robert spencer-did muhammad exist__ an inquiry into islams obscure origins-intercollegiate studies institute (2012) (1)

language.’” 24 For example, the word kalla, “no indeed,” occurs three times in sura 96: in verses 6, 15,
and 19. According to Ibn Rawandi, “its first appearance at XCVI.6 is senseless, since it cannot be a
negation of the preceding section no matter how those verses are interpreted.” 25 The Qur'an translator
Rudi Paret draws out that senselessness in his rendering of verses 4-6: “[He] who has taught the use of the
writing cane has taught unto man what he didn't know. Not at all! Man is really rebellious…” 26
The sura shows signs of editing, appearing to be in two parts. Verses 1–8 fit in with the traditional
Muslim setting, in which Gabriel approached Muhammad on Mount Hira. But then the subject abruptly
and unaccountably changes in verses 9–19, denouncing some unnamed person who prevents a “servant”
(or “slave,” as many other translations have it) from praying.
Günter Lüling explains this sudden shift by suggesting that the text of sura 96 was originally a strophic
Christian hymn that had been reworked to fit it into an Islamic setting. In Lüling's reconstruction, based on
an original reading of the Arabic text, “Recite in the name of your Lord” becomes “Invoke the Name of
your Lord.” Lüling translates the Arabic verb iqra as “invoke” rather than “recite,” pointing out that the
Arab philologist Abu Ubaida (d. 818), author of Strange Matters of Hadith (Gharib al-Hadith),
explained that the verb qara'a—“to recite,” with iqra as its imperative form—meant the same thing as the
verb dakara : “invoke, laud, praise.” 27 Ibn Rawandi supports Lüling's argument, noting that
“understanding ‘iqra’ as ‘invoke,’ rather than ‘read’ or ‘recite,’ becomes plausible when it is realized that
in the ancient world reading was invariably reading aloud, so that the distinction between reading and
invoking would not have been what it is today.” Thus to “recite” would mean essentially the same thing as
“invoke”: to proclaim aloud. 28
The entire phrase “Invoke the Name of your Lord” recalls the common Hebrew phrase qara' be shem
Yahwe, “Invoke the name of the Lord” (cf. Genesis 4:25-26). It also recalls Psalm 130, known in Latin as
De profundis, “out of the depths I call to you,” in which “to call to God,” qeraatiikha in Hebrew, is
rendered in Latin as Clamavi ad te Domine, which obviously means “to pray to God.”
In Lüling's reconstruction, the digressive “He who forbids a servant when he prays” becomes a
confession of God's faithfulness: “Have you ever seen that He denies a servant when he prays?” The
warning questions, “What thinkest thou? If he cries lies, and turns away—Did he not know that God
sees?” become “Have you ever seen that He betrayed and turned away? Have you not learned that God
sees?” The odd “So let him call on his concourse! We shall call on the guards of Hell” Lüling renders as
an exhortation to call on the members of the heavenly court: “So call for His High Council! You will then
call up the High Angelship!” 29
Lüling's reconstruction of sura 96 as a Christian hymn exhorting the pious to call on God's name and
assuring them of his faithfulness makes more sense than the cryptic, abrupt, and decontextualized
canonical text of sura 96.
Examining the Syriac substratum, Luxenberg goes even further. He agrees with Lüling that iqra is more
accurately rendered “invoke” rather than “recite.” But he contends that the sura does not simply fit into a
Christian liturgical context but actually calls its followers to participate in that Christian liturgical
service. Luxenberg writes that “the lexicological and syntactical analysis of this sura, examined under its