Which Koran/Qur'an would Muhammad use?

by Dale Brown

A problem that often occurs to English speaking people in reading the Qur'an is, which English version of the Qur’an to use. George Sale’s version (1734), the one that Thomas Jefferson owned, is taken from Maracci’s earlier Latin version. It was seen as an English standard for some time but it is not liked by Muslims for obvious reasons. It was dedicated to the Roman Emperor Leopold I, with an introduction entitled "Refutation of the Qur’an." Though most Muslim scholars will admit that J.M. Rodwell’s 1861 version is a fair translation, it is not well received because of his commentary which is critical of Islam. E. H. Palmer’s version (1876) is not liked because he felt it should be translated into colloquial language. A. Ross did a version but used the Du Ruer (1647) French version rather than the Arabic as the source text. The first Muslim to undertake an English translation was Dr. Muhammad ‘Abdul Hakim Khan, of Patiala, (1905). Marmaduke Pickthall (born William Pickthall in London, 1875) was an English convert to Islam whose popular 1930’s version is considered almost literal but lacks notes to elucidate the meaning of the text. He traveled and studied in India. Pickthall used the common disclaimer that "the Qur’an cannot not be translated." This is of course to dodge the criticism of those who consider it a grave sin to translate the Holy Arabic words of Allah. A version by Abdullah Yusuf Ali was published in 1934 in Lahore, Pakistan. Its endorsement by the Presidency of Islam Researches raises questions to some by their comment that "we had to take some ‘liberties’ with the style and diction of the language. In the first place, we changed the ‘Biblical’ style of the Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation. We made a modest attempt at ‘modernizing’ the language to bring it more into line with the 21st Century usage." Rather strange that they can remain so rigid with the Arabic version of the Qur’an yet suddenly feel it appropriate to modernize the English version to fit the times we live in. With all these different versions around it is clearly not a perfect world when it comes to presenting the Qur’an to the English speaking world.
A more recent one released through a publisher in Saudi Arabia is likely to be a bit of an embarrassment to Muslims because of its clearly militant commentary. This "Interpretation of the Meaning of the Noble Qur’an" by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. (Berlin) and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, both from the Islamic University, Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia, reads something like an Amplified Bible with additional notes and commentary which includes transliteration of Arabic terms. It is a handy tool for those just learning their way around the Qur’an for it leaves no doubt as to the accepted understanding of every major doctrine. As do most non-Trinitarian cults the commentary goes into great detail refuting orthodox Christian doctrine, quoting from Biblical passages that support their prejudice and avoiding those that do not. Someone unfamiliar with the Bible might easily be persuaded.
The Council of American-Islamic Relations has distributed a translation by Muhammad Asad (born Leopold Weiss) a Jewish convert to Islam. It is written in both English and Arabic with transliteration helps and a commentary which comes across at times a bit politically correct. Where most versions read that man was created from a clot (of blood) Asad’s version reads "created man out of a germ cell"(Surah 96:2). One might wonder what Mohammed (or his God) knew about germs or cells when in fact those terms were not even used. A clot of blood sounds more likely. It is a revealing piece of work with over 1,100 pages.