[–] ardvarcus 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Mohammed didn't write the Koran. Mohammed wasn't a prophet. He was a warlord who conquored other peoples, then told them they must give up their faith and the faith of their forefathers for countless generations and worship what he told them to worship, or he would kill them. Think about that for a while -- a supposed holy man, telling men, women, or children that they had to worship what he told them to worship, or he would cut off their heads. And fourteen centuries later, nothing has changed. Islam isn't really a religion at all, it's a system of social control, like communism.

[–] LiberationArtFront 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

the book describing the life of a Moongod wroshiping warlord and pedophile got more extreme, insane and demonic over time?

[–] Whitemail 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

How about fuck them and their shitty Quran. Any version of it.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 


[–] submitted [S] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I think it's this one http://www.aramaic-dem.org/English/History/Christoph%20Luxenberg.pdf




The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran is an English-language edition (2007) of Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache (2000) by Christoph Luxenberg.

The thesis of the book is that the text of the Quran was substantially derived from Syriac Christian liturgy, arguing that many "obscure" portions become clear when they are back-translated and interpreted as Syriacisms. While noticeable Syro-Aramaic influence on the language of the Quran is undisputed in scholarship, Luxenberg's thesis goes beyond mainstream scholarly consensus and was widely received with skepticism in reviews.

Luxenberg's book has been reviewed by Blois (2003),[8] Neuwirth (2003)[9] and following the English translation by King (2009) [10] and Saleh (2011).[4]

The most detailed scholarly review is by Daniel King, a Syriacist at the University of Cardiff, who endorses some of Luxenberg's emendations and readings and cites other scholars who have done the same, 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.[11]

The conclusion of King's article summarizes the most prominent reviews of Luxenberg's work that have been published by other scholars.

The Quran is "the translation of a Syriac text," is how Angelika Neuwirth describes Luxenberg's thesis – "The general thesis underlying his entire book thus is that the Quran is 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 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."[9]

Blois (2003) is particularly scathing, describing the book as "not a work of scholarship but of dilettantism" and concluding that Luxenburg's "grasp of Syriac is limited to knowledge of dictionaries and in his Arabic he makes mistakes that are typical for the Arabs of the Middle East."[8]

Saleh (2011) describes Luxenberg's method as "so idiosyncratic, so inconsistent, that it is simply impossible to keep his line of argument straight."[4]:51 He adds that according to Luxenberg, for the last two hundred years, Western scholars "have totally misread the Qur'ān" and that, ad hominem, no one can understand the Qur'an as "Only he can fret out for us the Syrian skeleton of this text."[4]:56 Summing up his assessment of Luxenberg's method, he states:

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.[4]:55[12]

Saleh further attests[4]:47 that Luxenberg does not follow his own proposed rules.[13]

Richard Kroes in a review on Livius.org[year needed] describes him as "unaware of much of the other literature on the subject" and that "quite a few of his theories are doubtful and motivated too much by a Christian apologetic agenda."[14]

Patricia Crone, professor of Islamic history at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, in a 2008 article at opendemocracy.net refers to Luxenberg's work as "open to so many scholarly objections" and "notably amateurism".[15]

[–] zbou 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Very interesting. Welcome to Voat faggit.

[–] ARsandOutdoors 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

So basically our interpretation of the Koran has been wrong all this time, and Muslims really are as peaceful as their book says? lol

[–] submitted [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 





[–] derram 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=w_vq9_Wipic :

DISCOVERY: Oldest Quran Found Has Little Similarity To Modern Version - YouTube

This has been an automated message.

[–] LesbianSeagull 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

Cry me a river, old book. Happens every day.

[–] plankO 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

TLDR: Arabic is a shit language where grapes & virgin can easily be confused

[–] RightEdge 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

what? Did it have mohammed fucking more little girls or did it have him killing more guys to steal their wives and property?

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)