The Luling and Luxenberg Myths
Zuiko Azumazi
In the past we have received many posts from non-Muslim critics supporting
the dissertations of both Günter Lüling and Christoph Luxenberg concerning
their textual interpretations of the Qur'an. On the opposite side,
knowledgeable Muslim academics have refuted these dissertations for exactly
the same reasons as Professor Patricia Crone spelt out in her "What do we
actually know about Mohammed?" article, at this link:-
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp
Extract:-
One explanation for these features would be that the prophet formulated his
message in the liturgical language current in the religious community in
which he grew up, adapting and/or imitating ancient texts such as hymns,
recitations, and prayers, which had been translated or adapted from another
Semitic language in their turn. This idea has been explored in two German
works, by Günter Lüling and Christoph Luxenberg, and there is much to be
said for it. At the same time, however, both books are open to so many
scholarly objections (notably amateurism in Luxenberg's case) that they
cannot be said to have done the field much good. ...
End extract.
Would those regular subscribers, who have previously supported Luling's and
Luxenberg's dissertations, care to comment on Professor Crone's damning
criticism? Have these critics had a change in mind? What do they think about
Luxenberg's rank "amateurism"?
--
Peace
--
We should not be ashamed to acknowledge truth from whatever source it comes
to us, even if it is brought to us by former generations and foreign
peoples. For him who seeks the truth there is nothing of higher value than
truth itself [al-Kindi 801-66]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
christo...@onlinehome.de
Zuiko Azumazi wrote:
> In the past we have received many posts from non-Muslim critics supporting
> the dissertations of both Günter Lüling and Christoph Luxenberg concerning
> their textual interpretations of the Qur'an.
Actually I have had the honour to present some findings of my friends
Günter Lüling and Christoph Luxenberg also to this forum in the past.
> On the opposite side, knowledgeable Muslim academics
Really? Which "knowledgeable Muslim academics"?
> have refuted these dissertations
As far as I have become aware of such "refutations", it has been
evident that the critics even had not read the books by Lüling and
Luxenberg - in the case of Luxenberg, because the critics don't master
neither the German nor the Syriac language (with the notable exception
of de Blois and Hopkins, whose critique is deficient for other
reasons), in the case of Lüling, because they were not aware of his
opus magnum "A Challenge to Islam for Reformation", Delhi 2003.
> for exactly the same reasons as Professor Patricia Crone spelt out in her "What do we
> actually know about Mohammed?" article, at this link:-
>
> http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp
>
> Extract:-
>
> One explanation for these features would be that the prophet formulated his
> message in the liturgical language current in the religious community in
> which he grew up, adapting and/or imitating ancient texts such as hymns,
> recitations, and prayers, which had been translated or adapted from another
> Semitic language in their turn. This idea has been explored in two German
> works, by Günter Lüling and Christoph Luxenberg, and there is much to be
> said for it. At the same time, however, both books are open to so many
> scholarly objections (notably amateurism in Luxenberg's case) that they
> cannot be said to have done the field much good. ...
>
> End extract.
Since these sloppy remarks of Patricia Crone's are the only reference
by her to both Lüling and Luxenberg in her paper, Azumazi referred to,
everybody may realize that there are no such "reasons" against both
scholars in Crone's paper. Her reproach of "amateurism" against
Luxenberg simply is ridiculous in the eyes of everybody who actually
has read his book and various papers.
Here the interested reader may learn more of both Luxenberg and
Lüling, including of a goodly number of scholarly reviews:
http://www.christoph-heger.de/Christoph_Luxenberg.html
http://www.christoph-heger.de/Guenter_Lueling.html
Those who dare to underestimate or even denigrate these eminent
scholars may feel challenged kindly to explain us surah 112:2
"(a)llâhu S-Samad", namely the hitherto mysterious word "Samad".
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Altway
<christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
> Those who dare to underestimate or even denigrate these eminent
scholars may feel challenged kindly to explain us surah 112:2
"(a)llâhu S-Samad", namely the hitherto mysterious word "Samad".
Comment:-
As far as I can see the whole of the Quran is a mystery to
Heger, Lueling and Luxenberg though they suppose that they understand it
but merely try to justify their prejudices and delusions using false
assumptions.
As the Quran they describe is not the Quran Muslims see, this makes
their opinion wholly irrelevant even to these so called scholars.
No we do not consider them to be scholars at all because
there is no sign that they have made any attempt to understand it
or even have the capacity to understand it.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1164547414.8...@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Thanks to Robert.
<snip> ...
> As far as I have become aware of such "refutations", it has been
> evident that the critics even had not read the books by Lüling and
> Luxenberg - in the case of Luxenberg, because the critics don't master
> neither the German nor the Syriac language (with the notable exception
> of de Blois and Hopkins, whose critique is deficient for other
> reasons), in the case of Lüling, because they were not aware of his
> opus magnum "A Challenge to Islam for Reformation", Delhi 2003.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
So you think that all the propagandists and missionaries who avidly promote
these Qur'anic theories on the internet and on stridently anti-Islamic
(Pro-Christian [sic]) websites have mastered the intricacies of the German
and Syriac languages or the other ancient Middle-Eastern languages in the
religious dynamic? Or, do you think it's more a vox-pop appeal they are
seeking with the majority non-specialist public, like myself? I would expect
that there are but a handful of recognised scholars who have the specialist
language capability you are referencing. Isn't Professor Crone one of them,
as is, possibly, Professor Bernard Lewis? But both of those show proper
academic "disinterest" rather than, shall we say, the partisan Christian
sentiment of your so-called friends. Are they also directly linked to the
"Answering Islam" coalition, as you are yourself? Doesn't this allegiance
somewhat taint their Qur'anic theories in academia? As Professor Crone said
in her "What do we actually know about Mohammed?" article:-
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp
Extract.
The attempt to relate the linguistic and stylistic features of the Qur'an to
those of earlier religious texts calls for a mastery of Semitic languages
and literature that few today possess, and those who do so tend to work on
other things. This is sensible, perhaps, given that the field has become
highly charged politically.
End extract.
Which is another way of cynically saying, we think we are discussing the
Quran when in fact we are politically discussing Christian proselytise, as
the nom de guerre author artfully wrote in a Byzantine manner. <G>
--
Peace
--
What appears to be a sloppy or meaningless use of words may well be a
completely correct use of words to express sloppy or meaningless ideas.
[Anonymous Diplomat]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Abdalla Alothman
>
> http://www.christoph-heger.de/Christoph_Luxenberg.html
Your first friend is a dead case simply because he doesn't
know what the word "qur-aan" means.
> http://www.christoph-heger.de/Guenter_Lueling.html
>From the URL above, we read:
"Another important merit of Günter Lüling's is his elucidation
of the fact - hidden by the widely fictitions later Islamic
historiography - that the Meccan and Central Arabian adversaries
of Muhammad, the so called mushrikūn, "associators" (i.e. those
who "associate" other gods to God), were no vague "idolators" or
"pagans", but actually (Trinitarian) Christians."
This is nonsense, of course. This aaya of the Quran was recited
in front of the mushrikeen, and they didn't say what your friend
claims:
43:57. And when the son of Maryam (Mary) is quoted as an
example [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus) is worshipped like their idols),
behold! Your people cry aloud (laugh out at the example).
43:58. And say: "Are our āliha (gods) better or is he ['Iesa
(Jesus)]?" They quoted not the above example except for
argument. Nay! But they are a quarrelsome people.
Which means your second friend is full of ignorance, too.
> Those who dare to underestimate or even denigrate these eminent
> scholars may feel challenged kindly to explain us surah 112:2
> "(a)llāhu S-Samad", namely the hitherto mysterious word "Samad".
"Samad" is not a mysterious word. As a verb, it means resisted.
And as an attribute it means unique. As for your eminent scholars,
they are not as you say. You are only coating them with heavy sugar
because you're not better than them. Calling them eminent is just
cheap marketing from your side. ;)
As it was hinted: when those people do not receive any replies, it
doesn't mean that they have a case, it simply means that they have
a case that's not worth addressing.
Abdalla Alothman
christo...@onlinehome.de
Altway wrote:
> As far as I can see the whole of the Quran is a mystery to
> Heger, Lueling and Luxenberg though they suppose that they understand it
> but merely try to justify their prejudices and delusions using false
> assumptions.
Since Mr. Hamid S. Aziz claims to enjoy better capabilities in
understanding the Koran than scholars like Günter Lüling, Christoph
Luxenberg and others I wonder why he doesn't share with us his views
how to understand the mysterious word "Samad" in surah 112.
I may repeat my challenge:
Those who dare to underestimate or even denigrate these eminent
scholars may feel challenged kindly to explain us surah 112:2
"(a)llâhu S-Samad", namely the hitherto mysterious word "Samad".
Mr. Aziz, what is the meaning of this hapax legomenon "Samad" - not the
usual phantasies, but its real meaning?
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Altway
christo...@onlinehome.de wrote:
> Mr. Aziz, what is the meaning of this hapax legomenon "Samad" - not the
usual phantasies, but its real meaning?
Comment:-
In connection with my previous reply, perhaps I should explain further
as to what I mean by the word Abolute:-
As I said we are concerned with the significance of the word and its
relevance to the descriptions in the rest of the Quran.
I would include ideas such as
the self-sufficient, the All-inclusive, the independent one on whom all
things are dependent. It can be understood in the connection with:-
"And call not upon any other God along with Allah; there is no God but
He. Everything is perishable (or will perish), except His countenance.
His is the command, and unto Him shall you return!" 28:88
"And there remains naught but the Countenance of your Lord of Might and
Glory (or of Majesty and Nobility (Bounty and Honour))." 55:27
Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
[I will respond to the Luxenberg/Luling post as well as the Nevo post]
I'm not sure what to make of Dr. Crone's comment on Luxenberg. A few
years ago in a NY Times article on the Qur'an she classified
Luxenberg's book as "...serious and exciting" work.
Anyhow, down to Luxenberg. Like Yehuda Nevo before him, his book is
extremely revolutionary and will take many years before its impact is
felt. Nevertheless, Luxenberg's book has sparked two conferences (one
in Germany and another in the United States). Unlike Nevo, Luxenberg's
results will probably (just a guess) change the face of Qur'anic
studies.
That being said, I remain resolute on my hesitance of Luxenberg's
conclusion. The presence of Syriac words in the Qur'an is no surprise,
and I do not find Luxenberg's argument for a Syriac Christian text very
sound at all.
Worse still, even if we postulate that the Qur'an contains sentences in
Syriac, it still does not follow that the Qur'an is a Syriac document,
much less a Christian one. I know Luxenberg does not present his
argument in such a fashion, however many of his emendations are
contingent on the conclusion of the book, thus rendering the argument
question begging. However, one must keep in mind that Dr. Luxenberg's
book is a "what-if" argument. Most Muslims don't get that point.
As for Yehuda Nevo's conclusions, they're too speculative. Many of
his arguments rest on arguments from silence. As a result, his
inferences are far-fetched. His main problem seems to be his insistence
on "hard" evidence (i.e. inscriptions, papyri documents, et
cetera). Thankfully, history is moving beyond such epistemic demands.
Although I disagree with Luxenberg/Luling, I do not find them
"amateurs". They're well qualified. Yehuda Nevo, on the other
hand, is not.
Some reading material:
For criticism of Nevo-style conclusions, read here:
Jeremy Johns, "Archaeology and the History of Early Islam: The First
Seventy Years" in the Journal of Economic and Social History of the
Orient: vol 46, number 4, 2003.
Robert Hoyland, "New Documentary Texts and the Early Islamic State"
in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies: vol 9,
part 3, 2006. (Mainly an argument against Nevo, however Dr. Hoyland
does take a stab at Luxenberg indirectly)
Patricia Crone, "Imperial Trauma: The Case of the Arabs" in Common
Knowledge, vol 12, 2006. (Although she does not make reference to Nevo,
she does roll back some of her conclusions that she came to in
Hagarism)
For some pro-Luxenberg work:
Gabriel Said Reynolds, "A Reflection on Two Qur'anic Word (Iblis
and Judi) with Attention to the theories of A. Mingana" in the
Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol.124, No. 4, 2006. (The
paper makes explicit reference to Luxenberg's work.)
Gabriel Said Reynolds, "Reading the Qur'an as Homily: The Case of
Sarah's Laughter," to be published in an E.J. Brill monograph, ed.
A. Neuwirth, 2006. (Dr. Reynolds uses Syro-Aramaic to solve a
Qur'anic riddle)
Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-R. Puin, "Die Dunken AnFange. Neue
Forschungen zur Entstehung und fruhen Geschichte der Islam.
Hans-Schiller - Verlag, Berlin 2005, 406 pages. (Hat-tip to Christoph
Heger for suggesting this book)
For one anti-Luxenberg paper:
http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/Walid_Saleh.pdf (Dr. Saleh's
paper is probably one of the best critiques of Luxenberg out there.
Unlike "some" critics of Luxenberg who seem to focus more on
Luxenberg's Christian belief, Saleh actually challenges his argument)
Altway
<christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote
>> As far as I can see the whole of the Quran is a mystery to
Heger, Lueling and Luxenberg though they suppose that they understand it
but merely try to justify their prejudices and delusions using false
assumptions.
> Since Mr. Hamid S. Aziz claims to enjoy better capabilities in
understanding the Koran than scholars like Günter Lüling, Christoph
Luxenberg and others I wonder why he doesn't share with us his views
how to understand the mysterious word "Samad" in surah 112.
Comment:-
As I said: I do not regard them as scholars of the Quran as they do not know
what it is
and have not followed the instructions as to how it should be read and
understood.
They are charlatans, though probably sincere in so far as being
self-deceived.
They are like a non-scientist criticising a text book on science -
irrelevant to science.
A true scholar is someone who applies that which he tries to understand,
using the criteria
and guidelines appropriate to it, not one who has a negative attitude and
uses
extraneous standards to interpret it.
As for the word "samad" that has been translated by several Muslims in
different ways.
It is a compact Arabic word that is not easily translated into single
English words.
But it is the significance rather than literalism that has to be understood.
It has been translated as
"Eternally besought by all things"
and I understand it as including such ideas as the Absolute origin and goal.
You tell us your idea.
You will probably give us an Aramaic meaning.
When in fact the Quran tells us that it is in Arabic.
"ALIF LAM RA. These are the verses (or symbols) of the Perspicuous (or
clarifying) Book. Verily, We have revealed it as a Lecture (a Quran) in
Arabic; per chance (or possibly) you may understand." 12:1-2
"Thus have We revealed it, a decisive judgment in Arabic, but had you
followed their lusts (prejudices, fantasies, superstitions), after the
knowledge that has come to you, then truly, would you have against Allah no
protecting friend nor defender." 13:37
"We know well that they say: It is only some mortal who teaches him." But
the tongue of him they point to (Muhammad) is outlandish, while this (Quran)
is Arabic, pure and clear." 16:103
"Thus have We revealed it in an Arabic Lecture (Quran); and have displayed
in it certain threats, that per chance (or possibly) they may fear evil, or
it may cause them to take heed." 20:113
"And, verily, it is a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds, which the
Faithful Spirit of Truth (Gabriel) has brought down upon your heart, that
you may be one of the Warners, in plain Arabic language." 26:192-195
"And certainly We have set forth to men in this Quran similitudes of every
sort that they may reflect, a Lecture in Arabic, without any crookedness,
that they may guard (against evil)." 39:27
"A revelation from the Beneficent, the Merciful, a Book (Scripture) whereof
the verses are expounded, an Arabic Quran (Lecture) for a people who
understand; giving good news and a warning, but most of them turn aside so
they hear not." 41:2-4
"And thus have We revealed to you an Arabic Lecture (Quran), that you may
warn the Mother City (Mecca) and those around it, and that you may give
warning of the Day of Gathering wherein is no doubt; when some will be in
the Garden and some in the burning Fire." 42:7
"By the Book that makes things clear: Surely We have made it an Arabic
Lecture (Quran) that you may understand." 43:2-3
"And before it the Book of Moses was a guide and a mercy: and this is a Book
verifying it in the Arabic language that it may warn those who are unjust
and as good news for the doers of good." 46:12
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1164708483.5...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> Which means your second friend is full of ignorance, too.
>> Those who dare to underestimate or even denigrate these eminent
>> scholars may feel challenged ...
> As for your eminent scholars,
> they are not as you say. You are only coating them with heavy sugar
> because you're not better than them. Calling them eminent is just
> cheap marketing from your side. ;)
> As it was hinted: when those people do not receive any replies, it
> doesn't mean that they have a case, it simply means that they have
> a case that's not worth addressing.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
For the record, let's recapitulate what critical public information do we
possess that refutes the under-lying myths surrounding Christoph Luxenberg
identity and his purported 'scholarly' work on the Qur'an. Doesn't this
unbiased search reveal all:-
Now, all that Dr. Christoph Heger has to do is refute whether his friend
'Christoph Luxenberg' is simply a Lebanese-Christian apologist and not an
eminent philological scholar, German or otherwise. Was the nom de guerre
simply adopted to disguise that fact and, hence, mislead its readers
regarding its purported academic credibility on the Qur'an? Why is there a
need to maintain this Byzantine charade of clandestine intrigue over his
identity, isn't transparency and honesty the key?
As Professor François de Blois pointedly said in his critique of "Die
Syro-Aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der
Koransprache" and I quote:- 'Let us not exaggerate the state of academic
freedom in what we still like to call our Western democracies. No European
or North American scholar of linguistics, even of Arabic linguistics, needs
to conceal his (or her) identity, nor does he (or she) really have any right
to do so.'
--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Robert
I would remind you of what I have already reported: even thirty years
ago, John Wansborough at the School of Oriental and African Studies in
London was forced to give up his work on the critical study of the
Koran because of the death threats he received.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1165310760.2...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
How can you remind me of something that has never been directly addressed to
me or posted as a reply to myself in this forum about Wansbrough. You
flatter yourself if you think I read everyone of your inaccurate posts.
Although, I have now tried to corroborate this rumour by visiting this
informative and impartial "John Edward Wansbrough" link but nothing is
mentioned or cited about your purported 'death threats'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wansbrough
I wonder why that is? You would have thought the Islamophobe - Wiki
contributors would have made sure that it would have been included, if
there was any truth in it. Although, you must have some doubts and
suspicions, if your source misspells his name, it's not "John Wansborough",
in actual fact, it's John Wansbrough.
--
Peace
--
And in too many circles, disparaging remarks about Muslims are allowed to
pass without censure, with the result that prejudice acquires a veneer of
acceptance. [UN Secretary General Kofi Annan]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Tony Cox
news:45773ce1$0$9776$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> Although, I have now tried to corroborate this rumour by visiting this
> informative and impartial "John Edward Wansbrough" link but nothing is
> mentioned or cited about your purported 'death threats'.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wansbrough
>
> I wonder why that is? You would have thought the Islamophobe - Wiki
> contributors would have made sure that it would have been included, if
> there was any truth in it. Although, you must have some doubts and
> suspicions, if your source misspells his name, it's not "John Wansborough",
> in actual fact, it's John Wansbrough.
I hope you don't mind a small diversion, but how exactly
are you using "Islamophobe" here? I've just read the referenced
work, but find no indication that the author(s) fear Islam as
the term might suggest, whether this fear be rational or otherwise.
On the contrary, by reporting Wansbrough's views -- no doubt
blasphemous to the Muslim community -- the authors appear to
be quite fearless! Has the use of the word in this forum now
become merely a term of abuse?
On "death threats", the only semi-authoritative reference I can
find is from the "Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
studies" V57, 1, pp153-173 (1994) and even that is anecdotal.
Presumably that is why the authors of the Wiki article left it out.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1165498048.1...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>> Although, I have now tried to corroborate this rumour by visiting this
>> informative and impartial "John Edward Wansbrough" link but nothing is
>> mentioned or cited about your purported 'death threats'.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wansbrough
>
> I hope you don't mind a small diversion, but how exactly
> are you using "Islamophobe" here?
Comment:-
Where is the corroborating evidence confirming that 'death threats' were
they ever seriously made against John Wansbrough? Is anecdotal evidence,
rumour and gossip sufficient when making serious public allegations of this
kind? Without corroborating evidence then it's a simply dishing the
malicious dirt. Isn't this scaremongering and spreading fear creating a
climate of Islamophobia? Have you managed to corroborate the 'death threats'
from any reliable source? I can't. But if spreading malicious information or
making unsupported allegations against Muslims isn't Islamophobia then what
is? What would prefer that we call it, when Islamophobia, is in common
usage, and so popular around the world.
<snip> ...
> On the contrary, by reporting Wansbrough's views --
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Where are John Wansbrough's views on the Qur'an expressed in this post from
Robert, and I quote in full - it's the one I was replying to:-
news:1165310760.2...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
"I would remind you of what I have already reported: even thirty years
ago, John Wansborough at the School of Oriental and African Studies in
London was forced to give up his work on the critical study of the
Koran because of the death threats he received."
There aren't any! Can you find any or are you reading from a different
Islamophobe hymn sheet? Shouldn't you check your facts before posting,
otherwise you might slip into the Islamophobe vein of false reporting and
rumours spreading and scaremongering? <G> As Hoffer said about the
Islamophobe mantra: "Add a few drops of malice to a half truth and you have
an absolute truth."
I think you are beginning to see how I use the Islamophobe term in this
forum. But practice makes perfect, as they say, in this compelling world of
ours.
In passing, what do you think of this paranoid outburst from Robert:-
news:1165340855.0...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
" I would remind you that when Thatcher called Mandela a terrorist the
elite of the African National Congress were all Communists, and
Communists were committed to terror in order to establish political
control, as, I believe, Islamists are. The rank and file of the ANC
practised terror: you may know about 'necklacing' - killing alleged
informers by hanging a burning tyre around their neck. Critics of
Mandela (and Mbeke) still fear assassination, as I know from first hand
testimony." ...
Isn't this symptomatic of the pathological history leading up to the current
Islamophobia? One more rendition of Internationale for old-codgers. As if,
China isn't still Communist and a major trading partner and ally of the land
of the free.
--
Peace
--
When a new word enters the language, it is often the result of a scientific
advance or a diverting fad. But when the world is compelled to coin a new
term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and
troubling development. Such is the case with Islamophobia. [UN Secretary
christo...@onlinehome.de
After I had made this challenge:
> > Since Mr. Hamid S. Aziz claims to enjoy better capabilities in
> > understanding the Koran than scholars like Günter Lüling, Christoph
> > Luxenberg and others I wonder why he doesn't share with us his views
> > how to understand the mysterious word "Samad" in surah 112.
Hamid S. Aziz tried his best:
> As for the word "samad" that has been translated by several Muslims in different ways.
Right, they did a lot of guesswork.
> It is a compact Arabic word that is not easily translated into single English words.
It should however have a basic meaning and - as an allegedly Arabic
word - should be connected to an Arabic verbal root, as usual in
Arabic, right?
> But it is the significance rather than literalism that has to be understood.
> It has been translated as "Eternally besought by all things"
> and I understand it as including such ideas as the Absolute origin and goal.
That's what I have called the "usual phantasies". There is no
linguistic justification for these fanciful semantics. What is its real
meaning, Mr. Aziz?
> You tell us your idea.
Not yet. For the moment it may suffice to quote the renowned
orientalist scholar Franz Rosenthal, who has dealt extensively with the
mysterious word Samad. He comes to the conclusion: "In view of this
material, the suggestion may be made that aS-Samad in the Qur'ân is
a survival of an ancient Northwest Semitic religious term, ...."
(Franz Rosenthal, Some Minor Problems in the Qur'ân, The Joshua
Starr Memorial Volume, New York 1953, p. 83).
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Altway
<christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote
>> You tell us your idea.
> Not yet.
Comment:-
As Heger finds himself unable to tell us what the meaning of it is in the
Quran,
I will quote a Dictionary of Quranic terms.
SMD gives rise to the following meanings:-
To set up, erect, adorn, repair, strike.
Chief, Lord, Eternal, Independent, Unique,
one to whom recourse is had, one to whom obedience is
rendered without whom no affair is accomplished.
One upon whom all are dependent for their needs.
The Eternally Self-existing,
The most High, above all. The source of all to which all things go back
Does any one else have anything else to add?
Hamid S. Aziz
Abdalla Alothman
christoph.he...@onlinehome.de wrote:
> > It is a compact Arabic word that is not easily translated into single English words.
>
> It should however have a basic meaning and - as an allegedly Arabic
> word - should be connected to an Arabic verbal root, as usual in
> Arabic, right?
There are many words in different languages that have multiple
meanings. "Tail," for example, can mean different things to the
person who deals with animals, the person who deals with
airplanes, sailors, people who do security and spy work, etc.
Trying to limit a single word to a single definition is a weak
move.
As for the root of the word, you can see it in mukhtar aSS-HaaH.
As for the commentaries of the mufassireen, you discredited their
work without showing why.
> Not yet.
Wait until you are done with your work (which I doubt is
different than your other failures), and then release your
excitement.
Abdalla Alothman
Altway
<christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote
>> You tell us your idea.
> Not yet.
Comment:-
As Heger finds himself unable to tell us what the meaning of it is in the
Quran, here is another set of definitions I found on the Internet.
>From the root s-m-d which has the following classical Arabic connotations:-
to endeavor to reach or attain something
to turn to, to need
to direct oneself toward or aim toward something
to set up, to erect something
to remain unaffected, unchanged
to be sublime, everlasting.
Heger could have discovered these himself by searching the Internet
instead of trying to find irrelevant Syriac or Aramaic meanings.
Hamid S. Aziz
christo...@onlinehome.de
Concerning the notoriously mysterious word Samad, which is a hapax
legomenon, occurring only once in surah 112 (al-Ikhlas) and in an a bit
variant context in the inscription in the interior of the Dome of the
Rock in Jerusalem, Mr. Hamid S. Aziz opinated:
> As Heger finds himself unable to tell us what the meaning of it is in the Quran,
Oh, you will be surprised I am not unable to tell you the real meaning
of it. Simply don't be so impatient.
> I will quote a Dictionary of Quranic terms.
Would you mind to say us which "Dictionary of Quranic terms" you are
speaking about and what its scholarly merits might be?
> SMD gives rise to the following meanings:-
> To set up, erect, adorn, repair, strike.
> Chief, Lord, Eternal, Independent, Unique,
> one to whom recourse is had, one to whom obedience is
> rendered without whom no affair is accomplished.
> One upon whom all are dependent for their needs.
> The Eternally Self-existing,
> The most High, above all. The source of all to which all things go back
This is the stuff I already had called "the usual guesswork". It's
guesswork without any linguistic justification.
> Does any one else have anything else to add?
Yes, but wait a bit!
Anjum was in the mood to take refuge with some mystical arguments
trying to discredit scholarly research on the Koran at all:
> christo...@onlinehome.de wrote:
>
> > Not yet. For the moment it may suffice to quote the renowned
> > orientalist scholar Franz Rosenthal, ...
>
> Like we are going to learn the Qur`an from Franz Rosenthal, Christoph
> Heger, Robert Houghton, and the likes, instead of from those who
> reflect the Prophetic Light!
Oh, I am flattered to be named in the same rank as Franz Rosenthal, who
- what Anjum perhaps doesn't know - indeed was a renowned orientalist
scholar. Anyway, Rosenthal and others, by definition, lack Anjum's
"Prophetic Light" - which seems to be kind of surrogate for reason and
common sense.
> For an etymological presentation of some parts of the Qur`an by a
> realized Sufi master, please refer to
> http://www.nuradeen.com/Reflections/CommentaryOnTheQuran.htm
With the mystical insight of any Sufi scholars obviously cannot
compete!
> Here's an excerpt:
Unfortunately at least in this excerpt the celebrated Sufi is rather
unspecific:
> "The roots of key Arabic words are examined and discussed, thus
> enabling the student to derive the full benefit of the original
> language of the Qur`an and its unparalleled ability to communicate what
> is most difficult to transmit by words. At their root levels, Arabic
> words have many different meanings, and these meanings are sometimes
> the opposite of each other. This aspect of the Arabic language reflects
> a very important dimension of the ancient Arabic culture, a dimension
> which enabled the Arabs to be extremely sensitive to their environment
> and therefore susceptible to the message of tawhīd (divine unity).
> Although the Arabs were worldly, their language and ecology were
> well-suited to describing and communicating the unworldly and the
> Divine."
Couldn't we get some more specific insights from the superior mind of
the sufi?
In the meantime some more views of secular scholars:
Raimund Köbert, another renowned orientalist scholar, surmises Samad
to be a loanword originating from Hebrew Sûr (»rock«) (in: "Das
Gottesepitheton aS-Samad in Sure 112, 2, Orientalia, N.S. 30, 1961, p.
204f.). That, of course, was also mere guesswork and additionally
erroneous, but shows how even such renowned scholars capitulated
towards the difficult linguistics of this word.
Rudi Paret, with Richard Bell and Regis Blachere one of the most
distinguished translators of the Koran, qualifies his various own
translations of Samad as "questionable" in his translation and
commentary of the Koran.
But stay tuned! The mystery has been illuminated.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Abdalla Alothman
christo...@onlinehome.de wrote:
> But stay tuned! The mystery has been illuminated.
I think Heger is in need for all the possible replies he
can get before he publishes his work in order to avoid
the embarrassment.
You go do your work, and once you are done insha-Allah
we will show what the masters of the Arabic language said
about aSSamad. Then the reader can determine (without
cheap marketing and greasy pride) whether those who
cannot even pronounce the letters of the language are right
or whether the masters of the language are correct.
Abdalla Alothman
Altway
<christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote
>> As Heger finds himself unable to tell us what the meaning of it is in the
>> Quran,
> Oh, you will be surprised I am not unable to tell you the real meaning
of it. Simply don't be so impatient.
Comment:-
I doubt that I will be surprised by your "revelation".
Going by your past performance,
No doubt it will be some non-arabic meaning that is irrelevant to the Quran.
But why so shy - are you waiting for rvelation?
We go by what Muslim scholars understand,
not by unjustified speculations.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip>...
>> > It is a compact Arabic word that is not easily translated into single
>> > English words.
>> It should however have a basic meaning and - as an allegedly Arabic
>> word - should be connected to an Arabic verbal root, as usual in
>> Arabic, right?
> There are many words in different languages that have multiple
> meanings. "Tail," for example, can mean different things to the
> person who deals with animals, the person who deals with
> airplanes, sailors, people who do security and spy work, etc.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Perhaps the proper question we should be asking is what is the 'original
Semitic language' in the Hamito-Semitic language family? Certainly, the
various branches of this family all stem from this root: i.e. South Semitic
(Arabic, Ethiopian): West Semitic (Aramaic, [Sub: West Aramaic, Syriac];,
Canaanite; (Sub: Moabite, Phoenician, Hebrew), and East Semitic {Akkadian},
(Babylonian, Assyrian). No one would deny there must be some kind of
language relationship stemming from this common root. The answer or
conclusion to this complex language imbroglio, over Arabic versus Aramaic
(Syriac) in the Qur'an, is more a function of anthropology than linguistics,
intrinsically.
My second point is that the conclusive basis of the Luxenberg argument is a
'Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc' fallacy. Isn't this the 'amateurishness' that
Patricia Crone was referencing in her cited 'Open Democracy' article, posted
recently elsewhere? Talking about detailed Syriac 'opinion' is irrelevant if
the methodology used in the argument is suspect.
--
Peace
--
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd. [Bertrand Russell]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
christo...@onlinehome.de
Hamid S. Aziz (Altway) wrote:
> <christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote
> >> As Heger finds himself unable to tell us what the meaning of it [namely of the
> >> word "Samad" in surah 112:2] is in the Quran,
To which I answered:
> > Oh, you will be surprised I am not unable to tell you the real meaning
> of it. Simply don't be so impatient.
Unfortunately, Hamid S. Aziz has been so impatient:
> Comment:-
> No doubt it will be some non-arabic meaning that is irrelevant to the Quran.
> But why so shy - are you waiting for rvelation?
I havn't been in need for any revelation, but for some freetime.
> We go by what Muslim scholars understand,
> not by unjustified speculations.
Going by Muslim scholars' "understanding" is relying on wild
speculations, as you may see from AT-Tabarī's comment on surah 112:2,
which is to be found here:
A scholarly English translation, done by Franz Rosenthal, is contained
in this article:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/samad.htm
As is evident from Tabarī, the old commentators didn't agree on the
meaning of "Samad", in reality had no clue of its real meaning.
Actually "S(a)M(a)d" can be traced back to Ugaritic (cf. Cyrus H.
Gordon, Ugaritic Manual, p. 316, Nos. 1630-32), where it was used to
express the binding of grape-vines, the harnessing of horses and
similar acts. It has survived in later Syriac and even in some more or
less vernacular Arabic expressions, in which the basic meaning of
"binding" still is recognizable. In Arabic literature it occurs only
once or twice, namely in the interior inscription of the Dome of the
Rock in Jerusalem and in surah 112:2.
>From the basic meaning of "binding" it is evident that the phrase
"allāhu S-Samad" in surah 112:2, contrary to the usual Islamic
contentions, is (a relic of) a very concise expression of old Syriac
theology for what was later explicated as "Trinity" in Greek theology.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Altway
<christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote in
Re:
> > We go by what Muslim scholars understand, not by unjustified
> > speculations.
>> Quran.
> Going by Muslim scholars' "understanding" is relying on wild
speculations, as you may see from AT-Tabarī's comment on surah 112:2,
> A scholarly English translation, done by Franz Rosenthal, is contained
in this article:
> http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/samad.htm
> As is evident from Tabarī, the old commentators didn't agree on the
meaning of "Samad", in reality had no clue of its real meaning.
Comment:-
The Prophet said to his companions, "Is it difficult for any of you to
recite one third of the Qur'an in one night?" This suggestion was difficult
for them so they said, "Who among us has the power to do so, O Allah's
Apostle?" Allah's Apostle replied: "'Allah (the) One, the Self-Sufficient
Master Whom all creatures need.' (Surat Al-Ikhlas 112.1--to the End) is
equal to one third of the Qur'an." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61,
Number 534)
The explanation of the Prophet is good enough for Muslims.
> Actually "S(a)M(a)d" can be traced back to Ugaritic (cf. Cyrus H.
Gordon, Ugaritic Manual, p. 316, Nos. 1630-32), where it was used to
express the binding of grape-vines, the harnessing of horses and
similar acts. It has survived in later Syriac and even in some more or
less vernacular Arabic expressions, in which the basic meaning of
"binding" still is recognizable. In Arabic literature it occurs only
once or twice, namely in the interior inscription of the Dome of the
Rock in Jerusalem and in surah 112:2.
>From the basic meaning of "binding" it is evident that the phrase
"allāhu S-Samad" in surah 112:2, contrary to the usual Islamic
contentions, is (a relic of) a very concise expression of old Syriac
theology for what was later explicated as "Trinity" in Greek theology.
Comment:-
Interesting! But as I said:- No doubt it will be some non-arabic meaning
that is irrelevant to the Quran.
But it is not difficult to see that even here "binding" when used in the
spiritual sense has relevance to the word "religion" which means "binding
back to ones origin".
It does not require an enourmous intelligence to see that the word could be
adapted to mean that all things are dependent on Allah and that by
implication Allah is the only independent self-sufficient being.
But as pointed out the meanings of verses in the Quran are to be taken with
reference to other verses. They have to be understood in context. There are
a sufficient number of other verses that throw light on the attributes of
Allah, including His self-sufficiency and the dependence of all things on
Him.
Hamid S. Aziz
Abdalla Alothman
Okay, wait for your time to come and let us know which message
is your FINAL endorsement to this topic.
> Going by Muslim scholars' "understanding" is relying on wild
> speculations, as you may see from AT-Tabarī's comment on surah 112:2,
> which is to be found here: [...]
Falling back on aTTabari is the wrong way to go. We will
insha-Allah explain why once Heger's work is complete and
published.
> A scholarly English translation, done by Franz Rosenthal, is contained
> in this article:
>
> http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/samad.htm
Why did Heger refer to this link?
The reader should understand that Heger has an unfortunate
history with Muslims: He always gets replies that show he is
very poor in his work. I assume that he is still trying to get some
reaction from Muslims to address these possible reactions before
his work gets published -- this is a form to avoid embarrassment.
The purpose of this link, in a nutshell, is to get a sense of what
Muslims will reply to Heger's work. The link above might be close
to what he will propose, so it is better for him to get the possible
replies before his work goes live.
I would kindly like to advise whoever is interested in replying to
Heger to take Heger's advice: Be patient until he is done with
his work.
> As is evident from Tabarī, the old commentators didn't agree on the
> meaning of "Samad", in reality had no clue of its real meaning.
Try to finish your work, publish it, and the come back. Exercise
your own advice.
wasalamun 'ala almursaleen, walHamdulillaahi rabbil 'alameen.
Abdalla Alothman
Denis Giron
Abdalla Alothman wrote:
>
> Falling back on aTTabari is the wrong way to go. We will
> insha-Allah explain why once Heger's work is complete and
> published.
Well, it is unfortunate that you did not attempt to give a reason. Why
wait for Dr. Heger's next post? I imagine other posters (both Muslim
and non-Muslim alike) would like to see what you have on this. I, for
one, would like to know why at-Tabaree is the wrong source to consult
when trying to gague how the earliest Qur'anic commentators understood
the relevant word.
> > http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/samad.htm
>
> Why did Heger refer to this link?
Because it quotes the thoughts of Franz Rosenthal (a rather serious
semiticist) regarding the meanign of samad.
> The purpose of this link, in a nutshell, is to get a sense of what
> Muslims will reply to Heger's work. The link above might be close
> to what he will propose, so it is better for him to get the possible
> replies before his work goes live.
I too wish Dr. Heger would be more explicit with regard to his precise
argument, but I have my doubts that it has a great deal in common with
Shamoun's conclusions, as per the articled linked to above. Note that
Shamoun argues that samad was a word of "pagan" origin, while Dr. Heger
sees it as a word of Christian origin (i.e. Dr. Heger, if I am not
mistaken, takes it to have originally meant God is bound together, in
the way that the Trinitarian conception of God posits a single Deity
comprised of three Persons).
While I look forward to Dr. Heger's future contributions to this
thread, we should all be wary of the amount of guess work that may be
present in such Syriac reconstructions. For example, I recall
Margoliouth's Compendious Syriac Dictionary stating something along the
lines of "bone-setting" (I'm working from fuzzy memory here) for
certain derivatives of the relevant root, and I don't see what would
stop us from concluding, therefore, that, rather than a Trinitarian
reference, the phrase "Allaahu as-Samad" means something like "God, the
one who sets our bones inside our bodies." I raise this example so that
Dr. Heger might keep in mind the necessity of explaining why we should
believe his reconstruction reflects the intention of the author of the
statement now found in the Qur'an. Also, I, personally, hope that Dr.
Heger provides us with some instances of Trinitarian usages of the root
in Syriac texts.
Just my preliminary thoughts!
Altway
"Denis Giron" <denis...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Why wait for Dr. Heger's next post? I imagine other posters (both Muslim
and non-Muslim alike) would like to see what you have on this. I, for
one, would like to know why at-Tabaree is the wrong source to consult
when trying to gague how the earliest Qur'anic commentators understood
the relevant word.
Comment:-
The opinions of Dr Heger have no relevance to Muslims.
Nor are have they any use for himself or for non-Muslims.
As for the article by Shamuon or Tabaree
we see different points of view by different people
that are not necessarily mutually exclusive and
there is speculation without insight, understanding or authority.
When it comes to Religion, and particularly the Quran what counts is not
verbal speculation
but how things are understood and how they affect people.
That is what superficial critics like Heger do not comprehend.
According to the Prophet, who ought to know, the chapter 112
is a third of the Quran. The ideas in it are therefore, to be understood
with respect to passages in the rest of the Quran.
Allah's Apostle replied: "'Allah (the) One, the Self-Sufficient Master Whom
all creatures need.' (Surat Al-Ikhlas 112.1--to the End) is equal to one
third of the Qur'an."
"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
"This is indeed a noble Quran in a Book kept hidden which none touches save
the purified, a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds." 56:77-80
"This (Quran) is naught else than a reminder unto creation, unto whomsoever
of you wills to walk straight. And ye will not, unless it be that Allah
wills, the Lord of Creation." 81:27-29
If these assertions of the Quran are not accepted then obviously
commentaries about the Quran are futile and irrelevant. They are not about
the Quran but about the misconceptions of the commentator. Which is useless
for anyone including the commentator.
Is this so difficult to understand?
Hamid S. Aziz
Denis Giron
Altway wrote:
> The opinions of Dr Heger have no relevance to Muslims.
> Nor are have they any use for himself or for non-Muslims.
In my post I was trying to encourage Abdallah to come forth with his
criticisms and arguments up to this point (e.g. his reasons for why
at-Tabaree is not a good source to look at when trying to gague how the
early Muslim community understood the relevant word in the Qur'an). I'm
not claiming Dr. Heger's arguments are sound, but Abdallah did not do
much to make anyone believe they are necessarily false either. The same
could be said about the statements you have provided above, with all
due respect.
> According to the Prophet, who ought to know, the chapter 112
> is a third of the Quran.
Actually, to be more careful with our claims, you should change the
above to: "according to a certain hadith, Muhammad is alleged to have
said that Soorat al-Ikhlas is equal to one third of the Qur'an." The
fact that such a hadith, with a date that is unknown to me (do you know
the earliest record of this particular hadith?), exists does not tell
us much about the origins of Soorat al-Ikhlas, or what its author
intended by the word "as-samad".
Let me set an analogy. Suppose a Christian said the following: "the
Apostle John, who ought to know, said that Jesus described himself to
him as the First and the Last; go see Revelation 1:17 & 2:8." In
reality, however, a person who is not a committed Christian would
comment that what we have is a book which claims that John said he met
Jesus, and that Jesus told him that he is the First and the Last.
Serious scholars would not believe that necessarily tells us who the
author of Isaiah 44:6 was referring to when he spoke of "the First and
[...] the Last".
To explain how my analogy is relevant to your statement about what "the
Prophet" said, note that the hypothetical Christian in my analogy
merely made an appeal to the assumptions of his faith when he spoke of
what "the Apostle John" said. So too, your statement about the Qur'an
and Muhammad was also nothing more than appeal to your own personal
dogmas.
[snip passages from Soorat al-Ankaboot, Soorat al-Baqara, et cetera,
for the sake of brevity]
> If these assertions of the Quran are not accepted then obviously
> commentaries about the Quran are futile and irrelevant.
Really Hamid, what kind of an argument is this? It seems to me, in
light of the Qur'anic passages your post put forth, you're hoping to
argue premises such as one (or more) of the following:
(1) Soorat al-Ankaboot says that the Qur'an is a clear revelation, and
only wrong doers can deny that, so the arguments of anyone who
disagrees with this statement from Soorat al-Ankaboot are automatically
false.
(2) Soorat al-Baqara says that those who disbelieve in the divine
authorship of the Qur'an are khaasiroon (losers), so the arguments of
anyone who disagrees with this statement from Soorat al-Baqara are
automatically false.
...et cetera...
In other words, your tacit argument is along the lines of "the Qur'an
is the word of God because it says so, and anyone who doesn't accept
that can't possibly have anything useful to contribute regarding the
origins or intended meanings of any passage in the Qur'an." In reality,
however, this is a VERY bad argument. This is, with all due respect, as
poor as some Christian claiming that 2 Peter 1:20-21 renders all
critical Biblical scholarship moot.
> Is this so difficult to understand?
Honestly, and I sincerely intend no disrespect by this statement, what
I am having difficulty understanding is how you ever thought the
arguments put forth in your post would persuade anyone other than those
who already presuppose that the Qur'an is the word of God and not
subject to any scrutiny.
Altway
"Denis Giron" <denis...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> The opinions of Dr Heger have no relevance to Muslims.
Nor are have they any use for himself or for non-Muslims.
> In my post I was trying to encourage Abdallah to come forth with his
criticisms and arguments up to this point (e.g. his reasons for why
at-Tabaree is not a good source to look at when trying to gague how the
early Muslim community understood the relevant word in the Qur'an). I'm
not claiming Dr. Heger's arguments are sound, but Abdallah did not do
much to make anyone believe they are necessarily false either. The same
could be said about the statements you have provided above, with all
due respect.
Comment:-
The answer is still the same:-
The opinions of Dr Heger have no relevance to Muslims.
Nor are have they any use for himself or for non-Muslims.
>> According to the Prophet, who ought to know, the chapter 112
is a third of the Quran.
> Actually, to be more careful with our claims, you should change the
above to: "according to a certain hadith, Muhammad is alleged to have
said that Soorat al-Ikhlas is equal to one third of the Qur'an."
Comment:-
It is well known and has been known from the beginning among Muslims that
Soorat al-Ikhlas is regarded as one third of the Quran and that the Quranic
verses
are to be interpreted with respect to the rest of the Quran.
> Let me set an analogy. Suppose a Christian said the following: "the
Apostle John, who ought to know, said that Jesus described himself to
him as the First and the Last; go see Revelation 1:17 & 2:8." In
reality, however, a person who is not a committed Christian would
comment that what we have is a book which claims that John said he met
Jesus, and that Jesus told him that he is the First and the Last.
Serious scholars would not believe that necessarily tells us who the
author of Isaiah 44:6 was referring to when he spoke of "the First and
[...] the Last".
Comment:-
You still appear not to have understood:-
You are speaking about a non-Christian. Does it matter to Christians what he
says?
Or does it even matter to the non-Christian?
It is obvious that this non-Christian has not understood what "the First and
the Last" refers to.
> To explain how my analogy is relevant to your statement about what "the
Prophet" said, note that the hypothetical Christian in my analogy
merely made an appeal to the assumptions of his faith when he spoke of
what "the Apostle John" said. So too, your statement about the Qur'an
and Muhammad was also nothing more than appeal to your own personal
dogmas.
Comment:-
You still do not understand!
Islam, or Real Religion (not one based on conditioning or mere verbal
acquiessence)
is about faith, perception, understanding, insight, inspiration, revelation
and not verbal specuation or arguments.
>> If these assertions of the Quran are not accepted then obviously
commentaries about the Quran are futile and irrelevant.
> Really Hamid, what kind of an argument is this? It seems to me, in
light of the Qur'anic passages your post put forth, you're hoping to
argue premises such as one (or more) of the following:
> (1) Soorat al-Ankaboot says that the Qur'an is a clear revelation, and
only wrong doers can deny that, so the arguments of anyone who
disagrees with this statement from Soorat al-Ankaboot are automatically
false.
> (2) Soorat al-Baqara says that those who disbelieve in the divine
authorship of the Qur'an are khaasiroon (losers), so the arguments of
anyone who disagrees with this statement from Soorat al-Baqara are
automatically false.
Comment:-
You still do not understand.
It is not an argument.
It is pointing to something that you can see, understand and accept or not.
> In other words, your tacit argument is along the lines of "the Qur'an
is the word of God because it says so, and anyone who doesn't accept
that can't possibly have anything useful to contribute regarding the
origins or intended meanings of any passage in the Qur'an."
Comment:-
I do not suppose that you will understand.
It is NOT an argument. It is NOT being argued that the Quran is the
Word of God because the Quran says so.
The Quran is simply stating a fact that you can perceive or not.
If I say: "I am looking at this computer." I am stating a fact and NOT
arguing
that you must accept it because I say so.
Is this so difficult to understand?
> Honestly, and I sincerely intend no disrespect by this statement, what
I am having difficulty understanding is how you ever thought the
arguments put forth in your post would persuade anyone other than those
who already presuppose that the Qur'an is the word of God and not
subject to any scrutiny.
Comment:-
I am not putting forth an argument. Repeat: I am not putting forth an
argument.
I am simply stating a fact which I hope some people with intelligence can
understand.
Repeat: Those who perceive the Quran to be true regard it as the Word of God
which by definition is Truth.
They are believers in the Quran and the Quran has relevance to them.
Those who do not perceive the Quran to be true, for them the Quran has no
relevance
and their opinions about it are irrelevant to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
To understand all this you need to change the way you see - it is like the
ambiguous
pictures in black and white of a vase. But change of attitude reveals two
faces in profile
facing each other. You can see one and not the other at the same time. Some
people cannot
see the other picture t all.
The difficulty arises because you, like most people, educated in the Western
style, tend to think in verbal terms, logical or not, whereas religious
literature written in the past are concerned with experiences, effects on
the psyche.
Hamid S. Aziz
christo...@onlinehome.de
Denis Giron wrote:
> ... The
> fact that such a hadith, with a date that is unknown to me (do you know
> the earliest record of this particular hadith?), exists does not tell
> us much about the origins of Soorat al-Ikhlas, or what its author
> intended by the word "as-samad".
Of course! And especially you cannot consider such later inventions as
a valid proof for how this mysterious "aS-Samad" might be understood.
This humbug of (if I recall correctly) Abdalla Alothman:
> > If these assertions of the Quran are not accepted then obviously
> > commentaries about the Quran are futile and irrelevant.
Denis Giron did not comment on. It is however quite clear, why I
pointed out the commentary of the famous AT-Tabarî on surah 112:2: It
evidently shows that these old commentators had no clue what "aS-Samad"
might mean.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
Altway wrote:
> The opinions of Dr Heger have no relevance to Muslims.
> Nor are have they any use for himself or for non-Muslims.
>
This is the general tenure of responses to Dr. Heger: to exclude him
from the discussion. Why would Dr. Heger's points have no relevance? I
am personally interested in hearing what Dr. Heger has to offer, as Dr.
Heger always exhibits scholarly acumen even if I share a different
conclusion.
The above is actually a popular position among Muslims. That is, only
Muslims have the right as well as the epistemic access to the Qur'an.
I want to say something in regards to this. As a consequence, I want to
briefly coin what I call the 'first-person perspective' and
'third-person perspective. The first-person perspective
(subjective-laden) is the position that only Muslims can *experience*
the Qur'an and assess its revelation. Its contrary, the
'third-person perspective' (objective-laden), claims that the
Qur'an possesses an objective-epistemic realm where believers and
non-believers can experience and evaluate its claims. I find the former
epistemically baffling. [Note: I borrow 'first-person' and
'third-person' from the philosopher of mind John Searle with slight
modification.]
For one thing, the position is untenable. If only Muslims can assess
the revelation of the Qur'an, then the Qur'an is locked in what
Richard Swinburne calls an intrinsic-plausibility hold where only
Muslims can evaluate it. Muslims will no doubt claim that the Qur'an
is evidentially warranted; e.g. there is evidence for Qur'anic
claims.
To admit a claim of evidence is to admit a claim of third-person
perspective - i.e. evaluation and the possibility of falsification.
However, to claim a first-person perspective is to throw out evaluation
and the falsification from the third-person perspective a priori. What
evidential integrity does the Qur'an possess then? How is the
Qur'an evident if only the believer can penetrate it?
What is needed is a neutral level of arbitration where the
'outsider' can have epistemic access to the Qur'an's ontology,
and that is exactly what Franz Rosenthal, Christoph Luxenberg, and Dr.
Heger are doing, evaluating Qur'anic claims.
Moving on...
A few years ago Dr. Heger made this remark:
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. ( http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/browse_frm/thread/2a5a4236e29a8e74?scoring=d&q=Shibli+Zaman+and+Christoph+Heger& )
Shibli Zaman did not understand what Dr. Heger meant here. What Dr.
Heger was alluding to was the textual hermeneutical circle. At times
hermeneutics is a 'circular' process that puts forward a
'what-if' challenge to alternative positions. This is not a virtue;
however it is not the lowest of the vices either. This maneuver is
practiced in science. It is not uncommon for scientists to construct
'what-if' hypotheses and experiments to get the ball rolling or
demarcate. We need 'guessing games' and hypotheses to corroborate
our data, and at times scientists go ahead and assume conclusions. I am
not trying to suggest that Qur'anic studies resembles philosophy of
science, but rather to implicate just what speculation can mean and the
significance speculation (false conclusions even!) can have on future
studies. Even if Dr. Heger's emendation turns out to be false, it
might further advance our understanding of the surah.
As Hans-Georg Gadamer would have it, we are hermeneutically removed
from the occasion of revelation of the Qur'an, and how the
Qur'an's claims causally affect us will be diverse no doubt. Franz
Rosenthal, convinced that 'al-samad' is of non-Arabic origin, will
concede that the foreignness of al-samad will have interpretative
consequences for Surat-al-Ikhlas. Uri Rubin, in harmony with Arne
Ambrose, will insist that al-samad can only hermeneutically make sense
in an Arabic medium regardless of its origin. Speculation is sometimes
necessary even if inconclusive. The diversity goes on and on. (Anyone
with knowledge of Tafsir tradition will immediately realize Muslim
commentators speculated if nothing else) We can either inhale what the
medieval commentators tell us about the Qur'an or we can pick up
where they left off and begin anew.
P.S.: The Semitic scholar Martin Zammit in his "A Comparative Lexical
Study of Qur'anic Arabic" (Leiden: Brill, 2002) on page 258 does
not find any cognate for the root s-m-d in any of the eight Semitic
languages he investigated. He deems 'al-samad' Arabic.
Best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
Altway
<christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote
>> fact that such a hadith, with a date that is unknown to me (do you know
the earliest record of this particular hadith?), exists does not tell
us much about the origins of Soorat al-Ikhlas, or what its author
intended by the word "as-samad".
Comment:-
I presume you mean the Hadith that states that Soorat al-Ikhlas is a third
of the Quran.
Even if you do not know the date of the earliest record of the Hadith, the
fact remains
that the idea it contains was well known. And we can all read the Quran and
see that
a large proportion of it deals with a description of Allah.
The Hadith also states that
'Allah (the) One, the Self-Sufficient Master Whom all creatures need.'
An examination of the descriptions of Allah in the Quran tell us the same
thing.
The origin of Soorat al-Ikhlas is the revelation, which is, of course, Heger
does not
accept or ignores. He uses his own speculation as the criterion.
I for one do not think much of self-appointed "scholars" who are unable to
understand
these things.
>> If these assertions of the Quran are not accepted then obviously
commentaries about the Quran are futile and irrelevant.
Comment:-
When something is composed to be read according to certain criteria
then if you do not use those criteria to read it, then common intelligence
tells us
that you cannot understand that composition because you have mistaken
or are ignorant of what it is.
We would laugh at a person as ridiculous who looks at a book on physics and
critices it supposing it to be a book on peotry, or if he comments on a book
of poetry
supposing it to be a book of science or economics.
> Denis Giron did not comment on. It is however quite clear, why I
pointed out the commentary of the famous AT-Tabarî on surah 112:2: It
evidently shows that these old commentators had no clue what "aS-Samad"
might mean.
Comment:-
At-Tabari was clearly telling us about the various points of view he had
come accross.
It is naive to think that they were necessarily mutually exclusive or that
those who held the views had "no clue" as to the meaning - they obviously
did
have an idea.
One could point to numerous words and phrases in any language and in
Christian doctrines
and see that different people have different views about them.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
news:E5ednQnOzcQ...@bt.com...
<snip> ...
> The opinions of Dr Heger have no relevance to Muslims.
> Nor are have they any use for himself or for non-Muslims.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
As an important backdrop to this thread and the on-going saga surrounding
the German and Middle Eastern connection with "The Luling and Luxenberg
Myths" controversy. I thought this acute observation, from none other than,
Josef van Ess, professor emeritus at the University of Tubingen (where he
has been Chairman of Islamic Studies and Semitic Languages for over thirty
years), might clarify the 'Syriac" preoccupation in this 'eisegesis' of the
Qur'an.
"This change, though was initiated not by theology but by historical and
political events, and in any case it has affected only Western thinking: if
one wishes to hear Islam and Judaism lumped together as diabolical forces,
one need only talk to Middle Eastern Christians." ["Muhammad and the Qur'an:
Prophecy and Revelation" by Professor Josef van Ess]
One might ask what is the altruistic purpose of reading into the Qur'an what
isn't there? Interpreting it by different rules than a consistent
understanding from the Qur'an, in and of itself? Using a presuppositions to
arrive at the meaning, by ignoring the Arabic language and culture as it was
used at that time and place?
--
Peace
--
Thinking is never an easy or congenial activity for the greater part of
mankind, it's discouraged. The intellectuals take refuge in the cocoons of
their specialisms, while the rest of the human larvae are bewildered by
perpetual motion. [M. V. C. Jeffreys]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
christo...@onlinehome.de
Though I am fairly short of time, I hate to appear impolite with regard
of Denis Giron's noble contribution.
> Abdalla Alothman wrote:
> >
> > Falling back on aTTabari is the wrong way to go. We will
> > insha-Allah explain why once Heger's work is complete and
> > published.
>
> Well, it is unfortunate that you did not attempt to give a reason. Why
> wait for Dr. Heger's next post? I imagine other posters (both Muslim
> and non-Muslim alike) would like to see what you have on this. I, for
> one, would like to know why at-Tabaree is the wrong source to consult
> when trying to gague how the earliest Qur'anic commentators understood
> the relevant word.
To object referring to AT-Tabarī, indeed, is baffling. AT-Tabarī has
the reputation as the ocean into which all previous Islamic endeavours
to understand and comment on the Koran had flown.
> > > http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/samad.htm
> >
> > Why did Heger refer to this link?
>
> Because it quotes the thoughts of Franz Rosenthal (a rather serious
> semiticist) regarding the meaning of samad.
Right! And I had said so.
> I too wish Dr. Heger would be more explicit with regard to his precise
> argument, but I have my doubts that it has a great deal in common with
> Shamoun's conclusions, as per the articled linked to above.
Right! With regard to "Samad" Shamoun was in no better position than
AT-Tabarī and the other commentators: no clue about its real meaning.
> Note that
> Shamoun argues that samad was a word of "pagan" origin, while Dr. Heger
> sees it as a word of Christian origin
Not exactly. I said to our knowledge it first occurred in Ugaritic
texts (long before Christ or Christianity).
> (i.e. Dr. Heger, if I am not mistaken,
> takes it to have originally meant God is bound together, in
> the way that the Trinitarian conception of God posits a single Deity
> comprised of three Persons)
Right!
> While I look forward to Dr. Heger's future contributions ...
Please be a bit patient. The papers by Christoph Luxenberg and Volker
Popp, who disclosed this etymology of "Samad", are to be pubished in
this or the next month.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Altway
"Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim" <derrick_a...@yahoo.com> wrote
> This is the general tenure of responses to Dr. Heger: to exclude him
from the discussion. Why would Dr. Heger's points have no relevance? I
am personally interested in hearing what Dr. Heger has to offer, as Dr.
Heger always exhibits scholarly acumen even if I share a different
conclusion.
Comment:-
I have explained why - he does not read the Quran according to the cretiria
by which it was composed.
We would laugh at a person as ridiculous who looks at a book on physics and
critices it supposing it to be a book on peotry, or if he comments on a book
of poetry
supposing it to be a book of science or economics.
You might be interested in his ideas because of linguistics
but we are discussing the Quran and Islam
which if it has no relevance to a person's life is futile.
> The first-person perspective (subjective-laden) is the position that only
> Muslims
can *experience* the Qur'an and assess its revelation.
> Its contrary, the 'third-person perspective' (objective-laden), claims
> that the
Qur'an possesses an objective-epistemic realm where believers and
non-believers can experience and evaluate its claims. I find the former
epistemically baffling. [Note: I borrow 'first-person' and
'third-person' from the philosopher of mind John Searle with slight
modification.]
Comment:-
Yes I note you want to apply the ideas of a Western Philosopher to the Quran
rather than use the criteria that the Quran itself lays down.
The Quran, as the Word of God, is certainly an objective work according to
the description of God as the ultimate Reality and creator of all other
things.
The Word of God refers to the creative force and that is defined as Truth..
But the perception of the Truth depends on the various capacities of people.
In particular we are warned against speculation and judgements according to
prejudices and desires and arrogance etc, the consequences of the Sin.
There is a big difference between applying ones own subjective prejudices
being receptive to the truth through surrender of one's ego and its
self-opinions.
The Messengers were sent down with Scriptures in order to provide the
criteria
by which we can distinguish between the two.
You must know all this if you read and understand the Quran.
But as you say, you are baffled.
> For one thing, the position is untenable. If only Muslims can assess
the revelation of the Qur'an, then the Qur'an is locked in what
Richard Swinburne calls an intrinsic-plausibility hold where only
Muslims can evaluate it. Muslims will no doubt claim that the Qur'an
is evidentially warranted; e.g. there is evidence for Qur'anic
claims.
Comment:-
There we go again. Swinburn has become the criterion of judgement
for understanding the Quran.
You have things wrong way round.
According to the Quran it is those who can perceive the truth in the Quran
who become Muslims.
The Quran is a revelation in the heart.....those who read it correctly
believe it.
On the other it also tells us that people might join the religion for all
kinds of
reason apart from faith, but these will only benefit by adhering to the
discipline.
> To admit a claim of evidence is to admit a claim of third-person
perspective - i.e. evaluation and the possibility of falsification.
However, to claim a first-person perspective is to throw out evaluation
and the falsification from the third-person perspective a priori. What
evidential integrity does the Qur'an possess then? How is the
Qur'an evident if only the believer can penetrate it?
Comment:-
We are NOT dealing in impersonal science, but with religion that has
relevance
to a person's life and development, to his perception, motives and action.
That is where the evidence lies.
The wrong criteria are being used to assess the Quran.
That is just what I am pointing out.
Please try to understand what I am saying - I know it is difficult:-
I am NOT arguing against people studying the Quran for other than
non-islamic reasons - people can do as they like.
(1) But those studies are irrelevant to Muslims - repeat: to Muslims
i.e those who have surrendered.
(2) The opinions arising from such studies have no religious significance to
non-Muslims either.
(3) As the Quran was sent as a healing and criterion, these other studies
are also irrelevant to the Quran.
> What is needed is a neutral level of arbitration where the
'outsider' can have epistemic access to the Qur'an's ontology,
and that is exactly what Franz Rosenthal, Christoph Luxenberg, and Dr.
Heger are doing, evaluating Qur'anic claims.
Comment:-
The opinion of these people is irrelevant for the above reasons.
> A few years ago Dr. Heger made this remark:
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.
Comment:-
Dr. Heger is wholly unaware of the fact that there is a difference between
an argument
and a statement of fact that points to something objective which a person is
required to see.
As I said he is unable to understand the Quran.
And Aristotle has much misleading people to answer for.
His Logic has been criticised by many people, even in the West.
For one thing it does not require to refer to anything as you can see from
the following:-
(1) Tala is a Gumbo (2) Gumbos are Pingles (3) Therefore, Tala is a Pingle.
For another, the inference cannot produce anything that is not already
contained
in the premises. Therefore, the assumptions that establish the premises
simply reappear
in the conclusion.
Thirdly, the axioms on which the arguments are based are instructions not
facts and
refer to a restricted set.
> We need 'guessing games' and hypotheses to corroborate
our data, and at times scientists go ahead and assume conclusions. I am
not trying to suggest that Qur'anic studies resembles philosophy of
science, but rather to implicate just what speculation can mean and the
significance speculation (false conclusions even!) can have on future
studies. Even if Dr. Heger's emendation turns out to be false, it
might further advance our understanding of the surah.
Comment:-
As the Quran says:
Speculation can by no means take the place of Truth.
As the Prophet said:
If you speculate and you are right, you are still wrong.
This is probably because if you use guesswork, then you can never be sure
that any of the alternative conclusion is true.
Apart from this what Dr Heger and company are doing can not be called
science.
He has ignored the very criteria on which the Quran is based.
> As Hans-Georg Gadamer would have it, we are hermeneutically removed
from the occasion of revelation of the Qur'an, and how the
Qur'an's claims causally affect us will be diverse no doubt. Franz
Rosenthal, convinced that 'al-samad' is of non-Arabic origin, will
concede that the foreignness of al-samad will have interpretative
consequences for Surat-al-Ikhlas. Uri Rubin, in harmony with Arne
Ambrose, will insist that al-samad can only hermeneutically make sense
in an Arabic medium regardless of its origin. Speculation is sometimes
necessary even if inconclusive. The diversity goes on and on. (Anyone
with knowledge of Tafsir tradition will immediately realize Muslim
commentators speculated if nothing else) We can either inhale what the
medieval commentators tell us about the Qur'an or we can pick up
where they left off and begin anew.
Comment:-
You can, of course, hold any opinion you like and regard these as your
authorities
on the Quran.
Whereas the non-arabic origins of words in the Quran might be of interest to
philologists
and others, Muslims as Muslims can only be interested in the way the words
are used in the Quran.
Whereas, I concede that other non-Quranic research could shed some light on
the meaning of Quranic ideas, if the ideas based on this lead to meanings
that contradict
the message in the rest of the Quran then they must be rejected, specially
when
the crititeria in the Quran are ignored.
That is my objection to Dr. Heger and the others.
> P.S.: The Semitic scholar Martin Zammit in his "A Comparative Lexical
Study of Qur'anic Arabic" (Leiden: Brill, 2002) on page 258 does
not find any cognate for the root s-m-d in any of the eight Semitic
languages he investigated. He deems 'al-samad' Arabic.
Comment:-
Whether or not there were any antecedents in other languages the Quran
insists that it is in Arabic and it is only the Arabic meaning Muslims are
interested in.
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
"Altway" <alt...@btinternet.com> wrote
>>> If these assertions of the Quran are not accepted then obviously
commentaries about the Quran are futile and irrelevant.
"Denis Giron" <denis...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Really Hamid, what kind of an argument is this? It seems to me, in
light of the Qur'anic passages your post put forth, you're hoping to
argue premises such as one (or more) of the following:.....
> You still do not understand.
It is not an argument.
It is pointing to something that you can see, understand and accept or not.
Additional Comment:-
The assertion of the Quran about itself that Denis failed to understand
imply that the Quran is composed on those criteria and can only be
understood
when those criteria are applied.
What would you say about a person who looks at a book on physics and
critices it supposing it to be a book on peotry.
Or if he reads a book of poetry and criticises it as a book of science or
economics.
Does this make it clearer?
Hamid S. Aziz
Abdalla Alothman
I thought you showed up with a nice advice to others: Never
underestimate your opponents. You should try to apply your
own advice.
You also kept asking us to "be patient." You should also
learn how to be patient yourself: Let us wait for what we
are asked to be patient about, and then you will get your
answers. Right now, it just appears to be that you are
excited and would like to know the fallacy of your colleagues.
> Please be a bit patient. The papers by Christoph Luxenberg and Volker
> Popp, who disclosed this etymology of "Samad", are to be pubished in
> this or the next month.
You too be patient. Once the work is published, and is available for
everybody to see, then you should expect some replies -- which seem
to be more exciting than correcting your maqaddimah. Of course that's
a hint: If you can't even read a word like muqaddimah, you are
certainly unfit to redefine words in the Arabic language, but that's
an old boring story.
Abdalla Alothman
Altway
"Altway" <alt...@btinternet.com> wrote
Re: >> We need 'guessing games' and hypotheses to corroborate
our data, and at times scientists go ahead and assume conclusions. I am
not trying to suggest that Qur'anic studies resembles philosophy of
science, but rather to implicate just what speculation can mean and the
significance speculation (false conclusions even!) can have on future
studies. Even if Dr. Heger's emendation turns out to be false, it
might further advance our understanding of the surah.
> Comment:-
As the Quran says: Speculation can by no means take the place of Truth.
As the Prophet said: > If you speculate and you are right, you are still
wrong.
This is probably because if you use guesswork, then you can never be sure
that any of the alternative conclusion is true.
Additional Comment:-
I am NOT saying that we should not seek alternative explanations and
meanings
but that these are not to be taken as Truth.
These have to be tested for relevance and consistency in the context to
which they refer.
We have to learn through study, meditation and application, throuh expansion
of awareness, conscience and will, and from people who are further along the
road of spiritual development.
The Quran tells us:-
"And follow (or pursue) not that of which you have no knowledge; verily, the
hearing, the sight, and the heart, of all of these it shall be asked (to
give an account). And walk not on the earth proudly (insolently); verily,
you can not rend the earth asunder, nor can you stretch to the height of the
mountains." 17:36-37
"Already have We urged unto hell many of the jinn and humankind, having
hearts wherewith they understand not, and having eyes wherewith they see
not, and having ears wherewith they hear not. These are as the cattle - nay,
but they are worse! These are the neglectful.". 7:179
Hamid S. Aziz
Abdalla Alothman
Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim wrote:
> Salaam Alaikum all...
wa'alaikum asalam waraHmatullah wabarakatuh.
> Altway wrote:
> > The opinions of Dr Heger have no relevance to Muslims.
> > Nor are have they any use for himself or for non-Muslims.
> >
>
> This is the general tenure of responses to Dr. Heger: to exclude him
> from the discussion.
Or criticize or simply evaluate his work. Nobody should have a
problem with that.
> Why would Dr. Heger's points have no relevance?
Because he throws heavy claims at a source written in a language
he has not yet mastered. The source he is attacking has shaped the
Arabic language. Anyone who wishes to throw heavy claims at such
a source should know how to read simply words like muqaddima. The
path Heger wishes to walk on is very delicate, if he cracks the
surface,
no observer should hesitate to interfere and push him off the path.
> The above is actually a popular position among Muslims. That is, only
> Muslims have the right as well as the epistemic access to the Qur'an.
This is not true.
First, any person who wishes to explain the Quran should require the
necessary skills highlighted by the principles that govern the sciences
of the Quran. Mastery (not just knowing what a 3rd grader knows) is
a primary requirement. So you what you say is in correct, because
not all Muslims possess such mastery. You can't be an engineer without
knowing how to integrate or differentiate and that's the whole story
that
explains Heger's weaknesses.
Secondly, what Heger is doing is that he is trying to relate certain
words
in the Quran, which are in Arabic, to other archaic languages like
Syriac
and Aramaic. We assume he has basic background in those two languages,
but to complete the task, he has to have a challenging background in
Arabic.
He simply doesn't have that. "Maqaddimah" is a good example for the
whole
world to see. Need more examples? Read the usenet archives.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
christo...@onlinehome.de
Abdalla Alothman wrote:
> Secondly, what Heger is doing is that he is trying to relate certain
> words in the Quran, which are in Arabic, to other archaic languages like
> Syriac and Aramaic.
By the way, Syriac is a variety of Aramaic, so as to say Christian
Aramaic,
Why are these apologets always insisting that the Koran is in "Arabic"?
Because "Allah" in the Koran says so? Then why does "Allah" speak
grammatically incorrect Arabic - incorrect according the standards of
Classical Arabic (Arabîya)?
The explanation is simple: The kind of Arabic which the Koran is
written in must not be mistaken for the later classical Arabic. It is
an Arabic which was highly influenced in lexicography and grammar by
Syriac, in those times the language which dominated the world east of
the Greek speaking world.
In his forthcoming second volume Luxenberg presents documental evidence
that the (nucleus of the) Koran must have been written in Syriac
letters, i.e. was a Karshuni script: "Arabic" written in Syriac
letters. Some misreadings leave no other explanation than one Syriac
letter having been mistaken for another in the process of transcribing
the letters into Arabic letters.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
M. S. M. Saifullah
> The explanation is simple: The kind of Arabic which the Koran is
> written in must not be mistaken for the later classical Arabic. It is
> an Arabic which was highly influenced in lexicography and grammar by
> Syriac, in those times the language which dominated the world east of
> the Greek speaking world.
We all know that an explanation is not a proof. The influence of Syriac
on Arabic is quite exaggerated. The origins of the Arabic script is
from the Nabataean script. There is a certain unanimity about this
fact. As for the origin of dots in the Arabic language, Healey says
that they most likely came from Nabataean. There is an evidence for
this from an inscription in Sakaka.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/sakaka.html
As for lexicography, Hunain b. Ishaq [d. 873 CE] composed the first
proper Syriac dictionary based on the alphabetical order. He laid the
foundations of the Syriac lexicography. Isho` Bar `Ali, Hunain's pupil,
wrote a new dictionary based on it and is available in print. In it,
Syriac words are followed by *Arabic* equivalents or definitions. As
for Luxenberg, his hypothesis is based on an assumption that the
Aramaeans were well advanced in their lexicography while the Arabs had
a difficult time in understanding their own language, especially the
Qur'an. We know that this is not true. The first Syriac dictionary
appeared well after the advent of the first Arabic dictionary of
al-Khalil b. Ahmed (i.e., Kitab al-`Ayn) among others. By the time
Hunain composed his first dictionary, there was already intense
lexicographical activity among the Arabs. We find that both Isho` Bar
`Ali and Bar Bahlul make use of Arabic extensively to explain the words
in Syriac. All this suggests that by the time Hunain b. Ishaq arrived,
Arabic lexicography was already well-developed and far more
sophisticated than the Syriac lexicography. It is surprising that
Luxenberg uses the lexicons of Payne Smith and Brockelmann, which are
primarily based on the lexicons of `Isho Bar `Ali and Bar Bahlul, the
latter two compiled more than 250 years after the advent of Islam and
about 100 years after the production of first Arabic lexicon, to show
the alleged Syro-Aramaic reading of the Qur'an.
> In his forthcoming second volume Luxenberg presents documental evidence
> that the (nucleus of the) Koran must have been written in Syriac
> letters, i.e. was a Karshuni script: "Arabic" written in Syriac
> letters. Some misreadings leave no other explanation than one Syriac
> letter having been mistaken for another in the process of transcribing
> the letters into Arabic letters.
I always like to see documented evidence. As far as I am aware there
are no inscriptions, papyri or Qur'anic texts discovered in the
Karshuni script from the first century of hijra. On the other hand,
there is substantial evidence of Qur'an written in Arabic script in
manuscripts, inscriptions and coins in the first century of hijra. How
about the application of the Occam's razor?
This then brings us to the issue of Karshuni and its usage. As far as I
am aware its origins are tied with the spread of Islam. When Arabic
became the dominant language of the Middle East, the Syriac
Christianity started the use of Karshuni for liturgy and religious
texts. In any case, we will find out soon the "documental" evidence of
Luxenberg.
Regards
Saifullah
Altway
<christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote
> Why are these apologets always insisting that the Koran is in "Arabic"?
Because "Allah" in the Koran says so? Then why does "Allah" speak
grammatically incorrect Arabic - incorrect according the standards of
Classical Arabic (Arabîya)?
Comment:-
Heger seems to be incapable of understanding that if the Quran tells us that
it is in
Arabic then that is because it is written in Arabic and cannot be understood
if it is read as if it was written in a different language.
As I understand it present Arabic has departed somewhat from the Arabic of
the Quran.
If Heger thinks it is incorrect Arabic then it is his understanding of
Arabic
that most likely at fault.
> The explanation is simple: The kind of Arabic which the Koran is
written in must not be mistaken for the later classical Arabic.
Comment:-
That is pure speculation, guesswork.
> In his forthcoming second volume Luxenberg presents documental evidence
that the (nucleus of the) Koran must have been written in Syriac
letters, i.e. was a Karshuni script: "Arabic" written in Syriac
letters.
Comment:-
Luxenberg is a speculator with inappropriate false assumptions like you
and has already been discreditted.
It is doubtful that he will repent of his errors.
Hamid S. Aziz
christo...@onlinehome.de
Concerning my remark:
> > The explanation is simple: The kind of Arabic which the Koran is
> > written in must not be mistaken for the later classical Arabic. It is
> > an Arabic which was highly influenced in lexicography and grammar by
> > Syriac, in those times the language which dominated the world east of
> > the Greek speaking world.
M. S. M. Saifullah commented:
> The influence of Syriac on Arabic is quite exaggerated.
No, you hardly can exaggerate this influence.
> The origins of the Arabic script is from the Nabataean script.
> There is a certain unanimity about this fact.
First, the Nabataean language was a variety of Syriac (= Christian
Aramaic). Second, there is no unanimity about the Arabic script simply
being derived from the Nabataean script.
> As for lexicography,..
The matter is not lexicography, but language and script. And the
priority of Aramaic as a language of cultural dominance is not to
doubted.
> > In his forthcoming second volume Luxenberg presents documental evidence
> > that the (nucleus of the) Koran must have been written in Syriac
> > letters, i.e. was a Karshuni script: "Arabic" written in Syriac
> > letters. Some misreadings leave no other explanation than one Syriac
> > letter having been mistaken for another in the process of transcribing
> > the letters into Arabic letters.I always like to see documented evidence.
> As far as I am aware there are no inscriptions, papyri or Qur'anic texts
> discovered in the Karshuni script from the first century of hijra.
Simply await the forthcoming volume!
> On the other hand, there is substantial evidence of Qur'an written in Arabic
> script in manuscripts, inscriptions and coins in the first century of hijra.
That's a banality.
> How about the application of the Occam's razor?
Occam's razor is fine. You have to allow for the apparent grammatical
mistakes, the nonexisting Arabic words, the incomprensible passages,
the distorted rhymes etc. in the Koran. It leads you to the notion that
the Arabic of the Koran is not the Classical Arabic ("Arabîya") of
later grammarians, but a language highly influenced by the Syriac
language and that its script (at least partly) is a transcript from an
originally Syriac script.
With regard to the inscriptions and coins M. S. M. Saifullah duly
referred to: I realized with pleasure that on his website
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/hammat.html
he presented the Greek Inscription from the time of Caliph Mu‘āwiya
recording the restoration of the baths of Hammat Gader. But why on
earth doesn't he realize or pretends not to realize some striking
un-Islamic features, especially that the inscription starts with a
cross!?
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Abdalla Alothman
christo...@onlinehome.de wrote:
> Why are these apologets always insisting that the Koran is in "Arabic"?
> Because "Allah" in the Koran says so? Then why does "Allah" speak
> grammatically incorrect Arabic - incorrect according the standards of
> Classical Arabic (Arabîya)?
Your evaluation of the grammar of the Quran is void simply because
you can't even read Arabic properly. You read "muqaddimah" as
"maqaddimah" if you need us to refresh your memory. Therefore,
you might want to save your comments to yourself and avoid
unnecessary embarrassment.
> The explanation is simple: The kind of Arabic which the Koran is
> written in must not be mistaken for the later classical Arabic. It is
> an Arabic which was highly influenced in lexicography and grammar by
> Syriac, in those times the language which dominated the world east of
> the Greek speaking world.
You have no proof whether Syriac influenced Arabic or vice versa.
> In his forthcoming second volume Luxenberg presents documental evidence
> that the (nucleus of the) Koran must have been written in Syriac
> letters, i.e. was a Karshuni script: "Arabic" written in Syriac
> letters.
The problem is that the Quran is a qur-aan. It's not originally a
written
document; it's a qur-aan, doc, it's not a kutban. Did your friend miss
that point before indulging in his "research?"
> Some misreadings leave no other explanation than one Syriac
> letter having been mistaken for another in the process of transcribing
> the letters into Arabic letters.
The Quran was not spread by writing, it was spread orally. My
grandmother, for example knew all the Quran letter by letter, but
she didn't know how to read or write. In contrast, you have to know
how to read the Bible cover to cover in order to say: "I know every
letter in every chapter in the Bible."
You assume that people learned the Quran based on what has been
written, but we have solid proofs and examples through this day that
Muslims learn the Quran without knowing how to read or write. Which
means many people learned the Quran without seeing how the text
looks like. And that means that your friend's theories are wrong.
Abdalla Alothman
M. S. M. Saifullah
<derrick_abdulha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Salaam Alaikum all...
Walaikumus-salaam wa rahamatullah:
> P.S.: The Semitic scholar Martin Zammit in his "A Comparative Lexical
> Study of Qur'anic Arabic" (Leiden: Brill, 2002) on page 258 does
> not find any cognate for the root s-m-d in any of the eight Semitic
> languages he investigated. He deems 'al-samad' Arabic.
Yes, this is true. Recently, someone whom I know from the UK also made
a similar point concerning al-Samad. And look at how much ink was
spilled on it by Jeffery and other on this issue! In a conference held
at SOAS, London, last year(?), where I was there, Walid Saleh pointed
out a lot of problems in liberally using one semitic language to
understand the other. His case study was that of "furqan" as being
allegedly of Syriac origins.
Wassalam
Saifullah
M. S. M. Saifullah
> > As for lexicography,..The matter is not lexicography, but language and script. And the
> priority of Aramaic as a language of cultural dominance is not to
> doubted.
Well, Aramaic has its own branches. Nabataean, Syriac, Mandaic,
Palmyrenean, etc. These different languages dominated different areas
in different times. Which language and what time period are to talking
about the "language of cultural dominance"?
> > On the other hand, there is substantial evidence of Qur'an written in Arabic
> > script in manuscripts, inscriptions and coins in the first century of hijra.
> That's a banality.
Sure, it is common place. Now much more than being a banality is the
fact that there are at least three hijazi manuscripts which are
tentatively dated to first half of the first century of hijra.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/yem1e.html
As for the other you can see them at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/
Now the Prophet, SAW, died in 10 AH. In about 40 years or less we have
the appearance the Qur'anic mss in archaic hijazi script. So, the
time-frame for the Syro-Aramaic claim concerning the Qur'an is pretty
small.
> > How about the application of the Occam's razor?Occam's razor is fine. You have to allow for the apparent grammatical
> mistakes, the nonexisting Arabic words, the incomprensible passages,
> the distorted rhymes etc. in the Koran. It leads you to the notion that
> the Arabic of the Koran is not the Classical Arabic ("Arabîya") of
> later grammarians, but a language highly influenced by the Syriac
> language and that its script (at least partly) is a transcript from an
> originally Syriac script.
We have heard of this nonsense umpteen times from you. What we want is
the evidence in the form of a manuscript, or an inscription, or a
papyri or a coin to back up the Syro-Aramaic origins of the Qur'an. So
far, you have only shown that you are good at making extravagant
claims. As for the "partly" Syriac origins of the Arabic script, this
has been refuted by scholars, if you will care to read:
"The development of the Nabataean script in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th
centuries A.D. is usually seen as a progression from form derived from
earlier Aramaic towards forms out of which the early (western cursive)
Arabic script developed, though we should note the view of J. Starcky,
based partly on the observation that Nabataean script, unlike the
Syriac and Arabic scripts, is essentially suspended from an upper line,
that the origin of the Arabic script is to be sought in a Lahmid form
of the Syriac script. This view has met with little support. The
Nabataean origin of the Arabic script is now almost universally
accepted."
J. F. Healey, "Nabataean To Arabic: Calligraphy And Script Development
Among The Pre-Islamic Arabs", Manuscripts Of The Middle East,
1990-1991, Volume V, p. 44
Elsewhere he says:
"It would seem, in fact, that there is a fairly even split in the
Arabic inventory of letters: eleven of the Arabic letters would be
either of Nabataean or Syriac origin, while ten are much more plausibly
related to Nabataean and are hard to explain from Syriac, formal or
cursive. It may be also noted that none of the Arabic letters is
impossible to explain from Nabataean."
J. F. Healey, "The Early History Of The Syriac Script: A Reassessment",
Journal Of Semitic Studies, 2000, Volume XLV, No. 1, p. 65.
Furthermore, one can also argue by studying the linguistic map of the
Middle East during the advent of Islam that the Arabic was far more
widespread as evidenced by inscriptions than the Syriac which was
confined to the areas of Turkey, northern Syria and northern Iraq.
Syriac inscriptions does not even figure out in the Arabian peninsula!
The window of the claim of Syro-Aramaic origins of the Qur'an gets even
narrower.
> With regard to the inscriptions and coins M. S. M. Saifullah duly
> referred to: I realized with pleasure that on his websitehttp://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/hammat.html
> he presented the Greek Inscription from the time of Caliph Mu‘āwiya
> recording the restoration of the baths of Hammat Gader. But why on
> earth doesn't he realize or pretends not to realize some striking
> un-Islamic features, especially that the inscription starts with a
> cross!?
Perhaps you do not realize or pretend not to realize that the
inscription was most likely written by a Christian! Therefore, the
presence of cross. In fact, there exist two Coptic texts on behalf of
`Amr b. al-`As written by certain Philotheos, a village elder, which
consists of crosses. Diverging a bit, if we look at the coins in the
first century AH, especially the Arab-Sassanian type, they sport the
bust of Khusraw on the obverse side and the fire-altar with attendants
on the reverse side. This is clearly the Zoroastrian symbolism. The
point is simply this. After the Muslims defeated the armies of
Byzantine and Sassanian empires, there came the need to administer the
conquered territories. The early Muslim from Arabia did not have a
sophisticated system like that of the two defeated empires. So, the
best recourse for them was to maintain the existing administrative
systems just like other conquerers before and after them did. However,
the early Muslims inherited two different administrative systems from
the conquered two empires. The Muslims used the existing monetary
systems of their Sassanian and the Byzantine predecessors and
consequently the presence of Zoroastrian and Christian symbolism. It
was only during the time of Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik radical
aniconic changes happened in the administration as well as coinage.
This stuff is to well-known in the Western literature that Heger is
trying to make a big issue out of it.
May I also suggest that you read some new research which has appeared
recently by Jeremy Johns (‘Archaeology and the history of early
Islam’, JESHO 46, 2003) and Robert Hoyland ("New documentary texts
and the early Islamic state", BSOAS 69, 2006), especially the latter,
which convincing refutes the proposed scenarios which are based on the
absence of evidence, including the one by Luxenberg.
Regards
Saifullah
christo...@onlinehome.de
On 26 Jan., 00:09, "M. S. M. Saifullah" <msm.saiful...@gmail.com>
repeated a quote first given by "Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim"
<derrick_abdulha...@yahoo.com>
> > ... The Semitic scholar Martin Zammit in his "A Comparative Lexical
> > Study of Qur'anic Arabic" (Leiden: Brill, 2002) on page 258 does
> > not find any cognate for the root s-m-d in any of the eight Semitic
> > languages he investigated. He deems 'al-samad' Arabic.
> Yes, this is true.
It may be true that Martin Zammit actually didn't find any cognate of
S-m-d in any of the eight languages he investigated. Which, however,
languages did he investigate?
At least he seems not to have been aware of Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic
Manual, p. 316, Nos. 1630-32, where it is documented that the root
"S-m-d" was used to express the binding of grape-vines, the harnessing
of horses and similar acts.
> Recently, someone whom I know from the UK also made
> a similar point concerning al-Samad. And look at how much ink was
> spilled on it by Jeffery and other on this issue!
So look how meritorious it is that Volker Popp and Christoph Luxenberg
eventually were able to solve this riddle.
> In a conference held at SOAS, London, last year(?), where I was there,
> Walid Saleh pointed out a lot of problems in liberally using one semitic
> language to understand the other.
Semitic scholarship is not at its beginning with Walid Saleh's
warnings, but a good way beyond him. His contribution at the convention
which took place in the "Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin" on January, 21
- 25 2004 (and which originally was planned by its organizer, Angelika
Neuwirth, as kind of "execution" of Luxenberg), at least, was not
successful in convincing the participants of the appropriateness of
this "execution" of Luxenberg.
> His case study was that of "furqan" as being allegedly of Syriac origins.
If I remember correctly, some gentle person gave me the script, I have
to look after it once more. The Syriac origin of "furqân", however,
cannot be doubted (cf. http://www.christoph-heger.de/sura25_1.html).
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
christo...@onlinehome.de
On 26 Jan., 00:19, "M. S. M. Saifullah" <msm.saiful...@gmail.com>
addressed a goodly number of items.
> Now much more than being a banality is the
> fact that there are at least three hijazi manuscripts which are
> tentatively dated to first half of the first century of hijra.
I am not going into the laborious details, only this: This dating is
indeed very, very "tentative", it cannot be uphold seriously.
> Now the Prophet, SAW, died in 10 AH. In about 40 years or less we have
> the appearance the Qur'anic mss in archaic hijazi script. So, the
> time-frame for the Syro-Aramaic claim concerning the Qur'an is pretty
> small.
Not at all! To the one end of the time-scale you have at least a
century, in which diacritical points, vowelling signs, hamzas, alifs
etc. had to be introduced in the Koran orthography - "orthographic
reforms" which gave ample opportunity to alter the text and even the
meaning of the text. And to the other end of the time-scale: It is
rather naive to believe that no Koran or Ur-Koran was in existence
before any prophet in far-flung Mecca appeared.
Towards my challenge
> > You have to allow for the apparent grammatical
> > mistakes, the nonexisting Arabic words, the incomprensible passages,
> > the distorted rhymes etc. in the Koran. It leads you to the notion that
> > the Arabic of the Koran is not the Classical Arabic ("Arabîya") of
> > later grammarians, but a language highly influenced by the Syriac
> > language and that its script (at least partly) is a transcript from an
> > originally Syriac script.
Saifullah had only this pearl of an argument:
> We have heard of this nonsense umpteen times from you. What we want is
> the evidence in the form of a manuscript, or an inscription, or a
> papyri or a coin to back up the Syro-Aramaic origins of the Qur'an.
Some years ago, I already had pointed out such an evidence in this
newsgroup. Saifullah only was not aware of it. And now I am not
feeling like anticipating Luxenberg's forthcoming book.
> ... As for the "partly" Syriac origins of the Arabic script, this
> has been refuted by scholars, if you will care to read:
Even the quotes given by Saifullah admit at least a partial or
indirect Syriac origin of the Arabic script. The scholarly discussion
has not been come to an end, yet. I may draw your attention for
instance to the paper by the renowned Italian orientalist Sergio Noja
Noseda "From Syriac to Pahlavi: The Contribution of the Sassanian Iraq
to the Beginning of Arabic Writing" in: Karl-Heinz Ohlig, Gerd-Rüdiger
Puin, Die dunklen Anfänge. Neue Forschungen zur Entstehung und frühen
Geschichte des Islam [= The Obscure Beginning. New Research on the
Origin and Early History of Islam], Berlin (Verlag Hans Schiler) 2005
(ISBN 3-89930-128-5), pp. 266-292.
> Furthermore, one can also argue by studying the linguistic map of the
> Middle East during the advent of Islam that the Arabic was far more
> widespread as evidenced by inscriptions than the Syriac which was
> confined to the areas of Turkey, northern Syria and northern Iraq.
That's simply nonsense. Syriac is the Christian species of Aramaic,
the latter having been for centuries the officialese of the Persian
and Sassanian empire, the language of Jewish and Christian scholarship
(the latter so far as it was not Greek), the vernacular of the people
from the Sinai to East Mesopotamia and even in the East of Iran the
language of the deported Syriac people there, a language with a rich
literature, especially a religious one - in short the dominant
language east of the Greek speaking world.
> Syriac inscriptions does not even figure out in the Arabian peninsula!
Strange! Doesn't Ibn Hashim's biography of Muhammad (the sîratu l-
nabî) report that the Meccans found in the Kaaba an inscription in the
Syriac language (script) which they were unable to read? It is only
the very Islamic Saudi government which prohibits us to find more of
these evidences, they even use to destroy archaeological evidence, as
they did with the surrounding and the subsoil of the place of the
Kaaba.
So I may repeat: You hardly can overestimate the influence of Syriac
language, script and literature on nascent Classical Arabic
(`arabîya).
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
http://www.christoph-heger.de/Islamic_Matters.htm
M. S. M. Saifullah
> > Yes, this is true.It may be true that Martin Zammit actually didn't find any cognate of
> S-m-d in any of the eight languages he investigated. Which, however,
> languages did he investigate?
>
> At least he seems not to have been aware of Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic
> Manual, p. 316, Nos. 1630-32, where it is documented that the root
> "S-m-d" was used to express the binding of grape-vines, the harnessing
> of horses and similar acts.
Martin Zammit has consulted Akkadian (Assyrian), Arabic, Aramaic,
Epigraphic South Arabian (Sabaic, Qatabanic, etc.), Ge`ez, Hebrew,
Phoenician, Syriac and Ugaritic dictionaries. A complete listing of
the books referred to are in pp. 8-9 of Zammit's book. Not
surprisingly, Cyrus Gordon's well-known "Ugaritic Textbook" is also
included. I do not have the relevant pages with me but it will be
interesting to see what Zammit has to say about "Samad".
> > Recently, someone whom I know from the UK also made
> > a similar point concerning al-Samad. And look at how much ink was
> > spilled on it by Jeffery and other on this issue!So look how meritorious it is that Volker Popp and Christoph Luxenberg
> eventually were able to solve this riddle.
Singing praises is not going to help. What we want is hard evidence
for Syro-Aramaic origins of the Qur'an in the form of manuscripts,
papyri, inscriptions, coins or whatever. When you think you have
something to show, I will be very happy to discuss your material.
Regards
Saifullah
Altway
> To the one end of the time-scale you have at least a
century, in which diacritical points, vowelling signs, hamzas, alifs
etc. had to be introduced in the Koran orthography - "orthographic
reforms" which gave ample opportunity to alter the text and even the
meaning of the text.
Comment:-
We are aware that these changes were made to the written text and that there
are some variations in the text and recitations.
The Problem is that there is a difference in attitude between Western
non-Muslim scholars and Muslims. You keep trying to get your criticisms of
the Quran accross to us and we reject these. We keep telling you our point
of view and you are unable to understand it.
But let me try to explain once more:-
There are possibly 7 levels in the understanding of the Quran:-
(1) There is the level of interpretation. We are perfectly aware that
different people interpret and understand the Quran differently according to
their various capacities, insights, motives and efforts to study and
understand. These interpretations are not the Quran, but human opinions. The
translations of the Quran are also interpretations. So are your speculations
and those of other scholars.
But interpretations have levels. They may be mere conditioned reflexes to
sounds, or sentimental attachments to dogmas, or they may be intellectual
interests in the form of words, or in the concepts, or in the ideas and
their philosophical implication, or in their scientific validity, or in
their social function, or in their psychological function. Or the interest
might be much deeper, in the application to ones own behaviour, life and
being.
(2) These individual interpretations are embedded in a whole tradition
current withiin communities. In Muslim communities this consists of the
Hadith and the writings of various saints and muslim commentators, the oral
transmissions and various established practices. These traditions vary
within different communities and sects. Western scholars have their own
traditions of scholarship that are continuous with scholarship of the Bible,
other scriptures as well as other kinds of literature.
(3) These interpretations presuppose that there is a written book. As
already pointed out this has been modified and there are some variations.
But the book is only a record and a medium or gateway through which one
passes to reach the meaning, significance and value of the Quran.
(4) Before being recorded in written form, the Quran was a recitation. This
implies that the sounds, rhythms and intonations as well as the meaning of
words have significance and affects on the understanding. It is this rather
than the form of the words that is to be conveyed.
(5) Before that the Quran was a revelation. It was not an action, a
composition by the mind of the Prophet (saw) but a perception which required
receptivity. The Quran is to be understood as such, and to be understood it
requires revelation in the heart. That is, the recipient must be in a state
of receptivity to perceive rather than be actively thinking and inventing
according to his own presuppositions. At this level, the Quran is not
something that is known superficially in a purely intellectual manner but to
be understood deeply in one's being.
"Nay, but it is a clear revelation in the heart of those who are endowed
with knowledge." 29:49
(6) Revelation implies that there was something to be revealed and
perceived. The Quran tells us that it is a reminder to creation. Before
being a revelation it was "inscribed in a Preserved Tablet" 85:21-22. That
is, it is part of the fabric of the created world, belonging, as it were, to
the blue print on which the Universe is built. This can be understood also
as implying that its entry into the world was inevitable when the times were
ripe. At this level the reality of the Quran is realised.
(7) It is the Word of God, the creator of the Universe and as such it is
part of the Universal Creative force by which all things arise and give them
purpose. It is, therefore, prior to Creation. At this level the Quran is
incorporated in the life of the person and he is then in a state of
Surrender (Islam).
The understanding of the seeker of Truth is required to ascend this ladder.
I do not suppose that you recognise such a ladder. You seem to be skimming
on the surface horizontally rather than exploring the depth. We see that you
do not believe it to be a revelation and, therefore, are not dealing with
anything that Muslims recognise as the Quran and your opinions have no
relevance even to you. What good do they do you?
You and your like, misread it, reading it in a language other than in which
the Quran was composed and, therefore, you interpret some of its verses in
contradiction to others and to the whole gist of the Quran.
There is nothing scholarly about this.
Obviously, like others on this site, you have an anti-Islamic agenda and
this guides your selection of facts and their interpretation. You cannot
possibly expect Muslims to have any respect for such activities.
Hamid S. Aziz
christo...@onlinehome.de
On 30 Jan., 03:39, "Altway" <alt...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> You and your like, misread it, reading it in a language other than in which
> the Quran was composed
It's just the other way around: The Islamic apologets always are
reading the Koran as if it were composed in the - later standardized -
Classical Arabic (`arabiyya), whereas it is composed in kind of
vernacular Arabic which was highly influenced by the Syriac language.
> and, therefore, you interpret some of its verses in
> contradiction to others and to the whole gist of the Quran.
It's again the other way around: Because they misread the text of the
Koran, they have to deal with "dark" passages, "strange" words (which
they only "understand" by guesswork, like in the case of "aS-Samad"!)
etc. What they read in the Koran is not the Koran itself, but its
(mis-)interpretation by later Koran commentators.
> Obviously, like others on this site, you have an anti-Islamic agenda
Speculations about my evil intentions are no argument. They don't save
you the trouble of dealing with linguistic arguments as such.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
Saiffullah states:
In a conference held
> at SOAS, London, last year(?), where I was there, Walid Saleh pointed
> out a lot of problems in liberally using one semitic language to
> understand the other. His case study was that of "furqan" as being
> allegedly of Syriac origins.
Yes, as far as my knowledge goes he is working on publishing his
paper.
Much attention has been paid to the language of the Qur'an. The
emphasis is, I should point out, outdated and pointless. Medieval
theologians debated the possibility of foreign origin of some Qur'anic
terms centuries ago. On the flip side, one of the gems of Dr. Saleh's
paper is that he forces the debate over Luxenberg's theories where he
wants it to go: not on the language of the Qur'an, but on Qur'anic
content. He does this by pointing out that the Qur'anic word for
'youths' (wildan) only *makes sense* in an Arabic medium. Thus, he
turns Luxenberg's 'makes-sense' point back on him. The maneuver is
important, for it raises the bar against Luxenberg. The interesting
bit is how Luxenberg will respond to Dr. Saleh's argument. My guess is
he will show how Arabic originates from Syriac. We shall see in due
time.
As for 'furqan', I have heard that it is of Syriac origin. Professor
Gabriel Said Reynolds (of Notre Dame) confirmed this for me in a phone
discussion I had with him last year. However, Dr. Saleh's point
continues to ring hard: even if furqan is of Syriac origin, what is
important is the function it plays in the Qur'an. For more on this,
Fred M. Donner is releasing a paper this year (hopefully in the next
Journal of Semitic Studies issue) on furqan in the Qur'an.
Also, I noticed that Saifullah referenced Robert Hoyland's stimulating
paper. I also would like to point out another paper he has centering
on the discussion. Look here: 'Language and Identity: the twin
histories of Arabic and Aramaic', Scripta Israelica Classica 23
(2003). A good read.
Lastly, Uri Rubin was nice enough to put some of his papers online
here: http://www.urirubin.com/Articles.html
Best wishes
Derrick Mohammad Abdul-Hakim
Abdalla Alothman
Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim wrote:
> Salaam Alaikum all...
wa 'alaikum asalam waraHmatullah.
> [...] However, Dr. Saleh's point
> continues to ring hard: even if furqan is of Syriac origin, what is
> important is the function it plays in the Qur'an.
That was our strategy against Heger. But that was in 1999
(i.e., long time ago):
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/browse_frm/thread/88ab212ddef0a4b0
See article #5:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/c72bd677dd99c28c
Heger's reply (to the sender of this message) was indeed very
interesting.
Wishing you and your family peace and good health.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
Abdalla Alothman
christo...@onlinehome.de wrote:
>
> It's just the other way around: The Islamic apologets always are
> reading the Koran as if it were composed in the - later standardized -
> Classical Arabic (`arabiyya), whereas it is composed in kind of
> vernacular Arabic which was highly influenced by the Syriac language.
Because you said so?
What you say is not true. The seven facets (letters) mentioned in
the hadeeth were collected by abu bakr (r), and at the late
compilation
stage made by 'uthman, the official muS-Haf was completed. After
the 'uthman's work, the readings blossomed from that muS-Haff.
Next Commercial:
**** Learn the Quran from Dr. Maqaddimah ****
> It's again the other way around: Because they misread the text of the
> Koran,
With discounts...
Do you really believe that someone who cannot read simple words
like muqaddima is reliable enough to comment on Arabic words or
the Quran? How can you tell if they misread the text of the Quran,
when you yourself cannot read simple words correctly? Where is
your logic, Dr. Maqaddimah?
> they have to deal with "dark" passages, "strange" words (which
> they only "understand" by guesswork, like in the case of "aS-Samad"!)
You have no proof for that. I assume you are on your way to
post something on this issue. What happened? You are the
one who is coming up with the guesswork.
Abdalla Alothman
Altway
<christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote
> It's just the other way around: The Islamic apologets always are
reading the Koran as if it were composed in the - later standardized -
Classical Arabic (`arabiyya), whereas it is composed in kind of
vernacular Arabic which was highly influenced by the Syriac language.
Comment:-
Yes, I did not think you would comprehend.
You are merely confirming what I wrote. Your point of view, attitude,
assumptions and motives are different from that of Muslims.
Arabic has been preserved to a large extent by the existence of the Quran
and there are many commentaries on the Quran from the past.
> It's again the other way around: Because they misread the text of the
Koran, they have to deal with "dark" passages, "strange" words (which
they only "understand" by guesswork, like in the case of "aS-Samad"!)
etc. What they read in the Koran is not the Koran itself, but its
(mis-)interpretation by later Koran commentators.
Comment:-
According to the Prophet (saw) who should know the verses of the Quran have
an oter and inner meaning
and there are 7 approved modes of reciting.
We know that the Quran has depths of meaning and that different people
interpret and understand it differently according to their various
capacities, motives
and the efforts they make. This includes you.
>> Obviously, like others on this site, you have an anti-Islamic agenda
> Speculations about my evil intentions are no argument. They don't save
you the trouble of dealing with linguistic arguments as such.
Comment:-
Not necessarily evil, but erroneous.
I do not believe that actions, motives and thoughts are independent of each
other.
At least not in people who are not completely schizophrenic.
Though it is true that people are schizophrenic to various degrees (as
confirmed by Quran 39:29) the purpose of Islam is to heal this condition, to
facilitate integration.
>From the Islamic point of view the motives and actions must be correct in
order to reach the truth
and we must know truth to have correct motives and behaviour.
I, and no doubt others, were able to discern your motives from the fact
that wanted to see those Christian doctrines in the Quran that contradict
the gist of the Quran and even the New Testament.
However, enough of this controversy, the fact remains that many of us do not
see the Quran the way you see it - what you see is not the Quran
but your own fantasies about it.
Hamid S. Aziz
christo...@onlinehome.de
On 31 Jan., 08:44, "Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim"
<derrick_abdulha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Salaam Alaikum all...
wa-s-salâm!
> Much attention has been paid to the language of the Qur'an. The
> emphasis is, I should point out, outdated and pointless.
No, I don't think so. As Gerd-Rüdiger Puin said, the Koran is to at
least a fifth not really comprehensible as a text in (the later
standardized) "Classical Arabic" or "`arabiyya". The "understanding",
how these passages are usually understood, was impressed on them by
some later commentators in the way of violating the grammar and
lexicography of this Classical Arabic. Therefore the elucidation of
the question of what is the language of the Koran is pivotal.
> Medieval theologians debated the possibility of foreign origin of some Qur'anic
> terms centuries ago.
Right! The more astonishing that contemporary Muslims usually insist
on the "purity" of the Koran's Arabic as if it were a tenet of their
faith!
> On the flip side, one of the gems of Dr. Saleh's paper is
> that he forces the debate over Luxenberg's theories where he
> wants it to go: not on the language of the Qur'an, but on Qur'anic
> content.
You cannot really separate the question of the Koran's content from
the question of its language.
> He does this by pointing out that the Qur'anic word for
> 'youths' (wildan) only *makes sense* in an Arabic medium. Thus, he
> turns Luxenberg's 'makes-sense' point back on him. The maneuver is
> important, for it raises the bar against Luxenberg. The interesting
> bit is how Luxenbergwill respond to Dr. Saleh's argument. My guess is
> he will show how Arabic originates from Syriac.
I don't have Luxenberg's book at hands, but as far as I remember he
doesn't say that the "wildan" originates from Syriac, and surely he
doesn't argue that Arabic originates from Syriac. His brilliant idea
is to make aware that the root "w-l-d" occurs also in the Gospel's
report of the Last Supper (Mt. 26:29: "I shall not drink again of this
*fruit* of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my
Father's kingdom."). The Syriac text (which the Koran addresses as the
"injîl") of this passage has for "fruit of the vine" precisely "yaldâ
dagpettâ" (pardon for the bad transcription due to the restrictions of
the editor here), i.e. "child of the vine". The three passages in the
Koran (actually three variants of the same text) where the "wildan"
occurs use the same root and the same metaphore.
> As for 'furqan', I have heard that it is of Syriac origin. Professor
> Gabriel Said Reynolds (of Notre Dame) confirmed this for me in a phone
> discussion I had with him last year.
So, since Prof. Reynolds met Luxenberg at least once, namely at a
convention where I, too, was present, he perhaps could convince you of
his esteem for Luxenberg.
> However, Dr. Saleh's point continues to ring hard:
> even if furqan is of Syriac origin, what is
> important is the function it plays in the Qur'an.
Right! Is there however any token that the function of "furqân" in the
Koran is different from its etymological origin? I don't think so. As
far as I recall, already Jeffery realized that, apart from surah 25:1,
all Koranic passages with "furqân" are pretty well understandable with
its meaning of "redemption, salvation" etc., also various extra-
Koranic occurrences. It adds to the merits of Günter Lüling that he
showed that also in surah 25:1 "furqân" must be understood in the
precise Syriac sense "(price of) redemption". For the details I may
refer to my website http://www.christoph-heger.de/sura25_1.html
> Also, I noticed that Saifullah referenced Robert Hoyland's stimulating
> paper. I also would like to point out another paper he has centering
> on the discussion. Look here: 'Language and Identity: the twin
> histories of Arabic and Aramaic', Scripta Israelica Classica 23
> (2003). A good read.
>
> Lastly, Uri Rubin was nice enough to put some of his papers online
> here:http://www.urirubin.com/Articles.html
Many thanks, indeed, Mr. Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim, for pointing
out these valuable papers to me! I immediately downloaded those papers
by Uri Rubin which I hadn't known. I enjoyed especially his paper
about "iqra' bi-smi rabbika".
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Altway
the word "samad" :-
According to the Prophet (saw):-
"'Allah (the) One, the Self-Sufficient Master Whom ALL CREATURES (or
Creation) NEED' (i.e Quran 112.1--to the End) is equal to one third of the
Quran." Reported (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 534):-
"all creatures need" therefore refers to "samad".
It seems likely that this also means "all creatures are dependent on"
The following verses of the Quran could be quoted to explain this:-
"And there is not a beast in the earth but the sustenance thereof depends on
Allah. He knows its habitation and its repository. All is in a clear
Record." 11:6
"Seek they other than Allah's religion? When to Him surrenders whoever is in
the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and unto Him shall they
return!" 3:83
"Surely Allah sustains the heavens and the earth lest they; and if they
should fail, there is none who can uphold them after Him." 35:41
"That is Allah - your Lord! There is no Allah but He, the Creator of all
things; so worship Him, for He takes care of all things!" 6:103
"Allah is the Creator of all things and He is the Guardian and Disposer of
all things." 39:62
"To Allah belongs the Mystery of the heavens and the earth. And the Decision
of the Hour (of Judgment) is but as the twinkling of an eye, or even
quicker. Verily, Allah has power over all things." 16:77
"There is no power save in Allah!" 18:40
"Glorified be He! He is Self-sufficient! His is whatever is in the heavens,
and whatever is in the earth." 10:69
"Whatever is in the heavens and the earth declares the glory of Allah, and
He is the Mighty, the Wise. His is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth;
He gives life and causes death; and He has power over all things." 57:1-2
"And call not upon any other God along with Allah; there is no God but He.
Everything is perishable (or will perish), except His countenance. His is
the command, and unto Him shall you return!" 28:88
Hamid S. Aziz
christo...@onlinehome.de
On 2 Feb., 07:10, "Altway" <alt...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> A few more thoughts on the meaning and significance of
> the word "samad" :-
>
> According to the Prophet (saw):-
> "'Allah (the) One, the Self-Sufficient Master Whom ALL CREATURES (or
> Creation) NEED' (i.e Quran 112.1--to the End) is equal to one third of the
> Quran." Reported (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 534):-
These alleged "explanations" of the mysterious word "aS-Samad", 200
years later put into the mouth of some Mohammed's (which wasn't the
real name of the person), are nothing more than an indication that the
Muslims 200 years after the alleged events didn't know what the
meaning of this word might be - as a look into the commentary by AT-
Tabarî teaches you, too.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Altway
<christo...@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
> These alleged "explanations" of the mysterious word "aS-Samad", 200
years later put into the mouth of some Mohammed's (which wasn't the
real name of the person), are nothing more than an indication that the
Muslims 200 years after the alleged events didn't know what the
meaning of this word might be - as a look into the commentary by AT-
Tabarî teaches you, too.
Comment:-
But of course Heger after 1000 years and on the strength of his speculation
about an extinct language and from a completely different tradition
knows exactly what it means!!!!
Is that believable?
So how do you explain the disappearance of the meaning
when there has been a transmission through traditions from the
Prophet (saw) onwards?
His companions did not know and did not ask?
And he did not explain?
And no one later asked and were not told?
Is that a likely story?
Hamid S. Aziz
christo...@onlinehome.de
Those of you who read French may be interested in the article "Les
sources du Coran" ("The Sources of the Koran") in "Le Monde des
religions" (Paris), 19 (septembre-octobre 2006), p. 30-33, by the
renowned Professor Claude Gilliot, Aix-en-Provence. It is to be found
here: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhsdctg2_2mdv9xx
It deals also with Christoph Luxenberg's theses.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
I mentioned Martin Zammit's Qur'anic lexicon earlier. I would also
like to suggest his recently published book titled, 'Enbe men Karmo
Suryoyo (Bunches of Grapes from the Syriac Vineyard): A Syriac
Chrestomathy', Gorgias Press, hardback. I haven't read the book, but I
am almost certain in the Descartian sense that Luxenberg is
referenced.
Best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
ghali
express the binding of grape-vines, the harnessing of horses and
or
less vernacular Arabic expressions, in which the basic meaning of
"binding" still is recognizable. In Arabic literature it occurs only
once or twice, namely in the interior inscription of the Dome of the
Rock in Jerusalem and in surah 112:2. "
Only someone like Heger can come up with something like this! Listen
to his logic. The term in Ugarit refers to the binding of grape vines.
What is the term in Ugarit? Christopher Heger has NOTHING to show!
Then it survives in later Syriac? Does it Mr Heger? What term is it in
later Syriac? When was this term introduced in Syriac? Isn't Syriac an
evolving language? Have you an proof that even IF your understanding
of this "evolutionary model is correct, that it was pre-islamic? Does
it survive in the less vernacular arabic expressions? How do you know?
Cant you apply the same "cantorian slash" to it? How do you know that
it was arabic? Any early inscriptions etc?
The fact that this term is all over the place on Ummayad coins makes
you think that the term was well known by the Arabic community early
on. It would be very easy to say that the same term was used by
Muhammad. It just baffles me how Muhammad got the term from the Ugarit
using a "later" Syriac form ( I would love to see the proof for
this).
Now listen to this wonderful logic! It means binding, the Trinity is a
sort of binding, therefore it was an ancient attribute of a
trinitarian God that our prophet mistakenly took!! Which trinitarian
church used this term in the Trinitarian sense? Did the Syraic Church
use it? I mean the literal word Samad? I mean ok we have clear proof
of the notion of "substance" in the Chrisitian tradition but this
term? I am in fits here Heger!
loooooool!
I mean you are really a joker! loool!
Obviously this is a total AHISTORICAL explaination, but hey as always
with this nutter Heger we have mass conspiracies.
Interesingly Gorden Newby has gone thru the traditions in details and
has shown that there is almost an unanimity regarding the term. Most
of the terms use the notion of being"relied upon". I mean, even I as
the basic arabic speaker myself routinely use the word. Easmadu Ghali
Ala Al Hajr. Ghali is being SUPPORTED by the rock. We can easily use a
Motzki like analysis to show that this meaning (even though others can
be traced) was so common that it would be on the authorities crying
conspiracy to provide proof.
Please Heger entertain us again with wild fantasies. I do need the
occasional laugh.
ghali
can someone please clarify a comment by Rosenthal on this? We hava an
inscription where the root word s-m-d is used to refer to a club (I
think Zammit here) but yet the term in the Hebrew as per Psalms 106:28
(again Zammit. What would he say to Rosenthal?) is in the passive form
and refers to an adherence and dependence on the god Bal. Arent the
two meanings way off?? How can they even be linked?
Ok are my eyes now deceiving me? The verbal root s-m-d in the
classical arabic venacular means something which stands firm upon
which other things are dependent. Hence we have the different
derivative meanings of Allah being "solid" and not "hollow", not being
dependent on "eating and drinking", being a lord (sayyid) i.e. someone
upon which everyone is dependent upon and so on. We have the SAME use
of the word in Psalms if I understand Rosenthal correctly. The term in
the passive of the root smd is used to denote an adherence and
dependence! Obviously it cannot mean "club"!
Now it just seems to me that this is too easy, but I would like some
comments on this.
Ghali
Altway
"ghali" <ghal...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> Ok are my eyes now deceiving me? The verbal root s-m-d in the
classical arabic venacular means something which stands firm upon
which other things are dependent.
of the word in Psalms if I understand Rosenthal correctly. The term in
the passive of the root smd is used to denote an adherence and
dependence! Obviously it cannot mean "club"!
> Now it just seems to me that this is too easy, but I would like some
comments on this.
Comment:-
What is there to comment?
The Quran is in Arabic and it is the meaning in the Quran that
Muslims are concerned with.
Non-Muslims have a different Agenda and interpret things
from their own non-Islamic traditions of scholarship, attitudes and
assumptions and values. They can speculate whatever they like.
These have nothing to do with the Quran.
Hamid S. Aziz