ShahnazZ
Striving2BeAStranger
:salam2: I hope you're all in the best state of health and iman and enjoying this very last day of our beloved Ramadan
.
This one may ruffle a few feathers so please ascertain that I'm coming from a place of genuine concern and not sheer criticism.
I've been extremely disturbed over something that I've obviously taken for granted my entire life and have only realized the error until now.
My Quran translation.
See, I've only recently begun thinking about the different translations that exist out there and wallahi, there truly seem to be translations for everyone! Those that want to be extreme, those that want to be liberal, those that want to be apologetic, those that want to be "modern", purple, green, blue, the list goes on and on!
For example, the translation by Muhammad Asad was recommended to me. Looking up the reviews on this translation, Asad was praised for his amazing commentary, especially by those who found faults in other translations.
However, I learned that his volume is banned in Saudi Arabia as they say it contains faults. What faults these are, Allahu Alim. They're not mentioned and I wish they were. Yet, looking at reviews of other translations, there was something to be said about all of them!
For example, the translation that I currently use (Muhammad Mohsin Khan) is being considered "supremacist Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and preaching a Saudi line". I myself admit there are times when I question certain parts of the translation. Others include the following commentaries on the following translators (the notes on each translator are based on the research article I read and not of my own opinions):
Taken from the following article:
http://www.meforum.org/717/assessing-english-translations-of-the-quran
Muhammad Ali - an Ahmadi scholar whose works have been adopted by the Nation of Islam (automatic rejection right there)
Marmaduke Pickthall - heavily influenced by Muhammad Ali, even so much to say that al-Miraj was the Prophet's vision and not an actual journey, as ascertained by most Muslim theologians.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali - "Anti-Semitic" again (I put the term in quotes because frankly I have no idea whose point of view this is coming from. If it's based on the true words of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, I don't care whose feelings are hurt and whose offended.)
Ahmed Ali - "downplays Christian and Jewish parallels in the Quran"
Thomas B. Irving - contains linguistic errors and more of a Biblical text
You've got early translations, 20th century classics, Saudi-endorsed translations, anti Saudi-endorsed translations, sectarian translations and those that just straight up fall short.
Basically, it is suggested that every translation seems to be somewhat tainted by certain surrounding contexts. There are some translations that were written when anti-Zionism was on the rise, others that were written when the divide between India and Pakistan was taking effect. These external issues should in no way, shape or form touch the Words of Allah in His Book. So now, which translation can I trust without having to worry about whose being influenced by Saudi politics, Pakistani culture, Western values, etc.?
We take these things for granted thinking that having a Quran translation itself is enough. We ignore what discrepancies we may find in those translations thinking that it's our flawed ability to understand. And it may be so. I'm not denying that at all. At least that's what I always believed. That the problem was in my capability to understand and not the actual translation. I am a flawed human being after all. But what if I'm wrong about thinking it's all ME?
This also really scares me because we pride ourselves on being different from the Jews and Christians in the sense that our beloved Book has not been corrupted like there's have. But as most of us do not speak the dialect of the Quran, the translations are really all we have to go by. And if there are translations for everyone, then are we on the road to corruption as well?
:astag: I know.
In the end, for me it's not about pleasing anyone but Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. I don't care about appeasing non-Muslims of any other background who find offense in His Words. To me, they're His Words, and thus end-game.
Is it too much to ask for a perfect translation, free of personal bias? And if not, isn't this a problem considering the Quran itself is perfect?
I just want Allah's Words. That's it. No one else's. But now it seems like that's too much to ask for unless you lived in the time of the Prophet
.
Is there a single authentic translation? Based on whose opinion? Should we read many translations to get a broader idea?
Now I see why it takes so many scholars years and years to study the Quran.
This one may ruffle a few feathers so please ascertain that I'm coming from a place of genuine concern and not sheer criticism.
I've been extremely disturbed over something that I've obviously taken for granted my entire life and have only realized the error until now.
My Quran translation.
See, I've only recently begun thinking about the different translations that exist out there and wallahi, there truly seem to be translations for everyone! Those that want to be extreme, those that want to be liberal, those that want to be apologetic, those that want to be "modern", purple, green, blue, the list goes on and on!
For example, the translation by Muhammad Asad was recommended to me. Looking up the reviews on this translation, Asad was praised for his amazing commentary, especially by those who found faults in other translations.
However, I learned that his volume is banned in Saudi Arabia as they say it contains faults. What faults these are, Allahu Alim. They're not mentioned and I wish they were. Yet, looking at reviews of other translations, there was something to be said about all of them!
For example, the translation that I currently use (Muhammad Mohsin Khan) is being considered "supremacist Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and preaching a Saudi line". I myself admit there are times when I question certain parts of the translation. Others include the following commentaries on the following translators (the notes on each translator are based on the research article I read and not of my own opinions):
Taken from the following article:
http://www.meforum.org/717/assessing-english-translations-of-the-quran
Muhammad Ali - an Ahmadi scholar whose works have been adopted by the Nation of Islam (automatic rejection right there)
Marmaduke Pickthall - heavily influenced by Muhammad Ali, even so much to say that al-Miraj was the Prophet's vision and not an actual journey, as ascertained by most Muslim theologians.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali - "Anti-Semitic" again (I put the term in quotes because frankly I have no idea whose point of view this is coming from. If it's based on the true words of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, I don't care whose feelings are hurt and whose offended.)
Ahmed Ali - "downplays Christian and Jewish parallels in the Quran"
Thomas B. Irving - contains linguistic errors and more of a Biblical text
You've got early translations, 20th century classics, Saudi-endorsed translations, anti Saudi-endorsed translations, sectarian translations and those that just straight up fall short.
Basically, it is suggested that every translation seems to be somewhat tainted by certain surrounding contexts. There are some translations that were written when anti-Zionism was on the rise, others that were written when the divide between India and Pakistan was taking effect. These external issues should in no way, shape or form touch the Words of Allah in His Book. So now, which translation can I trust without having to worry about whose being influenced by Saudi politics, Pakistani culture, Western values, etc.?
We take these things for granted thinking that having a Quran translation itself is enough. We ignore what discrepancies we may find in those translations thinking that it's our flawed ability to understand. And it may be so. I'm not denying that at all. At least that's what I always believed. That the problem was in my capability to understand and not the actual translation. I am a flawed human being after all. But what if I'm wrong about thinking it's all ME?
This also really scares me because we pride ourselves on being different from the Jews and Christians in the sense that our beloved Book has not been corrupted like there's have. But as most of us do not speak the dialect of the Quran, the translations are really all we have to go by. And if there are translations for everyone, then are we on the road to corruption as well?
:astag: I know.
In the end, for me it's not about pleasing anyone but Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. I don't care about appeasing non-Muslims of any other background who find offense in His Words. To me, they're His Words, and thus end-game.
Is it too much to ask for a perfect translation, free of personal bias? And if not, isn't this a problem considering the Quran itself is perfect?
I just want Allah's Words. That's it. No one else's. But now it seems like that's too much to ask for unless you lived in the time of the Prophet

Is there a single authentic translation? Based on whose opinion? Should we read many translations to get a broader idea?
Now I see why it takes so many scholars years and years to study the Quran.