only striking
> thing they have in common is that they both evolved from Aramaic (as
> is likely with Biblical Hebrew, though that is a long "chicken and the
> egg" argument).
the exact interelationships of arabic, aramaic and hebrew are not
known, they had a common ancestor at some point in the very distant
past. that's all that is definitley known.
it's really irrelevant to understanding the Qur'an.
>
> So MY methodology in REFUTING Luxenberg is as follows:
>
> 1) Let it be known that Syriac did NOT beget Arabic, but Arabic came
> from Nabataean (called "an-NabaTīyyah" in Arabic) which is an entirely
the use of this term is vague in medieval sources as it is not
clear whether they refer to Nabtaean Aramaic or Nabataean Arabic.
but when refering to nabataean arabic, it is nt considered as
the most desireable source for basing "fuSha:" (classical arabic).
it seesm to be closer to modern colloquials.
> different language. This is testified to thoroughly in competent
> scholarship and in the Arabic lexica both classical and modern. The
> similarities between Arabic, Syriac are matters of COGNATES and not
mostly so, but sometimes not.
> Syriac parental etymons which trickled into the Qur'ān. An example of
syriac (and other aramaic) loanwords did exist in arabic and in
the arabic of the Qur'an. this is not the main point. the part of
Luxenberg's theory that is not accpeted is his vague concept of a
"mixed language" in more fundamental aspects. also there is the
fallacy, implied by Luxenberg, that etymology determines meaning.
>
> 2) Refute Luxenberg ANYWAYS using his OWN methodology. This is
the main problem is his methodology (if he has any).
M.S.M. Saifullah
> If you (by this I mean, Muslims) are to have any hope of your religion
> becoming "universal", (or, at least, taken seriously by the West after these
> last few years of very bad publicity) then the Quran *must* be subjected to
> the same level of critical scrutiny as has the Old and New Testaments. If,
The basic question is why should the Qur'an be subjected to the same type
of critical scrutiny as the Old and New Testaments? Often this point is
not even discussed. One of the reasons for development of an elaborate
method of textual criticism is because of the nature of the texts of the
Old and New Testaments, i.e., they have been subjected to changes at
various points in time. The New Testament's textual tradition is
interesting. The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible (Under"Text, NT")
reminds us that:
"It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the
MS tradition is wholly uniform."
As for the codification of text of the Old and the New Tetstament, one
has to say that the word "codification" is no more than a joke. The
Christians and Jews have a history of not agreeing to a text even after
the advent of Islam. As for the Qur'an, the history of its codification is
known. People have produced alternative history for the codification of
the Qur'an. Harald Motzi has recently discussed this issue of codification
of the Qur'an as cited by Muslim and non-Muslim accounts. The Western
views on the collection of the Qur'an that Motzki discusses are the works
of Wansbrough (Qur'anic Studies: Sources & Methods Of Scriptural
Interpretation, 1977, Oxford University Press), Watt (Muhammad's Mecca,
1988, Edinburgh), Noldeke and Schwally (Geschichte des Qorans, 1938,
Leipzig), Casanova (Mohammad et la fin du Monde, 1911, Paris), Mingana
("The Transmission Of The Qur'an", 1916, Journal of The Manchester
Egyptian and Oriental Society) and Burton (The Collection Of The Qur'an,
1979, Cambridge University Press). Applying the critical study of hadith
as started by the Western scholars (a trick obviously taken from hadith
scholars of Islam), he says:
"However, Muslims account are much earlier and thus much nearer to the
time of the events than hitherto assumed in Western scholarship.
Admittedly, these accounts contain some details which seem to be
implausible or, to put it more cautiously, await explanation, but the
Western views which claim to replace them by more plausible and
historically more reliable accounts are obviously far away from what they
make themselves out to be." [H. Motzki, "The Collection Of The Qur'an: A
Reconsideration Of The Western Views In Light Of Recent Methodological
Developments", Der Islam, 2001, Vol. 78, p. 31]
Now what about the text itself. The Qur'an has manuscripts right from 1st
century of hijra, an achievement that has no parallel in the textual
history of Old and New Testaments. Some of them can be sampled at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/
As for the issue of Qiraa'aat of the Qur'an which the Western scholars
claimed to have come because of early Qur'anic Mss being undotted and
hence could have been read in any way, something that can be shown to be
false (and has already been!). Various Mss right now first century of
hijra have been shown to be written in a particular Qiraa'aat. Examples
at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/qirmans.html
We can go for a little more stuff but first we want to hear from you why
the textual criticism as applied to the Old and New Testament should also
be equally applied to the Qur'an.
> as you say, Luxenberg is "refuted" before the translation, then the
> refutation will be viewed with great suspicion by the West, if not
> rejection, as the "refutation" will obviously be trivial and specious.
In West, everything has a tendency to be viewed with suspect. Not even the
next door neighbour is view with respect, even he is a suspect. A
proliferation of burgler alarms and sensors is perhaps the best example of
the state of affairs in the West. In such a prevailing atmosphere within
and just outside the house, and not mention ones own hearts, we do not
expect that people, in general, in the West would believe in anything they
read. Come to think of it, President of the US is a big suspect in the
eyes of his own countrymen and in much of Europe, for his dodgy ideas.
When the state of the leadership is such, the subjects under him are no
better.
> On 9/09/01 Salman Rushdie spoke in Houston, Texas. Outside the place where
> he spoke were dozens of Muslims carrying "Death to Rushdie" signs. He was
> accompanied by security before, during, and after his talk.
I saw him at Waterstones bookstore in Cambridge, UK, some years
ago, signing his book. There was a long queue, no Muslims chanting with a
banners in their hands. Of course, police was there to control the queue
and his presence being advertised in the local newspapers.
> so they will feel better about themselves. Doesn't matter. To us observers,
> it is an expression of a barbaric nature that *should* have no place in a
> religion that bills itself as "peaceful." Thus, the fact that Rushdie is
It does not escape me to note the barbarity of your argument. Just because
some Muslims in a place called Houston in Texas said something, it has to
be applied to everybody who follow the religion. Using this logic, since
the US army killed some 15,000 odd civilians in Iraq, all the Americans
should be branded as murderers. Or if one finds a bad apple in a crate,
the whole crate should be dumped in the trash can. The fallacy of your
argument is quite obvious.
> still alive is rather irrelevant -- to we observers, it simply means that
> these barbaric factions haven't been successful -- yet; and, as such, men
> such as Luxemberg have good reason to use a pseudonym.
The use of pseudonym in scholarship is also a good way to do away with any
credibility. Rushdie was brave enough. Mingana who started the Syriac
origins of the Qur'an was brave enough, it appears that Luxenberg whose
study is more of a controversy than a scholarship is a coward to hide
behind assumed names. Not even Wansbrough did it!
> refutes long-held Muslim teachings about it is NOT an attack on Islam -- it
> is merely a critical analysis of a piece of ancient literature.
But such a critical scholarship has to be based on the evidence. You show
us one good piece of evidence in the forms of a Mss, inscription or papyri
that supports the view of Luxenberg. The truth is you will not be and yet
you will profess of 'critical' scholarship. So, much for the scholarship!
Wassalam
Saifullah
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
"John Berg" <john...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> However at this point I can see where some of us agree.
The problem here is that those who disagree (and those who agree) among
us are (with a couple of exceptions) unequipped to critically analyze
the philological arguments being advanced. You agree not because you are
knowledgeable in this area but because those with whom you agree have
presented an argument that agrees with your preconceptions or wishes.
>
> Agreement 1. No information in hard form is available about the period of
> Islam between 550 AD and 622 AD. We have no idea what part of today's
> canonical Qur'an is really traceable in concrete documentation from the
> blackout period. However we know what many Muslims would like to believe
> was revealed.
If you want to be intellectually honest you must either eliminate works
like "blackout" from your discourse or give us evidence that there was a
conscious, deliberate effort to suppress the truth.
(...)
> Agreement 3. Stuck with the "blacked out" period, philology has shown it
> self to be a tool for determining the history of the blacked out period from
> the Qur'an. However, offering opinion rather than facts won't do. Let's
> work to find ever older Qur'an. Let's move closer and closer to the real
> facts. Only those that want to hide the facts, or those who fear the
> finding of facts can argue against searching for the earliest Qur'an.
I have problem with finding archeological remains, fragments, complete
surahs, or even an entire Qur'an. However, it would be surprising if
that excercise did much to advance the philological research in any
significant way. After all, anything you find will be UNvocalized and
you will have to deal with consonantal shifts over time, just as we do
in studying the development of English.
>
> Agreement 4. Much of the fundus was not written in Arabic (could not
> have been) and rulers ordered a translation to Arabic in the 10th
> century. Creating a chronological consistent history was not effected
> and the Arabic Qur'an was compiled from material and polished by
> pious men who "glossed" the original. But this process has made it
> necessary to obfuscate time in any discussion of events. Even the
> verses are in a haphazard order. Again, finding earlier Qur'an may
> help us understand both the peaceful Mohammad and the despotic one.
A major problem with this assertion is that the Qur'an was revealed as
RECITATION, not as a book written on paper. When the written recension
was prepared, whether or not there was alteration, suppression or
addition, the recension was based for the most part on the oral
tradition, which was extremely strong. Thus the "fundus" you seek is not
to be found in some supposed earlier written text but in the oral
transmission. Since the time of the recension, the oral transmission has
continued alongside the written transmission. Of course, with the
passage of time, the greater reliance on the written transmission and
its use as a tool to facilitate the memorization of the Qur'an means
that the oral tradition today is not necessarily the same as the
pre-recension oral tradition. However, we have NO real proof that what
is now recited is significantly different than what was recited by the
Prophet (peace be on him) and those who followed him in time.
Your Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde protrayal of the prophet is based on a
particular (even peculiar) interpretation of the existing canonical
Qur'an. Have you considered the possibility that the dual personality
that you suppose is NOT the result of alterations to the Qur'an but
rather reflects your misreading of that Qur'an? When you read the Old
Testament to you draw a similar conclusion about King David (peace be on
him) and argue that the Scriptures are not authentic because of the
possibility of seeing in the Scriptural account two Davids: one a man of
peace, a poet and a prophet and the other a mighty warrior king who was
not hesitant about the terrible means he used to subdue his enemies?
>
> Agreement 5. We do have a canonical modern Qur'an. It is in Arabic.
> When we collect earlier Qur'ans back through time, will we find it
> consistent? The modern Qur'an appears to be a plan for world
> domination but when was this viewpoint added?. Muslims have the
> burden of proof about its consistency. All people have the task to
> seek more facts.
While you and Muslim deviants like Osama ben Laden may see the Qur'an as
a Mein Kampf for global conquest, your reading is disputed by a billion
Muslims living today and the vast majority of their ancestors, who have
NEVER understood the Qur'anic message to be a blueprint for control of
the whole world. Here again, I would suggest that you are using a double
standard or your do not see that similar reading could be given to the
Bible. Indeed some Christians (a very small number) do read the Bible in
that way. Some of them are in positions of high authority in the
government of the United States. They believe that God put George Bush
in the White House as a step toward the "rapture" and the return of
Jesus (peace be on him).
You and others who are seduced by "Luxenburg"'s philological theories
should be very wary of swallowing whole the arguments of a person who
(for whatever reasons) hides behind a pen name and whose arguments have
not yet been subject to any kind of thorough peer review. There are in
Qur'anic Arabic loan words from other Semitic languages. Of course in
English, there are not only loan words from other Germanic languages but
also from French. Indeed, almost a third of the modern English
vocabulary comes directly from French or Latin because of the influence
of French after the Franco-Norman conquest of England by William the
Conqueror (or to be exact, Guillaume le Conquérant).
Today, especially in the West with it's literacy rates that approach
100%, we do not easily understand the importance of an oral tradition
and its priority over a parallel written Qur'an. For us, the memory is a
faculty that forgets! We consider the written word to be primary and the
oral to be secondary. That has never been the case with the Qur'an. For
one thing, the nature of written Arabic in its early form makes Arabic
writings more of a shorthand or memory aid than a full written record.
The very word Qur'an means recitation. The command received by the
Prophet at the beginning of the revelation was "iqra'" (recite). The
Qur'an was learned by heart and the true keepers of its integrity were
the "qaari'" (reciters). The written recension was an attempt to reduce
to writing (and here the "reduce" is pregnant with meaning) the oral
corpus, which was the true Qur'anic fundus. Later, the written recension
was used as a guide, a memory aid for everyone who could read. It made
it easier for a person to avoid interversions, omissions and confusions
but it did not supplant the oral tradition.
Finally, and perhaps most important, is to understand the purpose of the
Qur'an as Divine Revelation. It is NOT (as you presume) an incitation to
conquest and dominiation of the world. The Qur'an is a call to each
individual to conquer and dominate his own heart ("nafs"). It is not a
call to subjugate others but to tame one's own ego. Those who understand
the Qur'an to be a call to conquer the world and to eliminate other
religions (even some who call themselves Muslims) are gone far astray.
The temptation to use the Qur'an to make convenient legal or political
points is very strong, both for Western detractors and for Muslim
leaders in some countries. However the Qur'an itself warns (without
further specification) that some parts of it are clear and unambiguous
while others are not.
"There is no God but Him, the Mighty, the Wise One. It is He who has
revealed to you the Book. Some of its verses are precise in
meaning--they are the foundation of the Book--and others are ambiguous.
Those whose hearts are infected with disbelief follow the ambiguous
part, so as to create dissension by seeking to explain it. But no one
knows its meaning except God. Those who are well grounded in knowlege
say: 'We believe in it: it is all from our Lord. But only the wise take
heed. Lord, do not cause our hearts to go astray after You have guided
us. Grant us Your own mercy; Your are the munificent Giver. Lord, You
will surely gather all mankind before You upon a day that will
indubitably come. God will not break His promise.'" (3:6ff)
The Qur'an must be taken as a whole. Some parts are clear; some
ambiguous. What counts is the whole, not the parts. God is One and his
Divine Speech revealed to us in the form of his Holy Books is One. Like
a living organism, neither can be cut up into parts and pieces without
destroying the whole and killing the essence.
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
John Berg
the Middle East of which we write in 550 AD had many tribes each of which
had a tribal name and local verbal language with their early attempts to
render permanent the ideas of their time. That's why there were no
documents to reach our time though neighboring peoples had reliable
documents. Why substitute written Qur'ans for recitals if recitals are so
good?
In the dark period the fundus grew as fragments each of which reflected the
local attempts at writing and later "played back" (read) by those who knew
the imperfections of that fragment from 10 years ago and compared it to
recent recitals transmitted to three other tribes before coming back to the
location where it was revealed.
You would like to know what Mohammad revealed yet you know there was no way
to transmit it to the Tenth Century accurately and, worse, the leaders of
the Eight, Ninth, and Ten Century were using it for their purposes.
--
John Berg
john...@mchsi.com
"Yusuf B Gursey" <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:bnvog1$trc$2...@pcls4.std.com...
Yusuf B Gursey
denis...@hotmail.com (Denis Giron) wrote in message
news:<bac0a2be.03103...@posting.google.com>...
concerning xali:fa(t) . de Blois is correct. I posted a detailed
answer in sci.lang .
1st millenium masoretic hebrew and aramaic / syriac Heth is
consistently rendered in loanwords from these languages in
arabic as /H/ not /x/ because Heth was sounded in those languages
at the time thus. in cognate words, words common to the languages
because of a shared ancestry Heth appears in arabic as either
/H/ or /x/ depending on its pronouciation in proto-semitic. arabic
preserves the original distinction, the other languages mentioned
didn't by the time of the 1st millenium.
> Whether or not Luxenberg's new reading of any given passage makes
> better sense is, I believe, a matter that is still up for debate.
> Nonetheless, the above comment hits on a certain methodological
> problem that I would like to touch on. Let us suppose, for a moment,
> that a specific new Syriac reading of the Qur'an makes more sense for
> a given passage than does the traditional Muslim approach. This could
> be any argument, such as Dr. Heger's own furqaan argument...
>
> http://home.t-online.de/home/Christoph.Heger/sura25_1.html
>
> ...or one of the many examples offered by Luxenberg. Again, we are
> supposing, for the sake of argument, that the new Syriac reading makes
> more sense. Does this in fact mean that the Syriac reading represents
> the original intentions of the author? Actually, the answer is no. The
> So, with furqaan specifically, imagine the thousands of instances
> where "furqaan" is used in a sentence in every day speech among modern
> Muslim Arabs. A fraction of those sentences will still be coherent
> even if you pretend "salvation" was the intended meaning. Thus, by
this is a good point, as it raises the possibility that even in
cases of syriac borrowing with shifts in meaning, the meanings
may have already changed during the time of Muhammad in the
Hijaz.
this has been an approach taken by many scholars, incl. de Blois
in his article on "Hanif" that he referneces in his review posted
in the web page organized by Saifullah.
or the Qur'an deliberately introduces a change in meaning while
retaining an underlying christian and / or syriac format.
a simple example would be the use of al-masi:H "Messiah" in
connection with Jesus. while the word is used, it does not
neccessarily mean that the meaning in the christian or jewish
sense is intended, as the Qur'an taken as a whole shows (or
for that matter usage of "Messiah" by christians does not
imply acceptance of the jewish concept).
while it may be claimed that the verse in question in the URL
sounds like a christian phrase if certain changes are made, it
doesn't neccessarily follow that the current text is a result
of "misreading". an argument may have been presented in a
christian "format" but with deliberate changes during the
traditionaly accpeted date and place of the Qur'an (Muhammad's
time, the Hijaz).
for that matter, the Qur'an refers to charges leveled
against it that the format resembled that of pagan soothsayers.
but this does not mean advocates paganism, which it certainly does
not.
> noting this we realize that it is possible to insert a meaning into a
> sentence that was NOT intended by the author, and the setence remains
for furqa:n see Enc. of Islam II "Furkan".
the article is also referenced by Heger in support of his
views. However, there is an important difference. the Enc.
article concedes that the word may have entered religious
vocabulary through syriac, it also says that it was also
influenced in meaning by arabic (by its interpretation as it
would be in arabic) and understood as such.
semantic change of loanwords can occur at anytime or place,
and the 7th cent. Hijaz was not immune to it. it is not
neccessary to postulate a *later* change (unless additional
evidence is provided).
one could remind engish speakers who studied french who are
warned in early french class that while some words may be
familiar their meaning in their original french is different.
> Instead, I would think constructions of the root need to be taken into
> account (is the word part of a common Arabic construction, like the
> way qaatil, kaafir, muslim, mulhid, mushrik, follow a certain
> structre?). With a word like furqaan, for example, is this a common
> Arabic construction? Is there a method by which you take an Arabic
> root XYZ, and construct a word XuYZaan? Similar questions might be
arabic grammar traditionally uses < f3l > in such examples, and
yes, the pattern fu3la:n is a verbal noun patetrn in arabic.
M.S.M. Saifullah
> In Muhammad's lifetime, Arabic, the language, was not developed but
> "developing" and Arabic probably owes contemporary man's knowledge of it
> because of the
> Qur'an and the waves of conquest it motivated or was used to motivate. Our
> discussion here and the efforts to distract from "facts" to "cant" took me
> back
This argument is not new and it was stated by Mingana in his work
[Alphonse Mingana, "The Transmission Of The Qur'an", 1916, Journal of The
Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society, p. 45]. He also claims that
Arabs learnt the art of writing from Jews and Christians. Nabia Abbott has
already discussed this issue in detail with evidence from Arabic papyri.
She says:
"The condition of Arabic writing in Muhammad's time is indicated by perf
no. 558 (our plates iv-v), an Arabic papyrus of the reign of `Umar dated
AH 22 and written in a fairly well developed manuscript hand in the
distant province of Egypt, where Greek and Coptic were the written
languages in general use. If written Arabic was so primitive and rare in
its own homeland at the time of Muhammad's death, how do we account for
its practical use in Egypt only a short dozen years after that event?
Again to grant the incomplete development of orthography would give us
reason to suspect only the orthographic accuracy of early Qur'anic
editions but not the possibility of their existence. In this connection it
is interesting to note that nowhere in the traditions of the earliest
transmission of the Qur'an is there any hint of serious orthographic or
vowel difficulties; rather it is the differences in the Arabic tribal
dialects and differences arising out of foreigner's use of Arabic that
seem to demand attention. the foregoing considerations lead one to believe
that, if we allow for such common mistakes as writers and copyists are
liable to make, the Arabic writers of Muhammad's time and of the time of
early Caliphs were able scribes capable of producing an acceptable edition
of a written Qur'an despite the lack of all the improvements of modern
written Arabic." [ Nabia Abbott, The Rise of The North Arabic Script & Its
Kur'anic Development, 1939, Nabia Abbott, The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, p. 48.
Our discussion here looks into "facts", the ones that you are blissfully
unaware of.
> Agreement 1. No information in hard form is available about the period of
> Islam between 550 AD and 622 AD. We have no idea what part of today's
> canonical Qur'an is really traceable in concrete documentation from the
> blackout period. However we know what many Muslims would like to believe
> was revealed.
Islam did not even existed in the year 550 CE. Need we say more about your
idea of Islamic history!
> Agreement 2. We may still find material from the fundus that was not
> destroyed by Muslims during their period of creativity. (I've forgotten
> now what the ratio of hadith from the 800s to hadith in the 900s: was it
> one to ten?). But non-Muslims are more likely to find and report this
> information.
The hadiths exist from 1st century of hijra and available in the form of
printed editions. By the ratio of hadiths, perhaps you meant their
explosive increase during that time. This issue of explosive increase of
isnad has been dealt with by using high school math. Nabia Abbott says:
"... using geometric progression, we find that one to two thousand
Companions and senior Successors transmitting two to five traditions each
would bring us well within the range of the total number of traditions
credited to the exhaustive collections of the third century. Once it is
realised that the isnad did, indeed, initiate a chain reaction that
resulted in an explosive increase in the number of traditions, the huge
numbers that are credited to Ibn Hanbal, Muslim and Bukhari seem not so
fantastic after all." [Nabia Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri,
Volume II (Qur'anic Commentary & Tradition), 1967, The University Of
Chicago Press, p.72]
Examples of such explosive increase can be seen at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/narrazuhair.html
and following links there in.
> Agreement 3. Stuck with the "blacked out" period, philology has shown it
> self to be a tool for determining the history of the blacked out period from
> the Qur'an. However, offering opinion rather than facts won't do. Let's
> work to find ever older Qur'an. Let's move closer and closer to the real
> facts. Only those that want to hide the facts, or those who fear the
> finding of facts can argue against searching for the earliest Qur'an.
As for the "real facts" you have to show us in the form of Mss,
inscriptions and papyri that supports that philology. So far, we have not
seen any. May be you have got something stashed somewhere. If you have
please let us know.
<snipping incoherent talk>
> we collect earlier Qur'ans back through time, will we find it consistent?
> The
> modern Qur'an appears to be a plan for world domination but when was this
> viewpoint added?. Muslims have the burden of proof about its consistency.
> All people have the task to seek more facts.
But you do not want to show your facts except that we see a little bit
more of incoherent talk that is not going anywhere. We are not surprised!
Wassalam
Saifullah
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
> In soc.religion.islam John Berg <john...@mchsi.com> wrote in
> <SmBob.71823$HS4.629440@attbi_s01>:
> : In Muhammad's lifetime, Arabic, the language, was not developed but
> : "developing" and Arabic probably owes contemporary man's knowledge of it
>
> all languages are developing all the time.
>
> if one can accept that Beowulf was written in (Old) English, one can
> accept (at least the possibility) that the Qur'an was written in (old)
> arabic. the only possible objection you may raise is whether the people
> called themselves arabs, which in fact they did, as is known from
> authentic historical sources.
The example of Old English is extreme. In fact, a better analogy between
Qur'anic Arabic and modern literal Arabic would be Middle English
(Chaucer). The general rules of syntax and essential grammar are similar
but there are difficulties in spelling and vocabulary.
At the recitation level, modern Arabic is MUCH more comprehensible than
Middle English since Arabic has not undergone a vowel pronunciation
change like the Great Vowel Shift that occured in English between the
Middle English and Old English periods.
All natural human languages, including Arabic, are first and foremost
SPOKEN phenomena. The development of a written code ALWAYS follows the
use of speech for a very long time. What a problem for philogists is
that, unlike English, the Arabic written code is "defective", that is,
it does not fully represent Arabic speech. Arabic writing developed as a
support for the spoken language, not as a means for making an integral
written record of speech.
Early written Arabic is "defective" at two levels: consonant
discrimination and vowelling. Vowelling is in fact not as important for
native speakers as it is for non-native learners of the language. The
fact that modern newspapers are not vowelled is a clear indication that
the very structure of the language, the way words are formed from a root
(rasm) enables a native speaker to easily tranform the written code to
speech in most cases. The real problem and the first one to be corrected
in written Arabic was the absence of consonant diacritics. As the
language developled and spread, the absence of sure indications as
whether a particular letter represented, for example, b, n, th, e, or t
became important, particulary for texts that had not already been
learned by memorization of speech.
As we have seen in the last century with New Testament studies, the
discovery of linguistic ambiguities in the source texts while important
for specialists has not had much effect on ordinary believers. Religion
is based on faith and as such is not provable by ordinary methods.
Outside the field of religion, in the fields of sociology and politics,
it really is not of much importance in the short-term or the medium-term
whether the Qur'an (or any other sacred scripture) has been transmitted
without distortion, addition or suppression of meaning. The community of
believers have accepted a particular understanding of their Scripture as
a whole, which defines their belief system, and a particular
understanding (or understandings) of specific passages of their
Scripture.
The problem for the West today is not whether the canonical Qur'an is
free of error, but how the Qur'an is used (or abused).
The temptation to use the Qur'an to make convenient legal or political
points is very strong, both for Western detractors and for some Muslim
religious and political leaders. However the Qur'an itself warns
(without further specification) that some parts of it are clear and
unambiguous while others are not.
"There is no God but Him, the Mighty, the Wise One. It is He who has
revealed to you the Book. Some of its verses are precise in
meaning--they are the foundation of the Book--and others are ambiguous.
Those whose hearts are infected with disbelief follow the ambiguous
part, so as to create dissension by seeking to explain it. But no one
knows its meaning except God. Those who are well grounded in knowlege
say: 'We believe in it: it is ALL from our Lord. But only the wise take
Zuiko Azumazi
"Altway" <hsa...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fa379e4$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3fa1654f$0$21649$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > You observations are quite correct. Most respondents in this thread,
> Muslim or otherwise, do not or will not acknowledge that "philology" is a
> "science" in its own right, which is a self-evident truth.
>
> Comment:-
> The problem is not whether Philology is a science but whether it is
> relevant to the subject under discussion, in this case religious faith, or
> more specifically Muslim faith. Is Philology relevant to the facts in
> Economics or Astronomy or Physics?
Questions:-
So you do not consider language and its uses (philology = humanistic study
of language and literature) essential to all of the subjects you mention,
then how do you communicate effectively? For instance, is the serious study
of "hadith" a science or not? How can language be irrelevant in human
discourse?
> You say Science is "self-evident truth"?
> Really!
> You do not appear to know much about science!
>
Comment:-
I said that "philology" is a recognised "science" [branch of knowledge] that
is a self-evident truth is it not? (Note the my use of "science" in lower
case or should I say that you do not appear to know much about
communication!).
> Science is an attempt to describe the phenomenon of nature...
Comment:-
There are various common uses of the word "science", its functional use can
be construed as ability, discipline, field of study, branch of knowledge,
and subject area, for example, not just "an attempt to describe the
phenomenon of nature" as you have mistakenly indicated.
<snip>
> But Philology is certainly not a science like physics...
Questions:-
Who said it was? But then again one could argue that "theology" or
"philosophy" is certainly not a science like "physics" either, what's your
point?
<snip>
> But what do you understand by "truth"?
Comment:-
My understanding of "truth" is unrestricted, it can mean, a fact that has
been verified, conformity to reality or actuality, a true statement, or the
quality of nearness to the truth or the true value, in other words, its use
is dependent on context.
<snip>
> Unless these questions are settled you do not really know what
> you are speaking about.
Comment:-
"Unless these questions are settled " by whom [besides Allah (SWT)] and in
what "language" may I ask? Aren't your posited questions philosophical and
metaphysical
by their very nature?
--
Peace
--
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly
by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by
prejudice. - Schopenhauer
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
John Berg
"Now what about the text itself. The Qur'an has manuscripts right from 1st
century of hijra, an achievement that has no parallel in the textual
history of Old and New Testaments. Some of them can be sampled at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/"
The first two sentences of the reference says,
"There has been a polemic going on that the Qur'an does not have manuscripts
from the first century of hijra. However, this is not true. ****Many
fragments****
of early Qur'anic manuscripts were shown by Orientalists notably Nabia
Abbott in her work The Rise of the North Arabic script and its Kur'anic
development, with a full description of the Kur'an manuscripts in the
Oriental Institute (1939, University of Chicago Press). "
How can we tell the date of the words (ideas) on the media? How can we tell
the context of the fragment? How would one know if it were from a Qur'an?
Were fragments found but not in the modern Qur'an discarded? Have we any
idea of what the fragments destroyed in the early days contained--or why
they were destroyed?
All his points underscore the uncertainty in the recorded transmission from
the black out period. And we are back to the original question: Where is
the earlist complete, canonical Qur'an? There has to be one.
--
John Berg
john...@mchsi.com
"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.HPX.4.58L.03...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk...
Zuiko Azumazi
"Abdelkarim Benoit Evans" <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:kevans-F4BDF3....@news.videotron.net...<snip>
> The Qur'an must be taken as a whole. Some parts are clear; some
> ambiguous. What counts is the whole, not the parts. God is One and his
> Divine Speech revealed to us in the form of his Holy Books is One. Like
> a living organism, neither can be cut up into parts and pieces without
> destroying the whole and killing the essence.
Comment:-
I should like to add, philologists, semanticists, theologists and
philosophers usually call a word "ambiguous" only when there is uncertainty
about which meaning is being used in a particular instance. A word isn't
ambiguous by itself, it is 'used' ambiguously: it is ambiguous when one
cannot tell from the context what sense is being used.
--
Peace
--
It takes a long time to acquire the art, but life is short, the crisis
rapid, experimentation dangerous, the cure uncertain.
[Hippocrates: The first Aphorism]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Yusuf B Gursey
if you are genuinly curious about these questions, read about how
materials and artifacts are dated. I don't think this is the proper
forum to discuss the details.
>How can we tell the date of the words (ideas) on the media? How can we tell
unless when there is evidence of re-writing or reason to suspect
fraud, the assumption is that the writing within a short time of
the preparation of the material, which can be dated using scientific
methods. there is also epigraphic evidence, study of the type of ink
(in the Vinland Map controversy) etc.
>the context of the fragment? How would one know if it were from a Qur'an?
for substantial fragmnets, from the overall content.
there is some debate on a few short quotes deviating from the
standard text that appear to be paraphrases rather than the
quranic verses themselves,
in dealing with fragments, one assumes that the variations in the
fragments are representative of the work as a whole. if more data turns
up,one just revises ones theories.
>Were fragments found but not in the modern Qur'an discarded? Have we any
>idea of what the fragments destroyed in the early days contained--or why
>they were destroyed?
the "destruction" was not complete. the contents of non-canonical
was discussed by later authors. AFAIK the most divergent codices
found were the yemeni finds.
>
>All his points underscore the uncertainty in the recorded transmission from
there is also a consistency that you ignore.
you evidently *assume* there is a big surprise, and you seem to
be going on repeating the same thing in your posts for ever.
what is all this going to accomplish? what most historians do is
make a theory based on existing evidence, if it is not contradicted
keep it, but modify later IF other evidence turns up.
repeating a question doesn't produce new evidence.
it just creates an atmosphere not conducive to scholalry discourse.
>the black out period. And we are back to the original question: Where is
archeaological evidence may be meager, but only people who dismisse
all islamic reprts off-hand find it a "balck out" period. this
is not the position of most hisotrians, who prefer textual criticism
of the available material instead.
>the earlist complete, canonical Qur'an? There has to be one.
well, there are several candidates, and if you are a proffessional,
you could argue with the curators, librarians, labrotories etc.
that have assigned a date or era to them.
I don't see what repeating a question over and over in a non-academic
newsgroup would accomplish.
you could badger people into *saying* something, but that doesn't
create facts.
Yusuf B Gursey
news:<mwRob.78641$e01.259625@attbi_s02>...
> But readers are understanding the contrary to your assertions. The area of
with all due respect to the serious people in this forum, USENET is
full of supporters of fringe theorists, cranks, loons, crackpots, you
name it. that's why it is neccessary to read scholarly books and journals,
which I do, and which I summarize. I don't post half baked assertions of
my own. so it is not "my assrtions" and neither do I care much for the
opinions of the people in the above mentioned categories.
> the Middle East of which we write in 550 AD had many tribes each of which
you really should (from your point of view) think of a carrier choice as a
writer of bad historical fiction pandering to the prejudices of
semi-literate people. you have concocted a scenario, and worse, you
stubbornly believe it.
first of all there is the nonsense of the choice of 550 CE, which is
pre-islamic to start with.
> had a tribal name and local verbal language with their early attempts to
that doesn't mean they *couldn't* have a common name for themsleves and
have developed a prestige idiom for common communication, or simply have
designated their spoken form by a common name, regardless of the presence
of a common standard or not.
in fact, there is evidence that they did. "arab" has been around as a
collective name from assyrian times. if you want "hard" evidence from
recent times, and their own mouth, there is the famous an-Namara
inscription, dated Dec. 7, 328 CE (actually its date is in the persian
calendar), fro the tomb of "the king of all the arabs", written in the
Nabataean script (the ancestor of the arabic script) and in an arabic
quite close classical arabic.
in terms of a written literary work, there is a poem, in Nabataean arabic
in Nabataean script, from the late 1st cent. CE - early 2nd cent. CE (see
Arabia and the Arabs ..." by R. Hoyland p. 211-212).
the earliest *dated* arabic inscription in arabic script is in a
trilingual in 512 CE.
there are also the people surrounding the arabs, calling them "arabs"
before islam.
for the condition of arabic around Muhamamd's time, see Saifullah's post.
there are also some inscriptions in the peninsula from the late 6th -
early 7th cent., though the study of these may not be complete.
this sampling has ommited the arabic in the south-semitic script, usually
which was usually difffered sllighly from the standard of these. also
ommitted was the oral tradition, which has been shown to be on the main
part authentic (see the Hoyland book, same page) through linguistic and
stylistic analysis.
enough has been said. if the qur'anic verse refering to "arabic" were
obvious anachronisms, you would have seen this highlighted in every
major study (cranks are excluded) of the qur'an. this may not always
mean "true", but the argument dissmissing the "arabic verses" offhand
is false.
> render permanent the ideas of their time. That's why there were no
> documents to reach our time though neighboring peoples had reliable
the state in pre-islamic arabia was decentralized and very weak, and this
is an environment not conducive to writting or constructing monuments,
which tend to be best preserved and provide dates, inscriptions etc.
for archaeaologists.
there is a considerable amount of graffiti, mostly in south-semitic script
from an earlier period. this does however provide quite some evidence
regarding the pagan cults. the script died down particulary when yemeni
civilization collapsed. incidentally, such inscriptions, as well as
Nabataean and Yemeni ones, largely confirm what is said of arab paganism
in the Qur'an and islamic tradition.
> documents. Why substitute written Qur'ans for recitals if recitals are so
> good?
see M. Cook's recent pamphlet on the Qur'an . it's a strategy, "broadly
succesful" for cancleing the accumualtion of errors. scribal errors (also
"reading" errors) accumulate in a purely written tradition and recitation
erros in a purely oral one. combining these, together with a tradition of
commentary, would make it possible to check one against the other, and
this was done.
>
> In the dark period the fundus grew as fragments each of which reflected the
> local attempts at writing and later "played back" (read) by those who knew
> the imperfections of that fragment from 10 years ago and compared it to
> recent recitals transmitted to three other tribes before coming back to the
> location where it was revealed.
this has too much of your own scenario embedded into it to answer, but see
above,
>
> You would like to know what Mohammad revealed yet you know there was no way
well, use the general "one" rather than the personal "you".
I said, there was no videotape, one has to rely on source criticism
and the available evidence to make a relative judgemnet.
> to transmit it to the Tenth Century accurately and, worse, the leaders of
> the Eight, Ninth, and Ten Century were using it for their purposes.
this is an asertion that begs for proof itself.
Denis Giron
Pax Vobis!
While I know this diverges a great deal from the original scope of the
thread, I see that Shibli and Mr. Craney have gotten into a discussion
about Salman Rushdie (as compared with Christoph Luxenberg), and I
wanted to comment...
SHIBLI ZAMAN:
> > Even Salman Rushdie is alive and well in NY and he had an erroneous
> > fatwah of death placed on him by the Ayatollah (for political
> > reasons). This is all just a big sham.
MIKE CRANEY:
> On 9/09/01 Salman Rushdie spoke in Houston, Texas. Outside the place where
> he spoke were dozens of Muslims carrying "Death to Rushdie" signs. He was
> accompanied by security before, during, and after his talk.
>
> Now, perhaps you will argue that picketing Rushdie speeches is simply an
> upper middle class activity these days undertaken by bored, secular Muslims
> so they will feel better about themselves. Doesn't matter. To us observers,
> it is an expression of a barbaric nature that *should* have no place in a
> religion that bills itself as "peaceful." Thus, the fact that Rushdie is
> still alive is rather irrelevant -- to we observers, it simply means that
> these barbaric factions haven't been successful -- yet; and, as such, men
> such as Luxemberg have good reason to use a pseudonym.
The Salman Rushdie debacle is a very interesting case. I was just a
kid in grade school when it began, but I have vivid memories, because
a friend of my father's, who was both a journalist and a convert to
Islam, had gotten on television: he was interviewed at a rally where
he was part of an angry crowd of protesters demanding Rushdie's book
be censored. I recall this because my father and his friend got into a
heated debate afterwards, with lots of profanity, and my father was
yelling that he had no right to call himself a writer or a journalist
if we was going to try and stifle the free speech of others.
That aside, Shibli is correct in stating that Rushdie is alive and
well in New York City. In fact, a couple years ago, the New York Times
Sunday Magazine (which occasionally does pieces on celebs and their
apartments in the city) noted that Rushdie lives on Mulberry street
(by foot, this is like five to ten minutes from where I live), and the
article even had pictures of the building, of the inside of the
apartment, as well as pictures of Rushdie and his then Indian model
girlfriend walking the streets. I've seen Rushdie speak in Manhattan
with almost no security detail. The man is certainly living free in
New York.
Interestingly, the famous New York writer Paul Auster talked about how
irrational some people are about fearing that Rushdie may be killed by
Islamic fanatics on the streets of New York. In the back of the
screenplay for Auster's movie "Lulu on the Bridge," there is an
interview between Auster ("PA") and Rebecca Prime ("RP") where Auster
notes how Rushdie was supposed to play a part in the movie. The idea
ended up being scrapped because too many people on the crew feared
Muslim terrorists were going to visit the set as a result, so the part
was ultimately given to Willam Dafoe (who played Dr. Van Horn in the
movie). I think Auster's comments on this subject are illuminating, so
I will quote the relevant part of the interview here:
"PA: [...] Originally, Dr. Van Horn was called Dr. Singh, and the role
was going to be played by Salman Rushdie. Salman is another friend, a
very good friend, but also - believe it or not - a wonderfully able
actor. I asked him to be in the movie just after I finished the
script, and he accepted. We were both very excited about it.
[...]
RP: Why didn't it happen?
PA: Fear mostly. And bad planning on my part, bad planning all around.
I've spent so much time with him, have been in so many public places
with him - restaurants, theaters, the streets of New York - that I
forget that most people think of him as a walking time bomb, that if
they get anywhere near him, they're likely to be blown to bits. Nine
years have gone by since the fatwa was declared, and he's still,
mercifully, very much with us, but his name seems to trigger off an
irrational panic in many people, and a certain percentage of the crew
wanted extra security guarantees if he was going to appear in the
film. The cost of doing such a thing would have been prohbitive, and
eventually I had to abandon the idea. I fought tooth and nail to make
it happen, but it didn't. It was a tremendous disappointment to me. I
consider it a personal defeat, a moral defeat."
["Lulu on the Bridge," a film by Paul Auster, (Henry Holt, 1998), pp.
156-157]
Anyway, when I first read the post I am responding to, I wondered
about Mr. Craney's claim that on September 9th, 2001, Rushdie was
picketed in Houston by Muslims carrying signs that read "Death to
Rushdie." I didn't doubt that it might have happened (I knew that such
things are very possible), but I nontheless wondered about the source
of Mr. Craney's information. I state this because this event was right
before 911. After 911 I was curious where Rushdie was around that
time, and I found out that just prior to the attacks he was in
Telluride, Colorado, at the Sundance Film Festival, where I think he
was honored as a guest director (though I'm not sure). After 911,
Rushdie himself made note of the experience of being at the Sundance
Film Festival in Telluride just before the attacks, writing:
"How idyllically innocent our Telluride days at once began to seem: as
if we had been cast out of Eden, holding the fruit of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil in our trembling hands."
[Salman Rushdie, "Step Across This Line," (Modern Library Paperbacks,
2003), p. 336]
However, I kept in mind the fact that the Sundance Film Festival did
end before 9/9/01, so it was still very possible that Rushdie was in
Houston. So I did a Lexis-Nexis search, and sure enough, the
Associated Press reported (on 911, somewhat ironically), that on
monday, 9/10/01, a group of about three hundred Muslims gathered
outside the downtown Alley Theatre (where Rushdie was speaking after
being invited to read excerpts of his book by the University of
Houston). Indeed, some of these Muslims were chanting "death to
Rushdie" (according to the AP).
Shockingly, Hadi Elmi, chairman of the Islamic Education Center in
Houston, which operates the Al-Hadi School of Accelerative Learning
(http://alhadi.com), was at the protest, as was quoted by the AP as
saying "we have not forgotten about him [i.e. Rushdie] and his evil
act" (interestingly, an article by Edward Hegstrom, in the Houston
Chronicle from the same day, includes text not found in the AP
release, quoting Elmi as following up by stating that 'those who
commit evil must be punished' - but the article did not put the
statement in quotation marks, leaving open the question of whether he
said this, or if this was the reporter paraphrasing something else he
said).
I wonder if Mr. Elmi (or the other protesters) ever read the book "The
Satanic Verses". My own website has gotten a bunch of emails or
guestbook entries over the years that go along the lines of "you talk
about freedom of speech, but if a [insert expletive] like Salman
Rushdie wrote a book disrespecting your religion, would you still be
talking about freedom of speech? would the Jews still say 'freedom of
speech' if Rushdie disrespected their religion?" However, it has been
my experience that of all the Muslims I have met in person or on the
net who are angry about Rushdie's book, not a single one has ever
actually read it. Many don't even know that it was a work of fiction!
Nor do they realize that in the West other faiths are subjected to the
same sort of satire.
Of course, the reality is that there are many works of fiction that
are far more harsh with Christianity (or Judaism, though not as much
as Christianity) than what is found in "The Satanic Verses". Gore
Vidal's "Live From Golgotha" is probably the closest to a Christian
equivalent of the Satanic Verses (complete with scenes moving back and
forth between the 20th century and the time the Prophet who is being
satirized lived), only it is a great deal more viscious. While
Rushdie's book ultimately has one of the main characters, the 7th
century Arab prophet "Mahound" (an obvious satire of Muhammad), being
given revelations from a somewhat schitzophrenic Satan, Vidal's book
has it turn out that Jesus was Lucifer himself, and that the one who
was arrested and crucified was actually the meek and innocent Judas,
whom Christians have unknowingly been worshipping for the last 2,000
years. Add in the fact that Vidal's book has Jesus being a militant
zionist, an anti-gentile racist, as well as depicting Paul as a wholly
flamboyant homosexual, and you realize just how much more open Vidal's
attack on Christianity is in comparison to Rushdie's satire of the
origins of Islam.
Now, there has been no death sentence placed on the head of Gore
Vidal, and I doubt he would draw a crowd of people chanting "death to
Vidal" if he did a reading (of a wholly different book!) in Houston,
and this may be in favor of what Mr. Craney was saying. But then we
have to realize that Shibli prefaced his comments by asking who has
been killed in *_the_Western_hemisphere_*. Maybe his choice of
location is a bit too broad, but it does nonetheless hint that maybe
this behavior is location specific, rather than religion specific
(although, that might hint at a certain irony if we wish revise
Shibli's list and include Houston in the list of location-specific
areas that house less-enlightened Muslims).
For example, what if, rather than being an American writing in America
in the early 90s, Gore Vidal was a Lebanese Arab writing in Lebanon in
the late 70s? Assume that he is (as he really is) an Atheist, but then
assume he comes from a Muslim family (and thus has a Muslim name). How
would Lebanese Christians react in the late 1970s if a man with a
Muslim name (but is an Atheist) wrote a satire of the origins of
Christianity that depicted Jesus as Satan and Saint Paul as a
homosexual? While this scenario is wholly hypothetical, I would wager
that certain men in the Christian community would have vowed to kill
the author (as well as some innocent Muslims who had nothing to do
with it).
So, indeed, such reactions can be location-specific. But then, while
this serves as a defense of what Shibli was saying, so too it serves
as a defense of Luxenberg's choice as well. I doubt Luxenberg is in
any danger in Germany (especially on the campus of a German
university). However, if he is, in fact, a Lebanese Christian, might
he not want to be known if he ever goes back to Lebanon? No doubt
today's Lebanon is a place with considerably more freedom than many
other spots in the Middle East, but it is still a great deal more
dangerous than Germany (I would think this is true for men who write
popular books that call into question the history of Islam). Now maybe
Luxenberg has never been to Lebanon, or will never go again -
nonetheless, the analogy was meant to demonstrate at least that the
man may have good reasons for what he is doing.
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org
1MAN4ALL
> are far more harsh with Christianity (or Judaism, though not as much
> as Christianity) than what is found in "The Satanic Verses". Gore
> Vidal's "Live From Golgotha" is probably the closest to a Christian
> equivalent of the Satanic Verses (complete with scenes moving back and
> forth between the 20th century and the time the Prophet who is being
> satirized lived), only it is a great deal more viscious.
As I have stated too many times, the problem was not what Rushdie
wrote but in the way he was made a celebrity in the West. Whether you
acknowledge it or not, since the Crusades, the West has always seen
itself in an 'enemy camp' against the Muslims and deserters from the
'Muslim camp' are always joyously welcomed because of their rarity.
This makes people like Rushdie look like 'traitors' in the eyes of
many Muslims. Secondly, for centuries, Muslims have tolerated
Christian lies and distortions about Islam. And when one of their own
is found doing the same thing_ either for fame or to please his
Western hosts_ that is simply intolerable for some of them.
If Gore Vidal had gone to live in Libya and was writing nasty books
against Christianity, he probably would have been ignored in the West.
And that would have been the end of his literary career because major
publishing houses and international media outlets are still in Western
countries. And except for some passing interest, Muslims too would not
have given him the importance that Rushdie has received in the West,
because it is not uncommon to find Christian converts to Islam
criticizing their former religion.
Since Christianity is already the most dominant religion of the most
dominant nation, the US, attacks from within are well tolerated and do
not make a difference in the way Christianity is perceived. The
critics are always nothing more than flies hovering around a
thick-skinned white elephant. With Islam, it's a different case
because distortions created by the enemies of Islam almost always end
up in the dehumanization of Muslims, which eventually leads to their
death and destruction. Jews learned this lesson long time ago and thus
fight tooth and nail every single public statement that is perceived
as anti-Semitic.
I do agree, however, that calling for Rushdie's death by Iranians was
counterproductive. He certainly does not deserve the attention that he
has received. His other book "Shame" was so bad that I yawned through
half of it before I put it down for good.
Muslims have not yet learned to laugh at their enemies, and they don't
realize that humor can be a powerful tool. And that is something that
they need to work on. I am sure with greater political stability, with
little less pain, they can pick up that habit and would have the
confidence to laugh off books like "Satanic Verses" as childish
attempts to discredit Islam.
Zuiko Azumazi
"John Berg" <john...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mwRob.78641$e01.259625@attbi_s02...
<snip>
> The area o fthe Middle East of which we write in 550 AD had many tribes
> each of which had a tribal name and local verbal language with their early
<snip>
Comment:-
Arabic, is a South Semitic language, and is most important surviving Semitic
language from the Semitic Group, other survivors are Syriac, Ethiopian, and
Hebrew [revived]. What "dead" languages were there in this group? Aramaic,
Canaanite, Assyrian, West Aramaic, Moabite, and Phoenician. Many extant
written examples of these "dead" languages have been discovered, so your
proposition that they were simply "verbal" or "tribal" is incorrect. For
instance, did the Phoenicians invent the original 'phonetic' alphabet and
its written form?
Using the historical development and origins of the Arabic language as a
means to denigrate the authenticity of the Qur'an is at best pure
speculation and seriously cannot be considered, in fact, it is a
non-sequitur argument.
Zuiko Azumazi
"1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ba13f877.03110...@posting.google.com...<snip>
> As I have stated too many times, the problem was not what Rushdie
> wrote but in the way he was made a celebrity in the West.
Question:-
I just wonder whether Salman Rushdies's "Satanic Verses" would have received
such world-wide attention if Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had not issued his
infamous fatwa? Many Muslim Iranians believe that this fatwa was really
"politically" motivated and was used as a means to rally his demoralised
supporters and flagging "political" popularity domestically. In that
plausible context, it was "not what Rushdie wrote" but the demanded death
penalty, for purported Islamic blasphemy, that made the headlines and
Rushdie a cause celebrate. How much damage to Islam did this episode create?
Is there a lasting legacy?
MMM
Giron) wrote:
....
<boring and useless parts deleted>
>popular books that call into question the history of Islam). Now maybe
>Luxenberg has never been to Lebanon, or will never go again -
>nonetheless, the analogy was meant to demonstrate at least that the
>man may have good reasons for what he is doing.
Just some facts are enough:
12 Feb 1989
Six or more Pakistanis protesting the sale of The Satanic Verses in
the United States are killed by police gunfire during in the ensuing
riot.
14 Feb 1989
Ayatollah Khomeini issues a Fatwa against Salman Rushdie over Satanic
Verses.
24 Feb 1989
12 are killed an 17 wounded in Bombay when police open fire on a crowd
of 10,000 protesting outside the British Embassy.
29 Mar 1989
Belgian Muslim leaders Abdullah Al Ahdal and Salim Bahri are shot and
killed inside a Brussels mosque.
27 May 1989
30,000 Moslems protest outside the British Parliament.
14 Sep 1989
Person or persons unknown place four bombs outside British bookstores
owned by Penguin, publisher of The Satanic Verses.
3 Jul 1991
Italian translator Ettore Capriolo is beaten and stabbed in his Milan
apartment.
12 Jul 1991
Japanese translator Hitoshi Igarashi is stabbed to death in Tokyo.
4 Jul 1993
37 people are killed in a riot in Sivas, Turkey.
11 Oct 1993
Norwegian publisher William Nygaard is shot three times and left for
dead outside his home in Oslo.
12 Feb 1997
The Khordad-15 foundation announces that the $2.0 million bounty on
Salman Rushdie's head has been increased to $2.5 million.
14 Feb 1998
Iran's chief prosecutor, Morteza Moqtadaie, declares: "The shedding of
this man's blood is obligatory."
22 Sep 1998
Iranian President Mohammad Khatami declares: "We should consider the
Salman Rushdie issue as completely finished."
28 Sep 1998
Three Iranian clerics call on Moslems to kill Rushdie, despite recent
statements by the government.
4 Oct 1998
160 members of the Iranian parliament proclaim that the fatwa against
Salman Rushdie still stands.
7 Oct 1998
The Iranian government declares that the fatwa still stands.
10 Oct 1998
The Association of Hezbollah University Students pledges an additional
$333,000 for the bounty on Salman Rushdie's head.
11 Oct 1998
The Khordad-15 foundation announces in a full-page newspaper ad that
the $2.5 million bounty on Rushdie's head has been increased to $2.8
million. Foundation director Ayatollah Hassan Sanei declares: "To make
the fatwa everlasting and encourage its execution, I have decided to
raise the reward offered by the foundation. This reward for killing
Salman Rushdie is a great honour for the foundation and we must
preserve it."
4 Jan 1999
In Mexico, Salman Rushdie says he does not live a normal life.
4 Feb 1999
BBC reports that Salman Rushdie is considering a visit to India.
According to Muslim leader Syed Ahmad Bukhari, "Indian Moslems be
prepared for any sacrifice... from the time he steps on Indian soil,
we will follow him everywhere. If we have to give our lives, we are
ready."
6 Feb 1999
The Tehran Times declares that Salman Rushdie is like to be the target
of assassination attempts during his upcoming visit to India: "If the
visit of this most hated blasphemous and disgraceful person takes
place, there is every possibility that it will be his last foreign
visit."
14 Feb 1999
Ayatollah Hassan Sanei, director of the Khordad-15 foundation, tells
the newspaper Jomhuri Islami: "The idea of Rushdie's annihilation is
still very much alive and seeks only the right moment."
G. Waleed Kavalec
[...]
> How much damage to Islam did this episode create?
> Is there a lasting legacy?
Salaam
Nothing can damage Islam. The episode merely made it easier for some
disbelievers to pretend that the political machinations they see on CNN are
Islam, and thus continue to disbelieve.
Allah guides whom He wills.
------------------------
Peace and Ramadan mubarak
G. Waleed Kavalec
------------------------
http://www.kavalec.com/path_to_islam.htm
Christoph Heger
My yesterday comment seems to have been lost somewhere in the
cyberspace. So I try to repeat it from memory.
"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.HPX.4.58L.03...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>...
> But such a critical scholarship has to be based on the evidence.
Right! It is however worth to remind that "evidence" not necessarily
is documental evidence from some Mss.
> You show us one good piece of evidence in the forms of a Mss, inscription or
> papyri that supports the view of Luxenberg.
Luxenberg may show his own evidence. I for one have already pointed
out long ago such a manuscript giving evidence for one of Luxenberg's
theses, namely that early Muslim Koran "Readers" were unable to read
the Koran scriptures transmitted to them: the famous Samarkand or
Tashkent Koran, which some less informed Muslims still believe to be
one of the "Uthmanic originals".
This mss not only simply deviates in surah 7:11 from the transmitted
text of the Koran, it even deviates in such a manner that the deviant
word apparently cannot be read at all. Look at line #1 of page #338
where you will find a good portion of surah 7:11.
You now will find it at
http://answering-islam.org/PQ/A2.htm#AppA2,
http://answering-islam.org.uk/PQ/A2.htm#AppA2 or
http://answering-islam.de/PQ/A2.htm#AppA2
The encircled word definitely cannot be recognized as "(u)sjuduw",
"bow down!" - there is no siyn and there is no jiym to be seen. And it
is no "scribal error"!
Surely nothing but a synonym to "bow down!" is conceivable in the
context. But which one?
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Zuiko Azumazi
"G. Waleed Kavalec" <G.Wa...@kavalec.com> wrote in message
news:fqednTIa8od...@intertex.net...
> "Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3fa80362$0$9221$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> Nothing can damage Islam. The episode merely made it easier for some
> disbelievers to pretend that the political machinations they see on CNN
are
> Islam, and thus continue to disbelieve.
Questions:-
If a legal injury is any "damage" resulting from a violation of a legal
right, then Islamic justice was not served by issuing the Rushdie "fatwa"
without a trial and due process, do you agree? What is Islam without
justice? Responsible Islamic "leadership" has to do the right thing and be
seen to be doing the right thing, isn't that the Quranic message?
Recently you condemned Boykin, rightly so, for exercising poor judgement,
concerning his detrimental remarks about Islam, especially because he could
be perceived as a "representative" of US Government and its "leadership".
Then should Muslims apply the same standards and condemn those who do
likewise?
vmi...@yahoo.com
> Recently you condemned Boykin, rightly so, for exercising poor judgement,
> concerning his detrimental remarks about Islam, especially because he
> could be perceived as a "representative" of US Government and its
> "leadership". Then should Muslims apply the same standards and condemn
> those who do likewise?
Did he (Mahathir) attack the Jewish God, pretending that the God of the
muslims (as if such a notion makes sense) is better than someone else's
God?
On what basis should the statement of Dr. Mahathir be condemned? That he
knows too much and has finally gathered the courage to speak out?
Do you deny that there is inordinate Jewish influence in global affairs, in
particular as far as the affairs of the muslims world are concerned? Were
you asleep when the Zionist buthcher recently said that they had the
"right" to attack "anyone", "anywhere" as long as the Zionists perceived
that something adverse to their interest was at stake?
On what moral basis, then, do you deny the other people the same right?
Since when is calling a spade a spade cause for condemnation?
If people like you prefer to keep your head firmly buried in sand, that is
your problem. But what right do you have to expect muslims to fall in line
with your whims just so that your conscience wouldn't be bothered?
Please get real. And get a life!
Viqar Ahmed
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
G. Waleed Kavalec
[..]
> Questions:-
> If a legal injury is any "damage" resulting from a violation of a legal
> right, then Islamic justice was not served by issuing the Rushdie "fatwa"
> without a trial and due process, do you agree? What is Islam without
> justice?
You are highlighting the difference between Islam and the world's
perception of Islam.
I did not say that that perception could not be harmed. But remember
Allah guides whom he wills, and how he wills.
> Responsible Islamic "leadership" has to do the right thing and be
> seen to be doing the right thing, isn't that the Quranic message?
And how do you identify "Responsible Islamic leadership"?
Fatuous fatwas are a good negative clue.
> Recently you condemned Boykin, rightly so, for exercising poor judgement,
> concerning his detrimental remarks about Islam, especially because he
could
> be perceived as a "representative" of US Government and its "leadership".
> Then should Muslims apply the same standards and condemn those who do
> likewise?
Absolutely.
And I do condemn the Rushdie nonsense.
Zuiko Azumazi
<vmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20031106212735.545$V...@newsreader.com...
> Did he (Mahathir) attack the Jewish God, pretending that the God of the
> muslims (as if such a notion makes sense) is better than someone else's
> God?
Question:-
What has Dr. Mahatir got to do with the issue of the Rushdie fatwa or
philology? I doubt very strongly that he would have agreed with it? Do you
have any evidence that he did?
> On what basis should the statement of Dr. Mahathir be condemned? That he
> knows too much and has finally gathered the courage to speak out?
Question:-
Where in my post did I condemn Dr. Mahathir? From what is in the public
domain, Dr. Mahathir has always had the "courage" to speak his mind.
<snip>
> On what moral basis, then, do you deny the other people the same right?
Comment:-
Exactly my point, no one but Allah (SWT), has such a "moral basis" or
"right", Muslim or otherwise.
> Since when is calling a spade a spade cause for condemnation?
Comment:-
I can think of numerous examples of the use of the "spade a spade" analogy
to vilify, stigmatise or discriminate against innocent people, Muslims or
otherwise, this offensive behaviour should be condemned by all, or do you
subscribe to opprobrious name calling as a "leadership" fundamental?
> If people like you prefer to keep your head firmly buried in sand, that is
> your problem. But what right do you have to expect muslims to fall in line
> with your whims just so that your conscience wouldn't be bothered?
>
Question:-
People like me who believe in Allah (SWT) you mean? When is faith a whim? Or
are you just another so-called Muslim who has buried his "conscience" for
the sake of "political" power in a temporal world, is that your concept of
Islam?
> Please get real. And get a life!
Comment:-
Please revisit your faith and understand its "reality", perhaps, then you
can then lead a productive life.
Zuiko Azumazi
> You are highlighting the difference between Islam and the world's
> perception of Islam.
Question:-
Isn't this part of the dichotomy, Islamic "reality" versus "perception"?
What will change, internally and externally, if Muslims don't try and
correct the "world's perception"?
> And how do you identify "Responsible Islamic leadership"?
Question:-
I think a good starting point would be characterised by good judgement or
sound thinking, marked by the exercise of common sense in practical temporal
matters. What's your opinion? Any specific candidates in mind? I just
wonder what others might have to say or constructively contribute to such an
identification process, don't you?
--
Peace
--
Speculation, theory, what are they but thinking? Can man disdain
speculation, can he disdain theory, without disdaining thought as well?
[Bentham 1824]
--
Zuiko Azumazi.
azu...@hotmail.com
vmi...@yahoo.com
> People like me who believe in Allah (SWT) you mean? When is faith a whim?
> Or are you just another so-called Muslim who has buried his "conscience"
> for the sake of "political" power in a temporal world, is that your
> concept of Islam?
If anyone has buried his/her conscience for the sake of political power
in a temporal world, I am not him. I can assure you of that. I also do
not (not any longer at least) believe in effacing mine to assuage that of
others.
As for my concept of Islam, what specifically would you like to know?
It is too general a term for me to comment on.
vmi...@yahoo.com
> > Since when is calling a spade a spade cause for condemnation?
>
> Comment:-
> I can think of numerous examples of the use of the "spade a spade"
> analogy to vilify, stigmatise or discriminate against innocent people,
> Muslims or otherwise, this offensive behaviour should be condemned by
> all, or do you subscribe to opprobrious name calling as a "leadership"
> fundamental?
Please accept my unqualified apology for my response to your post. I
beleive I have mixed up with some other post which I wanted to respond
to; and it may not even have been yours.
I very much doubt that I accept name calling, opprobrious or otherwise,
as a "leadership fundamental". But that is hardly the isue over here.
Once again, my apologies.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:20031108154027.120$2...@newsreader.com...
> Please accept my unqualified apology for my response to your post. I
> beleive I have mixed up with some other post which I wanted to respond
> to; and it may not even have been yours.
> I very much doubt that I accept name calling, opprobrious or otherwise,
> as a "leadership fundamental". But that is hardly the isue over here.
> Once again, my apologies.
Thanks for your most gracious apology which I fully accept - no harm done.
It isn't often that people, Muslim or otherwise, in this newsgroup have the
good manners to apologise when they have made a mistake.
Believe me, when I say, I've committed the same error and have hastily
responded to a post, when my passions were aroused, about some hot topical
issue when proper reflection would have been more appropriate.
At least we are agreed on your other comment "As for my concept of Islam,
what specifically would you like to know? It is too general a term for me to
comment on." You are quite right, too many people have pet Islamic
theories, it's a veritable minefield. "These "theories", then, come in all
shapes and sizes and have been categorised in ways too numerous to detail.
But, unfortunately, there is no body of "general" propositions that may be
advanced about (Islamic?) political relations between states (let alone
civilisations!), or more generally about world politics." [J C Garnett
1983 - my emphasis in quotes and brackets].
By the way where is "over here"?
Altway
"Anjum" <anj...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:fdb9c2b0.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > if you are genuinly curious about these questions, read about how
materials and artifacts are dated. I don't think this is the proper
forum to discuss the details.
> I believe this is a good advice to "John Berg". You have made valuable
recommendations to him in this and other posts.
> But there is definitely a huge difference between a genuine spiritual
quest and an intellectual analysis.
Comment:-
To tell you the truth I believe that John Berg and some other persistent
critics already knows
but subconsciously that the Quran contains the Truth -
He recognises it "as he recognises his father".
But consciously he is in denial.
He is desperately trying to find arguments why he should
reject the Quran and thogh he tries to convince himself
he fails.
The reason for this assessment is that there is a contradiction
between his pretense that he is unbeliever and the fact that he
spends so much time and effort on this Islamic site. It is a
question of asking oneself why if he thinks it is false he does
not simply ignore it?
But it is a good exercise for Muslims to answer him, if it were
not that he keeps repeating the same often naive assertions
though they have been answered several times already. But
it is part of the denial to ignore the answers.
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
Altway
"Zuiko Azumazi" <azu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fa442b4$0$12466$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Questions:-
> So you do not consider language and its uses (philology = humanistic
study of language and literature) essential to all of the subjects you
mention, then how do you communicate effectively? For instance, is the
serious study of "hadith" a science or not? How can language be irrelevant
in human discourse?
Comment:-
I am afraid we are at cross purposes or getting distracting from the
subject.
You must distinguish between the contents and the vessel,
I am not speaking about the vessel, which you appear to wish to discuss.
There are certainly differences of opinion about the meaning of the verses
in the Quran. And there are Hadith that expound the meanings.
But there is a difference between Philology and Semantics.
As I understand it Philology means the science of language, how it arises
and changes, its history. It is not concerned so much with understanding the
meaning of words in their intention and context.
However, you may understand it to mean this, in which case we have
a semantic difference.
But as I understand it J. Berg and those he quotes have a wholly different
attitude and my difference is with them - According to them Philological
studies invalidate the Quran..
> There are various common uses of the word "science", its functional use
can be construed as ability, discipline, field of study, branch of
knowledge, and subject area, for example, not just "an attempt to describe
the phenomenon of nature" as you have mistakenly indicated.
Comment:-
So now we are to quarrel about the meaning of the word "science".
Will this make a jot of difference to the content of the various sciences?
> > Unless these questions about the nature of truth are settled you do not
really know what you are speaking about.
> "Unless these questions are settled " by whom [besides Allah (SWT)] and in
what "language" may I ask?
Comment:-
By those who are discussing the subject.
> Aren't your posited questions philosophical and metaphysical by their
very nature?
Comment:-
Yes, and I have dealt with them.
But we are dealing with the Quran - at least I am.
In order to avoid misunderstandings and unnecesary, futile arguments
Let me quote from my article to make my position clear:-
"To you (J Berg & the like) it is a book like others written or compiled by
human authors that lived centuries ago. To Muslims it is the timeless Word
of God, applicable now, something that transforms when understood and
absorbed, and not paper and ink. It has a spiritual purpose. When the
Prophet was asked to read it was certainly not a material book. It was
revealed as a recitation, the rhythms of which also have their effect. The
nature of the Quran is described in the following verses:- 2:185, 4:105,
5:48, 8:24, 43:3-4, 68:52, 81:27-29, 85:21-22 and in the following verse:-
"Nay, but it (the Quran) is a clear revelation in the hearts of those who
are endowed with knowledge, and none deny Our revelations save the
wrongdoers (or unjust)." 29:24
The Quran is not, therefore, like that which you and Western scholars and
critics suppose. Their studies concern the vessel not the content. Though
their researches might bring something useful to light, they cannot
invalidate the Quran as they suppose.
The Quran states that it will be preserved and that anything that is caused
to be forgotten will be replaced with something similar or with what is
better. And it contains no contradictions. These statements are not included
in the Quran frivolously as they could be easily refuted by arguments such
as yours. Moreover, this is not a circular argument as you suppose - it is
not the Quran speaking about itself, it is the promise of God.
There is, therefore, a much more sophisticated meaning to them. The Quran is
exactly as it is meant to be. If research uncovers fragments that should be
included in the Quran then obviously they have been preserved and the time
is ripe for them to be discovered. Certainly the Quran is interpreted
differently by different people according to their interests, knowledge,
experiences and levels of intelligence. This was always so and is so today.
In order to achieve understanding and settle disputes guidance should be
sought from God, the Prophet and those who have better knowledge and
authority. If things in it are read as contradictions then a mistake in
interpretation has been made and this should be rectified. The Quran was
expounded and demonstrated by the Prophet, transmitted by his companions,
and there have been a series of teachers from the beginning. There have been
commentaries by the learned, scholars and saints and a chain of transmission
both oral and written. The verses of the Quran do have multiple meanings and
that is how it is constructed to be. In fact, we have to distinguish between
three aspects of the Quran - (a) Its objective existence, (b) its
interpretation and (c) its application. These do not correspond but we are
required to progressively converge towards its objective message i.e.
surrender to God. This is like the difference between the Sun, our idea of
the sun and the uses we make of it. And it may even have unconscious natural
effects like the sun. The Quran deals with Universals and Eternals and has
great depths of meaning that need to be explored through study, meditation
and reasoning. It is not static and requires us to seek knowledge and
understanding and expand our capacities of consciousness, conscience and
will.
That is how it is to be read and understood. Those people who, like you, do
not understand it that way are not reading the Quran, but something in their
own imagination.
"Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with a right
reading, those believe in it. And those who disbelieves in it, those are the
losers." 2:121
The purpose of the Quran was and is to bring change and development, and it
would be a contradiction of this purpose to suppose that it stopped those
changes or was made obsolete by them.
Hamid S. Aziz
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > But such a critical scholarship has to be based on the evidence.
>
> Right! It is however worth to remind that "evidence" not necessarily
> is documental evidence from some Mss.
If somebody comes and claims that the Qur'an had Syriac/Aramaic origins we
need to know where, how and why. As for Luxenberg, he has none (and by
default, Heger too!). Now what he gets into is a rather clever deviation.
He now comes and says:
> out long ago such a manuscript giving evidence for one of Luxenberg's
> theses, namely that early Muslim Koran "Readers" were unable to read
> the Koran scriptures transmitted to them: the famous Samarkand or
> Tashkent Koran, which some less informed Muslims still believe to be
> one of the "Uthmanic originals".
How did Heger know that the early Muslim Qur'an "Readers" were unable to
read the Qur'an which they had written? Has he taken a time machine to
back and check to see if it was indeed the case. If indeed this was case,
many scholars who deal with Qur'anic Mss would be happy to have this
mysterious time machine to explore the origins of the Qur'an.
But let us get a little real here. Last month, The Qur'an Conference was
held in School of Oriental and African Studies, London, where a talk by
Dr. Dutton from Edinburgh dealt with the issue of Qur'anic Mss that had an
earlier writing that was washed. It was shown that the washed writing had
variants that corresponded to the pre-`Uthmanic readings of the sahaba as
mentioned in Islamic literature. The famous Atlantic Monthly Mss was also
discussed and hopefully, a huge paper would be published in Journal of
Qur'anic Studies towards the middle/end of next year.
Now as for the Samarqand Mss, it was "corrected" by Pissareff because many
of letters faded and could not be read properly. The text has been
constantly touched by the Muslims who came to see the Mss. The act of
"correction" created a big hue and cry among Muslims where allegations of
tampering with the text were raised and the infamous Jeffery (no wonder!)
sided with Pissareff.
As for dropping of alif, hamza etc. in the early Qur'anic Mss,
inscriptions and papyri, this feature is well-known among those who have
studied the early Arabic scripts. This need not be over-emphasized.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Christoph Heger
shi...@zaman.net (Shibli Zaman) wrote in message news:<6186442d.0310...@posting.google.com>.a lot of stuff. I am going to deal with it step by step. This time I may deal with the following item.
> christo...@onlinehome.de (Christoph Heger) wrote in message news:<23a0d3d0.03102...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > ... Luxenberg's emendations of some erroneously attributed
> > diacritical points in the transmitted Koran are of minor
> > importance for his method.
This is correct, as everybody who read the book with some intelligence
will admit.
> > For instance his re-interpretation of surah 96
> > does without any alteration of these diacritical points.
>
> No, what -you- say is not true. I have the book here and it heavily
> relies on diacritical marks for it's arguments:
>
> On page 64 he plays with dots to say "zanīm" should be "ratīm"
> (doubles the dot on the nūn and removes it from the zay)
Firstly, that has nothing to do with surah 96.
Secondly, I don't see, how these just two corrections of the later
added diacritical points in 19 verses should justify the assertion
that Luxenberg "heavily relies on diacritical marks". His method is
another: to understand those parts of the Koran which Islamic
scholarship, i.e. the medieval Koran commentators, gave their usual
"understanding" by brutal force in terms of Arabic grammar and
lexicography.
This brutal force was applied also to this misread "zanīm", which is a
no-word with adventurously invented meanings - leading to the strange
fact that the most renowned Koran translators translate it in quite
contradictory ways: Bell: "highly-esteemed", Blachčre: "bātard"
("bastard"), Paret: "der sich überall eindrängt (?)" ("one who always
is crowding", by adding the question mark and the Arabic text Paret
indicates that he considers the text incomprehensible).
Therefore Luxenberg is quite alright to try another reading with a
corrected addition of diacritical marks
> so that he can tie it to the Syriac *verb* ratīmoā which he erroneously transliterates as "rtīmā".
Oh dear, one should be able to read correctly! Luxenberg on page 64
does not speak of a Syriac verb "rtīmā" (and of course not of a verb
"ratīmoā", a fanciful idea of Shibli Zaman's). Actually he speaks of a
the participle passive "rthīm" (in the status absolutus) or "rthīmā"
(in the status emphaticus) of the verbal root "rtham" (Luxenberg uses
an underlined Latin letter t, which I may represent by a th). And
Luxenberg duly does so -- against the fanciful views of Shibli Zaman:
> This error shows that, first of all, he doesn't know Syriac.
Says Shibli Zaman, who a few years ago has even denied the existence
of the Syriac word "furqān", "redemption", because he couldn't find it
in the Gesenius-Buhl!
> Second, he is either using a lexicon that doesn't have voweling
> or he doesn't even know how to read voweling, hence, his transliteration
> which is a dead giveaway that he doesn't know a zekōfō from a petōkhō.
Says Shibli Zaman, who in his contribution to sri of 2002-07-26 told
the surprised public that the letter "d'" in front of Syriac nouns be
the definite article (why even a layman like Mahmud Taha rightly
reproached Shibli Zaman)!
> Also, another evidence that he is just hopping a lexicon is his
> complete lack of understanding in Syriac grammar. In order to
> construct the sentence as he wants (as a noun), the word would not be
> "rtīmā"
"rthīmā" or in the status absolutus "rthīm" is correct.
> or even "ratīmoā,
"ratīmoā" is phantasy of Shibli Zaman.
but it would be either:
> 1) retmoā (resh/revōtzō,taw,mīm/zekōfō,alef)
> 2) ratmoā (resh/petōchō,taw,mīm/zekōfō,alef)
> 3) rotmoā (resh/zekōfō,taw,mīm/zekōfō,alef)
No, all three proposals seem to be a hitherto unknown Shibli Zamanian
Syriac. In earnest, it is easy to guess which grammatical form of the
verb rtham Shibli Zaman has in mind, but none of his three proposals
is a correct reading of this form. I abstain from speculating why he
presents these absurd words.
Luxenberg, however, is correct: the participle passiv masculine is
"rthīm", i.e. resh / thaw (hvāsā) / yōdh / mīm
where I have put the vowel sign hvāsā into brackets.
People who -- apparently unlike Shibli Zaman -- are able to read
Syriac correctly may look for a confirmation into the Theodor
Noeldekes famous "Kurzgefasste Syrische Grammatik", paragraph 168,
where a conjugation table is to be found.
> However, this erroneous "rtīmā" is simply an error of his that does not exist in Syriac.
Perhaps Shibli Zaman needs new glasses. Then perhaps he, too, would
find it in Payne Smith (ed.), Thesaurus Syriacus, Tomus II, Oxonii
1901, column 3997.
> > By the way, Syriac is in much lesser need of "dotting", its letters don't
> > display the high ambiguity of the Arabic letters (where b, t, th, n
> > and y are not to differentiate without diacritical points).
>
> This is absolutely false.
I am amazed! Firstly, the Arabic letters b, t, th, n and y, e.g.,
undoubtedly are indiscernible without the usual diacritical points!
Secondly, in Syriac only the letters dālat and rźsh are not to
differentiate without a diacritical point (either above or below).
> Not only are the diacritical marks and vocalizations crucial,
As I just have said: only the letters dālat and rźsh.
> the letters themselves can be extremely ambiguous.
No, if they are written diligently they are not at all ambiguous. The
ambiguosity due to negligent writing is another matter -- and adds to
the ambiguity of the Arabic rasm.
That may suffice for the moment. Other items of Shibli Zamans
contribution will be addressed in forthcoming postings.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Christoph Heger
At the 213th meeting of the American Oriental Society in Nashville
from April 4th to 7th, 2003, Dr Gabriel Said Reynolds, Yale
University, gave a speech dealing with Christoph Luxenberg's research.
See below the abstract, which I took from this site:
http://www.umich.edu/~aos/2003/aosabstracts2003.pdf
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
____________________________________________________________________________
>From A. Mingana to C. Luxenberg: Syriac Readings of the Qur'ân
In 1927 A. Mingana published a work entitled "Syriac Influence on the
Style of the Kur'ân," (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 1927,
77-98). Therein he catalogues much of the Syriac vocabulary in the
Qur'ân while arguing that the widespread presence thereof suggested
that Syriac Christianity had an important role in Islamic origins.
This brief work, along with the more substantial work of A. Jeffery
(The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'ân, 1938), laid the foundation for
further researches into the connection between the foreign vocabulary
of the Qur'ân and the historical circumstances of its composition. Yet
nothing significant was built upon this foundation thereafter.
Nothing, that is, before the appearance of Christoph Luxenberg's Die
Syro-Aramäische Lesart des Koran (2000), a work that contributes
significant new arguments for a Syriac reading of the Qur'ân. My
paper, then, will be an analysis of Luxenberg's new variation on an
old theme, and a discussion of possible implications of his theory.
More specifically, I will introduce Mingana's work as a prelude to
that of Luxenberg, considering the merits of the latter's arguments. I
will also analyze a number of Luxenberg's Syriac readings of the
Qur'ân including Q 19:24, 37:11, 37:103-104 and 44:54 (and 52:20).
Thereafter I will discuss questions that Luxenberg's technique raises
for the future of Qur'ânic studies: What were the circumstances by
which Syriac affected Qur'ânic language? If his conclusions are valid,
how would this affect the tradition of Muslim Qur'ân exegesis? Is a
critical edition of the Qur'ân now called for? What are the
consequences of this reading for future exegeses of the Qur'ân. These
are questions that touch not only the Luxenberg project, but also the
very heart of Qur'ânic studies. They are philological, historical and
religious and will hopefully led to discussion by scholars from all of
these backgrounds.
Yusuf B Gursey
In soc.religion.islam Christoph Heger <christo...@onlinehome.de> wro=
te in <23a0d3d0.03111...@posting.google.com>:
:>=20
:> > ... Luxenberg's emendations of some erroneously attributed=20
:> > diacritical points in the transmitted Koran are of minor
:> > importance for his method.
that they are "erroneously attributed" is conjecture, it is just what is=20
in need of being proved. and it is hardly of "minor importance" as it=20
forms the basis of the great majority of his reinterpretations. just=20
make a count.=20
: Secondly, I don't see, how these just two corrections of the later
again, "later added" is just what is needed to be proved.
: added diacritical points in 19 verses should justify the assertion
: that Luxenberg "heavily relies on diacritical marks". His method is
: another: to understand those parts of the Koran which Islamic
: scholarship, i.e. the medieval Koran commentators, gave their usual
"medieval" brings to mind "unscientific", but these people were in a much=
=20
better position to understand the lexica than us.
: "understanding" by brutal force in terms of Arabic grammar and
: lexicography.
what you call "brutal force" (more properly "brute force") is what is=20
normally used to understand texts, any text. you ask for the usage among=20
the speakers of the language. etymology is secondary, mainly for=20
historical interest.
: This brutal force was applied also to this misread "zan=EEm", which is =
a
"brute force" is the normal way to understand texts, amd "misread" needs=20
to be proved. your whole post is filled with this circularity (to say=20
nothing of the comment "this is correct" which responds to your own
previous post!)
: no-word with adventurously invented meanings - leading to the strange
you are being circular again. that it is a "no-word" has to be proved.=20
evidently the original lexicograhpers were able to find informants to who=
m=20
it meant something.
likely, IMHO, this was a technical social term of Old Hijazi Arabic and i=
t=20
seems to be used for somebody socially distinct in some way (based on the=
=20
entry in Lane's Lexicon, which is based on classical Arab sources), some=20
of these words rapidly fell into dissuse as the social structure changed=20
and the dialect lost some of its original vocabulary (for other reasons a=
s=20
well; this comment BTW was inspired from by a similar one in an article=20
discussing some qur'anic words). the original commentators, did in some=20
cases, make "guesses". in other words they gave the best meaning they=20
could based upon their informants and the context of the Qur'an itself.=20
"guessing" is after all what modern "western" commentators do as well (a=20
similar comment was made by M. Cook in his short introduction the Koran),=
=20
and Luxenberg is far more "adventurous". he has no firm fix on either the=
=20
reading nor what language it represents in the first place.
I will delete many portions, with similar criticism as to circularity I=20
mentioned before (as well as the discussion on Syriac).
if you notice the favorable reviews of Luxenberg are given by people of=20
a background of theology. the only truely linguistic critique is that of=20
de Blois (who himself wrote an article involving a Syriac angle in a=20
qur'anic passage which he references in his review), and that is=20
decidedly unfavorable. I have read the referenced article of de Blois, an=
d=20
indeed he is rigorous in terms of linguistics and history. Luxenberg's=20
conclusions would, if true, have consequences beyond the Qur'an to the=20
history of arabic and even to the history of its grammar and Semitics in=20
general. this has not materialized and as one can see the linguistic=20
community has ignored (because of its doubtful validity) this work.
"argument from authority" is considered bad, but it is done in everyday=20
life. it's also a useful, though temporary, arbitar in informal schoalrly=
=20
discussions. "what's wrong with my car?" often gets the answer "this=20
mechanic is good and he says it's because of so and so". similar comments=
=20
are made in informal scholarly discussion.=20
given enough laxity and arguing from lack of evidence one can very easily=
=20
present (unscientifically) quite a number of unconventional theories.=20
just take a look at the numerous "theories" concerning Ancient Egypt,=20
Sumerians, greek mythology (Atlantis and the like), the Holy Grail etc.=20
now islamic origins is a fashionable topic for fringe-theorists and=20
outright crackpots. a few isolated conclusions may turn out to=20
coincidentally correct or not far off ("even a broken watch is correct=20
twice a day"), but this is beside the point of an unscientific "method",
including that of Luxenberg on the Qur'an.
Christoph Heger
The following reply of mine seems to have been lost in the cyberspace
when sent the first time. I try it once more.
Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> answered in message
news:<bpttjf$ucc$1...@pcls4.std.com a previous message of mine:
[Ch.H]:
> :> > ... Luxenberg's emendations of some erroneously attributed
> :> > diacritical points in the transmitted Koran are of minor
> :> > importance for his method.
>
> that they are "erroneously attributed" is conjecture, it is just what is
> in need of being proved.
Read Christoph Luxenberg's book and you will find ample proof!
> and it is hardly of "minor importance" as it forms the basis of the
> great majority of his reinterpretations. just make a count.
It does not form the basis. The starting point of Luxenberg's
emendations are "dark" passages in the Koran, i.e. words not existing
in the Arabic language, words which are interpreted as (invented)
names, offenses against the Arabic grammar, incomprehensible phrases
etc. His basic method is to understand them by taking into account the
background of a strong Syriac influence on the language of the Koran.
In doing so he allows for the fact that diacritical points, hamzas,
vowel marks etc. are later invented and later added to the consonantal
skeleton (the rasm or the "archigraphems") of the Koranic text - and
in a variety of cases are obviously added erroneously.
To give you an additional example: The alleged variant name "Bakkah"
for Makkah (Mecca) is such a misreading. The rasm, which actually
presents a verbal form, was misread as "bi-bakkati". Mecca never has
been called "Bakka".
Further Yusuf B Gursey argued against me:
> : Secondly, I don't see, how these just two corrections of the later
> : added diacritical points
>
> again, "later added" is just what is needed to be proved.
You only have to look into some of the old Koran specimens to realize
that they are without diacritical points and vowel marks or have been
added such marks or show only occasionally some competing systems of
marking. Therefore the diacritical and vowel marks etc. are most
definitely later added. Even the nowadays Cairo standard edition of
the Koran allows for this fact reresenting these additions in a
different colour than the rasm itself.
> : in 19 verses should justify the assertion
> : that Luxenberg "heavily relies on diacritical marks". His method is
> : another: to understand those parts of the Koran which Islamic
> : scholarship, i.e. the medieval Koran commentators, gave their usual
>
> "medieval" brings to mind "unscientific",
Not to my mind. Actually they lived in the Middle Ages.
> but these people were in a much better position to understand
> the lexica than us.
No, that's a gross exaggeration. They had nearly no knowledge of
Semitic philology etc.
> : "understanding" by brutal force in terms of Arabic grammar and
> : lexicography.
>
> what you call "brutal force" (more properly "brute force") is what is
> normally used to understand texts, any text. you ask for the usage among
> the speakers of the language. etymology is secondary, mainly for
> historical interest.
As long as you cannot show me any evidence for the actual usage among
the speakers of the Koranic language (if there were any!), etymology
is not secondary, but primary.
> : This brutal force was applied also to this misread "zaneem", which is a
>
> "brute force" is the normal way to understand texts,
No, surely not. This brute force, violating Arabic grammar and
lexicography, was the last and desperate resort of these medieval
commentators in explaining what the Koran may have meant.
> and "misread" needs to be proved.
It is proved by the fact that there not had been any word "zaneem" in
the Arabic language, before these commentators invented it to explain
the pertinent passage in the Koran, while Luxenberg's emendation
"rtheem" of the misread "zaneem" is recognizable as Syriacism and
makes good sense.
> your whole post is filled with this circularity (to say nothing of the
> comment "this is correct" which responds to your own previous post!)
You seem to have read this previous post of mine, but not to have
understood. Otherwise you would have learnt the difference between a
"circulus vitiosus" or "vicious circle" and a "circulus hermeneuticus"
or "hermeneutical circle", which inevitable is the method of
linguistic scholarship as long as the latter is not content with only
falsifications and attempts to make progress in positive notions.
Now Yusuf B Gursey doubts that there had not been any word "zaneem" in
the Arabic language before it was invented by later Koran
commentators:
> you are being circular again. that it is a "no-word" has to be proved.
You may realize it by the simple fact that the commentators - and
following them the translators - are undecided about its meaning.
> evidently the original lexicographers were able to find informants to whom
> it meant something.
Either these alleged informants, too, were doubtful with regard to its
meaning, or the commentators and following them the lexicographers
were fairly fanciful (as they evidently were in many other places of
the Koran).
> likely, IMHO, this was a technical social term of Old Hijazi Arabic and it
> seems to be used for somebody socially distinct in some way (based on the
> entry in Lane's Lexicon, which is based on classical Arab sources),
Lane's lexicon is nothing more than an excerpt of the Lisan al-`arab,
and this "classical Arab source" is younger than the early and most
influential commentators, like for instance AT-Tabari. So not these
commentators followed the findings of those lexicographers and their
alleged informants, but these lexicographers followed the commentators
and their fanciful inventions.
> some of these words rapidly fell into dissuse as the social structure changed
> and the dialect lost some of its original vocabulary (for other reasons as
> well;
This explanation doesn't square with the usual assertion that the
Koranic language has been or has become the standard for Arabic -
which to some degree actually is the case for Classical Arabic and to
a much lesser degree for the various Arabic vernaculars. So why should
some words fell into disuse - even rapidly - while others came into
use only due to the Koranic example.
So I appreciate the following admission:
> this comment BTW was inspired from by a similar one in an article
> discussing some qur'anic words). the original commentators, did in some
> cases, make "guesses". in other words they gave the best meaning they
> could based upon their informants and the context of the Qur'an itself.
Unfortunately their "best guesses" in many cases were erroneous
guesses, to be discussed in detail.
> "guessing" is after all what modern "western" commentators do as well (a
> similar comment was made by M. Cook in his short introduction the Koran),
Of course, scholarly progress is achieved by the usual steps of
thesis, falsification, corrected thesis, new or generalized thesis and
so on - in other words, in engaging in a hermeneutical circle.
> and Luxenberg is far more "adventurous". he has no firm fix on either the
> reading nor what language it represents in the first place.
This critique is far from reality. On the contrary, Luxenberg's book
is an enormous progress.
> if you notice the favorable reviews of Luxenberg are given by people of
> a background of theology.
That's not true. Luxenberg received favourable, even enthusiastic
reviews by:
- Syriacists like Robert R. Phenix Jr. and Cornelia B. Horn in HUGOYE:
JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES
(http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html),
- the French philosopher and highly respected expert of Islamic
philosophy Rémi Brague, Professor at the universities of Paris and
Munich (http://phronesis.org/IMG/rtf/Brague-Luxenberg-RTF.rtf),
- the leftist (and surely not theological) native Arabic speaker
Rainer Nabielek, Berlin, in his article "Weintrauben statt Jungfrauen
als paradiesische Freude : zu einer neuen Lesart des Korans und ihrem
Stellenwert innerhalb der modemen Koranforschung", INAMO
Informationsprojekt Naher und Mittlerer Osten, 23-24, 2000, p. 66-72,
- Günter Lerch, a pupil of Professor Josef van Ess and Orient
correspondent of the leading German newspaper "Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung",
- the Muslim Mona Naggar, Cologne, in the "Neue Zürcher Zeitung", the
leading Swiss newspaper,
- the Muslim Mondher Sfar, Paris, taking an attitude at various
occasions.
> the only truely linguistic critique is that of de Blois
By no means, it apparently is the only such critique Yusuf B Gursey is
aware of - and it is of no worth, it even is published in a Journal
financed by Saudi money. As I already have said in a previous posting
of mine: François de Blois, who mainly is known in Iranic scholarship,
deals with a few points in Luxenberg's book. Already in his first
attempt to discredit Luxenberg as scholar de Blois intentionally
misrepresents Luxenberg's argumentation by omitting a decisive point
(Compare Luxenberg's page 32 with de Blois's representation of the
argument about surah 11:24 and 39:29: hal
yastawiyaani mathalan!). de Blois even is so hateful against Luxenberg
that he isn't ashamed to endanger the pseudonym of Luxenberg, who has
all rights to use such a pseudonym to protect himself and his family.
He has disqualified himself as a scholar.
Fortunately Luxenberg's book will be accessible to the English
speaking world next year. Also his research is going on, results of
which will be published in a second volume, an even more illuminating
one. Stay tuned!
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Altway
"Christoph Heger" <christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:23a0d3d0.03120...@posting.google.com...
> The starting point of Luxenberg's
emendations are "dark" passages in the Koran, i.e. words not existing
in the Arabic language, words which are interpreted as (invented)
names, offenses against the Arabic grammar, incomprehensible phrases
etc. His basic method is to understand them by taking into account the
background of a strong Syriac influence on the language of the Koran.
Comment:-
"incomprehensible" means that which Luxemberg and Heger
cannot understand.
Therefore, the rationalisations based on this inability
are dismissed as irrelevant.
Hamid S. Aziz
Yusuf B Gursey
(Christoph Heger) wrote:
if you have a point concerning the criticisms of de Bloise make it.
preferably in a forum such as sci.lang (I follow that closely, if in
another mention it). furthermore exclusively linguistic issues
can be dealt with and there is not the distarction of pro- and
anti- islamist camps. there, since you won't believe either de Bloise
nor me, others, whom I trust you will have confidence that they are
"neutral", (and hopefully will answer, since in private correspondance
I have had difficulty getting them interested in even taking a look
at Luxenberg's work, which they dismissed offhand, in the first
place) will explain why de Bloise has made a well founded criticism
and why Luxenberg is not getting the attention you think he
deserves. else, I stand corrected, and there is something new
added to the body of knowldge.
Luxenberg does not rely on a fixed text. he reads it the way he
wants.
Luxenberg does not rely on a specific language, but interprets
what he feel arbitrarily from Syriac or Arabic, and does not
rely on the given grammar of Arabic.
Luxenberg rejects the given interpretation of the Qur'an and
opens the possibility that it was originally *entirely*
different in meaning.
now, given these three allegations (no fixed text, no
fixed language, no fixed meaning), he could read into
it anything he wants, which is exactly what he does.
now, the above is bad methodolgy in terms of reading texts
(regardless of whether he is coincidentally right or wrong).
in terms of linguitics, he has no consistent scheme of the
rendition of Syriac into Arabic (or whatever Luxenberg
considers his concoction). what he obtains is neither
arabic nor syriac but an inconsistent mish-mash.
you could have arabic with syriac loanwords or syriac
with arabic loanwords, but it still has to be one or the
other. the end result is not consistent.
moreover, the Qur'an need not deal with physical reality or
historical truth or even be logical or rational (it's scripture,
it apeals to belief). so we have no way of checking whether a
certain reading is "better" (in the sense of reflecting the
original message). for example, if Paradise were a physical
place, we could go there, see if virgins or raisins are (or
were) offered, come back and publish our results and then
decide on this basis which interpretation is likely to be
in the original text. but we can't. this is for scientists.
theologians OTOH claim to be privy to such knowledge, and
argue amongst themselves depending on their other-worldly
inclinations, which explains why the work got some good
reviews from certain circles amongst them (there are those
who in the name pof sckepticism, just welcome whatever
contradicts the traditional outlook. however, the
work does not provide sufficient proof for overhauling
the history of arabic, which is *not* a theological matter.
incidentally, you are hardly adding anything new in your post.
although what you write is missing the point, I'll just briefly go
through the motions of responding.
>Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> answered in message
>news:<bpttjf$ucc$1...@pcls4.std.com a previous message of mine:
>
>[Ch.H]:
>> :> > ... Luxenberg's emendations of some erroneously attributed
>> :> > diacritical points in the transmitted Koran are of minor
>> :> > importance for his method.
>>
>> that they are "erroneously attributed" is conjecture, it is just
what is
>> in need of being proved.
>
>Read Christoph Luxenberg's book and you will find ample proof!
there is no *proof*. he is making an argument, not proving
anything.
>
>> and it is hardly of "minor importance" as it forms the basis of the
>> great majority of his reinterpretations. just make a count.
>
>It does not form the basis. The starting point of Luxenberg's
>emendations are "dark" passages in the Koran, i.e. words not existing
>in the Arabic language, words which are interpreted as (invented)
these are the very propositions in need of proof!
>names, offenses against the Arabic grammar, incomprehensible phrases
Luxenberg is hardly restoring the grammar and lexic of classical
Arabic.
as I said, he also amends what is straightforward reading, the
"Houri" passage being the best example.
>etc. His basic method is to understand them by taking into account
theh
>background of a strong Syriac influence on the language of the Koran.
>In doing so he allows for the fact that diacritical points, hamzas,
which is another way of saying "relying on repointing", as well
as "sloppy etymology".
>vowel marks etc. are later invented and later added to the
consonantal
>skeleton (the rasm or the "archigraphems") of the Koranic text - and
>in a variety of cases are obviously added erroneously.
he doesn't even take the rasm at face value and assumes
mistakes or misreaidngs there too. that what we have has
been done "erroneously" has to be proved. I'll grant you
there may be occassional errors, but Luxenberg's reading is
quite arbitrary and the result based on a pre-concieved notion.
>
>To give you an additional example: The alleged variant name "Bakkah"
>for Makkah (Mecca) is such a misreading. The rasm, which actually
>presents a verbal form, was misread as "bi-bakkati". Mecca never has
>been called "Bakka".
as I said, the Koran is scripture, not a book on geography
or history. bakka(t) coudl very well be an attempt to find
OT justification, reffering to Bibl. Hebrew bA*kh*A' with
folk etymology. or something else.
there are a few other people somewhat obsessed with re-writing
the qur'an, but at least their efforts usually go into details,
and their end product is still withinthe bounds of arabic.
>
>Further Yusuf B Gursey argued against me:
>
>> : Secondly, I don't see, how these just two corrections of the
later
>> : added diacritical points
>>
>> again, "later added" is just what is needed to be proved.
>
>You only have to look into some of the old Koran specimens to realize
>that they are without diacritical points and vowel marks or have been
OK. I understand what you mean. but that the current pointing does
not reflect, on the whole, the original phonemes, is conjecture.
>added such marks or show only occasionally some competing systems of
>marking. Therefore the diacritical and vowel marks etc. are most
>definitely later added. Even the nowadays Cairo standard edition of
>the Koran allows for this fact reresenting these additions in a
>different colour than the rasm itself.
>
>> : in 19 verses should justify the assertion
>> : that Luxenberg "heavily relies on diacritical marks". His method
is
>> : another: to understand those parts of the Koran which Islamic
>> : scholarship, i.e. the medieval Koran commentators, gave their
usual
>>
>> "medieval" brings to mind "unscientific",
>
>Not to my mind. Actually they lived in the Middle Ages.
>
>> but these people were in a much better position to understand
>> the lexica than us.
>
>No, that's a gross exaggeration. They had nearly no knowledge of
>Semitic philology etc.
as I said, that is not neccessary to gather data.
>
>> : "understanding" by brutal force in terms of Arabic grammar and
>> : lexicography.
>>
>> what you call "brutal force" (more properly "brute force") is what
is
>> normally used to understand texts, any text. you ask for the usage
among
>> the speakers of the language. etymology is secondary, mainly for
>> historical interest.
>
>As long as you cannot show me any evidence for the actual usage among
>the speakers of the Koranic language (if there were any!), etymology
>is not secondary, but primary.
there is no "Koranic language" other than the idiolect of the text,
unless by assumption (i.e. Luxenberg). since for the most part it
is in straightforward classical (or a some put it "pre-classical")
arabic, it's the normal assumption that the rest can be exlpained
within it, syriac loanwords or not.
as for the characteristics of the language of the text, it points
to an educated semi-standard idiom, with elements of the local
vernacular underneath.
>
>> : This brutal force was applied also to this misread "zaneem",
which is a
>>
>> "brute force" is the normal way to understand texts,
>
>No, surely not. This brute force, violating Arabic grammar and
>lexicography, was the last and desperate resort of these medieval
as I said, Luxenberg is hardly restoring the grammar and lexic of
classical Arabic.
a few words are really not the issue, but rewriting the history
of arabic and its grammar is.
>commentators in explaining what the Koran may have meant.
>
>> and "misread" needs to be proved.
>
>It is proved by the fact that there not had been any word "zaneem" in
>the Arabic language, before these commentators invented it to explain
>the pertinent passage in the Koran, while Luxenberg's emendation
>"rtheem" of the misread "zaneem" is recognizable as Syriacism and
>makes good sense.
it requires two amendations and begs for proof.
"good sense' is subjective, but some of the traditional intepretations
make quite good sense as well, which I had touched upon.
>
>> your whole post is filled with this circularity (to say nothing of
the
>> comment "this is correct" which responds to your own previous
post!)
>
>You seem to have read this previous post of mine, but not to have
>understood. Otherwise you would have learnt the difference between a
>"circulus vitiosus" or "vicious circle" and a "circulus
hermeneuticus"
>or "hermeneutical circle", which inevitable is the method of
>linguistic scholarship as long as the latter is not content with only
>falsifications and attempts to make progress in positive notions.
linguistics demands the reconstruction be consistent, which it is
not in Luxenberg's case. it also demands more substantial proof
particularly in matters that go beyond a particular text itself.
linguistics is a science. recontstructions are based on regularity
laws, and empirical data. in science we admit what we know or don't
know. so don't tell me that Luxenberg has "proof". it's really very
easy to make false etymology and ad hoc readings.
if you don't believe me, ask linguists.
and again, a coincidental correct guess on Luxenberg's part does not
make his overall claims sound.
>
>Now Yusuf B Gursey doubts that there had not been any word "zaneem"
in
>the Arabic language before it was invented by later Koran
>commentators:
you lost me on your nested negatives.
>
>> you are being circular again. that it is a "no-word" has to be
proved.
>
>You may realize it by the simple fact that the commentators - and
>following them the translators - are undecided about its meaning.
it's not sufficent proof to make it a "no-word".
>
>> evidently the original lexicographers were able to find informants
to whom
>> it meant something.
>
>Either these alleged informants, too, were doubtful with regard to
its
>meaning, or the commentators and following them the lexicographers
>were fairly fanciful (as they evidently were in many other places of
>the Koran).
it was probably a word that was coming into disuse.
>
>> likely, IMHO, this was a technical social term of Old Hijazi Arabic
and it
>> seems to be used for somebody socially distinct in some way (based
on the
>> entry in Lane's Lexicon, which is based on classical Arab sources),
>
>Lane's lexicon is nothing more than an excerpt of the Lisan al-`arab,
considerable numbers of sources are listed.
>and this "classical Arab source" is younger than the early and most
>influential commentators, like for instance AT-Tabari. So not these
>commentators followed the findings of those lexicographers and their
>alleged informants, but these lexicographers followed the
commentators
>and their fanciful inventions.
the commentators themsleves used informants, and there were
lexicographers before the commentators.
>
>> some of these words rapidly fell into dissuse as the social
structure changed
>> and the dialect lost some of its original vocabulary (for other
reasons as
>> well;
>
>This explanation doesn't square with the usual assertion that the
>Koranic language has been or has become the standard for Arabic -
the qur'an was one source for the standardization of arabic,
not the only one and not all qur'anic material made it to
become the standard.
>which to some degree actually is the case for Classical Arabic and to
>a much lesser degree for the various Arabic vernaculars. So why
should
>some words fell into disuse - even rapidly - while others came into
>use only due to the Koranic example.
I gave one reason for lexical change or decay. it doesn't have to
permeate the whole vocabulary. obviously not everybody was an
expert on the whole qur'an.
>
>So I appreciate the following admission:
>
>> this comment BTW was inspired from by a similar one in an article
>> discussing some qur'anic words). the original commentators, did in
some
>> cases, make "guesses". in other words they gave the best meaning
they
>> could based upon their informants and the context of the Qur'an
itself.
>
>Unfortunately their "best guesses" in many cases were erroneous
>guesses, to be discussed in detail.
of course people make mistakes, the extent alledged by
Luxenberg, which requires a complete overhaul of the history
of arabic begs for more proof - concrete proof.
>
>> "guessing" is after all what modern "western" commentators do as
well (a
>> similar comment was made by M. Cook in his short introduction the
Koran),
>
>Of course, scholarly progress is achieved by the usual steps of
>thesis, falsification, corrected thesis, new or generalized thesis
and
>so on - in other words, in engaging in a hermeneutical circle.
somehow "proof", i.e. evidence, is being left out!
>
>> and Luxenberg is far more "adventurous". he has no firm fix on
either the
>> reading nor what language it represents in the first place.
>
>This critique is far from reality. On the contrary, Luxenberg's book
>is an enormous progress.
obviously that's your opinion, what you write is not news.
>
>> if you notice the favorable reviews of Luxenberg are given by
people of
>> a background of theology.
>
>That's not true. Luxenberg received favourable, even enthusiastic
>reviews by:
>
>- Syriacists like Robert R. Phenix Jr. and Cornelia B. Horn in
HUGOYE:
they come from the department of theology, not linguistics,
according to what is written.
>JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES
>(http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html),
the rest aren't linguists or have a such a background,
neither have they addressed the linguistic issues involved.
they find the end product to their liking and that's enough
for you.
>> the only truely linguistic critique is that of de Blois
>
>By no means, it apparently is the only such critique Yusuf B Gursey
is
>aware of - and it is of no worth, it even is published in a Journal
the journal is associated with the School of Oriental and African
Studies.
you really say nothing about the contents of the critique.
come ot think of it, you really don't say much about reproducing
the details of Luxenberg's points either, other than you find
the conclusion wonderful.
>financed by Saudi money. As I already have said in a previous posting
>of mine: François de Blois, who mainly is known in Iranic
scholarship,
>deals with a few points in Luxenberg's book. Already in his first
he does point to the basic flaws in Luxenberg's methoddology.
the argument of de Bloise is really not so subtle (and neither are
Luxenberg's misatkes) as to require a high degree of specialization.
however, if you look at the article of his own that de Bloise
references (which does in fact deal with a syriac angle in a
qur'anic passage), he does have the requisite knowledge of the
languages involved and displays a high degree of rigor in his
linguistic arguments.
if you are not convinced, inquire in scholarly forums.
>attempt to discredit Luxenberg as scholar de Blois intentionally
>misrepresents Luxenberg's argumentation by omitting a decisive point
>(Compare Luxenberg's page 32 with de Blois's representation of the
>argument about surah 11:24 and 39:29: hal
>yastawiyaani mathalan!). de Blois even is so hateful against
Luxenberg
>that he isn't ashamed to endanger the pseudonym of Luxenberg, who has
>all rights to use such a pseudonym to protect himself and his family.
>He has disqualified himself as a scholar.
his "character" is irrelevant.
>
>Fortunately Luxenberg's book will be accessible to the English
>speaking world next year. Also his research is going on, results of
>which will be published in a second volume, an even more illuminating
>one. Stay tuned!
oh yes, in this forum we will be hearing about it a lot!
incidentally, you never fully reproduce or defend an argument of
Luxenberg's but merely praise the text, blaming the critic on
misunderstanding (without an argument) or making a polemic against
the critic.
Christoph Heger
with regard to my pointing to the "dark" and even incomprehensible
passages in the Koran and that Luxenberg's basic method is to
understand them by taking into account the background of a strong
> "incomprehensible" means that which Luxemberg and Heger
> cannot understand.
>
> Therefore, the rationalisations based on this inability
> are dismissed as irrelevant.
I really wonder how Hamid S. Aziz, who admittedly has no ability in
Arabic at all, dares to judge about an eminent scholar as Luxenberg in
this manner.
Does he really want to take into doubt that there are incomprehensible
passages in the Koran - passages which have got their usual
understanding only by later commentators in the way of violating the
grammar and lexicography of Classical Arabic?
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
P.S. The said author actually has adopted the pseudonym "Luxenberg",
not "Luxemberg", as Hamid S. Aziz misread this name.
Altway
"Christoph Heger" <christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:23a0d3d0.03120...@posting.google.com...
passages in the Koran and that Luxenberg's basic method is to
understand them by taking into account the background of a strong
Syriac influence on the language of the Koran:
> > "incomprehensible" means that which Luxemberg and Heger
cannot understand.
> > Therefore, the rationalisations based on this inability
are dismissed as irrelevant.
> I really wonder how Hamid S. Aziz, who admittedly has no ability in
Arabic at all, dares to judge about an eminent scholar as Luxenberg in
this manner.
Comment:-
I stand by my assessment.
As I said before I can read Arabic but though I am not an expert I do make
great efforts to get as correct a meaning of the Quran as I can from all
knowledgeable sources. And I have discovered this is not done by Heger from
the absurd remarks he has placed on this and his site.
No. I am entirely convinced that neither you nor Luxenberg have the
slightest idea what the Quran is about, but are "wisely" analysing the
wrapping rather than the content.
Please note that I am speaking from a religious point of view, which
requires that things should have a value for spiritual purposes and the
Quran is a religious book and this site is about Islam. My remarks are made
in this context.
You on the other hand are studying the Quran as literature and your remarks
are speculations from that point of view. They are irrelevant to Islam.
Let me make it clear once again:-
If you do not read and understand the Quran according to the instructions it
contains, then you are not reading the Quran. You are reading something
else, a caricature of the Quran. As I said once before using your analogy,
you are studying a dead plastic duck rather a live one. The remarks you make
about this are
entirely irrelevant to the Quran.
If you want to interpret the Quran according to what the words meant in a
previous language rather than what they mean in the present context of the
Quran then you are doing something similar to the following:-
A Frenchman having recently learnt English reads a book about England. In
there is mention of "gays". He does not understand this sentence. So he
looks it up in an ancient dictionary that gives the meaning the word had 100
years ago. He comes to a false conclusion.
or
An Arab asks an Englishman whether he has seen his friend. The Englishman
says yes and that he is round the bend or up the pole. So the Arab looks
for him round the bend or up the pole.
or
...............and so on
The Quran certainly does have several levels of meaning and there are
certainly things in it that are obscure and little understood by various
people. But from your type of analysis that I have seen so far, I have
absolutely no expectation that anything of much use will come out of it and
it would probably be a complete waste of effort to follow it. But no doubt
it occupies the time and amuses some people.
On the other hand I will keep an eye on these developments in case something
by chance of interest or significance does arise. By the way, I do read and
understand German, though I am not an expert and can find out what is meant.
Hamid S. Aziz
Amr Sabry
I have to admit that whole discussion is very bizarre and that I
dismissed most of it and didn't follow it very closely, but perhaps
somebody can explain this to me.
This new study talks about words that have been misinterpreted like
"hur" and argues that the word really means "fruit". This might make
sense in some passages mentioning "hur" but there are other passages
in the Qur'an in which the verse says "we wed them with 'hur'", for
example al-thariyat (20). Even though I will accept that we may not
for sure what certain things might mean in the Qur'an, it is hard to
argue that "we them with fruit" is one of the possible meanings!?
--Amr
Altway
Amendment
"Christoph Heger" <christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:23a0d3d0.03120...@posting.google.com...
> with regard to my pointing to the "dark" and even incomprehensible
passages in the Koran and that Luxenberg's basic method is to
understand them by taking into account the background of a strong
Syriac influence on the language of the Koran:
> > "incomprehensible" means that which Luxemberg and Heger
cannot understand.
> > Therefore, the rationalisations based on this inability
are dismissed as irrelevant.
> I really wonder how Hamid S. Aziz, who admittedly has no ability in
Arabic at all, dares to judge about an eminent scholar as Luxenberg in
this manner.
Comment:-
I stand by my assessment.
As I said before I can read Arabic but though I am not an expert I do make
great efforts to get as correct a meaning of the Quran as I can from all
knowledgeable sources. And I have discovered this is not done by Heger from
the absurd remarks he has placed on this and his own site.
No. I am entirely convinced that neither you nor Luxenberg have the
slightest idea what the Quran is about, at least in so far as your studies
are concerned, but are "wisely" analysing the
wrapping rather than the content.
Please note that I am speaking from a religious point of view, which
requires that things should have a value for spiritual purposes and the
Quran is a religious book and this site is about Islam. My remarks are made
in this context.
You on the other hand are studying the Quran as literature or a book like
other secular ones, and your remarks are speculations from that point of
view. They are opinions which are irrelevant to Islam. They could be placed
on Academic Philological sites for academics to argue among themselves.
Let me make it clear once again:-
If you do not read and understand the Quran according to the instructions it
contains, then you are not reading the Quran. You are reading something
else, a caricature of the Quran. As I said once before to you using your
analogy,
you are studying a dead plastic duck rather a live one. The remarks you make
about this are entirely irrelevant to the Quran.
If you want to interpret the Quran according to what the words meant in a
previous language rather than what they mean in the present context of the
Quran then you are doing something similar to the following:-
A Frenchman having recently learnt English reads a book about England. In
there is mention of "gays". He does not understand this sentence. So he
looks it up in an ancient dictionary that gives the meaning the word had 100
or more years ago. He inevitably comes to a false conclusion.
or
An Arab asks an Englishman whether he has seen his friend. The Englishman
replies "yes" and that he is round the bend or up the pole. So the Arab
looks
for him round the bend or up the pole.
or
...............and so on
The Quran certainly does have several levels of meaning and there are
certainly things in it that are obscure and little understood by various
people. Do you really think the Prophet (saw) left something in the Quran
that he thought was meaningless or contradicted the teaching he was
presenting?
But from your type of analysis that I have seen so far, I have
absolutely no expectation that anything of much use will come out of it and
it would probably be a complete waste of effort to follow it. But no doubt
it occupies time and amuses some people.
On the other hand I will keep an eye on these developments in case something
by chance of interest or significance does arise.
(By the way, I do read and understand German, though I am not an
expert and can find out what is meant.)
Hamid S. Aziz
..
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
> "Christoph Heger" <christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
> news:23a0d3d0.03120...@posting.google.com...
> > with regard to my pointing to the "dark" and even incomprehensible
> > I really wonder how Hamid S. Aziz, who admittedly has no ability in
> > Arabic at all, dares to judge about an eminent scholar as Luxenberg
> > in this manner.
Eminent scholar? Perhaps he is and perhaps he is not. I take it you know
who is benefit the pseudonym "Luxenberg" and I have read that one of his
critics revealed the author's identity. I and most other people do NOT
know who he is.
It is difficult to call an unknown writer "eminent".
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Yusuf B Gursey
>This new study talks about words that have been misinterpreted like
>"hur" and argues that the word really means "fruit". This might make
(this has been mostly discussed before, since it is asked again,
I'll respond)
actually Luxenberg does not claim that Hu:r means "fruit". that
(more specifically raisins / grapes) enters later for other words,
after his emendations, or rather in a series of his emendations and
intepretations (I'm not endorsing them). OTOH eating and drinking
are found elswhere in the relevant surahs in the straightforward
reading.
Hu:r is the plural of 'aHwar (m.) or Hawra:' (f.; as in this
case) meaning (based on ancient usage and dictionaries) white
(of a certain intensity), fair (skinned) and frequently used in
connection with having white eyes (in fact 3i:n "wide eyed" pl.,
follows immediately in 56:22 and 44:54) in stark contrast to the
iris and pupil. this one can determine based solely on arabic
usage and may be found in a good arabic dictionary that includes
classical (not just modern standard) words. one need not take
recourse to syriac.
from Hu:r the back-formation singular Hu:riyya(t) was formed
in "post-classical" (after the period of the lexicographers)
arabic and in persian the singular Hu:ri: < Hu:re: (the
resemblance between the suffixes is coincidental) for "Houri"
i.e. the Heavenly beings described in the Qur'an.
>sense in some passages mentioning "hur" but there are other passages
>in the Qur'an in which the verse says "we wed them with 'hur'", for
>example al-thariyat (20). Even though I will accept that we may not
*dh*a:riya:t (S. 51? couldn't find it there).
>for sure what certain things might mean in the Qur'an, it is hard to
>argue that "we them with fruit" is one of the possible meanings!?
Luxenberg emends zawwajna:hum "we wed them" in 44:54 .
Christoph Heger
Hamid S. Aziz wrote:
> As I said before I can read Arabic
I remember a different statement of Hamid S. Aziz, he seems to have
made some progress in Arabic.
> Please note that I am speaking from a religious point of view, which
> requires that things should have a value for spiritual purposes and the
> Quran is a religious book and this site is about Islam. My remarks are made
> in this context.
This position is possible only after the basis, namely a sound textual
basis has been found. Therefore textual criticism comes before
exegesis. Therefore the following critique is wondrous:
> You on the other hand are studying the Quran as literature or a book like
> other secular ones,
Yes, the same scholarly methods as for any book transmitted to us from
olden times apply to the Koran.
> and your remarks are speculations from that point of view.
No, speculations are made by those theologians who view at a "Holy
Scripture" like visitors in a circus at the "lady without abdomen".
Contrary to those fruitless theological speculations the research by
philologians like Luxenberg, Lüling, Puin and others has made the
original sense of quite a number of Koranic passages reappear.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Christoph Heger
anj...@msn.com (Anjum) wrote in message news:<fdb9c2b0.03120...@posting.google.com>...
> And I really wonder how Christopher Heger, who admittedly does not
> reflect the Prophetic Light, by virtue of his denial of the Truth,
That I would "deny the Truth" is nothing than an insult, which should
not be admitted in a moderated group.
> dares to judge about the Qur`an which, let there be no doubt, is a
> divine writ!
Yes, I dare, because there is no reason to believe in its Divine
authorship.
> Why is that it's been some 1400 odd years and we are still waiting for
> them to produce something similar to the Qur`an?
The alleged fact, the reason for which is asked by this question, is a
mere myth. There always has been presented "something similar". In all
centuries poets have given counter-examples, one of the finest of them
was Abu l-ala al-Ma'arri (+ 449/1057). Some modern examples you may
see here: http://members.aol.com/suralikeit/
The challenge in itself is no real test: How good should be the
Arabic of any imitation - really good Arabic or as bad Arabic as some
portions of the Koran?
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Altway
"Christoph Heger" <christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:23a0d3d0.03120...@posting.google.com...
> I remember a different statement of Hamid S. Aziz, he seems to have
made some progress in Arabic.
Comment:-
Your memory deceives you..
> > Please note that I am speaking from a religious point of view, which
requires that things should have a value for spiritual purposes and the
Quran is a religious book and this site is about Islam. My remarks are made
in this context.
> This position is possible only after the basis, namely a sound textual
basis has been found. Therefore textual criticism comes before
exegesis. Therefore the following critique is wondrous:
Comment:-
The sound text is the Quran itself.
The understanding of it depends on perception, insight, inspiration
and the results of the application of the religious discipline.
> > You on the other hand are studying the Quran as literature or a book
like
other secular ones,
> Yes, the same scholarly methods as for any book transmitted to us from
olden times apply to the Koran.
Comment:-
Exactly. I consider this entirely inappropriate.
Each subject has its own methodology and techniques.
One does not understand poetry through science, business through
poetry, politics through art. One does not understand Religion through
any of these.
It is absurd.
> No, speculations are made by those theologians who view at a "Holy
Scripture" like visitors in a circus at the "lady without abdomen".
Comment:-
I disagree.
Whereas, as in any other field, there are no doubt, charlatans,
Theologians have to study the scriptures and justify their conclusions
by quoting the text. This is similar to what scientists do they have to
study and then justify their conclusions from experiments and observations
of nature. It is Nature, the creation of God that establishes the truth.
We regard the Quran as a creation of God. We do so as a percept like
any other natural phenomena that is connected and consistent with the rest
of nature.
Your opinions on the other hand are pure speculations that are
unverifiable.
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
"Christoph Heger" <christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:23a0d3d0.03120...@posting.google.com...
divine writ!
> Yes, I dare, because there is no reason to believe in its Divine
authorship.
Comment:-
This confirms that the Quran you read is not the Quran Muslims read
and therefore your remarks about it are wholly irrelevant.
You continue to make the obvious mistake of supposing that phrases such as
"there is no reason to believe" or "Incomprehensible" refer to something
objective and apart from persons to whom it applies. This is hardly an
intelligent thing to do.
No, "no reasaon to believe" means that Luxemberg and Heger have no reason
to believe and we can speculate about why. and "Incomprehensible" means
that which Luxemberg and Heger cannot understand.
You are clearly confusing your subjective states with objective ones.
There are a great many Muslim scholars, who unlike you, study the Quran
using the criteria that the Quran requires. What makes you think we should
believe you who do not understand or accept the Quran and have a negative
attitude, rather than these others.
I myself, having come from a scientific background and having read most
Philosophical systems, have studied the Quran for ver 40 years, using the
criteria contained in the Quran. The result of my studies are on my website
and they certainly contradict your speculation.
It is, therefore, up to people to make up their own minds of whether they
want to
know what Muslims believe about Islam or whether they wish to accept
speculations by hostiles.
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
Yusuf B Gursey
Islam" has also published a critique of Luxenberg's "syriac reading" of
the Qur'an and his methodology. I would be interested in the article.
Christoph Heger
I just have come across a quote which might be a nice comment to Hamid
S. Aziz's views.
"Altway" <hsa...@ftiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3fd5b...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com> with regard to my previous warning that at least a fifth of the Koran actually is - as a text in Classical Arabic - incomprehensible:
> "Incomprehensible" means
> that which Luxemberg and Heger cannot understand.
Obviously not only Luxenberg (that's the correct spelling!) and I! (By
the way I am flattered to be named in the same rank as an eminent
scholar like Christoph Luxenberg.)
Khalil Abd al-Karim, e.g., Shaikh of Al-Azhar University, Cairo,
writes:
"That [viz. an alleged close relationship of Muhammad to his wife's
uncle Waraqa b. Nawfal; Ch.H.] gives us the key for decyphering the
cypher language [of the Koran], which for now fourteen centuries has
people made to be at a loss." (Khalīl Abd al-Karīm: "Fatrat at-takwīn
fī Hayāt as-Sādiq al-Amīn, Cairo 2001, p. 173).
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Christoph Heger
> Simon Hopkins, ... has also published a critique of Luxenberg's ...
> ... I would be interested in the article.
Me, too. Till now I only read a lot of announcements of this review.
On this occasion: I would like to thank Mr. Jeremy McAuliffe, an
active participant of this newsgroup, but his e-mail account does not
admit my mails.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Altway
"Christoph Heger" <christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:23a0d3d0.03120...@posting.google.com...
divine writ!
> Yes, I dare, because there is no reason to believe in its Divine
authorship.
Comment:-
This confirms that the Quran you read is not the Quran Muslims read
and therefore your remarks about it are wholly irrelevant.
You continue to make the obvious mistake of supposing that phrases such as
"there is no reason to believe" or "Incomprehensible" refer to something
objective and apart from persons to whom it applies. This is hardly an
intelligent thing to do.
No, "no reasaon to believe" means that Luxemberg and Heger have no reason
to believe and we can speculate about why. and "Incomprehensible" means
that which Luxemberg and Heger cannot understand.
You are clearly confusing your subjective states with objective ones.
Yusuf B Gursey
In soc.religion.islam Christoph Heger <christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote in <23a0d3d0.03121...@posting.google.com>:
: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<br7ugl$mmb$2...@pcls4.std.com>...
: Me, too. Till now I only read a lot of announcements of this review.
well, it would have been good form to have informed others of its
presence.
meanwhile here is another review, or basically a preview of a review
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=126&ARCHIVE=
basically along the lines of F. de Blois. the theme is the same, a "mixed
language" makes no sense (which I have also said previously).
there is also a review on "Islamochristiana" 28, 2002 p. 310 which
expresses reservations about the linguistic aspect of Luxenberg.
Altway
"Christoph Heger" <christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:23a0d3d0.03120...@posting.google.com...
divine writ!
> Yes, I dare, because there is no reason to believe in its Divine
authorship.
Comment:-
This confirms that the Quran you read is not the Quran Muslims read
and therefore your remarks about it are wholly irrelevant.
You continue to make the obvious mistake of supposing that phrases such as
"there is no reason to believe" or "Incomprehensible" refer to something
objective and apart from persons to whom it applies. This is hardly an
intelligent thing to do.
No, "no reasaon to believe" means that Luxemberg and Heger have no reason
to believe and we can speculate about why. and "Incomprehensible" means
that which Luxemberg and Heger cannot understand.
You are clearly confusing your subjective states with objective ones.
Christoph Heger
Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<bre1d1$qil$1...@pcls4.std.com>...
> there is also a review on "Islamochristiana" 28, 2002 p. 310 which
> expresses reservations about the linguistic aspect of Luxenberg.
You will find it at my homepage
http://home.t-online.de/home/Christoph.Heger/Textkritik_am_Koran.html
where I have linked an interview with Christoph Luxenberg and variety
of reviews including the said review by Piet Horsten.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Saqib Virk
"Christoph Heger" <christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:23a0d3d0.03120...@posting.google.com...
>
> > them to produce something similar to the Qur`an?
>
> The alleged fact, the reason for which is asked by this question, is a
> mere myth. There always has been presented "something similar". In all
> centuries poets have given counter-examples, one of the finest of them
> was Abu l-ala al-Ma'arri (+ 449/1057). Some modern examples you may
> see here: http://members.aol.com/suralikeit/
>
> The challenge in itself is no real test: How good should be the
> Arabic of any imitation - really good Arabic or as bad Arabic as some
> portions of the Koran?
SV
If you don't know the criteria how is it that you declare the challenge an
empty one?
"This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the
righteous," [Quran 2:2]
I don't believe we are necessarily referring to the aesthetic qualities of
the Quran but to the actual teachings and effect of the Quran. The claim is
that man could not have produced such a perfect Law or fulfillment of
prophecies. You are free to study the Quran and draw your own conclusions.
Islam is not meant to be accepted on authority alone but draws the seeker
through sheer force of truth and reason.
"Here, therefore, its merits as a literary production should perhaps not be
measured by some preconceived maxims of subjective and aesthetic taste, but
by the effects which it produced in Muhammad's contemporaries and fellow
countrymen. If it spoke so powerfully and convincingly to the hearts of his
hearers as to weld hitherto centrifugal and antagonistic elements into one
compact and well-organized body, animated by ideas far beyond those which
had until now ruled the Arabian mind, then its eloquence was perfect, simply
because it created a civilized nation out of savage tribes, and shot a fresh
woof into the old warp of history." -- Dr. Steingass, quoted in T.P. Hughes'
DICTIONARY OF ISLAM
"And the Qur'an is not such as could have been produced by anyone other than
Allah. It fulfills that (revelation) which is before it, and is an
exposition of the (perfect) Law. There is no doubt that it is from the Lord
of all the worlds. Do they say, 'He has forged it?' Say, 'Bring then a Surah
like unto it, and call for help on all you can, apart from Allah, if you are
truthful" [10:38,39].
This is just one of the challenges, and is repeated in [2:24]. The argument
is that it has to be from Allah because it:
[1] FULFILLS the prophecies contained in the revelations to the previous
Prophets of Allah, hence confirming the Divine origin of the previous
prophecies, as well as the Qur'an, by virtue of their fulfillment.
[2] It is a detailed and perfect exposition of the (scriptural) law.
There is no mention of aesthetics, or eloquence per se, in any of the 4
different challenges of the Qur'an, hence the criticisms of the challenge
has resulted from an inability to understand the challenge in the
first place.
We must, first of all, clearly determine the features of inimitability that
form the basis of this challenge. When considered in their proper context,
the 'Challenge Verses' speak very eloquently on this topic, leaving
absolutely no ambiguity. The literary state or merit as the basis of
inimitability, around which the polemical debates usually revolve, is not
even mentioned in these particular verses. The critics have not even touched
upon the features of inimitability mentioned in these verses. Such is the
state of their literary caliber!
1. "Say, 'If men and jinn should gather together to produce the like of this
Quran, they could not produce the like thereof, even though they should help
one another.' And We have expounded for mankind all
things necessary in this Quran, but most people adhere obstinately to
disbelief." (17:89, 90)
The greatest demand is made in 17:89 where the disbelievers are required to
bring a book like the whole of the Quran in all its qualities. The
disbelievers here are not required to represent their composition as the
word of God - they may bring it forward as their own composition and declare
it to be equal to or, for that matter, better than the Quran. The
excellences of the Quran, which form the basis of this challenge, have been
defined in the verse that follows.
i. It discusses all the subjects thoroughly
ii. It is addressed to, and meant for, all mankind
iii. It contains comprehensive guidance for all temperaments
and dispositions as well as for all circumstances and conditions.
2. "Perchance the disbelievers vainly hope that thou mayest be persuaded to
abandon part of that which has been revealed to thee; and thy bosom may
become straitened thereby, because they say, 'Wherefore has not a treasure
been sent down to him or an angel come with him?' Verily thou art only a
Warner, and Allah is Guardian over all things. Do they say, He has forged
it?' Say, 'Then bring ten Surahs like it forged, and call on whom you can
apart from Allah, if you are truthful.' "(11: 13,14)
These verses refer to the allegation by the disbelievers that no angel had
come to the Holy Prophet saw - he had not received any Divine Revelation,
but had composed the Quran himself and presented it as the
word of God. The disbelievers are challenged in this verse to produce ten
Surahs, claiming, like him, that they have been brought down to them by
angels, and thus dare face the punishment decreed for impostors.
Secondly, the disbelievers had objected to some parts of the Quran being
defective. They have been challenged to bring only ten Surahs as alternative
to those parts of the Quran, which they consider defective. They are not
required to bring a complete book like the whole of the Quran, as the
challenge does not relate to the perfection of the Quran in all respects.
3. "And this Quran is not such as could have been produced by anyone other
than Allah. On the contrary, it fulfils that revelation which is before it
and is an exposition of the perfect Law. There is no doubt about it and it
is from the Lord of all the worlds. Do they say, 'He has forged it?' Say,
'Bring then a Surah like unto it, and call for help on all you can, apart
from Allah, if you are truthful.'" (10:38,39)
The verse 10:38 gives five very cogent reasons to show that the Quran is
revealed word of God:
i. It deals with such themes and contains teachings, which could not be
devised by man;
ii. It has come in fulfillment of the prophecies contained in the previous
scriptures;
iii. In it the imperfect teachings of the previous scriptures have been
perfected;
iv. The word of God embodied in it has been made secure from being
interpolated or tampered with by man;
v. Its teachings are meant for all men and all time.
The verse [10:39] challenges the disbelievers that if such an excellent book
could be human forgery, then why do they not try to produce a similar one
themselves? This challenge is repeated in [2:24]:
"And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to Our servant, then
produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah, if you
are truthful." (2:24)
4. "Do they say, 'He has forged it?' Nay, but they have no faith. Let them,
then, come up with a prophetic statement like this, if they speak the
truth." (52:34, 35)
In the preceding verses (52:30-31) reference is made to the non-believers,
who suggested that the Quranic prophecies were based on sources other than
the Divine Revelation. They called the Holy Prophet saw a 'Kaahin',
(soothsayer - suggesting that like soothsayers he was dabbling in occult
sciences) or 'Majnun' (one possessed by jinn - that being the source of his
inspirations) or a poet, who was just playing with words and day-dreaming
with no fixed ideal or program in life. They are challenged in this verse to
bring a prophecy like one in the Quran.
The question now remains whether these challenges also include a demand to
produce a work comparable to the Quran in elegance of style and diction. The
answer is that they certainly do so, but only in an indirect way and not as
a direct and fundamental demand, for sublime ideas can only be expressed in
sublime language. This is clearly stated elsewhere in the Holy Quran:
"We have made it a Quran (a Book to be oft read) in clear, eloquent language
that you may understand." (43:4)
"We have revealed the Quran in a clear, eloquent language devoid of all
deviations or aberrations." (39:29)
--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk