There is a sense in which I agree with the reviewer who said that Wikipedia is both more complete and cheaper (it's free). Esposito is a world class expert on Islam and Oxford dictionaries are generally a good authority on their subject. And, the list of contributors is daunting. They seem to have corraled every Anglo-American expert on the subject to contribute articles. The entries are written in a non-technical way, and there is no Arabic to feel you are missing something. I would literally suggest that if you really wanted to find out something about Islam, just start reading this dictionary from front to back (all the really good stuff starts with "A" anyway, in Arabic.)
That's the good part. The drawbacks begin with the comparison with Wikipedia. No self-respecting college scholar or teacher will accept citations from Wikipedia because we have no idea who wrote them, and no guarantee of its authenticity. The day Wikipedia is accepted as a scholarly source is the day books like this will stop selling. But look, in spite of all the contributors, the contributors' names are not given at the end of the entries. I am also disappointed that when one entry refers to another, there is no active link to take you there. The weakest aspect of the dictionary is that there is no bibliography in the entries. I also tend to take issue with some articles, where there are conflicting opinions, the articles cite one and make no mention of the other, such as with the nature of Satan / Iblis.
If it were not for the air of authenticity supplied by Oxford and Esposito, I would not have gotten this. As it is, I can safely refer to this in papers, which I cannot do with Wikipedia...yet.
- Amazon Business : For business-only pricing, quantity discounts and FREE Shipping. Register a free business account











