Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!yale!cmcl2!husc6!m2c!wpi!araja@m2.csc.ti.com
From: araja@m2.csc.ti.com (Ali Raja)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Quran's translation on computer
Message-ID: <7873@wpi.wpi.edu>
Date: 7 Feb 90 20:20:18 GMT
References: <7809@wpi.wpi.edu>
Sender: shari@wpi.wpi.edu
Lines: 25
Approved: shari@wpi.edu


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.