Another very famous commentary is that of Zamakhsharī (A.D. 1075-1144), edited by Nassau-Lees, Calcutta, 1859; but this scholar, with his great insight and still greater subtlety, is too apt to read his own scholastic ideas into the Koran. The favourite commentary of Baiḍāwī (d. A.D. 1286), edited by Fleischer (Leipzig, 1846-1848), is little more than an abridgment of Zamakhsharī’s. Thousands of commentaries on the Koran, some of them of prodigious size, have been written by Moslems; and even the number of those still extant in manuscript is by no means small. Although these works all contain much that is useless or false, yet they are invaluable aids to our understanding of the sacred book. An unbiased European can, no doubt, see many things at a glance more clearly than a good Moslem who is under the influence of religious prejudice; but we should still be helpless without the exegetical literature of the Mahommedans. Even the Arabian Moslems would only understand the Koran very dimly and imperfectly if they did not give special attention to the study of its interpretation. The advantage of being in a language commonly understood, which the holy book claims for itself, has vanished in the course of thirteen centuries. According to the dominant view, however, the ritual use of the Koran is not in the least concerned with the sacred words being understood, but solely with their being quite properly recited. Nevertheless, a great deal remains to be accomplished by European scholarship for the correct interpretation of the Koran. We want, for example, an exhaustive classification and discussion of all the Jewish elements in the Koran; a praiseworthy beginning was made in Geiger’s youthful essay Was hat Mohamed aus dem Judenthum aufgenommen? (Bonn, 1833; the “second revised edition,” Leipzig, 1902, is only a reprint). We want especially a thorough commentary, executed Translations. with the methods and resources of modern science. No European language, it would seem, can even boast of a translation which completely satisfies modern requirements. The best are in English; where we have the extremely paraphrastic, but for its time admirable translation of George Sale (repeatedly printed), that of Rodwell (1861), which seeks to give the pieces in chronological order, and that of Palmer (1880), who wisely follows the traditional arrangements. The introduction which accompanies Palmer’s translation is not in all respects abreast of the most recent scholarship. Considerable extracts from the Koran are well translated in E. W. Lane’s Selections from the Kur-ān. Not much can be said in praise of the complete translations into the German language, neither of that of Ullmann, which has appeared in several editions, nor of that of Henning (Leipzig) and Grigull (Halle), all of them shallow amateurs who have no notion of the difficulties to be met with in the task, and are almost entirely dependent on Sale. Friedrich Rückert’s excellent version (published by August Müller, Frankfort-on-Maine, 1888) gives only selections. M. Klamroth’s translation of the fifty oldest sūras, Die fünfzig ältesten Suren (Hamburg, 1890) attempts successfully to reproduce the rhymed form of the originals. The publication of the translation of the Koran by the great Leipzig Arabic scholar, H. L. Fleischer (d. 1888) has so far unfortunately been delayed. (For modern editions, commentaries, &c., see [Mahommedan Religion]: Bibliography).
Besides commentaries on the whole Koran, or on special parts and topics, the Moslems possess a whole literature bearing on their sacred book. There are works on the spelling and right pronunciation of the Koran, works on the beauty of its language, on the number of its verses, words and letters, &c.; nay, there are even works which would nowadays be called “historical and critical introductions.” Moreover, the origin of Arabic philology is intimately connected with the recitation and exegesis of the Koran. To exhibit the importance of the sacred book for the whole mental life of the Moslems would be simply to write the history of that life itself; for there is no department in which its all-pervading, but unfortunately not always salutary, influence has not been felt.
The unbounded reverence of the Moslems for the Koran reaches its climax in the dogma that this book, as the divine word, i.e. thought, is immanent in God, and consequently eternal and uncreated. This dogma, which was doubtless due Eternity of the Koran. to the influence of the Christian doctrine of the eternal Word of God, has been accepted by almost all Mahommedans since the beginning of the 3rd century. Some theologians did indeed protest against it with great energy; it was in fact too preposterous to declare that a book composed of unstable words and letters, and full of variants, was absolutely divine. But what were the distinctions and sophisms of the theologians for, if they could not remove such contradictions, and convict their opponents of heresy?
Bibliography.—The following works may be especially consulted: Weil, Einleitung in den Korān (2nd ed., 1878); Th. Nöldeke, Geschichte des Qorān’s (Göttingen, 1860; 2nd ed. by Friedrich Schwally, 1908); the Lives of Mahomet by William Muir and Aloys Sprenger (vols. i.-iii., Berlin, 1861-1865; 2nd ed., 1869); C. Snouck Hurgronje, Het mekkaansche Feest (Leiden, 1880), De Islam (de Gids, 1886, ii. 257-273, 454-498, iii. 90-134); “Une nouvelle biographie de Mohammed,” Revue de l’histoire des religions, tome 29, p. 48 f., 149 sqq.; Leone Caetani, Annali dell’ Islam, i. (Milan, 1905), ii.(Milan, 1907); Frants Buhl, Muhammeds Liv (Copenhagen, 1903).
(Th. N.; Fr. Sy.)
[1] Reproductions of such Ptolemaic and Lysimachan coins are to be found in J. J. Bernouilli, Die erhaltenen Darstellungen Alexanders d. Gr. (Munich, 1905), Tab. VIII.; also in Theodor Schreiber, “Studien über das Bildniss Alexanders des Gr.” in the Abh. Sachs. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Bd. xxi. (1903), Tab. XIII.
[2] For the schemes of Nöldeke and Grimm see [Mahommedan Religion].
[3] See Bibliography at end.
[4] Since in Arabic also the root