It's widely acknowledged that for Muslims, reading a translation of the Qur'an is not the same as reading the authentic Arabic text. And further, reading any text that is considered sacred straight through (like you would any other book) is not the same as studying it closely for devotional purposes. I feel the need to write these things prefatorily because I've run into people through the years who read the Bible and then spoke of it dismissively: "I know your text and I'm not interested." I don't want to be guilty of that mistake.
Also, while reading it I wondered if I had the best translation available. Pickthall's work has been a standard for some time for English readers. (It was assigned to me in graduate school back in the early 90s.) My printed version goes back to the early 50s, and I saw somewhere that it first came out in 1930. In that era, British and American churches tended to use edited versions of the old King James Bible, and I got the sense that Pickthall's version was catering to that type of religious expectation. He uses a lot of antiquated verbiage: "Lo!... Thee/thou," etc. And the verses are spliced up individually, so there are no clean paragraph breaks to identify the shifts in thought. It made me wonder if there are more of a contemporary English versions available, or not.
That said, I found the work to be a tedious read. While the historical information in the introduction was helpful, and the brief introductions to each Surah gave a little idea of setting/context, the arrangement is not chronological and it makes it very hard to get a bearing on what exactly is being communicated. Anytime you're reading a religious text it's important to understand not just *what* is said, but *who* is saying it and *why* it's being said.
The reader does get some sense of development, however, by contrasting some of the Madinah surahs with the earlier Meccan ones. The former often conclude their phrases by anchoring the statement in the author's theological assumptions, like grace or omniscience: "Allah is gracious, merciful," "Allah is the seer, knower," etc.
This book is very human - with big, frequent stresses on believing in Mohammed's claims of revelation. Sometimes there's such a passion in it that you get a sense of insecurity behind it, rooted in the author's deep-felt frustration when people aren't persuaded. Other times you get the sense that it goes back to power, since Mohammed (unlike Jesus) was a politically as well as a religiously prominent man... like it's all in an attempt to consolidate power behind the prophet. But either way it often comes with graphic threats of hell-fire and condemnation. The Qur'an rivals the damnation content of any religious text out there - which doesn't much make for an enticing read.
Part of the reason I'm not very drawn to it is because, at least compared to the Bible, it is very monolithic. The Bible is a collection of books and authors; here there's just one individual. True, Mohammed draws from narratives in the Bible as well as other Middle-Eastern narratives - but even there he always seems to cast the story in his own likeness.
Overall I found the work redundant. I was glad when I finished it; it's not a book I will be all that eager to go back to anytime soon.
But again, I hold my perspective alongside the certainty that there are reasons why others are drawn to it - as well as why it emerged prominent in filling a religious vacuum in its time and place.