Christoph Luxenberg's translation of the Quran?
-
I watched the TV programme on channel about the Qur'an. It was decent. Even had the spokesperson from here who rejects traditional hadiths as law/obligatory giving his view, which was nice.
Based on the programme it was difficult to guage the quality of Luxenberg's work. What I suspect is that he may provide an alternative translation for a verse but fails to cross-reference it.
-
He tries to build a good case but because he is ignoring a major piece of the puzzle (Archeology), and for the reason he wants to link the Quran directly to the Syriac (instead of proposing Nabataean influence), he is bound not to be taken seriously. I have yet to read Versteegh's complete work, but from his excerpts it seems to be a worthy treatise.
-
^ Peace bro,
I don't think he is correct here.
For instance, "hurin een" is the expression, not hurees so traditional translation is incorrect. Hur means white or pure, but Een may not come not from the root Oyn-yaa-nuun but Oyn-Wow-Nuun and the two are interestingly similar, yet different. While Oyn-Yaa-Nuun gives words Oyn (eye), muOyyan (appointed/assigned) and taOyyun (assignment/appointment), Oyn-Wow-Nuun gives Oun (help/companionship), taOaavun (cooperation) and muOavin (companion/helper/partner)... now compare hurin een to "pure companions/helpers/partners"...While Luxenberg's argument may hold ground from "hurin een" being an expression borrowed from Aramaic, the statement "wa zouwajnaahum bi hourin een" (and we shall PAIR/MATCH/MARRY them with WHITE GRAPES???) makes his argument about its intended meaning week. Who knows if that image in dar al-Suriyan is actually symbolic for something else?
Similar an argument is for ghilmaan (the duel form of ghulam/ghulaamah - son/daughter) - I just don't get the argument of pedophilia from the haters in this case.
-
I heard of C.Luxenberg the first time cited by Irshad Menji in her book (The problem with Islam) in his rendition of "huur 3een" which I found rediculous. I then heard of him again in the Ch. 4 program and understood how he came to this rendition (which I still found rediculous). The fact that he was hiding and speaking through someone (for fear of his life!!) made me suspecious of him. I actually heard that he was originally Lebanese.
His logic to relate the whole qur'aan to syriaic is not founded or supported by archeology. Many other languages were also spoken in the area, and should have been taken into his consideration as well.Huur 3een in this construction we have the adjective preceeding the noun, which is not the general Arabic construction, except when the noun is part of a whole, as in saying (a man of high status rajuluun rafee3ul maqaam) where the bolded word is the adjective, and the underlined is the noun the adjective describes. So we cannot just say it means pure companions, but companions/people/pairs of pure (huur) ....(3een). Secondly, huur is a masculine plural (generic) which means those people are a mixed-gender group (at least), and by no means only females. My question is can "3een" be plural of (3ain eye), or should it just be read as 3ain/eye, and then we have an expression people with pure eyes (indicative of deep purity, inside purity), as in the Arabic saying that (the eye is the mirror of the soul)?
-
Salaam Tay
You are right. I can not find or think of a singular for the word "3een", and I think it's wrongly voweled. IMO it should be "3ain eye" and then we have just an expression with no literal meaning (like women with big eyes with very white white and very black pupil) and thus exclude women from Africa, oriental women, blondes, women with colours of the pupil other than black..all being not the standard beauty of paradise!, and make the verse addressing just men!!
-
-
His argument for hur is based on diacratal marks. He never denies hurs litral meaning. He thinks the word and sentence have been wrongly voweled. Diacratal marks are laking in the oldest Quran the sanna. His argument is again based on diacratal marks
Yes, you're right; but in Ch 4 he supported his claim by showing the importance of "grapes" in drawings in some old churches. Why I found it rediculous was because the context does not allow for "white grapes" We paired them with white grapes! Moreover, the shape of a final nuun is completely different from the shape of a final baa even without the dotts. Look at both letters and just ignore the dotts . Their different forms are also respected in handwritten style.
-
Peace
Thank you for your answer Samia. I have a question. Is there a possibility that the Quran is not stating hur? If grapes is out of the question is there another possibility? The reason I ask is that the idea of reciving hurs in heaven disturbs me. To me hurs implie that God deals in women. I have never found such a idea comfortable. But I dont beleive in the grape explanition since you showed its wrong.
God bless all
Lareb -
The title suggests that there is a translation of Luxenberg; there isn't.
As for his theories, complete baloney.
Before I read any recension, I decided to study Syriac and analyse Luxenberg's work myself.
In short;
The book 'A Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Quran', does not treat the whole quran. Its about a theory which hypothesizes that the quran is based on christian texts written in a hypothetical language, which should have been an intermediate form between Syriac and Arabic.
It is claimed that the quran was written by people who had this hypothetical language as a mothertongue, and translated their texts into classical Arabic to try to convert them.
It is claimed the religion of these people was a christian sect deemed as heretic by the catholic church called 'Arianism', which states Jesus is only human.
It is claimed that during the translation process, many Syriac concepts and words didnt have a clear Arabic counterpart, so words were used to approach them.
Later on when others made copies of copies (etc.), Arabs who didnt understand the original texts or meanings, couldnt recognize the Syriac influence and its implications on the text, and came up with alternative spelling and interpretations for words or sentences they supposedly had difficulties with to understand.
Later on, Persian philologues and historians would make up lots of words, and manipulate the meaning of others in the corpus of Arabic vocabulary by writing dictionaries and poetry which they attributed to pre-islamic writers. While this is true, it has nothing to do with Luxenbergs theories, but with legitimizing traditionalist interpretations of words in the quran, so they could link it to their teachings (guided theological, political and cultural contamination of the vocabulary, or terminologization).
Serious flaws
-
Uses medieval and contemporary dictionaries.
-
Syriac (even Hebrew) is contaminated by classical Arabic, due to the fact that its first grammars were produced in the islamic period
-
No language which can be classified as an 'intermediate form' of Syriac and classical Arabic has been proven to have ever existed.
-
The work does not live up to academic criteria; it has been called a 'nightmare' and has been seriously and mercilessly debunked in recensions by prominent (virtually all western) professors of Arabic, semitic languages, history of islam, etc.
-
Its not a surprise that Arabic has similarities and influences with Syriac, or any semitic language. They are member of one and the same language family, and the product of very related culturo-historical developments. Lots of so-called 'discoveries' are well known facts.
-
Luxenberg's work contains christian polemical remarks, which betrays bias from a suspected christian background.
-
Luxenberg too, despite of him being a revisionist, falls in the trap of accepting some traditionalist historiography at face-value, by referring to them to make his point, while rejecting others and not justifying this by presenting a sound methodology.
-
