When Sale published his translation in 1734, he prefaced it with a long and detailed “preliminary discourse”, which set the Koran firmly within its historical and cultural context; his discourse, and his translation, are still eminently useful. To read the Koranic text “unencumbered by any commentary” is just the way Islamic “fundamentalists” — as well as terrorists, those terribles simplificateurs — routinely read it. If any scripture requires commentary, historical as well as literary, it is the Koran. As it happens, no other sacred text has been so abundantly commented upon, in Arabic and in Persian.
The exegetical literature is vast; to give but one example, the commentary by the Sunni theologian Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, who died in 1209, occupies some 30 massive volumes and is as intricate as it is far ranging. The commentaries are surprisingly varied, too. The classic Sunni commentaries, with their stubborn philological and doctrinal emphasis, stand in sharp contrast to the subtle hermeneutics of their Shi’i counterparts — and the Sufi commentaries are as bold and speculative, and as delightfully paradoxical, as their own riddling treatises. Moreover, the entire body of exegesis bristles with idiosyncratic opinions, novel and sometimes fanciful insights, and fierce debates. From the earliest period, the text of the Koran, held to be “God’s speech”, as eternal as it is immutable, inspired as much fractiousness as reverence. Can such a text be properly understood apart from the long, quarrelsome but loving scrutiny in which, for a millennium-and-a-half, it has become embedded?


















8:07 PM
11:07 AM
10:07 PM
10:07 AM
7:07 PM
12:07 AM
3:06 PM