The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran

The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran is a monograph of philology in the discipline of Quranic studies published in 2000 under the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg. The subject of the book is a new approach to identifying and solving textual problems in the Quran.^:8 It is considered unique in the history of Quran commentary,^:178 bold in its claims and controversial for challenging traditional theories on the origins of the Quran.^:8 There is some academic acceptance only of limited aspects of the book.

The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran

Author	Christoph Luxenberg (ps.)
Original title	Die Syro-Aramäische Lesart des Koran
Language	English
Subject	Qur'anic studies
Genre	Non-fiction
Publisher	Hans Schiler Publishers
Publication date	2000
Publication place	Germany
Published in English	1 May 2007
Media type	Print (Hardcover)
Pages	352
ISBN	3-89930-088-2
OCLC	124038162
Dewey Decimal	297.1/22 22
LC Class	PJ6696 .L8913 2007

Two main theses can be distinguished in the book.^:71 The first is that the language of the Quran is not a clear variant of Classical Arabic, as has been assumed thus far, but a hybrid between Arabic and Syriac as well as other Aramaic dialects. This mistaken assumption has resulted in many misreadings and obscure passages in the Quran - including through the wrong attribution of diacritics - that can now be clarified when they are back-translated and interpreted as Syriacisms. While there is scholarly consensus Classical Arabic was influenced by Syriac, since the latter used to be the lingua franca of the Ancient Near East, Luxenberg's thesis goes beyond the mainstream scholarly consensus in Quranic studies. Luxenberg even posits that much of what is called Classical Arabic is actually "of Aramaic derivation", which has been overlooked in academia due to an erroneous historical-linguistic assumption that Arabic is closer to a proto-Semitic language than Aramaic is.^:12

The second main thesis of the book is that the Quran (or a proto-Quranic text that served as its basis) was originally a lectionary referencing external scripture. In fact, the word 'Quran' itself means 'lectionary'. Furthermore, Luxenberg's premise is that the language and culture of Syriac Christianity - which used Syriac as its liturgical language - had a profound influence on the scriptural composition and meaning of the contents of the Quran.

Luxenberg also posits that, in order to account for some transcription errors, the Quran was - at least in part - initially written in Garshuni, that is, in Arabic using Syriac script and only later transcribed into Arabic script.^:49 As this has resulted even in the misreading of genuine Arabic expressions, Luxenberg concludes that the original transmission of the Quran must have been in written form or, at the least, that severe gaps occurred in its early oral transmission.^:40-1 With a reliable oral transmission being central to the traditional Islamic narrative, The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran fits in the revisionist school of Islamic studies.^:8

The book received considerable attention from the popular press in North America and Europe at its release, perhaps in large part to its argument that the Quranic term Houri refers not to 'virgins' in Islamic paradise, but to 'grapes'.^:16 Academically, its publication "sparked heated debates among specialists of Islamic and Semitic studies, and received numerous reviews ranging from overly-laudative to blatantly hostile". The influence of the book - especially efforts to refute it - was so great that it formed "a watershed moment" in reinvigorating Western Quran studies and the study of the relationship between the Quran and Biblical tradition.

Intended as the first installment in a series,^:377:165 a dozen articles were subsequently published under the same pseudonym.^:23:380-1 A forthcoming publication is promised treating the morphology, lexicon and syntax of the "Aramaic basic structure" of the Quran's language.^:12

Comparison with works of others

The book's premise is "no more revolutionary" than earlier work by Günter Lüling, John Wansbrough, Patricia Crone or Michael Cook. Furthermore, there is much overlap between Luxenberg's ideas and earlier work of other scholars:

"Whereas Lüling argues that the genesis of the Qur’an occurred much earlier than is usually thought, with a heretofore unknown “Ur-Qur’an,” Wansbrough and Nevo argue that this genesis occurred much later, with the collection of prophetical logia under the Abbasids. [...] Luxenberg, like Lüling, turns to the text of the Qur’an and finds indications of earlier Christian writings. Unlike Lüling’s, however, Luxenberg’s reading of the text is not done in the shadow of a grand religious vision. His reading is also more controlled. If Lüling aims for a reformation of Islam, Luxenberg aims for an Entschlüsselung, a “decipherment,” of the Qur’anic language. [...] If Luxenberg’s method is at all affected by a religious vision, it is simply the conviction that Syriac Christianity was important to the development of the Qur’an. This is hardly unprecedented, as Alphonse Mingana, Arthur Jeffery and Tor Andræ were all of the same opinion."^:15

The link between the Quran and Syriac Christianity was previously studied by several other scholars: "Noteworthy are the works of Wilhelm Rudolph, Tor Andrae, Richard Bell, Alphonse Mingana, Karl Ahrens, Joseph Henninger, Erwin Gräf and Günter Lüling.^:12 Especially Alphonse Mingana devoted attention to identifying Aramaic/Syriac loanwords and argued for Syriac influence on the style of the Quran and Josef Horovitz studied how "most proper names of Biblical figures in the Quran follow the Syriac form". Christoph Luxenberg's work is distinguished by the theory that the Quran was written in an “Aramaic-Arabic hybrid language.^:12-13 Furthermore, that there was no reliable oral transmission accompanying an initial written transmission, that the text was misinterpreted and distorted when later Arabs read the defective script as pure Arabic and, finally, that "Syriac lexicography holds the key to deciphering the Quran".^:52-53

Outline of the book

Chapters 1-6 as well as chapters 8 and 9 provide a brief and very general introduction, including a description of the ‘working method’ in chapter 3. Chapter 7 discusses the importance of the imāla and of orthography which is used in chapter 10 to analyse key Quranic words. Chapters 12 through 14 use the method described in chapter 3 to suggest emendations to "a series of (mostly) unconnected" individual Quran verses. Chapters 15 through 17 treat broader themes such as the virgins of Paradise and a re-reading of Suras 108 and 96.^:45 The final chapter 18 sketches a historical-cultural framework to explain a Christian lectionary origin for the Quran.^:69 Theory, methodology and application are treated as much as possible separately below.

Theory

The prevalence of Syriac and Christianity

A Syriac Christian liturgical manuscript (11th century)

In the foreword, the importance of Syriac as a written language for the Arabs and the Quran is described. Arabic was not used as a written language at the time of Muhammad whereas Syriac (which Luxenberg terms "Syro-Aramaic") was the language of choice for written communication in the entire Near East from the 2nd to the 7th centuries CE. Syriac originated as the Aramaic dialect used in the ancient city Edessa which subsequently became the vehicle through which Christianity and culture spread throughout Asia up to Malabar in India and eastern China. Syriac was used for culture and communication by Arameans, Arabs and somewhat by Persians and rich literature was produced in this language (such as by Aphrahat and Ephraem) from the 4th century until it was replaced by Arabic in the 7th and 8th centuries. One important addition here is that the Syriac literature and culture in which it was embedded was almost exclusively Christian. Furthermore, many Arabs were Christianised and participated in the Syriac Christian liturgy. Ultimately, Luxenberg conceives of testing the following hypothesis: if Syriac was the written language of the Arabs and informed the cultural matrix of the Near East, to what extent has it influenced those who developed written Arabic? Luxenberg also refers here to an early hadith in which Muhammed instructs his secretary Zayd ibn Thabit to learn Syriac (and Hebrew).^:165-6

The Quran's importance in the development of written Arabic

In Chapter 1, the traditional Islamic narrative about the early transmission of the Quran is presented as follows. There was an oral authorship of the Quran by the Prophet Muhammad in the Arabic language, first completely brought together in a written form in the Uthmanic codex in the mid-7th century. As the first book in the Arabic language, the Quran is important to the formation of written Arabic. It took centuries after the Quran's appearance for Arabic literature to develop, Luxenberg states:

Luxenberg holds a minority position when suggesting that a cursive Syriac script (instead of Nabataean) was the basis of Arabic script. Depicted is the alphabet of Classical Syriac Estrangelā.

the first examples of Arabic literature in the full sense of the phrase are found only two centuries later, at the time of the 'Biography of the Prophet' . . .as written by Ibn Hisham, who died in 828. We may thus establish that post-Koranic Arabic literature developed by degrees, in the period following the work of al-Khalil bin Ahmad, who died in 786, the founder of Arabic lexicography (kitab al-'ayn), and of Sibawayh, who died in 796, to whom the grammar of Classical Arabic is due.

Luxenberg then briefly describes important findings from Western Quranic studies. Theodor Nöldeke (co-)wrote the standard work Geschichte des Qorāns and argued with Karl Vollers as to the dialect of Quranic Arabic being either Classical Arabiya or Hejazi Arabic. Siegmund Fraenkel, Alphonse Mingana and Arthur Jeffery increasingly singled out Arameic dialects as being influential to the Quran's language. Abraham Geiger and Heinrich Speyer identified Biblical and Christian and Jewish apocryphic and literary influences. Jakob Barth and Günter Lüling elucidated passages by changing diacritical dots. Ignác Goldziher discussed controversial readings and uncertainties in Quran exegesis. Finally, Josef Horovitz analysed selected Quranic terms and names. However, the significance of the insights of especially Syriac influence have not been investigated with a scientific approach.^:166-7:13-19

A new approach

In Chapter 2, Luxenberg states that his theories developed independently of the works of Arabian as well as Western scholarship, relying instead on Arabic and Syriac lexical tools as well as comparative Semitic linguistics.^:167 Luxenberg claims that following scholarly tradition would have undermined the development of this method.^:20 The initial process used instead is described by Luxenberg in an interview:

At first I conducted a ´synchronous´ reading. In other words, I kept in mind both Arabic and Aramaic. Thanks to this procedure, I was able to discover the extent of the previously unsuspected influence of Aramaic upon the language of the Koran: in point of fact, much of what now passes under the name of ´Classical Arabic´ is of Aramaic derivation.

Development of Arabic script

The basmala as rasm in the Birmingham manuscript, one of the oldest surviving copies of the Quran.

Rasm (black), consonant diacritics (red) and short vowels diacritics (blue) - the latter is used in the Quran but not in most written Arabic.

In Chapter 4, the development of Arabic script is discussed and why this development is relevant to understand the language of the Quran.^:169 Except for some early Arabic inscriptions, the Quran is considered the first book ever written in Arabic script. Luxenberg suggests that a cursive Syriac script served as the model for the Arabic script.^:30 Furthermore, the limited versatility of the Quranic Arabic script seems to indicate that the text originally served as a mnemonic device or shorthand for recitors.^:169 This limited and early form of the Arabic script is called rasm, a defective script as it lacks Arabic diacritics to indicate vowels and distinguish most consonants. Luxenberg argues that mistakes could have been made when commentators added diacritics to the rasm.^:169

Early transmission of the Quran

In Chapter 5, two contradicting oral traditions about the transmission of the Quran are presented. First, an uninterrupted chain of "readers" (qurra) starting with Muhammad's contemporaries such as Ibn Abbas and later Anas ibn Malik. Second, Quranic "leaves" kept by Muhammad's widow Hafsa that were used to standardse Uthman's codex. Furthermore, Islamic tradition is unclear when the diacritics were fixed, while Régis Blachère estimates this process took over 300 years. A major difficulty in tracing the early development of the Quran is that Uthman destroyed all manuscripts with differing reading variants and differing consonantal texts other than his own edition.^:169

Reading traditions

A 15th-century Quranic manuscript featuring marginal notes that provide different readings according to different Qira'ats and explanations of various phrases and words.

In Chapter 6, Islamic traditions are presented in which Muhammad "sanctioned any reading of the text that did not blatantly change a curse into a blessing or vice-versa". This tradition must reflect recollections of the ambiguity of the Arabic rasm.^:169

In Chapter 7, Luxenberg relates how Tabari in his monumental Quran commentary takes for granted the diacritical placement around the text as it had become fixed by the 10th century. But, Luxenberg asks, "when and according to what criteria or according to what tradition these points were introduced, and to what extent the originators disposed of the necessary philological and [Christian] theological competence, for such questions the historical critique of Tabari, though he was considered a scholar in his day, do not seem to have been adequate."^:37

Luxenberg argues there is much uncertainty even surrounding the number of vowels in early Arabic, such as Pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, quoting Theodor Nöldeke: "We don't even have the right to assume that in Proto-Semitic there were always only three dynamically distinct vowels or vocal spheres."^:39 Luxenberg accordingly proposes a philological interpretation for the existence of the Quranic reading traditions. Thus, the tradition of seven reading (sab'at aḥruf) mentioned by Tabari are related by Luxenberg to the seven vowel signs used in the East Syriac writing system Estrangeli (using dots). Whereas the tradition of five readings (hamsat aḥruf) is related to the five vowel signs used in the West Syriac writing system Serto (using small Greek letters).^:169 Thus, it is important to ask the question "whether it was not arbitrary that the post-Koranic Classical Arabic system of vowels was fixed at the three basic vowels a, u, i (for short and long)."^:39

Western Quran studies

In Chapter 8 it is related how even the best modern Quran translations in Western academia - referenced throughout the book are Rudi Paret, Richard Bell and Régis Blachère - reach limits in meeting the problems of Quran interpretation earlier outlined by August Fischer:

• Many words and phrases are obscure and ambiguous.
• Many allusions made in the Quran are hard to interpret.
• Suras are not ordered systemically.
• There is no critical edition of the Quran (with fixed diacritics).^:66-7

Furthermore, Arab commentaries sometimes provide up to a dozen contradictory interpretations of obscure passages.^:170 Room for improvement is especially possible through philological investigations.^:67

Mystery of the Quran's language

In Chapter 9, Among specialists, no doubt exists that the language of the Quran is Arabic, something the Quran itself also attests. As no standardised written Arabic existed, this language is assumed to have been the Qurayshi dialect of Mecca. Surprisingly enough, Tabari relates that the Prophet was "unable to explain this language to his contemporaries". As nobody afterwards succeeded in penetrating the "final mystery" of the Quran's language, Islamic tradition has it that the Quran's language is "of heavenly origin and thus finally unfathomable for mortals". Philology might provide an answer.^:68-9:170-1

Conclusions

Quran verses vocalized in a reading tradition considered normative Classical Arabic: a highly regularized, rule-bound form codified by 8th–9th century grammarians e.g. Sibawayh.

Five conclusions are drawn in the concluding Chapter 18. First, if the Quran's language is that of the Meccan Quraysh tribe, this must be an Aramaic-Arabic hybrid language. Mecca was perhaps an Aramaic settlement just as the name "mecca" has a Syriac etymological root (ܡܟ /mk or makk) resulting in an adjective meaning "(the) lower (one)" as in "valley". Thus, whereas Meccans might have understood this language, other Arabs at a later time could not.^:327-30:69

Second, Arabic exegetes mistakenly referenced the written Classical Arabic standardised only in the 8th century by Sibawayh. Furthermore, they referenced Old Arabic poetry instead of Scripture to explain Quranic passages. Thus, the later Arab exegetes and philologists (as well as modern Western Quran translators) had no easy task deciphering the defective Quranic rasm and made many misreadings.^:330-31

Third, Classical Arabic characteristically preserves the three case endings of a hypothetical proto-Semetic language as well as the hamza via the oral tradition of Old Arabic poetry. Arab philologists used this not only to add the hamza, alif (as mater lectionis) and vowel signs to the Quran, but also to fix the diacritics of the consonantal script. We must now for the first time dare to alter these.^:331-2

Fourth, a reliable oral transmission of the Quran must be deemed a legend. It was either interrupted early on or had considerable gaps: "this necessitates the assumption from the beginning of a text transmitted in writing".^:330,332

Fifth, the success of the presented analyses warrants doing a fundamental new reading of the Quran. Also, as Syriac lexicography was found crucial even to determine the Arabic vocabulary, a new Quran glossary is called for.^:332-3

Methods and procedures

The Syro-Aramaic methodology

Chapter 3 introduces a methodology (systematically applied in chapters 12 through 14) to identify and emend individual verses from the Quran. These verses are part of about 25% of the content of the Quran that are deemed obscure (meaning difficult to interpret) by Western Quran studies.^:377:51 In other parts of the book verses are analysed that are deemed not obscure but misinterpreted.^:377:22

Luxenberg has been criticised for only using modern Syriac lexicons i.e. Payne Smith's Thesaurus Syriacus (1879–1901), J.E. Manna’s Vocabulaire Chaldéen-Arabe (1900) and Brockelmann's Lexicon Syriacum (1928).^:16

1. Check whether a plausible, overlooked explanation can be found in Al-Tabari's Tafsīr (completed c. 883 CE). If not, then:
2. Check if there is a plausible explanation in the Ibn Manzur's Lisān al-ʿArab (completed c. 1290 CE), the most extensive Arabic dictionary (this dictionary postdates the Al-Tabari commentary by about 400 years, so might plausibly contain advances in lexical insight). If not, then:
3. Check if the Arabic expression has a homonymous (etymologically related) root in Syriac or Aramaic lexica with a different meaning that fits the context. If not, then:
4. Experiment with placements of the diacritics different from the default 1924 Cairo edition of the Quran but maintaining the consonantal rasm, to render Arabic words that make better sense. If not, then:
5. Change the diacritics to look for Syriac roots and expressions. If not, then:
6. Translate the Arabic phrase into Syriac and check the Syrian literature for a phrase that might have been translated literally into Arabic (morphological calques). If not, then:
7. Check to see if there is a corresponding phrase in the old Syrian literature (East Syrian lexical tradition), which may be an analog of an Arabic phrase now lost. If not, then:
8. Check to see if it is a correct Arabic expression in the Arabic language but phonetically produced in the Syriac script (Garshuni) before being transcribed into the Arabic script. ^:51

"Plausibility", "judging" and "making sense" of single word involves looking at occurrences of the same word in more obvious Quranic passages, and looking at Aramaic apocryphal and liturgical texts, which were carried over almost verbatim into the Quran.

Some additional philological procedures argued for by Luxenberg and also employed in his emendations are listed below.

Philological procedures and insights

Misreadings of Arabic script

In Chapter 4, Luxenberg argues that as only six consonants were rendered unambiguous in the Quranic Arabic, various mistakes could have been made when commentators later added diacritics. Categories include: identical rasm (e.g. ب b / ت t / ث th), optical similarity (e.g. confusing د d / ذ ḍ with ر r / ز z), as well as phonetic similarity (س s h / ح ḥ) and mistaking the guttoral for the hamza (ع / ء).

A fragment from the Sanaa manuscript, one of the oldest surviving Quran manuscripts. Luxenberg reasons there must have existed an even earlier generation of Quran manuscripts written in Syriac letters.^:84

Misreadings of Syriac script (Garshuni)

See also: Christoph Luxenberg § Relics of Syro-Aramaic Letters in Early Qurʾānic Codices of the ḥiǧāzī and kūfī Style (2007)

Luxenberg posits the existence of a proto-Quran initially written in Garshuni.^:49

In Chapter 10, Luxenberg argues that confusing the Arabic د (d) with ر (r) has not been well explained as they are clearly distinguishable in the early Arabic Hijazi and Kufic scripts. More likely is a mix-up between these letters if they are mistranscribed from the more easily confused Syriac letters ܕ (d) and ܪ (r) (only distinguished with a dot). Similarly, this also explains how final d, when mistranscribed as final r, could somtimes be mistaken for final m.^:83-84

In Chapter 13, examples are provided of mistranscribed letters even in the earliest Quran manuscripts. A common mistake is confusing the Syriac letters ܕ and ܪ as well as the Arabic و .^:239-241:63

A phonological procedure for Syriacisms

In Chapter 7, various proposals of phonological Syriacisms are presented. Some imply that the Quran was (at a time) transmitted only in written form.^:46

Luxenberg argues that, because of the process of imala, words in Classical Arabic that end phonetically with the sound ē (orthographically written as final ﻯ , ﺍ or ﻩ with/without dots) may reflect the sound ē of the Syriac emphatic masculine plural.^:46 Luxenberg uses this e.g. to explain the irregular use of "singular accusative nouns after the numbers 12-99", which should instead be understood as Syriac emphatic plurals.^:48

Luxenberg also argues that frequent use of ﺕ rather than ﺓ (in the construct state of feminine nouns) is another orthographic Syriacism. Thus, Luxenberg speculates that in the Syriac "Garden of Eden" (ܓܢܬ ܥܕܢ , feminine singular noun) the feminine ending ܬ (t) was represented in Arabic with the letter ﺕ (tāʾ), rather than standard Arabic ending ﺓ (tāʾ marbūṭa). Later Arabic readers misinterpreted this as a plural, rendering it "Gardens of Eden".^:47

Luxenberg also explains "anomalous feminines" (nouns) where the Syriac (ܐ) was originally used as mater lectionis (a consonant used to indicate a vowel, before vowels had their own letters) for Syriac emphatic (i.e. definite) forms, was subsequently transcribed into the Arabic ﻩ , but was then misunderstood, received a point ( ﺓ ) and was turned into the ta' marbuta. Luxenberg uses this e.g. to explain the Quranic forms of the names for Jesus and Moses.^:47

An orthographic procedure for Syriacisms (Ch 10)

Theodor Nöldeke suggested that the word "quran" has a Syriac origin in qeryānā ("reading aloud", "reading matter") and presumably assimilated "to the type fuʿlān" into the modern form qurʾān. Luxenberg reasons that understanding how this transformation took place orthographically provides the key to understanding the Quran's language. For this, Luxenberg builds mostly on the work of Werner Diem who noted that in the defective Quranic rasm, which lacked vowels, the letter y was occasionally used as mater lectionis for both long vowels ī and ā. Luxenberg proposes that interpreters of the Quran sometimes made mistakes and, for example, interpreted an ī instead of ā. Furthermore, as the undotted tooth (ـٮـ) in the Quranic rasm could represent five consonants (b, t, th, n, y), later differentiated with dotting (ـبــتـثــنــيـ), any letter derived from an undotted tooth might potentially represent ā.^{:37 :48-50 :70-71}

Luxenberg' theory of the orthographic transformation from the Syriac qeryā-nā to the Arabic qurʾān. Step 2 represents Luxenberg's proposed orthographical procedure for Syriacisms (Ch 10)

Luxenberg illustrates these mechanisms and potential confusion in seven examples, such as restoring the Arabic pronunciation for Abraham (Ibrāhīm) to the way it is pronounced in all other Semitic languages (Abrāhām).^:37 For this Luxenberg uses the defective spelling ابرهم (Abrhm) occurring 15 times in the Quran which faithfully corresponds to the Hebrew (אברהם) and Syriac (ܐܒܪܗܡ).^:93 Furthermore, the orthograpic procedure is crucially used by Luxenberg as one of several steps in a theory to explain how the Syriac qeryānā transformed into the modern qurʾān (see graph).^:48-50:70-74

These "anomalous spellings, in which ā is represented orthographically by any tooth . . . should not (as in Nöldeke) be treated as examples of 'imāla, but as an orthographic method of reproducing ā in the early stages of Qur’ānic writing, which was forgotten by the later stages when oral tradition had been left behind".^:50 This theory "presupposes a period in which the Qur’ānic text was preserved only in a written form, the pronunciation largely forgotten, and then a later period of Islamising exegesis."^:50

Procedure of the apodosis (Ch 12)

The remainder of chapter 12 [p. 166-213] deals with the theory that ﻭ could mark the start of an apodosis in Quranic Arabic. This results in new readings, new methods and the application of the Syro-Arameic methodology^:55

Underlying Syriac Syntactical Structures (Ch 13)

Here Luxenberg introduced the idea of Syriac grammar having influenced the basic grammatical structure of the language of the Quran, based on unusual word order (Sura 19:23), apparent masculine endings in Arabic referring to feminine subjects (also Sura 19:23) and various borrowing patterns of endings and Eastern Syriac dialect vowel-shifts.^:61-4

Application

Quran as lectionary (Ch 11)

See also: Christoph Luxenberg § Syriac Liturgy and the “Mysterious Letters” in the Qur’ān (2008)

Luxenberg reinterprets passages that make clear the Quran also considers itself - as a lectionary - as referring to other scriptures. For example, Sura 41 verse 3, traditionally understood as:

"A Book whose signs have been made distinct as an Arabic Quran..."

become, according to the Syro-Aramaic reading:

"A Scripture that we have translated as an Arabic lectionary..."^:120

Individual verses

A spring from below Mary (Ch 12)

The Syro-Aramaic method (Ch 3) and various other emendations are used by Luxenberg to reinterpret Sura 19:24.^:51-4 Luxenberg suggests verse 24 should be read as a continuation of verses 16 and 22, which relate that Mary is cast out by her family on the suspicion of an illegitimate conception and verse 23 where Mary longs for her own death. Traditionally this verse is translated as:^:140-2

"Then he (probably 'the child') called to her from beneath her: 'Grieve not; thy Lord hath placed beneath thee a streamlet'."

Luxenberg considers this obscure and reinterprets the verse as:

"Then he called to her immediately after her delivery: 'Do not be sad, your Lord has made your delivery legitimate'."^:140-2

Resurrection

The theory of apodosis (Ch 12) is applied to Sura 2:259, regarding a man who does not believe in resurrection. He is made by God to die and brought back to life after one hundred years. The verse is traditionally translated as:

"[L]ook at thy food and drink; it has not become stale; and look at thy ass - in order that We may make thee a sign to the people - and look at the bones how we shall make them stand up and clothe them with flesh."

is emended by Luxenberg to read:

"Yet behold your condition and your state: it has not changed. Behold your perfection! And therewith we make you an example for the people, [and] behold how we restore your bones and cover them anew with flesh!"^:191-7

Ibrahim's sacrifice

Another example of applying the theory of apodosis (Ch 12) is Sura 37:103, considered to be about Ibrahim's sacrifice of his son, reads when translated into English from Arabic, "And when they had both submitted and he put him down upon his forehead". But using Syriac instead of Arabic for almost the same Arabic rasm reads "...he tied him to the firewood".^{:167 :16-7}

Veil for women

A final example applying the theory of apodosis (Ch 12) In the analysing Sura 24:31, the part "they (women) should draw their veils over their bosoms" Luxenberg reads to "snap their belts around their waists", an idiom, with the belt as a symbol for chastity without ordering any organ to be covered with cloth. According to him, the meanings of the words in the relevant part of the verse are as follows: خِمار khimār; cummerbund, جيب jayb; sinus, sac, وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ; "let them hit."

Themes and whole suras

Virgins of paradise

See also: Islamophobic trope § 72 virgins

Houris in paradise, riding camels. From a 15th-century Persian manuscript.

In Chapter 15, the theme 'virgins of paradise' is discussed. The word houris, meaning "maidens with intensely black eyes set against the whiteness of their irises", who will serve the faithful in Paradise (Quran 44:54, 52:20, 55:72, 56:22) means (according to Luxenberg) "white grapes" or "raisins". He says that many Christian descriptions of Paradise describe it as abounding in pure white grapes. Thus, "the virgins who are supposedly awaiting good Islamic martyrs as their reward in paradise are in reality "white raisins" of crystal clarity rather than fair maidens... In both ancient Aramaic and in at least one respected dictionary of early Arabic, ḥūr means "white raisin". According to Luxenberg, the context makes clear that it is food and drink being offered.

The Boys of Paradise

In Chapter 16, the related "boys of paradise" refers rather to "wine".

Christian liturgical reading: Suras 108 and 96

See also: Christoph Luxenberg § Christmas and the Eucharist in the Qur'an (2003)

In Chapter 17, two suras are read in light of the idea that they might represent christian liturgial material.

Sura 108 is significantly changed by the re-reading of only two words. The result is that verses 1 and 2 are made into a pair of parallel synonymous expressions. The outcome is interpreted to mean that this sura is a "Syrian liturgical pronouncement in the manner of 1 Peter 5.8-9"^:66-7

The discussion of Sura 96 is much more detailed, rereading almost every verse, but with two being the most significant.^:67-68

Miscellaneous: seal of the prophets

The passage in sura al-Ahzab (33:40) that has usually been translated as "seal of the prophets" means (according to Luxenberg) "witness". By this reading, Muhammad is not the last of the prophets, but a witness to those prophets who came before him.

Popular reception

The book received considerable attention from the popular press in North America, Europe and non-Muslim parts of Asia at its release, perhaps in large part to its argument that the Quranic term Houri refers not to 'virgins' in Islamic paradise, but to 'grapes'.^:16 Hailed as "the most fascinating book ever written on the language of the Koran, and if proven to be correct in its main thesis, probably the most important book ever written on the Koran" but criticised as being "almost unreadable ... for the layman. One needs knowledge of eight languages (German, English, French, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic and Syriac) and of five different alphabets (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, and the Syriac Estrangelo) to comprehend the book".

The possibility that the suicide bombers and/or jihadists (collectively shahids) would be expecting beautiful women, and instead receive a bunch of grapes was met with mockery in the Western media with "one article in a German magazine published with the rhyming title Weintrauben statt Jungfrauen (Grapes instead of Virgins). By focusing on this argument, moreover, some journalists have found a medium by which to dramatize Islamic teachings of jihad and the sexual rewards of paradise, themes long the focus of anti-Islamic polemic. One journalist asks whether 'martyrs arriving in paradise may regard a bunch of grapes as a letdown'.”^:16 The Pakistani government banned a 2003 issue of Newsweek's international edition discussing Luxenberg's thesis on grounds that it was offensive to Islam.

Scholarly discussion

General

A summary and discussion of reviews is provided in an appendix by King (2009) and in an article by Warraq (2014).

Overview

By 2014, some 50 academic articles and books had appeared discussing Luxenberg's work.^:382-5 A selection of reviews by 2011 were categorised as ranging from positive and critical to scathing as follows.^:53 Positive reviews include Reynolds (2001), Gilliot (2003) and Phenix & Horn (2003). Scathing reviews include De Blois (2003), Hopkins (2003), Neuwirth (2003), and Saleh (2011). Highly critical, though open to some of the suggestions are Corriente (2003), Stewart (2008), and King (2009). Some additional reviews^:28fnfn11 (uncategorised) are: Maas (2003), Karimi-Nia (2004), Van Reeth (2006), al-Jamal (2007), Wild (2010) and King (2014).

While "competent philologists" such as De Blois had "weighty criticisms to a few chosen examples of Luxenberg’s method", other competent philologists considered it "a scholarly book with some proposals of great consequence for our understanding of the Qur’an",^:15 referring to: Phenix & Horn (2003), Brague (2003), Jansen (2003), Gilliot (2003) and Baasten (2004). Of the same opinion are Dye & Larcher (2003) who consider it "most interesting", Van Reeth (2006) who considers it "groundbreaking”, and Dye & Amir-Moezzi (2019) who consider it as having "suggestive insights".

El-Badawi (2014) writes that "some scholars equally skeptical about the Qur’ān’s origins have gravitated towards Luxenberg’s approach",^:29 referring to: Sawma (2006), Kropp (2008) and Van Reeth (2008). Also belonging to this group is Younes (2008), (2009), (2011) and (2017). Yet, others remain unconvinced, with Zellentin (2019) writing: "next to nothing in Luxenberg's reading has been confirmed in mainstream scholarship."^:6

Impact

Phenix and Horn (2003) write that, although similar works can be found in text-critical scholarship on the Bible:

"Not in the history of commentary on the Qur’’an has a work like this been produced [thus] scholars of the first rank will now be forced to question the assumption that, from a philological perspective, the Islamic tradition is mostly reliable".^:164 "Despite the sober revolution this book will no doubt create, one should not be naïve to think that all Islamicists in the West will immediately take up and respond to the scholarly challenges posed by any work of this kind. However, just as Christianity faced the challenges of nineteenth and twentieth century biblical and liturgical scholarship, so too will serious scholars of Islam, both East and West, benefit from the discipline Luxenberg has launched".^:178

Marx writes that Luxenberg's hypothesis had a positive impact on scientific discussions and perhaps sped-up the development of the long-term Corpus Coranicum project conceived of in 2006 by Angelika Neuwirth, Nicolai Sinai and Michael Marx himself.

Warraq (2014), after giving an extensive overview of reviews, concludes that "Luxenberg’s work has truly opened up a new era in Koranic Studies. He has provided the philology. His colleagues and co-researchers must now provide the historical context, and furnish the Judaeo-Christian and other Near Eastern and Babylonian sources."^:370

Dayeh (2019) writes that Luxenberg examplifies a new subfield of investigation fixated on the Prophet as an author-writer, reducing Quranic studies "to a study of etymologies, loan words, and orthographical variants". This is problematic because it "neither corresponds to the way in which the Prophet is depicted in the Qur’an nor to the generic characteristics of the text. It is also problematic because it conflates prophecy, authorship, and writing".^:31

Zellentin (2019) writes of Luxenberg's book that:

"the interest which the broader public has taken in it continues to have a detrimental effects on the public - and especially the Muslim - reception of serious works of scholarship on the Qur'an. Luxenberg's work, nevertheless, forced scholars to re-evaluate the difficult question of the Qur'an's early transmission history and its multifaceted relationship with the Syriac tradition, which in turn led them to corroborate earlier findings that this tradition is indeed of special importance when seeking to determine the Qur'an's sociocultural and historical context".^:6,17

Stewart (2024), discussing the development of Western Quranic studies, writes:

"The publication of Christoph Luxenberg’s work on the 'decipherment' of the Quran in 2000 may be recognized as a watershed moment in [breaking through] the general lull in Western Quranic studies in the latter half of the twentieth century and the concomitant lack of attention to the relationship between the Quran and Biblical tradition. [...] The urge to refute the work provoked a wave of intense study of the Qur’anic text, the early history of Arabic script, inscriptions in Arabia and surrounding regions, early Islamic history, and the Qur’an’s relationship with Christian tradition. Interest in the Syriac language grew by leaps and bounds."

Implications for Islam

Dye and Larcher (2003) write that Luxenberg's undertaking "will provoke in some Islamic circles the same emotion as did the hypothesis of Vollers formerly, because it amounts to seeing in the Qur’ān a kind of palimpsest."

Davitashvili (2026) writes: "the book also negatively affected the way some Muslims understood the relationship between the Qurʾan and pre-Islamic Syriac literature. Comparative studies of these relationships were perceived by some academics of the Muslim world as 'an Orientalist challenge to be confronted'. For some Muslims, comparative analyses of the Qurʾan and Syriac literature ran the risk of denying the Qurʾan as God’s word, and denying its originality." Thus for al-Jamal (2007),^:63 "an identification of Qurʾanic words of Syriac origin such as the name “Qurʾan” itself (in Syriac: qeryānā) is intended to establish a connection between the Qurʾan and the 'language of Evangelium' and to cast doubts on the authenticity of key terms. For al-Jamal, it means that God did not reveal the Qurʾan to the Prophet Muhammad but that the Prophet took its language and content from Syriac Christian sources", Davitashvili notes. Likewise El-Badawi (2014) cautions that his analysis tracing Quranic concepts to Aramaic gospels is not intended to offend Muslims or pander to non-believers.^:xiii

Hostility

De Blois (2003) criticizes the New York Times' attempt to compare Luxenberg with Salman Rushdie, Naguib Mahfouz and Suliman Bashear, because De Blois claims to have information that Luxenberg is not German but rather a Lebanese Christian. There is thus no reason "to avoid the death threats of rabid Muslim extremists" and Luxenberg has no right "to conceal his (or her) identity". De Blois also writes that Luxenberg's makes mistakes in Arabic that are typical for the Arabs of the Middle East."

Reynolds (2008) writes that Luxenberg's work "provoked an unusually polemical reaction from some. François de Blois concludes that Luxenberg’s new reading of the Qur’an, 'is a reading that is potentially attractive only in its novelty, or shall I say its perversity, not in that it sheds any light on the meaning of the book or on the history of Islam.' . . . Part of this hostility against Luxenberg may be due to the amount of attention that his work has received in the popular press".^:16

Warraq (2014) writes that the initial academic reactions, in particular by De Blois, to the contribution by Luxenberg reminded of the previously disgraceful treatment by academics of Günter Lüling and John Wansbrough, whose contributions were in some ways precursors to the work of Luxenberg. However, Ibn Warraq notes that Claude Gilliot and Jan van Reeth, two distinguished researchers in Koranic Studies, "very courageously called attention to the scandalous review that François de Blois wrote of Luxenberg’s book".^:356 Thus, Gilliot wrote in a footnote: "Apart from the fact that this article often distorts the thoughts of Luxenberg, it also contains allegations about the ethnic and religious background of the author (i.e., Luxenberg) which are hardly bearable".^:92 Van Reeth stated that Luxenberg's publication challenged the stagnation in Quranic Studies that, with minor criticisms, repeated the legendary accounts of the revelation of Islam and this challenge "undoubtedly explains certain reactions. . . At the end, [De Blois'] criticism becomes wicked and personal; moreover, some of his remarks show an apparent lack of foundation".^:511-12

Amateurism

De Blois (2003) believes that Luxenberg is a dilettante (amateur) whose Syro-Aramaic reading "does not actually make better sense" than the standard Classical Arabic reading." He posits that Luxenberg has an articulate knowledge of dialectal Arabic, passable (though flawed) command of Classical Arabic, and "knows enough Syriac so as to be able to consult a dictionary" but has no "real understanding of the methodology of comparative Semitic linguistics".

Kroes (2005) concludes "not everything Luxenberg writes is nonsense or too far-fetched, but quite a few of his theories are doubtful and motivated too much by a Christian apologetic agenda".

Crone (2006) professor of Islamic history refers to Luxenberg's work as "open to so many scholarly objections [...] notably amateurism".

Engagement with academia

De Blois (2003) believes that Luxenberg's theory is not novel but seems to be adapted from earlier works by James A. Bellamy and Günter Lüling. The fact that Luxenberg does not cite them in his bibliography "poses questions about [his] scholarly integrity." S. Hopkins (2003) criticises Luxenberg for frequently quoting "a few . . . favourite books (and very good books they are too), but seldom goes beyond them" such as with Goldziher and A. Levin's work on the imala. D. King (2009) adds that Goldziher was mentioned in a later edition of The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran yet "its results are not incorporated into the text as a whole".^:73 G.S. Reynolds (2008) says that Luxenberg "consults very few sources"—only one exegete (Abu Jafar al-Tabari)—and seldom integrates the work of earlier critical studies into his work.^:16 Richard Kroes (2005) says that "his investigations should be done again, taking into account all the scholarly work that Luxenberg doesn't seem to know.."

Theory (Conclusions)

Syriac-Arabic hybrid language

Baasten (2004): "Whether one should go along with [Luxenberg's] more far-reaching statements, on the Syriac-Arabic mixed language of Mecca or an Aramaic Urkoran, is something that further research will make clear".^:72

Corriente (2004) criticises Luxenberg's theory of a hybrid language (Syriac Vorlage) as "not convincing in most cases, because the philological arguments . . . do not have the necessary weight to counteract the previous more traditional views on this topic, grounded as they are on solid historical and socio-linguistic data.^:314

Daniel King (2009) a Syriacist at the University of Cardiff, endorses some of Luxenberg's emendations and readings but concludes:

"Luxenberg's meta-theory of Qur'ānic origins is not proved by the evidence he sets forth in this book. That certain of the Qur'ān's expressions and words (as well as broader ideas and themes) are of Christian origin is well founded, and should in general be sufficient to explain the data presented here without needing recourse to either of the two more radical theories he espouses, namely that the Qur'ān was in origin no more than a Christian lectionary, and that the language which it is written is an 'Aramaic-Arabic hybrid'. More must be offered to convince anybody as to the mechanisms by which such a strong cultural and linguistic contact could have occurred".^:69-71

Donner (2009) considers Luxenberg's idea of a mixed Arabic-Arameic language his "most daring proposal" but criticizes him for not making an effort to clarify what he actually means, such as: a Syriac–Arabic pidgin that died out, or instead whole Arameic passages embedded within an otherwise Arabic text (which Donner considers "highly plausible")? As this ambiguity allows Luxenberg the freedom to interpret difficult passages in ways that would otherwise be considered ungrammatical, this theory offers a "convenient pretext" to freely interpret the text. Donner concludes: "Some of the negative reviews of Luxenberg’s book have, with perfect justice, castigated him for failing to demonstrate the grammatical cogency of some of his proposed emendations. . . [However] the proposal deserves full investigation, not the reflexive rejection it sometimes elicits".^:38-40 Walid Saleh (2011) sums up his assessment of Luxenberg as follows:

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.

Guillaume Dye (2017) notes that Aramaic was indeed prevalent in the social milieu surrounding the conception of the Quran. Furthermore, Dye sees evidence for "many phenomena related to bilingualism, interference and language contact" in Quranic Arabic, especially "if we allow changes in the punctuation of the rasm". The bilingual phenomena noted by Dye are: "loanwords, [loan shifting], [loan extensions], semantic calques, uses of foreign words (namely, insertions), influence of foreign syntactical structures (congruent lexicalization) – in other words, code-switching and code-mixing".

Historical context

Hopkins (2003) criticizes the book for making no attempt to "place its findings in any plausible historical context" such as who these "Christian inhabitants of pre-Islamic Mecca" were and how they came to so thoroughly misunderstand their book.^:380

Hoyland (2008) argues against Luxenberg's thesis that Syriac was prevalent in the Hijaz during the time of the Quran's inception, instead finding Arabic script on funerary text, building text inscriptions, graffiti, and stone inscriptions of that era in the area.^:61-64 He further argues that Arabic evolved from Nabataean Aramaic script not Syriac.^:60-61 He concludes that by the 7th century Arabic was widely written and spoken, and was used for literary and sacred expression.^:63-64 He proposes that the rise of an Arabic script in the sixth century was likely the work of Arab tribes allied to Rome and Christian missionaries working to convert Arab tribes.^:57-60

Gabriel Reynolds (2008) writes: "While Luxenberg’s opponents often criticize this point, it seems to me quite justifiable, even prudent, in light of our uncertain historical knowledge of Islamic origins. Of course, most of Luxenberg’s opponents have more confidence in the historical reliability of the master narrative of Islamic origins than he does."^:15

Claude Gilliot (2009) sees no problem with Luxenberg staying strictly within the field of comparative philology and himself suggests a possible historical reconstruction for the influence of Aramaic based on the tradition that Zayd ibn Thābit, the personal scribe of Mohammed and chief recorder of the Quran, was a Jew who spoke Aramaic.^:73

Daniel King (2009) agrees and writes: "a philological and linguistic argument by itself could be sufficient to prove cultural contact even if it were impossible to reconstruct how that contact might have come about."

Witzum (2011) takes an opposing position: "The textual study of the Quran and the examination of its Jewish and Christian sources must precede historical speculation. While work in this direction has been undertaken in many studies ... further endeavors are necessary if the historical reconstruction is to be reliable".^{:257, 279} Yet, "Looking at the Arabian Peninsula as a whole, it can be shown that Christianity had spread throughout it"^:259 and new forms of contact are being proposed, such as by Serafim Seppälä who is quoted as saying: "My own estimation is that, if the author of the Qur’an had direct contact with Christian texts, the most likely possibility is that he heard recitation of Syriac hymns related to liturgical feasts, in addition to Gospel readings from Syriac Qeryana".^:262-3

Syriac Christian influences

Angelika Neuwirth (2003) describes Luxenberg's thesis of Quran as "a corpus of translations and paraphrases of original Syriac texts recited in church services as elements of a lectionary." She considers it as "an extremely pretentious hypothesis which is unfortunately relying on rather modest foundations." Neuwirth concludes "Luxenberg's reading with its far-reaching conclusions has – though in itself little convincing since largely relying on circular argument – revived the debate about the role of Syriac, as the most vigorous linguistic medium in the transmission of knowledge in Near Eastern late Antiquity, in the emergence of the Qur'an"

Jan Van Reeth (2006) proposes that the Gospel in the Quran refers to the Syriac Diatessaron. Van Reeth: "the holy book that was read by the community, of which Muhammad was a member, was a Syriac book" and this conclusion "reinforces ... the theory of Luxenberg".^:73 This conjecture is reinforced by El-Badawi (2014) who "traces Qurʾanic concepts and terms in the Diatessaron of Tatian and Syriac gospels, both of which El-Badawi places within this 'Aramaic Gospel tradition'."^:7

Gabriel Said Reynolds (2008): "More recently Sidney Griffith ... building on the work of Georg Graf, has contributed new evidence to this question, by arguing convincingly that the Bible had not been fully translated into Arabic before the rise of Islam. This would mean that many Arabic speaking Christians relied on Aramaic/Syriac scripture at the time of Islam’s origins."^:15

Paul Neuenkirchen (2022) writes: "many subsequent scholarly endeavours, while most definitely benefiting from the momentum created by Luxenberg’s book, have offered much more pondered and contextualized approaches to the question of the relationship between the Syriac milieu and that in which the Quran emerged. . . . Among the different literary genres of [Syriac writings], homilies have proven to be choice candidates for such comparative purposes."

Altering diactirics

Zellentin (2019) writes that "a few scholars find the method of reconstituting words based on the Qur'anic rasm (i.e. the consonantal skeleton of the Qur'an, without i'jam pointing) a worthwhile exercise, see e.g. Munther Younes".

Written transmission

Donner (2008) suggests there is evidence to support Luxenberg's hypothesis of a time of only written transmission, which is required to explain why Quran interpreters did not realise they were reading Syriac passages and the pronunciation Luxenberg attempts to reconstruct with his orthographic procedure (Y for A):

"there is mounting evidence that the Qur’an text, or parts of it at least, must at some stage in its history have been transmitted in purely written form, without the benefit of a controlling tradition of active recitation. This evidence takes the form of recognizing in the Qur’anic text misunderstood words, hypercorrected words (the “lectio facilior”), or stray marks which then became incorporated into the recitation, something that could only happen if the oral recitation were derived from the written text rather than the other way around" "Recent work on the word furqan provides another case in which the written, not oral, transmission of the text is implied by the evidence."^:40-41

King (2009) considers Luxenberg's more successful emendations to lend support to the idea of an early textual transmission of the Quran.^:71 King considers this even further supported on other grounds when reading F. Donner alongside U. Rabbin.

Methods and procedures

The Syro-Aramaic Methodology

Neuwirth (2003) points out that Luxenberg doesn't consider the previous work in Quran studies, but "limits himself to a very mechanistic, positivist linguistic method without caring for theoretical considerations developed in modern linguistics."

Robert Phenix and Cornelia Horn (2003) write: "Luxenberg is aware that many features of a standard philological presentation are missing. These he promises in the final study."^:165

Jan Van Reeth (2006) considers Luxenberg's research innovative and fruitful, but hindered by a lack of confrontation with the Quran's literary context.

Reynolds (2008) is critical of the methodology saying Luxenberg "turns from orthography to phonology and back again"; and that his use of Syriac is "largely based on modern dictionaries".^:16

Claude Gilliot (2009) considers the philological method used by Luxenberg coherent and persuasive: "the method is undeniably rigorous".^:73

Walid Saleh (2011) characterises Luxenberg as saying that for the last two hundred years, Western scholars "have totally misread the Qur'ān." However, Saleh describes Luxenberg's method as "so idiosyncratic, so inconsistent, that it is simply impossible to keep his line of argument straight." and criticises Luxenberg for not understanding that "The etymology of a word is a poor indication of what it means in a new context".

Guillaume Dye and Pierre Larcher (2003): "From a linguistic point of view the undertaking of Luxenberg is one of the most interesting."

Witzum (2011) writes: "To conclude, one of the many flaws of the work of Luxenberg lies in his neglecting to examine actual Syriac texts, even when these deal with the same subject-matter as the Quran, and might lend support to some of his theories".^:57

Garshuni

Christoph Luxenberg (2007) in a later article has himself tried to put forward empirical evidence from early Quran manuscripts for the theory that the Quran was first written in Syriac script.

King (2009) considers Luxenberg's theory of a Garshuni intermediary "more doubtful" than the idea of a written transmission, because "the Garshuni technique is unlikely to have existed at so early a date".^:71

Phonological procedure for Syriacisms (Ch 7)

The example maṯalaⁿ as representing mathlē - used by Luxenberg to argue for the ’imāla phonological procedure for Syriacisms - is criticised by "Corriente and de Blois on the basis that the resulting Arabic is not grammatically correct (the verb should now be singular), and by Stewart on the basis that the unemended text is unproblematic, for which he adduces parallels" and, King adds, this latter argument also seems to apply to the example suğğad^an.^:46

More successful is Luxenberg's application of this method to interpret the frequently in the Quran occurring phrase Ibrahīm the Ḥanīf, traditionally translated (in a broader context) as "Abraham the Ḥanif, and he was not one of the idolaters", should be understood instead as Syriac meaning "Abraham was a heathen but he was not one of the idolaters". This renders it an "unexceptional and understandable piece of Christian or Jewish exegesis" and is an "important argument [that] has received cautious support [by Stewart^:238-240] as solving a series of grammatical conundra".^:48

Orthographic procedure for Syriacisms (Ch 10)

King (2009)^:50 says there is some corroboration of Luxenberg's orthographical theory by Donner (2007). Likewise, Stewart (2008) concludes that:

"the suggestion that medial y may represent –ā- more frequently than hitherto realized is one of Luxenberg’s tangible contributions. However, he connects this result rather unnecessarily and even illogically with Syriac. . . . [T]here is no necessary connection between the etymological derivation of Qur’ān [from Syriac qeryānā] and the fact that -y- in Qur’ānic script may sometimes represent -ā-. The problem with arguing Syriac influence on Qur’ānic orthography here is that the -y- in the Syriac does not actually represent -ā-, but simply the consonant -y-, and this contradicts the point Luxenberg is trying to make"^:240

Donner (2009) writes that some confirmation for Luxenberg's orthographic procedure can be found in early manuscripts: "Both the San‘ā’ Qur’āns and some other very early Qur’ān leaves also show at least occasional variant orthographies that suggest the use of a tooth as mater lectionis for ā. In all cases, however, this orthography is not consistent – that is, there is no surviving text which uses a tooth consistently to represent long ā."^:38

Stewart (2017) writes that some of Luxenberg's "remarks concerning the script of the Qurʾan are also worth consideration, such as the claim that a yāʾ in the script could represent the vowel -ā-, which is clearly true but seems to have little to do with Syriac".^:23

Theory of the apodosis

King (2009) concludes that Luxenberg's theory of the apodosis (Ch 12) as carried over from Hebrew into Syriac and thence into Arabic is not proven by the evidence and thus requires "a great leap of the imagination."^:55 One such emendation by Luxenberg concerning Ibrahim's sacrifice Sura 37:103-4 (Ch 12) requires "so many leaps of the lexical imagination that one is left wondering whether one is not just being treated to an overall reading which is too convenient for the author’s meta-narrative of Christian origins to be taken seriously on philological grounds."^:55-7 However, Gabriel Reynolds considers Luxenberg's reading of Sura 37:104 "intellectually compelling".^:16

Guillaume Dye (2017) writes: "When Luxenberg writes that wa apodosis constructions 'should be understood (...) syntactically on the basis of a sentence construction that is also attested in part in the Syro-Aramaic translation of the Bible under the influence of Biblical Hebrew', he is right, in a way – this is without a doubt how some Qur’ānic verses should be understood and translated. However, it is far-fetched to look for close or direct influences from Biblical Hebrew, or from the few Hebraisms of the Pǝšiṭtā".

Tareq Moqbel (2025) considers Luxenberg's theory of the wa apodosis "not altogether implausible" while discussing Sura 18:47.^:19 Moqbel adds: "I am not suggesting, however, that the Qur'an was directly influenced by Biblical Hebrew or Syriac-Aramaic. All I want to say is that the Qur'an, in its employment of the AW [wa apodosis], exhibits a telling alignment with texts that are prior to it."^:11

Application

General

The Berlin Institute for Advanced Study organized a conference on Luxenberg's work in 2004. "Luxenberg's methodology was generally deemed incomplete [but] a consensus seems to have been reached that the interventions Luxenberg makes in the texts must be scrutinized individually".

Stewart (2008) writes:

"Luxenberg is not alone in proposing emendations of the Qur’anic text. Many emendations are reported in medieval works of Qur’anic philology, and a few modern scholars such as Bellamy have carried out significant work in this particular area. The results are varied. Many of the medieval emendations presented by al-Suyuti seem plausible and in some cases very probable. Many of Bellamy’s proposed emendations are highly unlikely, but a few are excellent proposals that provide improved readings. How does Luxenberg compare with his predecessors in the project of Qur’anic emendation? All told, Luxenberg proposes hundreds of emendations to the text of the Qur’an [..] Most of Luxenberg’s emendations are implausible and often demonstrably wrong. A small number of proposed emendations is likely or merits further consideration."^:237

Stewart (2008): "Whatever the merits of Luxenberg's work, reactions that have deprecated it simply because he dares to emend the Qur'anic text are disappointing. Scholars of the Qur'an, if they are worthy of the name, should be able to advance arguments regarding the probability or improbability of the specific emendations Luxenberg has proposed rather than simply crying foul."

Donner (2009) writes that "While some reviewers have harshly criticized a few of his emendations, the majority of them remain to be tested".

King (2009) judges Luxenberg's reading of Sura 6:146 (discussing the dietary restrictions imposed on the Jews) favorably, with Witzum (2011) adding that this is one example where Luxenberg's "argument could have been stronger had he worked with texts rather than dictionaries, as this passage seems to reflect Leviticus 7:22-25", which clearly shows this to be "a Christian report on Jewish dietary laws".^:34-35

Kerr (2014) is of the opinion that "Luxenberg convincingly shows [that] the word Qur’ān itself is an Aramaic loan-word" and suggests its meaning to have been "scriptura sacra [holy scripture]".

Dye and Kropp (2011) consider Luxenberg's explanation for the Arabic pronunciation (‘Īsā) of the name Jesus (يسى) as the result of "post-Quranic phonetics" unconvincing. Luxenberg considers the spelling of the final -ā using alif maqṣūra (ى) instead of alif (ا) significant and suggets it should actually be pronounced -ay. This would more closely match the Syriac pronunciation ’Īšay (with a voiceless glottal stop hamza at the beginning). Dye and Kropp see "no reason to follow Luxenberg".

Theme: Virgins in Paradise

Warraq (2014) describes how: "Van Reeth, with his unequaled knowledge of the history of Christianity, in general, and Syriac Christianity, in particular, builds on Luxenberg’s thesis concerning the Koranic descriptions of Paradise to produce a totally convincing account of the sources of the entire tradition. Where Luxenberg goes back to St. Ephrem, Van Reeth’s starting point is two Biblical passages in Genesis and Psalms [...] the book of Enoch 10:19, [...] the second Book of Baruch 29:5–6, [and] words of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, with the Hymns of Paradise of St. Ephrem filling in the gaps and closing the story."^:359

Theme: The boys of paradise

Van Reeth (2006) considers Luxenberg’s analysis of the boys of paradise brilliant.^:359

Liturgy: Suras 108 and 96

See also: Christoph Luxenberg § Christmas and the Eucharist in the Qur'an (2003)

Gilliot and Larcher (2003) consider Sura 108 (al-Kawṯar) "convincingly deciphered" by Luxenberg. However, they do not accept all new readings, finding that Luxenberg's fecundity in producing new interpretations invokes scepticism.^:73:361

Baasten (2004) considers many of Luxenberg's readings of Quran verses “stunning", suddenly turning some Sura's into "coherent texts." This is "convincing" in the case of Sura 108 (al-Kawṯar) and "most convincing" for Sura 96 except for some details.^:364 Concluding: "His proposals often do lead to a better understanding of impenetrable Quranic passages, which in itself is a major achievement and a challenge for historians of early Islam".^:364

King (2009) strongly disagrees that Luxenberg's reading of Sura 108 is convincing.^:66-7

Dye (2019) writes that while Luxenberg's method often lacks rigor, he creates "convincing results, or [...] stimulating avenues of inquiry," such as, for example, his studies of Suras 97 and 108.^:768

Response from Luxenberg

In response to criticism, Luxenberg (2007) argues that a historical-linguistic mistake was made in academia by assuming that Arabic is closer to proto-Semitic than Aramaic is, an assumption that served to cover up contradictions in the theory of the development of the Arabic language.^:357:12 Thus, much of what is called Classical Arabic is actually "of Aramaic derivation". "This makes understandable much of the criticism, even from competent Semiticists who have expressed their opinions on individual findings in the course of the debate that this study has provoked ... since its fırst appearance in 2000", Luxenberg claims.^:12

Editions

First published in German in 2000 (311 pp.), a revised and enlarged second German edition appeared in 2004 (340 pp.), a third edition in 2007 (356 pp.),^:21 a fourth in 2011/2012, and a fifth by 2015 (355 pp.). The 2007 English edition is based on the first German edition and, in part, the second German edition plus minor supplements and new findings.^{:123 :9} These later editions had cosmetic changes and more extensive footnotes^:237 but "did not remove, modify, or defend more adequately any of the specific propositions Luxenberg had made earlier. They remained essentially the same as the first edition".^:21

See also

• Criticism of the Quran
• Revisionist school of Islamic studies
• History of the Quran
• Quranic studies
• James A. Bellamy

External links

Video

• "The Quran" excerpt on The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran on YouTube. A 2008 Channel 4 documentary with interview, by Antony Thomas. Archived on 15 June 2026.
• The Origins of Islam: The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran Explanation of methodology applied to virgins of paradise, by Thomas Alexander on YouTube, 2022.
• Christoph Luxenberg's channel on YouTube (in Arabic), Interpreting Quran verse, 2022-2026.

Academic press

• Review by François de Blois (Department of Iranian Studies, University of Hamburg)
• Review by Richard Kroes Archived 2012-08-19 at the Wayback Machine (Archeologist, writer of "Islam en Integratie", Rotterdam)
• Review by Angelika Neuwirth (Arabist Department, Free University of Berlin)
• Review by Simon Hopkins (Faculty of Humanities, Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
• Review by Robert R. Phenix Jr. and Cornelia B. Horn (Department of Theology, University of St. Thomas)
• Hoyland, Robert: New Documentary Texts and the Early Islamic State, in: BSOAS: vol 9, part 3, 2006
• Corriente, F.: On a proposal for a ‘Syro-Aramaic’ reading of the Qur'an, in: Collectanea Christiana Orientalia No.1.
• Reynolds, Gabriel Said (2008). "Introduction, Quranic studies and its controversies". In Reynolds, Gabriel Said (ed.). The Quran in its Historical Context. Routledge.
• Hoyland, Robert (2008). "2. Epigraphy and the Linguistic Background to the Quran". In Reynolds, Gabriel Said (ed.). The Quran in its Historical Context. Routledge. pp. 51-69.

Popular press

• Goethe Institute: The Koran As Philological Quarry A Conversation with Christoph Luxenberg
• Islamic-Awareness, From Alphonse Mingana To Christoph Luxenberg: Arabic Script & The Alleged Syriac Origins Of The Qur'an
• Lebanon Wire: Giving the Koran a history: Holy Book under scrutiny
• Newsweek: Challenging the Koran
• New York Times: Scholars Scrutinize the Koran's Origin
• Reuters: Low profile for German Koran challenger

Other

• Christoph-Heger.de: overview of and links to reviews. Archived 26 June 2026