2As the Urvoys note in the Avertissement (p. 7), discussions of the “miracle” of the Qur’ān emphasize its auditors’ failure, or inability, to produce anything like it – the so-called “inimitability” of the Qur’ān. This is a claim rooted in the qur’ānic text itself, with the so-called “challenge” (taḥaddi) verses (Q 52:33-34; 17:88; 11:13; 10:38; 2:23-24; p. 29), which defy its opponents to produce a qur’ān themselves, or even one sūra (chapter) – or 10 (chapters) – like it. Over the course of the next centuries, Islamic tradition would develop a rich discourse around the inimitability of the Qur’ān i’jāz al-qur’ān.

4Over the course of the 200 scholarly, yet accessible, pages, Dominique and Marie-Thérèse Urvoy take their readers on a journey through time and space that highlights various ways in which the “miracle” of the Qur’ān has been understood, both in terms of its style and its content. Their engagingly-written book is accessible to specialists and non-experts alike. Their light, almost conversational, discussion skillfully weaves key figures and themes from fourteen centuries of Islamic history with anecdotes from recent (largely local) encounters as only scholars who are masters of their subject can do.

5As the Urvoys have set out in their wide-ranging exposé, this discourse has been multi-valent. Muslims in different times and places, of different philosophical, theological and linguistic backgrounds, have had a range of understandings about the nature of the “miracle” of the Qur’ān. Reflecting the multifaceted history of Islamic civilization (p. 190-191), there have been varied, and various, understandings of the nature of this qur’ānic miracle: is it a linguistic, rhetorical miracle? If so, is it one only able to be appreciated by Arabophones? Does the miracle of the Qur’ān extend to, or is it shaped by, the Arabic language itself? Is the miracle one of content, e.g. predictions of things to come? Can non-Muslims appreciate the miracle (i.e. is it the belief that the Qur’ān is from God that shapes the understanding of its miraculous nature?)? What are the implications of the belief in the literary miracle of the Qur’ān? These are among the questions the Urvoys address, drawing on their own considerable expertise in Arabic thought and culture, especially classical and medieval, as well as philosophical.

6They have divided their work into 6 chapters, with an introduction and epilogue framing the discussion, highlighting the outline of their argument. They bring the reader from a general presentation of “miracle” (in the Introduction) to “Miracle in Islam” (Chapter One), followed by two chapters on the “Various perceptions of the qur’ānic miracle”. Chapter Two discusses the classical era, while Chapter Three brings the discussion to the present day. This overview is followed by a reflection on the implications of the stylistic inimitability (Chapter Four) and a rather psychological exploration of the “scientific” miracle of the Qur’ān (Chapter Five). A discussion of historiography concludes the book (Chapter Six), followed by a brief epilogue (headed by a telling quotation from Ionescu), in which the authors state that “the miracle only convinces those who are already persuaded” and that, in brief, “the Qur’ān is a miracle because God has said it!” (p. 190).

9At times, the reader has the feeling of being drawn into the home of a friend hosting a large gathering of friends – there is an assumption of familiarity with both the people and ideas present, meaning that formal introductions are not needed. As with any well-orchestrated gathering, the food (for thought, in this case) is ample and varied, with enough to satisfy you – or leave you with a taste for more, to explore on your own. Particularly for the classical period, the footnotes provide a range of texts (largely, but not exclusively, in French or Arabic) for the interested reader, while the body of the text provides adequate details of the named individuals for the interested reader to do further research. While indices of authors and doctrinal schools are provided, additional indices, for qur’ānic citations and also for key terms, would further help the reader navigate the text.

10And, as at any gathering, there is the possibility that one might leave a bit confused by the relationships of those present. At times, the authors’ clear vision of the trajectory of their argument (the dangers of too close an attachment to a given text, especially in times of civilizational decline) lends itself to an, arguably, uneven presentation of “facts”. For, in support of their arguments, the Urvoys adduce evidence from a wide range of sources whose validity could, for the novice, be difficult to estimate. While such a focus makes for a clear presentation of the main themes, it also runs the risk of a non-critical acceptance of every point and individual presented as being of equal “scholarly” value. For example, based on the amount of space devoted to their thoughts and the sparse information given about each, there is the danger that a non-specialist might finish the book with the perception that the contemporary Hārūn Yahyā (Adnan Oktar, p. 187) is as authoritative as, for example, Ibn Mujāhid (d. 324/936, p. 69). While it may indeed be the case that more Muslims today, especially those interested in the inimitability of the Qur’ān, know more Hārūn Yahyā than Ibn Mujāhid, the latter’s establishment of seven canonical readings (qir’ā’āt) of the Qur’ān has a deeper scholarly resonance than the theories (and lifestyle) of a controversial televangelist. Particularly when the authors delve into modern, especially internet, discussions, the criteria for their selection of the sites or authors would help the reader assess their relative merits. Readers interested in the use of the internet for dissemination of “information” would, for example, want to know more of the history of the sites’ establishment, how often the sites are visited, and who maintains them, among other questions. Further, as hyperlinks frequently expire, any revised edition (or translation) would need to substitute the references to the now-seemingly-unavailable www.miraclesducoran.com website (at least in New Zealand) with other sites; for example, https://miraclesofthequran.com/​predictions_13.html (which speaks of the ant robot technology, p. 188).

11But, the authors do state (p. 191) that the nature of the explanations of the qur’ānic miracle parallel the trajectory of Islamic thought in general, with the most constructive (even if contradictory) analyses found at the apex of Islamic civilization, while the most arbitrary extrapolations (which, without doubt, always existed) dominating the lower periods. Although the reader is not provided with a clear scheme to determine the apex or nadir of Islamic thought, the tenor of the discussion gives even a non-Francophone reader a sense of the authors’ estimation of the various positions put forth (despite their claims to present, rather than judge, the material they present, p. 17).

13As with any cross-cultural encounter, when one reads a text in a language that is not one’s own, nuances of phrases and stylistic differences stand out, or become lost in translation. “[L]e Dieu du Coran affirme sa version d’un fait comme la seule vraie, contre toute autre conjecture humaine” (p. 176). The authors follow this assertion with a discussion that, to me, a non-native French speaker, suggests that later Islamic tradition used the Qur’ān as the ultimate repository of “facts”, thereby stifling human inquiry, as in the ‘disgrace’ of Averroes when he denied the existence of the ‘Ād, a people mentioned by the Qur’ān (p. 176-177).

15In October 2020, a series of tragic events in France highlighted the tensions between secular (laic) culture and “fundamentalist” interpretations of Islam. While the attacks (on a school teacher and church goers) may be attributed to other factors, such as alienation or psychopathy, they highlight the dangers of “absolute certainty” and “doctrinal saturation” of which the Urvoys warned. As an alternative, the Urvoys point to the value of the rich Islamic intellectual tradition.

16German, French and English are the languages of much contemporary Qur’ān scholarship in the historically non-Muslim world (although significant contributions are found, of course, in Italian, Spanish and other languages). But, while specialists read the works of their colleagues in these and other languages, there is also an increasing interest among non-specialists in the Qur’ān. The Urvoys cite Jacques Jomier. In the aftermath of 9/11, his Bible and Qur’ān was issued in paperback English translation. I have used this and other of Fr. Jomier’s works in undergraduate courses in Qatar, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United States. Reflecting today’s polarized, yet interconnected, world, students benefit from a diversity of viewpoints that challenge some of their own culturally-determined views. An English translation of Enquête sur le miracle coranique is therefore a desideratum. For, were the Urvoys’ thought-provoking expose more widely accessible, curious readers would wish to learn more about the views and authors presented, perhaps starting their own investigation into the nuanced and multi-valent discussions of the “miracle” of the Qur’ān. And, increased knowledge of the rich and varied intellectual history of the Islamic world – by Muslims and non-Muslims alike – would prove a vital ally in the struggle against narrow and exclusivist interpretations of the Qur’ān and Islamic tradition.