In an earlier post, “European and American Campus Anarcho-Tyranny,” I urged attention to an important article on the ominous combination in the EU of official censorship of public debate and loss of control over public law. The piece also makes interesting and potentially far-reaching linguistic claims about the Koran.  In the words of Fjordman, the author of the article:

Aramaic was once the lingua franca of a vast area of the ancient Middle East, similar to what English is today or Latin was in Europe in centuries ago. It has now given way to Arabic, but according to some researchers, Syriac or Syro-Aramaic was also the root of the Koran. When the Koran was composed, Arabic did not exist as a written language. Aramaic, however, was still widely used between the 4th and 7th centuries in Western Asia. Ibn Warraq estimates that up to 20% of the Koran is incomprehensible even to educated Arabs because parts of it was, in fact, originally written in another, though related, language before Muhammad was born.

Fjordman cites a German professor of ancient Arabic and Semitic language, who writes through fear of Muslim violence under the nom de plume Christoph Luxenberg: 

In its origin, the Koran is a Syro-Aramaic liturgical book, with hymns and extracts from Scriptures which might have been used in sacred Christian services. […] Its socio-political sections, which are not especially related to the original Koran, were added later in Medina. At its beginning, the Koran was not conceived as the foundation of a new religion. It presupposes belief in the Scriptures, and thus functioned merely as an inroad into Arabic society.

Fjordman, apparently implying that the Islam of Medina is an inherently violent religion, concludes

According to Luxenberg, the chapters or suras of the Koran usually ascribed to the Mecca period, which are also the 16 most tolerant and non-violent ones as opposed to the much harsher and more violent chapters from Medina, are not “Islamic” at all, but Christian.