Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I read the Al-Hilali and Khan translation cover to cover. I used the Ali translation (and one other), to spot check for consistency, and I found good consistency between all three.I've been reading the Quran lately and as an English only speaker I'm using translations. I am already familiar with this book, layout etc., but never paid much attention to translation. On a previous thread I asked @Debater Slayer about my Yusuf Ali translation and he approved it, and I like it too so it's my go to, but I've also recently bought the Pickthall translation, as well as owning the Sahih International translation, which isn't as positively reviewed by some.
For those who are more familiar, which mainstream English version do you use? I like to use paper books, not online, and have bought some second hand for lack of money, so I'm sticking to the 3 versions I already own. Which is the best and for what reason, strengths, weaknesses of each, etc?
I read the Al-Hilali and Khan translation cover to cover. I used the Ali translation (and one other), to spot check for consistency, and I found good consistency between all three.
The one I read IS controversial. It's viewed by some as the most violen / extreme, and it might be. But I chose it because I believe it is the most highly published version in the world. I think it's important to know what most people are exposed to.
In other words: reading the Noble Quran is potentially Wahhabi propaganda.
I know you say you compared, but, does this mean wikipedia is wrong? It's saying words were added making it more violent.
Islam as was and is, can be seen as that.You also moved the goal posts. Even if it's true that Muslims only fight back, it's still committing violence.
Islam became a religion of war and subjugation, and all of these weak defenses are a joke.
Everything you said is consistent with what I heard, but you added more details.
Again, I chose this version precisely BECAUSE it is so widely published (and presumably read). I'm no scholar of ancient Arabic, so I cannot comment on there being additional words. What I noticed as I spot checked with other translations was that similar ideas might be phrased differently. I did NOT do a thorough Surah by Suran comparison.
I've concluded this narrative contradicts Quran. The verse that is used to say it was revealed for that event, I have a question, what verse was then revealed for the event of Khaybar?Yes, Mohamed "reactively parried" the heads off of hundreds of Jews of the Banu Quraiza tribe.
Taking all the context away eliminated any such claim. There is history and context behind each verse which needs to be taken into account.How many 'cherries' does it take to prove someone wrong? He made the very unambiguous claim the "the Quran does not teach violence", and I proved that's not true. Seriously, how does it not?
One of the nice things about having someone on the forum who is commited to locating all the violent verses in the quran and posting them as a list, is, if I was inclined, I could take that list, and use it to do some cross checking between the different translations to see if stuff was added.
maybe I'll do that one of these days.
Perhaps I could do that for the Ali-Pickhall comparison... hm... I wonder if I have the motivation to do that?
Or, you could just crack another beer and drop a clumsy insinuation. Oh, I see you've already chosen.
Probably not. But you could also just have another beer.
what you've done is useful. I'm being honest. ( and I don't drink, or do drugs excluding wine at passover. ) Thanks to you, I am fully confident that the Quran is OK, because I've gone through your list, read the chapters in context. It's a great relief. Good work.
In the early Meccan days, persecution included slaughter and torture. Every person has the right of self defense. There were Muslims murdered outright in Mecca for refusing to recant their belief in one God. Freedom of belief was non existent.And then comes 2:191 with a caveat that you conveniently ignored - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."
The Meccans and Muslims had not yet gone to war, so the criterion for fighting in 2:190 (fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you), did not apply, so Mohamed couldn't use that excuse to fight the Meccans. He immediately solved that problem in 2:191 by providing a work-around that moves the goal posts in such a vague and open-end manner as to designate virtually any unbeliever an enemy.
The importance of the definition of 'fitnah', and of adding it to self defense as the basis for which Muslims can justify attacking non-Muslims, cannot be stressed enough. 'Fitnah' is described in various English translations as any action that either impedes the practice of Islam ("suppresses faith") or simply violates any of God's commandments. The only 'crimes' the Meccans had committed against Islam were to "deny God's signs" (refuse to adopt Islam), and to 'desecrate' the Kaaba by using it for polytheist prayer. But, thanks to verse 2:191, it became enough to warrant attack.
Verse 2:191 is noteworthy for another reason. Although it targeted the pagans of Mecca, it demonstrates a method of instruction commonly used in the Qur'an. While the first part of the verse is specific to a given circumstance, the concluding statement is generic and suggestive of a wider application. In this case, "Such is the reward of those who suppress faith", implies that military action would be an appropriate response against any person, tribe, or nation deemed guilty of 'suppressing faith'.
In the early Meccan days, persecution included slaughter and torture.
Every person has the right of self defense. There were Muslims murdered outright in Mecca for refusing to recant their belief in one God. Freedom of belief was non existent.
No, it didn't. That's another lie. Prove it. Give a link.