Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!bes
From: eederavi@pyramid.swansea.ac.uk (Farzin Deravi)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Good and bad English translations/interpretations of the Qur'an
Message-ID: <1990Nov5.070333.18285@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 5 Nov 90 07:03:33 GMT
Sender: bes@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 70
Approved: bes@tybalt.caltech.edu

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       |
                                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -