[bapimporb]

Salam

I have recently researched several translators of the Holy Quraan in English, and came to a conclusion that Abdullah Yusuf Ali is a Ismaili Shia, not only that but also his copies of the Quraan are distributed and sold in our bookshops. E.g Al Azhar Book store, Whitechapel (East London),etc. How could we rely on such books and there authenticity. Because a person who translates the Quran from Arabic to English must be a Sunni and reliable.

I respect Pickthall because of his history with the Nawabs of Hyderabad and recognition in the English Muslim speaking world. Please correct me if I'm wrong?


Ma Salam

And only Allah knows best

[pertikuss]

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...1&postcount=11

Majlis Ulema of South Africa has published a book called "Errors of Yusuf Ali" and they have listed 16 major mistakes of his in translation and commentary.

Under Ayat No.275 Surah Baqrah he says:

"When we come to the defination of usury there is room for difference of opinion...The defination I would acceot would be: undue profit made, not in the way of legitimate trade, out of loans of gold and silver...My defination would include profiteering of all kinds, but exclude economic credit, the creature of modern banking and finance."

So he says riba offered by modering day banking is allowed, or is not even riba.

According to him Risalat is not a requisite of Iman. Read under Ayat 62 of Surah Baqrah where he says:

"The point of the verse is that Islam doesn't teach an exclusive doctrine and is not meant exclusively for one people."

Also his denail of Hoor in Jannat and he has come up with a new defination of the word "Hoor".

According to him Jannat is just symbolic and purely spiritual and not material or physical. This was the belief also held by philosophers like ibn Sina, Farabi etc.

Also when talking about Hazrat Isa , he says:

"The end of the life of Jesus on earth is as much involved in mystery as his birth..."

Mystery? There is no mystery, we as Muslims believe he was raised up alive with his body. This is how he creates doubts in the minds of Muslims.

Then he says:

"One school holds that Jesus did not die the usual human death...another holds that he did die but not when he was supposed to be crucified, and this his being "raised up" unto God means that instead of being disgraced as a malefactor, as the Jews intended, he was on the contrary honored by God as his Apostle."

Here by the other school he is referring to Qadyanis.

And under Ayat No 33, Surah Maryam, he says:

"Christ was not crucified. But those who believe that he never died should ponder over this verse."

So he is again doing the Qadyani talk and propagating that Hazrat Isa has died a natural death.

These are only few glimpses. Those who can buy the book I have mentioned above, should get it. I will try to scan the whole book and make it available online.

[WaydayNef]

Mufti Taqi's translation is the way to go. I think central mosque has it up on their site. I think there's another translation by Asiha Bewley, she uses the warsh.

[WertyNtont]

I've been using Yusuf Ali's translation and it is widely sold and most accessible one. So what is the most reliable substitute for it?

this whole misconception among the ummah just worns me out.

[gettoblaster]

Dear brothers & sisters, Assalaamoalaikum.

The correctness of a translation depends only on one'ws mastery of the language in which the original text is and one's mastery of the language in which we wish to translate the original text. A correct translation is not function of one's belonging to a particular group, so long , obviously, that one is sincere in what one is doing.

Secondly, one must make a difference between a translation and a commentary. One may not agree with the commentaries made by a translator; but that does not mean that his translation is de facto wrong or not trustworthy.

Brotherly yours,
farook

[TeksPaisimi]

Asslamo Allaikum,

The South African Article is about the original translation which has been revised and during the last 20+ years I have never even seen the original anywhere; it has been out of print for ages. If my memory serves me well then the South African book was printed in mid-80's...I may be wrong as in old age people go senile and stuff

I beleive that what is now available in the Market; should be good-to-go

In any case here is Mufti Taqi Usmani's Translation:

http://www.central-mosque.com/quran/...mufti_taqi.pdf

And here is the Tafseer of 30th Juz (which is even newer), if we can update the whole Qur'aan (even just the translation) it was finished in 2003) that'll be grand

http://www.central-mosque.com/quran/...mufti_taqi.pdf

Anyone who wants to help us get the latest Tafseer project (see above) please send an e-mail, Insha'Allah...

Even better then Mufti Taqi Usmani's translation is Mufti Afzal Hoosen's Quran Made Easy with Transliteration & Translation in fluency etc; which can be purchased from Azhar Academy etc...

Please note that the the above two are the only English translations by contemporary Scholars.

[CibQueersejer]

Salaam.

Yes as Brother Muadh Khan, has pointed out it has been revised, so there should not be any problems then.

I personally think this just confuses people, more so Newly practicing muslims. "don't read this," " don't read that"

the fact is many people have embraced Islam after reading that translation, and its a good translatiopn for beginners.

We have similarly objections raised against, "The sealed Nectar" for no other reason then the fact the author is Salaafi.

we have objections being raised about anything written by Maulana Mawdudi,
his work has also inspired many people to start practicing the deen.

[topbonusescod]

Assalam Alaikum wa rahmat Allah,

Abdulah yousef Ali (RA) spend over twenty years of his life for the famous yousef Ali translation. I have seen two criticism of his work it is mostly accusation and for the most part lack adab on dealing with scholar of high caliber in our deen. Only Prophet SAS is amune from mistakes. few mistake does not invalidadte his blessed efforts. You can judge the work by it's fruits. perhaps billions have benefited from his work and still are. His work is a English masterpiece in quran translation. May Allah (SWT) be pleased with him.
Wassalam

[Dilangos]

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...1&postcount=11

Those errors appear to be in commentary only.

Are there any errors in translation?

[Spongebob]

I take issue with this statement: "((Allah)) Most Gracious is firmly established on the throne (of authority)," which A. Y. Ali claims is the meaning of [TaHa 20:5].

Since tafweed is impossible while translating (translation necessarily involves choosing a particular meaning for the original words), any translator must rely on the ta'weel of those scholars who have made ta'weel.

The 'Ash'ari school gives more than one acceptable ta'weel for this verse. "established" is not one of them (to my knowledge). Especially since the word 'establish' gives a sense of place when used in conjunction with 'on.'

It would have been preferable if he had chosen a word like "dominates" - ie. "Allah dominates the throne." 'Dominate' is not only one of the denotations of the verb istawaa, but also is entirely consistent with the other verses of the Qur'an like "laysa kamithlihi shay'" and "al-WaaHid ul-Qahhaar."

[TeksPaisimi]

I take issue with this statement: "((Allah)) Most Gracious is firmly established on the throne (of authority)," which A. Y. Ali claims is the meaning of [TaHa 20:5].

Since tafweed is impossible while translating (translation necessarily involves choosing a particular meaning for the original words), any translator must rely on the ta'weel of those scholars who have made ta'weel.

The 'Ash'ari school gives more than one acceptable ta'weel for this verse. "established" is not one of them (to my knowledge). Especially since the word 'establish' gives a sense of place when used in conjunction with 'on.'

It would have been preferable if he had chosen a word like "dominates" - ie. "Allah dominates the throne." 'Dominate' is not only one of the denotations of the verb istawaa, but also is entirely consistent with the other verses of the Qur'an like "laysa kamithlihi shay'" and "al-WaaHid ul-Qahhaar."

W-Salam,

I would like to respectfully disagree with you because Mufti Taqi Usmani (RA) translates this as:

[20:5] The Rahman (Allah, the All-Merciful) has positioned Himself on the Throne.

In the updated Translation it says the same..

[20:5] The Rahman (Allah, the All-Merciful) has positioned Himself on the Throne.

http://www.islamibayanaat.com/MQ/Eng...age-66-124.pdf

In my humble opinion since But both Mufti Shafi Usmani (RA) & Mufti Taqi Usmani (DB)'s Aqeedah is Tafweedh Al-Manaa & Kaifiyyah & not Ta'weel that could be a reason for such a translation? Deobandees don't do Ta'weel.

Since Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation is updated by Saudees and Ulama (in New York & Viriginia); I suppose the former is upon the Dhaahir and the later upon Tafweedh Al-Manaa & Kaifiyyah...

Your Comments on the matter will be welcome, Insha'Allah

[Spongebob]

He translated the verse extremely literally.

But if you read the tafseer that follows, you will see that they reject the understanding of Allah being in a place. So that begs the question, "then why did they translate the ayah the way that they did?"

It's inconsistent. They say one thing, then reject it.

And when I met Mufti Taqi Usmani, he spoke via an interpreter. That also begs the question as to whether his mastery of English is strong enough to understand the implications of what he said. I, personally, do not think that the phrase "has positioned Himself on the throne" can bear any meaning other than being in a place. Perhaps Mufti Usmani thought that that particular English sentence is more ambiguous than it actually is. Maybe he was just translating literally word-for-word, and relying on the tafseer to clarify the meaning.

Either way, I take issue with that wording as well.

I don't think that there are ANY 100% acceptable English versions.




And there is no such thing as translation with tafweed. To do tafweed, you have to refuse to give a meaning to the ayah. By translating it, you are saying, "This is what it means." They cannot be justified. The only other possibility that I can think of is that Mufti Usmani expected readers to NOT give a meaning to the English statement that he wrote either. But that's still not tafweed. Tafweed is to pass along the statement EXACTLY as it was relayed to us by Allah's Messenger without giving a meaning to it. To pass along an English sentence without giving a meaning to it is not the same. The English sentence is not from an infallible source.

[gettoblaster]

He translated the verse extremely literally.

But if you read the tafseer that follows, you will see that they reject the understanding of Allah being in a place. So that begs the question, "then why did they translate the ayah the way that they did?"

It's inconsistent. They say one thing, then reject it.

And when I met Mufti Taqi Usmani, he spoke via an interpreter. That also begs the question as to whether his mastery of English is strong enough to understand the implications of what he said. I, personally, do not think that the phrase "has positioned Himself on the throne" can bear any meaning other than being in a place. Perhaps Mufti Usmani thought that that particular English sentence is more ambiguous than it actually is. Maybe he was just translating literally word-for-word, and relying on the tafseer to clarify the meaning.

Either way, I take issue with that wording as well.

I don't think that there are ANY 100% acceptable English versions.




And there is no such thing as translation with tafweed. To do tafweed, you have to refuse to give a meaning to the ayah. By translating it, you are saying, "This is what it means." They cannot be justified. The only other possibility that I can think of is that Mufti Usmani expected readers to NOT give a meaning to the English statement that he wrote either. But that's still not tafweed. Tafweed is to pass along the statement EXACTLY as it was relayed to us by Allah's Messenger without giving a meaning to it. To pass along an English sentence without giving a meaning to it is not the same. The English sentence is not from an infallible source.

Dear Brother, Assalaamoalaikum,

When Allah (SWT) revealed a verse, He definitely wanted those to whom the verse was revealed to fully understand the verse. This means that He did attach a meaning to the verse.

Now, if I were translating that verse, I would try to impart to the translated verse the same meaning (obviously, to my best understanding of the meaning of the arabic verse).

So, saying that in translating a verse, one should refrain from attaching a meaning to it, does not seem to be the correct way of translating.

Brotherly yours
farook

[TeksPaisimi]

He translated the verse extremely literally.

But if you read the tafseer that follows, you will see that they reject the understanding of Allah being in a place. So that begs the question, "then why did they translate the ayah the way that they did?"

It's inconsistent. They say one thing, then reject it.

And when I met Mufti Taqi Usmani, he spoke via an interpreter. That also begs the question as to whether his mastery of English is strong enough to understand the implications of what he said. I, personally, do not think that the phrase "has positioned Himself on the throne" can bear any meaning other than being in a place. Perhaps Mufti Usmani thought that that particular English sentence is more ambiguous than it actually is. Maybe he was just translating literally word-for-word, and relying on the tafseer to clarify the meaning.

Either way, I take issue with that wording as well.

I don't think that there are ANY 100% acceptable English versions.




And there is no such thing as translation with tafweed. To do tafweed, you have to refuse to give a meaning to the ayah. By translating it, you are saying, "This is what it means." They cannot be justified. The only other possibility that I can think of is that Mufti Usmani expected readers to NOT give a meaning to the English statement that he wrote either. But that's still not tafweed. Tafweed is to pass along the statement EXACTLY as it was relayed to us by Allah's Messenger without giving a meaning to it. To pass along an English sentence without giving a meaning to it is not the same. The English sentence is not from an infallible source.

Asslamo Allaikum,

In my humble opinion you are misunderstanding Tafweedh Al Man'aa...Let me quote Br Abu_Layth below:

Sidi, tafwid al ma'anaa means that one REFERs/Entrusts THE MEANING TO ALLAH, it does not mean that we do not know the meaning of that specific word in the language. Again, it means that the knowledge and REAL MEANING are only known by Allah. If we affirm the meaning in the language it results in tamtheel/tashbeeh.

And to quote Shaykh GF Hadad:

There is no disagreement over the fact that istiwa' is real. Anyone that denies it is a kafir since it is in the Qur'an. What is rejected is vulgar, meddlesome, ignorant literalism and the attribution of istiwa' to Allah SWT as an attribute of the Essence as if the Throne existed without beginning, like the Essence!

So Mufti Taqi Usmani has done exactly that i.e. translated it with the meaning in English.

[Spongebob]

So Mufti Taqi Usmani has done exactly that i.e. translated it with the meaning in English.

wa'alaykumussalaam,

Your sentence above is exactly why I think you're wrong.

Summarized answer:
Basically, Mufti Usmani selected, out of approximately 11 possible meanings of that ayah, exactly ONE meaning. Then he authored an English sentence which bears that ONE meaning. This is not referring the meaning to Allah. This is saying, "I know which one of the 11 Allah wanted."



Long answer:
If he is practicing tafweed, then he is referring the meaning to Allah. He is saying that Allah knows the meaning, and we believe in the meaning that Allah gave to it, but we do not explicitly state a meaning for it. This is because Allah is the one who knows the meaning. Instead of giving a meaning, we just recite the ayah as it was revealed.

But the ayah wasn't revealed in English. So when you say something in English, you are NOT saying the ayah as it was revealed. Furthermore, you have chosen, out of millions of English words, to say a set of particular words, which bear a particular set of meanings. By saying the English words, you have chosen a set of meanings, and violated tafweed.



To make it clearer, imagine the following:
You are a reporter taking a statement from me. I say the sentence, "Judge Judy was transferred to the court above." It is possible that I meant, "to a court of greater authority," like an appeals court. It is also possible that I meant, "to a courtroom on a higher floor of the courthouse." In reality, I either mean one or the other. But it is not entirely clear which one I mean.

As a reporter, you have three options:
a- quote my statement in your article word-for-word.
b- eliminate the ambiguity in my statement by specifically stating that she was transferred "to the appeals court."
c- eliminate the ambiguity in my statement by specifically stating that she was transferred "to a courtroom on a higher floor."

Tafweed is like option (a). You are admitting that the speaker intended a particular meaning for his statement, but you are not sure which one, and you refuse to select one on his behalf, so instead you quote verbatim.

But option (a) cannot be employed in translation. If you give the ayah exactly as it was originally revealed, then it will be in Arabic, not English.

So you are only left with options (b), (c), and a new option (d). Option (d) is to find a set of words in English that give the EXACT same set of possible meanings as the original.


Mufti Usmani, however, did not use option (d). His English sentence, "...has positioned Himself on the Throne." cannot be interpreted to mean "dominates the throne," nor "over the throne," etc. The Arabic ayah is considerably more ambiguous than his English sentence. So he is definitely NOT using option (d).

Since he cannot use option (a), and didn't use option (d), then he clearly employed option (b/c). He gave an English sentence which conveys only a subset of the meanings that the Arabic ayah conveyed.

-----------
Note: In his defense, I don't think it is possible to employ option (d) when expressing that particular ayah in English.

[StanWatts]

^

Isn't Muhammad Asad's translation even more dangerous that Yusuf Ali's, given his ideological leanings?

[JediReturns84]

The Tafsir by Muhammad Asad is by far the best I've ever read

Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim,

I read through almost all of Muhammad Asad's commentary a couple of years ago and here are some of the dubious things I recall (correct me if I am wrong in any one of them):

-He claims that the Fuqaha who said that sexual relations with slavegirls is lawful were wrong (not that there is any difference of opinion on the issue), citing Muhammad Abduh. (seeing as you're a Maliki bro, check out Al-Risala)

-He denies that angels are physical beings.

-He claims that the hijab is not obligatory.

-He makes absurd remarks about the miracles of the Chosen One [SallAllahu alayhi wa Sallam] {specifically his denial of the splitting of the moon if I remember correct}

-He has 2 appendices which completely contradict the views of the Ahlul Sunnah, namely on Jinn and on the Miraaj.

-He is against the 4 madhabs.


Again, this is all from memory, I don't have the energy right now to flip through the commentary to give you exact quotations but inshAllah you can check it for yourself.


And bro, Imam Al-Zamakhshari (who Muhammad Asad quotes extensively) was a Mu'tazili though he belonged to the Hanafi Madhab. May Allah forgive us and may Allah forgive them.

Wa Salam

[mrllxp]

Muhammad Assad was known to have Mu'tazili leanings.

Besides that, generally only some Ikhwanis, and Progressivists support his translations, showing what kind of opinions he has.

Also, while I personally favor the Mufti Taqi Usmani translation, as it is the most correct in terms of translation, I did notice one issue, which may be a mistake:

وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلاَئِكَةِ اسْجُدُواْ لآدَمَ فَسَجَدُواْ إِلاَّ إِبْلِيسَ أَبَى وَاسْتَكْبَرَ وَكَانَ مِنَ الْكَافِرِينَ

And when We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourselves before ‘Adam!" So, they prostrated themselves, all but Iblis (Satan). He refused, and became one of the infidels.

Isn't the bolded portion left out of the translation?

My Arabic comprehension is still pretty elementary, so forgive me if I've erred.

[JediReturns84]

Um, ok. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I'll refer you to my last post right above yours:

Wa laykum Salam,

I read your previous post, that's why I took the time to write what I did.

It's your choice bro. May Allah [SWT] reward you.

Wa Salam

[southernplayer99]

Just noticed a translation mistake in the Yusuf Ali translation, as well as the Pickthall, in the 15ayah of surah Buruj. http://quran.com/85/15

It seems as if majeed is a sifah of zul arsh, not arsh, and the way the two translators translated it, is as if it was mudaf ilayh of arsh.