The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran [Hardcover]

Christoph Luxenberg (Author)

Product Details

• Hardcover: 349 pages
• Publisher: Verlag Hans Schiler; 1st edition (March 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 3899300882
• ISBN-13: 978-3899300888
• Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 6.1 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #142,411 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #12 in Books > History > Middle East > Syria
  • #50 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Bible & Other Sacred Texts > Quran

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A careful and reverent analysis of certain passages in the Koran, January 16, 2011

By 

Ulfilas (Washington, DC) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran (Hardcover)

The author presents an analysis of the Koran that in an enlightened world would not be expected to excite controversy of any sort. The tone of the book is one of benevolent calm and carefully balanced reasoning that could hardly be expected to offend any person capable of sentient reflection. Most of the passages analyzed by the author would not seem to be on the verge of overturning Islam and the authority of the Koran. One passage of interest is the one in which Mary gives birth to Jesus. In this account there is an Arabic phrase indicating the existence of a streamlet from which Mary was able to drink while in labor. It is argued by the author, however, the original Aramaic version of this phrase states that the birth is legitimate (pp.141-142; Sura 19:24)) rather than that such a streamlit existed. Somewhat more controversial is the statement in the Koran that when rendered in Aramaic implies that its original language was indeed a foreign one and not Arabic (pp.123-124).

The topic that brought this book to the attention of the news media, that it is white raisins rather than willing virgins that the devout Muslim will encounter in Paradise, is given ample space. Indeed, pages 247-283 are devoted to this topic. The author regards his efforts as helping "the Koran to achieve its original inner coherence" (p.264) so that the notion of Paradise depicted by Ephraem the Syrian is restored to its proper place. The chapter "Virgins in Paradise" is followed by the chapter "The Boys of Paradise" (pp.284-291). Although the author does not suggest that any interpretation of the role of "boys" in such a place might be salacious, devout Muslims might take comfort in the author indicating that the Arabic word "walid" (i.e. boy or child), equivalent to the Aramaic word "yalda", is meant as a reference to "child of the vine"--that is, wine.

The reader of this book must have, at the very least, some knowledge of Arabic for this book to be at all comprehensible. Such knowledge of Arabic should be at an intermediate level, allowing the reader to parse verses of the Koran with the aid of a dictionary and an interlinear translation. The Aramaic phrases are written using the beautiful Estrangelo Syriac alphabet that can easily be found on the web, and which in some ways resembles the Hebrew alphabet.

As to the argument of the author that much of the Koran had originated from Aramaic texts, I must confess that I am not sufficiently expert in my knowledge of Arabic to make an independent assessment. As for my knowledge of Aramaic, it is quite rudimentary. Nevertheless, the book is sufficiently clearly argued for me to at least enjoy the discussion, and to imagine its import and relevance.

31 of 37 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Absolutely Englightening!, July 23, 2009

By 

Timothy Abraham "A former Muslim" - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran (Hardcover)

Have you ever read the Quran and wondered why some words don't seem to be translatable? The author of this book capitalizes on his erudite knowledge of Syriac and Arabic and does a fantastic job in unfolding the text of the Quran. He always addresses the Quran respectfully and strives to show the hidden beauty in some semitic cognates in the Quran. He compares Hijazi codex as well as other ancient codices in their script with Aramaic early script, thus dispelling all ambiguity. He focuses on that part of the Quran where it might have some commonality with the Quran. I can't recommend that book enough. It is a real masterpiece.

30 of 42 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Marabout did not read the book. His commentary is cut and paste from wikipedia, September 14, 2009

By 

Syed I. Ahmed "chris1066" (Atlanta, GA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran (Hardcover)

Marabout,

Tell me something: DID YOU EVEN READ THE BOOK??? Obviously not because you CUT & PASTE your entire piece directly from WIKIPEDIA!!! Good God! How intellectually dishonest can you get? You would have been flunked out of a US School for doing this. Have you no shame at all? Here, I'll even make it easy for everyone: Here's what you said and the corresponding Wikipedia quotes and then everyone can judge for themselves. The link to the Wikipedia piece is available at the following link and is under the heading "Academic Reviews". [...]

MARABOUT: The Qur'an is "the translation of a Syriac text," is how Angelika Neuwirth, a German scholar of Islam, describes Luxenberg's thesis - "The general thesis underlying his entire book thus is that the Qur'an is a corpus of translations and paraphrases of original Syriac texts recited in church services as elements of a lectionary." He considers it as "an extremely pretentious hypothesis which is unfortunately relying on rather modest foundations." Neuwirth points out that Luxenberg doesn't consider the previous work in Qu'ran studies, but "limits himself to a very mechanistic, positivist linguistic method without caring for theoretical considerations developed in modem linguistics."

WIKIPEDIA: The Qur'an is "the translation of a Syriac text," is how Angelika Neuwirth, a German scholar of Islam, describes Luxenberg's thesis - "The general thesis underlying his entire book thus is that the Qur'an is a corpus of translations and paraphrases of original Syriac texts recited in church services as elements of a lectionary." She considers it as "an extremely pretentious hypothesis which is unfortunately relying on rather modest foundations." Neuwirth points out that Luxenberg doesn't consider the previous work in Qu'ran studies, but "limits himself to a very mechanistic, positivist linguistic method without caring for theoretical considerations developed in modem linguistics."[14]

MARABOUT: Richard Kroes describes him as "unaware of much of the other literature on the subject" and that "quite a few of his theories are doubtful and motivated too much by a Christian apologetic agenda." François de Blois, in the Journal of Qur'anic Studies, points to grammatical mistakes in Luxenberg's book: "His grasp of Syriac is limited to knowledge of dictionaries and in his Arabic he makes mistakes that are typical for the Arabs of the Middle East." He descrbies his book as "not a work of scholarship but of dilettantism."

WIKIPEDIA: Richard Kroes describes him as "unaware of much of the other literature on the subject" and that "quite a few of his theories are doubtful and motivated too much by a Christian apologetic agenda."[3] François de Blois, in the Journal of Qur'anic Studies, points to grammatical mistakes in Luxenberg's book:[3] "His grasp of Syriac is limited to knowledge of dictionaries and in his Arabic he makes mistakes that are typical for the Arabs of the Middle East."[3] [13] He descrbies his book as "not a work of scholarship but of dilettantism."[13]

MARABOUT: Dr Walid Saleh describes Luxemberg's method as "so idiosyncratic, so inconsistent, that it is simply impossible to keep his line of argument straight." He adds that according to Luxenberg, for the last two hundred years, Western scholars "have totally misread the Qur'an"; that no one can understand the Qur'an: "Only he can fret out for us the Syrian skeleton of this text." Summing up his assessment of Luxenberg's method, he states:

WIKIPEDIA: Dr Walid Saleh describes Luxemberg's method as "so idiosyncratic, so inconsistent, that it is simply impossible to keep his line of argument straight."[7] He adds that according to Luxenberg, for the last two hundred years, Western scholars "have totally misread the Qur''n"; that no one can understand the Qur'an: "Only he can fret out for us the Syrian skeleton of this text."[7] Summing up his assessment of Luxenberg's method, he states:

MARABOUT: The first fundamental premise of his approach, that the Qur'an is a Syriac text, is the easiest to refute on linguistic evidence. Nothing in the Qur'an is Syriac, even the Syriac borrowed terms are Arabic, in so far as they now Arabized and used inside an Arabic linguistic medium. Luxenberg is pushing the etymological fallacy to its natural conclusion. The Qur'an not only is borrowing words according to Luxenberg, it is speaking a gibberish language.

WIKIPEDIA: The first fundamental premise of his approach, that the Qur''n is a Syriac text, is the easiest to refute on linguistic evidence. Nothing in the Qur''n is Syriac, even the Syriac borrowed terms are Arabic, in so far as they now Arabized and used inside an Arabic linguistic medium. Luxenberg is pushing the etymological fallacy to its natural conclusion. The Qur''n not only is borrowing words according to Luxenberg, it is speaking a gibberish language.[7]

MARABOUT: Patricia Crone (the queen of revisionism!), professor of Islamic history at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, refers to Luxenberg's work as "open to so many scholarly objections" and "notably amateurism".

WIKIPEDIA: Patricia Crone, professor of Islamic history at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, refers to Luxenberg's work as "open to so many scholarly objections" and "notably amateurism".[16]

Your intellectual dishonesty is shameful.