The Koran: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #013

by Michael A. Cook

The Koran has constituted a remarkably resilient core of identity and continuity for a religious tradition that is now in its fifteenth century. In this Very Short Introduction, Michael Cook provides a lucid and direct account of the significance of the Koran both in the modern world and in that of traditional Islam. He gives vivid accounts of its role in Muslim civilization, illustrates the diversity of interpretations championed by traditional and modern commentators, discusses the processes by which the book took shape, and compares it to other scriptures and classics of the historic cultures of Eurasia.

About the Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam.

Genres: Religion, Islam, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Mythology, Spirituality

176 pages, Paperback

First published February 24, 2000

About the author

Michael Allan Cook (born in 1940) is a British historian and scholar of Islamic history.

He studied History and Oriental Studies at King's College, Cambridge 1959-1963 and did postgraduate studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of the University of London 1963-1966 under the supervision of Professor Bernard Lewis. He was lecturer in Economic History with reference to the Middle East at SOAS 1966-1984 and Reader in the History of the Near and Middle East 1984-1986. In 1986 he was appointed Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. Since 2007 he has been Class of 1943 University Professor of Near Eastern Studies. He was a Guggenheim Fellow in Spring 1990.

In 2001 he was chosen to be a member of the American Philosophical Society.

In 2002 he received the prestigious $1.5 million Distinguished Achievement Award from the Mellon Foundation for significant contribution to humanities research.

In 2004 he was chosen to be a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

In 2006 he won Howard T. Behrman Award for Distinguished Achievement in the Humanities at Princeton.

In 2008 he won Farabi Award in the Humanities and Islamic Studies.

In 2013 he was awarded an honorary doctorate at Leiden University.

In 2014 he won the Holberg Prize.

Reviews

[Riku Sayuj · Rating 2 out of 5]

More like A Very Short Introduction to Classical Arabic: exhausting linguistic analysis peppers the pages, though a lot of good stuff about the Koran and its many meanings are hidden inside. But frankly, I am dazed.

This VSI, while being not so helpful in understanding the Koran itself, gives a good flavor of the centuries old task of deciphering it and the many difficulties thereof, by pointing out the many difficulties attendant on a reading -- with specific verse-examples, with the linguistic difficulties highlighted; but not ignoring the more theological difficulties regarding: the composition of the Koran, pre-existence, satanic verses, struggles with modern values, tolerance vs intolerance, women’s role and treatment, etc. Retrospectively, as I write this review I can see a lot of ground was covered, but I must warn you it is not much fun while actually reading. The reader can feel very lost very quickly in an ocean of divine arabic versification and interpretation.

[Darwin8u · Rating 3 out of 5]

"It is surely a noble Koran in a hidden Book - none but the purified touch it - a sending down from the Lord of all Being."
- Q56:77-80



I've been thinking of reading/listening to the Koran for a couple years now. I've read various Sura before, and have a fair working knowledge of the book, but have never approached it from beginning to end. Recently, with the publication of The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary, I'm close to taking the plunge. Because of the strong oral tradition of the Koran, however, I also wanted to listen to it. Listening to it in Arabic presents the obvious issue: I don't understand Arabic, so I found a good Modern English reading based on interpretations of the meaning by Dr Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali and Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan. I've also got a version the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia sent me (I actually have an English AND Turkish translation) once when I wrote requesting it. This translation is fairly dominant in English and from what I've read has a fairly conservative, dare I say fundamentalist, bent to it. Again, I don't read Arabic so when I eventually approach the book I will ALWAYS be dependent on others for their scholarship, interpretation, and thus biases.

That is part of the reasons I wanted to read Cook's VSI to the Koran before I started reading the Koran itself. In broad strokes, I knew much of what he spoke about before, but his details were interesting. I was hoping for more of an overview of the text itself, but Cook's introduction mainly sets the table for reading the text by explaining (going backwards in time): The Koran in the Modern world, the Koran in the traditional Muslim world, and the formation of the Koran. The most interesting part to me was the middle section, which delved into the Koran in the tradition Muslim world. In this section he explored the Koran as codex, text, worship, truth, and object of dogma. That said, I also liked the first section's exploration of the idea of scripture (which extends, obviously beyond the Koran) and the dissemination, translation, and interpretation of the Koran.

So, in many ways this book didn't give me all of what I wanted, but it did give me much that I think I will need to read and better understand the Koran.

[Tariq Mahmood · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is book is a very concise and relevant view of issues related to the Koran. The Koran is a scripture, not a treatise or dogmatic theology.

The author points out some of the known issues in the Koran, like the issue of abrogation of verses. How can all powerful Allah not know? The author does not delve too much in the many explanations given by Muslim apologists defending or denying abrogation, but I guess it is very difficult to defend the resulting contradictions due to the many abrogations listed in the Koran.

The other issue was introduced by 13th century scholar of Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah, who argued that all Muslims shall have to learn Arabic in order to really understand Islam. Suffice to say, this completely impractical suggestion is pretty relevant even to this date where a number of scholars argue its many merits, leaving me flabbergasted generally.

The next issue was relevance of Koran when juxtaposed with modernity values of science, religious tolerance and women rights. With science, the author quotes studies profiling Koran in light of modern science. The obvious disadvantage being that science will move on, thus making the Koranic justifications redundant. Religious tolerance is also an issue with many Scholars declaring non-Muslims subservient in the light of Koranic verses. Similar stance is taken when women are considered through the Koranic lens. I think the author has made a pretty valid point as Koran fares very well when compared to the Bible and other scriptures but lacks when judged against modernity. More efforts have to be taken by the Islamic scholars to modernise the Koran, I guess otherwise it could be resigned to obscurity like other previous scriptures.

Other issues discussed are...
- Whether to consider the Koran literally or metaphorically?
- Should the Koran be bought or sold like the Jews?
- How to dispose a worn out or used Koran properly? Wipe off the ink from the paper maybe? But what to do with the inky water? the author cites the example of the Taliban who banned all paper bags in Afghanistan in fear that the paper may contain Koranic verses.
- How to make sure that the text remains accurate? Engrave it on the rock for longevity? The Chinese Hun did it but that too could not last for more than a decade. There are no master copies of the Koran.
All in all the author likes the way Koran was preserved, with all errors intact, the way how the Koran was broadcast across the ages.

Finally the tradition of numbering the verses has been pretty recent and the naming of Surahs is also man made, not divine.

[Luís · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Koran is the sacred book of the Muslim religion. He believes in the Islamic faith and is the word of God. Or God, as revealed by the angel Gabriel to Mohammed, the last prophet of the Judeo-Christian God. Thus, the book is considered divine. The Koran is Islam as the Torah is Judaism, or the New Testament is Christianity. Most of the Koran (sometimes also called Qur'an) written during the life of Muhammad. The rest thought to have been written shortly after his death from the notes of the scribes. It estimated that Muhammad had over 50 writers scoring his speeches during the 7th century AD. However, in most sects of Islam, it is believed that the Quran exists in its entirety and unchanged today and is not an interpretation of Muhammad's speeches but a transcript. Therefore, the Qur'an is the word of God and establishes how Muslims should live in the world.
Because Arabic initially used was soon lost to other derived languages. Most Muslims see the translation of the Qur'an as interpretations of the original. Muslim scholars return to the original language to resolve interpretive disputes. Some Muslim sects interpret the Qur'an, while others take each word as the word of God and therefore, incontestable. In all Muslim sects, it is forbidding to destroy a Koran or to deface one. Each copy, whether in the original language or not, has inherent holiness. However, there is controversy over the interpretation of the Qur'an, and conflicts tend to be divided by several Muslim sects. Certain things agreed upon. Muhammad is the last prophet of God, who divinely inspired through the Angel Gabriel. His words are the words of God. Just all religions in the world need to figure how to make their texts the sacred work in the modern world, Muslim sects want to be to take on this task by interpreting Muhammad's words for today. Or merely sticking close as possible with the teachings of Muhammad could comparing to fundamentalist Christianity or Judaism. Like many religious works, the Qur'an has some inherent contradictions, which can define theological differences in Muslim sects. For example, a passage from the Koran advocates beating women who misbehave, while several other texts advocate that for women what kind of treatment they should receive from their husbands. A person may use such passages at any time in God's word, suggesting that disobedient women should treat poorly.
On the other hand, it can argue that throughout the Qur'an, Muhammad's convincing argument is for the gentle and loving treatment of women. Some Quranic prophets recount religious texts that are familiar enough to read the Old and New Testaments. The Virgin Mary revered in the Qur'an. Thus, Abraham, Moses, Noah and all have recounted stories. Jesus Christ saw as a prophet and not the son of God, which differs from the beliefs of many Christian sects. However, the key figures of the New and Old Testament are honoured relevant and recognized as the predecessors of the Last Prophet, Muhammad. Their teachings and words have created the fastest-growing company in the world religion.

[Omar Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pious Muslims may feel that in the presence of the text and its commentaries, they do not need Professor Michael Cook's "very short introduction" to the Koran. The pious may also wish to stay away because Professor Cook was once associated with the notorious "Hagarene hypothesis" (put forth in the 1977 book: Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook) though he has since backed away from some of the more extreme claims of that book. But "The Koran, a very short introduction" turns out to be a very witty and interesting book, full of insights that the most pious Muslim will find informative and stimulating.
There is a tendency to avoid difficult issues at a time when Likudniks, oil barons and Christian fundamentalists are trying to permanently colonize huge chunks of the Middle East, but it is unlikely that the Binladens of the Islamic world will be able to provide an intellectual framework adequate to the task at hand. Un-nerving as it may be, Muslims have no choice but to re-examine and reconstruct their faith. Professor Cook's "short introduction" may lead on to better and bigger things.
Professor Cook starts by discussing what constitutes a sacred scripture and the forms such scriptures have taken in different civilizations. He then outlines the role the Koran plays in Muslims culture and how this is similar and how it differs from the role played by the Bible or the Vedas in their cultures. A few short selections from the Quran (the Fatiha, surah alfeel, the "throne verse", the "sword verse", among others) are presented in standard translations and used to illustrate the Quranic message and how it is perceived. The treatment is fair and balanced, though with a touch of levity that some Muslims may find initially disconcerting. One can get an idea of professor Cook's tone from his own description of his latest work:
"Recently I have published a monograph on a very Islamic value: al-amr bi`l-ma'ruf - roughly, the duty of each and every Muslim to tell people off for violating God's law".

The sentence is accurate enough, though the tone is one that a pious Muslim may find out of place in a discussion of religion. But professor Cook is not a pious Muslim and may perhaps be excused as long as he is not unfair (and in this book at least, he is generally fair). After discussing the status of the Koran in the Muslim world today, He goes on to discuss its origins, its content, organization, translation, pronunciation, commentaries, and dissemination. As is to be expected in such a small book, he cannot cover any topic in great detail, but he manages to touch on a very large number of issues and manages to convey a sense of the subject surprisingly well. The text is packed with fascinating little nuggets, like a picture of the Quran with Spanish translation in Arabic script! In every chapter, he says enough to spark a desire to learn more. At every step, he also interjects comparisons with other culture and other scriptures; comparisons that are illuminating and enlightening and, generally, even-handed. Currently "hot" topics like "tolerance" and "women's rights" get highlighted, as expected, but he does point out that prior generations did not necessarily look at them through contemporary lenses. What bothered older commenatators about the quranic reference to wife beating may turn out to be very different from what bothers a "modern liberal". On the other hand, at times the older commentators (and the text itself) turn out to have been much more "modern" than we expected.
Professor Cook's little book works very well as an introduction for someone unfamiliar with the Quran, but if anything, it is even more interesting for someone already familiar with Muslim culture and history. He notes the extraordinary hold of "fundamentalist" interpretations in the Muslim world today, but ends by pointing out that this was not always the case and may not be the case in the future. As an example of how things may change, he points to the work of Abdul Karim Surush in Iran, whose book "siraat-haay mustaqeem" (straight paths) raises the possibility that there is more than one straight path and all may co-exist.
In short, almost anyone wanting to learn more about the Qur'an, will find this a wonderful place to start. It may be a very short introduction, but it touches on many important issues and does so with great erudition and unexpected wittiness. Worth a read.

[Spencer · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am a Christian pastor, and I have been slowing going through the Koran on my own time. My hope is to do sermon series or a few lessons with my church so how we can have a balanced, loving perspective of our Muslim neighbors, far from the xenphobia that gets propogated.

As I have been finding, and as Cook notes, unlike the Christian and Hebrew Bible, the Koran is not chronological, no overarching narrative, very little variation in genre and discourse, with no discernible overall editing structure, which makes novice readers like myself a bit lost. So, I began looking for helpful resources to help me navigate through the Koran. I figured this was an accessible place to begin, given that it was a "very short introduction."

This book was helpful in that it not only talked about the Koran, but the history of the Koran, which is something I would not have known: its compilation, its canonization, major schools of interpretation, their accompanying approaches, and major texts in dispute. I thought that was really helpful.

While all of that was good, I felt that he just did not go into enough depth as to the actual teachings of the Koran. I was hoping for something like a brief summary of theology or reader's guide, and really there was just the one chapter on the "message" of the Koran, which I did not think was enough. I suppose more would be in the "Islam: A Very Short Introduction," but for me, as I said, this book was more about the history of the Koran that the teachings of the Koran per se. The book did recommend a few scholarly readers guides to the Koran, which I think I will order.

[Ellison Moorehead]

El libro en sí (el Corán, quiero decir) es un fenómeno sociocultural digno de estudio, y de allí este libro, recomendado por un profesor. Objeto, no-creación, palabra de dios, su exegesis, su uso, su relación con el árabe y la oralidad (punto medio inexplorado en este librito pero que me interesa), su conservación casi en una única versión desde el principio del islam… todo fascinante. Cook escribe que da gusto y ganas, y ya tengo el libro en sí (el Corán, digo) en mano para realmente entrar en faena. Ya os contaré.

[Ashri · Rating 2 out of 5]

Kinda misleading on some points. But I appreciate the Prof's effort to write about Quran. Yet, it made me more convinced that we can't really know about what Quran is saying without believing in it.

[Carl · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is suppose to be a work of historiography and literary criticism. However the author often only ever explores a narrow selection of opinions only a “western” writer would care about. For example the Koran teaches that “men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred one of them over another…. Righteous women are therefore obedient…” (Q4:34) This is a fascinating passage that I wish the author explored more. Instead the author took this as an opportunity to list the scant number of commentators that disagree with, or diminish the importance of, this passage. He has a whole section devoted in this way to passages of the Koran that contradict “western” sensibilities. Who cares if this contradicts the religion of humanism? I’m reading this book to learn about the Koran, not humanist, egalitarian ethics. A good bit of the book in other words is a tiresome work of comparative religion between humanism (post-Christianity, egalitarianism) and Islam.

Thankfully the author veers away from this and delivers on his promise to give context within Islamic culture for the most part. I had no idea that in traditional Islam kafir are unable to even touch the Koran because they are considered impure! This is one reason why Muslim warriors often wouldn’t bring copies of the Koran into battle with them. Nor did I realize there was a controversy regarding the story of God transforming the Israelites into primates, and whether this was literal. It’s also interesting to note that by the time the Koran was compiled books had gained supremacy over scrolls as the medium for the written word, so unlike the Torah or early Christian writings almost all of the earliest copies of the Koran are books. The Korans integration into the fabric of Islamic society is so total that there are accounts of a woman who spoke exclusively in Koranic verses. There are many interesting bits of information like this in the book that made it enjoyable to read. But I would recommend reading the Koran with commentaries instead. It makes this text superfluous. By the time you finish this book you could have read the first surah at least.

[William · Rating 1 out of 5]

I've read two "A Very Short Introduction" books, both of which I had to do for college and would not have done on my own. Neither was very good but this one was by far the worst.

There is plenty of material on the history of the Qu'ran in the first century or two after the death of Mohammed and in the modern age, but not much in between. There is very little about the meaning of the Qu'ranic verses or how they were perceived by people during Mohammed's time. Cook does however go into extremely heavy detail about the language and grammar of the Qu'ran. He writes in depth about the origin and pronunciation of certain words and syllables, even what colors appear on the pages. He even sometimes quotes a sura in full and then devotes several sentences to describing which parts of it constitute a complete sentence, a dependent clause, or a change in subject, as if we could not tell simply by reading it ourselves. What this is supposed to accomplish I have no idea. I could not manage to thoroughly read through those sections. They were nothing short of exhausting and their length compared to the rest of the book was excessive given what the book's title suggested it would enfold.

The author takes several bizarre and unexpected swipes at the Bible, notably calling Jesus Christ's prediction of the Destruction of the Temple as "suspicious" and labeling any books that Christians have in their Bible besides the 66 that Protestants use "apocryphal." Cook's style alternates between very dense and confusing to overly casual. He uses "I" far too many times.

This book is horrible and I do not recommend it at all. At the very least, the title should have been changed in order to reflect this book's extremely heavy focus on linguistics. Even then, it still wouldn't be a good book, but it would at least deter some readers and prevent them from being disappointed.

[Daniel Wright · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cook surveys the subject matter and all its aspects, not with the secular snootiness I had expected, but with a frank and generous curiosity. The result is both pleasant and instructive. (Incidentally, this may be the only book I have read in which the author specifically invites communication from his or her readers).

Part One: Introduction
Chapter 1: Preliminaries
Chapter 2: The message of the Koran

Part Two: The Koran in the modern world
Chapter 3: The dissemination of the Koran
Chapter 4: The interpretation of the Koran
Chapter 5: The very idea of scripture

Part Three: The Koran in the traditional Muslim world
Chapter 6: The Koran as codex
Chapter 7: The Koran as text
Chapter 8: The Koran as worship
Chapter 9: The Koran as truth
Chapter 10: The Koran as an object of dogma

Part Four: The formation of the Koran
Chapter 11: The collection of the Koran
Chapter 12: The Koran in the lifetime of the Prophet
Chapter 13: Doubts and puzzles
Chapter 14: Conclusion

[Leo Abrantes · Rating 1 out of 5]

I would not recommend this book as an introduction to the Koran. It seems difficult for the author to approach the Koran as an historical text and spends half time giving assertions about the present day Islam.

Stopped reading as I realized there is little to gain from his perspective.

[Mahender Singh · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good Introductory book on Kuran. It discusses many aspects of the book, it's origin, codification, writing, interpretation, uses, relevance in contemporary world and future.
A good book to start with.

[N · Rating 4 out of 5]

I got sucked into this book to read very specifically about the concept of Quranic abrogation, and 2hours later I'd end up finishing the book. It is fast, concise, and insightful, can't see any reason not to read it. Well, a few reasons, I'll give you. I was more interested in the historical context of the Quran and the geopolitics of Islam when it was born. This is not that book. The linguistic analyses were fantastic and thoroughly unintelligible for someone of my knowledge level. I didn't even bother highlighting them in the clippings below, that's how much faith I have in my ability to transform that topic into the zone of intelligibility. As with any topic, reading more deeply shifts me ever so slightly towards the moderate end of the opinions on the topic, and this is no different. Except I did wonder if my directions were messed up and whether it was in fact less moderate to appreciate the complexity of Quranic verses, seriality, the role of authoritative commentaries in filling gaps, and the gaps of translation.

Clippings

‘It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder: the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina, is preserved, after the revolutions of twelve centuries, by the Indian, the African, and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran.’

Some of them are habitually referred to as ‘classics’. As our term for the literary masterpieces of ancient Greece and Rome, this fits the Homeric epics perfectly, and by analogy we have come to speak of ‘the Chinese classics’. We do not, however, feel comfortable applying the term to texts vested with a strongly religious authority. Here the word most often used is ‘scripture’: the Bible is the paradigm case, and by extension we tend to speak of the Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist ‘scriptures’. But the usage jars, since in their own cultures the Avesta, Vedas, and Tripiṭ aka are conceived as oral, not written, texts.

It has much to say about the moral and legal duties of believers, but contains nothing like the law-code which is the centrepiece of the Book of Deuteronomy.

‘The Straight Path’: al-ṣirāṭ al-mustaqīm. The word ṣirāṭ is interesting. The Romans used the Latin ‘strata’ for the kind of paved road they built so straight. From them the word passed to the peoples of their empire and even beyond, so that from ‘strata’ derive both the Arabic ṣirāṭ and the English ‘street’. But whereas ‘street’ has remained a secular term, ṣirāṭ came to be used only in religious contexts. It is a curious feature of the word that it has no plural in Arabic, reinforcing our sense of the uniqueness of the Straight Path.

surrendering oneself to God, or giving oneself entirely to Him (islām);

This communications revolution may not mean much to the Brahmins, who have always made it their business to withhold the Vedas from a significant part of non-Brahmin society. Nor has it been quite so revolutionary for the Chinese, among whom as early as 745 the Emperor required that every household possess a copy of his commentary on a simple Confucian classic. But among monotheists, this aspect of modernity has been a very positive development.

the cultural prestige of Egypt in the modern Islamic world has given that country a disproportionate say in what the Koran should look like and sound like. Either way, the effect is homogenization.

A contemporary Iranian mullah who adopts it makes a point of showing that he too is thoroughly familiar with modern notions like ‘the evolutionary hypothesis’ and ‘mutation’ (he transcribes this latter term from French, rather than translating it). As this indicates, the unbending literalism of such commentators is not the result of any lack of awareness of the pull of modern science.

No compulsion is there in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error. (Q2:256) We can dub this the ‘no compulsion’ verse. It does not compromise the notion of absolute religious truth, but it strongly suggests that the true religion can nonetheless coexist with any and all forms of false religion. For the traditional scholars, as we will see later, such a declaration of unconditional – not to say indiscriminate – tolerance was an embarrassment; they had to find ways and means of getting it out of the way.

As non-Muslims, they will be required to pay a tax in lieu of military service. Should they wish to serve in the army rather than pay the tax, the Muslims will consider this request;

Englishman William Harvey (d. 1657), better known for his work on the circulation of the blood, was of the view that ‘we Europaeans knew not how to order or governe our woemen, and that the Turkes were the only people used them wisely’.

What is striking about the Islamic world is that, of all the major cultural domains, it seems to have been the least penetrated by irreligion; and in the last few decades, it has been the fundamentalists who have increasingly represented the cutting edge of the culture.

Shāfi‘ī (d. 820) argued that when God speaks of the Prophet permitting the eating of ‘nice things’ and forbidding that of ‘nasty things’ (Q7:157), we have to understand these words in terms of the dietary preferences which prevailed among the Arabs at the time. But traditional Islam could never have made the leap from the idea of a scripture which engages the society in which it was revealed to the notion of one which is a product of it.

There was thus a clear and irresolvable conflict between the desire to proclaim God’s word to the unbelievers and the shudder at the thought of them touching it.

The Arabic script, like our own, derives ultimately from that of the Phoenicians. Their alphabet was as well developed in its representation of consonants as it was defective in marking vowels. A major innovation introduced by the Greeks when they borrowed this script was to devise ways of representing vowels on a par with consonants; it is thanks to them that you are now reading a fully vocalized script, as opposed to a purely consonantal (cnsnntl) one. By contrast, the offshoots of the Phoenician script used to write Semitic languages tended to be relatively conservative. Arabic at the time of the rise of Islam had no way of marking short vowels, and only ambiguous ways of marking long ones.

In the Phoenician alphabet each letter was written separately, just as in printed English, and this remains the case with Hebrew in its printed form. But Arabic has evolved a cursive style which must be implemented even in print. The benefit of such a style is that writing becomes more fluent; the cost is that letters written cursively are likely to lose much of their shape, with the result that originally distinct letters can become indistinguishable. The dots are there to remedy this. Thus the single dot above the line in the last word of the verse marks an f; two dots would have made it a q. The next letter consists merely of a ‘tooth’ and two dots below, making it a y; one dot below would make it a b, two above would make it a t, and so forth. These diacritics, as they are called, made their appearance very early in the Islamic period, but for a long time their use was sporadic, even in Koran manuscripts.

‘If God wills!’ (in shā’ Allāh, as in Q2:70).
‘God knows best!’ (Allāhu a‘lam, as in Q3:167).
‘Praise be to God!’ (al-hamdu lillāh, as in the Fātiḥa):

Even unbelievers with whom the Muslims are in a state of war may ask to hear it (Q9:6) – contrast the restrictive attitude of the Brahmins with regard to the recitation of the Vedas. The Buddha told his followers not to chant their scriptures in Vedic style, but they chant them nonetheless. Indeed, not chanting one’s canonical texts is perhaps to be seen as an eccentricity of Protestant Christianity.

From the early Islamic period onwards, we encounter repeated denunciations of the musical recitation of the Koran, combined with occasional voices raised in its favour. The technical term for this is ‘recitation with notes’; Bīrūnī, an eleventh-century Muslim scholar who was also the world’s first Indologist, uses this term in describing Vedic recitation.

What is unusual about Koranic recitation is that it has rules of junction not found in standard pronunciations of Arabic. There is only one instance of this in Sūra 112, but it is quite striking: yakun lahu must be recited yakul lahu. A further reason why Ibn Ḥanbal detested recitation in the tradition of Ḥamza had to do with these junction effects,

Cultures which chant their canonical texts have a natural tendency to develop at least two kinds of chanting. On the one hand, there will be a rather plain style in which the role of melody is limited; this is the appropriate style when the purpose is to articulate the text in a clear and comprehensible fashion. And, on the other hand, there will be a musically more complex style, with elaborate use of melody; this is intended to appeal strongly to the musical sensibilities and religious emotions of the audience. Thus in Gregorian chant, which continues a Jewish liturgical tradition, a plain style is used for normal liturgical readings from the Bible, whereas the Psalms are taken as an invitation to musical virtuosity.

The original languages of the Christian Bible were Hebrew for the Old Testament (with a bit of Aramaic thrown in) and Greek for the New Testament (unless some of it was originally in Aramaic). But for most Christians during most of their history, the language of the Bible, whether or not it was their own, was something other than the original languages. For Muslims matters have been very different. Arabic is not just the original language of the Koran: it is the language of the Koran. Translating scripture was thus an issue for Muslims in a way that it was not for Christians.

For all its relative assertiveness, a translation such as Makārim Shīrāzī’s is still clearly designed to help the reader with the Arabic text, and not as a substitute for it. In this sense it is quite unlike the English Bible, which substitutes for the Latin, which in turn substitutes for the Greek and Hebrew originals. As Ibn Taymiyya put it: ‘One may not recite the Koran in any language other than Arabic, irrespective of whether one is able to recite it in Arabic or not.’ Not surprisingly, there is not and has never been a standard Persian translation.

An English translation appeared in this now common format in 1984, with the authorization of the Azhar. This august body made the adoption of the format a condition of its approval; in the absence of the Arabic original, it was feared that someone might mistakenly think that ‘this translation is the Koran itself’. The Azharite wording is revealing: it would make no sense in a Christian context to speak of mistaking the King James Bible for ‘the Bible itself’.

The Moriscos – Spanish Muslims under Christian rule – often wrote in ‘Aljamiado’, that is Spanish in Arabic script. Their religious literature included translations of the Koran.

Some religions, like Buddhism, take to scriptural translation like ducks to water. The Buddha, we are told, ‘can express everything he wishes in any language whatever’, and not only that, he ‘speaks them all at once’. But such linguistic indifference was not a feature of Islam. The Koran was destined to remain as it had been revealed: We have sent it down an Arabic Koran; haply you will understand. (Q12:2) From this verse Ibn Ḥazm (d. 1064), a formidable scholar of Muslim Spain, drew the laconic inference ‘Non-Arabic isn’t Arabic, so it’s not Koran.’ Yet every cloud has a silver lining: if a translation of the scripture is not Koran, there need be no restrictions on touching it.

The real issue for the commentators was one of moral theology. In its elliptic way, the Koran seems to divide the people of the township into three groups. The first group broke the Sabbath, the second admonished them, and the third thought the admonition pointless. However, in describing God’s response, the Koran mentions only two groups: those who were metamorphosed into monkeys, and those who were saved. Obviously those who broke the Sabbath were metamorphosed, and those who admonished them must surely have been saved. But what became of the third group, those who saw no point in the admonition? This was the issue over which the commentators agonized.

In the last resort they could always argue, as one fourteenth-century Damascene scholar did of the Indians, that if an infidel people was just too numerous to be put to the sword, then it was better to accept tribute from them than to leave them alive and untaxed.

When Homer said something that would better have been left unsaid, one option for the scholars of Hellenistic Alexandria was simply to ‘athetize’ it – to declare it spurious on the ground that Homer could not have said such a thing. It was even possible, without sacrilege, to entertain the notion that Homer might on occasion have dozed off; it is to Horace, as paraphrased by Pope, that we owe the phrase ‘Homer nods’. But in the Muslim context, this was unthinkable: God, as we know from the ‘throne verse’, neither slumbers nor sleeps. Even athetizing, though just thinkable, was much too radical for the Muslim scholars. Within the Islamic framework, the nearest acceptable approach to athetizing was abrogation: the ‘no compulsion’ verse could be declared to be abrogated by, say, the ‘sword verse’. It is standard Muslim doctrine that one verse of the Koran can abrogate another.

Most of them, however, were unwilling to declare the ‘no compulsion’ verse to be abrogated. Their reluctance arose from the sense that, as an exegetical device, abrogation was strong medicine, and not to be resorted to when less drastic solutions were available. This makes sense: one does not want to encourage people to declare passages of scripture dead letter whenever it suits

God had asked the people of the township to give allegiance to ‘Alī, and on their refusal they had been subjected to metamorphosis, some ending up in the sea as eels, others on land as lizards and jerboas. ‘Alī then turned to those present and asked them if they had taken all this in; they replied that indeed they had. He concluded the proceedings with a zoological observation which strongly underlined the human heritage of eels: ‘By Him who sent Muḥammad as a prophet, they menstruate just as your women do!’

The ancient doctrine of the eternity of the Vedas insisted that they were also authorless; their claim to authority was precisely that they were not the word of a mere god, let alone a human. The contrary view, that they were in fact the creation of a god (albeit a rather special one), was powered by the rise of theism, but bore no relation to questions of anthropomorphism. And since the Vedas are an exclusively oral scripture, the central scholastic issue was the eternity of sound. (‘Sound’, said those who argued that the Vedas were created, ‘is non-eternal, because it has the property of being produced, like a

there was a theory that ‘Gabriel brought down to the Prophet only the ideas’ (but, one assumes, all of the ideas); it was Muḥammad who ‘expressed them in the language of the Arabs’. Such views, however, had no place at the Islamic equivalents of the Sorbonne. The Koran was the speech of God; anyone who believed otherwise had lost his religion.

A curious story relates that the written record of a verse laying down the stoning penalty for adultery was lost when it was eaten by a goat at the time of the Prophet’s death.

One later view was that he did everything short of making a codex of the revelation; but we also have it on early authority that, at the time he died, the Koran had not been collected at all. Either way, we have to think of the Koran in the lifetime of the Prophet as revelation ‘in progress’. It is this serial character of the process that makes sense of the idea of abrogation.

We sent not ever any Messenger or Prophet before thee, but that Satan cast into his fancy, when he was fancying; but God annuls what Satan casts, then God confirms His verses. (Q22:52) God seems to be speaking of some process whereby Satan has made attempts to corrupt the text of previous scriptures by interpolation. Moreover, the use of the present (or it could be future) tense in the second part of the verse – God ‘annuls’ and ‘confirms’ – suggests that Satan is continuing his efforts. A narrative describing an attempt by Satan to insinuate something into Muḥammad’s revelation, and God’s timely response, would thus be in place here. And sure enough we have it: this is the story of the Satanic verses. whether it was the occurrence of the event that called forth Q22:52, as the story claims, or whether it was rather the existence of the verse that called forth the story.

The main point in favour of a hypothesis in which the Koran is off the scene for several decades is that it also accounts for another set of puzzles thrown up by research into the early development of Islamic law. Each of these involves an aspect of Islamic law which in some very fundamental way seems to contradict or ignore the Koran. For example, it is notorious that Islam prescribes stoning as the standard penalty for proven adultery (zinā), and accredited traditions about the legal activity of the Prophet portray him as reluctantly implementing this punishment. Yet if we turn to the Koran, this is what we read: The fornicatress (al-zāniya) and the fornicator (al-zānī) – scourge each of them a hundred stripes. (Q24:2) How this discrepancy could have arisen was a question to which the Muslim scholars had their answers, one of which we have already encountered in the shape of a hungry goat; but the solutions put forward were neither simple nor straightforward.

There were four Vedas – each transmitted in different Brahmin lineages – together with a mass of associated material that would be included on a broad definition of the canon. There were two Homeric epics, this time transmitted in the same lineage, though this milieu also gave rise to the Homeric Hymns, whose place in the canon was marginal. When the Biblical canon was eventually settled, there were thirty-nine books of the Old Testament and twenty-seven of the New; there was also a good deal of apocryphal material which appeared in some people’s Bibles but not in others. There was enough of the Buddhist Tripitaka to take up 130,000 blocks when the Chinese printed a translation of it in the late tenth century; today the Pāli canon fills several shelves in a library. In Confucian China there were differing views as to the exact number and identity of the classics. The Koran, in contrast to all this, is a single book of well-defined content between two covers.

the Koran is a remarkably late work to have achieved the canonical status it did. Even the relatively parvenu scriptures of the New Testament are several centuries older. There are, of course, more recent books that enjoy scriptural status among such groups as the Sikhs and Mormons.

Arabic belongs to a closely related family of languages conventionally known as ‘Semitic’; some other members of the family are Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ethiopic. In demographic and cultural terms, Arabic has been by far the most successful of the Semitic languages. It is the only one to become the language of a world civilization, and the only one that has the status of a world language at the present day.

Typical Arabic triconsonantal roots are k-t-b and q-r-’, the former referring to writing and the latter to reading or reciting; the reader who knows that kataba means ‘he wrote’ and kātib (plural kuttāb) One who writes’ can have the instant gratification of correctly translating qara’a as ‘he recited’ and qāri’ (plural qurrā) as ‘reciter’. Like English, Arabic also modifies roots with suffixes and prefixes: qur’ān (’reading’ or ‘recitation’) gives us the English ‘Koran’

[Nasra]

it really talked about everything except what's in the Quran

[Realini Ionescu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quran/Koran by Anonymous has the 845th spot on The Greatest Books of All Time site, albeit for Muslims it is Number One, and for some others, it does not make the list of Best, Favorite Works or anything else, which is my case



10 out of 10 – if one has the grace of God upon him, if not, then it may be less than that, say 8 out of 10 maybe





It is reassuring to know that one is not a celebrity, known or read by anybody – well, my blog has seen a surge of clicks, from fifteen per day, now there seem to be fifty or so, what a huge traffic – at least at times like this, when one takes the Holy Book of the ulema and dares to rate it 8 out of 10, instead of the 10 of 10 it may deserve



- Alhamdullilah



On my blog, you could find some thoughts https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... on Islam and much more, not that they are interesting, however, the link shows me doing some Hot Yoga, a performance I have invented and who knows, maybe you have something to say about it

The story of Muhammad and the angel Gabriel is inspiring – if true, and then one needs faith, revelation, and epiphany, or maybe just to go with the Flow – and I am approaching the stage in life – 61 in a few weeks – when I start being more open to the idea of an afterlife, and why not the one advertised by the prophet –



- The famous (or is it infamous here?) forty or seventy-two virgins



Alas, they seem to be just one of those myths, or misinterpretations – just like some Creationists, most of them in the stupid MAGA crowd, worshipping the Orange Devil that they call the Chosen one – there may be no virgins waiting for the faithful that would have obeyed the word of Allah, but we can always say –



- Insha’Allah



The best work you can consult on the Quran – also listed as The Holy Quaran and in some other ways – is by the best expert on religion, Karen Armstrong, Islam – A Short History https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... an enlightening, fabulous book



As a cinephile, I am also under the influence of the excellent Heretic – although, that was a bit much, the plot is wondrous in places, it does not stand so high for the whole thing – a film in which Hugh Grant plays a villain, in a way, I feel Hugh Grant should have had an Oscar nomination for this, but if it is his place that Sebastian Stan has taken, then fine

In Heretic, there two Mormon women come to give Hugh Grant information on their faith, and eventually, get him to join it, only the host turns the tables and starts talking about the ‘One True Religion’, and the background, how the major monotheistic dogmas have their roots in Egypt, myths that preceded them



Nevertheless, Judaism is the first, and it is compared with Landlord, a game that came before Monopoly, just as the latter made money, stealing the idea from Landlord, Christianity and then Islam have taken Judaism and fiddled with it – we are also told about this song that was used by some band and then Lana del Rey



- ‘Judaism was the OG monotheistic religion. But if they were the first true monotheistic religion, then why are they only 0.2% of the world's population? Well, it's because they don't advertise their religion like Christians do.’



In other words, one – let us eliminate that, and put myself in the game – I would say that Judaism might be the better option, I mean, after all, they have been the inspiration, the others took their ideas and then changed a bit here and there, and voila, they say they have the One True Religion, which is just a sequel, right?

On the other hand, this argument could be refuted, with the ‘improvement or progress’ theory, those took what was there, found the flawed chapters, rules and then presented the world with an ‘upgraded version



- For Islam, the old prophets were accepted, including Jesus and Moses



Ergo that is nice of those kind folks, I remember that Muhammad – by the way, the main principle is ‘There is only one God, and Muhammad is his prophet’, I think that those who believe in that are covered, thought here there would be more, sharia, jihad (which is actually a war with oneself more than anything violent) the zakat – was praying looking towards Jerusalem initially, then they changed the orientation, they had had some very good ties, Jews and Muslims, to begin with, and there is a lot to like in the Quran, notwithstanding the fact that the secret is to believe, accept Allah or some other God and then you find redemption, perhaps…



Now for my standard closing of the note with a question, and invitation – maybe you have a good idea on how we could make more than a million dollars with this https://realinibarzoi.blogspot.com/20... – as it is, this is a unique technique, which we could promote, sell, open the Oscars show with or something and then make lots of money together, if you have the how, I have the product, I just do not know how to get the befits from it, other than the exercise per se



There is also the small matter of working for AT&T – this huge company asked me to be its Representative for Romania and Bulgaria, on the Calling Card side, which meant sailing into the Black Sea wo meet the US Navy ships, travelling to Sofia, a lot of activity, using my mother’s two bedrooms flat as office and warehouse, all for the grand total of $250, raised after a lot of persuasion to the staggering $400…with retirement ahead, there are no benefits, nothing…it is a longer story, but if you can help get the mastodont to pay some dues, or have an idea how it can happen, let me know



As for my role in the Revolution that killed Ceausescu, a smaller Mao, there it is http://realini.blogspot.com/2022/03/r...



Some favorite quotes from To The Hermitage and other works



‘Fiction is infinitely preferable to real life...As long as you avoid the books of Kafka or Beckett, the everlasting plot of fiction has fewer futile experiences than the careless plot of reality...Fiction's people are fuller, deeper, cleverer, more moving than those in real life…Its actions are more intricate, illuminating, noble, profound…There are many more dramas, climaxes, romantic fulfillment, twists, turns, gratified resolutions…Unlike reality, all of this you can experience without leaving the house or even getting out of bed…What's more, books are a form of intelligent human greatness, as stories are a higher order of sense…As random life is to destiny, so stories are to great authors, who provided us with some of the highest pleasures and the most wonderful mystifications we can find…Few stories are greater than Anna Karenina, that wise epic by an often foolish author…’

[Anders Rasmussen · Rating 2 out of 5]

By now I have read quite a few non-fiction books about all kinds of different topics. Some authors (e.g., Sam Kean) write in an engaging style that captures the reader and takes them on a journey in which they are entertained and enlightened simultaneously. Other authors are not so good at the capturing part but still manages to provide enough insights to make the book worth your while. However, in some cases, the author offers neither – writing a tedious book that offers little insight, so that even if you do manage to stay awake and pay attention, the reward is small.

This book, unfortunately, belongs to this latter category. Since it is "A very short introduction" I was thinking that the book would describe what the Koran is about and perhaps also go into some of the controversies surrounding the text. Instead, the book almost exclusively discussed linguistics. Time and time again the author will, at length, consider how the meaning of a single word can get lost in translation from say Arabic to Egyptian and English, etc. Sure, this is probably fascinating if you are a linguist, but not if you are someone who wants to know more about the Koran. When reading this book, I did often drift away in my thoughts – which usually only happens when books are boring (yes, I blame the author). So, there is a possibility that somewhere in the book one might also find non-linguistic discussions.

If I could rename this book, I would call it “A short in-depth analysis of different possible meanings of words in the Koran”. This would have the double advantage of being a more accurate title and scaring potential reader away from reading it. If linguistics is your passion in life, then, by all means, read the book. If you want to learn about the Koran, find a different book!

[PolicemanPrawn · Rating 2 out of 5]

A significant part of this book is dedicated to analysing the Arabic language, which won’t be appreciated by non-Arabic speakers who I guess would constitute a majority of possible readers of this book. I don’t see the sense of including in a Very Short Introduction (VSI) such content, which is not consigned to a separate chapter but interwoven into the text. Aside from that, this is a wide-ranging introduction, discussing many topics such as dissemination of the Koran, interpretation, position in the Islamic world, and how the Koran was revealed and collected. The whole point of the Koran is its message, but this is only covered briefly, the author preferring to devote space to minor issues. It did start promisingly, with simple and somewhat irreverent statements such as “God has friends and enemies”, belying the dense textual analysis further ahead. This is a VSI to avoid unless, possibly, for those who know some Arabic.

[Justin Evans · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was initially enthusiastic, but it turns out I was just enthusiastic to be reading something on the topic; a friend and I discussed the book, and he's right, it's just okay. Cook's decision to tell the story backwards is terrible, and makes everything harder to understand. He does deal with a lot of material, and this is probably a solid enough place to start, but most of what I learned was general stuff about Islam, not about the Quran itself.

[Terese · Rating 1 out of 5]

The linguistics are interesting, much of the rest...problematically apologetic in many ways (he doesn’t seem to have much respect or understanding for other religious traditions or Shia). Basically, only the linguistic portions felt scholarly, the rest can be found in other sources. Can’t understand how this is an Oxford Edition. Will think twice before reading another ”Very short introduction”

[G. Mark James · Rating 3 out of 5]

His potshots and misunderstandings of the Bible as Christian Scripture notwithstanding, this is a useful introduction to the Koran. A simple and readable place to begin with if you want to start understanding Islam.

[Jean Paul Govè · Rating 5 out of 5]

Given its brevity, it does an amazing job of covering a lot of ground about the subject, from the medieval doctrines and arguments that it gave rise to, to some of its linguistic paradoxes and their historical and literary implications. Highly recommended.

[Simon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Seems not quite intended for a lay audience. Wonderfully written - the authors vocabulary is clearly way more elaborate than mine - yet it actually says surprisingly little about the contents of the Koran.

[Theresa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Titled as an introduction, but seemed to suppose previous knowledge. Organization, explanations, and topics chosen could have been better.

[Jurij Fedorov · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pro

Pretty focused and short intro on the Koran. He's direct and mentions even stuff from the Koran that doesn't make sense or is questioned by all modern Muslims in the West. So you know he is not too biased. I didn't really see any bias personally but I'm reading this before reading the Koran itself so I can't really be very critical here. It did wipe the floor with "Islam by Karen Armstrong". And this short intro did make me see that her book, that I rated highly days ago, is actually ridiculously biased and presents quite a bit shoddy history. Guess knowledge is power.

He mentions verses in the Koran that seem silly and make no sense. Another verse allows husbands to beat their wives. And then he talks about changes in the Koran. All clearly stuff a huge believer would avoid so the book feels like a proper critical intro without much protective reasoning. He's respectful towards Islam but not in any great way that feels irritating and biased.

The audiobook I have has direct language and a clear narration. I liked the directness in the narration as it feels like the book is less biased because of that. And the Arabic sounded spot on too.

Con

This book is very short. While it's an intro to the Koran it's not a fully fulfilling one. Too many intro pages are spent on telling us how the Koran is printed today and other small irrelevant claims. Yet besides that it's quite focused and direct with tons of good info. Unfortunately he often explains things in small sentences so it's hard to know if he has proper evidence for his claims. While he does mention Koran verses I always feel like he may have misunderstood some of them as we don't get good and detailed evidence for anything.

It's hard to really use this book to understand the Koran claims. It's only describing the book and how it works overall language and text wise and then tells us how the Koran got created. I still don't know what is actually written in the Koran which is irritating. I'd have liked at least a 10 page summary of the Koran claims. Just nearly ignoring the big claims from the book feels like a missed chance to create a proper intro that can act as a replacement for reading the Koran itself. If you don't read the Koran this intro kinda only tells you half the story. It's like reading a biography about Rudyard Kipling while not having read any of his work and then none of his work is explained in the biography. It would feel lacking. As if the book is not quite for you. Besides that we just have to believe all his claims without getting them explained in all cases.

Still, I read this to then read the Koran afterwards and have a slightly higher chance at understanding it. And I feel like this book did help me out here. But he also misses a TON of info. How the Koran reuses stories from the Christian and Jewish fate is not really fully expanded upon. And how the Koran changed as Muhammad became a general is totally ignored. We just largely hear about one single Koran presented as one single idea. In books about the Bible you get into what periods what parts are written in and you get info on authors and histories and alternative chapters. Here all that is minimal. Both because the alternative Korans were destroyed but also because the author doesn't have much space to explain all of this. It does leave you a bit perplexed at the end as most of your questions are unanswered. But it's not like the book doesn't deliver on the pages it does have.

Conclusion

It's a fine intro to the Koran that is often recommended by Koran experts. It's for sure a good work and a very high quality book in this Very Short Intro series. Way better than the Mormon one even though that one wasn't bad either if you change the narrator. This just feels more critical and academic instead of only descriptive.

You'd for sure have a good read with this book as it's short and contains some funny info. But because of the short length I can't quite give it a 5 star rating. Maybe a 5-10 page summary of the Koran itself in the book would have made it a 5 star for me. These intro books are indeed very narrow in scope. They try to introduce a topic top-down without exploring the subject that much. I guess you'll have to accept that or avoid this whole series.

[Tim Smits · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Schematically, the traditional commentators are followed by the modernists, who in turn are followed by the fundamentalists. One implication of this is that the fundamentalists are twice removed from their traditional forebears. Moreover, the Western values they confront are not just current fads, but integral components of the world the human race is likely to live in for some time to come. These considerations suggest that the present strength of the fundamentalist interpretation of scripture in the Islamic world may not represent a stable equilibrium." (p.50)

"The Muslim worshipper does not read the Koran, but rather recites it." (p. 70)

"These commentaries differ from each other in length, style, and focus. It is characteristic of Muslim scholarship that, while they vary greatly in prestige, not one of them possesses an exclusive authority denied to the others." (p. 92)

"It is standard Muslim doctrine that one verse of the Koran can abrogate another." (p. 97)

"We should not perhaps assume too readily that sensitivity to feminist concerns is exclusively a feature of our own times." (p. 100)

"Something without any such practical significance, but very strange nonetheless, is the fact that about a quarter of the Sūras of the Koran begin with concatenations of mysterious letters to which no meaning can be attached. The first verse of Sūra 19, for example, is k-h-y-’ṣ (this is read by reciting the names of the Arabic letters).
Each such item is a puzzle. Somebody must once have known what it meant, and yet that knowledge did not reach the earliest commentators whose views have come down to us, let alone ourselves." (p. 126)

[Amartya Gupta · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked up this book after a discussion with my friend on Islam. Our discussion made me realize how little I knew about the religion of Islam. I must add that I took the easy way out in picking this short introduction, because of the vastness of literary works in this space. So picking this book felt like as good a start as any.

I liked the book in parts. The book's first two parts are quick reads with relevant content. The author takes you through the message in the Quran and how its knowledge has spread in the world. It also attempts to manage the conflicts of Islam with Western Ideas of religious tolerance, scientific innovation, and gender equality. I was not convinced by the defense the author puts up for Islam using Quranic verses and whataboutery. He does try to present sides of both Islamic modernists and Islamic fundamentalists.

Part three and four left me in a space of confusion and overwhelm. The author delves into the intricacies of linguistic analysis which felt very scholarly - hence was difficult to push through. He also talks about the presence of divergences in the versions of the Quran through the ages. He ventures into theology and what different scholars have commented on it, highlighting the breadth of his sources.

Overall, the book was difficult to read because of the style it was written in and its voluminous linguistic interpretations. I still believe reading the Quran is central to my understanding of the religion. Based on slightly better research, I will be picking up The Clear Quran by Dr. Mustafa Khattab in this journey.

[Justin Tapp · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book and the Very Short Introduction to Islam (3 stars) consecutively, I found VSI: The Koran to be a better work (4.5 stars). The history in this "short" introduction is substantive and it (eventually) deals with modern textual criticism. As a student of Arabic, I enjoyed how the author delves into the development of Arabic language. I listened to the audio version of this, which is helpful in many ways, especially in explaining the Arabic pronunciation and grammar.

In comparison with other books on the history of the Koran and Islam, I recently finished Tom Holland's The Shadow of the Sword (5 stars), Reza Aslan's The Origins and Future of Islam (2.5 stars), Mansfield's Brief History of the Middle East (3.5 stars), Hourani's History of the Arab Peoples (4.5 stars), and Tamim Ansary's Destiny Disrupted (4.5 stars). Robert Hoyland's In God's Path - The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire (4 stars) was also helpful in explaining the context leading up to the codification of the Koran. This book is a great supplement to any study of Islamic and Arab history.

The following are my notes and gleanings:
You can't understand the Koran without understanding some of the nature and history of Arabic and how the Koran brings unity to the language. Arabic is the only scriptural language to become the language of a worldwide civilization. One cannot attain literacy in Koranic Arabic and colloquial Arabic at the same time, (this would be like akin to obtaining fluency in Latin and Spanish at the same time), so there is a tension between the language, particularly in how to translate difficult or archaic words. The first English "translation" of the Koran was not until 1734, and not without controversy. Only in the 19th century was the Quran actually printed on a printing press, again with great controversy. The codex was already common at the time of Muhammed, and the most influential versions of the text come from early codexes compiled by those close to Muhammad. The physical Koran itself is a sacred object, and the Arabic used is also considered sacred, hence adding markings like diacritics to provide pronunciation, particularly for words or objects not found in modern Arabic, was quite controversial. Adding diacritics came later in Koranic history but is now considered important if the Koran is to be recited correctly, which is an ultimate purpose of the book-- to be recited. (The diacritics [or vocalizations] are colored whereas the actual Arabic text is in black).

Historical criticism, as is commonplace with biblical manuscripts, largely does not exist in Koranic scholarly thought. Similarly, much of Islamic commentary on the Koran involves contextual analysis. There are lists of lawyers and academics critically analyzing the Koran, but these efforts are often criticized as heretical and sometimes these progressives are denounced or pay with their lives. As told in Tom Holland's book, when early manuscripts of the Koran were found in Yemen in the 1970s, the research was cancelled when a German researcher found "aberrations" between the early manuscripts and the official Koranic text today. Cook does not deal with this incedent, but later in the book does mention comparisons of manuscript fragments, some deviations, and later standards that developed. Commentators on the Koran have to deal with the modern post-Western values that the world has adopted through history such as logic, the scientific method, and concepts like universal human rights. The Koran itself was canonized quickly, perhaps helped by the idea that Arabs were already familiar with the idea of canon from Christian and Jewish scriptures. The final redactors edited little, leaving parallel passages in place. Cook compares the Arabic used in various places to note difference is rhyme, suggesting different times for authorship. There are also the obvious differences between what was recorded in Medina versus Mecca, etc. Cook does examine some of the recent scholarly proposals for various sources, perhaps some sayings in the Koran have origins that precede Mohammed.

Cook writes that about 1/4 of the suras begin with an odd combination of letters with unclear meaning. It's clear someone used to know, but like some of the archaic words in the text the meaning or precise definitions have been lost to history. Given the importance of Arabic as the language used by Mohammed to recite, and the doctrine that the Koran itself is eternal, it is impossible to consider the Koranic text as containing foreign words. Reading a Koran is not considered good practice--Muslims have criticized this practice as being Jewish. Instead, only recitation is proper in worship. The Koran must not be read, but chanted. The chanting itself is rule-bound and cannot be musical (note Wahabbists like ISIS and the Taliban ban music but chant the Koran). It is an art form and can be emotional, depending on the school of thought.

The author examines many of the 114 surahs in the book, and I only noted a few. Chapter Two delves into the Al-Fatihah, containing the fundamental principles of the Koran. The goal is the Sirat al-Mustaqim-- the straight path that pleases Allah. Failture to worship Allah alone is the ultimate sin. There is a surah that Muslims are to respond to repentance of enemies with forgiveness and compassion (contrary to what we see with ISIS). Surah 2 says that there is no religious compulion while surah 9 creates the way for the "people of the book" to pay a tax rather than submit to Islam. Surah 113 writes that Allah creates evil. In other places in the Koran, Allah leads people astray. The "satanic verses" in the Koran are mentioned along with their purported history; even the Prophet sinned. Does the verse require a story, or was there a story behind the verse? Mohammed himself is only mentioned four times in the entire Koran, making it difficult to know much about him. Commentators have always resisted any western change to the suras about beating your wife-- acrobatics surrounding the Arabic in this surah are found in Reza Aslan's book.

I learned a great deal about the Koran and even Arabic comitic grammar and nuances in this "brief introduction." I highly recommend it. 4.5 stars.

[Nelson · Rating 3 out of 5]

On the evidence of this volume, Cook is a formidable linguist, not just Arabist. For some, I imagine, this will contain far too much discussion of what will seem like recondite matters of Arabic pronunciation, dialect and so forth. His knowledge of the schools of interpretation that have built up around the text feels encyclopedic. Together, these skills might make this an extremely frustrating volume. Cook has the skill, however, to tie these realms of erudition back into a reasonably brisk beginner's guide to thinking about the compilation and meaning of the Koran. Perhaps most importantly (and surprisingly, for such a volume), he has a lightly worn sense of humor that crops up in a number of places. It leavens what could otherwise be a dry book and lends a welcome sense of warmth to the proceedings. Can't rate it higher, just because some of the extremely detailed discussions of pronunciation and recitation were still a bridge too far for this reader. For those with an at least beginning sense of Arabic however, I can imagine this would rate much much higher.

[Caleb · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good book, but I'm not sure who it is written for.

It is exceptionally dry, and speaks at length about subjects like the formation of the Quran, linguistics, and the Quran's liturgical roles. Dryness isn't necessarily a problem, but being a Very Short Introduction, it is... very short. And it is unlikely that someone seriously interested in these subjects would find this book adequate. But someone looking for a brief overview will quickly find themselves lost in a sea of details.

Essentially, the book tries to have it both ways, with middling results.

EDIT:

I should probably add, this book focuses exclusively on the Quran itself, and offers little information about Islam. In fact, only two Suras are consistently quoted, that of the Sabbath-breakers and of the Elephant. This is to be somewhat expected, but it might still surprise some readers.