[Ahhangar]

Book - The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Koran

http://www.verlag-ha...an&art_no=M0088

I have come across this book from a German professor whom has claimed to have been able to resolve many of the obtuse meanings of the Quran - by saying that many of the words of the Quran have been misinterpreted due to a lack of knowledge of the real meanings of some of the non Arabic words, and the mis placing of the vowels (ZerZabar). It is claimed the alot of the foreign words can only be really interpreted through understanding that original meaning of the non Arabic words as used in their language of origin - i.e. Aramaic - Syriac. Through this and the questioning of the process of transferring the Quran from a purely Oral form to a written form - by using some of the earliest examples of the written form of the Quran - he makes his case.

Here is the official review of the UK paper - The Guradian on the Book:

A Contribution to the Decoding of the Koran - This book approaches the Koran with the tools of modern scientific philology, and outlines a method to shed light onto koranic passages that are among those counted as 'dark' or 'mysterious'. Revised and expanded translation of the wave-making German original.
The most fascinating book ever written on the language of the Koran, and if proved to be correct in its main thesis, probably the most important book ever written on the Koran. (The Guardian)

Here is a link to view text - although it does not show the whole book in full. I strongly suggest that all whom want to understand the Quran in full and have an open mind about the process - to get a copy of this academic work: CLICK HERE

Here is another review about the book, by a student of Quranic research:

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).



What do you guys think about the idea that there are part of the Quran that have been misunderstood due to a lack of sufficient understanding of Syro-Aramaic ?


Ahhangar

[Nader Shah]

Sounds fascinating from an academic point of view, but what specifically has been clarified in the Quran verses that was muddied before ? A simple example would help.

Beyond academic interest, I am not sure what Quran can do for us ? Please enlighten us.
[QUOTE=Ahhangar;11692]

Book - The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Koran

http://www.verlag-ha...an&art_no=M0088

I have come across this book from a German professor whom has claimed to have been able to resolve many of the obtuse meanings of the Quran - by saying that many of the words of the Quran have been misinterpreted due to a lack of knowledge of the real meanings of some of the non Arabic words, and the mis placing of the vowels (ZerZabar). It is claimed the alot of the foreign words can only be really interpreted through understanding that original meaning of the non Arabic words as used in their language of origin - i.e. Aramaic - Syriac. Through this and the questioning of the process of transferring the Quran from a purely Oral form to a written form - by using some of the earliest examples of the written form of the Quran - he makes his case.

Here is the official review of the UK paper - The Guradian on the Book:

A Contribution to the Decoding of the Koran - This book approaches the Koran with the tools of modern scientific philology, and outlines a method to shed light onto koranic passages that are among those counted as 'dark' or 'mysterious'. Revised and expanded translation of the wave-making German original.
The most fascinating book ever written on the language of the Koran, and if proved to be correct in its main thesis, probably the most important book ever written on the Koran. (The Guardian)

Here is a link to view text - although it does not show the whole book in full. I strongly suggest that all whom want to understand the Quran in full and have an open mind about the process - to get a copy of this academic work: CLICK HERE

Here is another review about the book, by a student of Quranic research:

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).



What do you guys think about the idea that there are part of the Quran that have been misunderstood due to a lack of sufficient understanding of Syro-Aramaic ?


Ahhangar[/QUOTE]

[shinno]

Dear Ahhangar

Here is the link were the allegations made in this book by Christoph Luxenberg have been throughly refuted and it makes for an intresting read.

http://www.islamic-a.../Mss/vowel.html

[dokhtare pulegun]

Quote

What do you guys think about the idea that there are part of the Quran that have been misunderstood due to a lack of sufficient understanding of Syro-Aramaic ?

Arabs always boast that translations of the Quran will never compete with the original Arabic. Yet even amongst themselves, they argue different interpretations within the verses. This leads me to question: Why is god's book so.. confusing? Why does it allow both extreme interpretations as well as liberal? Shouldn't god's message be clear and easy to understand?

Needless to say, I'm not very religious.

[Super]

One of the questions that crosses my mind is: why is Quran revealed in Arabic language, while it is meant for all mankind?
Islam has been revolutionary in its time, but now, it is labelled with backwardness and ignorance. Islam, like other ideological institutions, should be revised for sake of its survival. Quran is the only reliable source of Islam, so Arabs should begin with that.
There is an interesting documentary made about miracles of Quran:

vKDu_8x2oOY

To watch the full documentry:
http://youtube.com/p...boy22004&page=2
Scroll down and you will see the 15 parts of the documentry.

[Parsistani]

There is no sth like ''obtuse meanings of the Quran''. The arabic language self is an off-shot of the syro-aramaeic language (language of Jesus) that is still alive under Assyrians of Iran, Armenia and Turkey. Modern Syria and northern Irak is considered as the homeland of the semitic people and their language. Those person who belive they understabd Quran and it´s meaning with all of his aspects are liers and anti-muslim. Generally they belong to the so-called pseudo scientists. One example: Christoph Luxemburg connects Muses and Jesus as one person devided by the fantasies of the people. The problem here is Jesus lived for over 2000 years ago while Moses lived for 3800 yeas ago (The Sphinx of Gisee mention about a pharaone king that ruled very short whos name was Moses and who also lived ca. 3800 b.c. with the same discribtion as we have from Qoran, Bible or Thora about Moses). While Moses is an agyphtian name is Jesus a jewish name...two different languages. The one lived during the times of pharaons and the other during the romans when the pharaons didn´t exist more. That´s only one point of many. Suprisely, the arabic language developed a system where words can have different meanings. For example the number 7. It could stand for everything, for infinite or only for a periode...by changing some words or speaking an a like an e you get also another meaning. An aspect you can only find in the arabic language.