The Quran is a Christian composition
-
Peace,
"Luxenberg" and his likes can only operate under assumptions. The issue I come across when dealing with the non-Muslims is that many of them, without even reading his book, claim that diacritics and vowels were not "invented" until centuries after the revelation of the Quran.
Regarding the diacritics
In any case the Islamic tradition is unable to provide any date for the final fixing of the reading of the Koran by means of the introduction of the diacritical points, so that one is dependent on the general assertion that this process stretched out over about three hundred years.
Regarding the short vowels
To the extent that this writing reform was also carried out in the text of the Koran, the consequences for certain readings were inevitable. An initial marking of the short vowels a, u and i by points, likewise modeled upon the earlier Syro-Aramaic vocalization systems ? according to which the more lightly pronounced vowel (a) is indicated by a point above and the more darkly pronounced vowel (e /i ) by a point below the consonant, to which was added in Arabic a middle point to mark the u ? is said to have been introduced as the first reading aid under Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (685?705).
Many Quran-alone Muslims lend themselves to the same wrong conclusions. Just because the texts didn't reflect written vowels does not mean that the vowels were not understood and spoken. The fact that the Quran was mostly preserved through Qurraa' makes it obvious that the vowels were always there even if not always written. In modern Arabic newspapers and literature the vowels are still not commonly written. That is because readers are expected to know the most common (and not the obscure) forms of words and plug them in with their (spoken) vowels when they read. Sometimes confusion may arise or is expected and writers then will write the vowels or other diacritics so that the reader does not make the wrong conclusions. In the case of the Quran the vowels were invented and put into the text to prevent people from making up whatever they wanted and disregarding the authentic mutawaatir readings that also coincided with the non-voweled text. Before that and even during and after, the consesus of the Qurraa' and their qiraa'aat (readings) was and is the authority or what is the correct voweling of the Quran. As these recitations are mutawaatir and these readers memorized and compared often.
Interestingly the Quran's preservation is similar to the hadeeth but it is a step above in that there are about 10 mutawaatir recitations of the Quran. They are all accepted and 97 percent of it is letter by letter and vowel by vowel the same. There is about a 3 percent difference betwen recitations, all of which have a common meaning. And the non-mutawaatir readings are sahih, hassan and da'if. At best they can be used as a source of tafsir for seemingly vague mutawaatir versions (that is if they make sense and corroborate the meaning of the mutawaatir verse) of the Quran, but they have no authority and are not considered revealed by God, but rather someone's corruption (intentional or unintentional) And then there are the the mawdu' (falsified). I'm not sure if these have any place in trying to understand the mutawaatir versions of the Quran. The text, for those who had access to texts of the Quran, was a guide that limited the extant to which the Quran COULD have been corrupted. I know this may offend some who feel that the Quran was to be preserved only in a supernatural way that does not allow for providence. But I believe that it was providence and the circumstances that God created on earth and among people that allowed for the Quran to be preserved. Yeah some might say that that 3 percent variance proves that the Quran wasn't preserved. But the fact that this 3 percent share meanings in all of the recitations is proof enough for me that it was preserved and that divine providence was at work.
Godbless,
Anwar -
That's a fine observation.
How often do we text a "h r u" and get the terrifying "f9" in response. Within the texting community both the "msgz" are understood perfectly, and there is no confusion.
Like you pointed out, the markings for short vowels are dropped in most literature even today, and the Quran edition that this missionary used was itself devoid of the diacritics for short vowels. The early Muslim community would be quite familiar with the content of the Revelation, and it is possible that the oral transmission of the text among the members ensured that the diacritics remained a non-necessity to them. However, that is not to say that the use of diacritics and vowels was not known to them. With time the text spread widely, and an unfamiliar audience might have called for a regulated use of these aids in writing.
I will point out here that the use of diacritics and long vowels go back to the pre-Islamic era. As for short vowels, it is against reason to insist that their omission in the earliest texts equates their non-availability during the early years of Islam.
Here I quote Christian polemicist John Gilchrist
The development of the text in respect of the use of diacritical and vowel points is not entirely helpful in this respect either. On the one hand texts originally written without these points are known to have been supplemented with them at a later date while other texts were expressly written out without such points in later centuries as a sign of the calligrapher's or owner's mastery in his knowledge of the Qur'an and the lack of any need in his case to employ marks of identification to specifically record the whole text.
A good example of this is the superb Qur'an manuscript written in gold script upon blue vellum which survives almost intact from Kairouan in Tunisia where it was originally inscribed in the late ninth or early tenth century (nearly three hundred years after the time of Muhammad). By this time the use of diacritical and vowel points was widespread yet this manuscript is almost entirely devoid of them both.
I agree with you about the possible absence of an overt supernatural flavor in the preservation of the text. The knowledge that there were hypocrites among the community would have alerted the believers to their tricks, and a particular attention would have been paid to the transmission of the Message. Also, the narrated schism following the death of the Prophet would have kept the differing groups interested in the process and correctness of the transmissions. Maybe providence was at work.
-
Thanks for that, I agree. I don't find what you quoted to be proof of the existence of diacritical marks during the pre-Islamic era but a phenonomon that definitely opens up that possiblity. However, even Muslim scholars are in agreement that these diacritical marks were added later on. Some say by Hajjaj. Some say by others. Who exactly instated them is not clear. Nor is it clear at what particular time they entered into use for the writing of Arabic. It is possible that it was pre-Islamic, so I won't say that you are wrong. But as far I know that is unlikely. Thanks for your inputs.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Oh, the Gilchrist quote was only meant to highlight the fact that a period as late as the tenth century yielded copies of the Quran largely devoid of vowels and diacritics, by which time they had been well-established. It is basically reiterating the statement that an absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
As for the use of diacritics in pre-Islamic era, please see the Jabal Ramm inscription(http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/jramm.html) and others on the same site.
There is one which I find hardly ever mentioned. It is a one-word inscription engraved in a piece of wood that was carbonized with an archive of Greek papyri found in a Byzantine Church in Petra, and is dated to around the sixth century. The analysis is provided by Omar Al-Ghul of Yarmouk University. (Al-Ghul (Omar), An Early Arabic Inscription from Petra Carrying Diacritic Marks)
-
Glad to, buddy. The inscriptions attest to the presence of diacritics and long vowels in the pre-Islamic era, and thus to the early development of the Arabic script. If the earliest scribes did not make use of them, it can only indicate the general awareness of the text and the strength of the oral transmissions, both of which are the bane of the propagandists.
-
This thread is not intended to isolate "Luxenberg"; rather, to look at the broader practice adopted by his likes circular reasoning (based on the (selective) use and abuse of available resources, a lot of which might not even be admissible as evidence). I come across quite a few non-Muslims seeking refuge with the propaganda of missionaries like Joseph Smith and Rafat Amari, who themselves rely on the (rejected) "research" of the likes of Patricia Crone and Yehuda Nevo.
Here I quote Jeremy Johns (Archaeology and the History of Early Islam), who puts in words the academic impression of the polemical approach to archaeology
In 1991, Judith Koren and the late Yehuda Nevo issued a methodological challenge to historians of early Islam. They were encouraged to do so by their reading of the so-called "revisionist" historians, including Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Gerald Hawting, Moshe Sharon, and John Wansbrough, whose work, Koren and Nevo believed, had completely undermined the foundations upon which the traditional positivist account of the rise of Islam had been constructed. None of the written Islamic sources for the first two hundred years of the hijra could be used as evidence for what had actually happened. Archaeology, which in any case consisted of objective facts that were always to be preferred over subjective written sources, was therefore almost the only evidence available, and should be used to compose a new account of the origins of Islam that would be radically different from the traditional historical narrative. The polemical style permitted historians to dismiss this article as not worth an answer, while Nevo's unorthodox interpretation of material evidence embarrassed archaeologists into silence. What, it was widely asked, could have persuaded Der Islam to waste space in this manner?
Further
Koren and Nevo were not the first to turn to archaeology for evidence in support of a radical reinterpretation of the rise of Islam. For example, in Hagarism, Crone and Cook (1977 3) had explored the possibility that one way around the historiographical problem posed by the Islamic sources was "to step outside the Islamic tradition altogether and start again." Although their account of the formation of Islam as a religion was based for the most part upon non-Islamic written sources, they occasionally cited archaeological evidence in corroboration of it. For example, the proposition that the original sanctuary of the primitive Muslims (muhajirun) was not Mecca but Bakka (Quran 3.90), an unidentified site in north-western Arabia well to the north of Medina, was "dramatically confirmed" by the eccentric orientation (qibla) of the mosques excavated at Wasit and Uskaf Bani Junayd (both in Iraq). That was left to Robert Hoyland, a pupil of Crone. Again, his principal concern was to survey and evaluate the non-Islamic written sources, but he did make extensive use of archaeological evidence and, in an appendix, listed all securely dated Islamic writings from the hijra to 72/691-2, and all religious declarations attributable to caliphs from then until the fall of the Umayyads (Hoyland 1997 545-90, 687-703).
In 1997, Robert Hoyland came out with "Seeing Islam As Others Saw It A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam". This book is often hailed (by many non-Muslims) as the last word as far as historical proof regarding the Islamic history is concerned. A favorite practice with them is to select those "testimonies" which they think will bolster their case of a conspiracy, and damn the rest. What the propagandists (are either ignorant of or try to) hide is that the book itself corroborates to a large extent the traditional account of Arab history, including the early political figures and situations. Hoyland comments on the issue in his 2006 article, "New Documentary Texts And The Early Islamic State"
Firstly, we do have a number of bodies of evidence - especially non-Muslim sources, papyri, inscriptions and archaeological excavations - that can serve as a useful external referent and whose riches are only just beginning to be exploited in a systematic manner. Secondly, the historical memory of the Muslim community is more robust than some have claimed. For example, many of the deities, kings and tribes of the pre-Islamic Arabs that are depicted by ninth-century Muslim historians also feature in the epigraphic record, as do many of the rulers and governors of the early Islamic state. This makes it difficult to see how historical scenarios that require for their acceptance a total discontinuity in the historical memory of the Muslim community - such as that Muhammad did not exist, the Qur'an was not written in Arabic, Mecca was originally in a different place etc. - can really be justified. Many of these scenarios rely on absence of evidence, but it seems a shame to make such a recourse when there are so many very vocal forms of material evidence still waiting to be studied.
While the conjectures of Crone (who has recanted much of her own conjecture) and Nevo (who was himself emboldened by Crone's conjecture) have been refuted by many, including Johns and Hoyland, their theories, rehashed and repackaged, are still being thrown up all over the Internet by some non-Muslims.
Let me finish this post by contrasting the views of Michael Morony on Crone's conjecture and Hoyland's collection
Regarding "Hagarism" -- "Michael G. Morony remarked that "Despite a useful bibliography, this is a thin piece of Kulturgeschichte full of glib generalizations, facile assumptions, and tiresome jargon. More argument than evidence, it suffers all the problems of intellectual history, including reification and logical traps."
Regarding "Seeing Islam As Others Saw it" -- According to Michael G. Morony, Hoyland emphasizes the parallels between Muslim and non-Muslim accounts of history emphasizing that non-Muslim texts often explain the same history as the Muslim ones even though they were recorded earlier. He concludes "Hoyland's treatment of the materials is judicious, honest, complex, and extremely useful."
-
It doesn't sound so unreasonable to me that there is a Syrian-Aramaic-Christian influence on the Quran. If the Prophet was a merchant for some years before receiving the Quran it stands to reason that he would have encountered a wide range of different sorts of people.
-
According to some Christians (including "Luxenberg", the Arabic word "quran" is better understood as the Syriac word "qeryana". What follows is that "quran" should be translated as "reading" and not "recitation". "Fine," a Muslim would say, "it's only nit-picking and nothing significant."
But there is a theological context to the Christian rendering here. In the Syriac culture, "reading" refers to the reading of the Christian scriptures, and when the Christian renders quran as "reading", he is giving it a Christian history. Here is an excerpt from "The Rise of Western Christendom Triumph and Diversity, AD 200-1000"
In the culture of the Syriac-speaking world, holy books were supposed to saturate the heart. They did so by being translated into melodious sound, carried by the magical sweetness of the human voice. Unlike the Vivarium of Cassiodorus, this was no hushed world, in which the written text alone spoke to the reader, as a solitary, silent instructor. By contrast, the Syriac world, in east and west alike, was filled with sound. Hence the importance of the qeryana, the reading aloud of the Scriptures. Through the qeryana, the Syriac language was raised to a new pitch. It became a tongue rendered sacred through the repeated, exquisite recitation of the Word of God. Exegesis itself was not a purely intellectual probing of the text of the Scriptures. It was a reliving of the Scriptures through recitation combined with a reverential robing of the Word of God, in the form of explanations and amplifications of the Biblical text, in a manner which closely resembled the Midrashic techniques of the rabbis. In a Syrian church, the reading held the center of attention
Thus, under the Syro-Christian influence, "Quran" is understood as "reading" of the Christian scriptures, which is not a reasonable understanding.
Could you provide an example of "Syrian-Aramaic-Christian" influence on the Quran?
-
Of course, the assumption that the Arabic "quran" should be understood as the Syriac "qeryana" would require some sort of justification; even the propagandists know that. And this "justification" comes in form of more assumptions discontinuity and conspiracy, among others.
Johannes Jansen of Leiden University makes the following assertion about "Luxenberg"
Luxenberg is not a professor at a German university, he is a Lebanese Christian. This would explain Luxenberg's 'Christian agenda' Christians from the Middle East have been involved in harsh religious debates with Muslims for centuries.While the Middle Eastern Christian sees the Quran as a "reading" of the Christian Scriptures, the Jew has his own interests to look after.
And before anybody harbors a misconception about Jansen, know that he has devoted much of his life seeking an alternate account of Muhammad, and his understanding of the Quranic characterization of non-Muslims led him to a rather creative title for a book of his "Islam for Pigs, Apes, Donkeys and Other Animals".
-
I'm absolutely baffled as to what you're unhappy with. Recitation and reading aloud mean exactly the same thing, so I don't see any difference between Arabic and Syrian-Aramaic in regards to the question of the meaning of Quran or "qeryana".
Is the Quran a reading, or interpretation, of the bible? Well, some of the stories are the same, some of them are different or unique. To me it seems perfectly reasonable to view the recitation of the Quran as in the same cultural tradition as Jewish and Christian devotional reading/singing.
-
You don't see a difference between "recitation" and "reading (of Christian Scriptures)"?
The difference between "recitation" and "reading" is pedantic (as I already mentioned in a previous post), but the context given to "reading" by the Christians is that of Christian theology. And to the Christians this seems perfectly reasonable.
-
chatmember
Nothing like a little fresh air. Western research has shown that your Islam is a cult that originated from somewhere to the north...
...
And what about the findings of the Koran scholar Luxenberg? He has shown that while you blow yourselfs up for heavenly virgins what you really get are white grapes. LOL...
...and has shown that also your Koran was really a reading of the passages from the books of our Bible and writings of the church fathers.
...
An emotionally charged Christian, she does not read anything that I message (or pretends not to have read), and keeps railing off one message after another.
...
I have started a thread at www.free-minds.org and at another website. Drop by if and when you have the time
http//free-islam.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=959
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599647.msg235503
...
-
You don't have to worry about trolls, they can enjoy themselves without our help. But yes - I don't see why it matters whether or not "reading" and "recitation" comes from a cultural context where the same term was used about the bible as the quran.
The early Christians used to have a lot in common with Muslims. Not only did they sing the scriptures in the same way as Muslims, they also used to pray in the same way, with systematic bowing, kneeling and putting their forehead on the floor.
But when Christianity became dominated by Greeks and Romans they gave that up and just sat on their Church pews listening to their priest and drinking their wine. We muslims have far more in common with the early Semitic/Aramaic Christians.
-
For me "Luxenberg" is no less a troll than our agitated friend out there, or any other Christian who assumes under assumptions.
The sixth-seventh century Christians are not early Christians. I hope you will point out the similarity between the Quran and the "Scriptures" they read from.
Again, could you elaborate this "singing" of the Quran? Also, the assumption the Christians labor under is that the word "qeryana" has been manipulated to be read as "quran"; if you subscribe to it then provide some evidence thereof.
-
The book of the bible which I find is most similar to the Quran is the book of Isaiah, the writing is not poetic like the Quran, but the symbolism in it, for example making frequent reference to the destruction of Sodom as the Quran does, makes me see it as being in a similar tradition.
6-7th Century Christians in Rome or Byzantium would not be early Christians, as they were deep enough in the Empire to be totally under the sway of the Niecean creed. But in Syria they would be out of reach of Imperial religious power and were thus much less influenced by catholic-orthodox dogma, so were more like early Christians.
When I hear the Quran recited in a singing voice with tune and melody, as it traditionally is, I call that singing. I know Sunni muslims take offence to this and say it is not singing, and some even say singing is haram, but they're just silly.
Is the only thing you have against Luxenberg that he is quoted at you by evangelical christians online?
-
The book of Isaiah is not the only book that "qeryana" consists of; apart from that, singing about Sodom does not make a case for Quran being the Christian "qeryana".
Could you provide a glimpse into the literature of the sixth-seventh century Syrian Christians? The girl I quoted seems to know that "qeryana" consisted of reading from the "Church Fathers" too.
The Quran recited as a melody or in a singing tone is not the same as "Quran" itself being "singing".
"Luxenberg" fits pretty well under the label "Evangelist" himself. Also, "Quran is qeryana" is not his brainchild.
I clarified it a while back that there is no intention to isolate "Luxenberg," rather to highlight the circular reasoning his likes use. If he or anybody else could offer something more tangible than assumptions then it might be worth a dekko, but assuming under assumptions does not make a case.
-
Another example of circular reasoning (abetted by conjecture)
Bedouins of the Hijaz on their caravan journeys to Syria and other Christian centers undoubtedly carried back with them a superficial knowledge of Christian beliefs and customs. Dissident Christian sects, mostly of the Monophysite confession, and numerous monks turned ascetics had their retreats in the steppes of north Arabia along caravan routes. As a caravan leader, Muhammad is supposed to have befriended a Christian monk, Babira; it is said that he even wore tunics which were the gifts of other Christian monks. Two Christianized Arab tribes, Judham and
Udhra, roamed the Hijaz. According to local tradition, there were even Christian religious artifacts in the Kabah at Mecca.It is not unlikely that Muhammad may have exchanged religious views with monks, even with Christians who possessed some formal knowledge of Christian theology. Jacobites and Nestorians. are known to have conducted active missionary activities among the pagan tribes of Arabia; indeed, priests and deacons were assigned to each tribe, and in Najran the Monophysites had established churches which, when persecuted by dhu-Nuwas, invited Abyssinian intervention. Monasteries astride caravan routes were open day and night to traveling caravans and roaming Bedouins. Here, besides receiving food and shelter, they undoubtedly had occasion to 'observe such practices as praying, fasting, and alms giving three of the five basic injunctions of Islam. The Nestorians had established schools and some churches in many of the towns frequented by Arab tribesmen of the Hijaz.
Given how popular the view is, that must be pretty conclusive to many Christians (and possibly other non-Muslims).