Talk:Noble Quran (Hilali–Khan)

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

message: The mention of Jews and Christians is obviously refering to those before Islam was introduced. Generally speaking, it is not refering to the Jews and Christians of today because the verse was created in the 7th century.--LloydKame (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bit implausible. If Jews and Christians had got things wrong before Muhammad, a fortiori they've still got things wrong after Muhammad. So if it's the correct interpretation, it surely would still apply. Evercat (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Religious verses are usually difficult to understand by most of us but in here it is refering to Jews and Christians of pre-Islamic era, and that's because when you read the verse it is refering to people in a past tense way. The curse of Jews is specifically refering to the time when the Jews forgot about Moses and began worshipping the Golden calf.--LloydKame (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jews and Christians

message: I found it relevant to add a section of the translation about Umm Muhammad, because it is a derivative work of Hilali-Khan. It is only a stub feel free to add more info. --Imdkzmaa (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, though I think you added too much info. :-) We don't really need dimensions, number of pages, or the official blurb from the publishers, I think. Evercat (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree that it's a derivative work. It flows considerably better. Got any proof that it's derivative?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.197.8.190 (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm Muhammad (Saheed International) added 

message: I have seen this everywhere and it is not true. Muhsin Khan is a Pakistani from the Punjab province of Pakistan. His ancestors migrated from Afghanistan hundreds of years ago. If you are going to call him an "Afghan Pashtun", then you have to call all Pakistanis on Wikipedia by the race they were descended from 100's of years ago.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.151.60 (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khan is not an "Afghan Pashtun" 

message: The intro claims
:It has been reported to be the most popular and "Now the most widely disseminated Qur'an in most Islamic bookstores and Sunni mosques throughout the English-speaking world
Really? This link , instead speaks about:
:Many local Muslims were particularly embarrassed by commentary that disparaged Jews and Christians even though neither group is mentioned in the original Arabic. "The outcry was so great. . . . People were disgusted," said Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, head of Bethesda's Minaret of Freedom Institute, an Islamic think tank. "And it wasn't just liberals. I couldn't find an American Muslim who had anything good to say about that edition. I would call it a Wahhabi Koran."
That's impopular, not "popular", more like a catastrophic derogation, than anything else. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Most popular?

message: I removed an unsourced paragraph regarding a dream that Khan allegedly had. Whilst dreams might be interesting, they are not appropriate in the context of an encyclopedia.RookTaker (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dream? 

message: You said that: Fathul Bari is referred to as "currently the CEO of the Scholar Association of Malaysia." End of discussion.
I could find nothing on the so called Scholar Association of Malaysia. This is not academia but a self described organisation with the word scholar in it. How can he and his organisation be compared to critics such as Khaled Abou El Fadl who is the Professor of Law of the UCLA School of Law?
:This is their website here, where Fathul Bari is mentioned in their decision making council alongside other scholars. I don't speak Malaysian well, but I do find it a bit odd that the Star, Malaysia's largest English newspaper, would be implied to have simply made the story up.
:And it goes without saying that the head of a major scholarship board in Malaysia, one of the most stable Muslim countries on earth with a history of scholarship going back a few centuries, is more significant than that of a law professor in a non-Islamic university. Just my two cents. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fathul Bari 

message: You said that: Muslim World League is as academic as it gets; that's not up for discussion even if you pretend to not know who they are. Check the wiki article.
It is very much open to discussion. The wiki article makes no mention of academia. It states that the Muslim World League propagates the religion of Islam, encouraging Dawah and conversion of non-Muslims,[2] and promotes apologetics against criticism of Islam. The organization funds the construction of mosques, financial reliefs for Muslims afflicted by natural disasters, the distribution of copies of the Quran, and political tracts on Muslim minority groups.
How is this therefore an academic institute? 
Regardless, the article reference you added makes no defence of the translation at all. As I mentioned before, Who is the author? What exactly is the "defence". I just checked this on Google books and there is no defence at all.
I maintain my point that zero academics have defended this translation, whilst many academics have trashed it.
:You seem to be mixing two issues here - your rather bold (and somewhat biased) claim at the end is a much broader issue than the subject heading. When we focus on that, we also see in the article: The Constituent Council is the highest authority in the Muslim World League. The Council consists of about sixty (60) prominent Muslim scholars representing Muslim peoples and minorities. This is known to anybody familiar with the body. Keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily legitimize them - the current text does, after all, note their apologetics. Regarding the specific article, then I just logged in and have limited time; give me a few days and I'll try to find it again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You actually did the right thing; my absence from Wikipedia was unexpected, and work on the site must continue, so for the time being your version would be considered the most recent one. I'll try to get into the habit of editing regularly again, but please give me a few days to actually get situated before I can take a look at the talk page here again. Thanks for remaining diligent regarding work on articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim World League 

message: I don't agree with your interpretation of the article you told me about (WP:QUOTEFARM). The article states that While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. 
So quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia... and therefore can be used.
Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. None of the criticisms are long quotations.
A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. 
I don't believe that the summary is better in this case. It obfuscates the gravity of the criticism. I feel the reader would be better placed reading the criticisms themselves and then making their own conclusions.
Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit, but quotes should not dominate the article.
There is therefore no need to remove the quotes for the criticisms or limit them as each one is legitimate. I therefore believe that the quotes should be reinstated.
:I'm sorry, but your bias becomes too apparent here to take the position too seriously. I am truly sorry if that comes off as pompous or intentionally mean spirited, but I don't know how else to phrase it. Your exact words: It obfuscates the gravity of the criticism. All detractors will feel that way, and you've made it obvious that you're a detractor of this translation; I personally don't care about it either way. But it isn't your job to show readers how major you personally think the criticism is.
:What we have here is simple: one Saudi and a group of Westerners - five, to be exact, as scholars such as Khaled Aboul Fadl are products of Western education establishments - have criticized the translation. If you think that's a huge, earth shattering thing that damns the translation conclusively, then we might have an issue of bias-based WP:CIR in regard to this specific article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To the IP address who wrote earlier: are you still around on Wikipedia? Have you considered creating a count, or editing long term? This article crosses my mind the other day. I never did take the time to revisit the discussions again, and I was unresponsive for a long time, so it didn't feel right to jump back in at the time. I'm a bit freer now; are you still around? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:QUOTEFARM 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Noble Quran (Hilali-Khan). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090129090725/http://al-quran.info:80/ to http://al-quran.info
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I changed the section labelled "content" to criticism and moved it down. I think this should address some of the neutrality issues? Maybe we could find someone saying something positive about it for balance. --Zaynab1418 (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed "content" to "criticism"