Can the English translation of the Quran be trusted?

[Burninglight]

Any time something is translated into a different that the original language it loses something or is subject to the whims of an translator. We know this to be true of the Bible. That is one reason we have so many translations of the Bible. Scholars and pastors sometimes agrue which is the best of them. Does this happen with the Quran?

 

[Ramadhan]

So you have agreed and confirmed that translations are never as good as the original, can never capture 100% what is contained in the original, etc.

Now, can I ask you question: how do you know which version of bible translation is best if you do not have the original?

 

[Ramadhan]

Burninglight, please answer my question.

With Qur'an, even if one translation is not perfect, we still have the original that anyone can come back to.

 

[crimsontide06]

Burninglight, please answer my question.

With Qur'an, even if one translation is not perfect, we still have the original that anyone can come back to.

Not every Muslim can speak or read Arabic..so there is not a way they can go to the original...may take years until they can understand the Arabic language and read it.

 

[Ramadhan]

Not every Muslim can speak or read Arabic..so there is not a way they can go to the original...may take years until they can understand the Arabic language and read it.

True, but that is not the question here.

one person who cannot read or speak arabic may not be able to go back to Al Qur'an to check if the translation is accurate, but at ANY given time, there is ALWAYS somebody in the world who can check and compare the translation.

Can you say that with bible?

can you please answer?

 

[Aprender]

This should help, in shaa Allah.

 

[Burninglight]

So you have agreed and confirmed that translations are never as good as the original, can never capture 100% what is contained in the original, etc.

Now, can I ask you question: how do you know which version of bible translation is best if you do not have the original?

I must agree with this if I am to be honest. I think I trust the ESV the most. But it seems some have good points and bad. That is tough question. But the Quran was recompiled (Copied) too just not as much as the Bible as been. So my question hasn't really been answered.

 

[Burninglight]

good night God bless you all

 

[Ramadhan]

I must agree with this if I am to be honest. I think I trust the ESV the most. But it seems some have good points and bad. That is tough question. But the Quran was recompiled (Copied) too just not as much as the Bible as been. So my question hasn't really been answered.

Please show us evidence that what we have now is not original.

As I said, you keep throwing out false statements about Islam without evidence.

AGAIN,


PLEASE GIVE US THE ORIGINAL BIBLE.

 

[Ramadhan]

Ho wcan you say ESV is the best translation.

what is ESV translated from?

 

[Burninglight]

Please show us evidence that what we have now is not original.

As I said, you keep throwing out false statements about Islam without evidence.

AGAIN,


PLEASE GIVE US THE ORIGINAL BIBLE.

i cannot to that. What false statements. You didn't know that Uthamn burned the original Qurans? or you don't agree he did? This is my understanding and many Muslim don't know that. Do I need me to prove that to you or do you know it already. If Uthman didn't burn the Qurans, then mine is afalse statement, but if he did, what are you taking about?

 

[Burninglight]

With Qur'an, even if one translation is not perfect, we still have the original that anyone can come back to.

yes I understand that you have the originals of what Uthman compiled, but what about the ones he burned before those which was closer to Muhammad's time like only 2 years after his death???

 

[Burninglight]

Ho wcan you say ESV is the best translation.

what is ESV translated from?

Did I say it was the best? I just favor it more because I believe it has less translational errors. I have not done an extensive study on the different versions of the Bible, but I am influence by reputable pastors and others that love God.

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings of peace

i cannot to that. What false statements. You didn't know that Uthamn burned the original Qurans? or you don't agree he did? This is my understanding and many Muslim don't know that. Do I need me to prove that to you or do you know it already. If Uthman didn't burn the Qurans, then mine is afalse statement, but if he did, what are you taking about?

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. Uthman (RA), did not burn the 'original' Qur'aan he burnt those which were differing from the 'original', due to the use of different dialects amongst the people differing from the arabic revealed to the prophet(p), etc. Where did you come with this statement? From Islamic sources or anti islamic sources? Please, if you have a question on a certain issue, ask as it is the first step of learning.

Please watch this, I hope it explains it better than myself..

In Regards to your question..

Yes, the english translation can be trusted, it is another language in which people can understand if they are unable to speak/understand the arabic. But ofcourse to understand the Qur'aan more you have to study it, just like with the bible. If for example someone who isn't knowledgable enough in not understanding what is meant by a certain verse, they would go to those who are learned, and it is also encouraged of an individual to do their own research, study the language etc.

 

[Burninglight]

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. Uthman (RA), did not burn the 'original' Qur'aan he burnt those which were differing from the 'original', due to the use of different dialects amongst the people differing from the arabic revealed to the prophet(p), etc. Where did you come with this statement? From Islamic sources or anti islamic sources? Please, if you have a question on a certain issue, ask as it is the first step of learning.

It is "Unfortunate" for who? I did watch the video. How did Uthman know what the original was? This was not answered in the video by Deedat. In other words, where did he get the info for the original did he have it in his memory?

 

[YusufNoor]

i cannot to that. What false statements. You didn't know that Uthamn burned the original Qurans? or you don't agree he did? This is my understanding and many Muslim don't know that. Do I need me to prove that to you or do you know it already. If Uthman didn't burn the Qurans, then mine is afalse statement, but if he did, what are you taking about?

it's the red pill that makes you smaller and the other one makes you bigger, but in you case you should lay off all of the pills!

there are 10 different dialects to pronounce the Qur'an in. in the time of Uthmann ibn Affan, some folks were adding vowels marks[the Qur'an can be and was originally written w/o them] for their own dialect and calling it the only correct way to write the Qur'an with the vowel marks. Uthmann made the decision that if there was going to be "one correct way" to put the vowel marks in, it should be the dialect of the tribe of Quraish as that was the Prophet's, pbuh, own natural dialect.

but you seem to be purposefully neglecting the fact thay Abu Bakr as Sadeeq didn't want the Qur'an to be issued in writing in the first place! WHY? first of all, the Prophet, pbuh, hadn't ordered it done and secondly, it wasn't necessary. there were plenty of Hafz around and the best thing a Muslim can do is to teach others how to recite the Qur'an. that is why you will have records of some sahabah disliking the writing of the Qur'an.

unlike the Gospels of the New Testament, which are the writings of unknown authors allegedly inspired by God, the Qur'an is the direct revealed Word of God. only the pagan of the Quraysh and misguided Shii'a claimed otherwise. there is unanimous opinion amongst Muslims on just what the Qur'an is and to claim otherwise takes you right out of the fold of Islam.

your statement would be true if you said Uthmann destroyed Qur'ans NOT written in the Quraish dialect, you statement is false if you say Uthmann destroyed the Qur'an.

so quit trying to make false points on purpose, whether based upon ignorance or intended evil.

:wa:

 

[Burninglight]

but you seem to be purposefully neglecting the fact thay Abu Bakr as Sadeeq didn't want the Qur'an to be issued in writing in the first place! WHY? first of all, the Prophet, pbuh, hadn't ordered it done and secondly, it wasn't necessary. there were plenty of Hafz around and the best thing a Muslim can do is to teach others how to recite the Qur'an. that is why you will have records of some sahabah disliking the writing of the Qur'an.

That is interesting.

so quit trying to make false points on purpose, whether based upon ignorance or intended evil.

I didn't know. Intended evil? pfft. You must be joking. How am I supposed to know what even millions of Muslims don't know now, I have spoken to many Muslims that even deny that any Quranic Scriptures were burned in any shape or form by Uthman. I say interesting, because I happen to agree with Abu Bakr. The reason I do is because there was no divine mandate given that the Quran should be written. It means recitation. So just how does one get write out of say? And since Allah and Muhammad didn't say write it, why was the Quran written and put in book form? I thought the recitation was designed to confirm the previous Scriptures, but instead it contradicts them. I cannot help think that if it was kept the way Abu Bakr wanted it would confirm previous Scripture instead of usurp it in the written form! do you understand my point here. The written Bible and the Written Quran cannot bothe be right. I see the webs but I cannot find the spider. Could the spider be that it wasn't in obedience to Allah and Muhammad to put in writing what was only meant to be said????

---

 

[YusufNoor]

That is interesting.
I didn't know. Intended evil? pfft. You must be joking. How am I supposed to know what even millions of Muslims don't know now, I have spoken to many Muslims that even deny that any Quranic Scriptures were burned in any shape or form by Uthman.

many don't study the history, but many Christians don't know their history either. you don't know the history of the Bible.

I say interesting, because I happen to agree with Abu Bakr. The reason I do is because there was no divine mandate given that the Quran should be written. It means recitation.

you have no clue about what Abu Bakr's decision was about. Iqra means both read and recitation. if you want to comment on the Arabic of the Qur'an, perhaps you should study it first.


So just how does one get write out of say? And since Allah and Muhammad didn't say write it, why was the Quran written and put in book form?

many Hafz were killed in 1 battle while rallying the Muslim lines. it was Umar ibn al Kattaab who finally convinced Abu Bakr.


I thought the recitation was designed to confirm the previous Scriptures, but instead it contradicts them.

the Qur'an confirms the Torah given to Moses, pbuh, NOT the Torah as written by men. it also confirms the Injeel as given to Jesus, pbuh, and NOT the gospels of unknown origin.

I cannot help think that if it was kept the way Abu Bakr wanted it would confirm previous Scripture instead of usurp it in the written form!

it just goes to show that your "thinking" is pretty fruitless.

do you understand my point here. The written Bible and the Written Quran cannot bothe be right.

FINALLY!! something we are in agreement on! but it's the Bible that contains the errors! where it agrees with the Qur'an it is correct. where it is in disagreement, it is wrong.


I see the webs but I cannot find the spider.

perhaps that is why you haven't demonstrated the ability to think straight.

Could the spider be that it wasn't in obedience to Allah and Muhammad to put in writing what was only meant to be said????

---

you seem, once again, to be so full of delusions.

I must agree with this if I am to be honest. I think I trust the ESV the most. But it seems some have good points and bad. That is tough question. But the Quran was recompiled (Copied) too just not as much as the Bible as been. So my question hasn't really been answered.

i doubt you and honesty reside in the same neighborhood, probably not the same continent. you claim your Bible has both good and bad points! you admit that your Bible has problems? even after you admit God can preserve His Word!

and to answer your question, only the Qur'an in Arabic is actually the Qur'an. translations in whatever language are the translator's attempt to explain it. Yusuf Ali's is NOT the Qur'an, it is his attempt to explain the Qur'an in English. to best understand in a language other that Arabic, one should use all available material. but we learn from those who speak Arabic.

Not every Muslim can speak or read Arabic..so there is not a way they can go to the original...may take years until they can understand the Arabic language and read it.

but they can buy a version of the Arabic and listen to it in it's original language. Muslims can spend their time listening to and pondering the Very Words of God, while Christians try to make sense out of the words of men. and not just any men, but men they have no clue as to their identity! THAT makes sense!

and by the way, you seem to get a kick out of implying that the Qur'an is "younger" than the Bible, you you totally overlook the fact that Christians didn't even finish with the writing, editing and revising of it until CENTURIES after the completion of the Qur'an! kind of makes you guys the n00bs, eh?

 

[Ramadhan]

i cannot to that. What false statements.

That you said the qur'an we have now is not original.
Please show evidence.

You didn't know that Uthamn burned the original Qurans? or you don't agree he did? This is my understanding and many Muslim don't know that

Again, please tell us when, how and why uthman burned scripts of Qur'an.
Many muslims know this, but apparently you do not, but you are only parroting anti-Islam sites without checking if they are correct.

Do you even know that by the time Uthman (ra) performed as a khafilah, thousands of people had already fully memorized the Qur'an, and they were located not only in or near makkah and madinah, but they were already in north africa, shams, iraq, persia, and central asia?

Do you even know that currently in the world millions of people memorized the same exact quran?
I challenge you to give me two different qur'ans.
Had there been any change, even slight change in thh qur'an right after the death of prophet (saw) when hundreds of people had fully memorized and tested by prophet Muhammad (saw) himself, there would have been thousands if not millions of different qur'ans by now.


Now, do not try to change subject:

PLEASE GIVE ME THE ORIGINAL BIBLE

 

[Ramadhan]

Did I say it was the best? I just favor it more because I believe it has less translational errors.

Then how did you know it has less translational errors if you do not have the original to compare it with?

Please show me how/why you think ESV has translational errors.

Again, please do not change the subject.