Talk:The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran

Merge
There needs to be a discussion for a tag. I am against it because I think most books get a page whether they deserve it or not... and this book may even deserve it. So, maybe give this a week of discussion but I think it's probably clear that it will remain its own page. gren グレン 05:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the Christoph Luxenberg article deals with this book. BhaiSaab talk 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Crone
So, what do you think about Crone in her new article calling this work "amateurish". I think we need to add some depth to articles about methodology because we tend to lump Qur'an-related skeptics into one group when they have many internal differences. gren グレン 05:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What can you expect when articles are written by fans? --Wadq (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Section "Context of Luxenberg's thesis"
I am sure this is interesting material but I do not see what this has to do with the book, as the book is not making any arguments regarding the date of the early Qu'ranic manuscripts so is should probably be taken out or moved to some other article that addresses the early dates of the Islamic materials.--CltFn 20:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. This was just stuff left over after moving most of the "C. Luxenberg" page here. This should be dealt with. Something else: I see you quoting from the English edition, Ch 18, in particular. I received a Acrobat 'review copy' just the other day. Where did you get it from? You got one of these, too? Azate 21:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, though I wish I had a an acrobat copy , I got it from this page . How did you get the acrobat copy?--CltFn 21:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I got an email from the publisher who offered copies for academic and press review. Apparently I was on their email list (no idea how I got there, but it suits me fine). Azate 21:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I sent you an email.--CltFn 21:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For your info, I have a copy of the English version. It will be interesting to see what happens next , as the news of the English edition spreads and more English reading academics get ahold of it and its ramifications begin to sink in , in the English speaking world.--CltFn 05:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

References 1, 2 and 3
The link for reference 1 links to a blank page. I have found an archive page which contains the interview with Prof. Luxenberg which I have made reference 2. I have also created a reference to the original Italian article from the original Italian website (http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/).

Perhaps someone would like to translate this into English, check that it agrees with reference 2 and post it on an English language website.

StewE17 16:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SyrioAramaicReadingOfTheKoran.jpg
Image:SyrioAramaicReadingOfTheKoran.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reponse to Luxemburg
the first paragraph of this section ended simply with "Instead comparative". after reading in the review from Walid Saleh (http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/Walid_Saleh.pdf) the section about using comparative philology (pgs 5-6) I attempted to complete the paragraph by explaining Saleh's stance on that. I am not very familiar with copyright law and what exactly constitues copyright infringment, so I would appreciate reading the review and my article and making any needed changes, if any 96.251.49.69 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong date on reference?
In the "Response to Luxenberg" section, the last sentence talks about a conference held in 2005. But the reference used (the conference abstracts) was it retrieved in 2002. I want to know if I can borrow the timemachine used to perfom this feat. (By the way, that link is dead now.) --DanielPharos (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Image


If it's not a new discovery by L (ignoring his linguistic ones), some independent sources (prior to 2000) should be available to corroborate this claim. --Wadq (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

-citation has been added to image Dredinger (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I know the image has a source. What I don't know and ask you to find a source for is the comment about "the white grapes symbolism". Note the dating discrepancy which makes it - I think - useless. Please see Original research. --Wadq (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

- If you look in the source ,you will see another photo of the same mural, underneath it you will see 3.2. The Three Patriarchs (Fig. 1) [7] In 1995 one of the windows on the same wall of the church revealed the face of an old man with a grey beard (window 59). In 1996 this window was enlarged in order to uncover the complete painting, measuring approximately 2 x 2 meters. The composition shows the three Old Testament patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, enthroned in paradise with the souls of the blessed, represented as small naked figures, on their laps. They are dressed in brown and reddish brown tunics and pallia. Only the middle one wears a white pallium. All three have almost identical, severe faces and long, white hair. A peculiar detail is that the three arch-fathers are feeding the blessed fruits. The image shows the grapes.Dredinger (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't waste time. --Wadq (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dredinger
How can you say "adding more material about the book)" when going back - it seems to me - to an old version (not sure which)?  --Wadq (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

-Wadiq -It appears that you have been pruning cited text and striping helpful material from this the article. Why are you doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredinger (talk • contribs), 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Examples? Including deliberate deception in the edit summary? And using sources that don't support the sourced statements? --Wadq (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Using sources that don't support the sourced statement?? As in below perhaps?? This book takes a philological and text-critical approach to the study of the Qur'an and is considered a major, but controversial work in the field of Qur'anic philology. No the citation does support the statement. Follow the link to verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredinger (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Where do you see "is considered a major"? --Wadq (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Not in the history of commentary on the Qur’ān has a work like this been produced. Similar works can only be found in the body of text-critical scholarship on the Bible. From its method to its conclusions on the language and content of the Qur’ān, Luxenberg’s study has freed scholars from the problematic tradition of the Islamic commentators. Whether or not Luxenberg is correct in every detail, with one book he has brought exegetical scholarship of the Qur’ān to the “critical turn” that biblical commentators took more than a century ago. This work demonstrates to all exegetes of the Qur'an the power of the scientific method of philology and its value in producing a clearer text of the Qur'an. Scholars of the first rank will now be forced to question the assumption that, from a philological perspective, the Islamic tradition is mostly reliable, as though it were immune to the human error that pervades the transmission of every written artifact. If biblical scholarship is any indication, the future of Qur’ānic studies is more or less decided by this work. " link http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredinger (talk • contribs) 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Not in the history of commentary on the Qur’ān has a work like this been produced." I agree it's very different, "It has established a discipline that is substantially different from the exegetical traditions of the Arabian and Western commentators." If you conform to sources go and add, but don't go back to an old version just because you like it. Find a source for the image before restoring it. --Wadq (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

- I have added the missing citation to the image, you can now put back in the article.Dredinger (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wadq
Why are you reverting without edit summaries? The citations have been provided.Dredinger (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your first edit was deceptive. Don't delete just because you don't like it. --Wadq (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What first edit are you talking about? Dredinger (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Will you say which old version you used in this edit ? FIY, this is no blog. Mail Archive is more like a blog, and why do you trust a personal website which doesn't describe him as philologist anyway? --Wadq (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hadith
One of the article's footnotes states " in the framework of this study an examination of a series of hadith (sayings of the Prophet) has identified Aramaisms that had either been misinterpreted or were inexplicable from the point of view of Arabic." To what extent does he examine hadith in the book or elsewhere according to his Syro-Aramiac theory? Шизомби (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

neutrality
I have tagged the last part of the article, because it is one-sided. While it correctly mentions the many scholarly reviews criticizing him, it totally leaves out those scholarly reviews that actually do support Luxenberg. As one can read here, even the critics of Luxenberg point out that many of his claims are yet to be disproved. Tajik (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, are we really to believe the book was unanimously dismissed? It seems respectable enough to me. Logos384 (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is "neutrality" needed?
The whole article is about the book and explains Luxenberg's point of view. The section in question is a brief listing of the scholarly objections that have been stated in the literature. There is no need to "balance" this, as this section itself is a kind of balancer. Anything added will just echo Luxenberg. To me this section did not have any implication that the book was unanimously rejected. If you have other supportive material, put it in, but remove the tag of "neutrality" as it is not appropriate. It is best if the author who put the tag re-considers it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.141.69 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The way the article reads implies universal academic condemnation of his work. So while the theory and the criticisms are both given space in the article, the impression given as to the credibility of the theory does not appear neutral.

I am removing the POV template from the "Reception" section. Although it is dated Dec. 2015, there is no corresponding entry on this talk page of that date; the last dated discussion of POV was three years earlier, and no "balancing" reviews have been added to the article. If someone believes there is a positive review of Luxenberg's work, I invite them to add it. Until then, the scholarly consensus appears to be against him. Texas Dervish (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Another and anterior study was made using a partially similar approach
In 1988, about twelve years before Christoph Luxenberg’s work, Bruno Bonnet-Eymard published the first tome of his French translation and commentary of Koran. According the author’s video (see link below), for his study he discarded the Sīrah Rasūl Allāh and all known translations and commentaries, in his Koran’s reading, he discarded all the diacritcis and studied the Kuran with biblical Hebrew and Aramaic language knowledge in order to decode the mysteries of Koran (e.g. A.L.M. which AFAIK eluded so far everyone else’s understanding).

I haven’t read neither Christoph Luxenberg’s work nor Bruno Bonnet-Eymard’s three books.

Comparing both works may be interesting…


 * A compiled video (in French) presenting those three tomes exists (two hours length), in which its author gives several key elements about his works.
 * A compiled video (in French) presenting those three tomes exists (two hours length), in which its author gives several key elements about his works.
 * A compiled video (in French) presenting those three tomes exists (two hours length), in which its author gives several key elements about his works.
 * A compiled video (in French) presenting those three tomes exists (two hours length), in which its author gives several key elements about his works.

— MetalGearLiquid &#91;chat&#93; 19:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.bethmardutho.org/images/hugoye/volume6/hv6n1prphenix_horn.pdf; see Copyright problems/2012 December 20. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Islamic Writers Section under Academic Section- POV-Section
This subsection has the following issues:

1. it is written by what could very easily be called Muslim apologists. It seems the majority of the site referenced is refuting any literary analysis to argue the Quran is holy. Credibility may be questionable. 2. The whole section is not written in a neutral tone 3. it may not be direct quotes from the website it references 4. the block quote has numerous punctuation and grammatical errors

Possible ways to correct are to: 1. Possibly move this sub-section to another one named "Other Criticism". 2. Properly identify the bias of the authors and incorporate their agenda; they may not even be academics. 3. clean up the rather lengthy section of grammar and punctuation errors. 4. Ensure that what is written here are actual quotes and separate them if need be. Ptn007 (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are right, but it is also correct that Luxenburg conflicts with mainstream opinion. In other words, it would not be necessary to present a biased refutation, because there could just as well be an unbiased refutation. The state of the article reflects the fact that editors in the past did not care whether the refutation was or wasn't solid, just as long as there was one. This is a general problem on Wikipedia, as "controversial" topics attract opinionated people without any sufficient background to produce acceptable output. But as far as I can see, a measured summary of the reception of the book is more or less duh, of course there is Syriac influence in the Quran, we have always known that, but that doesn't make the Quran "a Syriac lectionary". Not sure how his individual suggestions hold up though, apparently King (2009) was willing to accept some of them, so under all the "controversy" there may still be valid philological suggestions here. --dab (𒁳) 16:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Huris: white- or dark-eyed?
"...interpreted by scholars as white-eyed virgins"

Very weird (on top of being spooky. And counterintuitive.) Normally rendered in English as "DARK-eyed maidens". Is the colour change also based on a new reading of the text? Then a) the text here must be changed, as "interpreted by scholars" is wrong, it only refers to Luxenberg; and b), this must be clearly stated. Or is it just the result of vandalism? Seems more likely. Arminden (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Christoph Luxenberg into The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran
Luxenberg is a BLP1E case - all of his claims to fame derive from a single work and we know nothing about Luxenberg himself absent speculations derived from (ahem) the work.

Unsurprisingly, our article hovers around his book. The section on "summary of research" is a summary of the book. As is the "responses" section which consists of different reviews of the work apart from one Guardian op-ed by a fellow (pseudonymous) polemicist. That leaves us with the section on pseudonym, which has been already discussed.

A reader is better served by a single article on the book. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support merge, as the Christoph Luxenberg is primarily about the book and any unique material can be included in a small section on the pseudonym. Klbrain (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

"Aya analysis" section heading: typo? "An analysis"?
? Arminden (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Merit? Nothing new? Or older, similar theories?
No referenced source is more recent than 1 decade+, most ar 2 decades old. Older authors are briefly mentioned, who have allegedly presented similar theories, but nothing is written about them. This, plus the fact that the section about the reception of the book is nothing more than a long sausage of articles reflecting various attitudes, leaves the user confused: OK, Luxenberg is a Middle Eastern dilettant with a Christian identity and agenda, but is he onto something/regurgitating credible older scholarly theories? That seems to me the essential question here, beyond the qualification of the one author who managed to make a scoop out of a dry philological matter. Arminden (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)