T. B. Irving, The Qur’an: The First American Version; Translated and Commentary (1985)

convince even a child. It should be a document one can read, as well as offer a basis for research, a useful whole. Centuries of research have in fact been spent on it, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. I am not concerned with later development and exegesis here, but merely with the statement or restatement of the initial message.

The Bible as we know it, and as the Jews and Christians have known it, and especially knew it in the Prophet’s day, is not as reliable as the Qurʾān, and has led to constant variation, especially in its interpretation. Thus despite the difficult relations that exist between the West and the Islamic Middle East at present, the basic document for all sides to understand the latter area is the Qurʾān, no matter how social scientists or theologians may try to interpret that part of the world after their own fashion.

Religion leads people to predictable action or reaction when its principles govern the outlook of its followers. Thus the Qurʾān is shunned or favored insofar as its principles lend themselves to controlling human behavior according to the morality or whims of those in power. Sacred symbols offer a way by which people can look at the Universe, give them a life style which tells them how things are and how they should be. The Orientalists who worked for London. Paris, the Hague or Lisbon wanted to control Islam for their own purposes, and they decreed that the word Islam means “submission.” How far they strayed is now apparent, as the Islamic lands throw off their yokes and try to regain their ancient principles.

However, translations by Muslims are not always acceptable. Muhammad ‘Ali’s is clear but his commentary and at times the English text can be affected by his sectarian tendency. Besides he has used the Havas Arabic dictionary and this is risky because of its hindthoughts carried over from Catholicism. A. Yūsuf ‘Ali’s is more satisfactory as a commentary but his English is overladen with extra words which neither explain the text nor embellish the meaning. True embellishment is the simple telling word which does not detract, but carries the mind directly to the meaning. Marmaduke Pickthall accomplished his labor in the East, and therefore his translation is in heavy Jacobean English laid upon a superstructure of Eastern preoccupations. The Koran by N. J. Dawood which is published in the Penguin series of World Classics is better than most, but it often becomes merely a prosaic paraphrase. ‘Abd al-Mājid Daryābādī is clear, but hard to work with because of its arrangement, especially in the naming and numbering of chapters. Egyptian and Pakistani interpreters often show that they have not been talking to anyone outside of their own circle, and this lack has hurt even their political propaganda. Mercier unfortunately was translated into English from his French version, just as de Ryer and Sale came to us more from previous translations into Latin than directly from the Arabic. Likewise the new Japanese translation was made from the English, as the modern Spanish is from French and German. Andalusia has forgotten its glory!

Since studies like Nöldeke’s and Bell’s exist for those who need a barren type of criticism, it is not my purpose to follow in that line of research but rather just as painstaking a one in trying to lay before the English-speaking world at the end of the twentieth century of their era, or the beginning of the fifteenth century of the Hijra, the message of the Qurʾān in reverent yet