Author | Ibn Warraq |
---|---|
Country | United States |
Language | English |
Subject | Quran |
Genre | Islamic history |
Publisher | Prometheus Books |
Publication date | October 2002 |
Media type | Print (Hardcover, Paperback), E-book |
Pages | 782 |
ISBN | ISBN:978-1573929455 |
OCLC | 633722447 |
What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text and Commentary (2002) is a book edited by Ibn Warraq and published by Prometheus Books.[1] The book is a collection of classical essays, some translated for the first time, that provide 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.[1] The title is taken from German author Manfred Barthel's 1980 book Was wirklich in der Bibel steht ("What the Bible Really Says").[1]
Within the book is an article written by Gerd R. Puin titled "Observations on Early Qu'ran Manuscripts in Sana'a". Professor Puin is a German scholar and an authority on Qur'anic historical orthography, the study and scholarly interpretation of ancient manuscripts, and a specialist in Arabic calligraphy. Professor Puin was the head of a restoration project, commissioned by the Yemeni government, which spent a significant amount of time examining the ancient Qur'anic manuscripts discovered in Sana'a, Yemen, in 1972. In an article in the 1999 Atlantic Monthly,[2] Puin is quoted as saying that:
My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants.
The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen', or 'clear', but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims—and Orientalists—will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible—if it can't even be understood in Arabic—then it's not translatable. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not—as even speakers of Arabic will tell you—there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on.[2]
In his review of the book, political scientist, anarchist, and "angry Arab" As'ad AbuKhalil states that Ibn Warraq collected old writings by Orientalists who have been long discredited and added that "the more rigid and biased the Orientalists, the better for Warraq".[3]
Black Hills State University professor Ahrar Ahmad (2004) appreciated that this book and The Quest for the Historical Muhammad were 'less abrasive [and Warraq's] tone less mocking' than in his earliest work, which Ahmad deemed less scholarly.[1] He noted that "What the Koran Really Says has the ambitious objective to “desacralize” (...) the Arabic language, script, and scripture. He seems to think that simply placing Islam in the Middle Eastern milieu in terms of language, social influences, intellectual origins, or theological affinities with other religions and rituals is enough to question its authenticity."[1] Ahmad wondered further how the etymology of the Quran's language could possibly "destroy its legitimacy and authority", believing that Warraq criticised positions nobody held.[1]