خوانش سریانی-آرامی قرآن: جستاری برای رازگشایی زبان قرآن

by Christoph Luxenberg, داریوش بی‌نیاز

خوانش سریانی ـ آرامی قرآن، جُستاری برای رازگشایی زبان قرآن

خوانش سریانی ـ آرامی نخستین بررسی جامع زبان‌شناختی قرآن است. زبان قرآن، برخلاف تصور همگانی، نه عربی ناب بلکه آمیزه‌ای از عربی ـ سریانی است که نویسنده تلاش کرده با یافتن ریشه‌های سریانی ـ آرامی فن‌واژه‌های قرآن و فقرات مبهم و تاریک آن را روشن سازد. برای نمونه، نویسنده نشان می‌دهد که اساساً چیزی به نام حوریان یا دوشیزگان بهشتی در قرآن وجود ندارد بلکه منظور «انگورهای سفید» است. همین شناخت در مورد غلمان یا پسران بهشتی نیز صادق است. نویسنده همچنین نشان داده است که قرآن، دست کم نخستین سوره‌های آن، بر پایه سنت مسیحیت شرق یا کلاً انجیل (عهدین) نگارش شده است. از این‌رو، این کتاب دریچه نوینی در قرآن‌پژوهی گشوده است

Genres: Islam, Religion, History, Linguistics, Nonfiction, Academic, Language

322 pages, Paperback

First published March 21, 2007

About the author

Christoph Luxenberg is the pseudonym of the author of The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Qur'an (German edition 2000, English translation 2007)[1] and several articles in anthologies about early Islam.

Luxenberg came into the public eye in the years after 2000, following the publication of his first book (or at least the first one under this pseudonym), The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran, which asserted that the language of the early compositions of the Qur'an was not exclusively Arabic, as assumed by the classical commentators, but rather is rooted in the Syro-Aramaic dialect of the 7th century Meccan Quraysh tribe, which is associated in the early histories with the founding of the religion of Islam. Luxenberg's premise is that the Aramaic language, which was prevalent throughout the Middle East during the early period of Islam, and was the language of culture and Christian liturgy, had a profound influence on the scriptural composition and meaning of the contents of the Koran.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christop...

Reviews

[Peiman E iran · Rating 3 out of 5]

‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، کتابِ << خوانش سوری-آرامی، از قرآن>> از جهاتی برایِ آن دسته از پژوهشگران و خردگرایانی که سعی در فاش نمودنِ حقیقت چیستی و چگونگی کتابِ <قرآن اعراب و مسلمانها> دارند، مناسب و مفید میباشد
‎توضیحاتی در مورد این کتاب مینویسم، سپس به نکاتی اشاره میکنم، که میدانم برایِ دوستانِ خردگرا و باشعور، جالب توجه میباشد
*****************************
‎عزیزانم، <لوکزنبرگ>، پژوهشگر آلمانی، در این کتاب ثابت میکند که بسیاری از کلماتِ غیرِ عربی که حتی مفسرین مسلمان معنایِ آنها را نمیدانند و هریک هر خزعبلات و چرت و پرتی گیرشان آمده در موردِ آن دسته از کلمات و واژه ها نوشته اند، اصالتاً کلماتی "سریانی" و "آرامی" و "عبری" هستند که یا به اشتباه نقطه گذاری شده اند و یا به اشتباه تعبیر شده اند و یا به عمد در معنای آنها تحریف ایجاد کرده اند تا حقیقت در مورد اینکه این قرآن از کجا جمع آوری شده است و چه کسانی ( به عنوان مثال: فرقهٔ ابیونی ها) آنرا به <محمد رسول اللهِ اکبر> داده اند و یا همچون نامه برایش ارسال کرده اند تا مبلغِ فرقه و دینِ آنها باشد، بر ملا نشود.. و البته بسیاری از حقایق دیگر که در اینجا مجالی برای بازگو نمودن آنها نیست و در ریویوهای دیگر در مورد آن نوشته ام و باز هم مینویسم که جریان این نامه ها چه بوده است و چه میشود که پس از مرگ محمد، اصحابش این نامه هایی که برایِ محمد از سویِ ابیونی ها، ارسال شده بوده را تبدیل به کتاب کردند و نامش را قرآن نهادند
***************
‎در زیر به برخی از کلماتی که در این کتاب آمده، اشاره میکنم
------------------------------------------------
‎به این آیات از سورهٔ فصلت، دقت کنید

‎حم (1) تَنْزِیلٌ مِنَ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِیمِ (2) کِتَابٌ فُصِّلَتْ آیَاتُهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِیًّا لِقَوْمٍ یَعْلَمُونَ

‎حم... وحی (نامه) ای است از جانبِ خدایِ رحمتگر و مهربان... کتابی است که آیاتِ آن به روشنی بیان شده است، قرآنی است به زبانِ عربی، برایِ مردمی که میدانند
*******
‎خوووب... عزیزانم، توجه داشته باشید که در زبان عربی <فصل> به معنی جدا کردن است و در اینجا مترجمان و مفسرانِ مسلمان، آن را به عنوان توضیح دادن و روشن کردن تعبیر میکنند..... امّا <لوکزنبرگ> متوجه شده است که این کلمه، عربی نبوده و بلکه "سریانی" بوده است و با رجوع به ریشهٔ "سریانی" <فصل> دریافته است که منظور اصلیِ نویسنده یا نویسندگانِ این نوشته در اینجا <<ترجمه کردن>> بوده است، بنابراین معنای این آیه اینگونه درست است که:: کتابی که ما به عنوانِ یک قرآن عربی، ترجمه کرده ایم
*****
-------------------------------------------------
‎به این آیات از سورهٔ المدثر، دقت کنید
‎فَمَا لَهُمْ عَنِ التذْکِرَةِ مُعْرِضِین (49) كَأَنَّهُمْ حُمُرٌ مُسْتَنْفِرَةٌ (50) فَرَّتْ مِنْ قَسْوَرَةٍ

‎چرا آنها از تذکر روى گردانند. گویى گورخرانى رمیده اند که از مقابل شیرى فرار کرده اند
***********
‎خووب... دوستانِ فهیم، دقت کنید که چقدر معنای این آیه بی ربط و به نوعی مسخره است... چراکه در اصل اشتباه معنا شده است
‎کلمهٔ <قسوره> به معنایِ <شیرِ جنگل> ترجمه شده است. در صورتیکه این کلمه اصلاً عربی نمیباشد که به عربی معنی شود و تنها بنا بر اساسِ حدس و گمانِ عده ای بیخرد، به معنایِ <شیر> ترجمه شده است
‎اینبارهم <لوکزنبرگ> ریشهٔ این واژه را یافته و متوجه شده است که این کلمه "آرامی" بوده است و با رجوع به معادل آن در زبانِ "آرامی" نشان میدهد که منظورِ نویسنده و یا نویسندگانِ این متن که به محمّد رسیده است، <الاغ> بوده است، نه <شیر جنگل>... پس <قسوره> یعنی الاغی که پیر است و قادر به حمل بار نمیباشد
‎بنابراین منظورِ این آیات این نبوده است که: مشرکین با شنیدن تذکر مانند گورخرانی هستند که از یک شیر ژیان میترسند و فرار میکنند.... بلکه متن میخواهد بگوید که: آنها مانند گورخرانی هستند که از الاغ (مذکر) ضعیف و پیر میترسند، در حالیکه این هیچ تهدیدی برایِ آنها
‎ندارد
-------------------------------------------------
‎مثال های دیگر را بدونِ نوشتنِ آیاتِ قرآنی برایتان در زیر مینویسم
************
‎مفسرانِ قرآنی، <حور العین> را به اشتباه "باکرگان بهشتی" تعبیر میکنند اما در اصل این کلمه به معنایِ <انگور سفید> میباشد
‎ مفسرانِ قرآنی، <کوثر> را، بنا به روایتی از عایشه، به اشتباه <نهری در بهشت> معنی کرده اند، که به محمّد اعطا شده است، که این معنا بسیار خنده دار و دور از عقل میباشد... عزیزانم، <کوثر> اصلاً عربی نیست، بلکه یک واژهٔ "سریانی" است و به معنایِ <استقامت در کار و عمل> میباشد
--------------------------------------------------
‎دوستانِ خردگرا، این پژوهشگر بزرگ، بسیاری از کلماتی را که ریشهٔ "سریانی" و "آرامی" و "عبری" و "قبطی" داشته است را از قرآن استخراج کرده و ثابت نموده است که بسیاری از معناها و تفسیرهای قرآنی کاملاً اشتباه از آب درآمده است که من چند مورد را برایتان نوشتم
***************
‎امیدوارم این ریویو برایِ دوستان و ایرانیانِ خردگرا، مفید بوده باشه
‎<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>

[Bchara · Rating 3 out of 5]

I bought this book as a gift to myself after my thesis defense last february, after i heard so much about it. Finally a year later i read it. I do know arabic, and can read syriac, but that was not enough to totally grasp the whol of the book. At times it gets too technical, using expressions such as mater lectionis or gemination ( words that could be understood) or using english (i am reading the english translation) terms related to arabic and syriac languages studies - while myself, in arabic classes, never had to use such english terms. This made reading the book quite challenging.

But overall the idea is clear : the author goes from the assumption that the Quran was written in syriac, and its alphabet had no dots on the letters. Its recitation changed over the years which led islamic scholars to alter some of its writing, such as adding hamzas while before it was just "y".

The author fails to reply to one question though, in as much as he plunges into details: what about continuity? I suppose his thesis can be understood if the original reading of the Quran had ceised for a while, to be forgotten, then when newer people tried to read the Quran they no longer remembered the original reading.
Now of course, this objection is minor, since much of the Quran's early history is reconstructed, and the Quran, while moving from Mekka and Medina to Damascus and Bagdad might also have changed readings, and subsequent scholars reconstructed its history as they thought convenient. But in any case, i think the authr must have dealt with this point.

As for the many many examples given, it clearly appears the author masters his topic. Many of the examples are example, mostly when nothing much has to be changed to change the meaning. For example, when you have to substitute a hamza by a "y" or put the dot below a "g" above it to make it a "kh". When too many changes are to be made, it gets more speculative. And the method the author mentions p. 24 - method f - is actually a bit far out and could be used in both ways, since syriac too was influenced by arabic after the arabic invasion.

At the end, the book was quite interesting, and it does make a point: it breaks this idealised relation between Quran and arabic language, which leads to a whole new understanding of the Quran, since usually islamic scholars explained Quranic words by a closed circle: they explain the meaning of a word by how it was used in arabic poetry - while the meaning in the poetry was initially given to suit the Quran.

[Chedy R. · Rating 3 out of 5]

القراءة السريانية الآرامية للقرآن كتاب لكريستوف لوكسينبرج (وهو إسم مستعار) يقدم فيه أطروحة مضادة للتقليد الإسلامي الذي يعتبر القرآن محفوظا عبر التناقل الشفوي حتى التدوين. يرتكز لوكسينبرج في اطروحته على دراية بالآرامية والسريانية والعربية، ويقدم كثيرا من الترجمات في أمثلته (بالإنجليزية والفرنسية والألمانية).

الكتاب صعب حتى على المتخصص، ولكنه جدير بالقراءة لأنه على الأقل يحفز على البحث وله طرح جريء يجيب على بعض الاسئلة المتعلقة ب"غريب القرآن" (منها تساؤلات قرأتها ليوسف الصديق). يتناول لوكسينبرج في بحثه الكثير من المصطلحات بدءًا من "الحنيف"، مرورا بالحور (مع تأويل كامل مغاير للجنة الإسلامية) ووصولا إلى بعض السور.

[Seyed Morakabi · Rating 3 out of 5]

نزدیک یک سال پیش، وقتی آقای دکتر مجاهدی گفت قرآن‌پژوهی نوین به تصحیح انتقادی نسخ خطی نیز می‌پردازد من هیچ چیز نفهمیدم. نفهمیدم تصحیح نسخه چه پیوندی می‌تواند داشته باشد با قرآن‌پژوهی. چون تا پیش از خواندن این کتاب، قرآن در نگاهم نوشته‌ای یکتا بود که حتی جابه‌جایی نقطه‌ها هم چندان معنایش را دگرگون نمی‌ساختند اما امروز دست کم می‌دانم که... متن کامل ریویو

[Tariq Mahmood · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating insight into the first book written in the Arabic language, the Koran. The author presents a detailed and well researched translation of the confusing words of the Koran which he claims are descending from the Syriac language. I think this area of research should be owned by Muslim scholars.

[R. R. · Rating 1 out of 5]

It's the messed up first step effort of a foreigner to the region, the culture and the religion,at trying to decipher a holy book. I call it a first step because the book makes a number of erroneous assumptions, one of the most basic is claiming that the Assyrian language is the same as the Aramaic, he even thinks its the same as the kaldean language. Which is outright false.
He also completely misses the relation between the Arabic and Aramaic languages, reducing it to 'Aramaic being the language of the educated at the time'.
He is further hampered by the translations of the Qur'an that found their way to Europe. He challenges them correctly many times , but he forgets that the mistake is in the translation and goes on to challenge the original text.
It is easy for people from the region, especially Syrians and Iraqis, to see the errors of his ways.
The author treats the book from the linguistic angle only, with a Christian background. He has very little facts about the region and it's history and the circumstances surrounding the Qur'an, even though he claims othrwise. Understanding the history is an integral part of understanding and using the regions languages. This lack of knowledge has seriously hampered the author's ability at presenting a convincing argument to people of the region: Muslims and Christians alike.
It claims that some words or verses are mispronounced or misspelled in the Qur'an because they are spelt in a different way in Aramic or Hebrew. This is not the way to conduct scientific sound research. Imagine using French letters or pronunciations to claim that an English word is mispronounced. Even if it had a root in French it is now an English word and should be pronounced, spelt and understood according to the new language. How many English words have meanings completely different to their French roots? This argument about having to use the Aramaic pronunciation for the Qur'an is totally absurd, and unscientific.
Furthermore, the book has been exploited for promoting discriminatory and inflammatory agendas further alienating it from Muslim and Arab readers.
Having said that, the book does explain some words or phrases that have remained mysterious for the most knowledgeable Muslim clerics.
Wish the effort was based on sound facts and arguments and methods of research.

[Edwardstew · Rating 2 out of 5]

Syro Aramaic is billion times nearer to Hebrew than Classical Arabic. I know both languages! This is like saying lets read the Quran with Hebrew, or lets read a Dutch book with German. People need to have a decent IQ and realize that Arabic is a totally DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. A sounding in Arabic has a totally different meaning than a sounding in other Semitic branch.

I will just quote a NATIVE Arabic and Syriac linguistic:

''The first fundamental premise of his approach, that the Qur'ān is a Syriac text, is the easiest to refute on linguistic evidence. Nothing in the Qur'ān 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'ān not only is borrowing words according to Luxenberg, it is speaking a gibberish language."

[Jamal Armel · Rating 5 out of 5]

There was no reason for the 11 September 2001 Muslim hijackers to expect 72 virgins with big eyes and round bosoms as a reward for their "martyrdom". They would rather find vineyards with white and cold grapes waiting for them in paradise. A simple misreading caused by misplaced diacritics symbols in the text of the Qur'an is the cause of such disappointing news for the jihadists.

[Ayman Ashour · Rating 2 out of 5]

This odd book is neither accessible nor academic, it does not appear to be addressed to the ordinary reader, nor to the scientific academic community. For an ordinary reader it’s overwhelming with extensive multilingual references, scripts and footnotes. For academics it’s overreaching in scope, lacking in focus, full of opinions and not presented in a manner that lends itself to peer review. I conclude it’s a hodgepodge of opinions presented as science and designed to impress and overwhelm ordinary readers. The central hypothesis of the book, the origins and development of the Arabic language is far from proven, agreed upon or established science.

Christoph Luxenberg, the name the author wrote under, presents an unfounded assumption that the early Quran manuscripts were written in Syrio Aramaic script. This central assumption drives much of the work of the book. Yet, this assumption can’t be supported by manuscripts, archaeological or historical evidence. A critical thesis presented in the book is that the Quran was never meant to be a “scripture”, rather it’s a liturgical poems for communal recitations. The Author supports this hypothesis with linguistic analysis of the Arabic word Quran and its relation to Syriac Aramaic words and how the sound “ya” in Aramaic was confused when writing Arabic with the sound “ah”. Few other similar minor arguments led the author to jump to this conclusion as an established fact. The author chose not to address numerous differences of narratives between the Quran on one side and what the Author references as Scripture, namely the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. The Author simply chose to ignore all references in the Quran to the humanity of Jesus and the Quran’s insistence that Jesus is not divine and simply convinced himself that he, the Author, is single handedly dismantling the myth of the divinity and is correcting centuries old misunderstandings of it.

The Author puts forward more thoughtful analysis into various words used in the Quran and proposes Syrio Aramaic explanations for them such as الرقيم, قسورة، عتل، زنيم. The analysis of the points or dots on the letters and the possible connections to Aramaic in the early manuscripts is interesting but clearly needs to be subjected to historical critical peer review.

One of the author most far fetched or rather more outlandish theories comes in his interpretation of the Arabic word يسر and يسرنا where the author imposes a Syrio Aramaic reading on this straight forward Arabic meaning of to easing or make easier and insists that it means “translate”. The author then proceeds to suggest interpretations that the Quran itself states that it was translated.

The Author attributed parts of the Sura of Mary, specifically Quran 19:24 to the non canonical Gospel of Pseudo Matthew. Historians date Pseudo Matthew to around 800 AD/CE, it is therefore hard to argue that it was influential in the Mecca region nearly 160-190 years earlier. The author presented no evidence of a connection, yet proceeded to offer further interpretations to Sura 19 based on his unfounded and unsupported assumptions.

Moving beyond his stated specialty in Syrio Aramaic language, the Author proposed corrections for Arabic words that he didn’t attribute to Syrio Aramaic origins in a short chapter titled "Misread Arabic Expressions". While he offered interesting arguments based on his logic for his “corrections” of the placement of the dots for Sura 17:64, his approach indicated a weak methodology of research. The threshold or the substantiation for altering texts whose immediate intent may have not been clear appears to become the Author’s opinion.

The Author then proceeded to state in Chapter 15: “Now that it has become clear from the preceding analysis of individual samples of the language of the Koran that already in normal linguistic usage the Koran text has been in part so misread and misinterpreted by Arabic philologists and exegetes, it will no longer be surprising it meanwhile deeply anchored notions in the Islamic tradition, indeed religious contents, have been partially based on equally misunderstood Koran text.” This one unwieldy sentence betrays an approach of antagonism towards Islam disguised as scientific critical study of the language of the Quran.

On the topic of the so-called Virgins of Paradise or حور العين , the Author offered a fascinating discussion, in what appeared as a standalone paper or essay that was incorporated in the book. His approach to this particular part appeared more restrained, less opinionated and more engaging. He concluded that the concept of virgins of paradise was a misreading of the original Quranic texts.

The author concluded with detailed analysis of two short Suras 96 & 108 offering cogent arguments to possible Syrio Aramaic roots and reasoned interpretations. The author then, lacking substantiation, absurdly, offered the First Epistle of Peter as a root for Sura 108 and suggested erroneously that the text is rooted in an invitation to partake in a Christian Communion and to receive a Eucharist. The Author’s failed to offer any evidence of the First Peter being particularly important in the Syriac Christian history in terms of number of Syriac manuscripts or other indication of influence. The alleged connection to Eucharist was presented with no support whatsoever.

The coming decades will no doubt present the Muslim world with an increasing number of western historical critical studies of the text of the Quran and fundamentals of Islamic history. The work in this book sadly belongs to the category of orientalist islamophobia, and is not serious scientific work. This book is essentially an expression of the unfounded opinions of one man that, presented with the ornaments of a scientific study, but is certainly not that. This work does the field of historical critical study of Islam a great disservice.

[Harmen de Jong · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dit is zo’n boek waarvan ik na een uur lezen denk: nee, dit ga ik niet lezen, dit heeft alles van een naslagwerk. Ik zal het bij lezing van de diverse Sura’s gebruiken. De introductie is helder, namelijk (laat ik de Hidjra aanhouden) op 16 juli 622 was er geen standaard Arabisch, alle stammen hadden zo hun eigen dialect. Naast het Arabisch was het Aramees alom tegenwoordig, het was de lingua franca in het oosten, gesproken en schriftelijk. En natuurlijk had je ook nog Perzisch, Grieks. Het aantal leenwoorden in de Koran is dan ook erg groot, aldus de schrijver. Als je er van uitgaat dat de Koran in zuiver Arabisch is overgeleverd, dan kun je niet anders dan een Arabische draai aan de tekst geven. Dat lijkt ook veel te zijn gebeurd, met soms vreemde uitspraken. De schrijver (die om begrijpelijke redenen anoniem wil blijven) gaat verschillende Sura’s bij langs.

[Sami · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite I read and speak Arabic it was a hard book to read and understand everything it would be easier to read if you were a linguistic expert and advanced in Arabic grammar
But still very interesting book if you accept that the Quoran was written in Syro-Arameac first which explains a lot of hard to understand verses also hard to understand Arabic Grammar

[Gamal Esam]

A boring book. Although I read dozens of articles about the Syro-Aramic origins of Arabic language and listened to hours of speeches, but this book is too much boring (I read 50 pages), I felt like reading one of the sheets the Doctor (as he suppose to be) of parasitolgy and microbiology department gave us!!

[mahatmanto · Rating 4 out of 5]

gak usah direview.
takut.

[Andriy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Proves the koran is no more divine than my grandmothers recipies for biscuits!

[MF · Rating 5 out of 5]

A truly ground breaking book that has shed light on the Qur'an's Syro-Aramaic origins in the context of a pre-Islamic Christian monastic community. His thesis is backed up by the linguistic evidence but it also dovetails with other evidence, such as from Dan Gibson and Patricia Crone, that place the context of Islam's beginnings in Petra, rather than in Mecca.

[Nicole · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book, however too technical for me. I was hoping for a book aimed more at the general public and less at linguists intimately familiar with the (history of the) languages discussed in the book. I stopped reading after the first seven chapters.

[Nasser Moeen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Scholarly with audacious claims about the origin of the book discussed.

[Cep Subhan KM · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great work to be discussed. I think people who interested in Quranic studies today should read this book.

[Mahdi Kavyani Nejad · Rating 4 out of 5]

نظریه جالبی بود. خیلی از زبان شناسی سر در نمیارم ولی این خوانش خیلی آیات رو که قبلا معناش نامربوط به نظر می‌رسید توضیح داد.
سالها بود که این عدم انسجام و نامربوط بودن ترجمه ها اذیتم می‌کرد.

[Nihal Zaki · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though the book is written in English, I think a reader who doesn't read Arabic will suffer a lot to follow the author's analysis. As a matter of fact, even the reader who knows good Arabic will suffer as well, this is not an "easy read" by any means ! The book is full of very interesting and some times intriguing remarks about the text of Quran, however some of the conclusions came unconvincing for me and some others were very difficult and complicated for me to follow, which left me with almost 50% of the book's content which I was able to follow and was much convincing. However, it's worth mentioning that the 50% that I was able to extract, was of much value and, one must say, must have took much effort and research from the author.
To sum this review up: don't try to read this book if you are not familiar with Arabic letters, but if you do, the book gives you enough to change the way you see and think about many things.

Merged review:

Though the book is written in English, I think a reader who doesn't read Arabic will suffer a lot to follow the author's analysis. As a matter of fact, even the reader who knows good Arabic will suffer as well, this is not an "easy read" by any means ! The book is full of very interesting and some times intriguing remarks about the text of Quran, however some of the conclusions came unconvincing for me and some others were very difficult and complicated for me to follow, which left me with almost 50% of the book's content which I was able to follow and was much convincing. However, it's worth mentioning that the 50% that I was able to extract, was of much value and, one must say, must have took much effort and research from the author.
To sum this review up: don't try to read this book if you are not familiar with Arabic letters, but if you do, the book gives you enough to change the way you see and think about many things.

[Nadim Karmoussa]

Too difficult.