21st Century Works on the Qur’ānic Studies: An Appraisal of Ali (2017) and Kidwai (2018) (Book review)

The title is a book review on Quranic studies by Owais Manzoor Dar published in Aligarh Journal of Quranic Studies, Volume 3, Issue 2, October 2020. The following is the article.

Abstract

The Qur’ān is the primary source of the Islamic Weltanschauung and is seen by Muslims as an eternal, dynamic and living Book. Generating its precise and comprehensive meaning is the essence of ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān (the sciences of the Qur’ān). The knowledge of these sciences has been the central concern of the Muslim scholarship – from classical to contemporary times. Since the demise of the Prophet (pbuh), many scholars have worked hard to bring forth proper understanding of the Qur’ān, in an attempt to widen the knowledge of guidance contained therein. As a result of these endeavors, the 21st century generation has inherited an impressive corpus about the Qur’ānic acquaintance. The recent additions to this literature are two significant works: Ali Suleiman Ali, A Brief Introduction to Qur’ānic Exegesis (2017) and Abdur Raheem Kidwai, God’s Word, Man’s Interpretations: A Critical Study of the 21st Century English Translations of the Quran (2018). The present review essay, in this context, presents an evaluation and appraisal of these two selected works (Ali, 2017; Kidwai, 2018) to understand the emerging trends in the Qur’ānic studies. The study intends to address some major issues; historical genesis of tafsir literature and its evolution; to what extent the Tafsir literature and English translation of the Qur’ān have been influenced by different sectarian, theological traditions (classical, mystical and regional), political interests and how they have differed. The major argument put forth in this essay is that these selected books make a significant contribution in understanding these influences on the Qur’ānic scholarship.

Key Words: Exegesis; English translation; Qur’ānic studies; Modern scholarship

Introduction

The Qur’ān, according to Muslims, is the final revelation to humankind and the primary source of Shari‘ah. It was revealed directly from the divine source, Allah, via a celestial intermediary, the Archangel Gabriel, to the last Prophet (pbuh) in the form of an Arabic Qur’ān. Of itself, it says: “it is a Book whose verses are perfectly explained—a Quran in Arabic for people who know” (Q. 41: 3) ;“Indeed, We have sent it as an Arabic Quran so that you may understand” (Q. 12: 2). The Qur’ān, thus, becomes more than law or guidance or even a sacred book; it is also a disclosure for the humankind without the time-space constrains. It is addressed first and foremost to humans for guidance in all aspects of life— spiritually, politically, economically, socially, etc. Of itself, it says: “...the Qur’ān was revealed as a guidance for humanity with clear proofs and standard to distinguish between right and wrong...” (Q. 2: 185). In his lifetime, the Prophet (pbuh) was the direct source for believers when it came to the interpretation and understanding of the revelation. After his demise, many scholars have worked hard and tried their utmost to bring a proper understanding of the meaning and generating precise comprehension, to widen knowledge of the guidance contained therein, and how to live life in accordance with its principles. Hence, from the time of the Prophet (pbuh) to the present, Muslims have devoted their lives to studying the Qur’ān, pondering over its meaning and teaching, deducing lessons of guidance, and analyzing the events taking place on the earth in the light of this everlasting divine fountain. As a result of these endeavors, there is an impressive corpus of literature about the Qur’ān.

Every exegete tried to offer a conclusive interpretation, following several methodologies, but the essence of the Qur’ān could not be fully captured. This has resulted in the implications of the evolutionary transformations in the Qur’ānic exegesis (Tafsir). Thus, the knowledge regarding the evolution is highly important and beneficial for understanding the differences among the exegetes. The review essay, in this context, evaluates Ali Suleiman Ali’s A Brief Introduction to Qur’ānic Exegesis (2017).

Despite the Muslims belief vis-à-vis the untranslatability of the Qur’ān, Muslim scholars throughout the history have endeavoured at translating it with the intention of communicating its message to the humanity. In the contemporary era, the Qur’ān has been translated into various languages (almost 215 languages) both by Muslims and non-Muslims. From the 16th century, the English speaking people also have translated the Qur’ān into their language. The first English translation of the Qur’ān was done by George Sale followed by E. H. Palmer, J. M. Rodwell, Richard Bell and Arthur J. Arberry, who gained familiarity among the Orientalists for their renditions of the Qur’ān. Later, in 1930s, Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall and Abdullah Yusuf Ali translated the Qur’ān into English (Shah, in Al-Qalam, 2010). Between 1649 and 1999, around seventy (70) English translations were produced. In the 21st century, there has been a spurt in the appearance of the English translations of the Qur’ān. In 2018 and 2019 around ten English translations have been published. From 2000 to 2019, more than forty (40) complete English translations have been published. There are more than one hundred forty (140) complete English translations of the Qur’ān (Kidwai, 2017).

Despite the rising number of English translation of the Qur’ān, however, a little critical consideration has been paid to them in the academic world. A fresh work God’s Word, Man’s Interpretations by Abdur Raheem Kidwai (2017) somehow fulfils this gap of nonseriousness by critically evaluating thirty-two (32) English translation of the 21st century. In this context, the review essay presents an assessment and appraisal of these two recent works, to get clues and indications of the two aspects of the Qur’ān— exegesis and translations. Theoretical in nature, the essay follows both descriptive and comparative methodological approaches, which helps us in understanding the diverse scholarly approaches in interpreting and translating the Qur’ān. The main aim of selecting these works, is to highlight the historical genesis of tafsir literature, its evolution and how the Qur’ānic exegesis and translation differ from one another, to what extent Tafsir literature and English translation of the Qur’ān have been influenced by different sectarian interests and how they have differed. Ali Suleiman Ali’s A Brief Introduction to Quranic Exegesis (2017) Ali Suleiman Ali: Ali is the Imam of the Muslim Community of Western Suburbs (MCWS) and the Director of Muslim Family Services (ICNARF), USA. He graduated from the University of Madinah in Arabic and Islamic Studies and holds Masters and Doctorate from the University of Michigan (Ann Arbour). Ali’s dissertation on Tafsir bil Ma’thur dealing with the question of Hujjah (binding proof) was a seminal study in the field of Qur’ānic Studies. He has taught Islamic studies, Muslim world studies, Arabic and the sciences of the Qur’ān at University of Detroit, Oakland University, Auburn Hills, MI and Wayne Country Community, Detroit MI (USA). The discipline of the Qur’ānic exegesis has a long history. Its purpose is to explore the well-defined and the accurate meaning of the Qur’ān. The discipline began with the Prophet (pbuh)—the ultimate exegete, who gave precise and lucid explanations. After his demise, the Companions believed they had a divine mission to teach the Qur’ān and its interpretations to the next generation of Muslims and they, in turn, carried on to the next generation, till it reached to the modern era. In each historical period the exegetes have approached tafsir from unique perspectives to the time, place and the circumstances of the era. This has resulted in the implications of the evolutionary transformations in the Qur’ānic exegesis (Tafsir). Ali’s work presents an overview of this evolution, from the classical to the contemporary times. The book spans over 177 pages and consists of seven (7) chapters excluding ‘Glossary, notes and Bibliography’.

Chapter one

In chapter one, “Historical Overview”, Ali discusses the main aim of exegesis and etymological derivations of the word tafsir—“derived from fassara means to explain and the terms, fassar, tafsirah and tafsir all denote explanation, elucidation, exposition and unveiling”—followed by a discussion on the difference between tafsir and ta’wil (Ali, 2018: 1 and 4). For him, the word tafsir, in the sense of the Qur’ānic interpretation, “was developed towards the second half or the end of first Islamic century, and Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar was the first person known to have used the word to mean interpretation of the Qur’ān” (Ibid.: 3). The section also discusses the terms bayan, tabyin, ta’wil, and qawl used in the Qur’ān and Ahadith for the Qur’ānic interpretation (Ibid.: 1, 4). The author provides a lucid summary of the genesis of the Qur’ānic exegesis, beginning with the Prophet himself answering to occasional investigations about episodes that didn’t straightaway condense oblivious connotation. Generally, it occurred on three occasions: (a) “when a particular passage could not be comprehended through a typical understanding of Arabic”; (b) “when the literal meaning was not intended by God; and (c) when a Companion asked for clarification of certain verses.” (Ibid.: 5). Ali highlights the four distinct schools, along with their special features, of the Qur’ānic interpretations and recitations and how they differed from each other. These Schools are: The Makkan, Iraqi, Madinan and Al-Sham schools represented by Ibn Abbas (d. 28 AH), Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud (d. 32 AH), Ubay ibn Ka’ab ibn Qays al- Khazraji al-Ansari (d. 21 AH), and Umayr ibn Zayd ibn Qays al-Khazaraji (d. 32 AH), respectively. Ali concludes the chapter by underlining significant personalities of each School and their contribution to the exegetical traditions from the generation of Successors (al-tabi’un) and the era after the Successors till the end of third Islamic century (Ibid.: 10 -14).

Chapter two

The second chapter, “Tafsir in the Third and Fourth Centuries (AH)”, investigates the evolution and developments in the tafsir literature during 3rd and 4th Muslim centuries. Ali argues that according to al-Suyuti, three main developments occurred in the field: “(a) the shortening of the chains of narration accompanied by unverified statements; (b) the age of specialization; and (c) heretical interpretations” (Ibid.: 16). Ali further categorizes the Tafsir literature, according to the focus, into four major categories, namely (i) Grammatical (ii) Juristic (iii) Theological, and (iv) Unorthodox— Shia, Mu’tazilites, Sufi, the Allegorical interpretations—and their representatives with a brief description of each category being discussed (Ibid.: 18-37).

Chapter three

The third chapter explores, as the title itself suggests, “Tafsir Based on Traditions/ Al-Tafsir bi al-Ma’thur” and its etymological derivations and meaning(s). According to Ali, “the word Ma’thur is a passive participle derived from the verbal noun athara means to trace, to mark, to report” (Ibid.: 41). The next portion of the chapter discusses the Hadith, Athar and Ma’thur in relation to the Qur’ānic exegesis. Ali argues that “Hadith and Sunnah were used interchangeably by the Companions” and “such has been the practice of classical and contemporary Muslim scholars” (Ibid.: 45). Ali also highlights the importance of Sunnah for understanding of the Qur’ān, by providing significant Qur’ānic verses followed by the scholarly discourses.

Chapter four

The chapter four (4), “Tafsir and Fatwas of the Prophet’s Companions (Sahabah)”, begins with an etymological discussion followed by a brief discursive analysis of the scholarly opinions concerning the word Sahabah along with their importance in tafsir and the debates over whether the opinion of a Companion is a binding proof (Hujjah) or not. Ali examines the tafsir of some of the Companions including the four Caliphs as well as the four other prominent Companions who are highly acclaimed for their Qur’ānic commentary; Ibn Mas’ud, Ubay ibn Ka’b, Aishah Bint Abu Bakr and Ibn Abbas (Ibid.: 61-79). The next portion provides a thoughtful discussion about the persistent uncertainties about the authorship of the Tanwir al-Miqbas – a purported tafsir work of Ibn Abbas. Ali expresses his own position concerning its authorship straightforwardly by asserting that “Tanwir al-Miqbas cannot possibly be representing the tafsir of Ibn Abbas” (Ibid.: 72). He then proceeds to substantiate this view by providing a brief genealogy of Tanwir while shedding light on some hermeneutical contentions made in the work, such as the interpretations of Basmala in the beginning of all chapters (Surahs) except one (surah al-Tawbah), the allegorical interpretations of “broken letters” (huruf al-muqattat) are heavily influenced by “Sufi allegorical interpretations (ta’wilat)” and the chains of narrations of all these claims are fabricated.

Ali concludes, “it can be safely stated that Tanwir al-Miqbas is not from Ibn Abbas” (Ibid.: 73). Furthermore, the author highlights the differences among the Companions regarding the understanding of the Qur’ān and its interpretations in some cases, mainly pertaining to “juridical (Fiqh), historical, theological and linguistic issues” (Ibid.: 80-85).

Chapter five

The chapter five (5), “Tafsir and Fatwas of the Successors (Tabi’un)”, begins with the definition of the word Tabi’un—both linguistically and Islamically—the debate on their interpretation and its legal status. The author argues that “the majority of the Sunni scholars have agreed upon the fact that the Ijma of the Successors is a binding proof (Hujjah)” (Ibid., 89). However, there are mainly two groups among scholars concerning the interpretations or religious fatwa of a single Successor being a binding proof or not. Ali further highlights the prominent Mufasirin among the Tabi’un— Mujahid ibn Jubr, Sa’id ibn Jubayr, Ikrimah al-Barbari, Qatadah ibn Du’amah al-Sudusi, Masruq al-Ajda, Al-Hassan al-Basri, Zayd ibn Aslam, Rafi ibn Mahram Abu al-Aliyah— their sources, methodology, principles and differences vis-à-vis the Qur’ānic exegesis.

Chapter six

The Qur’ānic exegesis based on reasoning—a highly controversial area of tafsir— is explored in chapter six (6), “Tafsir Based on Opinion, Al-Tafsir bi al-Ra’y”. Ali first discusses the etymological derivations, literal and technical meanings of the word ra’y and its usage in the Qur’ān and Hadith. For him, the term ra’y was used in two meanings, during the time of Companions: (a) “as an independent personal opinion in the absence of clear indication from the Qur’ān or the Prophet’s tradition”, and (b) “as an equivalent to Qiyas (analogical deduction)” (Ibid.: 111). During the era of the Tabi’un, the appearance of numerous religio-political groups in Islam led to the “term ra’y beginning to connote exegesis that was sectarian or bid’ah” (Ibid.: 112). The chapter also explores al-tafsir bi-ra’y al-Mahmud or Mamduh (praiseworthy exegesis) and al-tafsir bi- ra’y al-Madhmum (blameworthy). Ali argues, “the former is accepted by the majority of the Sunni traditionalists, jurists, prominent theologians and Sufis, while the latter is rejected by them” (Ibid.: 113). Moreover, Ali examined the scholarly discourses both of the opponents and proponents regarding the question of the legality of al-tafsir bi-ra’y al-Mahmud and evaluates the first complete work of Muqatil ibn Sulayman’s al Wujuh wa al-Naza’ir in this field (Ibid.: 118 - 136).

Chapter seven

The last and the most significant chapter, “Trends in Modern Qur’ānic Interpretations”, investigates the modern tendencies in the Qur’ānic exegesis due to the emergence of colonialism, which influenced all aspects of Muslim life. In an attempt to decolonize the Muslim mind, several revivalist ideas and reformist movements appeared. All these movements sought to achieve the goal by adopting different pedagogy to interpreting Islam, which affected Islamic literature in general and Tafsir in particular. Some of these movements sought to achieve their goals by adopting rational, political and scientific approaches to interpreting Islam as a way of life. This led to some new trends in Islamic literature in general and tafsir in particular. When the Muslim World became ‘free’ from the colonial patronage, it still found its present and future hostage to conditions anchored in the Western societies. Ali categories the modern exegeses into six thematic trends: “intellectual, scientific, rhetorical, philological, traditional, and natural history” and discusses the following works under each trend – Tafsir al-Qur’ān al-Hakim, Al Jawahir fi Tafsir al-Qur’ān al-Karim, Fi Zilal al-Qur’ān, Tafsir al-Bayan li al-Qur’ān al-Karim, Al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir min al-Tafsir and al-Dhahabi’s Tafsir, respectively (Ibid.: 137 - 157). Abdur Raheem Kidwai’s God’s Word, Man’s Interpretations (2018) Abdur Raheem Kidwai: Kidwai is a noted scholar and expert on the Qur’ānic studies, Professor of English and the Director of K. A. Nizami Centre for Quranic Studies, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), India. He has to his credit two doctoral degrees in English, one from the University of Leicester, UK, and the other from the AMU. Kidwai has authored more than thirty books on the Qur’ānic Studies, Literary Orientalism, etc. (see, Kidwai, 2007, 2011, 2013 and 2018). Abdur Raheem Kidwai has contributed significantly to the field of the Qur’ānic Studies, especially in the sub-area of English Translation of the Qur’ān (Kidwai, 2007, 2011 and 2018).

The work under review evaluates the comparative strengths and weaknesses of thirty-two (32) English translations of the Qur’ān, published between 2000 and 2017. It, thus, supplements and complements his earlier works wherein he presents comprehensive and critical assessment of forty-seven (47) and sixty (60) English translations of the Quran, carried out from 1649 to 2009 (Kidwai, 2018: xii). Kidwai follows five (5) parameters to the critical assessment of these English translations of the Qur’ān: (a) biography and background of the translator; (b) publication details, number of editions and their reception; (c) the de(merits) of the translation (d) Ideological bent of the translator, as reflected in his/ her translation and (e) Critical assessment or reviews (Parray, 2018; 2020). In the present book, Kidwai meticulously evaluates the 21st century English translations of the Qur’an in order “to identify the ideological and sectarian affiliation, mindset, features, and strengths and weaknesses of every translator” (Kidwai, 2018: xvii). The book under review consists of 32 chapters and every chapter covers a translation, investigated in terms of its strengths and weaknesses. The book spans over around 200 pages, begins with a ‘Preface’ and ends with an ‘Appendix’ followed by a ‘Bibliography’. These translations are chronologically arranged as follows:

1. Translation Committee (2000): Kidwai mentions that “the same work has re- appeared, bearing a new title”; “the translator’s preface, introduction and index have been reproduced literally from the earlier version”, and “its heavy and unacknowledged reliance on earlier English translations of Pickthall and Abdullah Yusuf Ali”. To substantiate this assertion, the author provides several examples as proof and concludes that it “deserves credit only for changing the “I” into “We”” (Kidwai, 2018: 1 and 4).

2. Cleary (2004): Kidwai contends that the most pleasing point about this translation is that the translator, unlike his unworthy predecessors, “introduces Islam and Qur’ān, as Muslim believe” (Kidwai, 2018: 5). Kidwai termed the translation as “intelligent and wide-ranging” and his notes on several occasions are helpful, which “reflect his remarkable understanding and the translator and publisher deserve every credit for this excellent work, in conveying some of the hallmarks of the Qur’ān, especially to non-Muslim readers” (Ibid.: 6).

3. Haleem (2004): Kidwai argues that Haleem’s Preface is “extensive and enlightening” and “helpful to those new to Islam and the Qur’ān” and he appreciates the translator’s “rendering of the Quranic text into freshly refreshing clear and simple English”. Haleem’s concern is “to convey the import of the Arabic text in readable English” instead of having any “fondness for archaic, biblical expression” (Kidwai, 2018: 10). The work is a bare translation of the Qur’ānic text, with very brief and occasional notes, drawn from Razi’s Mafatih al-Ghayb. The author contends that Abdel Haleem occasionally preferred linguistic rendering of some Qur’ānic terms and “without the integration of the Arabic in original text, it appears to be a pointless exercise” (Ibid.: 11). The author also highlights some of his bewildering notes and opines that Haleem’s work “fails to advance readers’ understanding of the Quran” as the “key Quranic terms and concepts are left unexamined.” Furthermore, Kidwai highlights some other irksome features of the work, such as “an erratic and inconsistent transliteration system; several typographical errors” and “the omission of page numbers on last twenty-five pages of the work” (Ibid.:13).

4. Qarai (2004): The author maintains that “it is good to see that this work is not disfigured by blatant sectarianism”; however, Qarai includes all “the Shiah notions in his index” and he “cites several Qur’ānic verses which he imagines endorse these notions” (Kidwai, 2018: 14). The “Quranic verses in the original Arabic are divided and subdivided thematically, with their English translation in a parallel column” and “his command over English and Arabic is commendable” which has helped him in producing a “faithful and lucid translation” (Ibid.:15). Therefore, Qarai has managed to achieve “the objectives which he set for himself” and infrequently “employed obsolete, archaic and the quaint expressions in this work, which leave an odd impression and impede fluent reading” (Ibid.). Qarai’s explanatory notes are helpful for readers, but in some instances his “intent is far from clear” and sometimes his “interpretations are hard to accept.” Moreover, Qarai has discussed some socio- political issues of contemporary nature which “enhanced the value of work” and his “transliteration is of high standard” (Ibid.: 16).

5. Omar and Omar (2005): A Qadyani “English version of the Urdu translation of Hakim Nooruddin”—which was never published. The “Qadyani origins of this work are too strong to be ignored,” however, “the editor has taken every care to cover up the Qadyani credentials of the author, the translator and the editor in order to mislead unsuspecting readers” (Kidwai, 2018: 17). The author highlights many gross misrepresentations, which run contrary to the basic tenets of Islamic faith. Keeping in view these misrepresentations, the author argues that this work should be “approached with caution” and, for him, it does not contain “any distinctive feature to comment on” (Ibid.: 18).

6. Ahamed (2005): The author says that the work neither carries “any prefatory note by the so-called translator nor any other information about his academic credentials,” but is rather a “populist, rhetoric laden piece, highlighting the scientific facts mentioned in the Qur’ān” and “seeking to prove why Swami Rajneesh should not be deemed as God” (Kidwai, 2018 :19). The author declares it as a “blatant instance of plagiarism, heavily drawn from Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s English translation”. To substantiate this statement, the author provides a comparative analysis of English translations of some of the Qur’ānic verses by Ahamed and Abdullah Yusuf Ali and laments that a work with such “glaring plagiarism” bears the “translation approval from al-Azhar” (Ibid.: 20-22).

7. Unal (2006): He appears to be acquainted with the “Qur’ānic scholarship, both classical and recent, as well as with the norms of writing commentaries of the Qur’ān” and his work falls in the category of al-tafsir bi’l-ma’thur (Kidwai, 2018: 23). The author highlights some of its features as: “unlike some unscrupulous translators, he refrains from interpolating his whimsical views into the body of the translated text” and his sources are standard Tafsir works, at times cited a host of recent Turkish scholars and his dexterous use of “the Bible in explicating the meaning and the message of the Qur’ān” (Ibid.: 24). Among the lamentable features of Unal’s works, the author highlights “low standard of its language and copy editing.” He further adds that, occasionally, “it becomes hard to make out what he means” (Ibid.: 25).

8. Jones (2007): The author argues that it “marks the return of the Orientalist breed with a vengeance” and “unabashedly resurrects several medieval misconceptions and half-truths about Islam and the Qur’ān” (Kidwai, 2018: 26). The author contends that “on studying Jones’s work one gathers the impression that the Qur’ān is a plagiarized version of the Bible, is unintelligible and lacks order of any sort and is also ferociously polemical against non-Muslims” (Ibid.: 26 and 27). Following in the “footsteps of his Orientalist predecessors,” Jones puts forward his “dogmatic assertion of the Biblical origins of the Qur’ān,”which, according to Kidwai, is “more devastating and parochial” (Ibid.: 28). The author thinks of this translation as “cast in the medieval mould” reminiscent of Alexander Ross’s translation, and suggests that “such deep rooted hostility under the guise of scholarship is both regrettable and anachronistic” (Ibid.: 30).

9. Bakhtiar (2007): This translation is “intriguing one on several counts” as “it does not even touch upon what the title promises to deliver” (Kidwai, 2018: 31). Her claims that the work is “based on the Hanafi, Maliki and Shafi schools of law” and “free of any denominational or doctrinal bias” are “baseless and misleading,” because her “preface and introduction betray her peculiar mindset.” This translation “does not contain a single explanatory note,” how can it be the “representative of these juristic schools” (Ibid.: 31). Kidwai argues that Bakhtiar has drawn on three major sources: (i) “Hujjat al-Islam Mojtaba Musavi Lari, who endorsed her new, rather the bizarre interpretation of Q.4: 34” (ii) “Feminists such as Aminah Wadud and Margot Badran”, who parade themselves as ‘Islamic Feminists’” and (iii) “Encyclopaedia of the Quran edited by J. D. McAuliffe, which retains all the centuries-old misconceptions and misperceptions spawned by the Orientalists regarding Islam, the Quran and Muslims” (Ibid.: 32). Another irksome feature Kidwai highlights, is her prefatory note, where “she dismisses the existing English translations as lacking in internal consistency and reliability.” The author debunks this hype and remarks on Bakhtiar’s translation that “at times, it is almost the same as in Arberry’s earlier translation of 1955.” To validate this assessment, the author mentions three passages that lucidly point to the unmistakeable similarity between her and Arberry’s early version (Ibid.: 33). Based on this insightful evaluation the author argues that this translation “does not contribute in any degree to advancing the understanding of the Quran (Ibid.: 34).

10. Hammad (2007): Ahmad Zaki Hammad has received academic training at both al-Azhar and the University of Chicago. Among the chief merits of his translation as highlighted by Kidwai are: “its deep and sincere concern for meeting almost all the needs of the uninitiated English speaking readers of the Qur’ān” and it “has provided extensive and helpful background material geared towards preparing readers better for grasping the meaning and message of the Qur’ān” (Kidwai, 2018: 35). The unique feature is his “elucidation of the meaning and significance of each Qur’ānic Surah title and his translation of the Qur’ānic text is both elegant and reader-friendly” and he has “opted for paraphrases, rather than literal translation of the Qur’ānic text” (Ibid.: 37). His explanatory notes in particular and the whole work in general is “truly a treasure house of sound Qur’ānic scholarship” (Ibid.: 38).

11. Yuksel, et al (2007): This translation stands out as “another addition to strange, rather grossly atrocious breed of English translations of the Quran” (Kidwai, 2018: 41). The author contends that such works are “by persons bearing Muslim names, they attack Islam from within” and “dismiss the entire Hadith corpus as fabricated and hence worthless” (Ibid.: 42). Yuksel, in line with Rashad Khalifa’s, projects that the Qur’ānic text revolves around the figure of 19, which is “sheer absurdity.” In his translation “the Ulema are disparagingly dubbed as “bearded leeches” and the Caliphs are vilified as Satanic” and by contrast, “Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is praised for promoting democracy” (Ibid.: 44). The author argues that “numerous unpardonable liberties have been taken with the Qur’ānic text”, the role and function of the Prophet is muffled, and the titles of some Appendixes and several endnotes are scandalous, irreverent and even blasphemous (Ibid.: 45 and 46).

12. Ghali (2008): The translation “regrettably fails to fulfill even the basic criteria of a good, even readable English translation” (Kidwai, 2018: 48). Kidwai argues that not a single Qur’ānic allusion about the “persons, places and events referred to in the Qur’ānic text is elucidated by Ghali. Nor does it have any glossary to explicate Qur’ānic terms and concepts” (Ibid.: 48). Furthermore, the author maintains that “Ghali’s lack of familiarity with English language and idiom has further undermined the worth of his translation” and he also exposes his usage of “outlandish, obsolete expression.” For instance, Ghali translates Ahl al-Kitab (people of the book) as “Family of the Book,” “Seeds of Israel for Bani Israil (Children of Israel),” etc. (Ibid.: 48, 49). Moreover, the author remarks that “the very few notes by Ghali are not likely to advance readers’ understanding of the Qur’ān.” Rather, these are more likely to confound the readers, because most of them are vague and inchoate. According to Kidwai’s final remark, “Ghali has not been able to deliver the goods” (Ibid.: 49).

13. Khalidi (2008): This translation was “brought out by a leading Western publishing house, Penguin” and hence can be expected to replace “for non-Muslim readers, N. J. Dawood’s obnoxious version published by the same” (Kidwai, 2018: 50). The author praises the translator for “stating lucidly and cogently in his introduction” the Muslim belief about the Qur’an, “refreshing and accurate” translation and other excellent reader-friendly features (Ibid.: 51). Kidwai criticizes Khalidi for his occasional reflection of “the influence of the pernicious Orientalists distrust of the Qur’ān” and authenticates his critique with examples: in his “disparaging reference to the “master narrative” about the history of the collection of the Qur’ān” and “labelling of several Qur’ānic events and figures as “unidentified or mysterious”. Nevertheless, Kidwai recommends this translation as more helpful for readers than “the recent and much-vaunted Encyclopaedia of the Quran”, edited by J. D. McAuliffe (Ibid.: 51).

14. Chaudhary (2010): Though not a substantial contribution to the field, “One of its redeeming, rather unique, features is its thematic categorisation of the Qur’ānic text into 365 “Lessons.”” However, “this highly arbitrary, subjective exercise does not do justice to the multi-layered Quranic text” (Kidwai, 2018: 52). The author argues that Chaudhary’s Lesson headings “do not bring out the intended message of the Quran” nor offer “any help to the readers.” Strangely, he fails to identify any lesson from the last 24 Surahs (Ibid.: 52). Chaudhary’s translation is not supplemented by any explanatory notes or a Glossary and his unacknowledged borrowing from Pickthall’s translation and bad use of English language have disfigured the work. (Ibid.: 53, 54).

15. Bewley and Bewley (2011): This translation of the Quran carried out by a husband and his wife does not qualify as a ‘revised Edition,’ for it is “merely a reprint of the first edition” (Kidwai, 2018: 55). Kidwai highlights some of its demerits as: “it provides no background, about either the Qur’ān, Surahs, geo- historical and cultural allusions, stylistic and rhetorical hallmarks” nor contains any explanatory notes; “both the editions ... have been brought out without the original Qur’ānic text in Arabic”, “intrusion of many Quranic/ Arabic expressions verbatim, without any translation or elucidation.” And their “strictly literal and even unidiomatic rendering of the Qur’ān in English is inexplicable” and at a number of places it has resulted in the ‘loss of meaning’ (Ibid.: 56, 57).

16. Khan (2011): This is the English translation of Wahiduddin Khan’s Urdu translation of the Qur’an, done by his daughter Farida Khanam . Kidwai maintains that “this English version is largely faithful to the Urdu original, it is a great pity that Khan’s excellent Introduction featuring in his Urdu version has been replaced by a new, though somewhat banal and inane” (Kidwai, 2018: 58). The author highlights its several flaws: “it does not delve into Quranic commands, events, personalities, places and geo-historical allusions” and “his introduction is nonetheless incoherent” (Ibid.: 58, 59). Kidwai declares some of Khan’s interpretations as “unsatisfactory and somewhat tendentious” and “his thoughts on the issue of the rise and fall of nations ... too subjective and somewhat whimsical and dogmatic” (Ibid.: 60, 61). The author also remarks that this extensive Tafsir, “contains only a handful of Ahadith, and even these are not cited in full” and the index is borrowed from Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation, without any acknowledgement (Ibid.: 62).

17. Busool (2011): This translation receives intense criticism from Kidwai due to the following reasons: The translator’s “limited and poor knowledge of classical tafsir corpus”, countless mistakes, “incorrect English grammar, syntax, idiom” and “it does not contain the text of the Qur’ān,” etc. (Kidwai, 2018: 66 and 72). Kidwai contends that the translator on several occasions has “wasted his time, energy and resources” on explaining things which do not make any sense in the absence of the Arabic text of the Qur’an. Likewise, the translator exhibits his “careless and whimsical bent of mind” in interpreting some of the Qur’ānic verses (Ibid.: 66 and 67). Kidwai brands his various explanatory notes as “banal and inauthentic” and out of his 15 Appendices, “only two or three have some academic substance and merit” (Ibid.: 68-74).

18. Qadri (2011): The author laments that while the preface to this translation comprises a hyperbolic introduction to Qadri’s profile, strangely “nothing is said about the raison d'être and the distinctive features of this translation, his sources and his methodology.” This translation gives a “vivid picture of his mindset and dogmatic preferences.” Kidwai has mentioned several of Qadri’s interpretations which depict his unflinching association with the Barelvi school of thought (Kidwai, 2018: 75 and 76). Qadri’s fascinating scientific concepts in the index and in translating the verses (such as Q. 16: 79 and 23: 17) “asserting that numerous Qur’ānic verses were sent down to promote the scientific concepts” are quite bewildering (Ibid.: 77 and 79). The author highlights his “mistranslation of the Qur’ānic text” at various occasions and remarks that the only merit is his useful note on “virtues of the recitation of the Quran” (Ibid.: 82).

19. Itani (2012): Kidwai depreciates this translation for the lack of “preface, ALIGARH JOURNAL OF QURANIC STUDIES • VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 2 • OCTOBER 2020 43 explanatory notes, appendixes or even an index.” Further, this work is devoid of any discussion on the distinctive features of the Qur’an, its subject-matter and themes. Though mostly close to the original, yet it is marred at several places by instances of mistranslation (Kidwai, 2018: 83 and 84).

20. Peachy and al-Johani (2012): Declaring it as a rehashing of Pickthall’s translation, Kidwai highlights its problematic nature meticulously. For instance, (i) “It is deplorable to revise someone work posthumously”; (ii) “It is factually incorrect to state that in comparison to others he is less controversial”; (iii) “It is a replica of Pickthall’s dated work”; and (iv) “the work also suffers from several typographical errors, unidiomatic expressions, and unacceptable usage”. Other shortcomings in this work, according to author, are the “absence of the Qur’ānic text”, “absence of Arabic titles of Qur’ānic Surahs” and is also “devoid of the running Surah/ Verse nos. at the head of pages,” making it reader unfriendly (Kidwai, 2018: 88 and 90).

21. International Saheeh (2012): The author remarks that this translation “caters well to the needs of Muslims and non-Muslims”, “states clearly the mainstream Islamic stance which is in accordance with the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah” and “it lets the Qur’ān speak for itself.” The work is supplemented by “brief explanatory notes and apt Ahadith are cited in order to amplify the Qur’ānic viewpoint” (Kidwai, 2018: 91). Kidwai also highlights some of the other valuable elements: it gives “readers a clear and comprehensive picture of the articles of faith”, “authentic account of things Islamic” and is “free from any tahrif (distortion), ta‘til (denial), takyif (hazarding a guess) and tamthil (anthromorphism)”, however, “at times, the description tends to be somewhat vague and unspecific” (Ibid.: 91, 92).

22. Kidwai (2013)4: Parray argues that this translation “rather than presenting a literal (actual and exact) translation of the Quran, presents and paraphrases, as the sub-title of the work reveals, the “Meaning of the Quran in Simple English”” (Parray, 2018: 93 and 94; see also, Parray, 2020). Furthermore, Parray highlights some 4 This is author’s (Kidwai’s) own English translation of the Qur’ãn. The evaluation of this translation is based on three reviews by Parray (2013), Hasan (2013) and Siddiqui (2013). “serious as well as minor differences between Kidwai’s work and (among others) Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s The Holy Quran (1997) and Abdul Majid Daryabadi’s The Glorious Quran (2001)” (Parray, 2018: 94). Hasan contends that this translation is “reader friendly”, “promises to enlarge the reach of the pristine message of the Quran” and “corrects some grave misconceptions”. Siddiqui highlights that “Kidwai has followed the usual practice of other translators in giving verse by verse translation so that the reader can compare it with the original.”

23. Chaudry (2013): Kidwai highlights Chaudry’s indulgence in the same blasphemy as Rashad Khalifa’s as the former has parroted the latter’s obnoxious notions, especially vis-à-vis the no.19 theory (Kidwai, 2018: 103). Kidwai further mentions some of Chaudry’s “idiotic interpretations,” such as “Prophet Abraham’s dream about sacrificing son was from Satan”, his comment that “Surah Al-Adiyat confirms Iraq war,” etc. (Ibid.: 104 and 105). Based on these blasphemous views of the translator, the author remarks that this translation is a “vile work and abusing the rubric of an English translation of the Quran” (Ibid.: 105).

24. Droge (2014): Despite the translator’s claim on impartiality, this translation is “vitiated by almost all the errors of the perspective spawned by his predecessor and contemporary Orientalists” (Kidwai, 2018: 106). The author highlights several of Droge’s “downright bizarre and even wildly contradictory conjectures”, “twisting of the meaning of the Quran” and some of his devastating comments, where he appears to be a follower of J. M. Rodwell, among others (Ibid.: 106, 109). Kidwai highlights some of his “comments on the Quranic discourse on Judeo-Christian tradition” which stand out for their “objectivity and freshness of perspective.” However, in his final assessment, the work can “hardly serve as a resource or as a text suitable for use in an academic setting” (Ibid.: 109 and 110).

25. Shakir and al-Jibouri (2014): Kidwai criticises the editor of this translation, Yasin T. al-Jibouri, because despite being the editor of both the translations (Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s and M.H. Shakir’s), he “turns a blind eye to the blatant plagiarism”. To substantiate this criticism, Kidwai cites ten sample passages, juxtaposing Shakir’s

with Ali’s translation, to bring to the fore the former’s plagiarising from the latter’s translation. (Kidwai, 2018: 111 and 114). Furthermore, the author remarks that this is bare English translation bereft of any explanatory note, glossary, bibliography or index (Ibid.: 115).

26. Elias (2015): The author mentions that “this work is the English version of Mahmudul Hasan’s and Shabbir Ahmad Usmani’s Tafsir-i Usmani in Urdu, and hence a representative Deobandi interpretation” (Kidwai, 2018: 116). Kidwai highlights some of its features as: “reader friendly”, bearing “helpful authentic material” and “contextual information which resolves the occasional ambiguity” (Ibid.: 116-117). The “preface to each Surah, its title, its link with previous Surah, and its subject matter and themes” and “extensive Glossary and index” are helpful for the readers (Ibid.: 118). Among its shortcomings are that he has kept as such scores of “Quranic/Arabic terms and concepts without translating or defining these” and that both the translation and transliteration are not up to the mark (Ibid.: 118 and 119).

27. Read Foundation (2015): Kidwai remarks that this translation “is actually an ad verbatim copy of MAS Abdel Haleem’s translation” and the entire translation of “the Quranic text and all the 741 explanatory notes” have been lifted from the latter translation, with minor differences: a) The general title and three Surah titles have been altered, besides some minor changes in the introduction. Thus, the translation “carries all the strengths and weaknesses of Abdul Haleem’s work” (Kidwai, 2018: 126).

28. Muhammad (2015): The author comments that this work is a “pitiable example of non-academic publishing adventure,” for it has “no Preface, Introduction, Footnotes, Glossary and index” (Kidwai, 2018: 122). Also Kidwai remarks that this translation is “no more than ad verbatim replica of Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s version,” but in several instances, he does “depart from his main sources” (Ibid.: 123 and 124).

29. Abdolah (2016): The author highlights that Abdolah “speaks throughout of the Quran as ‘Muhammad’s prose’, ‘Muhammad’s language’, ‘Muhammad’s recitation’, and ‘his Quran’, ruling out its divine origin.” Besides, his “portrait of the Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) reminds one of the medieval Christian polemicists who ascribed all sorts of sexual debauchery and perversion to the Prophet” (Kidwai, 2018: 124- 127). The author substantiates these statements by giving eighteen examples, which clearly reveal Abdolah’s wild allegations against the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

30. Khattab (2016): Kidwai highlights some of its reader-friendly features, such as: (i) Both lucid and idiomatic; (ii) A detailed note on the structure, style, proper names and pronouns in the Quran; (iii) Answers to some frequently asked questions; (iv) Listing the titles of 114 Quranic Surahs and the imaginative icons; (v) Vindicating the standard Islamic stances (Kidwai, 2018: 128-133). Based on these and other praiseworthy features the author acknowledges that it “delivers much of what its title promises”, presents to readers “the Quranic guidance in a readily comprehensive idiom” and is potent enough “to make readers more receptive and attentive to the study of the Quran” (Ibid.: 128).

31. Kaskas and Hungerford (2016): This translation is prepared by two inter-faith votaries, one Muslim and the other Christian. The author mentions that “perhaps for the first time we have a work on the Quran which does not harp on its Judaeo- Christian antecedents or brushing aside the Quran as a poor, disgusting imitation of the Bible” (Kidwai, 2018: 134). He further remarks that this work “does not engage at all in polemics”, is silent over “all controversial theological issues” and “upholds the doctrine of monotheism” (Ibid.: 135 and 136). The work overall “affords readers a delightful opportunity to realize the common grounds between the Bible and the Quran” and “bridges the ever-yawning gap between Christians and Muslims” (Ibid.: 137 and 138).

32. The Monotheist Group (2017): The author highlights several shortcomings of this translation: (i) Nothing on record about the authors; (ii) Not even a single explanatory note, glossary and other background information; and (iv) No Surah titles (Kidwai, 2018: 139, 140). Furthermore, instead of explaining the abbreviated letters (Al-huruf al-muqatta’at), they “leave it to the readers to examine”, they have serious reservations about “the application of Quranic hudud (penal laws)” and the Quranic command for iqta (amputation of the hands of thief) (Ibid.: 140). The author also highlights some of its bizarre English renderings as “focal point for Qibla, Sacred temple for Al-Masjid Al-Haram and valuable system for Al-Din” (Ibid.: 141). Keeping in view these shortcomings, the author argues that this translation “does not facilitate and advance the understanding of the meaning and the message of the Quran in any way” (Ibid.: 141). An Analytical Assessment: Ali Suleiman Ali’s A Brief Introduction to Quranic Exegesis (2017) has several weaknesses. The author intermittently chooses several themes that have no immediate relation with the subject of exegesis. For example, in the third chapter, a distinction between the term Sunnah and hadith and reviews on six hadith books and its preservation, affects the coherence of the book (Ibid.: 44). In chapter seven, Ali makes a case study of India and Egypt, but while categorizing the exegesis in six different trends, he completely neglects the Indian exegeses (Ibid.: 137). He often gives little attention to the most influential exegetical works; for instance, a good attention is given to Muhammad Abduh’s Tafsir al-Manar, while a little attention is given to the more influential exegesis of Sayyid Qutb, Fi Zilal al-Qur’ān. Prior to that, Ali repeats many things at a number of occasions and such Orientalists as Ignaz Goldziher, John Wansbrough and Andrew Rippin have not been analyzed critically. Despite these weaknesses, the book is an important contribution to the Qur’ānic literature. Lucid and comprehensive, it is written in simple language and casts a new light on the theme of evolutionary trends which emerged in the Qur’ānic exegesis and contains very helpful ‘Glossary’ and a rich and well informed ‘Bibliography’. In sum, Ali’s work is helpful in understanding the evolution of diverse trends in the Qur’ānic exegesis—ranging from the time of the Prophet (pbuh) to the present era. Deeply researched, loaded with rich information, Ali’s A Brief Introduction to Qur’ānic Exegesis is an excellent contribution and a must-read for all those interested in understanding the historical genesis of tafsir literature and how exegetes differed from each other.

The book, God’s Word, Man’s Interpretation critically evaluates thirty-two (32) English translation of the Qur’ān done in the 21st century. Of these translations, mostly are done by Muslims (both Sunni and Shia), three (3) by Orientalists and one (1) by a Qadyani (Ibid.: xiii). Among them, seven (7) translations (Committee, 2000; Ahamed, 2005; Bakhtiar, 2007; Chaudhary, 2010; Peachy & al-Johani, 2012; Shakir and Jibouri (2014); and Muhammad, 2017) are replica of Yusuf Ali’s and Pickthall’s and Arberry’s English translations. Moreover, Kidwai praises, in high terms, the translations done by Hammad (2007), Khalidi (2008), Sahih International (2012), Elia (2015) and Khattab (2016), and argues that in comparison to others they have “succeeded remarkably in conveying the import of the Quran” and present “the true meaning and message of the Quran” (Ibid.: xvi). Furthermore, Kidwai argues that among the ninety (90) complete English translations, only three—namely Hammad (2007), Khalidi (2008) and Khattab (2016)—can be recommended to readers, Muslims as well as non-Muslims, “for contextualizing the meaning and message of the Quran” (Ibid.: 128). Notwithstanding the intense activity in the field of English translations of the Qur’ān and Kidwai’s experience of having critically evaluated over a hundred English translations of the Qur’ān, he draws the conclusion that “there is still need for a reader friendly translation in idiomatic English which may cater to the varying needs of an ever increasing English readership” (Ibid.: xvi). Moreover, Kidwai academically debunked many Orientalist and sectarian itineraries and, unlike others, he is very straightforward in calling Qadyanis as “Qadyani” instead of “Ahmadis”.

Notwithstanding its all merits, there are several typographical errors and faulty transliteration of the Arabic words. In his Preface, he mentions that “forty (40) translations have been published between 2000 and 2017”, and one wonders why then he has left the other eight (8) translations, including the influential collaborative work by Nasr et al, (2015). Shortcomings apart, the book admirably delivers much of what its title promises. It is marked by a number of features and is written in a well-articulated and easily understandable language. Every assertion is substantiated with examples. The books also carries a very informative appendix on “Tafsir Studies: An Assessment of the Orientalist Enterprise” and its ‘Bibliography’ (prepared by Sajid Shaffi) is very exhaustive. In sum, Kidwai’s God’s Word, Man’s Interpretations can be recommended as a must-read book to all Muslims and non-Muslims alike, especially to the English readers for carefully selecting any English translation of the Qur’ān for their study. Thus, it serves as a guide book for the English readers of the Qur’ān. Concluding Remarks: The main themes highlighted in these works cover the exegeses and translations of the Qur’ān and the influence of different theological traditions – traditional, mystical and regional – and political and sectarian interests on it. The above assessment helps us in understanding the scholarly efforts from the time of the Prophet (pbuh) to the contemporary era, though adopting different methodologies and frameworks, while interpreting and translating the Qur’ān. Ali’s outstanding mode of describing the evolution – from classical to the contemporary – of diverse trends in the tafsir literature and its other interrelated aspects illustrate his familiarity with the subject. The way Kidwai critically evaluates the English translations of the Qur’ān and points out several sectarian interests is a uniquely notable exposition. Thus, the above evaluation demonstrates that these books are worth-occupying a place of pride in the corpus of literature, in English, on their respective subjects and themes. These scholarly works, collectively, make a significant contribution to understanding the different dimensions of the Qur’ānic studies, through their contents, subjects and methodologies.

Bibliography

Abdolah, Kader. 2016. The Quran: A Journey, London: World Editions.

Ahamed, Syed Vickar. 2005. English Translation of the Meaning of the Quran, Lombard, IL, USA, Books of Signs Foundation.

Ali, Suleiman Ali. 2017. A Brief Introduction to Qur’ānic Exegesis, Herndon, VA, USA: The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

Bakhtiar, Laleh. 2007. The Sublime Quran, Chicago, US: Qazi Publications. Bewley, Aisha and Abdalhaqq. 2011. The Noble Quran: A New Rendering of its Meaning in English, London: Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd.

Busool, Assad Nimer. 2011. The Wise Quran: A New Translation, Xlibris Corporation.

Chaudhary, Muhammad Sharif. 2010. Meaning of the Magnificent Quran, Lahore, Pakistan: S.N. Foundation.

Chaudry, Ijaz. 2013. Quran Translation: The Latest and Most Modern Translation of the Quran (n.a) Cleary, Thomas. 2004. The Quran: A New Translation, Starlatch Llc.

Droge, A.J. 2014. The Quran: A New Annotated Translation, Sheffield, UK: Equinox.

Elias, Mufti Afzal Hoosen. 2015. Quran Made Easy, Karachi, Pakistan: Zam Zam Publications.

Ghali, Muhammad Mahmud. 2008. Towards Understanding the Ever-Glorious Quran, Cairo: Dar An-Nashr Liljamiat.

Haleem, M.A.S. Abdel. 2004. The Quran: A New Translation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hammad, Ahmad Zaki. 2007. The Gracious Quran: A Modern-Phrased Interpretation in English, Lisle, LA, USA: Lucent Interpretations.

Hassan, Masudul. 2013. “Review: What is in the Quran? Message of the Quran in Simple English,” in Hamdard Islamacus. 36 (4):85 - 88.

International Saheeh. 2012. The Quran: English Meanings and Notes, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Al-Muntada Al-Islami Trust.

Itani, Talal. 2012. The Quran: Translated to English, Dallas, US: Clear Quran.

Jones, Alan. 2007. The Quran Translated into English, N.A, Gibb Memorial Trust.

Kaskas, Safi and David Hungerford. 2016. The Quran with References to the Bible, Fairfax, VA: Bridges of Reconciliation.

Khalidi, Tarif. 2008. The Quran: A New Translation, London: Penguin Classics.

Khan, Wahiduddin. 2011.The Quran: Translation and Commentary, New Delhi: Goodword Books.

Khattab, Mustafa. 2016. The Clear Quran: A Thematic English Translation of the Message of the Final Revelation, Lambard, IL, USA: Furqan Institute of Quranic Education.

Kidwai, Abdur Raheem. 2018. God’s Word, Man’s Interpretations: A Critical Study of the 21st Century English Translation of the Quran, New Delhi: Viva Books.

Kidwai, Abdur Raheem. 2013. What is in the Qur’ān? Message of the Qur’ān in Simple English, New Delhi: Viva Books.

Kidwai, Abdur Raheem. 2011. Translating the Untranslatable: A Critical Guide to 60 English Translations of the Quran, New Delhi: Sarup Book Publishers.

Kidwai, Abdur Raheem. 2011. Daily Wisdom: Selections from the Holy Qur’ān, Leicester: Kube Publishing Ltd.

Kidwai, Abdur Raheem. 2007. Bibliography of the Translation of the Meanings of the Glorious Qur’ān into English 1649 – 2002: A Critical Study, Madina, Saudi Arabia: King Fahd Qur’ān Printing Complex.

Muhammad, A.L. Bilal. 2015. Islamic Scripture: Translation/Interpretations of the Arabic Quran, Muhammad & Co.

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein et al 2015. The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary, New York, USA: Harper One.

Omar, Amatul Rahman and Omar, Abdul Mannan.2005. The Holy Quran: Arabic Text and English Translation, Hockessin, DE, USA: Noor Foundation Iinternational.

Parray, Tauseef Ahmad. 2020. Recent Trends in the Qur’ānic Scholarship, New Delhi: Viva Books

Parray, Tauseef Ahmad. 2018. “K. A. Nizami Centre for Quranic Studies and 21st Century Quranic Studies in English”in Aligrah Journal of Qur’ānic Studies. 1 (1): 99-109

Parray, Tauseef Ahmad. 2013. “Review: What is in the Quran? Message of the Quran in Simple English,” in Al-Bayan: Journal of Quran and Hadith Studies. 11 (1): 106 -108.

Peachy, Daoud William and al-Johani, Maneh Hammad. 2012. The Quran: The Final Book of God: A Clear English Translation of the Glorious Quran, Qassim, Saudi Arabia: World Assembly of Muslim Youth.

Qadri, Tahirul Mohammad. 2011. The Glorious Quran, London: Minhaj-ul-Quran Publications.

Qarai, Ali Quli. 2004. The Quran with a Phrase-by-Phrase English Translation, London, UK: Islamic College for Advanced Studies Press.

Read Foundation. 2015. The Noble Quran: Translation of the Meaning in English Language, Germany: Read Foundation.

Shah, Muhammad Sultan. 2010. “A Critical Study of Abdel Haleem’s New Translation of the Holy Qur’ān,” in Al-Qalam—Bi-Annual Research Journal,15 (2): 3-14 Shakir, M.H. and Al-Jibouri, Yasin T. 2014. The Quran, Newington, VA, USA: Yasin Publications.

Siddiqui, Abdur Rashid. 2013. “Review: What is in the Quran? Message of the Quran in Simple English” The Muslim World Book Review. 33 (4): 20 - 22.

The Monotheist Group. 2017. The Message: A Translation of the Glorious Quran, USA: Brainbow Press.

Translation Committee. 2000. The Majestic Quran, Burr Ridge, IL, USA and UK: Nawawi Foundation and Ibn Khaldun Foundation.

Unal, Ali. 2006. The Quran with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English, New Jersey, US: Light.

Yuksel, Edip. et al 2007. The Quran: A Reformist Translation, USA, Brainbow Press.