Ibn Warraq's masterpiece: Christmas in the Qur'an and review of Mundhir Younes of Q100 or سورة العاديات

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Sep 6, 2014 at 10:42

Dr. Pipes

This new book by Ibn Warraq must be his best so far. And spoiler alert but Christmas in the Qur'an is Q97 or Surat al-Qadr

However I want to bring to your attention the great scholar of the Arabic language and very early Arabic language literature Mundhir Younes

http://neareasternstudies.cornell.edu/people/detail.cfm?netid=may2

He teaches Arabic at Cornell University and he is Palestinian American. He wrote two great articles about Q100 or سورة العاديات or Surat al-3Adiat and here is a long video about what he is really saying and for readers interested in the Qur'an or very early Arabic literature and have some knowledge of Syriac and Hebrew I'm sure such reader will enjoy this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjcO-LE_ZC8

And yes his two articles make it to Ibn Warraq's book

Surat al-3Adiyat is impossible to understand without reading the great commentaries the likes of al-Tabari and al-Qurtubi but even when you read such commentaries you will discover that no one has a clue about what this sura is really saying

Prof Younes is very correct in making changes not to the rasm but to the diacritical points and the short vowels and indeed he follows the tradition attributed to Aisha

التفسير للصحابة والتءويل للفقهة

Or the exegesis of the Qur'an belongs only to the early followers of Muhammad and al-ta'weel (read this as exegesis too) belongs to the doctors of Islam

In other words it is possible for a pious Muslim to amend what the Quranic text is saying and this is what he is doing

Now if you read Pickthall's comment on his translation of Q100 you realize that this is indeed a sura that Muslims have no idea about what it is really saying and this is what Pickthall says:

The meaning of the first five verses is by no means clear. The above is probable rendering

This is how Younes changes the sura

1 والعاديات ضبها this verse does not have a clear meaning and it was read as the horses or may be camels snorting and be going to war or going to al-Hajj

This is what Younes does he reads it as والغاديات صبحا or those (Nuns may be?) going out early in the morning

2. The second verse he reads it as and kindling a flame

3. He regards the third verse as an interpolation because it talks about Raiding in tne morning when this is a Meccan Sura

4. He reads it as By which they chose to render a good deed

5. He readers it as which they extend it to the multitudes

Now the meaning is very clear and that this is more likely than not a Christian hymn about Nuns? kindling fire early in the morning

6. In verse six we have a very strange word and it is لكنود or lakanud and this word really has no meaning and it was read as this man is an ingrate unto his lord but this does not fit with the rest of the sura and this is where Younes tells us that the word lakanud must be a loan word from Hebrew Kabud and the Biblical Kabud is from the root KBD and it means abundance, honor and glory and indeed this changes the meaning of the verse to Truly man honors and is honored by glorifies his lord

And it is the exact opposite to what the Islamic tradition tells us about the meaning of this very strange word Lakanud and indeed if you read the rest of his reconstruction one can only reach the conclusion that this must be Kabud and not Kanud and here is what the tradition tells us about the meaning of Q100:7-10

And truly he is a witness to that

And truly his is violent in his love for wealth

Does he now know when what is in the graves has been scattered

And what is in the breast is made known

Truly on that day their lord will be perfectly informed of them

Here is Younes' reading

And he is witness to that

And he is intense in his love of good deeds

Does he not know when is in the graves has been scattered

And what is in the breasts is made known

That on that day their lord will be perfectly informed of them

Very much fits with the theme of the Sura

However the real conclusion here is that the claim that the Qur'an was memorized by early Muslims has no validity and that the Qur'an must have been a text(s) and by the time the likes of al-Tabari were trying to decipher what it is really saying the meaning of what the Qur'an is saying was lost and indeed this proves that John Wansbrough was correct that the Qur'an could not have been canonized before the late 2nd or 3rd centuries of Islam

It also means that in this case this is a Christian hymn plain and simple

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".