SX43%LIVERPOOL.AC.UK@evans.ucar.edu (11/14/90)
//////////////Original message////////////// As-Salaamu alaikum, (Peace be with you) : In article <1990Nov1.205630.13179@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) says: [stuff deleted..] >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 relevant stuff deleted..] >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 I hope someone deals with it at length as I dont have the time but I feel that this is quite an important issue.. so I will mention the essentials. 'Good' translations that I know of are : -Abdullah Yusuf Ali (IMHO the best going English translation...) -M. Pickthall -Maudoodi 'Towards Understanding the Quran' Those I would categorise as 'Bad' translations include : -Arberry's -NJ Dawood (Is this the Penguin Classic ?) Generally speaking the 'Bad' ones are done by non-muslims who tend to give the surface translation of every verse. By surface meaning I mean that the Arabic language is difficult to 'translate'. Any given translation only gives one perspective of a verse; there are many possible meanings to various words depending on the context, and one of the miracles of the Quran is the amount of wisdom contained in such a small book : the deeper one studies it the more amazement results. Instead if you look at Yusuf Ali's translation, you will find that as well as having footnotes explaining a lot of stuff, and going into more depth than just the surface meaning, the language used is beautiful, a feature lacking in the translations by the non-muslims. Another aspect of the translations by non-muslims is that they were not exactly unbiased in their treatment of the Book.. they were usually Orientalists with pre conceived ideas derived from the days of the crusades against Islam (both physical and intellectual/slanderous) so that they tended to color their translations to put Islam in a bad light, albeit subconciously perhaps. Maybe I havent given them a proper chance, though. Maybe they arent as 'bad' as that in their depiction of Islam.. Allah knows best; but what is for sure is that the Yusuf Ali translation is indispensible. With Peace, Fazal.