THE ROLE PLAYED BY QUR'AN TRANSLATIONS IN STEERING PUBLIC OPINION AGAINST ISLAM
IN NON-MUSLIM COMMUNITIES
COUNTERACTING ANTIPATHY AGAINST ISLAM:
INSIGHTS IRONICALLY INSPIRED BY TWO NON-MUSLIMS AND MORE ..
Dahlia Sabry, The Language and Translation Centre, Academy of Arts in Cairo
dsabry_2000@yahoo.com
Ibrahim Saleh, The American University in Cairo (AUC)
librasma@aucegypt.edu
ABSTRACT
This paper pinpoints the important role that Qur'an translations have played in forming the image of Islam past and
present. This importance has remarkably increased in the aftermath of 9/11 with the unprecedented curiosity to know about
Islam by reading its very revealed Book. As Thomas Cleary, a non-Muslim Qur'an translator mentions, Qur'an translations are
supposed to provide "an authentic point of reference from which to examine the biased stereotypes of Islam to which
Westerners are habitually exposed." However, unfortunately, most of these translations have not fulfilled this function. They
either fail to give a precise image of Islam or rather give a negative distorted one.
Firstly, the paper starts with a historical review indicating that the libels levelled against Islam are deeply rooted in the
misconceptions propagated by the first Latin Qur'an translations perverted on purpose out of fear that Islam would shake the
established faith of Christians. Besides, the first English translation by Alexander Ross entitled The Alcoran of Mahomet
highlights a basic misconception spread in the West, namely that Prophet Muhammad is the author of the Qur'an. This drives
non-Muslims to doubt its authenticity being supposedly not of divine revelation. These translations led to embedding
distorted facts in the western mentality that have now become like axioms. This section also indicates how some Muslim
translations have been manipulated to serve certain needs. For instance, the translations of some Shi'ites and those influenced
by scientific rationalism reflect some views that may be somewhat different from basic Muslim beliefs. Besides, the
translations by the Indian Qadiyanis and Ahmadeyyis encompass major distortions.
Secondly, the paper explains some of the ways Qur'an translations contribute to giving a false or negative impression
about Islam through either deliberate manipulation or non-deliberate mistranslations or inadequacies.
Thirdly, the paper proposes some insights as to how to take action against the campaigns discrediting Islam. The
researchers suggest that this should go on two levels: a project to publish a more reliable Qur'an translation in addition to
bridging the information gap through explaining and clarifying the controversial issues that usually lead to misunderstanding
Islam. The latter can be done on the official level through media programs or on the layperson level through cross-cultural
communication via alternative media. Ironically, two non-Muslim scholars, Maurice Bucaille and Thomas Cleary, highlight
aspects of Islam that give an alternative perspective different from that presented in the media.
I. INTRODUCTION
In the aftermath of the events of 9/11, there was a boom in the sales of Qur'an translations. For instance, according
to Mustafa Maher, about six million translations were sold in Germany (as cited in Abdul Aal, February 5, 2006, p. 64).
Similarly, in Israel, Muhammad Mahmoud Abu Ghadeer indicates that bookstores ran out of their Qur'an translation stock (as
cited in Abdel Aal, January 29, 2006, p. 79). In this era, Qur'an translations have become far more crucial than any time
before. Apart from their essentiality to non-Arabic speaking Muslims, they represent the primary source of information and
the major recourse for the non-Muslims who are curious to pursue familiarity with Islam through first-hand knowledge
instead of simply "imbibing received opinions and attitudes without individual thought and reflection", as Thomas Cleary
(1993) puts it (p. X). The role of such translations is gravely serious in formulating recipients' opinion about Islam. About the
benefit of reading the Qur'an by non-Muslims, Cleary (1993) states:
For non-Muslims, one special advantage in reading the Qur'an is that it provides an authentic point of reference from
which to examine the biased stereotypes of Islam to which Westerners are habitually exposed. Primary information is
essential to distinguish between opinion and fact in a reasonable manner. This exercise may also enable the thinking
individual to understand the inherently defective nature of prejudice itself … (1993, p. VIII).
However, translations should be objective and accurate to realize the advantage Cleary refers to. This has not always
been the case since sometimes, as Hassan Ma'ayergi (1984) points out, "[translating] the meanings of the Quran offered an
opportunity to distort and misinterpret its meanings …" (p. 442).
Lately, western media have been propagating the idea that Islam is a religion that promotes terrorism as it ingrains
hostility and the love of bloodshed in Muslims. Obviously, the defamation of Islam has been on the rise in recent years;
however, some people may not be aware that the commencement of this movement is deeply rooted in the past. In fact, the
early renderings of the meanings of the holy Qur’an into western languages deliberately targeted spreading misconceptions
about Islam.
II. MILESTONES IN THE HISTORY OF QUR'AN TRANSLATIONS
According to Mofakhar Hussain Khan (1986), the first attempt of translating the Qur'an was into Latin. At the
request of the Abbot of the monastery of Cluny, it was made by Robert of Ketton in 1143, yet it was not published until 1543.
Afaf Ali Shukry (2000), points out that the basic goal behind this translation was to find out the differences that shook the
foundations of Christian beliefs in order to support Christianity (pp. 21-22). After this first translation, the Qur'an was
translated into other languages like Italian, German and French in 1547, 1616 and 1647 respectively. Hussein Abdul-Raof
(2001) asserts that the first Latin translation "abounds in inaccuracies and misunderstandings, and was inspired by hostile
intention" (p. 19). Another Latin translation by Ludovicus Marracci was published in 1698. Colin Turner (1997) indicates that
it was supplemented with quotes from Qur’an commentaries "carefully juxtaposed and sufficiently garbled so as to portray
Islam in the worst possible light" (p. xii). To understand the intention of the translator, suffice it to say that the title of the
introductory volume of such translation was A Refutation of the Quran.
Hassan Ma'ayergi (1984) argues, "[after] the first glimpse of Islam through these translations, Europeans grew all the
more aggressive in their fight against Islam. Various attacks were launched against Islamic culture and heritage" (p.442). What
aggravated the problem is that such translations formed the foundation for a number of subsequent works.
The first English translation was that of Alexander Ross published in 1649. There is no better evaluation of the type
of work it is than the translator's statement of his goal in the introduction, "I thought good to bring it to their colours, that so
viewing thine enemies in their full body, thou must the better prepare to encounter … his Alcoran" (p. A3). Along the same
line, Muhammad Galaa Edris, Professor of Comparative Religions, states that H. Reckendorf (1857) says in his Hebrew
translation of the Qur'an, "I can now stop writing and ask God's pardon for the sin I committed when I profaned our sacred
language and transferred to it the talk of lies and falsehood" [my trans.] (as cited in Abdul Aal, January 29, 2006, p. 78).
It should be also noted that the title of Ross' translation is The Alcoran of Mahomet … newly Englished for the satisfaction of
all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities. The title is self-explanatory, and it underlines one of the basic misconceptions
prevalent in the West, namely that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was the author of the Qur'an. In this context, it
is worth mentioning that Maurice Bucaille (1986), an eminent French surgeon and scientist who defends the authenticity of
the Qur'an in his book The Bible, Qur'an and Science, states that some western translations meant to deliberately mistranslate the
word "‫ " أمى‬ummei (unlettered), referring to Prophet Muhammad in some Qur'anic ayat (verses). This was meant to hide the
fact that it could have never been possible for an unlettered person to be the author of the Qur'an that encompasses
meticulous scientific facts that were discovered long after his death and could not have been thought of at the time of
revelation (pp. 94-96). As Bucaille states, this fact about the Prophet used to shock westerners whenever he revealed it to
them. In 1734, George Sale’s translation came out based on Marracci’s earlier notorious work. In 1861, J. M. Rodwell’s work
provided a further example of a writer "gunning for Islam" (Turner, 1997, p. xii).
The wide circulation of these early unfair translations, essentially predetermined to discredit Islam, led to embedding
distorted facts in the western mentality that have now become like axioms despite the appearance of a few subsequent
somewhat better translations by non-Muslims. Bucaille (1981) stresses the existence of mainstream inaccurate ideas that
brainwash westerners stating, "as most people in the West have been brought up on misconceptions concerning Islam and the
Qur'an; for a large part of my life, I myself was one such person". He adds:
As I grew up, I was always taught that 'Mahomet' was the author of the Qur'an; I remember seeing French
translations bearing this information. I was invariably told that the 'author' of the Qur'an simply compiled … stories
of sacred history taken from the Bible…, while setting forth the principles and rules of the religion he himself had
founded.
Besides, at the International Seminar on Islam in Paris, held under the auspices of the Organization of the Islamic
Conference, Bucaille (1985) explains:
When I started my in-depth research on the reality of Islam, for the first time, I started to study its scripture, the
Qur'an, and I was obliged to use translations done by various Islamologues or orientalists. Alas, the script under these
conditions was not self-explicative, and I remember having found in several translations of the same paragraph such
differences that it was evident that these interpretations were due to translators and their commentaries, often added
to the text. Later on having acquired the knowledge of the Arabic language, enabling me to read the Qur'an in the
original text, I … discerned the evident desire to camouflage or to willfully change the meaning, evidently in order to
adapt the text to a personal point of view. (p. 10)
Besides, testifying to the deliberate mistranslation of the Qur'an by some Orientalists to confirm the misconceptions
about Islam taught to students at schools, Husain Rofe, a British convert to Islam states:
Reading Rodwell's translation of the Qur'an Al-karim had specially fixed these preconceptions into my subconscious.
Rodwell had purposely mistranslated some parts of the Qur'an al-Karim and distorted its meanings, thus turning the
holy book into a mass of unintelligible words altogether different from the original version. It was not till after having
contacted the 'Islamic Society' in London and having read a true translation of the Qur'an al-karim did I know the
truth. (as cited in Why did they become Muslims?, 1995)
Similarly, Muhammad John Webster, another convert to Islam explains that before being a Muslim, he got a Qur'an
translation by a non-Muslim out of curiosity. Then, he explains:
… I had hardly finished the introduction of the book, when I immediately closed the book. For the translator … used
such an abusive and defamatory language about the Qur'an al-karim right in the introduction that it meant there was
no sense in reading a book of that sort … I took the matter more seriously, and when I went to the city of Perth in
western Australia a couple of weeks later, I visited the grand library of the city and queried whether there was a
translation of the Qur'an al-karim rendered by Muslims. They found a translation of that sort and gave it to me. No
words could define the emotions that began to stir in the depths of my soul when I opened it and read the first
chapter in it, the chapter (sura) called Fatiha-i-Sharifa …(as cited in Why did they become Muslims?, 1995)
The early non-Muslim translations distorted the spirituality of the holy Qur’an and damaged the concepts of Islam.
Unfortunately, as Sir Edward Denson Ross (1940) asserts in his introduction to George Sales' translation:
[for] many centuries the acquaintance which the majority of Europeans possessed of Mohammedanism was based almost
entirely on distorted reports of fanatical Christians which led to dissemination of a multitude of gross calumnies. What
was good in Mohammedanism was entirely ignored, and what was not good, in the eyes of Europe, was exaggerated or
misinterpreted. (as cited in Sales, 1940, p. 7)
Due to the problems of the early non-Muslim translations, the twentieth century witnessed the publication of a
plethora of Muslim translations. The axiomatic supposition is that these translations should have provided a genuine
representative image of the spirit of Islam and an accurate version of its Scripture. However, with some of these translations
further complications have emerged.
Firstly, some controversial translations are those influenced by scientific rationalism like those of Ahmad Zidan and
Dina Zidan (1979), Muhammad Asad (1980), and Ahmad Ali (1984). They intend to interpret any references to miracles in the
Qur'an on rational or figurative basis as they reject the idea of miracles. For example, while Muslims believe that Prophet
Abraham, peace be upon him, was saved by God's grace from the fire in which he was plunged by some of the disbelievers,
Asad (1980) argues that the reference in the Qur'an is "apparently an allegorical allusion to the fire of persecution which
Abraham had to suffer" (p. 496). Similarly, he believes that Jesus Christ's miraculous talk in his cradle is "a metaphorical
allusion to the prophetic wisdom which was to inspire Jesus from a very early age" (p. 73). Similar tendencies are perceived in
Asad's translation and the other similar translations in reference to the other miracles of Christ, Moses, Solomon … etc.,
peace be upon them all. Unfortunately, these views reflect false refutation of basic mainstream beliefs of the majority of
Muslims who fully acknowledge these miracles.
Secondly, some translations project sectarian views that differ from common Muslim beliefs. In Shi'ites' translations,
e.g. that of S. V. Mir Ahmad Ali (1964), the basic concern is with the Shi'ites' queer imposed interpretations on some general
ayat that they mean to make particularly referring to Ali, Prophet Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, and his household, may
God be pleased with them. On the basis of these interpretations, they support their tendency to confer unbounded glory on
Ali. Thus, such translators digress from the mainstream understanding of the ayat in some places to reflect their own doctrinal
biases rather than give an accurate presentation of the Muslims' Scripture.
Thirdly, the most serious distortions by far, however, emerged on account of the translations by the Indian Qadiyani
and Ahmadeyya communities. To serve their own crooked needs, they marred their translations with twisted ayat. Similarly,
they disseminate ideas that contradict basic Muslim beliefs. A prime example is their claim that Jesus Christ, peace be upon
him, was crucified and was not raised alive to God, as Neal Robinson (1997, p. 266) points out. They meant to give support,
on the basis of such perverted translations, to the claims of their leader Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that he was the Promised
Messiah and Mahdi.
The dissemination of such doctrines that drift far away from the common Muslims' beliefs did severe injustice to
Islam. Sadly, in these works lies the utmost danger -- even more than those by orientalists. Being supposedly by Muslim
translators, their distortion and misguidance sail under the banner of Islam. However, as the translation committee of the
Majestic Qur’an (2000) state, they "often contain interpretations which are eccentric and speculative and do not reflect the
mainstream understanding of the text, which most readers wish to know" (VIII). Apart from the aforementioned works, some
other moderate translations by Muslims appeared. However, it is important to stress that translations are not always a reliable
source to judge Islam. Any translator brings to his work the beliefs, inferences and doctrines that are the substance of personal
biases, theological leaning, and even tactical scheming. Hence, the only criterion for judgment is the text in Arabic. It should
be borne in mind that translations, no matter how accurate, can hardly be objective.
III. MANIPULATIONS AND INADEQUACIES OF QUR'AN TRANSLATIONS
After giving a review of some milestones in the history of Qur'an translations, this section sheds light on some of the
ways Qur'an translations, can play a role in, deliberately or non-deliberately, giving a false or negative impression about Islam.
A. MISTRANSLATIONS OR INADEQUATE TRANSLATIONS
Some misconceptions about Islam arise from mistranslations of certain words or ayat, not necessarily on purpose.
This section cites only three examples to highlight the problem at hand. One of the basic misconceptions is related to the
status of women in Islam. Some people argue that Islam degrades women, and they base their argument on some Qur'anic
ayat. In this regard, for instance, a mistranslation of the verb " ‫" فضل‬, fadala, as "preferred" in aya 34 of sura 4 in the Bewleys
translation gives a meaning different from the one intended. The aya is translated by the Bewleys (1999) as:
"Men have charge of women because Allah has preferred the one above the other and because they spend their
wealth on them" (p. 73).
Indeed, the verb fadala, in one of its senses, means "to prefer". However, in this aya, it is used in the sense of giving
more privileges in terms of physical strength and affording for women's needs etc. ... Thus, a better translation by Thomas
Cleary (2004) is:
"The men are supporters of the women, by what God has given one more than the other" (p. 40).
It is worth noting that, in fact, a woman in Islam is given unique privileges: the right to own property in the women's
name alone, the right to be divorced from a husband for the sole reason of the inability of living with him even if he were
good, the right to keep her own name and property after getting married, the right of inheritance, the right to own and run
business of her own, the right to choose the partner, the right to be maintained by the husband… etc. Dirks (2003), a convert
to Islam, refutes the misconception about the degraded women in Islam stating:
Some estimates place the percentage of American converts to Islam that are women as high as 80%... it is crucial to
emphasize that the erroneous stereotype of women being subjugated and oppressed by Islam is flatly and mistakably
refuted by the fact that a large majority of American converts to Islam are women. (p. 11)
Another example of a wrong meaning results from the inadequate translation of aya 179 of sura 2 in Mahmoud Ghali's
translation, for instance. The aya is translated as:
"And in retaliation there is life for you, O men endowed with intellect, that possibly you would be pious" (p. 27).
On asking a Spanish friend of what he understands of this aya, he replied "the first phrase means fight, acting on revenge, and
you’ll get a reward (e.g. extra life, in this world or hereafter). The second phrase I don’t understand at all" (personal
communication, March 30, 2006). In the previous translation, the apparent meaning of the first phrase is that Muslims rejoice
in the act of retaliation. However, the intended meaning is that retribution, executing the murderer, is a deterrent penalty that
can save peoples' lives through scaring those who want to murder anybody that their penalty would be being murdered
themselves. Thus, men of understanding would guard against retaliation by avoiding killing. The problem here is that in trying
to adhere so closely to the Arabic idiom, the translator rendered a misleading and an incomprehensible translation of the first
part. In the second part, the word ‫" اتقى‬etaqa", translated as "be pious", in Arabic may mean several things among which are
"be pious in the sense of fearing God", "to guard against", "be cautious of", "beware of" … etc. The translator chose a wrong
meaning that does not suit the context without referring to the exegesis.
A further problem may arise from the translation of the Arabic words " ‫" إسلم‬, Islam, and " ‫"مسلمون‬, Muslimun in
Qur'anic ayat. These words literally mean in Arabic "submission to God" and "those who submit themselves to God",
respectively, rather than "Islam only as the religion of Prophet Muhammad" and "Muslims as the followers of Prophet
Muhammad". Using the words "Islam" and "Muslims" in the translation of such ayat without an explanatory footnote may
make the ayat appear as if based on anachronisms as the persons involved came before Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his
religion. It may also be understood that the Qur'an is based on falsifications as it describes people who came long before
Prophet Muhammad as "Muslims". Examples of these ayat are:
"And when Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundations of the house, [they prayed]: 'Our Lord! Accept
from us [this act]. You are indeed The Ever-Hearing, The Ever Knowing. Oh our Lord! Make us both
Muslims to You. And raise from among our offspring a community who are Muslim to You'…" [2: 127-128]
"Or where you present when death came to Jacob? When he said to his sons: 'what will you worship when I
am gone?' They answered: 'We shall worship your God and the God of your fathers: Abraham, Ishmael and
Isaac, the One God, and to Him we are Muslims' " [2: 133)
"When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be my helpers to God?" The disciples said,
'we are God's helpers: We believe in God, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims' " [3: 52]
Translations should explain that the word "Muslim" is derived from the verb aslama (past tense) or yuslim (present
tense) which means "submit to God" not "a follower of the Islamic religion" only. It was coined first by Prophet Abraham
(PBUH), the founder of monotheism, to be followed later by Prophets Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad who supposedly
introduced different phases of the same essence – submitting one's will to God and associating no other with Him – to be
culminated by the final religion Islam. Hence, Prophet Abraham is a great Prophet in Islam as he originally founded the basis
of what Islam culminated. That is why the Great Bairam in Islam is a celebration of the rescue of his first born son.
B. DECONTEXTUALIZATION
A major trend that helped in spreading the idea that Islam is a religion of terrorism is that the western media
decontextualize ayat of the Qur'an dealing with war and use them to criticize Islam. Such ayat were revealed on certain
occasions at the time of the Prophet. Along the same lines, in their book The Dark Side of Islam, Abdul Saleeb and R. C Sproul
(2003) decontextualize some ayat to prove that Islam is a religion that instigates violence. One of the examples they mention is
ayat 190-193 of sura 2. This is how they cite them:
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, … and slay them wherever you catch them, ... and fight them on until
there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah" (p. 87)
However, the full ayat read:
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors, and slay them
wherever you catch them [those who fight against you]; drive them out of the places from which they drove you, for
persecution is worse than killing. But do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque until they first attack you there, but if they attack
you [there], then kill them. Such is the retribution of the disbelievers. But if they desist, then [know that] God is Forgiving,
Compassionate, and fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.
But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against the transgressors." [emphasis mine].
Obviously, all the parts giving restrictions on fighting, reasons for it, and the emphasis on the fact that Muslims
should not be the initiators of war are omitted. As these ayat indicate, war here was not a war of aggression but in self-defense
to prevent the occurrence of persecution in the land. Two further examples from sura 9 are cited by Abdul Saleeb and Sproul
(2003):
"Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every
stratagem (of war) [sura 9: 5]" (p. 88).
"Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame [9: 14]" (p. 89).
These two ayat are often singled out in the media and it is important to understand their context. Prophet Muhammad
(PBUH) had an accord with the idolaters of Mecca called Al-Hudaybeyya Conciliation. It entailed a 10-year truce between the
Muslims and the idolaters in which people of both sides should enjoy peace. There were two tribes called Khuza?ah and Banu
Bakr. The former was an ally of the Prophet (PBUH) while the latter was an ally of the idolaters of Quraish. During the truce
period, Banu Bakr broke the treaty and committed an aggression against Khuza?ah who sought the help of the Prophet
(PBUH). Accordingly, he decided to conquer Mecca and was victorious. Later, after the conquest of Tabuk against the
Romans whom the Prophet knew that they were preparing to attack Muslims, the Prophet wanted to go for pilgrimage, but he
was told that the idolaters were going to Mecca as they used to do and that they go around the Kaaba, the cubic building inside
the Sacred Mosque, naked. Hence, he did not want to go for pilgrimage again and find them like this. The ayat of this sura
were revealed to him giving permission to fight the idolaters after the sacred months. Hence, the Prophet sent Abu Bakr and
Ali, two of his companions and later Khalifs, to notify the idolaters with this and warn them. The omitted ayat between the
two above quoted ayat, give reasons why permission was given to fight the idolaters at that time. However, the ayat are taken
out of context and manipulated to drive the required point home. The full ayat read as follows:
5 When the [four] sacred months are over, wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill
them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post, but if they
turn [to God], maintain the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, let them go in their
way, for God is most Forgiving and Merciful.
6 If any one of the idolaters should seek your protection [Prophet], grant it to him so
that he may hear the word of God, then take him to a place safe for him, for they
are people with no knowledge.
7 How could there be a treaty with God and His Messenger for such idolaters? But as
for those with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque, so long as
they remain true to you, be true to them; God loves those who are mindful of Him
[keeping their treaties].
8 How and if they where to get the upper hand over you, they would not respect any
tie with you of kinship or of treaty? They please you with their tongues but their
hearts are against you and most of them are lawbreakers.
9 They have sold God's message for a trifling gain, and barred others from His path.
How evil their actions are.
10 Where believers are concerned, they respect no tie of kinship or treaty. They are
the one who are transgressors.
11 If they turn to God, keep up the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, then they are
your brothers in faith: We make the messages clear for a people who [are willing
to learn].
12 But if they break their oath after having made an agreement with you, if they revile
your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, as oaths mean nothing to them, so
that they may stop.
13 How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive
the Messenger out, who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God you should
14
fear if you are true believers.
Fight them: God will punish them at your hands, He will disgrace them, He will
help you conquer them, He will heal the believers' feelings. [9: 5-14]
These are just two examples of many other cases where decontextualized Qur'anic ayat are exploited to mislead the
publics as far as Islam is concerned, hence stimulating the feelings of Islamophobia.
C. NON-INCLUSION OF THE OCCASIONS OF REVELATION OF THE AYAT
Many Qur'an translations do not include any footnotes for explaining allusions and ambiguous pronominal references
or giving the cultural background and a brief explanation of the occasions of revelation – at least of the ayat that may be
controversial or misunderstood. It may be argued that the Qur'an in Arabic does not have such explanations. This is certainly
the case. However, readers who want to check any information may refer to exegeses that are available in Arabic, yet they
hardly exist in other languages. In fact, even if they are available, it is highly unlikely that non-Muslim laymen would possess
exegeses of the Qur'an or would take pains to check them. Thus, if they encountered Qur'anic controversial ayat that are cited
somewhere and they wanted to check for themselves, they would not find any clarification to dispel their misunderstanding.
For example, aya 216 of sura 2 reads:
"Fighting is prescribed upon you, and ye dislike it. But is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that
ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth and ye know not" (p. 87)
Without knowing the background of this aya, it gives the impression that fighting per se is an obligation on all
Muslims. However, it should be noted that in the early days of Islam, Muslims were not allowed by God to fight. Hence, they
used to bear all the persecution they were exposed to by the idolaters of Mecca. However, later when the Prophet immigrated
to Medina, God allowed Muslims to fight the aggressors. Permission to fight was given through ayat 39 and 40 of sura 22
which read:
"Permission to fight is given to those who have been fought against because they have been done injustice, and God is well able to
help them .. those who have been unjustly driven from their homes only for saying, 'our Lord is God'. If God did not drive back
some people by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where God's name is mentioned
much, would be surely be demolished …" [22: 39-40].
As the ayat indicate, fighting was allowed for Muslims to defend themselves against the aggression they were subjected
to. Besides self-defense, fighting was prescribed to keep all places of worship, which used to be attacked at that time, intact for
supplicants of all religions to worship God there. Ahmad Subhi Mansour points out, however, that Muslims, contrary to what
was expected, did not want to use the license given to them. They were reluctant to fight for defending themselves and
guarding against aggression, which was good for them, and preferred passivity and submissiveness, which was bad because
they could have been annihilated. Hence, these ayat prescribing fighting were revealed showing that fighting, at that time, was
necessary for their good.
It is interesting that despite taking the ayat cited out of context to prove their point and omitting the parts that would
refute their claim as shown above, Abdul Saleeb and Sproul (2003) state that "these are not isolated passages that people are
misinterpreting or quoting out of context" (p. 89). They further state that no where in the Qur'an it is said that the ayat of
fighting were intended for the time of Prophet Muhammad. This last point is true; however, Abdul Saleeb and Sproul
overlook an important point which is that the Qur'an was not revealed to Prophet Muhammad at one shot. It was revealed
piecemeal over the twenty three years of his Prophetic mission with groups of ayat revealed to him upon the occurrence of
different events to tell him how to behave, which answers to give to Muslim's queries and what actions to take at this
occasion. Thus, it was understood that these ayat were in response to that situation, hence the importance of clarifying in the
translations briefly the occasions of revelation.
It is hoped that the previous discussion could have highlighted, at least in part, how Qur'an translations have had a
great role in framing the image of Islam. However, before moving to the next section, it should be noted that apart from the
Orientalist translations, driven by hostile intentions, and some of the sectarian Muslim translations, which do not reflect the
mainstream Islamic perspective, most of the supposedly reasonable unbiased available translations are far from satisfactory.
There are two trends in Qur'an translations. Some of them are "woodenly" literal to the extent of barring the meaning, and
this leads many readers to discard the Book. Others, in trying to make their translations readable and fluent, take liberties with
the text by adding explanations and making interpretative decisions for the readers in the case of ambiguous ayat without
indicating these changes. This leads to destabilizing the text when comparing different translations and results in perplexing
the readers. The Muslim German Ambassador, Murad Hoffman points out the negative consequences of the differences in
translations. He mentions that he has a book of an American author who talks about 12 translations of the meanings of the
Qur'an and says that when reading the 12 translations, it is as if you are reading 12 different books (as cited in Abdula Aal,
2006, February 5, p. 62). The departure from the original text results in different translations that open the door to claims like
"contradictions in the Qur'an", "versions of the Qur'an" or "perversion of the Qur'an". We are living in an era in which the
need to provide "the other" with translations that make it possible to grasp the true spirit and instructions of Islam, on the one
hand, and that do not demote the full dignity and exegetical potential of the original, on the other, is far greater than any time
in the past.
IV. FURTHER REASONS OF THE NEGATIVE IMAGE OF ISLAM AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
DISPELLING THE MYTHS
Apart from the false information and calumnies that some Orientalists included in their translations, some schools as
well as some parents and family members in western and other non-Arab communities teach children wrong information
about Islam and Muslims. Mumin Abd-Ur Razaq Selliah, a Sri Lankan convert to Islam, explains:
Formerly, I was an arch enemy of Islam. For, all the members of my family and all my friends were telling me that
Islam was an absurd and concocted religion that would lead man to Hell, and they were even preventing me from
talking with Muslims. As soon as I saw a Muslim I would turn and walk away, and I would curse them behind their
back. (as cited in Why did they become Muslims?, 1995)
Similarly, Muhammad John Webster says:
It is very difficult to get in touch with Muslims in Western countries. For (sic) in those countries there is a deepseated rancor against Islam, which dates back to the crusading expeditions. Europeans reject Islam with hatred,
though they know nothing of it. They raise their children with an education dressed with a strong feeling of animus
towards Islam. So much so that talking about Islam means a violation of the established rules of decorum in their
society. If someone should bring up this subject in a social gathering, the others will protest with a mute frown. (as
cited in Why did they become Muslims?, 1995).
Western public opinion is swayed by the information propagated. Only those who go against the norms and try to
learn something about Islam themselves or get in touch with Muslims start to be disillusioned. The scientific approach of
investigation and objectivity are what is needed to realize that the coverage of Islam in the media is highly partial. Only the
sides seen as negative are highlighted. The following Qur'anic aya, "Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day … nor
acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians]" is often cited in anti-Islamic books and in the
media. This may be a significant finding about the Muslims' holy Book; however, readers fail to acknowledge that in Arabic
the ayah stipulates three conditions that should be found collectively in the People of the Book in order to be liable to being
fought against, namely non-belief in God AND non-belief in the Last Day AND non-belief in the religion of Truth. It should
be noted that the three conditions are joined with AND rather than OR in Arabic. Who among people of the Book, one wonders,
are subject to such criterion? Moreover, it should be noted that the Islamic Scripture also teaches the following about the
People of the Book:
"He (God) has sent down to you [Muhammad] the Book with the truth, confirming that which was sent down before
it, and He earlier sent down the Torah and the Gospel; as a guidance to people, and sent down the Criterion … [one
of the names of the Qur'an]" [3: 3-4)
" 'Say: O people of the Book! Come to common terms between us and you, that we worship none but God,
that we assign no partner to Him, and that we do not obey each other in disobedience of God'. If they turn
away, then say: 'Bear witness that we are submitters to God'" [3: 64].
"The believers, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians – any who believes in God and the Last Day and does good
– will have their reward with their Lord. There is nothing for them to fear nor will they grieve" [2: 62].
"God does not forbid you to be benevolent and equitable to those who have neither made war on your religion or
driven you from your homes. God loves the equitable. God only forbids you to make friends with those who have
fought against you on account of your religion and driven you from your homes, or abetted others to do so. Those
who make friends with them are unjust." [60:8-9]
Prophet Muhammad, who married 12 women, nine of whom were widows and divorced, for social, political and
educational reasons, is often accused of being driven by the sexual drive. One wonders whether the same standards apply to
Prophet David, peace be upon him, who had numerous wives (1 Chronicles, chapter 3) and Prophet Solomon (peace be upon
him) who "had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines" (1 kings 11: 3)]! Islam is known as the
religion allowing polygamy. How many know that after being practiced unlimitedly before, it was actually Islam that confined
polygamy to 4 women, and that the aya allowing polygamy in the Qur'an was revealed following the battle of Uhud, in which
thousands of Muslim men were killed leaving widows and orphans with no supporters?
The Qur'an encompasses ayat that stipulated fighting for certain reasons at the time of the Prophet. Is it difficult to
recall that the Old and New Testaments contain some verses indicating violence too?
"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee
answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto
thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt
besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with
the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil
thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath
given thee. But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt
save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the
Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee".
(Deuteronomy 20:10-17)
The terrorists' attacks are said to be rooted in Prophet Muhammad's teachings. By the same token, can Muslims
regard Jesus Christ (PBUH) as stimulating violence and war on the basis of the following words?
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before
me" (Luke 19: 27).
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to
set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against
her mother in law." (Matthew 10: 34-35)
The answer is "by no means". For Muslims, Jesus Christ (PBUH) and Virgin Mary are revered characters who cannot
be subject to criticism. If the West can accept the allusions in The Di Vinci Code, for Muslims, these are profanations that no
sensible believer dare do.
Apart from the media partiality, indeed Muslims cannot be spared the blame for the current situation. They are so
passive towards what is going on. They do not seriously attempt to explain the true principles of Islam. In this regard, Hussain
Rofe says:
One thing I would regret to say at this point is that Muslims are doing very little to advertise this lovely religion of
theirs to the world. If they try to spread the true essence of Islam over the entire world with due attention and
knowledge, I am sure that they will achieve very positive results. In the near east (sic) people are still reserved towards
foreigners. Instead of coming into contact with them and illuminating them, they prefer to keep as far away as
possible from them. This is an exceedingly wrong attitude. I am the most concrete example. For I was somehow
hindered from being interested in the Islamic religion. Fortunately, one day I met a very respectable and highly
cultured Muslim. He was very friendly with me. He listened to me with attention. He presented me an English version
of the Qur'an al-karim translated by a Muslim. He gave beautiful and logical answers to all my questions. (as cited in
Why did they become Muslims?, 1995)
Is it not yet high time to take some positive steps in this regard? What can be done to dispel the myths about Islam?
In fact, action can be taken in different directions.
First of all, a more reliable translation of the Qur'an should be prepared as a team work with both language specialists
and religious figures, who have a good command of the target foreign language, to be involved. The former should consult the
latter for meaning problems and the latter should make sure the former managed to convey the intended meaning correctly.
Such translation should include an introduction for each sura giving the reasons for the revelation of its ayat as well as
alternative translations based on alternative interpretations, cross-references to other related ayat … etc. In the light of the
advances made in the field of information technology, electronic versions can even facilitate matters.
Second, Muslims should attempt to make people acquainted with their religion and to clear the misconceptions
related to issues like the status of women in Islam, polygamy, jihad … etc. This can be done on two different levels. More
explanatory programs in the media should be devoted to addressing such issues in a rational scientific documented way. On
another level, lay Muslims can engage in such tasks making use of the Internet technology and chat talks, that are used only
for nonsensical activities, through what Ibrahim Saleh (2006) calls "popular diplomacy". In fact, good experiences of engaging
Arab students, at the American University in Cairo as well as some other Arab universities, with American students in fruitful
cross-cultural dialogues were made possible through videoconferencing and web conferencing. The students could discuss
different issues including Islam. The experience managed in a way to help bridge part of the knowledge gap about this topic.
One student in the project stated, "I learned that the American media is the main reason why there are many stereotypes and
false ideas on Islam and the Arab World" (Female, Qatari, University of Qatar). Another from the same university mentioned,
"I was happy to see how my American partners in this program could express themselves freely and were brave to tell us
about the stereotypes they have. I enjoyed answering all their questions about Islam and the Arab world" (Female, Qatari,
University of Qatar). An American student said, "[the] actual real-time discussions were amazing in that we were actually able
to speak and ask anything to people we knew so little about. I think it was the best way to learn about the Middle East and
Islam that a student could experience" (female, Virginia Commonwealth University).
Third, Maurice Bucaille, an eminent French surgeon, argues that an exact knowledge of Islam should come through
an accurate non-distorted version of the Qur'an. However, he argues, since many of the available translations misinform the readers,
then action should be taken to provide other means of information about important aspects of Islam. In his book The Bible, Qur’an and
Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge, Bucaille pinpoints an important issue which is the total
conformity between the facts mentioned in the Qur'an and modern science. This leads him to the conclusion that it could
have never been possible for an unlettered man to be the author of this Scripture. Bucaille asserts:
The Qur'an offered extremely interesting points of comparison with completely established fields of knowledge of our times …
[Once] it was admitted that the mentioned paragraphs of the Holy Book did not have possible human explanations, the study of
other purely religious aspects attracted the interest of people. (p. 13)
The compatibility between science and religion in Islam is in contrast with the divorce between science and other religions. The
latter is one of the reasons that led to secularism on account of which many people in the world suffer immensely because of their spiritual
bankruptcy. Thomas Cleary (1993) draws attention to the fact that Islam finds a solution to the dilemma of the "Post-Christian West". He
explains that the Qur'an:
offers a way to explore an attitude that fully embraces the quest for knowledge and understanding that is the essence of science,
while at the same time, and indeed for the same reasons, fully embraces the awe humility, reverence, and conscience without
which 'humankind does indeed go to far in considering itself to be self-sufficient' (Qur'an 96: 6-7). (p.viii)
In support of Bucaille's and Cleary's argument, Captain Jacques Cousteau, a French famous undersea explorer, explains that what
made him believe that the Qur'an is the true word of God, was the discovery that the water of the Red Sea and Indian Ocean do not mix.
Following is what he says:
In 1962, German scientists said that the waters of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean did not mix with each other in
the Strait of Bab-ul-Mandab where the Aden Bay and the Red Sea join. So we began to examine whether the waters
of the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean mixed with each other. First we analyzed the water in the Mediterranean
to find out its natural salinity and density, and the life it contained. We repeated the same procedure in the Atlantic
Ocean. The two masses of water had been meeting each other in the Gibraltar for thousands of years. Accordingly,
the two masses of water must have been mixing with each other and they must have been sharing identical, or, at
least, similar properties in salinity and density. On the contrary, even at places where the two seas were closest to each
other, each mass of water preserved its properties. In other words, at the point where the two seas met, a curtain of
water prevented the waters belonging to the two seas from mixing. When I told Professor Maurice Bucaille about this
phenomenon, he said that it was no surprise and that it was written clearly in Islam's Holy Book, the Qur'an al-Karim.
Indeed, this fact was defined in a plain language in the Qur'an al-karim. When I knew this, I believed in the fact that
the Qur'an al-Karim was the 'Word of Allah'.
Indeed, ayat 19 and 20 of sura 55 read, "He has loosed the two seas meeting together without overflowing a barrier
between them". According to Richard A. Davis (1972), modern Science has discovered that in the places where two different
seas meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity,
and density. Although there are large waves, strong currents, and tides in these seas, they do not mix or transgress this barrier
(as cited in http://www.islam-guide.com/). A number of astronomy, marine and anatomy scientists testify to the accuracy of
Qur'anic facts related to their fields, among many other facts related to the clouds, plants, water …etc. mentioned accurately
in the Qur'an, on a videotape entitled This is the Truth (http://www.islam-guide.com/truth.htm). Islam is based on rational
thinking. It does not ask Muslims to act against reason nor to accept things they do not understand but to work their minds
and seek knowledge. This idea is also referred to by Cleary. He argues that Islam "does not demand unreasoned belief. Rather
it invites intelligent faith, growing from observation, reflection, and contemplation" (p. vii). As Dr. Hamid Marcus argues:
The Islamic religion does not contain any irrational or unbelievable tenet … In Islam you cannot find a single dot
disagreeable with or contradictory to modern sciences. All its commandments and inculcations are entirely logical and
useful. In Islam, belief and logic do not contradict each other, which is the common blemish of other religions.
Consequently, for a person like me who has dedicated all his life-time to natural sciences, what could be more natural than
preferring Islam, which is in full conformity with the scientific results that he obtained from his lucubration, to the other
religions that are quite the other way round? Another reason I feel compelled to add is that the other religions are awash in
a score of grotesque … ideas that suggest only a far-fetched mood of spirituality. They have nothing to do with real life
situations. Islam, on the other hand, is a practical religion which guides man also in his trek of life. Commandments of the
Islamic religion lead a person to the right way not only in the Hereafter, but also in the world, and, in the meanwhile, they
never restrict his freedom.
The last part of the previous quote answers one question raised by some non-Muslims. Some of them think that
Islam is so materialistic and far from spirituality. In fact, since Islam is the last religion that provides man with legislations
necessary for his life in this world, it acknowledges that people are humans not angels. It provides guidance for them in their
actual practical life. It does not mean to engage them in pure spirituality that overlooks their human nature. Hence, it
combines spirituality with pragmatism. Besides, Islam combines within itself the essence of all heavenly revelations, and it
entails an acknowledgment of all the previous religions and Prophets. A Muslim's faith is never complete without this. These
are just few facts that are worth knowing about Islam.
REFERENCES
Abdul Aal, A. (2006, January 1). The English Translations are the most famous. Muslims
translated the Qur'an and after 70 years demanded confiscating and burning the
translation. Nesf Ad-Donia Magazine, 829, 50-53.
Abdul Aal, A. (2006. January 29). Calumnies against Islam. The Jews translated the Qur'an
Hebrew to realize Balfour Promise. Nesf Ad-Donia Magazine, 833, 76-80.
Abdul Aal, A. (2006. February 5). The old German translations of the Qur'an wronged Islam
[7]: One translation claimed Prophet Muhammad wrote the Quran in an epileptic fit.
Nesf Ad-Donia Magazine, 834, 60-64.
Abdul Raof, H. (2001). Qur’an translation: Discourse, texture and exegesis. Surrey:
RoutledgeCurzon.
Asad, M. (1980). The message of the Quran: Translated and explained. Gibraltar: Dar AlAndalus.
Bewley A. & Bewley, A. (1999). The Noble Qur'an: A new rendering of its meaning in
English. Dubai: Dubai Printing Press.
Bucaille, M. (1979). The Bible, Qur’an and Science: The holy scriptures examined in the
light of modern knowledge. Translator Alastair D. Pannell, & Maurice Bucaille.
Indianapolis, IN: American Trust Publications.
Bucaille, M. (December 1985). On translation of the holy Qur'an. The Muslim World
League Journal, 13 (3&4), 10-13.
Bucaille, M. (1986, March 21). Reflections on mistaken ideas spread by orientalists
through mistranslations of the Qur’an. Proceedings of the Symposium on Translations
of the Meanings of the Holy Qur’an, IRCICA, Istanbul, pp. 93-102.
Cleary, T. (1993). The essential Koran. New York: HarperSanFrancisco.
Davis, R. A. (1972). Principles of Oceanography. Addison-wesley
Dirks, D. L. (2003). "America and Islam in the 21st century: Welcome to the sisterhood". In
Debra L. Dirks (Ed.), Islam our choice: Portraits of modern American Muslim
women. Maryland: amana publications, pp. 1-16
Ghali, M. M. (2003). Towards understanding the ever-glorious Quran. Cairo: Dar An-Nashr
for Universities.
Ma'ayergi, H. (1984). An academy for translating the exegesis of the holy Qur'an.
Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, 5, 441-445.
Mansour, A S. Al-Islam deen As-salam. Retrieved May 1, 2006 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.metransparent.com/texts/ahmad_sobhi_mansour_text/ahmed_sobhi_
mansour_peaceful_islam.htm
Ozbec, A., Uzunoğlu, N., Topuzoğlu, T. R., & Maksutoğlu, M. (2000).The majestic
Qur’an: An English rendition of its meanings. (Eds) Abdal Hakim Murad, Mostafa
Badawi, Uthman Hutchinson. London: The Ibn Khaldun Foundation.
Robinson, N. (1997). Sectarian and ideological bias in Muslim translations of the Qur'an.
Islam and Christian Muslim Relations, 8 (3), 261-278.
Ross, A. (1649). The Alcoran of Mahomet translated out of Arabique into French, by
the sieur Du Ryer, Lord of Malezair, and resident of the king of France, at
Alexandria. And newly Englished, for the satisfaction of all that desire to look into
the Turkish vanities, London.
Saleh, I. (2006). Prior to the eruption of the grapes of wrath in the Middle East: The
necessity of communicating instead of clashing. Cairo: Teeba Corporation.
Sales, G. (1734). The Koran, commonly called Alcoran of Mohammed, translated into
English immediately from the original Arabic, with explanatory notes, taken from the
most approved commentators, to which is prefixed a preliminary discourse. London:
C. Akers.
Shukri, A. A. (September 2000). On the translation of the meanings of the Qur'an.
Majallat Al-Shari'aa wal Dirasat Al-Islameyya, 42, 17-61.
Sproul, R. C., & Saleeb, A. (2003). The dark side of Islam. Illinois: Crossway Books.
Tabibi, A. H. (1986, March 21). The interpretation of the Qur'an and its translation.
Proceedings of the Symposium on Translations of the Meanings of the Holy Qur’an,
IRCICA, Istanbul, pp. 39-48.
Turner, C. (1997). The Quran: A new interpretation. Surrey: Curzon
Why did they become Muslims? (1995). HizmetBooks [online']. Retrieved May 15, 2006
from the World Wide web: http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Why_Become_Muslims/
This article is available online at http://www.quranicstudies.com/article150.html