A German scholar of ancient languages takes a new look at the sacred book of Islam. He maintains that it was created by Syro-Aramaic speaking Christians, in order to evangelize the Arabs. And he translates it in a new way…Syro-Aramaic was also the root of the Koran, and of the Koran of a primitive Christian system, is a more specialized notion, an almost clandestine one. And it´s more than a little dangerous. The author of the most important book on the subject – a German professor of ancient Semitic and Arabic languages – preferred, out of prudence, to write under the pseudonym of Christoph Luxenberg. A few years ago, one of his colleagues at the University of Nablus in Palestine, Suliman Bashear, was thrown out of the window by his scandalized Muslim students.
The scandal comes from the fact that everyone is told that to understand and appreciate the Koran you must read it in its original Arabic…BUT
When the Koran was composed, Arabic did not exist as a written language; thus it seemed evident to me that it was necessary to take into consideration, above all, Aramaic, which at the time, between the 4th and 7th centuries, was not only the language of written communication, but also the lingua franca of that area of Western Asia.”
Nobody ever mentions that, do they?
Here are a number of actual documented pre-Islamic Arabic tablets and writings – the earliest hundreds of years BC.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/
RBG
“The Meaning of the Glorious Koran” An Explanatory Translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, First Printing September 1953, Second Printing February 1954, published by George Allen & Unwin, later a paperback Mentor Book from the New American Library.
From the foreword: “…this is the first translation of the Koran by an Englishman who is a Muslim.”
@#6, Well, according to Luxenberg, martyrs receive 72 grapes in heaven. Though it could be figs, instead of grapes.
That’s a rather different story than thinking they would get 72 virgins in the afterlife, isn’t it?
At first, the Koran was memroized by the Prophet’s companions. Writing it in mass was not encouraged, because it could be subject to misspelling, abuse etc. The Koran is sacred, even it it’s written form. You need to treat the book with respect when handling it e.g. you need to take ablution.
But after the Prophet’s death, the number of people who memorized it began to decrease, plus, to facilitate the spread of the religion, it was decided that it was better to compile it it all.
Sure the alphabet at that time wasn’t exactly the same as the modern Arabic alphabet, but the language is the same.
RBG: The site is playing games by shifting the meaning of the word Arabic between geography and language, a logical fallacy that any fool should be able to spot. If Islamic ‘scholars’ will resort to that sort of lame trick over tiny issues like this it’s going to be a rough trip to the 21st century for them!
34,
WOW you can say that with a straight face and not Laugh…
Try reading Shakespear…
Without knowing the history going on.
Without an OLD english dictionary.
And one more thing, John. I’ve followed your article posts and your podcast appearances and stuff, and I must say, I’ve noticed that you have a dislike towards the religion of Islam, but try to avoid saying it directly, but it still shows. You try to deflect it by quoting someone else who has the same opinions as your’s, but never openly say it yourself. You should just say it. It’s free speech. Let your audience know where you’re coming from, so that they can process your opinions better.
estacado: The Hadeeths themselves say there were several different versions of the Koran. They say that some verses were dictated to M by Satan! The number of spoken verses don’t match the number of written ones. Just see how it goes when an Aramaic speaker tries to talk to an Arabic one, that’s the translation job from spoken to written Koran. Then there’s the alphabet changes which were drastic. Follow the link below if you dare.
http://tinyurl.com/3pfdg
36,
I said it’s the alphabet that is different, not the language. When people write it, they write using the alphabet at the time of the writing.
And about all Arabs at the time spoke Aramaic, I don’t buy it. Can someone confirm with a document or something.
You need to treat the book with respect when handling it e.g. you need to take ablution.
I thought Muslims didn’t believe in idolatry?
estacado: Have a look at the peer review of the book this article is based on.
http://tinyurl.com/2fooe3
The ‘Arabic” you refer to had 6 less letters and no diacritics, that’s a fact. Don’t you think some errors would creep if you were dealing with a version of English that had no vowels as opposed to one with all 26 letters?
41,
It’s not idolatry, it’s respect.
Milo,
English and Arab are different. Diacritics are added to facilitate people who not native Arabic speakers to be able to recite it properly. For Arab people, they know how to recite it even without the diacritics.
http://www.indiana.edu/~arabic/arabic_script.htm
“And it was not until the early 8th century A.D. that the use of diacritical marks was introduced to secure the correct reading of the Quran.
…
But these marks never came into general use, and to the present day, the system is used mainly in text of the Quran and for teaching purposes.”
Mohammed was a warlord, treaty breaker, murderer, pedophile and rapist, but he was no prophet.
(The first descriptions are from the Koran and other muslim records. The last one is from me.)
estacado: Are you saying the Koran is perfectly written or not?
Milo,
What do you mean perfectly written?
If you’re asking whether grammatically perfect, it depends, because some parts of it are like poetry, and some parts are straight-forward sentences.
If you’re asking if it is written with the perfect exact same words (words as in the vocabulary and meaning sense, not script/alphabet sense) as it was done the very first time it was written while it was compiled, then yes it is perfect in that sense. I say while it was compiled because the arrangement of verses in the Koran differs from the actual order that it was dictated to the Prophet.
estacado: You are contending then that the Koran is perfectly copied as to its meaning. Muslims who feel as you do had better buckle up, science is coming to town.
Milo:
🙂 It looks as if you’ve been waiting to say that all along. Just needed me to say that Koran is perfect.
I’m not against science. I believe Islam and science are not contrary with each other. Science is in agreement with Islam. Sure some theories are on the contrary, but they theories. That’s why there must be proof, that’s why it’s called science. But in general, proven scientific principles are in line with Islamic beliefs.
There is so much ignorance and pure stupidity here I don’t know where to start…
1- The Kaaba is/was never an idol, it was first built centuries before the time of prophet Mohammad by prophet Ibrahim. It was desecrated by the people of Quraish and their idols were Al-Lat and others.
2-#45 that was rude and stupid, give me the records you speak of about Mohammad being a pedophile or a rapist. And the murder? In war people die, and finally, about the treaties, these are long stories and they have well defined reasons behind them. You can’t just throw these descriptions around like they mean something…
3- Maybe all of you should stop to think before bashing the Quran and prophet Mohammad about some scientific facts mentioned in it. How could prophet Mohammad – or anyone in the 4th century for that matter – describe the development of the embryo in it’s mother’s womb so clearly? How could he have known that mountains extend beneath the surface of the earth farther than their height above ground? And many other scientific facts mentioned in the Quran centuries before science proved them.
“Pedophile” and “rapist” is an accurate description of anyone who marries a 9-year-old girl (i.e. Aisha).
Sorry, but any physical object to which people bow down and worship is indeed an “idol”, as the Ka’bah is.
If you don’t believe in idolatry, stop bowing down to the Ka’bah five times a day.
Yea, I was rude to state the truth, but not stupid. Everything I said and more is well established. It’s also rude to crash passenger planes into office buildings, but reasonable people already know that. The world would be a better place without Islam.
51. While we’re at it, how’d he do on the US Bill of Rights, the Geneva Convention, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and international copyright law?
RBG
that PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM) MARRIED A CHILD IS A SLANDEROUS LIE. MANY SLANDERS CIRCULATE AROUND OTHER PROPHETS
It was neither an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as seven or nine years, nor did the Prophet marry Ayesha at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.
Obviously, the narrative of the marriage of nine-year-old Ayesha by Hisham ibn `Urwah cannot be held true when it is contradicted by many other reported narratives. Moreover, there is absolutely no reason to accept the narrative of Hisham ibn `Urwah as true when other scholars, including Malik ibn Anas, view his narrative while in Iraq, as unreliable. The quotations from Tabari, Bukhari and Muslim show they contradict each other regarding Ayesha’s age. Furthermore, many of these scholars contradict themselves in their own records. Thus, the narrative of Ayesha’s age at the time of the marriage is not reliable due to the clear contradictions seen in the works of classical scholars of Islam.
Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the information on Ayesha’s age is accepted as true when there are adequate grounds to reject it as myth. Moreover, the Quran rejects the marriage of immature girls and boys as well as entrusting them with responsibilities.