Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

October 31st, 2005

Tags

Comments

16 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Quran Controversy

The Quran, unlike it’s Christian equivalent the Bible, is the actual word of God.It was revealed to Mohammed by the angel Gabriel and Mohammed passed it down via oral tradition until it was first written down later (650-656) )by the third Caliph Uthman ibn Affan, who ordered all versions to be collected, written down and standardized with all other versions thereafter to be destroyed. Mohammed died in 632. Additionally, the Quran is written (mostly) in the first person further supporting the claim that they are literally God’s words.

However, an interesting theory has been posed by a scholar here in Germany, who, however, has found it necessary to publish his work under a pseudonym due to constant death threats by intolerant and ignorant Muslims. The work, which appeared under the name Christoph Luxenberg and slowly gained fame, is entitled Die Syro- Aramäische Lesart des Koran. Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache or “The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran.” It is a linguistic analysis of of the Quran which has caused controversy beyond belief.

Due to the very nature of Arabic, written without short vowels, there has long been controversy about meaning, the correct vowels, pronunciation and so forth. If we look at the alphabet below for example:

You’ll note that the letters B, T, TH look exactly the same except they have different dots. N again looks almost the same. This also goes for other letters such as Ch,H and J or S and SH to name other examples. Yet, originally, the dots that differentiate these letters weren’t written at all! Add to that fact that short vowels weren’t written and you’ve already left room for a great deal of confusion with words having many different possible readings (up to 42 for example).

Though the Quran has long since been standardized with regard to writing, the dots which belong to the letters, vowels, chronology etc., there remain certain “dark” words and passages which make little sense. In short, Luxenberg contends that these passages (and more) are actually bits of Aramaic. It should first be clear that his book is purely linguistic and does not concern itself with theology, though it inadvertently has caused a, pardon my Arabic, shit storm since publication.

For example, he says the Koranic passage promising men “virgins” in heaven—often cited as a supposed incentive for male suicide bombers—really used a word for “white raisins”. The passage traditionally taken as an instruction to women to wear headscarves actually tells them to wear a belt or an apron around their loins, Luxenberg argues.

Even more seriously, he shakes a central dogma by saying Mohammad’s title as “seal of the prophets”, meaning last of the men chosen by God to proclaim his word on earth, actually only means that he confirms what the prophets said.His thesis that the Koran had Aramaic forerunners, possibly Christian writings, also challenges the tradition that the Koran was dictated in Arabic to Mohammad by the Angel Gabriel and consists of the actual and unchangeable words of God.

Whatever the truth be, the fact remains that Muslims realize they’d be opening a serious can of worms by seriously discussing this thesis. Having seen the many theological “wars” and splits with in Christianity, they are unlikely to embrace an opportunity to experience the same. Yet, regardless of how this thesis withstands the test of time and scrutiny, a greater deal of tolerance and open mindedness is urgently needed on the part of many lest Luxenburg end up like the late Theo Van Gogh.

Comments to this entry

Dan
November 1, 2005
1:41 am
Definitely check out the amazon.com reviews... very informative.


Hmmm... first-person case, an ur-text... sounds like New Subjectivism
Curzon
November 1, 2005
2:41 am
If I thought I was dying for a divine cause for a reward of 70+ virgins but instead ended up with 70+ raisins, I would be f###ing PISSED.
Chief Wiggum
November 1, 2005
2:44 am
Many years ago, I came across a reference to spelling and grammar in the Koran. Apparently, the written Koran did not conform to spelling and grammar standards of the day, so the spelling and grammar standards were changed to conform with usage in the Koran.

BTW, the "Satanic Verses" of Salman Rushie's book refer to portions of the Koran that the prophet Mohammad (PBUH) believed to be the words of God. He later believed that these verses had been given to him by the Devil, impersonating God, so they were removed from the official Koran.

I wish that God would come down to earth and bitch-slap some of these religious nuts.
adamu
November 1, 2005
3:26 am
White raisins.. are those like those white-chocolate covered raisins? Those things are good man.. Virgins are overrated anyway.
Dan
November 1, 2005
3:28 am
White-chocolate covered virgins... mmmmm
Kirk H. Sowell
November 1, 2005
3:48 am
It should be noted that Chirol's account here - with the standardization of the Quran being by the Caliph Uthman - is the traditional Muslim view, which with qualifications is in broad outline accepted by Western scholars (but note that Uthman's rule began in 644, not 650). It may have bearing on the theory presented here to reference the minority view among scholars led by Michael Cook of Princeton. In his book Hagarism, with Patricia Crone, he sets for the thesis that Muhammad was a myth and the founding of Islam was developed from a desert monotheism to give cohesion to the Umayyad Empire (661-750) after the fact.

The strongest evidence for Cook's thesis is that some of the coins minted by the Umayyads around 700 had Quranic verses on them which (he argues, I haven't read them) differ slightly from the standard version, suggesting that the text was in flux at that late date. Again, Cook's thesis is the minority view, but if fits with the Aramaic thesis Chirol describes here because Aramaic was still widely used in Syria and Iraq at that time, but not in Arabia.

And BTW, in re to the theory that "virgins" should be translated as "raisins," this is not new. An old professor of mine, Khaled Abu al-Fadl, put forth that theory several years ago. I don't know if he relied on Aramaic for that idea, though.

And I disagree with the comment about virgins being overrated.
Kirk H. Sowell
November 1, 2005
4:03 am
Maybe I misunderstood Chirol's point about dating on the first read through; if he was saying that the Quran was standardized 650-656 under Uthman, that sounds right. When I read the post it sounded like this was the dating for Uthman himself, which would be wrong.
Gollios
November 1, 2005
6:09 am
Bernard Lewis wrote in "The Crisis of Islam" that the Islamic writs on suicide in dar-ar-harb had been very indeterminate, and many of the suicide bombers were dying over a theological nicety--that by Mohammed's revalation they might very well be going to hell.

It reminds me of the first Onion issue after 9/11...(The 'Holy Fucking Shit' Issue)...The lead headline said "Hijackers Suprised To Find Selves Bruning In Hell."
Chirol
November 1, 2005
8:31 am
Chief Wiggum: THis is one of the arguments Muslims make that supports their claim the Quran was given by God, i.e. that the Arabic of the Quran does not conform to that of the time.

Kirk: Yeah, I was noting the time of when it was collected and standardized, not the time of Uthman himself. I'm also aware of alternativ theories about the development of Islam and the Quran itsef,but as you note, writing about the commonly accepted one.

Dan: If I'll have an eternal erection for my chocolate covered virgins, as later Islamic texts indicate, then will I also have cavity resistant teeth so I can "get to" the virgins? =)

Overall, there's a lot more controversy about the Quran that most people know about, and there is thus an equal amount of intolerance regarding these questions. This won't be the last of my Islam related posts
Mutantfrog
November 1, 2005
3:47 pm
I don't know enough about the Koranic controversy to say much except that I've heard plenty of similar theories before.

However, I must protest quite seriously against Chirol's first sentence.
The Quran, unlike it's Christian equivalent the Bible, is the actual word of God.


While I personally believe that all religious texts are equally the work of man, fundamentalists in certain sects of both the Jewish and Christian faiths most emphatically believe that the Bible is the quite literal word of God. Think about the Bible Code, or the movie "pi."
Curzon
November 1, 2005
4:02 pm
Fundamentalists are all wacky -- whether they be Islamists, environmentalists, or Pat Robertson et al. Chirol is right in his facts: the Bible is the interpreted word of God, whereas the Koran is the word of God. However, it hasn't stopped individuals on both sides being very sensible and very crazy, so may be a moot point.
Chirol
November 1, 2005
4:17 pm
Thank you Curzon.

Mutantfrog: Sorry, but the Bible was written by humans who were "divinely inspired." Also, the Bible is a collection of different books all by different authors having been written over a very long period of time.

Compare the Gospels for example. Written by four different people (5 if you include the Apochrypha), they are all accounts of mostly the same events though with variations. By their very nature, they are clearly not the word of God. Then take the Acts of the Apostles for example, written by Luke the Evangelist during hte first century AD. Same story.

The Quran is literally the literal word of God as related to Mohammed through the angel Gabriel. Don't forget the writing of the Quran also reflects this insofar as it being in the first person.
Dan
November 1, 2005
6:39 pm
From the Catholic Encyclopdia, the Catholic view:

The Catholic who wishes to make a correct analysis of Biblical inspiration maust have before his eyes the following ecclesiastical documents: (a) "These books are held by the Church as sacred and canonical, not as having been composed by merely human labour and afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been transmitted to the Church as such." (Concil. Vatic., Sess. III, const. dogm, de Fide, cap. ii, in Denz., 1787). (b) "The Holy Ghost Himself, by His supernatural power, stirred up and impelled the Biblical writers to write, and assisted them while writing in such a manner that they conceived in their minds exactly, and determined to commit to writing faithfully, and render in exact language, with infallible truth, all that God commanded and nothing else; without that, God would not be the author of Scripture in its entirety" (Encycl. Provid. Deus, in Dena., 1952).

...

Biblical inspiration even where it seems to be at its minimum -- e.g., in the historical books -- is not a simple assistance given to the inspired writers to prevent him from erring, as was thought by Jahn (1793), who followed Holden and perhaps Richard Simon. In order that a text may be Scripture, it is not enough "that it contain revelation without error" (Conc. Vatic., Denz., 1787).

...

Thus the sacred text is wholly the work of God and wholly the work of man, of the latter, by way of instrument, of the former by way of principal cause.


And the Universal Church's criticism of the fundementalist view:

As a necessary consequence of their attitude towards the Bible, which they had taken as their only rule of Faith, the Protestants were led at the very outset to go beyond the ideas of a merely passive inspiration, which was commonly received in the first half of the sixteenth century. Not only did they make no distinction between inspiration and revelation, but Scripture, both in its matter and style, was considered as revelation itself. In it God spoke to the reader just as He did to the Israelites of old from the mercy-seat. Hence that kind of cult which some protestants of today call "Bibliolatry." In the midst of the incertitude, vagueness, and antinomies of those early times, when the Reformation like Luther himself, was trying to find a way and a symbol, one can discern a constant preoccupation, that of indissolubly joining religious belief to the very truth of God by means of His written Word. The Lutherans who devoted themselves to composing the Protestant theory of inspiration were Melanchthon, Chemzitz, Quenstedt, Calov. Soon, to the inspiration of the words was added that of the vowel points of the present Hebrew text. This was not a mere opinion held by the two Buxtorfs, but a doctrine defined, and imposed under pain of imprisonment, and exile, by the Confession of the Swiss Churches, promulgated in 1675. These dispositions were abrogated in 1724. The Purists held that in the Bible there are neither barbarisms nor solecisms; that the Greek of the New Testament is as pure as that of the classical authors. It was said, with a certain amount of truth, that the Bible had become a sacrament for the Reformers.


Of coures, all Christians agree on the identity of the Word as God

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

...

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Mutantfrog
November 1, 2005
6:42 pm
Ok, let me clarify myself. In a technical sense, you are both correct, but I think also incomplete.

While the Bible is composed of a large number of separate books written at different times by different people, the Torah is considered (at least in Jewish theology) to be the literal word of God, dictated to Moses much as the Koran was dictated to Mohammed. I'll give you the requisite Wikipedia quote:


According to Jewish tradition, these books were revealed to Moses by God; some of it is said to have been revealed at Mount Sinai in 1280 BC. Classical rabbinic writings offer various ideas on when the entire Torah was revealed. Some sources state that the entire Torah was given all at once on Mount Sinai. In the maximalist view, this dictation included not only the "quotes" which appear in the text, but every word of the text itself, including phrases such as "And God spoke to Moses...", and included God telling Moses about Moses' own death and what would happen afterward. Other classical sources hold that the Torah was revealed to Moses over many years, and finished only at his death. Another school of thought holds that although Moses wrote the vast majority of the Torah, a number of sentences throughout the Torah must have been written after his death by another prophet, presumably Joshua. All classical views, nonetheless, hold that the Torah was entirely or almost entirely Mosaic and of divine origin.


The traditonal Christian view is rather different, for example even the Catholic Church admits that some of the Bible should be taken metaphorically and not literally. You can't compare the Gospels with the Five Books of Moses, they're completely different beasts.

In short, since you said "the Christian equivalent, the Bible" you are in fact correct, but it's worth noting that the Islamic concept of Koranic revelation has its precedent in Jewish thought. Your real mistake is implying that the Christian Bible is THE Bible (not to even get into the vast numbers of different versions of that...)
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
November 2, 2005
2:41 am
My understanding is that the Quran is believed to be essentially dictation from God, and as such cannot be translated for religious use. Certainly the translations I have seen are very much in that idiom, with lots of "as you remember" discussions. Christianity has of course had a lot of problems with translations, although today it seems comfortable with translating the Bible into as many languages as possible. The Anglican tradition accepts "the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the revealed word of God" with the wonderful addition (Lambeth Conference, 1888, Resolution 11) "The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as "containing all things necessary to salvation"". This allows some Anglicans to take it all very seriously, while others take a much more bemused view. The important thing is to focus on what we do agree on "“ a loving creator "“ and to live as if it were true!! In these difficult times we should remember that Islam has a long tradition of being rather saner in dealing with outsiders than organized Christianity "“ lets hope it regains that tradition soon.
Eliyahu ben Abraham
December 15, 2005
11:21 am
Mohamed Arkoun, an Arab scholar teaching in France, says that it is well known that another, older version of the Quran was kept in a mosque [I believe in Iraq, maybe Najaf or Karbala] until the 10th century when it was destroyed or disappeared.
You can check this in Arkoun's book, La Pensee Arabe, one of the "Que sais-je" series.
The Encyclopedia of Islam, a very esteemed reference work, may have a reference to an older, now lost, version of the Quran