Customer Reviews

Die Syro-Aramäische Lesart des Koran. Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache (German Edition)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

For any layman this book is unreadable. You need knowledge of eight languages (German, English, French, Latin, Greek, Arabic and Syriac - a form of Aramaic) and the five associated alphabets to appreciate it. If you do not know German very well or if you're not able to at least read Arabic and Estrangelo: don't even start.
Contrary to popular opinion, fed by somewhat sensationalising articles in the popular press, the book does not say that the Quran was written in Syriac, just that Syriac words, phrases and grammar got into the unvoweled and unpointed text of the earliest copies of the Quran. The 'Arabic' referred to in the Quran itself, and spoken in Mecca, was (according to Luxenberg) a mix of Arabic and Syriac used by caravan-traders. Syriac was the 'world language' of the Middle East in the 7th century CE and Mecca was a major trading city. Most early Muslims must have had a good understanding of Syriac. This phenomenon is not unique; Swahili and Pidgin English came into being in much the same way: as traders languages. Not to mention modern day computer jargon.
Luxenberg tries to prove that the oral tradition of Quranic recitation was interrupted early on in its history. This led to a later misinterpretation of many passages. Not only Syriac, but also perfectly Arabic words, phrases and grammar were mispointed and misvowelled in the process of editing it into a 'perfectly Arabic text'.
His many (up to 60) examples (if true) prove this point, and to the lay reader some of these examples do provide a better or more logical reading of the text indeed. Other suggested readings seem to be convincing only because they change some Quranic texts into texts surprisingly closer to Christian scources. This serves another purpose: to prove that the Quran was actually based on Christian liturgical texts, written in Syriac. This seems to be a bit far-fetched and too much for the proof that Luxenberg offers for it. But on the issue of a possible hiatus in the oral tradition he does have a point that needs and warrants further research, as even his critics admit.
To traditional Muslims who are used to see the Quran as the eternal, immutable and uncreated word of God, this book is bound to be shocking. At the risk of sounding patronising: there is no need to be shocked, even if Luxenberg is right on all accounts (which I doubt), and even if he is right only on some of his points, this says nothing about the value of the faith of Muslims.
For some passages in which, according to critics of the Quran, the rules of Arabic grammar are transgressed, Luxenberg suggests readings which are either perfectly correct Arabic or perfectly correct Syriac. Somehow traditional Muslims haven't picked up on that, even though they could put it to good apologetic use.
Luxenberg is a must read for anyone interested in Quranic research, even is he's wrong on all accounts (which I doubt as well).