[Donald Meaker]

Luxenberg remarks that the Qur'an contains much ambiguous and even inexplicable language. He asserts that even Muslim scholars find some passages difficult to parse and have written reams of Quranic commentary attempting to explain these passages. However, the assumption behind their endeavours has always been that any difficult passage is both true and meaningful, and that it can be deciphered with the tools of traditional Muslim scholarship. Luxenberg accuses Western academic scholars of the Qur'an of taking a timid and imitative approach, relying too heavily on the biased work of Muslim scholars.

Luxenberg argues that scholars must start afresh, ignore the old Islamic commentaries, and use only the latest in linguistic and historical methods. He argues that Muhammad was preaching concepts that were new to many of his Arab hearers, concepts that Muhammad had learned from his conversations with the Arabian Jews and Christians, or from the Christians of Syria (where he is believed to have traveled). Hence, if a particular Quranic word or phrase seems meaningless in Arabic, or can be given meaning only by tortured conjectures, it makes sense -- he argues -- to look to the Aramaic and Syriac languages as well as Arabic.

Traditional Islamic commentary generally limits itself to Arabic lexicology; Luxenberg is proposed to expand the number of languages to be consulted.

Luxenberg also argues that the Qur'an is based on earlier texts, namely lectionaries used in the Christian churches of Syria, and that it was the work of several generations to adapt these texts into the Qur'an we know today.

[TWohlford]

I am not conversant with Luxemberg's work, a condition that I should probably remedy.

What strikes me is that the same academic manuvers are being used on the Koran that have been used on the Bible for centuries.

In this case, the modern author can "prove" with textual analysis that the work was written in a different tongue and in a different way than dogma would have us believe.

No doubt this will lead to a quick FATWAH against Luxenberg. Then again, how many people were burned at the stake because they published, or even used, a version of the Bible that wasn't approved by authorities of their day?

Maybe Islam is simply 600-700 years behind Christianity, and simply must make all of the mistakes that Christians made along the way?

[Right Wing Professor]

I wasn't aware of Luxenberg's work, but from what I know of the middle east in that period, it makes sense.