saadat@tcgould.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Irfan Saadat) (02/07/90)
Locally in Cornell university the Muslim group decided to compare the different translations of Quran during the regular weekly Quran study hour. The comparison was done between Yousuf Ali and A.H. Shakir. The first unanimous result was that Shakir's one is much easier to understand, it is written in everyday English, in comparison to Yousuf Ali which uses old English. Within the study group there are people who are fluent in Arabic, as well as people whose 1st language is English and they have studied the bible extensively before converting to Islam. Here is a summary of their opinions: 1) One group among the converts say that Ali translation is better because the English is like the Bible's English and a person feels the significance of the Quran (due to their preIslamic bible influence). 2) A second group among the converts say that a lot of modern English speaking people do not read the old bible, rather the simplified modern English Bible, therefore it is better to use Shakir's trans. 3) The others whose language is not English prefer Shakir for its simple English. Personally speaking I think Shakir's is easier to understand, BUT some places it can not give the whole meaning the way the Arabic text gives or even Ali's gives. Finally we have 4-5 volunteers who are ready to type the translation, whichever is picked. Most people locally prefer Shakir' version. Irfan
araja@m2.csc.ti.com (Ali Raja) (02/08/90)
In article <7809@wpi.wpi.edu> saadat@tcgould.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Irfan Saadat) writes: >Personally speaking I think Shakir's is easier to understand, BUT some places >it can not give the whole meaning the way the Arabic text gives or even Ali's >gives. >Finally we have 4-5 volunteers who are ready to type the translation, >whichever >is picked. Most people locally prefer Shakir' version. It seems to me that the M.H.Shakir translation is also preferable. It seems that it catches some of emotional content of the Quran as well as the literal meaning. I personally have found the Pickthall translation to be too terse, whereas the Yusuf Ali translation is somewhat tedious. Shakir seems to strike a happy balance between the two. Given this situation, I move for using the Shakir translation. I would suggest waiting a while and seeing if there is any dissent; if not, we should then proceed to discuss the logistics of this endavour. Basalat Ali Raja.