This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Religious texts (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles Translation studies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Translation Studies, a collaborative effort to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Translation Studies. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.Translation studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Translation studiesTemplate:WikiProject Translation studiesTranslation studies articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hold on there a moment. Translating large documents is not something Wikipedia is about. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not #s 10, 14 and 15. We are an encyclopedia first and foremost. However, Wikiquote can be used to post a great many selected translated quotes. --mav

Also, I seem to recall that, according to Islam, the Koran cannot be translated (because meaning is always lost in translation): one English-language version I have seen is therefore called "The meaning of the glorious Koran". Vicki Rosenzweig

Obviously this fits to an extent onto this page, however, if the section grows (with descriptions and attributes of their translations) then I believe it might need to be moved to a new page. Also, what should be the guideline about which translators to put? There are so many translations (which you will see if you view my link) but only a few of them are well known. Just discuss what you think the guidelines of this should be. gren

for some reason grenavitar decided to add John Arberry twice. He did not understand that I created a new section of less well-known translators. someone should revert to my last edit or simply get rid of his name under well-known translators.

That was a while ago... I hadn't seen that you had moved the name, I thought you had deleted it. However, I do think he is well known. gren 19:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence reads "For Muslims, the Qur'án is an Arabic revelation, and so they always recite it in the original language during ritual prayers (salah).". You changed the disambiguation of Arab from Arabic language to Arab even when the rest of the sentence says original language... which of course was the Arabic language. I don't see how the people to whom it waws revealed matters... gren グレン 22:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...not sure what you're saying here...perhaps removing the link would be best as there's already a link to Arabic language...? I wasn't sure if the intention was Arabic tradition or language...but I have no idea what you're saying...freestylefrappe 22:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The importance of the Qur'an is that it is in the Arabic language which is why a translation of the Qur'an is not the "real Qur'an". I really haven't found that same view with the Bible. All Muslims agree (as far as I can tell) that the Arabic writing of the Qur'an is important... but, it is commonly said that is a revelation to all mankind... not just Arab people as your link seemed to imply. If that did mean Arabic tradition (which I don't think) it should be incredibly rephrased such as... "it was revealed in 7th century Arabia" but the rest of the sentence says "so they always recite it in the original language during ritual prayers". That seems to be pointing out the importance of the Arabic langauge usage since there are usually 5 prayers a day and they are said in Arabic (well., for the most part, some people say intentions in other languages, etc. but the suras are in Arabic). Also, since this article is about translation it makes sense to focus on language and not culture. I am fine with no link... but, I don't see why it would ever be talking about the Arab people. gren グレン 23:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change the sentence; it was never mine, I merely merged the articles. The only reason I removed the link was because there was already one above it. freestylefrappe 00:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Maulana Muhammad Ali's translation should be mentioned here. KI 17:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Im gonna be bold and create List of translations of the Qur'an, listing them per "date of birth".--Striver 14:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be interesting to have the total number of languages, or even better, a List of all the languages in which a qur'an translation exists. Does anybody know? --Blauerflummi 22:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic versus Veyselic Numbers.

Arabic numbers are written LTR, most significant digits are on the left, however Veyselic Numbers are arabic numbers written from right to left, RTL, like number ten is 01 (or in arabic .1). More info can be found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veyselperu Thanks. Veyselperu (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)^[1][reply]

Many people regard this version as tainted by Wahhabi theology and anti-Christian and anti-Semitic sentiments. WP cannot state that this is the best version, as it is controversial. Zora 03:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora said: It is your personal opinion that this edition is the best; other people loathe it. I say I don't quote my opinion, rather, this is the opinion of many Muslims. I did not even say all Muslims. This version is an updated version of the Abdullah Y. Ali translation, revised and edited by a committee at The Presidency of Islamic Researches. It used to be published in Saudi Arabia under Abdullah's name. Some of these modification are changing God to Allâh, etc. --Truthpedia 15:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will make some edits to the table: Some columns should be merged. Also Salman lived 1400 years ago. How could he make an English translation?! I will remove him. --Islamic 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those were good edits, Korshid. The article flows very nicely now. However, it would be nice to have something more than personal impressions re popularity. I'm not going to complain and start putting fact after everything, since I'm aware that we may not be able to GET good figures. I'd suggest Amazon sales figures, but that wouldn't include Qur'ans sold through mosques or Islamic bookshops, which would probably seriously bias the results. Zora 06:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zora. In my opinion Amazon is not reliable because as you say it would bias the results. Vast majority of people still buy books from real stores, so maybe it is possible to consult bookseller trade report or something. There is this site: http://islam.about.com/cs/quran/tp/english_quran.htm but I don't think it's trustworthy because it says the Saudi translation is the #1. That and the #2 it lists I have never seen in bookstores or mosques. This makes it seem suspicious. But Yusuf Ali you find everywhere, even in mosques where hardly anyone speaks English! I have done some searching on Google and I am sure we can find more information, but I believe the searches show that Yusuf Ali is the "standard" among Muslims. It is interesting that there still is no 99.9% or even 99.8% accurate translation in English after all this time with all these Islamic scholars and departments in universities. Maybe is not possible, but I think a team of people would do a better job than one or two or the Saudi government! Khorshid 12:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just ordered a used copy of Haleem's translation, published by the Oxford University Press. We'll see what that is like. It is quite recent. Zora 05:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a tag to indicate that the final paragraph needs sourcing. The wording of the "...many Muslims consider..." bit in particular is very weasely, especially as there's no citation for it. Keldan 16:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All other internet sources state that Abdullah Yusuf Ali was a sunni Muslim. It is correct that his original translation (with commentaries), Yusuf Ali stated positive words comments about the second and third Imam, Imam Hasan and Imam Husayn - but he was still a sunni Muslim. So it is wrong to state that his translation is a Shia translation. Can someone please confirm and correct it. --Imdkzmaa (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Faiez, Rahim; Vogt, Heidi (15 February 2009). "Afghan court upholds sentences in Quran trial". Monterey County Herald. Associated Press. Retrieved 17 February 2009.

Might this worth be mentioning, just as an example? 129.237.172.81 (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we include some female translators of the quran to English? Faro0485 (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, although I don't know of too many.VR _talk 21:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "External Links" section is becoming a bit of an iffy linkfarm. Perhaps there should be only about 3-5 (max) links to translations; we should pick the most academically rigorous / complete websites and keep them. As for more links, to truly be technically proper, they should only link to resources on "translations of the Qur'an," rather than actual "translations of the Qur'an." For example, in the article "Bible translations" would it be proper to provide links to every translation to every language? Not really... proper links would be academic / reputable websites on the topic of "Bible translation(s)." If any article should provide a list of translation links, it should rather be at "List of translations of the Qur'an." Anyone see what I'm getting at?

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 01:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Here is a link hiding in there that fits perfectly appropriately:

• Khaleel Mohammed: Assessing English Translation of the Qur'an, Middle East Quarterly, an article on bias and political agenda in translation of the Qur'an.

I've added a ((linkfarm)) template. Any comments? Soon I'll clean it up myself if I don't hear from anybody....

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to its increasing size and scope, I have created a new English translations page where merits, criticisms, and history of individual English translations can be posted. Have moved all external links pertaining to individual translations there as well.

Henceforth, the English section on this page should be limited to a more "broad history of English translations" theme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dungbeetle (talk • contribs) 07:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently says:

The first complete translation of the Qur'an was completed in 884 CE in Alwar (today Sindh, Pakistan) by the orders of Abdullah bin Umar bin Abdul Aziz on the request of the Hindu Raja Mehruk.

The source for this is a dead link and it is unclear to which language it was translated then. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.altafsir.com/Languages.asp?LanguageID=2

  Triggered by \baltafsir\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 15:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?id=eOcUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

21:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The current text says: The earliest known translation of the Qur'an in any European language was the Latin works by Robert of Ketton. However, it is also mentioned before that the translation of Qur'an in Greek took place, according to a previous part of the text: "The second known translation was into Greek and was used by Nicetas Byzantius, a scholar from Constantinople, in his 'Refutation of Quran' written between 855 and 870". Is the Greek language not considered an European language?. Regards --Basquetteur (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Quran translations. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.onlinenoorulquran.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://submission.org/messenger/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307063210/http://sirajpublications.com/clear_quran.html to http://sirajpublications.com/clear_quran.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/2008/07/13/39557.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304074626/https://www.alislam.org/quran/Holy-Quran-Esperanto.pdf to http://www.alislam.org/quran/Holy-Quran-Esperanto.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does "its own re-tooled version" means? 31.52.255.22 (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 300 translations Quran into Turkish (Istanbul Turkish, to be precise)

Here is one of the studies about their classification:

Turkish Quran meals today: An assessment on classification Hikmet Koçyiğit Journal of Faculty of Theology of Istanbul University,37, 79-121 http://dx.doi.org/10.26650/ilahiyat.2017.19.2.0016 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/384167 (pdf)

There are many studies like this in the literature.

So it is unfair to talk about just a couple of them. In any Turkish Quran translation websites you can easily find dozens of Quran translations including old Turkish and even English translations for comparison. 79.123.129.20 (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]