From: ahussain@prism.poly.edu (Arshad Hussain)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Review of translations of the Qur'an
Date: 22 Nov 92 15:23:54 GMT
Organization: Polytechnic University, New York

>From: mmdh@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Mazen Mokhtar)
>Subject: Review of translations of the Qur'an

>  Translations by Qadiyanis:
>  - Muhammad Ali "The Holy Qur'an: English Translation" 1917: Mistranslated
>    several verses to conform to Qadiyani views regarding the Messiah for
>    example.

1. Maulvi Muhammad Ali is NOT Qadiani.  He Never belonged to Qadiani group 
   of Ahmadiyya community.

2. World's Opinion about M.M. Ali's translation:

a) A Christian's viewpoint: Rev. Zwemer's quarterly "The Moslem World" July 1931

   'A careful comparison of Mr. Pickthall's translation with that of the
    Ahmadiyyah translator, Maulvi Muhammad Ali, shows conclusively, that
    Mr. Pickthall's work is NOT very much more than a revision of the 
    Ahmadiyya version'(p. 289).

    'We have made a thorough examination of about 40 verses in the 2nd chapter,
     60 verses in the 3rd, 40 verses in the 19th and ALL of the last 15 
     chapters, COMPARING his renderings with those of Sale, Rodwell, Palmer
     and Muhammad Ali; as well as with the Arabic. From this careful inves-
     tigation we have come to the conclusion that Mr. Pickthall's translation, 
     in that part of his work which we have examined, RESEMBLES VERY CLOSELY
     the version of Muhammad Ali, the difference between the two version in 
     many  passages being merely verbal'(p.290).
 
     '(Pickthall's footnotes).. comparing 1920 edition of MA, will find that 
      throughout chapter 2 almost every footnote is based on Ahmadiyya 
      Commentary'(p. 293)

     '..the verses at the beginning of 2nd,3rd and 19th suras, and the last 15,
      the translation of Pickthall follows MA so closely that one finds very 
      few evidences of original work'(p. 297)
    
> More modern translations:
 
>  - Marmaduke Pickthall "The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an" 1930: First rate
>    rendering that keeps scrupulously close to the original in elegant though
>    now somewhat archaic English. However, it provides scant explanatory notes
>    which restricts its usefulness.
 
b) Mr. Pickthall's views  about  Maulvi Muhammad Ali:

   In reviewing M. M. Ali's book "Religion of Islam" he wrote
     'Probably NO man living has done longer or more valuable service for the
      cause of Islamic revival than Maulvi Muhammad Ali of Lahore.
      ... In our opinion the present volume is his FINEST work. It is a 
      description of Al-Islam by one well-versed in Sunnah who has on his 
      mind the SHAME of Muslim decadence of past five centuries and in his
      heart the hope of the revival....'(Islamic Culture, Oct. 1936)

>  - Abdul Majid Daryabadi "The Holy Qur'an: with English Translation and
>    Commentary 1957: A faithful rendering containing some explanatory notes.
>    However, it contains inadequate sura information and some of the
>    explanatory notes need updating.

c) Abdul Majid Daryabadi on MA's Translation of Holy Quran:

  The Editor of "Such", Lucknow writes on June 25th, 1943
     'To deny the EXCELLENCE of Maulvi Muhammad Ali's translation, the 
      influence it has exercised and its proselytizing utility, would be
      to deny the light of the SUN. ...... I gladly ADMIT that this trans-
      lation brought me towards Islam 15 or 16 years ago when I was groping
      in darkness, atheism and scepticism.'     


Mr. Mokhtar,
      Read carefully what Daryabadi has said. You consider his Translation
'faithful'. He has ONLY praise of Muhammad Ali's Translation some 23 years
after the publication of 1st edition. He has not ACCUSED Hazrat Maulvi Muhammad
Ali of any MISTRANSLATION. To remind you Mr. Pickthall and Mr. Daryabadi are
Orthodox Sunni scholars. I hope you will show some respect to the GREAT SOUL.

Sincerely

Arshad Hussain
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic