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?
It’s a crime that this book has yet to be translated into English. It is IMO the most important book of the 21st century.
How many people know that Mohammed’s name wasn’t Mohammed, that the Koran wasn’t written in Arabic and that Muslims used to pray towards Jerusalem, not Mecca? Islam is not only not what non-Muslims think it is it isn’t what over 99% of Muslims think it is!
More in depth look at Luxenberg’s book:
http://tinyurl.com/2fooe3
I don’t know where this “scholar” – and I use the term very loosely here – gets his facts from, but it is well documented that prophet Mohammad was born Mohammad son of Abdullah.
Next, every single Muslim knows that Muslims used to pray towards Jerusalem, it is mentioned in the Quran. The switch to Mecca as a direction for prayer happened during prophet Mohammad’s life, the reason behind all of this is too long and is not the point.
About the Quran not being written in Arabic, that’s just stupid. The people of Mecca at the time of prophet Mohammad were Arabic speakers and writers and poetry was very common among them. And while there’s no denying that Arabic evolved as a written language in the centuries following the first writing of the Quran, it’s still Arabic.
This veiled muslim-bashing is stupid, mr. Dvorak.
Better look at your own origins, my dear 🙂
Byelorussia is your home.
everyone is told that to understand and appreciate the Koran you must read it in its original Arabic
You haven’t read Shakespeare until you have read it in the original Klingon.
Actually, there’s no documentation Mohammad even existed, so whether his name was Mohammed seems like a moot point.
Hmmmmmm, It seems that someone is wrong here then…
Wouldn’t it be interesting if we knew the truth?
I mean do you think it would change anything anyway?
I don’t
#3
The Quran is not more worth than the Bible or Vanity Fair for that matter… everything is discussed and bashed equally here at DU. Get used to it.
Unfortunately, translational errors are all too common in religious texts. For instance, many translations of the Bible show the very first words as “In the beginning…” According to my own intensive studies, a more accurate translation would be “Once upon a time…”
Yes, “How do you know what you know, and how do you change your mind?”
The referenced article is really quite good and interesting to read. If it is within the claimed belief system itself that the Koran was the “First Book to be written in Arabic” then we have a religion founded on very shakey grounds indeed.
Everyone should read the article for this gem alone: The 72 virgins promised in heaven may infact be “white grapes” instead. I know I’d die for the first version, way before the second.
Cryptic or ambiguous language seems to be the surest and most easily recognized sign of a false religion. Only a modicum of logic would suggest that clarity would be the paramount goal of any deity truly wishing to communicate to his created pets. When intelligent, sincere believers disagree so widely on the meaning of the text, look out.
Lovely thought, bobbo; All those young, sex-starved, virginal and not a little cuckoo as a result, teenage martyrs turning up in heaven ready for the mother of all shag-fests only to be met with a nice fruit salad and an eternal game of cribbage. Ha!
I know some University teachers that should be thrown through the window too.
This whole “original intent” issue is interesting. If I believed in god, and if I believed he wrote the Bible (thru proxies or otherwise), I surely would read the original text. Now, if both the Koran and the Bible were originally Aramaic text, wouldn’t the “truly religious” be reading the originals?
And to say that the translations are inspired as well is a hoot when for instance in the Bible the commandment can be “fairly translated” as either “Thou shalt not kill” or “Thou shalt not murder” or it could mean both or either depending on context? How can anyone be a literalist if that is true==and how can you know whether or not it is true unless you speak and know the original language itself???
Just plain stoopid on every level of analysis.
This deconstructionist stuff is disturbing. The students of theology I know try to discern meaning from the texts rather than focus on taking them literally. My understanding og BOTH texts, Koran and Bible is that they stem from oral traditions and were first written in the language of the time and area — Aramaic. But they were spoken in Arabic, Greek, Hebrew (only written by a select group of scribes who wouldn’t be caught dead writing about Jesus OR Mohamed) or Latin the language of the conquerors who were vanquished about the time this came about.
Failure to determine literal truth of a theological document like these does not necessarily make it all a lie.
Just as an exercise, ask a Buddhist if the Buddha’s name really WAS Buddha.
BEN
14–Ben, tell me more. Shouldn’t “everything” be deconstructed and then rebuilt for the fullest understanding of any issue? Such a process would only be disturbing if it violated a desired outcome–not the case for true scholarship?
What does a religious text mean? Seems to me you have to start with the actual words in the text? ie–a text certainly will mean one thing if it says “Thou shalt not kill” vs “Thou shalt not murder”–yes? That is a literal exercise that must be engaged before one goes for any other higher meaning? and if the religion itself really has no basis other than the text at issue, certain theological issues are raised.
“Failure to determine literal truth of a theological document like these does not necessarily make it all a lie.”//// Correct but if you can’t determine what the document even says/mean (kill v murder, virgins vs white grapes, even irony vs sarcasm?) then it cannot logically/truthfully be argued that it should be taken literally at all.
Thrown out a window? Certainly makes me grateful that our crazies just build museums….
Gary, #10,
Cryptic or ambiguous language language is not a sure or easily recognized sign of “false religion”. I’ll assume you mean by false religion the development of a system of beliefs purposely to mislead others. Correct me if you have a different meeting.
1. There is always a difficulty in describing the absolute in relative terms. Hence, why certain Buddhist writings seem contradictory, without prior instruction. Some religions believe that it is impossible, so you shouldn’t even try.
2. Frequently, writings were developed during periods where the religion was oppressed. Many argue that is why Revelation is so abstruse.
Nonetheless, the Quran should be subjected to the same scholarly rigor as the Bible, without fear. Although, I agree with #2, it sounds like that this scholar has narrowed his analysis to such a point that he strains at gnats and swallowing camels. A lot of philological analyses strain credulity.
Sigh,
More arguing about another stupid superstition.
#16 Rob R, by “false religion” I simply mean one that does not represent the worship of a god that truly exists. For me, the most basic logical belief about any god with enough power to create something out of nothing is that he can also communicate with clarity and precision, especially if his “memos” contain instructions with life and death consequences. Lack of those communication skills proves to my satisfaction that any given religious text is not of true divine origin, as many adherents of various religions claim.
Of course, I’m purposely excluding consideration of a god who is entertained by our confusion, simply because it also seems logical that such a god would not expect us to meet specific demands he has made.
Gary #18.
I agree with your point, I’m just reluctant to use your term because it implies intent to mislead, but I don’t have a better term..
Brian #17.
Understanding religion is as important as understanding any other part of human society.
0. Nobody mentions it because it is BS.
“The earliest Proto-Arabic, or Ancient North Arabian, texts are the Hasaean inscriptions of eastern Saudi Arabia, from the 8th century BC, written not in the modern Arabic alphabet, nor in its Nabataean ancestor, but in variants of the epigraphic South Arabian musnad.”
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic
“The Qur’an is expressed in Arabic and traditionally Muslims deem it impossible to translate in a way that would adequately reflect its exact meaning—indeed, until recently, some schools of thought maintained that it should not be translated at all.”
5. Here’s a classic Jay-walking question: Who resides in Mohammad’s tomb in Medina?
RBG
The switch to Mecca as a direction for prayer happened during prophet Mohammad’s life, the reason behind all of this is too long and is not the point.
It’s not quite as complicated as you suggest. Mohammed had a hissy fit with the local Jews because they didn’t immediately bow down and worship him as the new Messiah, so he changed the direction of prayer out of pure spite.
#21 Frank IBC writes “Mohammed had a hissy fit with the local Jews because they didn’t immediately bow down and worship him as the new Messiah, so he changed the direction of prayer out of pure spite.”
That reminds me of how the Protestant reformer Martin Luther also came to hate the Jews, back in 16th century Germany. It wasn’t racial anti-semitism, but it was due to their steadfast refusal to recognize Jesus as the Messiah and convert to Christianity. Luther’s anger built to such a level that he advocated burning their schools and synagogues, as well as other violent acts, as he put it “in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians” (from The Jews and Their Lies, by Martin Luther, translated from the original German).
When you read some of Luther’s writing, you have to think he was frothing at the mouth when he wrote it, but just as in your earlier example with Mohammed, it was all because the Jews refused to abandon their religion for something new.
My understanding [of] BOTH texts, Koran and Bible is that they stem from oral traditions and were first written in the language of the time and area — Aramaic.
No. Aramaic did not come into common usage until after the return from exile in Babylonia.
The Torah (Pentateuch) and the historical books up to II Kings written no later than the 7th Century BC(E), in Hebrew. The rest of the books of the Old Testament/Tanakh were written between the 7th and 1st centuries BC(E), all in Hebrew with the exception of a handful of verses in Ezra, Daniel and Jeremiah which were in Aramaic.
The four “official” Gospels were written within 100 years of Jesus’ death, all four in Greek. Aramaic was the primary language of the people, but Greek was widely used in the area that is now Israel, during that time.
#1: The Al’Quran has been translated in English. Free to read on: Al’Quran
F.
@21: that was stupid. Mohammad didn’t change the direction of prayer himself out of spite, it was revealed to him by God through the Quran. The point was to test the belief of the followers of Mohammad and separate the true believers from the hypocrites. Most of them – the hypocrites – resented the fact that they were praying towards Jerusalem instead of Mecca and many defected. Stop pulling facts out of your ass It is also mentioned in the Quran that prophet Mohammad himself was uneasy about this and longed to pray towards Mecca. If I could remember the exact verses I would link you to them which brings me to…
The Quran was translated to English, and it is available online. However, as someone already mentioned, to get a real sense of the meaning and conciseness of the Quran it must be read in it’s original Arabic form.
He changed the direction out of spite. What other reason would he stop venerating the site of the Temple in Jerusalem, and substitute the idol of the Moon-Goddess Al-Lat – the Ka’bah in Makkah?
It’s really funny how Islam, which claims to be anti-idolatrous, forces its followers to bow towards an idol five times a day, every single day.
Mohammed has 2 different names in the Koran. The name Mohammed means something like revered one and is mentioned in the Koran as a name he acquired, not that he was born with. Most people, including most Muslims, don’t know about about the veneration of Jerusalem. Arabic did not exist until some 200 years after Mohammed died, not just a different spoken language but a completely different alphabet; the alphabet changed from one without any vowels or diacritics (dots around the letters) to one with both. Even today most Arab speakers can’t read Arabic properly. None of the 5 pillars of Islam are mentioned in the Koran. There’s no evidence of the Koran existing in written form until over 300 years after M died. The accounts of the founding of the Koran mention the destruction of many other versions and there’s about 4 version of both the recording and the destruction. Then there’s the verses that the Koran admits were given to Mohammed by Satan! Nobody can find any evidence that Mohammed actually existed outside of the Koran and Hadeeths: no coins, no letters, no pictures. No knowledge of him by the heads of state surrounding the place in which he supposedly was founding Islam.
Islam has to come to grips with critique. All the other great religions did.
And it’s very important to note that Muhammad himself was illiterate.
Or was the illiteracy just a way of dodging accusations that he made everything up himself?
http://tinyurl.com/3pfdg
Mel Gibson should make another movie.