The problem with many of Luxenberg’s supposed Syriacisms is that many are well within the normal range of attested grammatical possibilities within Arabic itself. Luxenberg identifies as the basis for the theories he proposes the idea that the language in which the Qur’an was recorded was a mixed language, an Arabic/Aramaic creole of sorts, spoken in Western Arabia by a community subject to intense Christian influence, is certainly wrong. Critics are correct to point out that Luxenberg offers no historical evidence to corroborate his claim that Mecca was actually an “Aramaic” settlement. Luxenberg’s audacity has rankled for three reasons primarily: he makes a radical proposal about the early history of Islam, he is not a professional scholar of Islam, and he emends the text of the Qur’an. The following remarks focus on the issue of emendation.
Hopkins, for example, characterizes as outlandish Luxenberg’s claims that Mecca was originally an Aramaic colony whose inhabitants spoke a “mixed language” composed of elements of Aramaic (Syriac) and Arabic, that the Qur’an was composed in this mixed language, and that one-fourth of the text remains undeciphered. He accuses Luxenberg of reckless methodology, wayward philology, and exegetical caprice. He faults Luxenberg for not citing a number of important earlier studies in the field, including works by Goldziher, Aryeh Levin on imala, and Ullman’s dictionary of classical Arabic (WKAS).
In another example using this principle, Luxenberg suggests that the indefinite plural accusative sujjadan (2:58; 4:154; 7:161; 12:100; 16:48; 17:107; 19:58; 20:70; 25:64; 32:15; 48:29), equivalent to sajidin “prostrating” in meaning, is actually the Syriac plural sagde of equivalent meaning.33 Again, this explanation is unnecessary; it would only be required if the form sujjadan were unattested or did not fit the context. In all cases, however, the context requires a plural indefinite accusative. In addition, the form fu‘‘al is not rare or unattested in Arabic. It occurs in the Qur’an itself in rukka’ (2:125; 22:26; 48:29).
Many of Luxenberg’s emendations do not depend on a Syriac reading of the text. The problem with arguing Syriac influence on Qur’anic orthography here is that the -y- in the Syriac does not actually represent -a-, but simply the consonant -y-, and this contradicts the point Luxenberg is trying to make.
Criticism of Luxenberg’s “houri”
Luxenberg’s most notorious readings and emendations are those that have to do with the houris, the fantastic female companions of paradise. He suggests that the term hur is related to Syriac hewara, hewarta meaning “white” and that ‘in is related to Syriac ‘ayna, meaning not simply “eye” but also appearance, color, brilliance, shine.” However, this is not correct, for the term hawar refers to a very particular beauty trait, a strong contrast between the whites of the eyes and the dark irises and pupils. Bell’s translation “dark-eyed,” which Luxenberg criticizes, is actually a fair approximation, given the difficulty of rendering the term concisely in English. Luxenberg’s other objection, that the Qur’anic descriptions of paradise assign to male denizens of paradise two sets of wives, both their earthly wives and these heavenly maidens, presents a genuine hermeneutical problem. Even in this case, though, the earthly wives are mentioned much less frequently (e.g. 36:56; 43:70), so that it would seem hazardous to attempt to explain away the many references to hur on those grounds.
Again, very importantly, Luxenberg does not take into account the alternative explanations for the text as it stands. His initial reason for seeking alternatives to the standard interpretation seems to be that the forms of the words hur, “houris,” and ‘in, “wide-eyed,” are odd in Arabic. They are not. All of these emendations and re-readings are unnecessary and extremely improbable. Moreover, the emendation of the houri-passages requires the emendation of an entire second set of passages, those referring to handsome male companions or servants (wildan, ghilman) who also appear in paradise, for the presence of handsome youths in paradise would appear to corroborate references to female companions and militate against interpreting the latter as references to grapes or grape vines.54 These emendations, too, are extremely improbable.
Leave a Reply