Actually the koran was misinterpreted. Virgins are actually pomegranates, dates and grapes:
EXCERPT:
Harmonization of passages that are united by theme is another feature of the textual difficulty of the Qur’ân. Sections fifteen and sixteen examine how a misreading in one verse triggered sympathetic misreadings throughout the text based not on grammatical or lexical similarity but because the scattered verses alluded to a single concept. In section fifteen, Luxenberg treats the virgins of paradise and in section sixteen the youths of paradise. Sura 44:54 is the starting point for the discussion. Bell translates this as “We will join to them dark, wide-eyed (maidens).” The verb “join as in marriage” or “pair as in animals for copulation” is a classic misreading of zây for râ and jîm for hâ' (both pairs distinguished only by a single dot), instead of zawwaj it is rawwah “give rest, refresh,” the object of the verb being the blessed in paradise. The major conclusion of section fifteen is that the expression hûr cîn means “white (grapes), jewels (of crystal)” and not “dark, wide-eyed (maidens)” (suras 44:54 and 52:20). Luxenberg first examines carefully each component of sura 44:54 and of sura 52:20. The Qur’ân mentions other kinds of fruits in paradise, namely, dates and pomegranates (sura 55:68) as well as grapes (sura 78:32). Grapes are also mentioned in the context of “earthy” gardens ten times. Since earlier scholarship knows that the Qur’ân uses the Syriac word for garden gantâ > janna for paradise, the grape then must be the fruit of paradise par excellence (p. 234). Why, if that is so, is the grape only mentioned in connection with the “heavenly” garden once?
[31] To answer this, Luxenberg presents earlier scholarship, notably that of Tor Andrae and Edmund Beck, showing a connection between the images of the garden of paradise in the Qur’ân and in the hymns of Ephraem the Syrian entitled On Paradise. Andrae remarked that hûr was likely from the Syriac word for “white,” but his solution was to say that the Qur’ânic usage was somehow metaphorical. Neither he nor Beck considered that the Arabic “virgin” was a later misunderstanding on the part of the commentators.
[32] Ephraem uses the term gupnâ, “vine,” grammatically feminine, with which hûr agrees and from this Andrae concluded that it was a metaphor for “the virgins of paradise” in the Qur’ân. In suras 44:54 and 52:20, Luxenberg argues that instead of the singular cîn the plural cuyun should be read, referring to the grapes on the vine. Elsewhere the Qur’ân compares the grapes to “pearls,” and so they must be white grapes, which is not apparent from the text at first glance. Luxenberg then offers two variants of this expression. The first reading renders the phrase “white, crystal (clear grapes),” the second, and the one Luxenberg adopts, is “white (grapes), (like) jewels (of crystal).” The restored verse then reads “We will let them (the blessed in Paradise) be refreshed with white (grapes), (like) jewels (of crystal).”
[33] Of the several related examples in sections 15.2 – 15.9, Luxenberg follows the virgins of paradise through the Qur’ân. In section 15.2, Luxenberg observes that azwaj, “spouses,” also can mean “species, kinds” (suras 2:25, 3:15, and 4:57). The latter reading makes more sense “therein also are all kinds of pure (fruits).” Luxenberg links to the misunderstanding of sura 44:54 zawwaj, “join, marry.” The misinterpretation of one verse spills over into the related thematic content of another. The other sections are also well-argued. Of special interest are the discussions in sections 15.5 – 15.6 of suras 55:56 and 55:70, 72, 74, respectively, which state, referring to the virgins of paradise “whom deflowered before them has neither man nor jinn.” Instead, these are the grapes of paradise “that neither man nor jinn have defiled.” Luxenberg points out that sura 55:72 evidences another Qur’ânic parallel to Ephraem, who writes that the vines of paradise abound in “hanging grapes.”10
[34] Section sixteen follows this investigation as it points to a similar misreading of paradise’s grapes as youths, Arabic wildun. Sura 76:19 “Round amongst them go boys of perpetual youth, whom when one see, he thinks them pearls unstrung” (sura 16.1, citing Bell’s translation). Wildun is a genuinely Arabic word, but it is used in a sense which is borrowed from Syriac yaldâ. Youths like pearls is somewhat suspicious, especially given that “pearls” are a metaphor for the grapes of paradise from the previous section. Luxenberg uncovered that Syriac has the expression yaldâ dagpettâ, “child of the vine,” appearing in the Peshitta: Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25, and Luke 22:18, in which Christ foreshadows his death and resurrection: “I will not drink of this child of the vine (yaldâ dagpettâ) until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of my Father.” Here it is the juice of the grape that is the “child.” Entries in the Arabic-Syriac lexica for each of yaldâ and gpettâ give in addition to “child” and “vine” “fruit” and “wine,” respectively. Luxenberg gives further evidence from suras 37:45, 43:71, and 76:15 that Ephraem the Syrian’s depiction of the grapes of paradise is behind the original Qur’ânic text.
[35] Section seventeen synthesizes the techniques and findings of the foregoing study and analyzes two complete suras: 108 and 96. Luxenberg provides for each a complete commentary and translation. The thrust of sura 108 has already been presented above. The analysis of all nineteen verses of sura 96 spans twenty-two pages. Among the many solutions provided in this section is that the particle ’a which has stumped the commentators and the grammarians is really two different words: the Syriac word ’aw “or” and the Syriac ’çn “if, when.” Omitting here the details of the argument, this sura is to be read as a call to participate in liturgical prayer and has the “character of a Christian-Syriac prooemium, which in the later tradition was replaced by the fatiha (from Syriac ptâxâ, ’opening’).” This is not just any liturgy, but the Divine Liturgy, the eucharistic commemoration, as Luxenberg reconstructs verses 17-19: “Should he [i.e., the Slanderer] wish to call his idols, he will (thereby) call a [god who] passes away! You should not at all listen to him, (rather) perform (your) liturgy and receive the Eucharist (wa-isjid wa iqtabar)” (p. 296). This is noteworthy, as this is the oldest sura according to Islamic tradition, and reveals its Christian-Syriac roots. In sura 5 “The Repast” Luxenberg indicates that closely related eucharistic terminology as in sura 96 (the proof for which is omitted in this review) suggests that the verses in sura 5:114-115 refer to the Eucharistic liturgy (and not just the Last Supper). Further evidence for this reading comes from a piece of pre-Islamic poetry by the Christian Arab poet ‘Adi ibn Zayd which the Kitâb al-aghânî of Abû l-Faraj al-Isfahânî (d. 967) preserved. Section eighteen, a brief, comprehensive summary, concludes the study.
syrcom.cua.edu |
