Customer Reviews

The Holy Qur'an

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

An excellent English translation of the Quran by a reknown Muslim scholar. Other versions of this translation also contains historical commentary to make it easier to understand the history and context of much of what is written, and helps to eliminate many common misunderstandings and misconceptions. A common misconception of Islam in the west is that it teaches hatred and religious intolerance. In truth this is not the case in real Islam. The portions that would seem at first glance to deliver such a message are shown clearly through the commentary not to be doing so, but rather is more of a historical commentary in much the same way as the wars in the Old Testament of the Bible are described. All in all an excellent translation for a native English speaker wishing to understand the core concepts of true Islam, and to also eliminate the common misconceptions surrounding it. Beyond this excellent commentary, the translation itself is very good, if perhaps using a vocabulary a bit more in line with more educated readers. All in all an excellent translation, and a must read for anyone interested in Islam. If you are only going to buy one translation of the Quran - make it this one - but consider one that includes the commentary also.

I would like to say that this book is certainly worth one's while to have on your shelf. I find that I tend to prefer Shakir's translation (or if you prefer, interpretation), but both do an excellent job of applying the Early Modern English of the King James Bible to the Qur'an. I mention this because Yusuf Ali made a conscious decision to be not arcane, but archaic; the King James Bible has remained as popular as it has because of its elevated style, and attempts by Qur'an translators to use the same kind of language, then as now, were attempts to pay the Qur'an the highest compliment by using the highest language available in English. In fact, I would argue that both Yusuf Ali and Shakir's translations (I've not read others in their entirety) use archaism often to greater effect than in some parts of the Bible. I mention this because the "revised" edition of Yusuf Ali's interpretation distributed by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc. completely removes the translator's original archaisms (i.e., the use of "thee" and "thou," etc.) in an effort to make it more accessible to modern readers (I can't stand this choice for my own reading, although I now use that edition to lend to friends who are interested in an introduction).

In terms of parenthetical additions to the text (I don't know if there is a more technical term for these kinds of glosses), I could frankly do without them in either translation--although I understand this is often standard practice--I feel that both tend to make up for what at least beginners might consider the other's shortcomings. It is certainly worth buying in conjunction with Shakir's for the latter's topical index in its Tahrike Tarsile edition. One thing that beginners might also wish to consider is that to my understanding, Yusuf Ali's translation is more respected among Sunnis whereas Shakir's, among Shi'ites. (Does anyone know if there is an English translation particularly respected among Sufis?)

One might wish to consider if interested in Yusuf Ali's translation is that for the most part, he does not use the Arabic, but rather the Western (Biblical) names for most of the Prophets. For instant, Isa bin Maryum becomes "Jesus, Son of Mary." I do not know whether this is a desire to simply use English names for the sake of translation, or to make his interpretation more accessible to the West or to the Western-educated, but people should keep in mind that Yusuf Ali himself was a Western-educated man in what was at the time of his interpretation's publication British India. Those who come from Western backgrounds like myself will probably find this a useful convention if seeking an introduction; I am a firm believer in cross-cultural understanding, and to that end I would ask those who would prefer the Arabic names of the Qur'an to have patience with this choice of the translator. And frankly, any little thing that could help give Westerners an easier time understanding of Islam is especially crucial in this day and age, what with the "burqa" laws of France, the Low Countries, and even (sadly) Québec; Little Mosque On The Prairie is a valuable cultural touchstone, but it can only do so much.

Finally, although I am myself an atheist, I would like to mention one thing about this particular edition for the benefit of observant Muslims. Namely, that this is a Wordsworth Library Edition, and as such it contains a portrait of the English poet William Wordsworth on its spine. Now for reasons both annoy and mistify me, the publisher will often put Wordsworth's portrait on the front cover as well, although the Qur'an has fortunately been spared this embarassment. Not that what remains is particularly conspicuous either; the miniature portrait on the spine can't be more than one square half-inch, but it is there nonetheless.

I haven't made it all the way through this book... but, as I continue to read I find new ways of thinking about what I believe and solidify what I have always thought... there is more that we have in common than not. I am looking forward to finishing this book... so, I can start again. I am sure I will read this many many times over many many years. I will always be Catholic... but, expanding my understanding in other religions helps me understand the world around me and have a deeper understanding of my own faith. I would highly recommend this interpretation of the Quran... it is not difficult to read (requires focus and thoughtful reading) and seems more "modern" in language than other versions I have previewed.

I bought this translation of the Quran (Tafsir) and it is great. I actually gave it to my friend to read because she was interested in Islam and now has become a Muslim. Abdullah Yusuf Ali has a great translation and love his work.

This paperback version of The Qur'an was just as good as any other that I've read, but if you plan to rely on it for daily use, then obvioulsy you'll need to buy one with a more reliable quality - perhaps a leather-cover or hardcover one.

On time delivery, book quality quite high, especially for a paperback, delivery in good condition.

I read this book cover to cover; ok, I speeded up in places when the text became overly repetitive and tedious. My review is not based on whether this is a good or bad translation - I don't know Arabic and can make no comment on the fidelity of the translation to the original. I remain puzzled why it is claimed that the Koran is not really translatable. This is in itself curious as it is odd that God would chose to communicate Himself through a people whose language was incapable of proper translation. Is the literary form of the text more important than the content of the text? It should be noted that the translation is old fashioned.

There is a mixture of styles - the shorter verses are cryptic and soothsayerish/prophetic (and more satisfying poetically) whilst the largest (older?) verses tend to be more labored and repetitive. The book is highly referential and does not really stand on its own. The numerous repeats of the Moses and Noah stories, Abraham and Isaac, Sodom and Gomorrah are in my view frustratingly incomplete unless one knows the comparator texts in the Bible. Thus, as narratives, the Koranic texts can be unsatisfactory and are often baffling. In fact, because there is no real sequential narrative, one often ends a sura thinking what was the point of that. Typically, the story will begin: "has this story come to you" and the the tale will be narrated. It does not really matter what order you read the suras.

Hell and its accompanying graphic punishments appear in practically every sura and are told with a kind of relish. The text is replete with violence and aggression and goes so far as to prescribe violence against the unbelievers. I know this is controversial as there is another sura which prescribes no compulsion in religion. As with all religions, the text needs to be interpreted. But, it seems to me that, to say that that Islam is a religion of peace requires considerable nuancing and explaining and disregarding of key texts and perhaps even the tone/gist of the text as a whole. The text also engages in considerable anti-Jewish/Christian polemics - God has no son, there is no Trinity, Jesus was not crucified, the Jews broke their covenant etc etc etc.

There is a curious text in Surat, 33:6, as follows: "The prophet is closer to believers than they are to themselves". Perhaps its the translation but this sounds very much like what Augustine says of God, namely that God is closer to ourselves than we are to ourselves. I wonder what was meant. Does he mean that the messenger is closer to each person than each beleiving personis to the other believing person (a fairly major claim to make nonetheless) or that the messenger is closer to the believing person than that believing person is to himself (echoing Augustine)? This latter interpretation would not be acceptable to anyone (as that would be a Divine prerorgative)and thus I cannot imagine that is what he meant.

Textually, there are contradictions for which Muslim scholars prescribe the rule of abrogation. Because, for muslims, the text came direct from God through Gabriel and through the messenger, such rules are needed to explain the inconsistencies. The apparent tendency of God to contradict himself (i.e. abrogating earlier verses), manifesting His absolute transcendence, means that rational discourse with followers of Islam may be difficult. For muslims, God is not Logos - the Word did not become flesh. God can do as He pleases. Nevertheless, respectful dialogue must be actively pursued in the interests of peace.

The impression one gets from reading the book is: well there are some good bits (the names of God for one, encouraging people to be virtuous etc, poetic bits about God's transcendence) and there are some bad bits: prescribing the slaying of people. The granting of privileges (not accorded to other believers) to the messenger is puzzling and is in contrast to other religions where the religious founders/prophets, far from giving themselves special privileges, set themselves up as paragons of virtue by denying themselves. The latter makes one inclined to consider that some verses have been specifically designed to satisfy the messenger's needs at a particular point in his career. Western readers will have difficulty with such things as prescribing violence, laxity in marriage laws, polygamy, and permitting sexual relations with one's female slaves (never mind having slaves in the first place!) Aside from the fact that the messenger is granted privileges, it is disturbing that in one sura it is said that those who annoy God and his messenger will be cursed and punished!

One comes away baffled by the lack of clarity as to how Islam stands on the Old and New Testaments - the messenger borrows heavily from the Torah and seems to respect it - likewise he respects Jesus, Mary etc but their function in the Koranic text is simply not explained. Thus, one is left with the question: why are they in the text? The references waft in and out without any explanation - the story of Zachariah is a case in point. He just appears and disappears without any meaning to his appearance in the text. Jesus is born of a virgin and he will come at the end of time. But, what was Jesus' message and why is it not the messenger who was born of a virgin and who comes at the end of the time? Leaving aside, of course, that the tone and content of the Koran contradicts the tone and content of the gospels, what is the purpose of these other religious figures in the Koran? They appear like stage props.

The overall impression that this is a derivative text (reference to the Torah, echoes of the gospels/Gnostic writings etc)) for the Arabic peoples to give them a religious foundation in believing that God is One, to get them away from polytheism and to give them a sense of unity. They are thus given a foundational story, heavily leaning on the stories of the Jews but at the same time distancing themselves from Jews and Christians with much polemic. The question is why do Arabs need a new text at all - what is wrong with the Torah? (their leaning towards a rules based approach makes them, at first sight, more inclined to follow the Law than the gospel?) The answer given in the text is: schism of the Jews and Christians (and misinterpretation by the Jews) but given that Islam immediately enters into schism itself following the death of the messenger, this is hardly credible.

A key problem with the text is that it is the work of one man with his limitations and frailties (note, this is not what the muslims believe) and with his own style of communicating. Whilst there is a big difference between the earlier and later suras, that difference is not so sufficient as to remove the monochrome nature of the work. There is a metaphor, the Oneness of God is so absolute in Islam that He gives his message through One man in One historical context. In the Bible, God is One but he is also constituted in relationships of community, thus He gives his message through many persons in a multiplicity of literal forms (history/facts/mythic stories/love poetry/prayers/gospels/letters/apocalyptic literature/wisdom literature) in different historical conditions and finally reveals Himself in his Son. In other words, the Bible is a work immersed in relationships.

I write this review, as a believing Christian, conscious that in my own scriptures (the Old Testament), violence abounds. But, as a Christian, I profess that the Bible is inspired, not that every single word is the exact word of God. I am also conscious that in the Bible there is a process of God revealing Himself over time - this means what we get in our religious texts is God being mediated through man complete with real historical warts and all. This inevitably leads (as in the Torah where violence is plentiful) to man spinning sacred myths (God's wrath) to justify man's propensity towards evil and sacred violence. But, the truth is gradually revealed in the prophets and finally in Christ: God is love and he calls us to love Him and our neighbor.

However, Muslims believe that the Koran is God's word. This is highly problematic and perhaps they will find a way, going forward, to nuance this belief and move towards allegorical interpretation. Would I recommend this book to anyone? Yes, I would recommend it to anyone of good will who wishes to know what muslims believe. I would specially recommend it to Christians, so that any tendency to relativise religious beliefs is dispelled. The Christian scriptures are indeed unique in depicting God as intervening decisively in human history and showing Himself on the Cross, as a God who loves us until the end.

The seller was kind enough to notify me that this older translation was out-of-stock and no more were expected.

Apparently every translation from Arabic to English is at the mercy of the translater so each version is different.

Owing to the current political situation, I had been looking for an older translation in an attempt to learn more about the beliefs of Islam. Apparently, there is a companion book, "The Surah" which expands on the life and thoughts of Mohammed; but I have been unable to find it.