By A. Shankar "blue ego" (NSW Australia) -
I have compared key passages of Surah 2,40,36 and other important intepretations like dealing with al-muqattat as well as dealing with root words in forming the meaning of various translations they include:
Professor Abdel Haleem (fatal mistakes in translating key words, which he does not reference to either explanations by the Prophet or any proper source).The text is good to introduce concepts to people unfamiliar with the Islamic context however it does significantly deviate from the Islamic context by incorporating the ideas of another religion in its translation. Haleem in another text (Understanding the themes of the Quran by Haleem) mentions and forwarns of comparative translations; an error that he is susceptible to himself. However considering this is the first edition I am referring to, I would think it would be somewhat lacking of intense revision.
I found lacking in the translation of the first 19 verse of Surah Gaffir/Mumin and also Key verses of Al-Baqarah such as the Aayat-Al-Kursi and even verses of Surah Al-Anaam. I like his explanations, his tranlsation is more about explaning key issues of the Quran in a very basic way to suite a person reading the Quran just to get an Idea of what the scripture teaches and what in means in "Plain English". However all generalizations are susceptible to serious error.
Al Amana version of Yusuf Ali and also Dar-Ul Furqan version
(OK but once again has a lot of lakings and errors). THese individuals are too arrogant in their tranlastion where they interpret certain surahs with absolutely no authentic basis. They claim that the Surah Ikhlas was to debase the Christian trinitarian beliefs... how they come to this conclusion is by mere speculation but they incorperate it in such a way that an individual is led to falsely believe it to be the truth. This and Fakhry are by far the worst translations and it is shameful to say that they come from so called "Muslim" sources. I am certain that even children can point out some of the serious mistakes in these two translations. Read Surah Ikhlas and read the footnotes in this translation, you will also find flaws. That was enough for me to be unsatisfied with this translation. And if you may compare it to the explanation of Asad, the relativity of eloquence and explanation is as extreme as the distance between heaven and hell.
Muhsin Khan (King Fahd's sanctioned and also Dar-us-salam).
(This is a precise book, renders the Quran properly especially the abridged version). I found this book to give adequate proof in its tranlsation of the meaning of the Quran. However there are points where the choice of words and explanations are too generalized and inarticulate. I had issues with how As-Samad was translated and the explanation given about it. I look for a translation of the Quran which has no flaw, nor is it subjective in any way. Khan's translation is very much true to the authentic creed of Islam and its translation is harmonious to what is taught about the scripture in most religious institutions. Therefore it is one of the more cost effective and precise renderings.
Majid Fakhry
(Has errors and lacks depth in explanation; I guess due to it being the first edition). Although Al-Azhar accredits this text, I fail to think it serves anyone but the author in generating royalties. I mean I was so dissapointed in buying this translation, it lacked thought, intelligence and at points I thought it was hebetudinous to such an extent that I was contemplating a refund. Fakhry's other writings suggest that he is completely deviated from what is the authentic Islamic school of thought regardless of his education. His other works are too philosophical and speculative whereas his translation of the Quran is open-ended without much explanations on key words of the Quran most of which have no english equivalents. How these were treated by him suggest a high level of inaccuaracy in the remaining body of the text. The translation obviously lacks explanation and justification, without either an individual can only assume the negative that the author/translater did not consider the various possiblities in translation. IT IS VERY CRUDE A TRANSLATION and is more directed towards Christian explanations than Islamic which robs the Quran of its authentic meaning. The Quran by nature is a scripture of Muslims and in saying so it has deliberations upon it by the Prophet Mohammad and also various Islamic scholars. Fakhry does not cite any (to my understanding) in his translation.
M. Shakir
(stay away from this book, dont even touch it with a stick.)
This is one of those fund raising translations where a devout individual shares thought of his religion. However who is to say whether or not "his" thoughts indeed reflect the authentic creed.
Pickthal
Usage of Archaic language and the original translation had errors almost on every page. After constant and consistent correction has it seen the light of day in a populace fashion. Both Ali and Pichthal are popular due to their mass circulation in countries such as Pakistan, India and Indonesia. This is because there are no real copyright issues and publishing companies can publish them however they wish. I have seen various textual differences in Pichkthal and Ali translations based on them coming from different publishing agents. Which is the real Pickthal and Ali is now beyond me. Even Al-Amana have added their 10 cents to Yusuf Ali's translation and to my understanding contaminating it further in various instances.
And finally to Asad:
I find Asad's interpretation to be the most bona-fide and coherent, it is scrupulously referenced so he does not give his opinion rather quotes some of the greatest scholars after the manifestation of the Quran such as Zamakshari, Ibn Kathir as well as Qurtubi to name a few.
Asad's translation is the the best, undoutedly this version supercedes all others. I have read this particular version and as I know there are various in circulation (esp with Yusuf Ali) I suggest you get this version.
If you are interested in the Quran, or anyone for that matter even one who understands proper Arabic I still suggest you get this book. It is a key in understanding the Quran. Regardless of whether you know or are oblivious to the Arabic tongue. THe Quran is a legacy of humanity. Regardless of whether you are a Muslim or not it has impacted on Human thought and has changed social norms as we once knew it.
It is a piece of history and very much an inlay in the fabric of humanity. The final text of the semetic religions which is said to be the synergy of all that preceeded it.
I have personally read various scriptures and I find that the Quran has its valid standing. People often claim it is a copy of the Torah/Tanakh or the Bible however I feel although that it has inherent qualities from the preceeding scriptures it does have a nature and spirit of its own. Regardless of how others see it or portray it, it is your own opinion that should matter to you. So instead of finding and agreeing to the opinions of others of whether or not it is a valid scripture or a militant propaganda I suggest that you, yourselves have a read and read that which does infact reflect the authentic creed.
I personally found this scripture to be inspiring, to increase the level of human consciousness inside of me and finally understand that the Quran is a source of divine inspiration as opposed to a tool of destruction (as I, prior to reading it so percieved).
My perception has changed, and I carried a study of the Quran as I did with the Bhagawad Gita. Both these books are beautiful in their composition and their message. I would strongly recommend any individual to give this book a read.
Love and Regards,
a little voice.