Talk:Noble Quran (Hilali–Khan)

Can someone say something nice about this translation to balance it out a little? :-) Evercat 05:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

not really, it's an egregious translation and if it wasn't backed by Saudi money and influence it wouldn't exist because nobody would take it seriously. Umar99 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

The controversy section is well referenced and informative, but I did find one thing interesting about it. It is interesting that Khaleel Muhammad and Sheila Musaji's (I hope I spelled her name right) commentary stuck out to me when I read it. Regarding the criticism of the translation of the verses in Suratul Fatihah referring to Christians and Jews, they both expressed dismay that the justification in the footnotes was tafseer from medieval scholars such as Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir, claiming that they were not aware of the pluralism of today. Aside from the obvious fact that most Sunni Muslims take commentary of those past scholars more seriously that either Muhammad or Musaji, there is something else.
When one looks at the actual footnotes, the citation contains a hadeeth found in both Sunan al-Tirmidhi and Sunan Abi Dawood. Both of these are accepted as authentic as Sunnis, and in it Muhammad (the Muslim prophet, not Khaleel Muhammad) when asked directly about this verse said himself that it refers to the Christians and Jews. It just seems kind of interesting that both authors referred to it as simply medieval texts. If we're going to include that comment among the others that were made, should it not also be mentioned that they referred to a hadeeth directly confirming Khan's translation as a medieval text? This is certainly not a mainstream Muslim view, and per WP:UNDUE: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." Though honestly the comment could be removed all together as well, as it is just one of many issues the authors brought up and not necessarily more relevant than others. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

the inclusion of the "jews" and "christians" comment is a joke from the "mainstream Muslim view" and no normal Muslim would ever directly correlate the words in 1:7 to be about members of those two religions. again, if Saudi money and influence wasn't supporting this translation, it wouldn't exist. it's a farce. Umar99 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a reasonable counterpoint to include mention of the relevant hadith if it's widely regarded as authentic. Evercat (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm down for either mentioning the relevant hadith. Issue is, will we need a secondary source explaining that or would it be within article guidelines for us to include the hadith references directly in the article?

As for it being Saudi or a farce, this is clearly incorrect and actually kind of biased. It's not about where it's printed, it's the fact that Muhammad - whose words Muslims accept as a source for religion along with the Qur'an - said very clearly that the verse refers to Christians and Jews. If you look at the links to this translation of the Qur'an provided on the article, you can check the footnotes for yourself.

Khalil Mohammed and Khaled Abou El Fadl are notable and entitled to their own opinions (I don't know much of Sheila Musaji so I can't comment on her POV), but they're quite obviously not in line with mainstream Muslim thought - hadith take precedence over opinions for Muslims around the world. That should be included as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You can just cite the Hadith, though I have no knowledge about what Hadith references look like. But I would write something along the lines of:

However, there is a hadith, included in the collections of [insert collectors], and regarded as [sahih, is it?], in which Muhammad himself makes this connection.<ref>[However you would normally cite hadith]</ref>

Evercat (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Roughly, the hadith is narrated by 'Adi bin Hatim who asked Muhammad who that verse was referring to, and he named the Christians and Jews specifically. It's found in Sunan Abi Dawood and Sunan al-Tirmidhi, i'll try to get more details and post them here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a few problems here:

1) You've got some editing this Wiki entry that obviously have an agenda. Polemical designs pollute Wikipedia.

2) Aside from Khalil and Musaji, you can name mainstream scholars who find the Khan-Hilali translation reprehensible at best. I feel these two figures were named in order to clandestinely paint opposition to this translation as "heterodox".

3) The example of the closing verses of al-Fatiha is a very poor one. There are many, many other examples of inaccuracies throughout the translation. I intend on adding those to this Wiki entry shortly.

4) Though it is an accepted Tafsir that "Those that incurred Thine Wrath" and "Those that were led astray" refers to the Jews and Christians. Yet, to insert it briefly in parentheses is both an insertion in the Qur'anic text, as well as horrible exegesis (if that was even the intent). The correct exegesis is that "Those that incurred Thine Wrath" specifically refers to the Jews rejecting, opposing and killing their Prophets. "Those who were led astray" is a specific reference to the Christians deifying Christ. So, even if one were to say "Well, that is the Tafsir anyways", it must be said NO IT IS NOT. That's like saying, "Insert Coin" on a vending machine means you put coins in and get a 12oz Coke, without clarifying that it must be 50 Cents. 2 British Pence won't do.

Let's be objective and honest here, and if you're an Islamophobe, let there be no mistake, you are very, very, very easy to identify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiblizaman (talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)