The Quran is a Christian composition
-
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).
-
It's conjecture, but why circular?
-
The way I see things is that when the message of God is given to a Prophet, it is like water pouring into a container. Whatever the form of the container, be it a glass, or a bottle, the water takes that shape, but its substance remains the same - it is still water.
Hence since the Prophet was from Mecca, he spoke Arabic, and the framework of ideas and examples given in the Quran are based upon this, it mentions tribes that we now would never have otherwise heard of from elsewhere. But the substance of what he is saying is constant regardless of culture.
Thus it really does not matter to me whether the Arabic he spoke was traditional Bedouin Arabic or christianised Syrian Aramaic. If there are Syrian influences, if some of the cultural references made in the Quran are from a Christian-Syrian-Aramaic context, this is only the shape of the cup, it does not affect the substance of the meaning of the Quran, which is the 'water' God pours into it.
In the case of the grapes/virgins example - of course this doesn't matter. The whole passage is only symbolic anyway - the Quran tells us so in 3007
He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah.
If suicide bombers are disappointed in the afterlife, it's not going to be anything to do with food or sex. It'll be whether they find themselves in the right place or not.
-
I agree that Luxunberg is an idiot, but the relation between Quran and Qeryana isn't so easily dismissed. Another flaw in his reasoning is that Qeryana is distinctly Christian. But look at Qeryana Ha Kefa. Considering the casual usage of the word Quran within the Quran itself it's safe to say it was a familiar word for everyone.
-
Peace,
About that black eyed virigin phrase, it is more important to discover alternative meanings in Arabic and its grammar and not try to look outside the language. When studying this I found that hoorun 'aynun could even mean 'clear intelligence.' I believe i saw this in hawaa's classical Arabic dictionary with some evidence of how the different verbal nouns of form one can be synonymous. It might take me some time to dig this back up. It was some years ago when I was researching it.
Also reading 5628-5636 I think helps understand the more traditional interpretation. It is obviously talking about believing women being brought back as pure and untouched. There is only one problem. If Christians or Jews didn't have a meaning for hoorun meaning virgin of paradise then this meaning robably didn't exist at the time of the Quran, because the pagan Arabs according to the Quran denied a life after their earthly life. Also the meaning of black eyed would be a little racist. If God created many eye colors in this world and God will resurrect us just as we were, THEN that means there will be many eye colors amongst the women in paradise. That is why it is important to find ALL the meanings of the word and also do some grammatical analysis of its form and if it can be a plural or verbal noun of some other word (with the same root of course) that carries different meaning.
Godbless,
Anwar -
HEre are some of M. Asad's comments on the topic
The noun hur - rendered by me as "companions pure" - is a plural of both ahwar (masc.) and hawra (fem.), either of which describes "a person distinguished by hawar", which latter term primarily denotes "intense whiteness of the eyeballs and lustrous black of the iris" (Qamus). In a more general sense, hawar signifies simply "whiteness" (Asas) or, as a moral qualification, "purity" (cf. Tabari, Razi and Ibn Kathir in their explanations of the term hawariyyun in 352 ). Hence, the compound expression hur?in signifies, approximately, "pure beings , most beautiful of eye" (which latter is the meaning of in, the plural of a?yan). In his comments on the identical expression in 5220, Razi observes that inasmuch as a person?s eye reflects his soul more clearly than any other part of the human body, in may be understood as "rich of soul" or "soulful". As regards the term hur in its more current, feminine connotation, quite a number of the earliest Qur?an-commentators - among them Al-Hasan al-Basri - understood it as signifying no more and no less than "the righteous among the women of the human kind" (Tabari) - " those toothless old women of yours whom God will resurrect as new beings" (Al-Hasan, as quoted by Razi in his comments on 4454). See in this connection also note 46 on 3852.(Quran Ref 5622 )
Or " couches raised high". The rendering adopted by me is regarded as fully justified by some of the most outstanding commentators (e.g., Baghawi, Zamakhshari , Razi, Baydawi, etc.), and this for two reasons firstly, because in the classical Arabic idiom, the term firash (lit., "bed" or "couch" is often used tropically to denote "wife" or "husband" (Raghib; also Qamus, Taj al-'Arus, etc.); and, secondly, because of the statement in the next verse that God "shall have brought them (hunna) into being in a life renewed". (In the context of this interpretation, Zamakhshari quotes also 3656, which thus refers to the inmates of paradise "? in happiness will they and their spouses on couches recline". There is no doubt that the "spouses raised high" - i.e., to the status of the blest - are identical with the hur mentioned in verse 22 above as well as in 4454, 5220 and 5572.
or this rendering of the plural noun hur (which is both masculine and feminine), see note 8 on 5622, the earliest occurrence of this term in the Qur?an; also note 13 on 5634
Al-hawariyyun (sing. hawari) is the designation applied in the Qur'an to the disciples of Jesus. Many interpretations of this term (derived from hawar, "whiteness" are given by the commentators, ranging from "one who whitens clothes by washing them" (because this was allegedly the occupation of some of Jesus' disciples) to "one who wears white garments", or "one whose heart is white", i.e., pure (cf. Tabari, Razi, Ibn Kathir). It is, however, most probable - and the evidence provided by the recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls strongly supports this view - that the term hawari was popularly used to denote a member of the Essene Brotherhood, a Jewish religious group which existed in Palestine at the time of Jesus, and to which, possibly, he himself belonged. The Essenes were distinguished by their strong insistence on moral purity and unselfish conduct, and always wore white garments as the outward mark of their convictions; and this would satisfactorily explain the name given to them. The fact that the Prophet once said, "Every prophet has his hawari " (Bukhari and Muslim) does not conflict with the above view, since he obviously used this term figuratively, recalling thereby Jesus' "helpers in God's cause".(Quran Ref 352 )
Lit., "such as restrain their gaze", i.e., are of modest bearing and have eyes only for their mates (Razi). This allegorical reference to the delights of paradise occurs in the Qur?an three times (apart from the above instance, which is chronologically the earliest, in 37 48 and 55 56 as well). As an allegory, this phrase evidently applies to the righteous of both sexes, who in the life to come will be rejoined with those whom they loved and by whom they were loved in this world for, "God has promised the believers, both men and women, gardens through which running waters flow, therein to abide, and goodly dwellings in gardens of perpetual bliss" (972); and, "anyone - be it man or woman - who does of good deeds and is a believer withal, shall enter paradise" (4124, with similar statements in 1697 and 4040). Finally, we are told in 3656 that in this paradise "will they and their spouses on couches recline" - i.e., will find peace and inner fulfillment with and in one another. (For an explanation of the term atrab, rendered by me as "well-matched", see note 15 on 5638.)
For the rendering of hur?in as "companions pure, most beautiful of eye", see surah 56,notes 8 and 13. It is to be noted that the noun zawj (lit., "a pair" or - according to the context - "one of a pair" applies to either of the two sexes, as does the transitive verb zawaja, "he paired" or "joined", i.e., one person with another.
Godbless,
AnwarI'll be checking out Lisaan al-Arab
also I meant to say hoorun 'eenun.