bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) (11/02/90)
In article <1990Oct30.161211.7903@wpi.WPI.EDU> mayne@sun10.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) writes: >(2) I have a copy of the Quoran (sp?). The translation I have is the one >published by Penquin Classics. I'd be interested in comments on various >translations into English and suggestions on selected sections to read >to get a good over view. I have read some, but not systematically. I second this question. I have heard bits and pieces here and there of how some Muslims don't like this translation and do like this one. I (and probably many others) would appreciate it if some knowledgable Muslims would help enlighten us on this. Specifically, could you list 2--3 translations that are among the best, and maybe a few of the more popular (in terms of printed copies) versions that are considered poor translations. More importantly, why are these translations good or bad? In general, what sort of things makes a good or bad translation of the Qur'an from Arabic to English? Some examples, especially where a bad translation botched it, would be most illuminating. Thanks! -- Dave Bakken Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu Dept. of Comp. Sci.; U.of Ariz. UUCP: uunet!arizona!bakken Tucson, AZ 85721; USA Bitnet: bakken%cs.arizona.edu@Arizrvax AT&T: +1 602 621 4976 FAX: +1 602 621 4246
gwydion@tavi.rice.edu (Basalat Ali Raja) (11/05/90)
In article <1990Nov1.205630.13179@nntp-server.caltech.edu> bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes: >I second this question. I have heard bits and pieces here and there >of how some Muslims don't like this translation and do like this one. >I (and probably many others) would appreciate it if some knowledgable >Muslims would help enlighten us on this. Specifically, could you list >2--3 translations that are among the best, and maybe a few of the >more popular (in terms of printed copies) versions that are considered >poor translations. In my personal opinion, the translation by Marmaduke Pickthall is the best translation I have seen. Another good translation is one by Yusuf Ali. These translation are good because the authors made a decent attempt at transmitting the true meaning and flavour of the Quran. >More importantly, why are these translations good >or bad? In general, what sort of things makes a good or bad translation >of the Qur'an from Arabic to English? Some examples, especially where >a bad translation botched it, would be most illuminating. Thanks! A bad translation is one which has little or nothing to do with what the Quran says. By this criteria the Dawood translation is not a good one. By far, the worst translation I have seen is one that seems to be Padraig Houlihan's [sp?] favourite (in that he used to quote that at me when I was passing thru talk.religion.misc). I do not have references for it, but I am sure he will be glad to supply you with them. Basalat Ali Raja, gwydion@tavi.rice.edu
eederavi@pyramid.swansea.ac.uk (Farzin Deravi) (11/05/90)
For Inclusion in soc.cutlture.islam In article <1990Nov1.205630.13179@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Dave Bakken writes: > >I second this question. I have heard bits and pieces here and there >of how some Muslims don't like this translation and do like this one. >I (and probably many others) would appreciate it if some knowledgable >Muslims would help enlighten us on this. Specifically, could you list >2--3 translations that are among the best, and maybe a few of the >more popular (in terms of printed copies) versions that are considered >poor translations. Here is my list: Mohammad Asad - "The Message of the Qur'an" with Arabic Text, Translation and Commentary. No Index. A Yusuf Ali - various editions usually with Text, Translation, Commentary etc. with a reasonable index. T B Irving - "First American Version" Only Translation with marginal notes. >More importantly, why are these translations good >or bad? In general, what sort of things makes a good or bad translation >of the Qur'an from Arabic to English? Some examples, especially where >a bad translation botched it, would be most illuminating. Thanks! >-- In my opinion, the translation of key concepts and the commentary, where there is one, can make all the differnce. Yusuf Ali's translation is widely available and is well respected by the "mainstream" body of opinion. The commentary follows "classical" lines. In most editions, the text is interspersed with in depth articles concerning a variety of issues raised in the Qur'an such as the nature of the Torah and the Gosples etc. A recent edition has overcome many of the limitations of its predecessors by using arabic as opposed to Roman numbering throughout. T B Irving's Translation is by far the most unorthodox. It tries to use very simple language to make The Message accessible to modern (American!) readers. It has had some very critical reviews. I can probably dig some up if there is enough interest. However, its value is in the alternative perspective it provides. But by far the most interesting translation to my opinion is that by Mohammad Asad. Its commentary often diverges from the classical line but it is consistently and vigorously argued throughout. Its translation of key concepts (such as "taqwa") result in a deep understanding of The Message and appreciation of its timeless nature. Perhaps the commentary tends towards being apologetic in places but on the whole it is well balanced. I can go on and on writing about this work but this should suffice for the moment. The subject opened up by the forgoing articles is both interesting and important. Our understanding of the key concepts in The Message is critical if we are to clearly appreciate our relationship with The Creator and Cherisher of The Worlds. Farzin Deravi - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F. Deravi, | UUCP : ...!ukc!pyr.swan.ac.uk!eederavi| Lecturer, | JANET : eederavi@uk.ac.swan.pyr | Electrical Engineering Dept., | voice : +44 792 295583 | University of Wales, | Fax : +44 792 295686 | Swansea, SA2 8PP | Telex : 48149 UICS G | United Kingdom. | GreenNet gn:f1deravi | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
bdirai@rhino.ecn.purdue.edu (Ilyess B Bdira) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov5.070333.18285@nntp-server.caltech.edu> eederavi@pyramid.swansea.ac.uk (Farzin Deravi) writes: >For Inclusion in soc.cutlture.islam > >In article <1990Nov1.205630.13179@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Dave Bakken writes: >> >>I second this question. I have heard bits and pieces here and there >>of how some Muslims don't like this translation and do like this one. >>I (and probably many others) would appreciate it if some knowledgable >>Muslims would help enlighten us on this. Specifically, could you list >>2--3 translations that are among the best, and maybe a few of the >>more popular (in terms of printed copies) versions that are considered >>poor translations. The only good translation is one that is written by a NATIVE ARAB SCHOLAR who knows Arabic extremely well, knows the language and the CULTURE of the people he is translating to (In our case English and Western culture), and knows Islam to the degree of Ijtihad (Scholarship). So far there is NO GOOD TRANSLATION of the meaning of the Quoran. I hope thare will be one soon. Yusef Ali's Problem was that he was not a big Islamic scholar nor an expert on Arabic litterature. But his translation is correct about 90% of the time, which beats most other translations, but still that 10% really hurts. My opinion is that a good translation will be available when there will be enough Islamic scholars who really understand Islam fully. There are not many of them so far. The reason I included culture in the requirements above is that if you use English, for example, and think in Arabic then you will convey an entirely different meaning. You have to know the cultural context of the words you are using.
heru@byron.u.washington.edu (heru-ra-ha) (11/08/90)
Rashad Khalifa PhD of Masjid Tucson is a native Arabic speaker (egyptian) who knows western society and culture well. He has prepared a translation of Quran. I am aware he is considered heretical by many Muslims. Joshua Geller heru@byron.u.washington.edu
bdirai@rhino.ecn.purdue.edu (Ilyess B Bdira) (11/14/90)
In article <1990Nov8.013556.15190@wpi.WPI.EDU> heru@byron.acs.washington.edu (heru-ra-ha) writes: > >Rashad Khalifa PhD of Masjid Tucson is a native Arabic speaker (egyptian) >who knows western society and culture well. He has prepared a translation >of Quran. I am aware he is considered heretical by many Muslims. > >Joshua Geller >heru@byron.u.washington.edu For your information, anybody who claims he is a prophet after Mohammed (p.b.u.h) is considred heretic by ALL muslims. The guy you are referring to did not know anything about Islam before claiming he was a prophet. The only thing he did is use computers to show that a lot of things in quoran are in multiples of 19. You might say: so what? but believe it or not, this is the reason behind his claim of prophethood. I read some interviews were he predicted the end of the world (i do not remember the date), and when he will die! At least the latter was proven wrong as he was killed only one year after that! He was either a mad person or a mercenary although the latter is the most probable because of the huge amounts of funds he received from some quarters known for their hostility to Islam. I do not know why I am spending all of this space on time on him, but I thought some of you might need this information.
bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) (11/23/90)
In article <1990Nov13.161835.517@wpi.WPI.EDU> pur-ee!bdirai@rhino.ecn.purdue.edu (Ilyess B Bdira) writes: > >In article <1990Nov8.013556.15190@wpi.WPI.EDU> heru@byron.acs.washington.edu (heru-ra-ha) writes: >>Rashad Khalifa PhD of Masjid Tucson is a native Arabic speaker (egyptian) >>who knows western society and culture well. He has prepared a translation >>of Quran. I am aware he is considered heretical by many Muslims. >He was either a mad person or a mercenary although the latter is the most >probable because of the huge amounts of funds he received from some quarters >known for their hostility to Islam. I followed the Khalifa murder, since it happened here in Tucson (I drive by his masjid on the way home each day; it says "Happiness is Submission to God"). Yet I have not heard allegations that he was paid for his views, let alone large sums of money. That would be very interesting, indeed! Can you tell us the amounts he received (in very general numbers)? More importantly, who are the "quarters known for their hostility to Islam" that paid him? I'm sure that a lot of people would benefit from knowing this, not just me. -- Dave Bakken, bakken@cs.arizona.edu, uunet!arizona!bakken, +1 602 621 4976 "You don't negociate with someone who marches into another country, devours it, killing whoever stands in his way. You get him out, make him pay, and see that he is never in a position to do these things again." Margaret Thatcher,10-12-90