Rating: 
Summary: The meaning of "Al-Fitnah" - Qur'anic ethics Pt. 2
Review: 10-Point Rating: (4.5 - gets an extra point for its exquisite binding)
In my review of Dawood's translation (q.v.), my entire argument rested on the translation given for Al-Fitnah, "idolatry". Ysuf Ali's translation, however, renders the word as "tumult and oppression". Immediately it becomes clear that vastly different ethics would govern the injunction in 2:191 depending on the meaning given to the word "Al-Fitnah". Researching the issue, I discovered that translations of the word may be divided in general into two groups: a) passive interpretation and b) active interpretation, typified by the Dawood and Ali translations respectively. In the passive interpretation, "Al-Fitnah" denotes a state of being or ontological worldview, which corresponds to an outlook at odds with Islam, typified by the pre-Islamic paganism of Muhammad's era. It is called passive because "Al-Fitnah" denotes only the mindset of those to whom it refers. By contrast, the active interpretation sees the word as indicating a further stance toward Muslims which is hostile and threatening. In this case, any action taken against such individuals would be self-defense only, to preserve Islam and the umma from external attack or civil unrest from within.
These two interpretations present ethical analyses which are as different as ethnic cleansing is from the punishment of crime. So how are we to proceed? A clue is given two verses later, when the removal of "Al-Fitnah" is described as "Justice and Faith in God" (2:193). That is, both interpretations are intended simultaneously, and this is what we should expect. Islamic Law applies to every facet of both societal and individual expression. Both outward and inward expression are required to be in submission (islam) to the will of God. Underlying the ethical significance of this group of verses (2:190-95) is the total-submission concept which lies at the heart of Islam. In this respect, the Qur'an and Islam are being brutally consistent in their beliefs in objective truth and the reality of the God of the Qur'an. It is the same sense of divine mandate which drove the medieval Catholic Church to commit its share of ghastly deeds in the name of instituting such a "City of God". The difference, though, is that whereas the Catholic Church acted in direct defiance of the commands of their Savior, militant Islam is acting in direct harmony with the overall message of the Qur'an.
In summary, we must always judge the parts in light of the whole which they form. In this respect, the ethical significance of the "jihad verses" (2:190-95) must be established in relation to the overall outlook of the Qur'an and Islam concerning the nature of man and what is permissable in a rightly guided society. Read the Qur'an yourself, and see if you can identify an overall TONE. Would you describe it as optimistic or pessimistic? Positive or negative? Peaceful or aggressive? Uplifting or threatening? I'm only asking the questions, each of us must find our own answers.
Rating:
Summary: The meaning of "Al-Fitnah" - Qur'anic ethics Pt. 2
Review: 10-Point Rating: (4.5 - gets an extra point for its exquisite binding)
In my review of Dawood's translation (q.v.), my entire argument rested on the translation given for Al-Fitnah, "idolatry". Ysuf Ali's translation, however, renders the word as "tumult and oppression". Immediately it becomes clear that vastly different ethics would govern the injunction in 2:191 depending on the meaning given to the word "Al-Fitnah". Researching the issue, I discovered that translations of the word may be divided in general into two groups: a) passive interpretation and b) active interpretation, typified by the Dawood and Ali translations respectively. In the passive interpretation, "Al-Fitnah" denotes a state of being or ontological worldview, which corresponds to an outlook at odds with Islam, typified by the pre-Islamic paganism of Muhammad's era. It is called passive because "Al-Fitnah" denotes only the mindset of those to whom it refers. By contrast, the active interpretation sees the word as indicating a further stance toward Muslims which is hostile and threatening. In this case, any action taken against such individuals would be self-defense only, to preserve Islam and the umma from external attack or civil unrest from within.
These two interpretations present ethical analyses which are as different as ethnic cleansing is from the punishment of crime. So how are we to proceed? A clue is given two verses later, when the removal of "Al-Fitnah" is described as "Justice and Faith in God" (2:193). That is, both interpretations are intended simultaneously, and this is what we should expect. Islamic Law applies to every facet of both societal and individual expression. Both outward and inward expression are required to be in submission (islam) to the will of God. Underlying the ethical significance of this group of verses (2:190-95) is the total-submission concept which lies at the heart of Islam. In this respect, the Qur'an and Islam are being brutally consistent in their beliefs in objective truth and the reality of the God of the Qur'an. It is the same sense of divine mandate which drove the medieval Catholic Church to commit its share of ghastly deeds in the name of instituting such a "City of God". The difference, though, is that whereas the Catholic Church acted in direct defiance of the commands of their Savior, militant Islam is acting in direct harmony with the overall message of the Qur'an.
In summary, we must always judge the parts in light of the whole which they form. In this respect, the ethical significance of the "jihad verses" (2:190-95) must be established in relation to the overall outlook of the Qur'an and Islam concerning the nature of man and what is permissable in a rightly guided society. Read the Qur'an yourself, and see if you can identify an overall TONE. Would you describe it as optimistic or pessimistic? Positive or negative? Peaceful or aggressive? Uplifting or threatening? I'm only asking the questions, each of us must find our own answers.
Rating: 
Summary: Remains the best introductory translation
Review: Almost a hundred years after it was published, Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation remains a favorite among Western students of the Qur'an. Lucid and easy to read, this translation is also enhanced by Yusuf Ali's extensive footnotes that give context to the verses. For those seeking to learn more about Islam, Yusuf Ali's translation is a good introduction.
The reviewer from Morocco who launches a massive diatribe on the Qur'an is clearly a vain pseudo-intellectual with a mediocre grasp of cognitive psychology. And he's not particularly original -- he pastes the same exact review for every single translation of the Qur'an on Amazon! But such ramblings are of little concern for seekers of spiritual wisdom -- the Qur'an speaks eloquently for itself and responds quite confidently to its detractors. Read and come to your own conclusions.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating!
Review: An excellent source for everyone. This translation, although not a perfect one, is probably the best one out there. This is the source where you can find answers to the most difficult questions (i.e. What is the meaning of life and why are we here?) A great way to find out the truth about Islam rather than seeing it through a biased perspective (as generally portrayed by non-Muslims and the media). A great source to investigate if you want to analyze the major religions before making a decision (as we all know that at most, only one can be the right one). Recommended for anyone who wants to follow a faith after having reflected on other faiths as well.
Rating:
Summary: Allah be praised!
Review: Are you Christian? Jew? Agnostic? Whomever you are, the Qur'an will give enlightenment and blessing. It is the logical progression of Faith! The Faith of God's people began with Judaism, then Jesus was sent to teach the lesson of salvation.. but some (now many) began worshipping him as God. Allah gave this crystalline message to Muhammad to correct the errors made by man and to give us the next progression that our beliefs should take. The Qur'an is NOT a replacement for the Bible and Tanakh; I believe that it acts as the perfect companion and I will not use the three apart from each other. I find it to be completely in line with the teachings of Jesus and even back to our Father Abraham! The God of Muhammad is the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the God of Jesus, and the God of you and I. Allah (god most high) be forever praised for these blessed words!
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, but I must point out...
Review: As a Muslim who has owned this book for years, given to me by Ahmed Deedat himself, I must say that Abdullah Yusuf Ali has done a marvellous job making this fine translation. However, there are a few facts that non-Arabic speakers must be very well aware of:First of all, despite the attempt to make the translation as accurate as possible, one must be aware of the PROFOUND differences between Arabic language and the English language. Arabic is much more complex and has an unequalled myriad of gramattical and linguistic tools, and it is that that makes the Quran so powerful and moving to anyone who knows Arabic well. When the Quran is translated into English, the beauty of the language is lost, hence the title 'Meanings of the Holy Quran in English' instead of 'The Holy Quran in English'. Second, the translation allows for some misunderstandings that the anti-Muslims use to justify their prejudices against Islam.
So it must be pointed out that in the Arabic language, you must read all the verses for a sentence to make sense, and this does not necessarily come through in English, thus allowing for those misunderstandings. An example is a reviewer on this site who took the verse "And slay them wherever you catch them... " to try and say that Islam is violent. If you read the verse before it and the ones after it, you will find that this is purely self defense. The verses say " Fight in the cause of God THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU, but DO NOT TRANSGRESS LIMITS (as in killing civilians), For God loveth not transgressors. And Slay them Wherever ye catch them, ..... BUT IF THEY CEASE, GOD IS OFT-FORGIVING, MOST MERCIFUL. And fight them UNTIL THERE IS NO MORE TUMULT OR OPPRESSION ..... BUT IF THEY CEASE, LET THERE BE NO HOSTILITY EXCEPT TO THOSE WHO PRACTICE OPPRESSION (i.e. forgive them).
Such misunderstandings can be overcome by reading all the verses in a sura in order to understand the meaning, and also reading the helpful footnotes. If something is unclear, consult a Muslim. Third, always consult a Muslim on passages that you may not understand, or have any trouble with. A 'regular' Muslim who practices the Quran everyday of his life would know much better than an armchair intellectual who read 3 books about Islam and became a self-proclaimed expert in the field of Islamic studies. In general, a Muslim would know much more about her or his own religion than a non-Muslim, so try to read books written by Muslims. Fourth, and most importantly, for the non-Muslims reading the text, a very important piece of advice: read the Quran OBJECTIVELY, or dont bother reading it. Some people read the Quran to try and justify and hatered/misconception that they may have. If you read the Quran with this mindset, you might as well save yourself the trouble, and continue to believe whatever it is that you desparately want to believe. Otherwise, I am sure that you will have a lot to gain from reading the meanings of the Quran.
Rating:
Summary: A sign of Allah's Mercy for the Non-Arab humanity
Review: By Allah's Grace, Mercy and Will, author A. Yusuf Ali made it possible for all Non-Arabic speaking Muslims and all nations of all times to read the original verses from The Holy Quran alongwith the meaning and understand as far best possible its interpretations which open the doors to the path of righteousness for those in search thereof. A Blessing and a gift unparrallel! May Allah grant A.Yusuf Ali a reward unparralell! Ameen.
Rating: 
Summary: i'll give it 2 stars because it has a nice cover.
Review: First off, I'd like to get started by quoting from Caesar Farah's book, "Islam". On page 103
he says that Abdullah Yusif Ali's translations, though widely used, is not authorized by the
Umma, nor is it endorsed by any major and/or creditable Islamic institution. It's not
because it is a translation, since, Shakir, Arberry, Pickthal, Dawood, Fakhry, etc. have all
done translations that are accepted by the Umma (Fakhry's is endorsed by the Al-Azhar
University), but, rather, because it's a bad translation of the text. Yusif Ali's version is a
rouge translations with no credibility outside of Ali's words. Aside from the fact that his mistranslates things to hide and cover up mistakes in the
Qur'an such as in Sura 4:12 when he translates the Arabic word for "Children" as "child"
to avoid the overdraft of a husband dying with a wife, two daughters, a mother, and a
father and it adding up to 27/24 of the available estate (every other translator translates it "children" and an Arab mathmatician in the 9th century wrote a book trying to figure it
out and then ultimately gave up in confusion). Ali also thinks Zul-qarnain, or, "The Two
Horned One" in Sura 18:89-98 is Alexander the Great. Another good one is his trying to
cover up Mohammed's lack of correct information on the Christian Trinity in Sura 5:73
when he writes adds "...in a Trinity" to "Unbelievers are those who 'say Allah is one of
three'" as in, Christians believe God is one of three different gods or something
uneducated and incorrect like that. Rather than purchase this one, I would buy the Dawood, Fakhry, or Arberry translations
because they're accepted and endorsed by the Umma. I just have to write this to Khaled Mahmoud Al Anani, the reviewer who commented on
being given a copy by Amad Deedat (the only great thing Deedat ever did was die),
apparently he doesn't know much if he trusts Ahmad Deedat, or rather, implies he thinks
of him as a great person. Deedat wrote a book called "The Choices" with such atrocious
scholarship and horrendous lies in it, it can hardly be called a work at all. Among his
many, many, many mistakes, twisting of words, and outright lies is his lie concerning what
the Greek texts says in the New Testament in John 1:1 (I read Koine Greek so I know first
hand) and claims "TONTHEOS" in the beginning of the Gospel of John means "A god".
Aside from the fact that TONTHEOS isn't even a word, (it would have to be "ton theoN"
and it's the accusative case of the noun "theos" meaning "God") saying "ton theos" is as
incorrect in Greek as saying, "Ain't got none" in English, it would be ruggedly and
outright incorrect. As I recall, he even makes up a story about how a minister who read
Greek was forced to admit to him how "TONTHEOS" means, "a god" and that it's the
first occurrence when any person with even basic knowledge, let alone a professor knows
very well that can't be. Another one of his is claiming that Muhammed is the "paraclete"
spoken of in John 14, 15, and 16 and that it is "proven in the Greek because it has been
mistranslated", trust me, as a reader of Greek, that is an outright lie; Deedat's books are
worthless outside of being used for toilet paper and fuel for the fire. I have nothing against Muslims; I do, though, have a problem with those who lie (i.e.
Deedat), regardless of religion (one of the many reasons I don't care for Jerry Falwell and
his lackeys). I completely agree with the first reviewer about Rattemause, for God's sake,
get some correct information, whether for or against Islam. There are few things I despise
more than lies, blatantly incorrect information stated as absolute fact, and stupidity. I
disagree with Omar Badri on one point, though (aside from this version of the Qur'an),
"ALL MUSLIMS DO NOT SUPPORT THE ATTACKS ON SEPT. 11", there are a large
amount of Muslims in the Middle East who support it greatly. Most Muslims in North
America do not agree with it, and, in fact, condemn it; but the fact that no major Islamic
Institution in the Middle East has issued a Fatwa (condemnation) on the suicide bombers
in the attack, but have remained largely silent either way, when they have no problem
issuing one on the state of Israel is rather alarming. I know that by saying this I risk being
called "Anti-Islamic", "politically incorrect", and a "racist", all of which are wrong, but
facts are facts. I have many Muslims friends and I can say from personal experience, most
Muslims are peace loving people, an alarmingly growing number, though, mainly in the
Middle East are just bad people stirred on by hate and inadequate knowledge to persecute
Copts, Jews, and other Muslims who don't agree with their ideology.
Rating:
Summary: A Fine Translation - Please See My Issues Below
Review: Here is a fine translation of the Muslim's Holy Book presented by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. But in light of the recent terrorist attacks, endorsed by Bin Laden under the supposed Aegis of Allah, how are we to interpret the following phrases: The Accessions [8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. [8.14] This-- taste it, and (know) that for the unbelievers is the chastisement of fire. [8.50] And had you seen when the angels will cause to die those who disbelieve, smiting their faces and their backs, and (saying): Taste the punishment of burning The Dinner Table The Immunity [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! While the Koran and Islam is far more rich and balanced than these particular excerpts, how do we reconcile these heated verses of Scripture with the notion of peace? Please consider this... In Islam, the dagger was congenital with the Koran. This was a religion born in warfare, and the people in the region where it was born have, more or less, been fighting ever since. Islam resonates deeply with the war-bred. It is a religion born with a 'fight to survive' clause for persecuted peoples, thus we may find in it words as strong as these. If a 'turn the other cheek' ethos permeated the Middle East for the past 2000 years, the Arabs might have all been wiped out long ago... Also please consider that every relgion can be, and is meant to also be, taken symbolically. Sufism, the mystical branch of Islam, concentrates on this. Might I recommend some Sufi interpretations of the Koran, or some Sufi texts? The hostile verses from the Koran which I have presented above can be interpreted purely symbolically. I know that acts of terrorism are ethically problematic and morally unjustifiable, but I can see how anger, religion, fear, and militant role-models can convince gullible and (often) downtrodden people to commit such acts in the name of Allah. It is a complex historical problem, not just confined to Islam, that we all need to bring out into the open and try to solve. But Islam, thankfully, is also rich in teachings of peace, and fortunately most Muslims throughout the world take this more peaceable route.
Rating:
Summary: Gives a person an understanding.
Review: I brought this book for the purpose of finding out about the Islamic faith. What I have read so far is an eye-opener (and I'm not talking about having to read the book backwards!). Hearing fundamentalists calling non-Islamists "Infidel" (non-believer) on TV many times, challenges what the Quran actually says. The Prophet Mohammed states clearly that Allah is the same God as whom Christians and Jews pray to, so that tells me that Islamic Militants don't know what they are talking about when they call a Christian or a Jew an Infidel. The Quran tells me that the faiths have a lot more in common than what some persons would like us to believe. While I don't intend to abandon my Christian faith, reading the Quran will make me rather more tolerant of those Muslums who don't espouse violence.
|
