[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 164 KB, 800x600, Quran2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10133507 No.10133507 [Reply] [Original]

What is the best version of the Qur'an to read? I want one that typical Muslims consider accurate, I don't care if its translated "beautifully". A few textual notes would be nice as well

>> No.10133522

Learn Arabic, dumb kafir.

>> No.10133545

>>10133507
No Muslim will put any stock in an english translation. Also it is very bad, probably the worst holy book out there, reminded me of the Book of Mormon just without the charm. As you are reading it remember there are over a billion people who think that it is the word of god verbatim, and that we are supposed to take them seriously.

>> No.10133572

>>10133507
I like Abdallah Yusuf Ali, though Sahih International has been in vogue over the past decade or so.

I would check out quran.com and read the opening sura with various translations and pick the one you find preferable.

>> No.10133577

Who here Sunni Ashari master race?

>> No.10133708

>>10133572
>though Sahih International has been in vogue over the past decade or so.
what?

>> No.10133774

>>10133708
Many in the Muslim community over the past decade or so have extolled the Sahih International translation as the best available. It's in modern USA English.

>> No.10133776

The one Tommy Robinson published

>> No.10133779

I know that reading translations is a big meme here in /lit/, but in the case of the Quran it's true, not reading it in arabic is like reading translated poetry

>> No.10133784

>>10133522
this

>> No.10133785

>>10133779
not really relevant if you're only trying to get the message across tho. I don't imagine something thats mostly historical narrative will make much use of complicated poetic devices

>> No.10133809

>>10133774
>modern USA English

A mix of Spanish and ebonics?

>> No.10133811

Probably one of the prototypical versions that was destroyed.

>> No.10133814

>>10133785
True, I just assumed OP was interested in it for literary value since this is /lit/

>> No.10133827
File: 542 KB, 1500x1000, quran translations.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10133827

>>10133507

>> No.10133834

So tell me about the quran. Is it as bullshitty as the bible?

>> No.10133845

>>10133814
>I want one that typical Muslims consider accurate, I don't care if its translated "beautifully"

>> No.10133849

>>10133845
Holy shit you're right wtf

>> No.10133856

>>10133827
I'd like to know in what way Abdullah Ali's translation is outdated?

>> No.10133901

>>10133856
It was done in the 1930s, it's 80 years old and doesn't use all the Quran scholarship that's been done in that time, and it's written in pseudo-Jacobean English so is very archaic.

>> No.10133904

>>10133901
>doesn't use all the Quran scholarship that's been done in that time
Does that mean it doesn't have seven layers of Salafi retardation on top of it?

>> No.10133905

>>10133901
what quran scholarship? I thought Muslims don't believe in textual criticism like Christians do

>> No.10133907

>>10133904
Where did you get that from?

>>10133905
More liberal muslims and western scholars are very active in Quran research actually.

>> No.10133948

>>10133905
Most christians don't believe or at least know about textual criticism either. Because it's a death blow to any claim of divine inspiration