Pakistan bans Newsweek's Quran issue (Scholar doubts book's origin)

World Net Daily ^ | 7/26/03

[truthandlife]

Pakistan has banned the latest issue of Newsweek magazine because of an article titled "Challenging the Quran," which features a scholar who contests the Islamic holy book's purported origin and claims it counts "white raisins" as a heavenly reward, not dark-eyed virgins.

In a book sure to touch off a storm when it's published this fall, the German scholar says faulty transcription of the original Quranic text has resulted in errors of interpretation. Using the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg, he questions the Islamic rule that women must cover themselves and asserts the Quran originally was a Christian document.

"The article is insulting to the Quran," Pakistani information minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, told the Associated Press.

Customs authorities have been notified to seize copies of the magazine, said Ahmed, according to the AP. The offending article is on page 40 of Newsweek International's July 28 edition.

"The decision was taken to prevent religious violence and control law and order situation," he said.

Ahmed insisted Pakistan has freedom of expression, but said the government expected the media to be careful about the religious sensitivities of Muslims, Agence France-Presse reported.

Pakistan's military regime is threatened by militant Sunni and Shiite sects. As WorldNetDaily has reported, the Asian nation has a law requiring the death penalty for anyone who blasphemes the Quran or Islam's prophet, Muhammad.

A Newsweek spokesman told the AP his magazine stands by its story.

"This does happen in some places around the world with one of our 10 international editions," he said.

The Newsweek article says Luxenberg's book is "likely to be the most far-reaching scholarly commentary on the Quran's early genesis, taking this infant discipline far into uncharted – and highly controversial – territory."

Newsweek explained this is because Islamic orthodoxy considers the Quran to be the verbatim revelation of Allah, which has made critical study of the book off-limits in much of the Islamic world.

Luxenberg, according to Newsweek, is a professor of Semitic languages at one of Germany's leading universities. He has chosen to remain anonymous because he fears a fatwa by enraged Islamic extremists.

The scholar bases his main claims on the assertion the Quran's original language was not Arabic but a tongue closer to Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke.

The copy of the Quran in circulation today is a mistranscription of the original text, he maintains, insisting Arabic did not become a written language until 150 years after Muhammad's death.

The commandment for women to cover themselves is based on a misreading of the text, he contends, according to Newsweek. The verse calling women to "snap their scarves" over their bags becomes in Aramaic "snap their belts around their waists," says Luxenberg.

An Aramaic reading of Sura 33, calling Muhammad "the seal of the prophets" – or the final and ultimate prophet of God – actually should read "witness of the prophets," he claims.

The explosive implication is the Quran is merely a witness to the established Judeo-Christian texts.

He argues the original Quran actually was a Christian liturgical document before Arabs turned Muhammad's teaching into a new religion long after his death.

Newsweek notes in 2001, a revisionist scholar was convicted by Egypt's Constitutional Court of "apostasy" for regarding the Quran as a document written by humans.

The magazine is among many publications that have run feature stories over the past several decades on scholars who reject traditional interpretations of the Bible.

[Courier]

""white raisins" as a heavenly reward, not dark-eyed virgins."

Never mind!

[johniegrad]

Could be interesting. Too bad few in the Islamic world will have the opportunity to read it.

[D. Brian Carter]

One thing is for sure: If this author's real identity is ever revealed, he will be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life.

[dark_lord]

He argues the original Quran actually was a Christian liturgical document before Arabs turned Muhammad's teaching into a new religion long after his death.

Well...maybe some FR Aramaic scholar could validate this.

[Ahban]

I wonder why the Newsweek writers who bash the Bible don't hide their identities?

[Utah Girl]

Ping

[Servant of the Nine]

I wonder why the Newsweek writers who bash the Bible don't hide their identities?

Because Christian Fundamentalists are generally not sincere enough in their beliefs to kill them.

So9

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

the assertion [that]

the Quran's original language was not Arabic but a tongue closer to Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke.

The copy of the Quran in circulation today is a mistranscription of the original text, he maintains, insisting Arabic did not become a written language until 150 years after Muhammad's death.

Now why would anyone be afraid of reprisal for suggesting THAT? </irony>

[IndyMac]

Only 'sincere' Christians murder non-Christians?

Are you kidding ... or are you a moron?

[Migraine]

and asserts the Quran originally was a Christian document.

I guess he wants to just piss off the whole world, huh? Really, though -- the Koran could never have been a Christian document if it contained the anti-christian passages it has now.

[Allan]

ping

[Servant of the Nine]

Only 'sincere' Christians murder non-Christians?

Who said anything about non-christians?
I am talking about people who dispute the literal truth of the Bible, and those who dispute the literal truth of the Koran.

Besides, it's a boring day on FR.

So9

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I disagree. Christian Fundamentalists generally think that God can defend Himself. Defend other Christians yes, Defend God no.

And I think it is terribly funny that they are getting the same treatment that Christians and Jews have been getting for decades now. I am curious to see how well they stand up.

[WOSG]

There is a lot of hidden scholarship on Islam and the Quran.
Hidden because of the intolerance of Islam and because lefties like Edward Said have attacked "orientalists" who dare to use logic, reason and 'western' standards of scholarship on Islamic history. So, for various reasons, western Quranic scholars keep a low profile.

Yet, there are many questions to answer:
1. where did the Quran originate?
2. who really wrote the text? at what point was oral transmission actually written down?
3. what was the basis for the religion established by Mohammed?

= the kind of scholarship that biblical scholars engage
in openly, questioning Christian and Jewish tradition.

Here are some links I found when studying these questions myself soem time after 9-11 ...

http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/index.htm
Islamic site

and yet it has some pretty narrowminded clerical rulings:
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=32560&dgn=3


The rest are more critical sites ...


http://answering-islam.org/PQ/notrevealed.htm#top

http://answering-islam.org/PQ/Summary.htm
We note and trace admissions by both modern and classical Islamic scholars that Muhammad's scribes did not know how to write properly and that the early followers copied their errors; that 'Uthman's scribes made further errors making 'Uthman's texts not identical and that later followers copied these errors.

Scans of all this. Full page scans of the Warsh (Medinan) and Hafs (Kufan) textual discrepancies combine with the admission of scribal errors to show these are not mere 'transmissions'; full page original source scans such as Ad-Dani's Al-Muqni, etc..


http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/


http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/borrow.htm
Also the vocabulary of the Quran is overwhelmingly of Arabic origin, but there are, nevertheless, borrowed words, mostly from Hebrew and Syriac, bearing witness to Muhammad's debt to Judaism and Christianity. These loan words are primarily technical terms such as injil, "gospel", (Greek evangelion); taurat, "the law", or Torah", of Judaism, Iblis, "the Devil" (Greek diabolos); or translations or adaptations of theological terms such as amana, "to believe" (Hebrew or Aramaic); salat, "prayer" (probably Syriac). Such explanations are usually regarded with suspicion by Muslims, since orthodox doctrine holds that the language of the Quran is the purest Arabic."

about mohammed:
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/mohwar1.html
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/

[Servant of the Nine]

I think it is terribly funny that they are getting the same treatment that Christians and Jews have been getting for decades now. I am curious to see how well they stand up.

I am too.
Time to see how well Muslims can hit big league pitching.

So9

[txzman]

This research is well known among religious scholars. There are enough bad copies, translations and information taken from Jewish and Christian texts to have anyone seriously believe Muhammad's "vision" - just like the tens of thousands of errors found in Joseph Smith's Mormon texts.

And given the excuses the Quran uses to kill, the more truth that comes out for the general populace the better.

[WOSG]

Let me guess ... flame bait ...

Seriously, there is nothing in the bible that tells believers to kill non-believers. Jesus said turn the other cheek.
For the first 300 years of its existence, Christian were a repressed and oppressed minority religion in the Roman empire.

Mohammed on the other hand *WAS* a warlord and political leader. He killed his enemies. He took slaves. He even engaged in genocide on a Jewish tribe in Medina (623 AD). Surah 9 said "Kill the idolators".

I dont recall anything in the New Testament along those lines.

Muslims are told to treat non-muslims as lower than themselves:

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=42235&dgn=3

[garbanzo]

Well consider that if similar statements about the Bible were made say 1000 years ago, the writer probably would have been in trouble with the Christian establishment.