For people who like stories about religious foundations, derring-do over disputed texts, mysterious deaths, academic jealousy, silencing of scholars, and extreme religious sensitivity this story has it all. It also has the potential for substantial angst in the Arab Muslim (Sunee) world where the Qur'an is believed to be eternal and uncreated (making it difficult for textual analysis to be accepted).

On the night of April 24, 1944, British air force bombers hammered a former Jesuit college here housing the Bavarian Academy of Science. The 16th-century building crumpled in the inferno. Among the treasures lost, later lamented Anton Spitaler, an Arabic scholar at the academy, was a unique photo archive of ancient manuscripts of the Quran.

The 450 rolls of film had been assembled before the war for a bold venture: a study of the evolution of the Quran, the text Muslims view as the verbatim transcript of God's word. The wartime destruction made the project "outright impossible," Mr. Spitaler wrote in the 1970s.

Mr. Spitaler was lying. The cache of photos survived, and he was sitting on it all along. The truth is only now dribbling out to scholars -- and a Quran research project buried for more than 60 years has risen from the grave.

More at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120008793352784631.html

interesting topic... but should be moved to ' Outside the Box ' , thus a proper discussion can commence

interesting topic... but should be moved to ' Outside the Box ' , thus a proper discussion can commence

Yes, I've only ever posted in Bedlam about once, so missed that. Can Mod move it, please, if that's where it should be?

I was told that the Quran hasn't changed over the years like the Bible. So that isn't the case afterall?

In reading the WSJ article, I came across this paragraph:

______________________________________________________

A scholar in northern Germany writes under the pseudonym of Christoph Luxenberg because, he says, his controversial views on the Quran risk provoking Muslims. He claims that chunks of it were written not in Arabic but in another ancient language, Syriac. The "virgins" promised by the Quran to Islamic martyrs, he asserts, are in fact only "grapes."

______________________________________________________

If this is true, there must have been a lot of disappointed suicide bombers when they received their "reward" in Heaven.

In reading the WSJ article, I came across this paragraph:

______________________________________________________

A scholar in northern Germany writes under the pseudonym of Christoph Luxenberg because, he says, his controversial views on the Quran risk provoking Muslims. He claims that chunks of it were written not in Arabic but in another ancient language, Syriac. The "virgins" promised by the Quran to Islamic martyrs, he asserts, are in fact only "grapes."

______________________________________________________

If this is true, there must have been a lot of disappointed suicide bombers when they received their "reward" in Heaven.

Particularly when they find " the grapes" refers to haemorrhoids.......

In reading the WSJ article, I came across this paragraph:

______________________________________________________

A scholar in northern Germany writes under the pseudonym of Christoph Luxenberg because, he says, his controversial views on the Quran risk provoking Muslims. He claims that chunks of it were written not in Arabic but in another ancient language, Syriac. The "virgins" promised by the Quran to Islamic martyrs, he asserts, are in fact only "grapes."

______________________________________________________

If this is true, there must have been a lot of disappointed suicide bombers when they received their "reward" in Heaven.

Particularly when they find " the grapes" refers to haemorrhoids.......

The plot thickens (or perhaps expands and branches out).

It should be noted that "Luxenberg" is not in fact a professor in Germany, but a Lebanese Christian, and therefore, perhaps with an agenda to promote. His thesis, in any case, is highly dubious and not accepted by Western scholars of Islam and Arabic. (Pity about the grapes ... would like to have seen the martyrs' faces.)

The standard view, I believe, of both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars is that the verses ("suras") of the Qur'an came to Muhammad mentally in some way (the religious view is that they were "revealed" to him by the archangel Gabriel, but not in material form) and he recited them to his followers. Some memorized the verses, but several of these were killed in battle following Muhammad's death. As a result, his third successor, Uthman, ordered a version to be codified and this became the first canonical (official) version. Uthman's version, though it was contested by some at the time (644-656, 22-34 years after Muhammad died), remains the canonical one throughout the Muslim world.

The reactivated research project does not, I think, set out to challenge the fixedness of the Qur'anic text as codified under Uthman, though that could be an outcome, but to consider the early versions that were around in the first century of Islamic history. If significant differences are found in early copies, perhaps because of miscopying or someone wanting to "improve" the text for some reason, then the implications could be significant. One senses that the conservatism inherent in Muslim religious scholarship, with its constant referral for ratification through a genealogical line of commentators going back as close as possible to the time of the Prophet himself, could paint itself into a corner where examination of Quranic origins are concerned. However, if, as Muslim scholars argue, the Qur'an does in fact have a divine origin, then I guess they have nothing to worry about.

If there are serious issues arising from the project, then it could be quite dangerous for those working on it. In such an atmosphere, one wonders just how frank will reports coming out of the project be, or indeed how long its funding will last. The open society of the West, i.e. one in which ideas can be discussed and published without fear for one's life, may be added to the list of terrorist victims. I suspect in some ways it already is.

In reading the WSJ article, I came across this paragraph:

______________________________________________________

A scholar in northern Germany writes under the pseudonym of Christoph Luxenberg because, he says, his controversial views on the Quran risk provoking Muslims. He claims that chunks of it were written not in Arabic but in another ancient language, Syriac. The "virgins" promised by the Quran to Islamic martyrs, he asserts, are in fact only "grapes."

______________________________________________________

If this is true, there must have been a lot of disappointed suicide bombers when they received their "reward" in Heaven.

You can laugh....but really, what you are laughing at is all the laughable promises of all religions.......unless you are suggesting that this religion alone is laughable, but not yours?

In reading the WSJ article, I came across this paragraph:

______________________________________________________

A scholar in northern Germany writes under the pseudonym of Christoph Luxenberg because, he says, his controversial views on the Quran risk provoking Muslims. He claims that chunks of it were written not in Arabic but in another ancient language, Syriac. The "virgins" promised by the Quran to Islamic martyrs, he asserts, are in fact only "grapes."

______________________________________________________

If this is true, there must have been a lot of disappointed suicide bombers when they received their "reward" in Heaven.

Particularly when they find " the grapes" refers to haemorrhoids.......

The plot thickens (or perhaps expands and branches out).

It should be noted that "Luxenberg" is not in fact a professor in Germany, but a Lebanese Christian, and therefore, perhaps with an agenda to promote. His thesis, in any case, is highly dubious and not accepted by Western scholars of Islam and Arabic. (Pity about the grapes ... would like to have seen the martyrs' faces.)

The standard view, I believe, of both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars is that the verses ("suras") of the Qur'an came to Muhammad mentally in some way (the religious view is that they were "revealed" to him by the archangel Gabriel, but not in material form) and he recited them to his followers. Some memorized the verses, but several of these were killed in battle following Muhammad's death. As a result, his third successor, Uthman, ordered a version to be codified and this became the first canonical (official) version. Uthman's version, though it was contested by some at the time (644-656, 22-34 years after Muhammad died), remains the canonical one throughout the Muslim world.

The reactivated research project does not, I think, set out to challenge the fixedness of the Qur'anic text as codified under Uthman, though that could be an outcome, but to consider the early versions that were around in the first century of Islamic history. If significant differences are found in early copies, perhaps because of miscopying or someone wanting to "improve" the text for some reason, then the implications could be significant. One senses that the conservatism inherent in Muslim religious scholarship, with its constant referral for ratification through a genealogical line of commentators going back as close as possible to the time of the Prophet himself, could paint itself into a corner where examination of Quranic origins are concerned. However, if, as Muslim scholars argue, the Qur'an does in fact have a divine origin, then I guess they have nothing to worry about.

If there are serious issues arising from the project, then it could be quite dangerous for those working on it. In such an atmosphere, one wonders just how frank will reports coming out of the project be, or indeed how long its funding will last. The open society of the West, i.e. one in which ideas can be discussed and published without fear for one's life, may be added to the list of terrorist victims. I suspect in some ways it already is.

You are insightfull.

In mentioning the possible repercussions of a "new" interpretation, Salman Rushdie comes to mind, a man that I have great respect for for his forthrightedness in criticism of the way the qu'ran has been interpreted.

The plot thickens (or perhaps expands and branches out).

It should be noted that "Luxenberg" is not in fact a professor in Germany, but a Lebanese Christian, and therefore, perhaps with an agenda to promote. His thesis, in any case, is highly dubious and not accepted by Western scholars of Islam and Arabic. (Pity about the grapes ... would like to have seen the martyrs' faces.)

<snip>

Maybe, but.....

Whether he is right or wrong, he does highlight the fact that the Koran and other religious nonsense is wide open to interpretation and misunderstanding. Which is nothing that we didn't already know, except for the religious nuts.

Has a jihad been called against him yet?

The plot thickens (or perhaps expands and branches out).

It should be noted that "Luxenberg" is not in fact a professor in Germany, but a Lebanese Christian, and therefore, perhaps with an agenda to promote. His thesis, in any case, is highly dubious and not accepted by Western scholars of Islam and Arabic. (Pity about the grapes ... would like to have seen the martyrs' faces.)

<snip>

Maybe, but.....

Whether he is right or wrong, he does highlight the fact that the Koran and other religious nonsense is wide open to interpretation and misunderstanding. Which is nothing that we didn't already know, except for the religious nuts.

Has a jihad been called against him yet?

I think the term is fatwa as was the case with Rushdie....and I believe it takes some time for the "scholars" to issue one since it is (rightly so) a heavy decision.

Fatwa, shatwa.

It all translates to nonsense to me.

The plot thickens (or perhaps expands and branches out).

It should be noted that "Luxenberg" is not in fact a professor in Germany, but a Lebanese Christian, and therefore, perhaps with an agenda to promote. His thesis, in any case, is highly dubious and not accepted by Western scholars of Islam and Arabic. (Pity about the grapes ... would like to have seen the martyrs' faces.)

<snip>

Maybe, but.....

Whether he is right or wrong, he does highlight the fact that the Koran and other religious nonsense is wide open to interpretation and misunderstanding. Which is nothing that we didn't already know, except for the religious nuts.

Has a jihad been called against him yet?

I think the term is fatwa as was the case with Rushdie....and I believe it takes some time for the "scholars" to issue one since it is (rightly so) a heavy decision.

I don't think they know who he is. Richard Kroes identifies him as an unnamed Lebanese Christian in a review of his book, but I guess he's not going to dob him in to the muftis. http://www.livius.or...n/Luxenberg.htm

Fatwa, shatwa.

It all translates to nonsense to me.

I am as proudly and devoutly atheist as you, probably, however the fact remains that a major part of the world population is sucked in by the mumbo-jumbo of religion, and this has an impact on the rest of us.

How the gullible go about their various faiths will affect you and me.

Fatwa, shatwa.

It all translates to nonsense to me.

I am as proudly and devoutly atheist as you, probably, however the fact remains that a major part of the world population is sucked in by the mumbo-jumbo of religion, and this has an impact on the rest of us.

How the gullible go about their various faiths will affect you and me.

Excuse the pedantry but I'm agnostic, not atheist. I consider atheism to be one side of the same coin as devout belief.

Otherwise yeah, you're right.

Excuse the pedantry but I'm agnostic, not atheist. I consider atheism to be one side of the same coin as devout belief.

I'm agnostic and I "hate" athiests. At least religious people get worked up over something they believe in, Athiests get all worked up over something they don't even believe exists.

Excuse the pedantry but I'm agnostic, not atheist. I consider atheism to be one side of the same coin as devout belief.

I'm agnostic and I "hate" athiests. At least religious people get worked up over something they believe in, Athiests get all worked up over something they don't even believe exists.

Do atheists get "all worked up"?

And is it that they don't believe in the existance of gods, or rather that they believe that gods don't exist? I think it's the latter, in which case, I have a belief.....and as such, if I was to get all worked up, it would be over a belief.

Fatwa, shatwa.

It all translates to nonsense to me.

I am as proudly and devoutly atheist as you, probably, however the fact remains that a major part of the world population is sucked in by the mumbo-jumbo of religion, and this has an impact on the rest of us.

How the gullible go about their various faiths will affect you and me.

Excuse the pedantry but I'm agnostic, not atheist. I consider atheism to be one side of the same coin as devout belief.

Otherwise yeah, you're right.

Not pedantic at all. Sorry for the mistake, as there is a difference.

Atheism to be one side of the same coin as theism? Hmmmm....I suppose if atheist were to blindly follow a belief in the non-existance of a god/gods, then you would be right.

I'm not so sure that we atheists blindly follow our belief., that is why we are atheists: our belief is based on what we know, not on faith.

It could be said that agnostics are fence-sitters, not quite willing to deny the existance of god while claiming that there is no proof; Sort of like making an excuse to Him if in fact he exists. "Well, God, you didn't offer any proof, so please understand why I didn't accept you, and please don't condem me to Hell".

In reading the WSJ article, I came across this paragraph:

______________________________________________________

A scholar in northern Germany writes under the pseudonym of Christoph Luxenberg because, he says, his controversial views on the Quran risk provoking Muslims. He claims that chunks of it were written not in Arabic but in another ancient language, Syriac. The "virgins" promised by the Quran to Islamic martyrs, he asserts, are in fact only "grapes."

______________________________________________________

If this is true, there must have been a lot of disappointed suicide bombers when they received their "reward" in Heaven.

this is the problem we have, anyone can contradict the bible, say things are changed and not true, even make a very funny film about it ' Monty pythons life of brian ' , and not much happens.

but do the same against the quran and shit , you have started a holy war !!!

Fatwa, shatwa.

It all translates to nonsense to me.

I am as proudly and devoutly atheist as you, probably, however the fact remains that a major part of the world population is sucked in by the mumbo-jumbo of religion, and this has an impact on the rest of us.

How the gullible go about their various faiths will affect you and me.

Excuse the pedantry but I'm agnostic, not atheist. I consider atheism to be one side of the same coin as devout belief.

Otherwise yeah, you're right.

Not pedantic at all. Sorry for the mistake, as there is a difference.

Atheism to be one side of the same coin as theism? Hmmmm....I suppose if atheist were to blindly follow a belief in the non-existance of a god/gods, then you would be right.

I'm not so sure that we atheists blindly follow our belief., that is why we are atheists: our belief is based on what we know, not on faith.

It could be said that agnostics are fence-sitters, not quite willing to deny the existance of god while claiming that there is no proof; Sort of like making an excuse to Him if in fact he exists. "Well, God, you didn't offer any proof, so please understand why I didn't accept you, and please don't condem me to Hell".

Some speak of "weak" and "strong" forms of agnosticism. "Weak" agnostics believe that there isn't enough data yet on which to base an assertion that God exists, but there may be in the future. "Strong" agnostics believe we'll never have enough data for God's existence to be knowable.

I'm not altogether clear on what the theological differences are between a " strong" agnostic and an atheist. It seems to be in part a matter of emphasis (atheists are more decisive and assertive) and partly to do with attitudes toward religious belief. Atheists perhaps are more hostile to religious belief as such and, therefore, to religions. Their hostility is also marked by views on the impact of religion on history and contemporary society.

Another approach is that of "theological non-cognitivists", who argue that the term "God" and derivative terms cannot be defined in any really meaningful way. Propositions about God and God's attributes, intentions, methods, etc are also unfalsifiable and therefore a-logical and unscientific. Hence, they are not objects or matters of knowledge, or even informed belief (hence "non-cognitive").

Some speak of "weak" and "strong" forms of agnosticism. "Weak" agnostics believe that there isn't enough data yet on which to base an assertion that God exists, but there may be in the future. "Strong" agnostics believe we'll never have enough data for God's existence to be knowable.

I'm not altogether clear on what the theological differences are between a " strong" agnostic and an atheist. It seems to be in part a matter of emphasis (atheists are more decisive and assertive) and partly to do with attitudes toward religious belief. Atheists perhaps are more hostile to religious belief as such and, therefore, to religions. Their hostility is also marked by views on the impact of religion on history and contemporary society.

Another approach is that of "theological non-cognitivists", who argue that the term "God" and derivative terms cannot be defined in any really meaningful way. Propositions about God and God's attributes, intentions, methods, etc are also unfalsifiable and therefore a-logical and unscientific. Hence, they are not objects or matters of knowledge, or even informed belief (hence "non-cognitive").

There are also agnostic atheists and atheist agnostics.

I can see how you may think that atheists are "perhaps hostile" to religion, but I think you generalise a bit too much. For myself, I can be hostile to the effects of religion, but do not begrudge a person having faith, albeit I think them misguided.

My general feeling is that if religion causes citizens to be better members of society, then I support them.

Fatwa, shatwa.

It all translates to nonsense to me...

...as does the nonsense you write

Fatwa, shatwa. It all translates to nonsense to me.

I am as proudly and devoutly atheist as you, probably, however the fact remains that a major part of the world population is sucked in by the mumbo-jumbo of religion, and this has an impact on the rest of us.

How the gullible go about their various faiths will affect you and me.

please explain what achievement makes you "proud" being a "devout" atheist

Excuse the pedantry but I'm agnostic, not atheist. I consider atheism to be one side of the same coin as devout belief.

I'm agnostic and I "hate" athiests. At least religious people get worked up over something they believe in, Athiests get all worked up over something they don't even believe exists.

Do atheists get "all worked up"?

And is it that they don't believe in the existance of gods, or rather that they believe that gods don't exist? I think it's the latter, in which case, I have a belief.....and as such, if I was to get all worked up, it would be over a belief.

I think they fall into the category of people who enjoy a good argument with people whom they know that they will never convince.

I'm sure I don't need a link to convince you of the existence of this phenomenon, you're in the right place to experience it now.

Fatwa, shatwa. It all translates to nonsense to me.

I am as proudly and devoutly atheist as you, probably, however the fact remains that a major part of the world population is sucked in by the mumbo-jumbo of religion, and this has an impact on the rest of us.

How the gullible go about their various faiths will affect you and me.

please explain what achievement makes you "proud" being a "devout" atheist

The achievment of rising above the dogma instilled into me as a child, thinking for myself, observing life, and learning provable science.

Excuse the pedantry but I'm agnostic, not atheist. I consider atheism to be one side of the same coin as devout belief.

I'm agnostic and I "hate" athiests. At least religious people get worked up over something they believe in, Athiests get all worked up over something they don't even believe exists.

Do atheists get "all worked up"?

And is it that they don't believe in the existance of gods, or rather that they believe that gods don't exist? I think it's the latter, in which case, I have a belief.....and as such, if I was to get all worked up, it would be over a belief.

I think they fall into the category of people who enjoy a good argument with people whom they know that they will never convince.

I'm sure I don't need a link to convince you of the existence of this phenomenon, you're in the right place to experience it now.

No..There is always hope, but if I know that I'll never convince them then I don't enjoy it, just feel pity.

Having said that, I confess to a small amount of enjoyment rarking up those that deserve it, ie the disingenuous, dishonest, dogmatic, blinkered bigots

Fatwa, shatwa. It all translates to nonsense to me.

I am as proudly and devoutly atheist as you, probably, however the fact remains that a major part of the world population is sucked in by the mumbo-jumbo of religion, and this has an impact on the rest of us.

How the gullible go about their various faiths will affect you and me.

please explain what achievement makes you "proud" being a "devout" atheist

The achievment of rising above the dogma instilled into me as a child, thinking for myself, observing life, and learning provable science.

Rising above dogma, thinking for yourself and learning provable science? How do you feel about Global Warming?

Rising above dogma, thinking for yourself and learning provable science? How do you feel about Global Warming?

I think the proper term is "climate change".

Do I sense an amount of disbelief in climate change from you?

I'm not so sure that we atheists blindly follow our belief., that is why we are atheists: our belief is based on what we know, not on faith.

There is no evidence whatsoever that god does not exist. There is no evidence either way,

There's plenty of evidence that the bible, koran etc is full of &lt;deleted&gt; but that suggests nothing about an actual god. Nothing at all. This is why it is the same side of the same coin as believing, both sides believe in something for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence. Nada. Zilch.

Even great minds like Einstein wonder about the possibility of a maker because much of the probabilities and philosophy involved are simply mind boggling. For example, for there to be a big bang which is when all things started into existence there must also have been a before the big bang. This means that there must have been no time before time started, yet surely 'before' time suggest that 'before' was a time.

I know that the big bang has it's own counter theories, yet they all have similar issues.

To say that agnostics are sitting on the fence just isn't true. It's a case of us needing to be given compelling evidence before making a decision either way. I don't think that's "sitting on the fence", I think it's just reason and logic.

You also say that agnostics 'sit on the fence' just incase there is a god so they still get to go to heaven? Is it not true that any person just has to ask for forgiveness to be allowed into heaven, even if they are atheist? That kind of blows that argument out of the water. Besides, that's all just nonsense that was written in the bible or whatever. That's all just nonsense so the priests and politicians at the time held power over the population. What about members of tribes deep in the amazon that have never came into contact with civilization, those tribes who worship the sun god and snake god and whatever god? Would they be sent to hell even though they have never even been shown a bible before? What a load of &lt;deleted&gt;.

I do not believe in any organised reigion. In fact I believe that the bible/koran/(insert scritpure here) is made up nonsense, partly because of the overwhelming evidence against them and no supporting evidence for them.

As for whether there is a god, I cannot possibly know. And neither can you.

Fatwa, shatwa.

It all translates to nonsense to me...

...as does the nonsense you write

Interesting comment Naam. Are you being defensive about something?