|
Response to "Challenging the Quran" Article in Newsweek
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."
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.
Source:
www.iviews.com
|
