What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary

Features

• Cover Type: Hard Cover with 782 pages
• Published by: Prometheus Books October 2002
• Written in: English
• ISBN 10 Number: 157392945X
• ISBN 13 Number: 978-1573929455
• Book Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.3 x 1.8 inches
• Weighs: 2.6 pounds

Product Review
"Excellent book on a sensitive and under-explored subject." -- Fortean Times, April 2003

"For anyone interested in the Koran, it will be a boon to understanding Islam. robustly critical scholarship" -- Times Literary Supplement, September 12, 2003

"Scholars, students, and those with a keen interest in Islamare sure to get a lot out of this collection." -- About.com

Product Description
This collection of classical essays, some translated here for the first time, provide an objective, critical commentary on the traditions and language of the Koran, discussing its grammatical and logical discontinuities, its Syriac and Hebrew foreign vocabulary, and its possible Christian, Coptic, and Qumranic sources. Included among these essays are a comprehensive commentary on the discussion of the expression 'an yadin in Sura II; a discussion of the possible meanings of Sura IX.29, the longest sura in the Koran; and selections from the late Koranic scholar Richard Gell's INTRODUCTION TO THE QUR'AN and A COMMENTARY ON THE QUR'AN.

Reader Reviews
Anyone familiar with Ibn Warraq's books readily knows why he is pretty much universally reviled by Muslim polemicists (he has several death fatwas outstanding against him - hence his use of a pseudonym for publishing). This book is no different. In it, Ibn Warraq presents a large collection of articles from scholars who spent their lives investigating the Qur'an and its history. This, in and of itself, will cause most Muslims and "pro-Islam" people in the West to view this book as a "hostile" source. Any collection of articles that deconstruct the Qur'an and which demonstrate flaws, imperfections, and inconsistencies in the Qur'an will be viewed as such. Bad point: Much of the information in the book is very dated. We're talking about information first presented by the likes of Noldeke, Wellhausen, and Goldhizer in the late 19th century. Good point: Much of this information is still relevant today, if only because of the relative paucity of scholars who are actually willing to critically examine Islam without slavishly seeking to substantiate the Islamic party line. Many of the linguistic arguments still have not been satisfactorily answered by Muslims or Westerners to this day (i.e. rebuttals based on circular reasoning such as relying upon the traditional Islamic view of the Qur'an to SUBSTANTIATE the traditional Islamic view of the Qur'an don't count). If Muslims think that the essays in Ibn Warraq's book are "hostile", then they should acquaint themselves with the works of more modern researchers from the last thirty years like Crone, Cook, Nevo, Wansbraugh, etc. These and other investigators are even more "hostile" if only because they have a greater base of archaeological, numismatic, epigraphic, etc. data from which to assess the traditional Islamic historiography. As we can see from some of the previous reviewers, those who don't like this book are generally a bit biased themselves. One from March 20, 2003 (below) barely addresses the actual content of the book, and spends up who-knows how much bandwidth giving us a screed about the "peaceful" aspects of jihad and how the Qur'an really promotes peace, love, harmony, and all that other good stuff. Another review (Edgar Hopida, Nov. 16, 2002) complains about bias in this book, using such objective terminology as "this book represents the one-sided, misleading, and dishonest evidence about the Qur'an, Islam, and its rich history" and "Orientalism, has for centuries attempted to deconstruct Islam, trying to give biased proof that the Occident is superior over the Orient." Would Mr. Hopida care to explain why "Orientalists" have been inclined towards trying to do the exact same thing with the Bible? Perhaps they were trying to give biased proof that the Occident is superior over the *Occident*, too? Basically, this is a book which the reader will either appreciate for its factual content, or else will despise for its factual content, depending on whether Islamic presuppositions are brought to the table before reading it.