Talk:English translations of the Quran/Archive 1

Archive 1

Formatting

Should the formatting of the different translations be all kept together in one box? Kristoferolafsson (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Heading Missing Links

Strange that no one has contributed to this talk page. My comment: The links in red all seem to be dead links. There are other was to color text, if the intent was just for highlighting or emphasis. The highlighted red texts all open new Wiki pages on that topic. I can't tell whether that was the intention or not. Tachyon 13:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Tachyon 13:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

1980 dividing line

I can't see any reason to select 1980 as an arbitrary dividing line between "early modern" translations and "modern" translations, and the terminology is highly misleading as "early modern" is usually interpreted to mean Early Modern English, i.e. English of the early modern period (ca. 1450–1750). Only the 1649 Ross translation and maybe the 1734 Sale translation could be considered "early modern" according to the common understanding. I'm removing the break at 1980 and calling it "20th and 21st century translations" instead. Pais (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Major overhaul

I noticed yet one more translation added to the list, probably by the author or the publisher. The description was full of praise for the translation and the author. I reached my breaking point. The list of modern translations was PUFFERY. It was ADVERTISING. OR, it was argument for or against one or another strain of Islam. It was full of religious phrases that have no place in a secular encyclopedia.

I did some research to find original publication dates, put everything in chronological order, removed the bolding from the names of the translators (it made the list look too too busy), and trimmed as much advertising and unsupported assertion as I could.

The list is still too busy; we need to remove the links to nonexistent articles, so that the list isn't full of red. Perhaps I'll get to this, or perhaps someone else could do it. That is, if there is anyone paying attention to this article other than translators and publishing houses trying to reach prospective customers.

I think we also need to trim the sidebar, so that it doesn't go on forever and ever. Zora (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sample texts removed from sidebar

We had a sidebar that was more than twice as long as the article. I did a preliminary edit that put the verses into the main article. This is just one step in the process. Right now, not every translation has a matching verse excerpt. We should have title and author date, not just an author name. The examples should be arranged chronologically, as the list of translations is.

This might not be the best arrangement. Perhaps have the verses interspersed with the translation list? Have a link at the end of each translation entry that takes you directly to the excerpt? I am not sure. I just know that the sidebar didn't work. Zora (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

To the anon who believes that I am biased

Anon, you removed a lot of commentary. Some of it was sectarian (such as the somewhat anti-Ahmadi discussion) but some of it was useful, I thought. If I have a bias, it's academic; I'm not a Muslima, I'm a Buddhist. I'm not going to restore anything right now, being tired after messing with the sidebar, but perhaps some of what you excised could be restored. I would think that one of the purposes of this article is to give readers the information that they need to pick the Qur'an translation that meets their needs, whether they're Salafi, Sufi, Shi'a, Ahmadi, Deobandi, Barelvi, an academic, or just a curious reader wanting to know more about Islam. Zora (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Very large edit by anon

An anon, with no other WP editing credits, added large chunks of text to the sections for several translations. The text is so polished that I am almost SURE that it is cut and pasted from some online scholarly source. I can't find the original, however.

Also, the emphasis on these few texts makes the translation list extremely lopsided. If we leave the copious notes for these translations, then all the individuals and publishing companies that have put out their own translations of the Qur'an are going to feel entitled to equal time -- and this equal time amounts to advertising, in most cases. Puffing up the credentials of the translator and praising the translation. I cleared out a lot of this earlier and I wouldn't like to see the article return to being a billboard.

I was going to undo, but I think I should wait a day and see if anyone else has any thoughts on the matter. I will also post on the anon's talk page, thought I have a feeling that this was a hit and run. Zora (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That was me!

Sorry, Zora, to defy Wiki guidelines with an anonymous MAJOR edit. I'm so busy with other projects over the years (e.g., see my huge website on world religions, saints & sages, etc. at www.enlightened-spirituality.org) that i rarely intrude on Wiki articles with anything more than minor edits, so i forget about Wiki etiquette about signing, discussing with other editors, etc. So please accept my apologies. I teach world religions in Santa Barbara, CA, and was getting some further materials on Islam and Sufism for students; to that end, i was wading once again through various translations of the Qur'an i've amassed over the years (actual books as well as online versions downloaded and copied to Word files). I saw this Wiki page on various English translations and decided to add some more material to that entry that you or someone put up for the Maulana Muhammad 'Ali's translation; all of that new text i added is based on my own reading of his extensive Preface and Introduction and some other materials. No plagiarism, just my own "polished" synopsis.

I also was reading the Preface to Arberry's work and seeing other assessments of it online, such as the survey/assessment by Khaleel Mohammad of various English translations in his 2005 article for Middle East Quarterly, and so decided to add a note about the quality of the Arberry translation. A similar note had been made by someone, no doubt on the basis of the Khaleel Mohammad article, over at the Quran Translations Wiki page, in the section on English translations.

Further in the spirit of helping readers better distinguish between all the diverse translations of the Qur'an that are out there, i pasted the notes from Arberry's Preface (in the public domain version of his old 1955 2-vol. edition) about the Bell translation.

I now realize that my notes for the M.M. 'Ali translation do look a bit like "an advertisement," and was thinking of balancing it with some critical remarks based on some strict Sunni Muslim perspective of the Ahmadiya approach to translating the Qur'an. But that would make it an even longer paragraph. I do think it's important to have some kind of special extra note about the M.M. 'Ali version, since it was evidently so influential on later translators who didn't acknowledge 'Ali's version (like M.M. Pickthall) because of 'Ali's "controversial" Ahmadiya affiliation. I do think 'Ali's notes in his Introduction about Paradise and Hell are worthwhile, given that otherwise the Qur'an, to speak frankly, can sound so authoritarian with its usual dichotomizing between "believers" and "unbelievers" and how the latter will go to hell.

By the way, for ease of further discussion, i can most directly be reached by email at t.conway1@cox.net, if only to notify me about any responses needed by me here at Wiki Talk. TimothyConway (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, no wonder the additions were polished! Thank you very much for coming forward and taking ownership of the edits. I am glad that I didn't hit UNDO without putting this up for discussion.

I do feel that your edits give the article a bit of bias in the direction of what might be described as a genial version of Islam, in which Ahmadiyas and Sufis are welcomed and accepted. Adherents to other strains of Islam might see this as provocative. I am also worried that this might be seen as allowing inflation of the entries re the many recently-issued translations, some of which seem to me to lack scholarly authority. I was thinking that it would be good to have comparable sales figures for the various translations (perhaps from Amazon?), so that readers could tell which versions were the most popular. But I haven't had time.

(BTW, I didn't feel that the Khaleel Mohammed article was all that even-handed. A previous version of this page was composed largely of cut-and-paste from that article; I wiped out the copyvios.)

I would hope that this page could be a useful, neutral resource for someone wondering which of the many translations to consult/buy. Any ideas you have that might help us reach this goal would be welcome. Zora (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Zora, i appreciate everything you say here. For starters, I think i'll remove the extra stuff i added to the M.Muhammad 'Ali entry about paradise & hell and put it over at the Wiki site dedicated to him. I think it's worthwhile to keep in some of the stuff about the unacknowledged influence of the M.M. 'Ali translation on later translations. I also think it's worth keeping the Arberry quote about the Bell edition. I've checked other sources and they, too, find Bell's deconstructive work excessive. As for the assessment of Arberry's translation, i think it's within "fair use" to use a quote from Khaleel Mohammed which makes explicit the source of this assessment of the Arberry version: "The translation is without prejudice and is probably the best around. The Arberry version has earned the admiration of intellectuals worldwide, and having been reprinted several times, remains the reference of choice for most academics. It seems destined to maintain that position for the foreseeable future." So if you like, you could use that quote. The source would be Khaleel Mohammed, "Assessing English Translations of the Qur'an," Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2005, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 58-71. http://www.meforum.org/717/assessing-english-translations-of-the-quran.

Zora, i understand how you are reluctant to see longer entries for the plethora of more recent translations, but i think it could be argued that somewhat longer entries are in order for the earlier translations from, say, the M.M. 'Ali translation up to translations by other reputable scholars made in the 1980s just because of their historical importance and setting the pattern for more recent translations. Just my opinion.... TimothyConway (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed puffery

I edited a 2011 translation done in Southern India by removing a quote from a Southern Indian newspaper that praised the translation to the skies. I see no particular reason to think that quote unbiased; I see the inclusion of praise for one edition or another as the camel's nose under the tent. If we're not careful, this article will turn into a bazaar babel as translators and publishing houses hawk their wares.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: possibly the best guide, and the most objective, would be sales figures. If someone could start looking them up (Amazon for a start?) that would add a lot to the credibility of the article. Zora (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Why verse 2:62 is chosen?

I would like to understand as to why the verse 2:62 was chosen to present the various translation. This verse requires an extensive understanding of the qur'an to be understood correctly. To present this on Wiki, doesnt make much sense and serves no purpose.

I want to find out if there is consensus on this verse being chosen as I dont quite understand as to why and how this makes any sense.

This verse would be the last choice if I was asked.

Zora- Do you have an opinion on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayed.Suhail (talk • contribs) 03:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It was the verse used when I started editing the article. Choosing another verse would require lots and lots of work. I think it's a good verse to use, as it points directly to a controversial issue in Muslim/non-Muslim relations. How the translators handle this is important if you want to know just how, ah, hardline the translator might be. It's important to me personally as I'm a Buddhist, hence not one of the tolerated categories ... unless you think that Buddhists might just be Sabians. Or that the full verse respects anyone trying to be a good person, which I hope describes me. Zora (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that Zora,

I greatly appreciate your contribution to this page despite being a Buddhist. I am amazed about this and you can consider me to be a fan of yours.

However, I would like to present my opinions here.

In my little understanding, Given the context laid out in the preceding verses, this particular verse is meant to be a rebuttal to the Jewish belief that paradise i reserved for the jewish race and this is the main reason why the jews dont encourage conversion. The person has to be born a jew do follow judaism. They beleive that the rest of the human race belongs to hellfire. This verse rebuttles that belief and God makes it clear that whoever you may be the doors of islam are open to all and paradise is not reserved for any race but for those who believe that God is One(Monotheism) and do works that benefit humanity. This verse has to be understood within context and within the bigger picture of the Qur'an which encourages religious preaching. Quoting this verse per se is nothing but Qouting it out of context.

Dr.Shabbir Ahmed's translation carries the longest note in the entire work. This is what he has to say on this verse. [Note: The author of this rendition is not aware of any instance in the Qur’an where the use of Tasreef, that is, looking at the related verses, is more crucial than in the understanding of this verse. Some great commentators have misinterpreted this verse for missing related verses such as these:  Those who attain belief and call themselves Muslims and those who are Jews, and the Sabians, and Christians - whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and does works that benefit humanity, for them shall be no fear from without, nor shall grief touch them from within. [5:69]  It is inconceivable that the opponents of the truth, whether they are the People of the Book, or the idolaters, could get out of error until the clear proof, Al-Qur’an, comes to them. [98:1-3]  The non-Israelite Prophet liberates the People of the Book from the shackles of their manmade dogmas and brings them from darkness to light. [7:157]  They say, “Be Jews or Christians, then you will be rightly guided.” Say, “Nay, we follow the way of Abraham (Ibrahim), the upright. He associated no partner with the One True God.” [2:135]  O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! Say, “We believe in God and the revelation that has been conveyed to us, and in what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael (Ismail), Isaac (Ishaq), Jacob (Ya’qoob), as well as the tribal Israelite Prophets - and in what was given to Moses (Musa) and Jesus (‘Isa) and to other Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction among them since all of them were one in purpose and they got their guidance from the One True God. And for Him, we are Muslims.” [2:136] Thus, if they come to believe as you believe, then they are rightly 33 guided. But if they turn away, they will be falling into opposition and God will be Sufficient for you against them. He is the Hearer, the Knower. [2:137] [O You who have chosen to be graced with belief = O You who acknowledge the Qur’an. Reflecting on the above verses makes it clear that the belief in God and the Last Day must be in accordance with the Qur’an. Verses 2:62 and 5:69 emphasize that mere giving of a name to one’s religion or creed carries no importance. Sabians = Once a small Monotheistic community that started merging with their environment. In the Judeo-Christian milieu they preferred to announce themselves as ‘Followers of John the Baptist’. They sometimes claimed to follow a way between Judaism and Christianity. In Persia, they subscribed to many views of Zoroastrianism. In Arabia, they joined hands with the ‘nature-worshipers’ or ‘Star-worshipers’. Mostly living in Arabia, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Persia, they modified their beliefs most suited to thetheir environment. In some ways, their attitude resembled the modern Agnostics]

As such this verse has a specific context to it and taking it per se amounts to Quoting the qur'an out of context and undermines the importance of preaching in Islam.

Hence The possible solution to this could be either of the following

1. To replace the verse with another one as this is only a translation page aimed to show the difference between translations. Or 2. To Make a clear note of the context on the page(atleast specifying as to how the muslims understand this verse) Or 3. To Add the translation of another verse in addition to 2:62 which reflects a common Muslim Belief Or 4. Create a Wikipage for 2:62 and add the comments of these translators as to how they understand the verse and other info regarding this verse and provide a link to that page from the translation page.

Kindly suggest which of these seems feasible as I am kinda new here

Sayed.Suhail 02:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayed.Suhail (talk • contribs)

Suhail? Is Sayed being used as a title or a name? Anyway, that is your teacher's understanding of the Qur'an, and yours, but it is not what all Muslims have believed. Many have taken those verses completely literally. Anyone NOT a Christian, Jew, or Sabian was a kafir, like the pagans of Mecca, and there could be nothing but war with kafirs. The Afghan conquest of what is now called Nuristan, which was fairly recent, was both bloody and intolerant. They called it Kafiristan before it was conquered. If I were a Muslima I would probably be a Mevlevi or a Chisti and take the most tolerant possible view of the verse; I know that there are many Muslims who feel that way; but they are only a portion of the ummah.

I cannot see that your personal discomfort with that verse, your feeling that it might cause people to misunderstand Islam, is relevant. It's a well-known verse and a good test for a translator. I strongly object to any changes. Zora (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

As such this verse has a specific context to it and taking it per se amounts to Quoting the qur'an out of context and undermines the importance of preaching in Islam.

Hence The possible solution to this could be either of the following

1. To replace the verse with another one as this is only a translation page aimed to show the difference between translations. Or 2. To Make a clear note of the context on the page(atleast specifying as to how the muslims understand this verse) Or 3. To Add the translation of another verse in addition to 2:62 which reflects a common Muslim Belief Or 4. Create a Wikipage for 2:62 and add the comments of these translators as to how they understand the verse and other info regarding this verse and provide a link to that page from the translation page.

Kindly suggest which of these seems feasible as I am kinda new here

Sayed.Suhail 02:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayed.Suhail (talk • contribs)

Suhail? Is Sayed being used as a title or a name? Anyway, that is your teacher's understanding of the Qur'an, and yours, but it is not what all Muslims have believed. Many have taken those verses completely literally. Anyone NOT a Christian, Jew, or Sabian was a kafir, like the pagans of Mecca, and there could be nothing but war with kafirs. The Afghan conquest of what is now called Nuristan, which was fairly recent, was both bloody and intolerant. They called it Kafiristan before it was conquered. If I were a Muslima I would probably be a Mevlevi or a Chisti and take the most tolerant possible view of the verse; I know that there are many Muslims who feel that way; but they are only a portion of the ummah.

I cannot see that your personal discomfort with that verse, your feeling that it might cause people to misunderstand Islam, is relevant. It's a well-known verse and a good test for a translator. I strongly object to any changes. Zora (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Zora for your instant feedback,

As for Kufr, I think the term is used today to describe a non-muslim in the muslim world. The term Kafir applies equally to Jews,Christians and Sabians aike. Some Qur'anist scholars understand the term as those who reject Islam after it becomes clear to them that Islam is the truth and they reject it due to personal prejudices or social limitations.

I clearly havent heard any scholar describing a jew or a christian being a muslim. This verse if understood without reference to the context is in open conflict with the rest of the Qur'an. However, I will definitely read through other translations and consult different scholars(Salafi,Ahmadiya,Sunni,Shia) to see if what you say is true. I admit that my teachers of the Qur'an have primarily been Quranists and Rationalists like Shabbir Ahmad,GA Parwez,Allama Iqbal etc. However I am not comfortable with what you are saying that Jews, Christians are in a way muslims, iam kinda sure that most muslims dont think that way.

But anyways, I will collect material to substantiate my views and will revert back. I dont want my views to be read by wikipedia readers, But if this is what most muslims feel, I will do everything needed to get this changed.

Verses like "Dont say Trinity" and "They say:Allah has begotten a son" are directly targeted against jewish and christian beliefs and openly contradict verse 2:62. The contradiction solves when 2:62 is understood within the context laid out in preceding verses.

As I said I will have to learn more about this verse from various schools of muslim thought, as i cant reject your opinions on face value and will revert back.

As for right now requesting other members to present thier opinions on this subject as just 2 people cant decide the fate of this page.

Thanks again Zora, You have convinced me to leave this page alone for a few day until I do my home work. Sayed.Suhail 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Sayed.Suhail (talk • contribs)

OK, then I'm using the word kafir wrong. Perhaps I should use the word pagan. Someone who is not be tolerated, cannot be a dhimmi and pay jizya. I have an idea. If you think that this verse gives a bad impression of Islam, instead of removing it, how about adding another verse? Something like Ayat an-nur, 24:35. That is a beautiful, beloved verse. If you wanted to do the work, collecting that verse from all the Quran translations would balance things. Zora (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I would wait until I understand how this verse is understood by various schools of muslim thought. For now,I have found Abdullah Yusuf Ali to be in agreement with me. His Comment No:77 on this verse is as follows: C77. CF. 2:38, where the same phrase occurs. And it recurs again and again afterwards. The point of the verse is that Islam does not teach an exclusive doctrine, and is not meant exclusively for one people. The Jews claimed this for themselves, and the Christians in their own origin were a sect of the Jews. Even the modern organized Christian churches, though they have been, consciously or unconsciously, influenced by the Time-spirit, including the historical fact of Islam, yet cling to the idea of Vicarious Atonement, which means that all who do not believe in it or who lived previously to the death of Christ are at a disadvantage spiritually before the Throne of Allah. The attitude of Islam is entirely different. Islam existed before the preaching of Muhammad on this earth: the Quran expressly calls Abraham a Muslim (3:67). Its teaching (submission to Allah's will) has been and will be the teaching of Religion for all time and for all peoples.

Personally I dont see the christian angle here. Its more of an argument against the jewish belief. I dont think this verse gives any negative image to islam. To say that would amount to making an allegation against you.

As regards intolerance I dont see this verse even touching that subject at all. Tolerance is talked about in surah kaafiroon and the verse that says no compulsion in religion. My name is Sayed Suhail but i prefer being called Suhail. As regards to you being Buddhist, I strongly think Buddha could have been a Prophet of allah, as understood by a buddhist convert muslim scholar Shaykh Hussain Ye.

My only concern is this verse taken per se without the context discourages preaching and absorbs the jews and christians into the realms of Islam, that understanding is not acceptable when we look at the quran in its bigger picture. Islam is a religion and there is nothing secular about it except to be tolerant to other religions. This verse taken per se tends to give a secular outlook to islam which is very untrue. The Qur'an encourages preaching throughout. However, I would like to do justice to your opinions and do some research as to how other translators and scholars understand this verse before making any further changes.

For right now GA Parwez's exposition that I added earlier serves the purpose.

Sayed.Suhail 00:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Sayed.Suhail (talk)

Suhail, not all Christian sects believe in vicarious atonement. As for the rest of your comments ... you seem to be very concerned that the article give the right impression and explanation of Islam, per your way of thinking, and that is NOT WHAT IT IS FOR. You cannot use the article to preach. It must be neutral, as much as possible. NPOV. Neutral point of view. Zora (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Zora, Dont Misunderstand me, I disagree with the christian part of the argument. This is Abdullah Yusuf Ali's comment on the verse not mine. I agree with the jewish part of his statement. I am not trying to do Dawa here. This is not the place for it at all. It Must be neutral. Thats my point. At this moment the verse presented is against basic common muslim beliefs if presented without context and steals the neutrality of the article. I pasted the comment only because Abdullah yusuf Ali agreed with the jewish aspect of the verse as understood by GA Parwez as well which you initially thought is only my personal belief and that of my teacher.

I reiterate that I will not change the verse 2:62 until I do my homework and make sure that most muslims would not accept this verse being presented without context. For now, I have found a popular translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali substantiating my view and I just wanted to update you on my find. But rest assured, I will behave in accordance to the Wikipedian Spirit. Also if you can be kind enough to leave a message on my talk page as to how to sign this page. Its damn embarassing to have the bot sign it for me everytime. The four tildes arent doing the job. Sayed.Suhail 05:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayed.Suhail (talk • contribs)

Suggesting 2 changes

Abdullah yusuf ali's translation of 2:62 is duplicated. There is no difference at all between the original and the revised and the revised must therefore be deleted.

It would be worthwile to mention about Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation that it was widely publicised and popularised by extraordinarly popular debator/preacher Ahmed Deedat(there is a wikipage about him) in the 1980's.He would advertise the book in all his lectures and debates and encourage muslims and non muslims to buy a copy of it.

Hope there is no objection to these changes. (Sayed.Suhail 03:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayed.Suhail (talk • contribs)

Removing duplication sounds OK. Adding extra info to Abddullah Yusuf Ali would be OK, as it's an early, historic translation, BUT ... the info really should be sourced. If you are basing your comment on a personal knowledge of Ahmed Deedat, you could be wrong. Also, you must be careful to be neutral. This is not a page for dawa. It is here to help people who might want to study the history of Qur'an translation into English (who may not be Muslims) or to help people who may want to read or buy a translation (and they may not be Muslim). Zora (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Zora, Completely understand the spirit of Wikipedia and will do nothing to Harm it.

Sayed.Suhail 04:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayed.Suhail (talk • contribs)

Will a link to a video lecture qualify as a source? This fact is mentioned on Deedat's wikipage,Does that qualify as a source? --Sayed.Suhail 05:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayed.Suhail (talk • contribs)

If it's on Deedat's own page, that is not a reliable source. His followers could be boasting. If there is a video lecture of Deedat, that still does not prove it. He could be recommending the translation in the 1980s ... but the translation was first published in 1934. That is a fifty-year gap. Was the translation completely unknown before Deedat? You would need a citation from some neutral authority, someone who has studied the rise and fall of various Qur'an translations, to support your hypothesis. I do not think that anyone has done that. It would require looking at sales figures for various translations in many countries, over many years. That would be original research, which is not allowed. (Well, it is done, in articles that don't attract any attention or criticism, but I do not think that would be OK here.) Actually, this would be a good subject for research, for an MA thesis perhaps, or a scholarly journal article. If you could do it and get it published, then we could cite you.

I don't know why the four tildes is not working. Perhaps it is the period in your username? Zora (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Zora, I came to know that the saudi government sponsored Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation in 1985 until they replaced it in 1996 with muhsin khan's translation. Deedat popularised it starting from before 1980 in all his video lectures. Deedat was a popular figure in Saudi around that time as he got an award from the saudi king in 1986, just one year after the sponsorship of the translation. There may be a connection here. Deedat's lectures may have inspired the saudi government to sponsor this translation. Or these could be 2 separate facts. Do let me know if you come across some info. Another point of historic interest would be though this translation was done in 1934, it remained the most important one through 1996 when the saudis changed thier mind(possibly because of sectarian concerns of Yusuf Ali being a Bohra you see)and is popular even today. The Muhsin khan translation sponsored by the present saudi's has won criticism for inserting questionable hadith literature into the english translation of the quran though kept inside parantheses.

Again putting these things on hold until more information is collected. For now just deleting the duplicate entry. Sayed.Suhail (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What you say sounds reasonable and is probably right ... but we can't add it based on your impressions. You need citations. I really do mean it about writing an academic article, if there isn't one already. Zora (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well about writing an academic article, I dont think I am that skilled. But I understand the need for citations completely. Will see if there are available ones already. Saw one on the IPCI website but we are looking for neutral 3rd party sources. Will try to search for it and in case you come across something.Do lemme know. Thanks Sayed.Suhail (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Syed Sakhawat Ali

Someone added a translation from Urdu to English by Sakhawat Ali. I found the website referenced, but I could find no online record (that I could read, in English) of any printed publication, nor of the translator. I am not at all sure that this supposed translation is in fact new, or very different from the other three. I am removing the addition until there is reason to believe that this translation is new and notable.

I am not sure why there are translations from Urdu to English in any case. That seems odd. Most translators prefer to work directly from the Arabic original. I am not sure what is added, besides noise and inaccuracy, by interposing another language in the translation chain. Zora (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

What is this article?

At the moment it's neither a complete list (like the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_translations_of_the_Quran ) nor does it add anything further. Seems like it's redundant and a candidate for deletion, unless it can be significantly improved? MrHarambe (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I added the above statement 2 months ago and since that time there hasn't been any comment, and the only activity on the page has been to add advertising links. MrHarambe (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sunni vs. Shia?

Why is there a separate section in the article for translations by Sunni Muslim scholars rather than listing them in the main chronological list? Are all the translations in the "20th century" and "21st century" translations by Shia Muslim scholars? (I am not familiar with the translators or their translations and don't know whether they are Shia or Sunni.) Either the translations should be organized chronologically or they should be organized by the translator's branch of Islam, but the current structure of the list does not make sense. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It should be arranged chronologically or by denomination. Maybe because the list is so long it would make sense to break it into denomination at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.196.137.114 (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree at this point arranging it by sect makes sense to avoid editing wars and repeat translations. --Zaynab1418 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)