Yusuf Ali Translation

**Acacia** · 04-08-2012, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by PouringRain

... Personal preference aside, commentary aside, what makes the Yusuf Ali translation the "least reliable" English translation? Or if not the least reliable, what are the objections to the actual translation?

I have read Yusuf Ali alongside other translations. I know that I am unable to compare with the Arabic, since I do not read Arabic. I also understand all of the issues and problems surrounding translating texts.

[with reference to this conversation: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...=1#post801199]

Is it his translation that you have a problem with, or is it his commentary? Would you share which things bother you? I made a thread on Yusuf Ali, if you want to post there so that this one doesn't take a new goat path. I would love to hear your opinions and thoughts!

Caveat (if I may): my knowledge is very limited so I am not able to give an in-depth analysis nor do I want to. What follows is based purely on this past weeks worth of experiences with the YA translation and nothing analytical or comprehensive in any sense.

I have a problem with both now. I am okay with the way he writes but can't say it is my preference. I have 2 versions of his translation:

1957 (paperback) version published by Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers & Booksellers (Lahore) - without commentary, English only
1989 (hardcover) new revised edition published by Amana Corporation - with commentary, English/Arabic side-by-side

I was reading through the original (actually, I think it is the second edition though not specified), paperback version (easier to handle, relatively smaller, lighter) and did not like the numbering system he chose to use. The reason I dislike the numbering system is, ironically, reflected in YA's intro:

...the system of numbering the verses has not been uniform in previous translations. European editors and translators have allowed their numbering diverge considerably from that accepted in the East. This causes confusion in giving and verifying references. The different Qirats sometimes differ as to the punctuation stops and the numbering of the verse. This is not a vital matter, but it causes confusion in references.... I have adopted mainly that of the Egyptian edition published under the authority of the King of Egypt. This will probably be accepted in Egypt and in Arabic-speaking countries, as those countries generally look up to Egypt in matters of literature...

Well, I'm not in Egypt and when I went to cross-reference with Ma'ariful Qur'an (from the East, out of Pakistan), I did indeed experience some confusion. This I did not like and I am not saying it is a 'fault' in the original YA translation but it made it uncomfortable for me to continue reading that version. I have since switched to Pickthall (1977 - no commentary, English/Arabic side-by-side). I have not been reading through the revised edition of YA's translation so I can not really comment on it in much detail however, I did notice that changes were made from the original to the revised edition. To illustrate:

Verse 1 from the translation of Surah Maida reads as follows:

=====

[1957 version]

O ye who believe ! fulfil (all) obligations.

=====

[1989 revised edition]

O ye who believe!
Fulfil (all) obligations.

Lawful unto you (for food)
Are all four-footed animals
With the exceptions named:
But animals of the chase
Are forbidden while ye
Are in the Sacred Precincts
Or in pilgrim garb:
For Allah doth command
According to His Will and Plan.

=====

That one verse difference at the start made me confused for a little while until I realized what was happening (I was cross-referencing something closer to the beginning of the surah). The same surah in the 1957 version is 123 ayahs long, sections are not noted. The 1989 revised version is 120 ayahs long with 16 sections.

~~~

Then, after I read discussions under this thread and read your blog, I became aware of another problem. The problem is that when a non-Muslim reads the commentary and English translation/interpretation of the verses through the lens of their religious preferences and other scriptures, the meaning changes (it seems to be too loose and leaves too much room for additional interpretation). Where we were discussing how it is now wrong to consider God as the father (and so too any reference to children of God) even in the spiritual sense, I noticed that was not coming across at all. My understanding is that, eventhough it was initially intended to be used in a spiritual sense, the use of father-child became corrupted and hence any reference even to a spiritual father-child relationship is no longer allowed. Your notes do not reflect this and since the effort you've undertaken is to explore Ma'ariful Qur'an and YA translation side-by-side, and to view them through the lens of your own spiritual beliefs and background, the meaning becomes corrupted. This is dangerous and worrisome for me and I attributed the problem to the YA translation/interpretation/commentary. All that said... I must also add that I too do not know Arabic so I have no way of knowing what would be closest to the original Arabic meaning however, I trust scholars and feel it is probably not the best version to use.

It is for these reasons that I do not think the YA translation/interpretation/commentary is good for the purpose you've employed it for and for those reasons, I also no longer feel comfortable reading it myself.

May Allah

forgive me if I have erred.

**PouringRain** · 04-08-2012, 05:48 PM

Acacia,

Thank you for your reply.

Originally Posted by Acacia

[with reference to this conversation: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...=1#post801199]

Caveat (if I may): my knowledge is very limited so I am not able to give an in-depth analysis nor do I want to. What follows is based purely on this past weeks worth of experiences with the YA translation and nothing analytical or comprehensive in any sense.

I have a problem with both now. I am okay with the way he writes but can't say it is my preference. I have 2 versions of his translation:

1957 (paperback) version published by Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers & Booksellers (Lahore) - without commentary, English only
1989 (hardcover) new revised edition published by Amana Corporation - with commentary, English/Arabic side-by-side

I was reading through the original (actually, I think it is the second edition though not specified), paperback version (easier to handle, relatively smaller, lighter) and did not like the numbering system he chose to use. The reason I dislike the numbering system is, ironically, reflected in YA's intro:

Well, I'm not in Egypt and when I went to cross-reference with Ma'ariful Qur'an (from the East, out of Pakistan), I did indeed experience some confusion. This I did not like and I am not saying it is a 'fault' in the original YA translation but it made it uncomfortable for me to continue reading that version. I have since switched to Pickthall (1977 - no commentary, English/Arabic side-by-side). I have not been reading through the revised edition of YA's translation so I can not really comment on it in much detail however, I did notice that changes were made from the original to the revised edition. To illustrate:

Verse 1 from the translation of Surah Maida reads as follows:

=====

[1957 version]

=====

[1989 revised edition]

=====

That one verse difference at the start made me confused for a little while until I realized what was happening (I was cross-referencing something closer to the beginning of the surah). The same surah in the 1957 version is 123 ayahs long, sections are not noted. The 1989 revised version is 120 ayahs long with 16 sections.

~~~

Please correct me if I am wrong, but from what I am hearing you say, one problem that you have is with how he has chosen to number/ break down the ayahs within the surahs? From what you are saying, it sounds as though in his first translation attempt, he decided to use the Egyptian system, but then a later revision of his work used another system-- perhaps a more standardized system?

Originally Posted by Acacia

Then, after I read discussions under this thread and read your blog, I became aware of another problem. The problem is that when a non-Muslim reads the commentary and English translation/interpretation of the verses through the lens of their religious preferences and other scriptures, the meaning changes (it seems to be too loose and leaves too much room for additional interpretation). Where we were discussing how it is now wrong to consider God as the father (and so too any reference to children of God) even in the spiritual sense, I noticed that was not coming across at all. My understanding is that, eventhough it was initially intended to be used in a spiritual sense, the use of father-child became corrupted and hence any reference even to a spiritual father-child relationship is no longer allowed. Your notes do not reflect this and since the effort you've undertaken is to explore Ma'ariful Qur'an and YA translation side-by-side, and to view them through the lens of your own spiritual beliefs and background, the meaning becomes corrupted.

The portion of your comment that I bolded is not completely correct. My notes on Maariful do reflect this. My notes on Maariful specifically say, "The Shari’ah allowed for calling God “father,” but it is no longer permissible since it has been distorted." To say that my notes do not reflect this is incorrect, as my notes clearly state that it is no longer permissible. As for the portion of my notes on Yusuf Ali, that sates that we are God's children in the spiritual sense, this is what Yusuf Ali says in his commentary. I am reporting his commentary NOT through a "lens," but as it is. Yusuf Ali does not state that it is no longer allowed to think in this manner. His notes say, "In a spiritual sense, we are all children of God, and all creation celebrates His glory." The notes both preceding and following this do not make any indication that this is no longer a valid way of thinking. Therefore, my blog notes on Yusuf Ali are not reflecting the lens through which I am looking, but they are simply reflecting what is said by each author.

For the most part, my notes are simply what is stated in the material I am reading. No one is free from misunderstandings, which is why I welcome comments, corrections, expounding, etc. But if, such as the present case, my notes on Yusuf Ali do not reflect the abrogation of something, then it is not due to my own bias the I failed at reflecting this, it is due to the text I am reading that fails to mention this. I understand that this supports your dislike for Yusuf Ali's notes. A Muslim reader of my blog was not happy that Yusuf Ali likened the Qur'an to music, and was surprised that Yusuf Ali did this. To that reader, that reason alone was enough to ask me to consider ceasing reading Yusuf Ali.

Originally Posted by Acacia

This is dangerous and worrisome for me and I attributed the problem to the YA translation/interpretation/commentary. All that said... I must also add that I too do not know Arabic so I have no way of knowing what would be closest to the original Arabic meaning however, I trust scholars and feel it is probably not the best version to use.

It is for these reasons that I do not think the YA translation/interpretation/commentary is good for the purpose you've employed it for and for those reasons, I also no longer feel comfortable reading it myself.

May Allah

forgive me if I have erred.

I am sure as I continue through the Yusuf Ali translation that I will most likely find many more areas that will cause the Muslim readers of my blog to bristle. There are some things that he has said in his commentary that I have purposefully left out of my notes, because I felt they were too much of that type of nature. (Although, personally, I find them highly interesting.)

There have been times in my blog notes where it is quite clear that Yusuf ali and Maariful have apparent contradictions in their commentary. One of my blog readers asked me what my take is on this seemingly contradictory material, and this was my reply:

"Finally, to answer your questions about seemingly different interpretations. One thing that I think is that the writers were writing to different audiences. Yusuf Ali states in the introduction that one of his purposes was to translate the Qur’an in English in such a way that it holds the poetic essence of the original. The lack of good English translation was cited. His English speaking audience would probably have been mostly non-Muslims or reverts. Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi’, on the other hand, began Maariful Quran as a series of radio lectures on the Qur’an over a Pakistani radio station. His audience was most likely already Muslim. When I look at Yusuf Ali’s notes and Shafi”s notes, and I see potential discrepancies, some of it can be attributed to a difference in audience. Maariful Quran appears to be calling Muslims to a higher level; whereas Yusuf Ali appears to be attempting to reach the unreached. Both serve valid purposes."

To add to what I wrote there, I will say that I think Yusuf Ali can be a very good translation and commentary if someone is looking for something to reach a Christian audience. For a young Muslim, no, it is probably not the best. Yusuf Ali uses a great amount of scriptural reference and biblical allusions in his commentary. For a Christian reader, I think his method could help validate the message of the Qur'an and open doors. For a Muslim reader, I can see where it holds the potential to create doubts or confusion.

On the flip side, I think if a Christian was given something such as Maariful Quran to read straight off, or if even a new Muslim was given Maariful Quran, then it could be quite off putting.

I read something recently where a Muslim was speaking of all the people he has seen convert to Islam and then leave after a time (sometimes after many, many years time). This person was writing about the commonalities in the stories of those who left. I wish I could recall where I read this, because I would share it here.

Anyhow, back to discussing Maariful and new Muslims or non-Muslims..... When people come to Islam, I always see Muslims speak of Allah not making things difficult for them. For a new Muslim, if they mess up and eat campbell's chicken noodle soup without realizing that it is not halal, then it is okay, Allah will not hold this mistake against them. For new Muslims, there is not the expectation that they suddenly conform 100% to shari'ah, and are expected to be perfect Muslims. If there was this expectation, then many new Muslims wouldn't last long. I have seen some Muslims who want to make even reversion difficult for non-Muslims: you must do this, this, this, and this, and oh yeah, this and this as well, and they must be done absolutely correctly or else none of it counts, etc. You might be surprised at some of the things I have seen Muslims tell people they must do in order to "correctly" revert. If someone was a non-Muslim or a new Muslim and read Maariful Quran, it could seem at times to be very rigid of this same nature. Please note, that I am not putting down Maariful for this, I am only pointing out that this approach can be problematic for a non-Muslim or a revert. If you are inviting someone into your home for dinner for the first time, you wouldn't hand them a rule book and state that if they violate a rule then they will be put out. But for someone who has been living within your home, you do expect those rules to be followed.

Yusuf Ali and Maariful are like those. I believe they are both valid for their intended audience. Yusuf Ali is inviting people into his home, saying "I see that in your home things are this way, let me tell you how my home is similar or not and why." And Maariful is speaking to those who live in his home, telling them "these are the shari'ah; they are here for you to follow and not question so that we can have peace within our home."

**Acacia** · 04-08-2012, 08:15 PM

Please correct me if I am wrong, but from what I am hearing you say, one problem that you have is with how he has chosen to number/ break down the ayahs within the surahs? From what you are saying, it sounds as though in his first translation attempt, he decided to use the Egyptian system, but then a later revision of his work used another system-- perhaps a more standardized system?

Yes, that is what I am saying because it was his original in paperback without commentary that I was reading through, not the thicker, heavier, bulkier revised version in hardcover. Besides, the numbering was his choice and it reflects his intentions. Remember, I am not knowledgeable, just a simple Muslim reader and I spoke of my personal confusion when cross-referencing the original with Ma'ariful Qur'an.

All said and done, translating the Qur'an is an ENORMOUS responsibility and I certainly don't want to come across as implying that YA was misleading people intentionally. No, that is not at all what I am saying. He devoted his time and energy to the Qur'an, more than I have ever done. I can not, however, ignore problems others have identified with his interpretation/translation, especially when I am just learning and come across problems that affect me. One issue that affected me was the numbering (again, only of the original) and the other is that his interpretation is too loose and leaves too much room for further interpretation, dangerously moving away from the original word of Allah

.

---

There are alternatives to Yusuf Ali's translation/interpretation, besides Mariful Qur'an, that would serve the purpose of conveying the message of the Qur'an as close to the Arabic as possible, without or with little commentary.

As for audience considerations, I disagree with you. His choices and his preface make it quite clear (at least to me) that it is the Eastern Muslim living in the West whom YA is hoping to reach... in other words, someone like himself. In his preface to the first edition, he states his intentions quite clearly and does not make any reference to writing for potential converts/reverts; quite the contrary, he makes it clear that he is trying to make the meaning of the Qur'an (his interpretation/translation), accessible to Eastern Muslims living in Western lands, using the English language, in an "age in which it is in the highest degree unfashionable to speak of religion or spiritual peace or consolation, an age in which words like these draw forth only derision, pity, or contempt" (p.v). But more importantly, he talks about his personal explorations and exposure to the West while maintaining an Eastern heritage... if anything, his work is quite personal and to me reflects more a personal piece. A more telling confession: "For me the embodiment of [Allah's

] voice has been in the noble words of the Arabic Qur'an, which I have tried to translate for myself and apply to my experience again and again." I'm sure you'll find the same preface to the first edition (1934) in your revised copy.

As a Muslim, I accept the Qur'an as the word of Allah

as such any interpretation/translation has the potential to mislead. When issues are identified with a particular translation/interpretation, I feel that is the least favorable copy to provide to someone just learning about Islam. Again, there are many other translations out there with and without commentary. Otherwise, there is the potential for those learning about Islam to be misled and the problem then perhaps is that they come to believe the translation to be the word of Allah

and when that understanding is called into question, it may create confusion, frustration and possibly an exit from Islam... I'm not saying this is what happens but the potential does exist.

Contrary to what you are saying, I do not recommend the Yusuf Ali translation/interpretation to anyone just learning about Islam. If anything, I think only those who are better versed in Islam should ever read it. I myself am just learning and have put YA's translation away. Now, I am reading through the Pickthall translation and Ma'ariful Qur'an commentary.

This is the Qur'an we are talking about, Allah's

word and not the word of men. Anything that (intentionally or not) detracts from the word of Allah

and makes it seem as if there is multiple versions worthy of comparison and discussion (and picking from) is very, very dangerous. Not knowing Arabic, we are at the mercy of translators but even then so many Muslim scholars have taken the time and responsibility to properly pick through them to make sure they do not stray from the original in meaning. Being translations, they succeed in varying degrees and in my opinion, of those that I know of, the YA translation is the least favorable to read.

---

Unfortunately, unless scholars visit your blog frequently to point out misunderstandings, you will not know and not only that... others who read your blog will be misled and possibly misunderstand the words further. This really is a big responsibility and this is where the 'lens' issue comes into play. Not only are you picking what to comment on or include in your blog, the readers are going to do so too... and so the potential for moving even further from the original exists. Original Arabic --> multiple translation/commentary/interpretation in English --> your personal experiences as a non-Muslim --> blog entry --> blog readers personal experiences act as a further filter --> possible comments... If we could pick the brain of a non-Muslim who reads a post and then compare it to the original surah/verse referred to, I wonder what we would find? Only Allah

knows but I just feel it my duty to highlight the problem I see here (moving away from the original word of Allah

- however unintentionally) and this is why I really feel we need to exercise caution.

Sorry if this sounds offensive, it isn't meant to be. And I feel awkward voicing concern when I am just learning but it seems like an obvious trespass (however unintentional) that we need to be wary of.

Salaam

**PouringRain** · 05-08-2012, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by Acacia

As for audience considerations, I disagree with you. His choices and his preface make it quite clear (at least to me) that it is the Eastern Muslim living in the West whom YA is hoping to reach... in other words, someone like himself. In his preface to the first edition, he states his intentions quite clearly and does not make any reference to writing for potential converts/reverts; quite the contrary, he makes it clear that he is trying to make the meaning of the Qur'an (his interpretation/translation), accessible to Eastern Muslims living in Western lands, using the English language, in an "age in which it is in the highest degree unfashionable to speak of religion or spiritual peace or consolation, an age in which words like these draw forth only derision, pity, or contempt" (p.v). But more importantly, he talks about his personal explorations and exposure to the West while maintaining an Eastern heritage... if anything, his work is quite personal and to me reflects more a personal piece. A more telling confession: "For me the embodiment of [Allah's

] voice has been in the noble words of the Arabic Qur'an, which I have tried to translate for myself and apply to my experience again and again." I'm sure you'll find the same preface to the first edition (1934) in your revised copy.

His preface was included in this edition, and no where is it clear that he is writing to Eastern Muslims in Western lands. It was clear to me that his intent was to create an English version that is as close to the original Arabic both in content and form, so that the beauty of the Arabic is not lost whilst reading the English translation: "I want to make English itself an Islamic language, if such a person as I can do it." He does speak of his explorations of the West while maintaining an Eastern heritage, but in doing so, he is giving himself 1) the identity of a Muslim (rather than that of an Englishman), and 2) the authority as an English translator (by his Western studies). The fact that he quotes English authors such as Keats and Shakespeare, and uses extensive Biblical allusions and references, further indicates that his intended audience is most likely "English" in nature.

I find it interesting that you surmise he is writing for Eastern Muslims living in Western lands.

I think it would be more fitting to surmise that he is writing for Eastern Muslims living in Eastern lands, given his history and the history of his country. Considering that Yusuf Ali grew up in British India, and published his work in Pakistan, I would think it plausible that he was also interested in reaching the English speaking peoples of India. But, given that Yusuf Ali felt it necessary to provide credibility to his translation by citing his studies of "Western lands, Western manners, and the depths of Western thought and Western learning," plus quoting English literature, I think it becomes clear that Yusuf Ali was writing for a Western, English audience. (Also taking into consideration the dearth of English translations at the time, and the slant they held toward being anti-Islamic.) I think it is also important to note from his life that he married English women (one in a Christian church), and he lived in England for a great amount of time, keeping many personal acquaintances with English individuals.

Originally Posted by Acacia

Unfortunately, unless scholars visit your blog frequently to point out misunderstandings, you will not know and not only that... others who read your blog will be misled and possibly misunderstand the words further. This really is a big responsibility and this is where the 'lens' issue comes into play. Not only are you picking what to comment on or include in your blog, the readers are going to do so too... and so the potential for moving even further from the original exists. Original Arabic --> multiple translation/commentary/interpretation in English --> your personal experiences as a non-Muslim --> blog entry --> blog readers personal experiences act as a further filter --> possible comments... If we could pick the brain of a non-Muslim who reads a post and then compare it to the original surah/verse referred to, I wonder what we would find? Only Allah

knows but I just feel it my duty to highlight the problem I see here (moving away from the original word of Allah

- however unintentionally) and this is why I really feel we need to exercise caution.

Sorry if this sounds offensive, it isn't meant to be. And I feel awkward voicing concern when I am just learning but it seems like an obvious trespass (however unintentional) that we need to be wary of.

Salaam

I am sorry that you feel this way about my blog posts, and I disagree with you. You express a concern for how my non-muslim readers may interpret things that I comment upon, but quite honestly in all of my experiences on-line the only difficulties I have experienced with people misunderstanding posts that I make usually lies with Muslim reverts who hold a bias against me due to their own preconceived notions about me due to my chosen label. This is in no way directed at you, as I know almost nothing about you, and we have had very little interactions over time. I will provide you with an example of what I mean. I once went round and round with a Muslim revert on the issue of God's spirit, whereby, this Muslim individual held an extremely trinitarian view. I was quite shocked by his view, which is why I continued to engage in discussion with him, thinking that I must clearly be misunderstanding him. As time went on, what became quite clear was that he held a preconceived notion that a) I must be trinitarian, and therefore b) my belief is trinitarian, and consequently c) he was not going to agree with any belief that I held. So, he persisted in arguing for a belief that is quite opposite of that which I hold, and by doing so he argued to death in favor of a trinitarian view. Oops! Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident that I encounter. I don't think you need to be concerned for the non-muslims who read my blog and may misinterpret what I write. Most non-muslims (Christians especially) read me loud and clear and disagree adamantly with me, because they clearly see that my beliefs are not in line with their own mainstream Christian beliefs. The people you should be concerned with misunderstanding my posts are the muslim reverts such as the individual who I gave example of above. To my knowledge, I don't have any of those reading my blog.

My most outspoken reader is a born Muslim who is quick to point out when something needs further clarification, or when something is amiss (such as Yusuf Ali's comparison of the Qur'an with music). I would love to have more commentators to my blog such as that individual. And if a scholar wants to frequent my blog, I would more than welcome it. My blog is not intended for the education of others, but is primarily intended for my own education. I created it as a place to post my progress, notes, thoughts, and to receive feedback from others on those things. If others learn things through my blog, as some have indicated that they have, then that is absolutely wonderful. I have stated on my blog, that I would hope my readers do not just read my notes alone, but also would read the Qur'an selections and be inspired to read the commentary selections as well for further information, since I am only providing a brief outline of notes. My notes are not a substitute; they are simply notes.

There are people in life who will take notes and reply entirely on those things. Those individuals want shortcuts in life, and they miss out on a great deal. I have known individuals who do not read the texts in class and only read the cliffs notes, or skim through the criticisms. During the class discussions, their responses reflect as much and no one is fooled. People are responsible for their own actions. If someone reads my blog incorrectly, using it as an authority, and forgoing reading the materials on their own, then I should not be held responsible for their poor decisions. I posted notes on a book last night, for example, that are clearly no substitute for reading the actual book. They are simply notes. If someone reads through my 6 pages of notes, they will get a very brief overview of what is included in the 200 page book. My notes are nothing more than a secondary source, and are no substitute for primary source material. The benefit of the notes is for others to read them and decide if they think they might like to read the book or not.

**Acacia** · 05-08-2012, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by PouringRain

His preface was included in this edition, and no where is it clear that he is writing to Eastern Muslims in Western lands. It was clear to me that his intent was to create an English version that is as close to the original Arabic both in content and form, so that the beauty of the Arabic is not lost whilst reading the English translation: "I want to make English itself an Islamic language, if such a person as I can do it." He does speak of his explorations of the West while maintaining an Eastern heritage, but in doing so, he is giving himself 1) the identity of a Muslim (rather than that of an Englishman), and 2) the authority as an English translator (by his Western studies). The fact that he quotes English authors such as Keats and Shakespeare, and uses extensive Biblical allusions and references, [B][I]further indicates that his intended audience is most likely "English" in nature...

I do not read his preface the same way you do... that darn lens again... If anything, he may have had an infatuation with English as he seems to have been most certainly influenced by the English.

Originally Posted by PouringRain

I find it interesting that you surmise he is writing for Eastern Muslims living in Western lands.

I think it would be more fitting to surmise that he is writing for Eastern Muslims living in Eastern lands, given his history and the history of his country. Considering that Yusuf Ali grew up in British India, and published his work in Pakistan, I would think it plausible that he was also interested in reaching the English speaking peoples of India. But, given that Yusuf Ali felt it necessary to provide credibility to his translation by citing his studies of "Western lands, Western manners, and the depths of Western thought and Western learning," plus quoting English literature, I think it becomes clear that Yusuf Ali was writing for a Western, English audience. (Also taking into consideration the dearth of English translations at the time, and the slant they held toward being anti-Islamic.) I think it is also important to note from his life that he married English women (one in a Christian church), and he lived in England for a great amount of time, keeping many personal acquaintances with English individuals.....

Yes, I agree with you that he was likely writing for the Eastern Muslims living in Eastern lands and wanting to bring English into Islam however, as a western reader of somewhat of an eastern background, I read his preface to indicate that his interpretation is meant to cross borders into those areas where he did spend time - western countries.

I don't know enough about his life to make comments about why he did what he did however, what you've written seems to reflect that loose interpretation I was referring to in my previous post... leaves too much for further interpretation. Besides, his marrying a non-Muslim in a church only confirms to me that the intention was not to reach non-Muslims.

And quite honestly, I do not want to get into a literary debate about YA's interpretations and what they mean and what he may have been intending... in the end, I am solely interested in a translation that brings me as close to the meaning in the original Arabic as possible without leading me astray... so, suffice it to say that I agree with those who find this translation problematic and do not recommend it for those learning about Islam or those who want to get at the meaning. The essence probably can never be captured in any other language but the original Arabic.

Sorry... not enough time to get at the remainder of the post with regards to your blog... insha'Allah a little later.

**Acacia** · 05-08-2012, 04:15 AM

Salaam Pouring Rain:

Okay, so just a brief message about your blog. Don't get me wrong, I think the exercise you are engaged in is very useful and I think it would be fantastic if we could all do something similar under the guidance of a teacher. Blogs, however, are tricky - as personal as they are, they are also (for the most part) public too. Working through the translation and commentary of the Qur'an is very useful and taking note of things that particularly catch our interest at a given time (could be something else a year down the line) and then pulling from or cross-referencing with other translations is also good. I definitely do not want to discourage anyone from taking part in such an exercise and I too am doing my own in my way as well. I wonder though, if perhaps it would be better to flag discrepancies or verses we are unsure about and gain clarity to avoid potentially confusing others. Yes, the reader has a duty to go to the source but we are going to be held accountable for our actions too so better safe than sorry, no? (or eh?) I won't say much more, I just wanted to let you know what my concerns were.

Peace.

BTW1: I am struggling with the same issues on my blog so these are issues that I raise with myself first and bring to your attention out of concern for you and others... don't have to listen to my ramblings though and please, no hard feelings.

I'm seriously thinking of re-vamping my blog to reflect what I learn from teachers rather than what I piece together on my own, and insha'Allah link to the original sites.

BTW2: I like the colour/background theme you chose for your blog

feel right at home!

**Maripat** · 05-08-2012, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by Acacia

It is for these reasons that I do not think the YA translation/interpretation/commentary is good for the purpose you've employed it for and for those reasons, I also no longer feel comfortable reading it myself.

The first point, the numbering of Verses, can be an irritation but AY Ali is not the source of the problem.
The second point, Christians trying to extract meaning suitable to them, again can not be slapped on AY Ali.

If there is any other author that reflects the original better in his prose then please do adopt him or her by all means.
Currently I am using Pickthall and I love the English idiom that he adopts. He uses that language which only an Englishman can do and you do feel that. But to communicate the Nobel Qur'an English has to be molded into a suitable form and an Englishman can not do that. This honour belongs to AY Ali.
@a.s.
Also I am curious about brother a.s.'s remark about AY Ali being least suitable or not the best. What do you say Akhi?

Originally Posted by PouringRain

A Muslim reader of my blog was not happy that Yusuf Ali likened the Qur'an to music, and was surprised that Yusuf Ali did this. To that reader, that reason alone was enough to ask me to consider ceasing reading Yusuf Ali.

His worries are justified but the action is not. Why throw away the baby with the bath water? It will be sufficient to expunge the musical-note sentences from the preface.

I agree with the rest of your assessment and personally pleased with that.

**Acacia** · 05-08-2012, 05:50 AM

Again, I would not recommend YA for those just learning about Islam.

Again, I was commenting on personal issues I had with YA (as someone who is just learning) and hence the numbering came up as being problematic for me. I switched to Pickthall without any issue or further thought on the matter until I noticed the discrepancies in relation to another thread and this brought to mind the issues that others have had with YA. Of course, people will use whichever translation they want and take whatever meaning they like but with so many other translations available, I would not suggest YA.

Obviously I will use whichever translation is recommended as reflective of the original meaning better. I am not interested in the lyrical aspect of the words, I want the meaning. For the feeling, I will read and listen to the Arabic insha'Allah. Besides, other translations do not lack the ability to move people.

<sigh> I think the issue was lost in translation on SF... anyway, no worries. Obviously, my feeble mind made more of something that was not as big an issue for others.

Regards.

**Maripat** · 05-08-2012, 06:01 AM