The article published in Newsweek ("Challenging the
Quran," July
28) defies categorization and hence troubles whoever may like to respond to it.
It claims to draw on excerpts from academic research containing "bomb shells"
that could produce "a new interpretation of the Quran."The article claims Professor Luxenberg's is
"likely to be the most far
reaching scholarly commentary on the Quran's genesis, taking this infant
discipline far into uncharted and highly controversial territory." Who is
Luxenberg? An unknown scholar writing under a pseudonym. The "scholar" is
hiding his name for fear of repercussions, despite the fact that several people
have written on the same subject in the past and present without taking such a
precaution.
The professor works at an unnamed "leading German university" and his
research is acclaimed by "Moudher Sfar" - probably another pseudonymed
scholar from Tunisia we've never heard of. So much for academic credibility.
Pending availability of the original paper and the author's real name, this is
little more than a pseudo-academic piece published in a non-academic magazine.
Thus, any response must pick through the bits and pieces scattered on the pages
of Newsweek and conduct a point-by-point analysis.
Describing Luxenberg as one of a small but growing group of scholars studying
the language and history of the Quran is amazingly wrong. For 1400 years, there
have always been groups in the East and West of Muslims and non-Muslims,
faithful and skeptical, who wrote volumes about the history and language of the
Quran. The unknown author here is neither a pioneer nor a hero. Muslim scholars,
including the likes of the Muatazelite school, Imam Zamakhshari, Al-Tabary, and
countless scholars (of various readings of the Quran) are hard to count. There
are also so many Western scholars and Orientalists who wrote about the subject
in abundance that some of them would be restless in their graves if they read
the claims in Newsweek.
The article surmises that "translations of the Quran are never considered
authentic." Translations are judged as either accurate or inaccurate. No
translation is authentic. When you translate Shakespeare to French or Voltaire
to English, you may be accurate or not but the work will never be authentic,
simply because it is not what was said by the original author. To make this
sound like a peculiarity for the Quran or a particular thinking of Muslims lacks
academic objectivity.
Luxenberg's chief hypothesis is that the original language of the Quran was
not Arabic, but "something close" to Aramaic. What is the meaning of "something
close?" What is it? Where is it? Who would understand it? Who will understand
something close to English or German? These are questions that any semi-academic
mind would ask.
He asserts that Arabic as a language and system of writing was not developed
until 150 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad. This strange assertion
contradicts the major volume of pre-Islamic poetry, which is used even today to
help in understanding and interpreting the Quran.
This poetry includes seven famous pieces that students study in middle
schools throughout the Arab world, known as "Al Muallaquat." This refers to
poems that were hung on the walls of the Kaaba as exhibitions of the best
literary work in the pre-Islamic era. (The Kaaba, a cubic temple, has always
been attributed by Arabs to the patriarch prophet, Abraham.) It also contradicts
the Encyclopedia of Literature by Merriam-Webster, which states, "The
intermittent revelations to Muhammad were first memorized by followers and used
in ritual prayers, although verses were later written down during the Prophet's
lifetime."
Ads by Google:
Advertisements not controlled by IslamiCity
|
We have in Al-Azhar library a manuscript "explaining the unusual styles in
the Quran" written by Imam Sagistani 153 years after the migration to Medina,
in perfect classical Arabic. When we look to what is known as Christian Aramaic,
we notice that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, while the gospels are written in Greek.
It is far fetched that the Gospel would be written in Greek while the Quran
would be written in Aramaic.
We notice that Christian Aramaic, "which is actually the Syrian language
was the literally language of the City of Edessa (now Urfa in Southeast Turkey)
became the tongue of the entire eastern wing of the church from about the third
century C.E. down until past the Muslim conquest." Obviously the Muslim
conquest was carrying with it the Arabic Quran.
So the process upon which the rereading of the verses in Aramaic is false and
as Muslims jurists wisely say, "what is built on fallacy is false."
Then he talks about "houris," which are allegorically symbolic
beings of bliss in paradise, as being raisins and fruits. It is his prerogative
but this does not provide anything supernatural to look forward to the life of
eternity.
It seems that what he was referring to as raisins is "kawaib." He
challenges what he claims as the Arabic meaning of "beings with swollen
breasts," while if he had known Arabic, he would have understood the term as "beings of distinction." For this translation, we refer him to a real
Austrian scholar on the language of the Quran, later known as Muhammad Asad
(Review The Message of the Quran).
The claim that the Quran's commandment to women in surah 24 to "snap
their scarves over their bags" becomes in Aramaic "snap their belts around
their waists." I challenge the professor to show us where he brought this
verse of snapping from? Quran is available and surah 24 is easy to read.
In the Newsweek article, Luxenberg writes, "Even more explosive are
the readings that strengthen scholars' views that the Quran had Christian
origins. Surah 33 calls Muhammad the 'seal of the prophets.' In Aramaic, the
word 'seal' means witness so he must be a witness of the Prophets." We
really don't need all these acrobatics to prove a meaning that has been
mentioned clearly in several areas of the Quran. Muhammad was a witness just as
believers are witnesses, and Muhammad followed the good models of other prophets
who came to testify for and confirm the truth they brought from God to humanity.
So where is the brilliant discovery?
A similar case can be made for the arguments around the word "revelation."
The author had to go to Aramaic or what he calls "something closer to Aramaic"
to inform us that it actually means "teaching" of the ancient scriptures. He
may be referring to the word "wahye" in Arabic, which means teaching,
revelation, suggestion, setting instinct, putting the law of order to things,
intuitive ideas, outbursts of thoughts and creativity. Wahye described
scriptures, the nature of the heavens and earth, the instinct of the bees, the
flow of poetry, etc. So there is no new "revelation" that Luxenberg is
bringing here. What Newsweek slips in about Egyptian court, Nasre AbuZaid,
Fatwa, etc. is opportunistic journalism, not fitting the standard of the
magazine.
Dr. Maher Hathout is the senior advisor the Muslim Public Affairs Council,
and spokesperson for the Islamic Center of Southern California.