What do you think?
Rate this book
What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary
This excellent collection of critical commentaries on the Koran brings together outstanding articles by noted scholars from the beginning of the 20th century to recent times. These important studies, as well as the editor's own lengthy introduction, show that little about the text of the Koran can be taken at face value. Among the fascinating topics discussed is evidence that early Muslims did not understand Muhammad's original revelation, that the ninth-century explosion of literary activity was designed to organize and make sense of an often incoherent text, and that much of the traditions surrounding Muhammad's life were fabricated long after his death in an attempt to give meaning to the Koran. Also of interest are suggestions that Coptic and other Christian sources heavily influenced much of the text and that some passages reflect an essential background reaching back to the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This valuable compilation will be a welcome resource to interested lay readers and scholars alike.
600 pages, Hardcover
First published September 30, 2002
16 people are currently reading
390 people want to read
About the author
Ibn Warraq
24 books112 followersIbn Warraq is the pen name of an anonymous author critical of Islam. He is the founder of the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society and used to be a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry, focusing on Quranic criticism. Warraq is the vice-president of the World Encounter Institute.
Warraq has written historiographies of the early centuries of the Islamic timeline and has published works which question mainstream conceptions of the period. The pen name Ibn Warraq (Arabic: ابن وراق, most literally "son of a papermaker") is used due to his concerns for his personal safety; Warraq stated, "I was afraid of becoming the second Salman Rushdie." It is a name that has been adopted by dissident authors throughout the history of Islam. The name refers to the 9th-century skeptical scholar Abu Isa al-Warraq. Warraq adopted the pseudonym in 1995 when he completed his first book, entitled Why I Am Not a Muslim.
He is the editor of several books, also including The Origins of the Koran (1998), The Quest for the Historical Muhammad (2000), What the Koran Really Says (2002) and the writer/editor Leaving Islam (2003). He is a controverisal figure among his contemporaries as many academic specialists in Islamic history consider him to be polemical, overly revisionist and lacking in expertise.
Warraq has written historiographies of the early centuries of the Islamic timeline and has published works which question mainstream conceptions of the period. The pen name Ibn Warraq (Arabic: ابن وراق, most literally "son of a papermaker") is used due to his concerns for his personal safety; Warraq stated, "I was afraid of becoming the second Salman Rushdie." It is a name that has been adopted by dissident authors throughout the history of Islam. The name refers to the 9th-century skeptical scholar Abu Isa al-Warraq. Warraq adopted the pseudonym in 1995 when he completed his first book, entitled Why I Am Not a Muslim.
He is the editor of several books, also including The Origins of the Koran (1998), The Quest for the Historical Muhammad (2000), What the Koran Really Says (2002) and the writer/editor Leaving Islam (2003). He is a controverisal figure among his contemporaries as many academic specialists in Islamic history consider him to be polemical, overly revisionist and lacking in expertise.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
July 6, 2015
Every citizen of the world's free nations should read this,along with-The Qur'an (Oxford World's Classics)by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem,an excellent easy-to-read English translation, so they can knowledgeably "refute" the nonsense spewed by the Muslim apologists!
Highly Recommended!
Highly Recommended!
July 12, 2015
Muslims must hate this book. All I can say to them is: LOL.
It's good to read the true origins of islam and not the version muslims would like us to believe
It's good to read the true origins of islam and not the version muslims would like us to believe
April 9, 2014
The introduction is the best part of the book for the non-specialist. The rest is mostly older (and I mean older, many are 50-100 years old; nothing wrong with that, just pointing it out) academic articles by various orientalists about arcane topics like the best meaning of the term al-raheem. The overall point of the book is that the quran is much less clear in meaning and history than post 12th century orthodox opinion has decreed, but otherwise the pieces are not earth-shaking. Since the original sources quoted are all Islamic, its also clear that it was not all that crystal clear to Muslim scholars of the "golden age" either, but was decreed to be so at some later point and all discussion was then stopped. Well, its open now, what with Satan (or Al Gore) having invented the internet..
September 9, 2007
Difficult yet fascinating collection of scholarly essays on the Qur'an.
March 21, 2009
What the Koran Really Says is a collection of papers representing critical assessments of the Koran in a variety of areas – Introduction; Background; A Question of Language; Sources of the Koran: Essenian, Christian, Coptic; Suras, Suras, Suras; Emendations, Interpolations; Richard Bell: Introduction and Commentary; Poetry and the Koran; and Manuscripts.
This is definitely a volume for the specialist – someone with a pretty extensive background in the subject and a grasp of Arabic (and Semitic languages in general). None of which I have in any great abundance. Which is not to say that there aren’t articles here of interest to the generalist. Many, however, assume a breadth of knowledge the average reader will not have.
Thus I wandered, lost, in many articles (e.g., the paleographic treatise “The Problem of Dating the Early Qur’ans”). For the uninitiated there were some fascinating papers, though. Warraq’s introduction, for example, offers an overview of Koranic studies since the middle of the 19th century; and shows how, despite the claims of the faithful, the Koran is anything but the “clear” (mubin) Word of God. Not only is it unclear now whether the Arabic it’s written in was ever actually spoken but, like its rival Christian and Jewish scriptures, it’s replete with obscure and confusing text. A circumstance even its earliest, Muslim commentators wrestled with.
Franz Rosenthal’s “Some Minor Problems in the Qur’an” struggles with problems of interpretation in some very important suras – primarily Sura 9, which lays the basis for collecting the jizya, the tax levied against the People of the Book. The phrase an yadin, which occurs in the verse, resists adequate translation and even its meaning in the Arabic has stumped commentators for centuries. The following paper, Claude Cahen’s “Koran X.29,” suggests that it refers to a rite of submission but admits that there’s no textual or anthropological evidence for it. As I learned, many scholars have come to the conclusion that many of our problems stem from the fact that the suras’ original contexts were long since forgotten by the time the first commentaries were written.
James Bellamy’s “Some Proposed Emendations to the Text of the Koran” questions the fanatical resistance to changing any word in the received text, even when an error is obvious. Bellamy quotes Uthman (the third caliph), who, when he noted mistakes in the text, said, “Don’t correct them for the Bedouin Arabs will correct them with their tongues.” Bellamy argues that this intransigence does a disservice to the text and to believers’ understanding of their religion as it has forced subsequent commentators to do linguistic somersaults and concoct far-fetched explanations for nonsensical passages. Passages which become perfectly clear and meaningful when one realizes that a copyist forgot a stroke or added one too many. It’s of interest to compare this attitude with Christians’ and Jews’ attitudes toward their respective scriptures. By and large, Christians and Jews have actively sought the best reading of their Bibles; in fact, there’s a cottage industry that aggressively scours various editions and translations. It will be interesting to see if a similar spirit takes root in Muslim scholarship.
The final half of Ibn Rawandi’s essay “On Pre-Islamic Christian Strophic Poetical Texts in the Koran: A Critical Look at the Work of Gunter Luling” brings up the recent spate of revisionist histories (mainly Western in origin, I gather) that argue against the traditional story of Islam’s origins. Some of the more radical notions include the idea that Islam arose in northern Arabia, in towns bordering the Roman and Persian empires, between AD 650 and 800; that “rasul Muhammad” was a title and no one man named Muhammad ever lived; or that Islam is an offshoot of a heretical Christian sect (or a Jewish one). Fascinating stuff, though I can see how even a moderate, believing Muslim might become uncomfortable with the fundamental questions being asked (it’s akin to a Christian reading about how Jesus Christ never existed and Paul invented Christianity – yes, the theory’s out there). But as the author quotes Pascal – “There is always enough evidence for those who want to believe, and never enough for those who do not.” In my opinion, as long as questions are posed in the respectful, scholarly atmosphere of these papers, it shouldn’t cause offense. After all, it’s the message, not the medium that matters, whether the Word came from a south Arabian trader, a Jewish rabbi, the Son of God, or some other prophet.
But I wax too philosophical for a simple book review.
Weighing in at 744 pages of text and due to its specialized audience, I can’t really recommend this to anyone though the notes and bibliographies might be mined for further study.
This is definitely a volume for the specialist – someone with a pretty extensive background in the subject and a grasp of Arabic (and Semitic languages in general). None of which I have in any great abundance. Which is not to say that there aren’t articles here of interest to the generalist. Many, however, assume a breadth of knowledge the average reader will not have.
Thus I wandered, lost, in many articles (e.g., the paleographic treatise “The Problem of Dating the Early Qur’ans”). For the uninitiated there were some fascinating papers, though. Warraq’s introduction, for example, offers an overview of Koranic studies since the middle of the 19th century; and shows how, despite the claims of the faithful, the Koran is anything but the “clear” (mubin) Word of God. Not only is it unclear now whether the Arabic it’s written in was ever actually spoken but, like its rival Christian and Jewish scriptures, it’s replete with obscure and confusing text. A circumstance even its earliest, Muslim commentators wrestled with.
Franz Rosenthal’s “Some Minor Problems in the Qur’an” struggles with problems of interpretation in some very important suras – primarily Sura 9, which lays the basis for collecting the jizya, the tax levied against the People of the Book. The phrase an yadin, which occurs in the verse, resists adequate translation and even its meaning in the Arabic has stumped commentators for centuries. The following paper, Claude Cahen’s “Koran X.29,” suggests that it refers to a rite of submission but admits that there’s no textual or anthropological evidence for it. As I learned, many scholars have come to the conclusion that many of our problems stem from the fact that the suras’ original contexts were long since forgotten by the time the first commentaries were written.
James Bellamy’s “Some Proposed Emendations to the Text of the Koran” questions the fanatical resistance to changing any word in the received text, even when an error is obvious. Bellamy quotes Uthman (the third caliph), who, when he noted mistakes in the text, said, “Don’t correct them for the Bedouin Arabs will correct them with their tongues.” Bellamy argues that this intransigence does a disservice to the text and to believers’ understanding of their religion as it has forced subsequent commentators to do linguistic somersaults and concoct far-fetched explanations for nonsensical passages. Passages which become perfectly clear and meaningful when one realizes that a copyist forgot a stroke or added one too many. It’s of interest to compare this attitude with Christians’ and Jews’ attitudes toward their respective scriptures. By and large, Christians and Jews have actively sought the best reading of their Bibles; in fact, there’s a cottage industry that aggressively scours various editions and translations. It will be interesting to see if a similar spirit takes root in Muslim scholarship.
The final half of Ibn Rawandi’s essay “On Pre-Islamic Christian Strophic Poetical Texts in the Koran: A Critical Look at the Work of Gunter Luling” brings up the recent spate of revisionist histories (mainly Western in origin, I gather) that argue against the traditional story of Islam’s origins. Some of the more radical notions include the idea that Islam arose in northern Arabia, in towns bordering the Roman and Persian empires, between AD 650 and 800; that “rasul Muhammad” was a title and no one man named Muhammad ever lived; or that Islam is an offshoot of a heretical Christian sect (or a Jewish one). Fascinating stuff, though I can see how even a moderate, believing Muslim might become uncomfortable with the fundamental questions being asked (it’s akin to a Christian reading about how Jesus Christ never existed and Paul invented Christianity – yes, the theory’s out there). But as the author quotes Pascal – “There is always enough evidence for those who want to believe, and never enough for those who do not.” In my opinion, as long as questions are posed in the respectful, scholarly atmosphere of these papers, it shouldn’t cause offense. After all, it’s the message, not the medium that matters, whether the Word came from a south Arabian trader, a Jewish rabbi, the Son of God, or some other prophet.
But I wax too philosophical for a simple book review.
Weighing in at 744 pages of text and due to its specialized audience, I can’t really recommend this to anyone though the notes and bibliographies might be mined for further study.
July 11, 2013
Phew! This book was a bit of a slog. This review might be too!
I’m left a little confused about who this book is aimed at and exactly what the motivations behind it were. I know that Ibn Warraq has an agenda; I’m just not quite sure what it is. I did read his Why I Am Not a Muslim some time ago and although it was interesting, the combination of sustained polemic with a topic as huge, complicated and contested as Islam made it rather tiring.
What this book really needs is perspective, but it’s hard to know where to find it. It consists of essays and extracts from writers on Islam and the Qur’an from the 19th century to the 1990s. Some of the works are published for the first time in English which perhaps counts for something, but on the whole it’s very difficult for an outsider to know how to judge the value of these writings. Some of them are surely out of date or disproved and one at least seemed to be included only to be refuted in a later article.
Professor As’ad AbuKhalil makes a rather dismissive reference to the book in the only thing approaching a review I’ve read:
Perhaps AbuKhalil, being an atheist, would agree that liberation from irrational belief is the best service a person could render themselves then? I have no idea if Ibn Warraq is positively aligned with fundamentalist Christianity or whether he has merely allowed his work to be used by more dubious polemicists. The criticism of only critiquing Islam also seems a little harsh. It could easily be a case of working with what you know (and what has affected your own life). And although "orientalism" is no doubt a problematic stream of colonial thought that needs challenging, I can’t help feeling that AbuKhalil is using the label Orientalist here as a bit of a blunt instrument. But once, again it’s difficult to know unless you’re totally immersed in the field.
And that brings me to my fundamental problem with this book. If you’re already an expert in Qur’anic studies then this book will probably be useless to you at best and perhaps absurdly dated at worst. If you’re not, then this book can only be heavy going. Some of the articles quote the text they’re referring to, but some do not. I have a passing acquaintance with Linguistics, some knowledge of Arabic phonetics and script, but no useful knowledge of the language and I found it very had to judge the value of the linguistic speculations contained in it. Some of them are no doubt complete nonsense; some of them seem more plausible. But who can tell?
After all is said and done, there is some interesting content, but it won’t be easy sifting through this book for it. It is, ironically, about as mubin ("clear") as the Qur’an it critiques.
I’m left a little confused about who this book is aimed at and exactly what the motivations behind it were. I know that Ibn Warraq has an agenda; I’m just not quite sure what it is. I did read his Why I Am Not a Muslim some time ago and although it was interesting, the combination of sustained polemic with a topic as huge, complicated and contested as Islam made it rather tiring.
What this book really needs is perspective, but it’s hard to know where to find it. It consists of essays and extracts from writers on Islam and the Qur’an from the 19th century to the 1990s. Some of the works are published for the first time in English which perhaps counts for something, but on the whole it’s very difficult for an outsider to know how to judge the value of these writings. Some of them are surely out of date or disproved and one at least seemed to be included only to be refuted in a later article.
Professor As’ad AbuKhalil makes a rather dismissive reference to the book in the only thing approaching a review I’ve read:
The "political" career of Ibn Warraq (a pseudonym for a former Muslim) is a good example. Ibn Warraq is on a mission to "expose" and attack the dangers of Islam. For his efforts, he, like Lewis, received an invitation to the White House to meet with high-ranking officials. Ibn Warraq probably takes his name from the courageous free thinker in classical Islam, Abu 'Isa Muhammad bin Harun bin Muhammad al-Warraq. But unlike the present-day Ibn Warraq, Abu 'Isa was a courageous freethinker who wrote refutations of more than one religion. Ibn Warraq claims to subscribe to secularism and freethinking, yet he objects to Islam only and aligns himself with Christian fundamentalism, which raises questions about the true thrust of his mission. Free thinking, in any religion and against all religions, should be encouraged although there is a difference between religious bigotry and enlightened freethinking. The latest two books by Ibn Warraq merely collect old writings by classical Orientalists. The more rigid and biased the Orientalists, the better for Warraq. Warraq himself has nothing original to say on the subject; he merely resuscitates the writings of those Orientalists who have been long discredited, such as Henri Lammens and Ernest Renan, among other less discredited Orientalists. Warraq rejects mainstream Orientalists, like W.M. Watt. He quotes Renan's famous Islam et la Science lecture approvingly: "To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him." It is now acceptable to express such views in polite company.
Middle East Journal Vol 58, No. 1, Winter 2004
Perhaps AbuKhalil, being an atheist, would agree that liberation from irrational belief is the best service a person could render themselves then? I have no idea if Ibn Warraq is positively aligned with fundamentalist Christianity or whether he has merely allowed his work to be used by more dubious polemicists. The criticism of only critiquing Islam also seems a little harsh. It could easily be a case of working with what you know (and what has affected your own life). And although "orientalism" is no doubt a problematic stream of colonial thought that needs challenging, I can’t help feeling that AbuKhalil is using the label Orientalist here as a bit of a blunt instrument. But once, again it’s difficult to know unless you’re totally immersed in the field.
And that brings me to my fundamental problem with this book. If you’re already an expert in Qur’anic studies then this book will probably be useless to you at best and perhaps absurdly dated at worst. If you’re not, then this book can only be heavy going. Some of the articles quote the text they’re referring to, but some do not. I have a passing acquaintance with Linguistics, some knowledge of Arabic phonetics and script, but no useful knowledge of the language and I found it very had to judge the value of the linguistic speculations contained in it. Some of them are no doubt complete nonsense; some of them seem more plausible. But who can tell?
After all is said and done, there is some interesting content, but it won’t be easy sifting through this book for it. It is, ironically, about as mubin ("clear") as the Qur’an it critiques.
October 1, 2016
A collection or smattering of influential papers published from 1908-1993 mainly in rhetorical and textual criticism of the Qur'an, ranging from moderately to very complex or advanced in character, sometimes introduced by Ibn Warraq with biographical information as when introducing excerpts of a certain author such as Bell. Some papers and extracts are newly translated here, some previously available.
Only the first 70pp. are of any use (or comprehensibility) to the amateur: almost all require at least an advanced undergraduate understanding of Arabic, with some Aramaic and Hebrew. In an incomprehensible decision, the Arabic is transliterated (it forms such an integral part of most of the papers putting it in Roman letters only hinders: think of exegesis or criticism of the Greek New Testament), not always accurately due to OCR: it would have been much better to retain the Arabic itself.
3.5 stars, a handy one-stop manual reference 'The Scholarly Infidel's Guide to Analysis of the Qur'an'.
Only the first 70pp. are of any use (or comprehensibility) to the amateur: almost all require at least an advanced undergraduate understanding of Arabic, with some Aramaic and Hebrew. In an incomprehensible decision, the Arabic is transliterated (it forms such an integral part of most of the papers putting it in Roman letters only hinders: think of exegesis or criticism of the Greek New Testament), not always accurately due to OCR: it would have been much better to retain the Arabic itself.
3.5 stars, a handy one-stop manual reference 'The Scholarly Infidel's Guide to Analysis of the Qur'an'.
April 6, 2014
The title is inaccurate: this is a collection of articles on Classical Arabic. Some were fascinating, but most highly technical. I'm going to look elsewhere for an introduction to Koranic academia.
September 7, 2022
This work is a hatchet job on Islam and the Quran. To start the word "jahna". This work says multiple times that there is no Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, or any other language that the authors have found for "jahnas'" root language and should be dropped. I am no Theologian but I am looking for peace of mind in my PTS brain. And jahna comes from the Hindu and means level or place in the garden, rough translation. Mecca was a trade city and Muhammad would have been familiar with Hindu. One of the works I read described the pre-Islamic Kaaba as a shrine to all the desert and trader gods including a shrine to Mary and Christ, various desert gods and several Eastern gods, Buddha. A little more scholarly work needed to be done. Other articles say there is NO good Arabic or Mid-Eastern Scholarly criticism or work on the Quran. But. a few articles later the editor uses articles by those who dispute or agree with the Arab scholarly work. Having cake and eating also? There are more than 100 pages on the word "An Yadin". With eight different explanations as to why the writers used this word and five different Arab translations. Ending with A.F Wrights studies in Chinese Buddhism where Schub simply substituted Jewish of Buddhist and and Islam for Chinese. AT best this is lazy at worst plagiarism, but the article that uses this laziness is included. These are some of the more egregious problems with this work. If you read this you will find more. Maybe this can be a new game how many errors or issues can one find in this work(?).
August 24, 2018
This assemblage of dense, scholarly articles would be more accurately titled “How to Make the Koran as Dry as Dust Without Offering a Clear Sense of What it Really Says.” For scholars and researchers who have a close familiarity with the Koran, I would imagine that a great deal of elucidation is available here. For those, such as myself, with an extremely limited understanding of the Koran’s content, it is not particularly helpful.
In all honesty, I am more confused now than I was upon first cracking open this tome. I feel somehow as though I know less than I did, if that is possible. Ultimately, it was the wrong choice for a beginner, or anyone wanting to arrive at a foundational understanding of the Koran and Islam.
Highly recommended for scholars and experts in Islamic studies, Middle Eastern Linguistics, or Koranic Archaeology (not sure that is a thing, but it’s the best that I can come up with to describe what is going on here).
Not recommended for anyone else at all.
In all honesty, I am more confused now than I was upon first cracking open this tome. I feel somehow as though I know less than I did, if that is possible. Ultimately, it was the wrong choice for a beginner, or anyone wanting to arrive at a foundational understanding of the Koran and Islam.
Highly recommended for scholars and experts in Islamic studies, Middle Eastern Linguistics, or Koranic Archaeology (not sure that is a thing, but it’s the best that I can come up with to describe what is going on here).
Not recommended for anyone else at all.
February 2, 2023
A collection of very interesting essays, with a strong orientation on the linguistics and the language used in the Qur'an. As a layman, it was a little difficult to get totally into it, since many of the points made in the book revolves around the Arabic language, because of the claims of ''perfection'' found in the ''holy book'' in terms of language used. Many of the included essays does not require much of an education in linguistics, mostly those concerning Syrian Christianity and its influence on Islam. I would absolutely recommend this to an Arabic speaker.
May 16, 2025
This book was dense and academic. Even as someone relatively familiar with at least the English translation of the Quran, and not completely unfamiliar with Arabic this went over certain semantics to an exhaustive degree.
That being said I appreciate the work and the research towards the critical analysis of the Quran. I found the book to be immensely informative, if complex at times.
Absolutely a must read if you are at all interested in piecing together the history of early Islam and the Quran.
That being said I appreciate the work and the research towards the critical analysis of the Quran. I found the book to be immensely informative, if complex at times.
Absolutely a must read if you are at all interested in piecing together the history of early Islam and the Quran.
May 15, 2024
El título no corresponde mucho con el texto, habla más de como lo dice que de qué dice.
Interesante, a veces denso.
Más no digo porque es peligroso.
Interesante, a veces denso.
Más no digo porque es peligroso.
May 7, 2025
To technical for me. Much more about the language itself than about the meaning of what it is written
February 18, 2016
How ambiguous books written long ago can be misinterpreted -- if they are.
Read
August 7, 2017This book raises a legitimate question as to why a body of text, proclaimed as divine and touted as unambiguously clear in most parts while the rest whose veiled meaning are known only to Providence, would at the same time require a far copious amount of mortally rendered textual content, in forms of interpretations and reference to traditions, in order to clarify both the unambiguous and the veiled.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews