One of the problems with comments is that they sometimes come in old posts, and I don't necessarily notice them. Mubin Shaikh points out two negative reviews of the work by Christopher Luxenberg, the pseudonymous author of a fairly radical reinterpretation of the Qur'an, which I noted here. I also noted a positive review of his work here.
Mr. Shaikh points to reviews here and here. As I think I've noted before, I'm in no position of judge Luxenberg's work (he's taken a philological approach to interpreting the Qur'an, and bases much of his argument on the notion that much of the Qur'an was not written in Arabic, but rather borrowed words from another Semitic language -- Aramaic, I believe -- and that down the years these words have been misinterpreted). Earlier, I wrote:
...given the radical nature of Luxenberg's thesis, a fairly large dose of skepticism is in order -- take a tablet about the size of a manhole cover. ... I of course cannot judge Luxenberg's work for myself, but I imagine a number of specialists in classical Arabic and Aramaic are eager to do so for me. It will be interesting to see both his book and what the reaction of his critics will be. (I suspect the latter will be available in English long before the former.)
I still stand by that, and while I think it's also premature to conclude on the basis of two reviews, as Mr. Shaikh does, that it "Looks like this book is already a dud," skepticism seems to have been in order.Posted by Ideofact at October 28, 2003 11:27 PM