Bible characters in the Koran by John Walker
 |
| Bible characters in the Koran |
The many variations and errors whenever they are found always prove instructive, as for example, when we find Mohammed apparently confusing Mary (Jesus' mother) with Miriam (Moses' sister), and making Amram (Miriam's father) the father of the Virgin Mary; or when he propagates a tremendous error concerning Ezra (q.v.}.
The great Arabian prophet, it must be remembered, never received our canonical scriptures. He had to depend on garbled accounts, on Talmudic legends and fantasies; on the reports of false gospels; on the figments of Jewish and Christian proselytes; and on any oral information that might be given to him by the members of his household or the companions of his travels.
The perusal of work such as this ought to provide, if nothing else, some idea of the perverted knowledge of the Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians held by the founder of Islam.
In compiling this book, the author has consulted the original Arabic of all the texts quoted from the Koran, and the translation has been compared chiefly with the versions of Sale and Rodwell. The English, as far as possible, is made to conform with the Arabic construction. Words that are not to be found in the original are usually denoted by being enclosed within brackets. The book itself arose out of the need for such a handy work of reference of a popular nature experienced by the compiler during certain of his Koranic studies.
Thus, although it is more or less a straightforward compilation made 1 Hirschf eld in his New Researches (p. ii.) goes so far as to state that the Koran. " the text-book of Islam, is, in reality, nothing but a counterfeit of the Bible. from the Arabic text, it incidentally expresses opinions and conclusions for which the author holds himself alone responsible. This is particularly so in the case of the proposed identification of Job with the Koranic Dhu'l-Kifl, and of Elisha with Idris.
It is not to be expected that these theories will be generally accepted as possible or probable, 2 but they are given for what they may be worth. The Bibliography at the ~end~ is suggestive rather than exhaustive. Islamic students may wonder why no use was made of Horovitz's Koranische Unfersuchungen (Leipzig, 1926).
The reason is that the present work was completed before the latter was published. The question of the transliteration of Arabic words into Roman characters, always a stumbling block to orientalists, is reduced as far as possible to simplicity, without, it is hoped, any loss of general accuracy. No ligatures or logotypes have been employed, since the student of Arabic can dispense with such aids, while the general reader, unacquainted with the phonology of the language, is not materially assisted by their presence on the printed page. Long vowels are generally represented in the text though not always in the Koran quotations.
They are, however, omitted in the case of those words which are now naturalised elements in our dictionaries, e.g., Koran, Caliph, Medina, etc. The .conventional spelling of words like Mecca, Kaaba, vizier, and Moslem is retained, as being more in keeping with a work making a general appeal. The same reason has led to the adoption of the more familiar Mohammed and Othman in preference to the more correct Muhammad.
It is not to be expected that the author has succeeded in avoiding mistakes, but if such be comparatively few, it is largely due to the vigilance of Mrs T. H. Weir, M.A., who very graciously read the proofs and gave good advice and encouragement. Thanks are also due to the printers for their care and patience with the text during the author's absence in the East. Although finished in 1926, the present work has, for personal reasons, been withheld from publication until now.
Download 3 MB