A. J. Arberry (1905–1969)

"Man prays for evil, as he prays for good." (Sura 17, pg. 275)

Just over a year ago, I read the King James Bible. I was (and in many ways remain) an atheist, but felt that if I identified as such, I should at least read the book that was so casually mocked in 'free-thinking' circles. To my surprise, I found the KJV to be an interesting, cohesive and lyrically powerful epic of humanity and, if I couldn't accept it as the Word of God, I could certainly pay it its due as a stellar piece of both show more literature and proto-humanist philosophy. I go into greater detail about that unexpected reaction in my review of the King James Bible (also available on this website), but for the purposes of this current review, it should be noted that I hoped – genuinely hoped – for a similar response to the fêted Koran. This was another religious epic I was deeply wary of, but I picked it up hoping that my prejudices were again misguided, and that I was in for another literary transcendence.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. I take no glee in the discovery that the Koran was one of the most tedious, repetitive and malicious collection of tautologies I have ever come across. In fact, not only do I take no glee in saying that, but I am genuinely saddened that this was what I found. Because, particularly given the geopolitical and multicultural climate, it would have been a great thing to be able to claim the Koran is misinterpreted, that there was something in the suras with which to build much-needed bridges. Unfortunately, however, the critics of the book are right.

At first, I thought perhaps I had chosen poorly in the translation. Remembering fondly my experience with the poetry of the King James version of the Bible, I scouted around for the best versions of the Koran in English. I chose A. J. Arberry's translation for two reasons: first, as it was published in 1955, it would be free of our post-9/11 spectre, and, secondly, because it is said of the Koran that its 'unique prose-poetry fusion' can only truly be read in Arabic, and Arberry's ardent version was the one said best to accommodate this. It fails – but whether this is Arberry's fault or Muhammad's (as the original author) I cannot really say. All I can say is that I have enjoyed a fair amount of foreign literature, and English readings of the likes of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky (and, yes, the Bible) prove that the best literature can be translated, even if they may lose something in the process. Perhaps the Koran does need to be read in the original Arabic, but if you need to learn a whole new language in order to understand even its basics, that suggests poor delivery. Learning a new language seems a bit excessive just to accommodate a book. But then again, considering the other things people are willing to do in this book's name, perhaps not.

And that, really, brings us onto the elephant in the room. Yes, the Koran is violent. And not violent in the way that some books of the Bible are violent (the odd utterance of brutality or bigotry, or a 'shall not suffer a witch to live' slipped in here and there). The Koran is unequivocally violent, and it is seeded deep into the philosophy, such as it is. Just about every page (and that is not hyperbole) talks about how God is to be obeyed, how he is watching you, and how he has sent 'clear signs' to be obeyed (though what those clear signs are remains unclear). For those who do not obey, there awaits a 'mighty chastisement' on the Day of Doom (Judgment Day, essentially), from which the unbelievers will burn in the Fire eternally.

That might sound like typical religious firebranding, found in every stripe, but in the Koran it is notable for a number of reasons. One is that, as mentioned, it is on more or less every page. I am overwhelmed by the number of citations I could make to prove the point, but aside from the infamous lines about "slay[ing] the idolaters wherever you find them" (Sura 9, pg. 179) and smiting the unbelievers' necks (Sura 47, pg. 526), this lurid description of the torment of hellfire suffices, and deserves to be quoted at length:

"As for the unbelievers, for them garments of fire shall be cut, and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water, whereby whatsoever is in their bellies and their skins shall be melted; for them await hooked iron rods; as often as they desire in their anguish to come forth from it, they shall be restored into it, and: 'Taste the chastisement of the burning!'" (Sura 22, pg. 335).

That has been written by someone who has given it a lot of thought. Plenty of religious books rejoice in torment and cruelty towards unbelievers, but I don't know of any book so prominent as this one which is so obsessive and merciless about it.

A second reason the violence is notable is that, with all the explicit exhortations to slay unbelievers, it is the believers who are to be the agents of God. "Fight them, and God will chastise them at your hands and degrade them, and He will help you against them", the ninth sura says (pg. 180). Addressing the unbelievers, the same sura goes on to ask: "Or did you suppose you would be left in peace?" (pg. 180). You must submit. "If they fight you, slay them… but if they give over, surely God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate" (pg. 25). But only if you submit, mind. Even on the rare occasion when the Koran suggests unbelievers should not be harangued (one of many inconsistencies in the book), it is done for a sadistic reason: "We grant them indulgence only that they may increase in sin; and there awaits them a humbling chastisement" (Sura 3, pg. 67). Let them be, but only so that the inevitable hellfire is stronger.

Consider the Christian philosophical rationale: there is an emphasis, particularly in Jeremiah and the other Books of the Prophets, that if you do not follow the godly path, your life will be a poor one with poor decisions that come back to bite you. God will judge you in the next life. The tenth sura of the Koran, in contrast, says that "those who look not to encounter Us" – i.e. non-believers – can be "well-pleased with the present life and are at rest in it… heedless of Our signs", but that, regardless, "their refuge is the Fire, for that they have been earning" (pg. 197). It is remarkable: the Koran states that you can live a pleasant, fulfilling life without Koranic guidance but that, regardless, because you have not submitted you will burn in hellfire. "You who have been given the Book, believe in what We have sent down… before We obliterate faces" (Sura 4, pg. 79).

A line commonly cited by apologists of the Koran comes from the fifth sura: "whoso slays a soul… shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as if he had given life to mankind altogether" (pg. 105). An admirable sentiment, even if it is plagiarised from the Talmud ('who saves one life saves the world entire', which was also used as the tagline for Schindler's List). The problem is, firstly, that the ellipses hide some qualifiers (the full line is "whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether" – also note that 'corruption' includes simple unbelief). Secondly, the sentiment is undermined by the lines which immediately follow, which state that those who do not repent before 'God and His Messenger' "shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off, or they shall be banished from the land", to be followed by that 'mighty chastisement' in the afterlife. Strangely, these lines are not so frequently cited in the media.

Aside from this frightening violence, what is truly saddening is that the Koran is a newer book than the Jewish or Christian texts. Despite this provenance, it is relentlessly retrograde, undermining anything humanistic or holistic in those Abrahamic philosophies. "Our Lord, charge us not with a load such as Thou didst lay upon those before us," the second sura pleads. "Our Lord, do Thou not burden us beyond what we have the strength to bear," it continues (pg. 43), replacing the cross-bearing integrity of Christianity with abject submission. Following the habit of violence cited in the paragraphs above, the Koran prescribes "an eye for an eye" (Sura 5, pg. 107), reheating the worst of Old Testament morality, and also doubles down on the regrettable anti-Semitism birthed by Saint Paul (Sura 4, pg. 79 and 95). Women are to be beaten until they obey (Sura 4, pp77-8), apostates are to be slain (Sura 4, pg. 85) and a believer is not to take a Jew or a Christian as a friend (Sura 5, pg. 108). "O believers, take not My enemy and your enemy for friends, offering them love," Sura 40 begins (pg. 577), refuting the Christian 'love thy neighbour' teaching. "Whom God leads astray, thou wilt not find for him a way," the fourth sura tells us (pg. 85), shattering the painstakingly-built Christian gospel of forgiveness, compassion and redemption.

The subversion of previous philosophies, and the re-fetishization of violence, seem deliberate, though for what philosophical purpose remains unclear. Looking at it historically, one can see Muhammad's warlike 'prophecies' as an aid to his regional conquests or, more kindly, as an attempt to bring the principles of the desert nomad into harmony with the more established framework of civilisation. But even if you were to argue away all of the criticisms I have made above, it is hard to escape the thought that the book is just not very good. Even Arberry, the translator, who rhapsodizes about the Koran in his introduction, concedes that the book is "far from being chronological or rationally coherent", and that the suras seem to have been arranged "in diminishing order of their length" (pg. ix). The result is a disjointed sequence of repetitive, empty rhetoric, laced with Biblical plagiarisms, contradictions ("Know God is terrible in retribution, and God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate" (Sura 5, pg. 115)) and tautologies ("as for the unbelievers… they do not believe" (Sura 2, pg. 2); "Whosoever has Satan for a comrade, an evil comrade is he" (Sura 4, pg. 78)).

As a result, it is completely opposite in character and worth from my reading of the King James Bible, containing none of the illustrious epic sweep (from Genesis to Revelation, from Old to New, from blood to forgiveness) and little in the way of lyric or storytelling ability. When the Koran does tell stories, they are perfunctory, and the same ones as those given at greater length in the Bible. "We drowned the folk of Pharaoh," the eighth sura tells us (pg. 175), but you'll only know what is being talked about if you already know your Bible.

When I was able to look past my initial disappointment that the book would not be anywhere near as good as I hoped, and then able to look past my unease at the naked exhortations to violence, I did not feel angry, or contemptuous, or inclined to mockery. The book seems insecure in itself – a common refrain throughout has Muhammad warning believers not to listen to those who dismiss the Koran as a "forged calumny" (Sura 34, pg. 442) and Muhammad himself as "a man bewitched" (Sura 25, pg. 363) – and overly earnest, ploughing ahead even when it contradicts itself. In truth, I did not feel much of anything, which is perhaps the most damning response one can have to any piece of literature, let alone one supposedly dictated by God. Were it not for the continued real impact its violent injunctions have on our modern world, I'd be inclined to think of Ozymandias.

"What, do they not ponder the Koran? If it had been from other than God, surely they would have found in it much inconsistency." (Sura 4, pg. 84) show less

I don't care for this translation (by A.J. Arberry) at all. In the introduction, the translator, an Englishman, rhapsodizes about how he was inspired to undertake this work by his enjoyment of the beauty of recited Arabic, yet his translation is terribly awkward English. Apparently Mr. Arberry thought he was being lyrical, but all he manages is to be obscure. The translations by Yusufali, M. Pickthall, Ahmed Ali, N.J. Dawood, and Kenneth Cragg are better than this one. However, I have show more noticed that Arberry is frequently quoted, so my reaction to this work may not be typical. show less

Overdetermined and academic but still a classic of its genre.

Contains translated recipes with no adaptations, but does contain additional information on the sources used by these scholars.