Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Ali

The Study Quran - This will revolutionize the study of the Quran!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The problem is, due to the extensive tafsir, the Arabic has been excluded from the translation which defeats the purpose of using it as a study Qur'an as advertised. I would not recommend it to someone who wants to learn about Islam. The English translation will always be a translation and suffer in accuracy, it is not a substitute for reading the Qur'an. 

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks bro. Ali.... just purchased a copy from Amazon (.co.uk).

Surprisingly, only £25 and a hardback too!

Bro Gaius - I guess most of us (if not all) already have Arabic Qurans hence translations and more importantly for me, better refined and expounded tafsir would be worth every penny to the pen. Then again I'm yet to receive mine hope its as good as advertised :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thread. The friends of mine who have purchased the work have not ceased speaking in praise of it. Others tell me of people they know who are constantly raving about it as well.

I'm yet to purchase it myself but I will do so shortly iA. It seems like it is definitely one everyone needs for their bookshelf. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember Dr. Nasr mentioning this in a lecture he did a year or so ago. I'm glad to see it finally finished. Shame about that price though.

 

3 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

The problem is, due to the extensive tafsir, the Arabic has been excluded from the translation which defeats the purpose of using it as a study Qur'an as advertised. I would not recommend it to someone who wants to learn about Islam. The English translation will always be a translation and suffer in accuracy, it is not a substitute for reading the Qur'an. 

It's not trying to be a substitute. And most Muslims don't even know Arabic to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, I just thought it would be misleading to call it a study Qur'an  without the Arabic to reference back to; Although, it can be easily remedied with an Qur'an with the Arabic. I like the in-depth tafsirs, perhaps I will get it. I think if I was to study the Study Qur'an, I would need an Arabic Qur'an and a Qur'anic dictionary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saintly_Jinn23 said:

I remember Dr. Nasr mentioning this in a lecture he did a year or so ago. I'm glad to see it finally finished. Shame about that price though.

1

£19.99 if you buy the Kindle version. Which is also great because you can then search for the term Shiite or even Shiite interpretation...there are 8 of those. Here's the book's explanation of 5:55:

Charity.jpg

 

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haji 2003 said:

£19.99 if you buy the Kindle version. Which is also great because you can then search for the term Shiite or even Shiite interpretation...there are 8 of those. Here's the book's explanation of 5:55:

Charity.jpg

 

Sweet, that's very cool, I am definitely getting this. Masha'Allah! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Shadee Elmasry seems to have been going on a campaign against this work. This is from one of his posts off Facebook: 

Quote

12289678_1096579083695322_25685819476601

Here's an example of what I've been posting about for the last few days regarding the new Study Quran. When you actually uncover a lie with your own two eyes, it's infuriating. And al-hamdulillah I don't roam in academic circles, so I can expose this with little to no backlash al-hamdulillah.

When it comes to the issue of exclusive theological validity (not to be confused with salvation because we have a doctrine of Ahl al-Fatra---those who never received the message, nor received it properly). 

Here is some commentary from the Study Quran on, "Whomsoever chooses other than islam as a deen, it is not accepted from him" (3:85 Aal Imran). 

The editors are passing it off that traditional exegetes have differed on "islam" here and that it's not restricted to what the Prophet ﷺ brought. Ibn Kathir's words "a path other than what God has revealed" is peddled as, "...can include the People of the Book." And they stop there. What a blatant lie because it took me all of two seconds to look it up and lo and behold, the line right above it describes "those who submitted" as "Those who believe in EVERY Prophet that has been sent down and EVERY book that his been revealed," which clearly is not the case with the People of the Book who are obviously rejecting the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. 

I figured wow that was easy, let me look at the line below it. And what do I find? "Islam/submission" is "...as the Prophet ﷺ said 'Whoever takes an action that is not what we ordained, it is rejected.'" Therefore, what Ibn Kathir meant by "what God revealed" is clearly what the Prophet ﷺ has brought, not all past revelations. 

Really, my opinion of whoever wrote this is that they're no different than any other sect that cherry picks with immense dishonesty. They should be ashamed at trying to fool those who don't read Arabic and can't do what I just did which took me no more than five minutes to uncover. 

Look, be a Perennialist, be a Liberal, be a hadith rejector, be whatever you want. But the moment you you're dishonest with the evidence, I've lost all respect. It's low.

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Dr. Shadee Elmasry seems to have been going on a campaign against this work. This is from one of his posts off Facebook: 

Wassalam

 

Thanks. Rather than praising or writing off this initiative, I think it's best to wait until there is more informed opinion. All the reviews cited by the OP seem to be from scholars based in western universities and that's not wholly convincing for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

The problem is, due to the extensive tafsir, the Arabic has been excluded from the translation which defeats the purpose of using it as a study Qur'an as advertised. I would not recommend it to someone who wants to learn about Islam. The English translation will always be a translation and suffer in accuracy, it is not a substitute for reading the Qur'an. 

 

5 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

True, I just thought it would be misleading to call it a study Qur'an  without the Arabic to reference back to; Although, it can be easily remedied with an Qur'an with the Arabic. I like the in-depth tafsirs, perhaps I will get it. I think if I was to study the Study Qur'an, I would need an Arabic Qur'an and a Qur'anic dictionary. 

Here's their reasoning from Facebook

Some have asked about the Arabic not being included in the Study Quran. There are a few reasons for this.
First, size. Much of this book is double-columned at 9pt font, and it is still over 2000 pages. Thus, the only realistic way of including the Arabic would be as a very small text, probably at the top of the page, for reference purposes only. It would not be ideal for reading.
Second, this is a book for many audiences and a majority of them would not be able to read the Arabic at all.
Third, adding the Arabic would likely have added many months or years to the publication. It would have meant that there would be three dynamic text fields on 1600 pages of translation and commentary, which is extremely difficult to typeset well. That means we would have been compelled to wait until the translation and commentary were completely typeset before we then added the Arabic. Unlike other works which can re-purpose existing printed Qurans through photographic cut and paste, we would have to establish a correct digital text with ZERO possibility for mistakes, no simple task. If the English has a typo or two, it is forgivable. If the Arabic were to have a mistake, Muslims would rightly ask for the entire print run to be scrapped. It is not straightforward to take an existing digital text and simply import it into InDesign from another program; even plain English text gets unexpectedly mangled when doing this, always requiring proofreading. The vowelized digital text of the Quran (with the fatḥas, ḍammas, shaddahs, and kasras, and the many ligatures or combinations of joining letters) is extremely complex. Errors and anomolies in formatting always creep in, and while an online text can simply be corrected on the server or through an update, a printed text cannot. We would have to take a long time to check and re-check the Arabic to ensure that a widely read book (by God's will) would not have any errors whatsoever. And at the end, it still would have been too small and cramped to be a pleasure to read.
Finally, alhamdulillah the Arabic of the Quran is freely and widely available just about anywhere. Anyone who has a smartphone has the Quran in their pocket through many excellent apps. It's available in print and online in numerous formats.
We have discussed plans to release an edition of the Study Quran Translation alone side-by-side with the Arabic at some point.

I agree, when I hold the book I don't find it extremely big but big enough - the paper is extremely thin but that would explain how they made a 2000 page book fit in a hand.  Adding Arabic will make it into volumes or extremely big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Sweet, that's very cool, I am definitely getting this. Masha'Allah! 

This is nothing compared to the intro where Nasr specifically mentions that Prophet Mohammed left behind the Quran and Ahlulbayt and explains the meaning of when Iman Ali (as) says he is the dot of the letter "b" in Bismillah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had this pre-ordered forever. I went nuts and got the leatherbound edition, but to be fair I think the hardcover is a bit nicer.

The list of Tafsir's and hadith collections referenced is INSANE. They look at both Shia and Sunni sources. The commentary explains all points of views. It is a tremendously amazing work, and more so as a jumping off point into more serious reading because of the aforementioned list of tafsir's consulted. They even suggest going to altafsir.com in the introduction for reference while reading!

I've only read a handful of English translations, but the translation itself seems to be very well done. And as far as I know it's the only translation done by committee, which we really, really, really needed in English.

More incredibly, it's on the shelves in every book shop I've been to in the last week. I don't think a work like this has ever been so easy to get.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

 

Literally who?

3 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

The editors are passing it off that traditional exegetes have differed on "islam" here and that it's not restricted to what the Prophet ﷺ brought. Ibn Kathir's words "a path other than what God has revealed" is peddled as, "...can include the People of the Book." And they stop there. What a blatant lie because it took me all of two seconds to look it up and lo and behold, the line right above it describes "those who submitted" as "Those who believe in EVERY Prophet that has been sent down and EVERY book that his been revealed," which clearly is not the case with the People of the Book who are obviously rejecting the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. 
 

The only one blatantly lying here is whoever posted this, either that or he lacks serious reading comprehension skills.

The excerpt he posted quotes only Ibn Kathir as only saying "A path other than what God has laid down", the rest is Nasr and the editors' own understanding of what this means. They're not attributing anything to Ibn Kathir himself, but rather are following his own logic to what they think is the most natural conclusion. It seems rather stupid to accuse someone of purposely lying for that.

Also, to say that the People of the Book reject Muhammad (as) is silly because there are many Christians and Jews who, having a more open-minded and enlightened perspective, are willing to some degree to accept Muhammad as some kind sage or prophet and we see some more positive appraisals of Muhammad (as) even by Christians centuries back who had more positive or diverse experiences with Muslims and Islam. To assume that People of the Book reject Muhammad (as) by virtue of simply being People of the Book is to pass judgment on them. But what if they accept Muhammad but are nervous about publicly becoming Muslims because of the stigma? What if they accept Muhammad but are not ready to be full fledged "Muslims"? What if they have a heart to accept Islam but only haven't because they haven't had good experiences with Muslims to convince them it is a religion they want to be part of (similarly to how Gandhi said he liked Christ but disliked Christianity because of the British who came in the name of Christianity) or because nobody has really explained it to them? None of these individuals can be considered rejectors.

 

Not only that but the Qur'an never uses "People of the Book" as a synonym for mushrik or kafir anyway. It speaks of the idolaters and unbelievers AMONG them, but there are also places where the People of the Book are counted as opposed to the unbelievers.

It is in light of this as well as traditional commentators' definition of terms like "submission" or "Islam" that the editors have attempted to explain such an exclusivist toned verse in what is otherwise a very universal text. Nowhere in the bit this so-called doctor took a picture of does it say that those who "reject Muhammad" have their religion accepted, what it says is "islam means recognizing divine unity and submitting one's face to God, attributes not limited to the followers of Muhammad". What is objectionable in this statement? The followers of Christ were Muslims. The followers of Moses were Muslims. And if you ask Christians and Jews, who consider themselves followers of Moses and Jesus, if they are "submitters to God" and if they "acknowledge the Divine Unity" they would emphatically say yes. The only reason they would object to being called "Muslims" is because of the political and sectarian associations of the term.

 

And that's what the commentators are trying to go beyond. Taken in its most generic meaning, the term "Islam" could be used by anyone, even a polytheist, who believes he "submits" to God's will fully. What the commentators are trying to do is not universalize the meaning of Islam to include any and everyone but give a definition of the term that is precise and specific in what it refers to (in this case, acceptance of the Divine Unity) and yet broad enough that it isn't constrained by mere outward confessions which may or may not even be sincere or by outward trappings and customs that may have developed after the Prophet. And we DO find some awareness of this in the older Islamic commentators. Although Christians were always seen as deviant in some way from Christ's actual teachings of tawhid, they were always recognized to some extent as still part of the "Ummah of Isa" and thus accountable to Jesus one way or the other. We should also remember the story of Bahira who was already in spirit a Muslim before meeting the Prophet or hearing the Qur'an, although he was outwardly a Christian monk and had reached this exalted station through a correctly focused devotion to Christianity and this was possible because Christianity has a kind of "Islamic core" even in its present corrupted state that connects it to the Muhammadan revelation. Likewise, Salman (as) was never an "unbeliever" or "rejector" although he was once a Zoroastrian and a Christian. Traditional Islamic commentators more often than not, understood Christianity, Judaism, Sabianism, Zoroastrianism, etc. not so much as separate religions from Islam as much imperfect or misguided forms of Islam themselves which either misunderstood important doctrines or did not know how to express them as they were intended, leading to further misunderstandings of the divine message of monotheism.

The Qur'an shifts from the use of Islam as a general term for submission to God, which can THEORETICALLY include those Ahlul Kitab who are not guilty of shirk or rejection of the Muhammadan revelation at least in their hearts and attempt to follow the divine truth as much as it is contained in their respective traditions to allow them to develop a heart and understanding of the divine that is truly Islamic, and it shifts from that to a use of Islam as a particular term for the Muhammadan revelation as a continuation and explanation of the previous revelations that is against any and all shirk and denial, between which rest the Ahlul Kitab who follow corrupt yet still somewhat legitimate forms of the Islamic religion brought by the previous prophets. And Ahlul Kitab cannot be considered unbelievers or against Islam on the sole basis of being Ahlul Kitab, because the Qur'an does not refer to them as such in and of themselves. This is all the book was trying to drive at.

 

I apologize for this post being so large, but it's irritating when people try to spread lies and misrepresentations of Dr. Nasr's intentions just because he doesn't feel like Islam tells us to throw words like kafir around willy nilly.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

 

Thanks. Rather than praising or writing off this initiative, I think it's best to wait until there is more informed opinion. All the reviews cited by the OP seem to be from scholars based in western universities and that's not wholly convincing for me. 

I don't see why that should be an issue, especially since many of the reviewers are respected even in Islamic circles for their work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Dr. Shadee Elmasry seems to have been going on a campaign against this work. This is from one of his posts off Facebook: 

Wassalam

Well to begin with, it is distasteful for a doctor to accuse others of dishonesty and to use language such as "... they're no different than any other sect that cherry picks with immense dishonesty. They should be ashamed at trying to fool those who don't read Arabic and can't do what I just did which took me no more than five minutes to uncover". It is certainly not reflective of a proper critical analysis.

Coming to his criticism, he is accusing them of cherry picking whereas he himself is quoting incomplete commentary and is reading between the lines. The commentary of the verse starts by explaining when it was revealed. i.e when a companion left Islam and went to Makkah. In fact here you go, the entire commentary below. I personally see no issues with this style of commentary which even though may have a set agenda of countering extremists, but still provides both or different views along with the reasoning behind preferred interpretation. 

[3:85] Whosoever seeks a religion other than submission, it shall not be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he shall be among the losers.

[3:86] How shall God guide a people who have disbelieved after having believed, having borne witness that the Messenger is true, and the clear proofs having come to them? And God guides not wrongdoing people.

 

Commentary of [3:85]

3.85a.jpg.15188af3852ce7bc20eb0d678db475

3.85b.jpg.97ef5c19b72d5c2b36bdae4e5351da


Commentary of 3:86

3.86.jpg.0c30ffee5694aa89f75407d6a0b660f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Saintly_Jinn23 said:

Literally who?

Yeah.

We shouldn't forget some people, including among the Shias, have an intense dislike for Dr. Nasr's work so they don't leave any opportunity to traduce him. Add in the fundamentalist Sunnis who would not find anything worthwhile in the effort. 

What I have read above isn't a very rigorous analysis of the book's approach; just a random picking subjected to mock condemnation and that's all.

That being said, we also need to remember that there would be some contentious interpretations, which are common when we're dealing with a work of this scope. So even if some of us don't find view x to our liking, it doesn't mean the book is fit for figurative burning.

Edited by Marbles
Added a line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

El Mesri has a point. The excerpt from the Study Quran regarding seeking religion other than Ilsam is confusing. Going back to the Arabic tafsir of Alzamakhshari and Ibn Kathir, i fail to see the varying opinions.

The verse(Whoever believed in God, the last day and did righteous from Jews, christians and Sabi'een -monotheistics-, they will be rewarded)

The verse is speaking about the past righteous people. The verse of accepting only islam is talking about future. Neither Ibn Kathir nor Al zamakhshari in their tafsirs gave a hint or clue that islam can include non muslims.

Theoritically we say that all creatures of this universe are muslims and all humans by fitrah are muslims BUT technically to be a muslim you should stick to the Shari'ah. Both Alzamakhshari and ibn Kathir mention that in their tafsir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd read it, if only the print edition were available in my local library. It's a bit outside my usual budget. Maybe I can save up for it.

 

It's important to read and study multiple translations and interpretations. Falsehood will reveal itself if we seek truth and clarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abbas. said:

 I personally see no issues with this style of commentary which even though may have a set agenda of countering extremists, but still provides both or different views along with the reasoning behind preferred interpretation. 

 

Pitching itself in this way a priori will create more problems than it would have done otherwise IMHO.

 

1 hour ago, Saintly_Jinn23 said:

I don't see why that should be an issue, especially since many of the reviewers are respected even in Islamic circles for their work.

Even in the book itself, while western contributors are credited, all we know is that there was a leading Shia Ayatollah involved and a grand Shaikh from al-Azhar.

To their credit the editor does say this and I agree with this view:

study.jpg

TIP FOR ANYONE READING ON THE KINDLE.

When I search for the word Talib (a.s.) I get nothing, because I am not putting in the right marks. But the workaround is to find one occurrence of Imam Ali (a.s.) in the text and then click it. Kindle will then search for the correctly spelt form and a lot of occurrences come up.

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saintly_Jinn23 said:

 

I apologize for this post being so large, but it's irritating when people try to spread lies and misrepresentations of Dr. Nasr's intentions just because he doesn't feel like Islam tells us to throw words like kafir around willy nilly.

Well said.  I especially liked Dagli's (one of the editors)  response to him on Facebook.   I'm surprised that the authors are justifying these guys outside of academia who are criticizing their work by responding to them on Facebook. 

 

Caner K. Dagli

Akhi, you are calling for takfir against us on Twitter by saying what we've done is "outright kufr" and quoting Imam Nawawi that to not condemn kufr as kufr is itself kufr. So you are saying that unless others call us kafir, they are kafir. And YOU DON"T EVEN OWN THE BOOK. You are literally having people feed you photos of the pages. Is that what Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyyah did? Did they glance at a couple of passages of Ibn Sina and Ibn Arabi and then declare "outright kufr" which, as you surely know, is a term with legal implications. Or did those scholars prove their mastery of a text before declaring the doctrines therein to be kufr? And you praised Hamza Yusuf's critique of "perennialism" which, if you'd actually read it, frames the issue of other faiths a matter of differing tawil and not kufr. Do you disagree with Sh. Hamza? If so, explain why. But the point is you have not read our book, which assumes people will have access to ALL the relevant sections of a topic, not just the commentary on one or two verses. The Quran speaks of other religions many, many times and in different ways. You've not read all those sections in our book, yet you still feel comfortable speaking about kufr. I think that's terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ali said:

Great commentary.   Did you have specific concerns with the above ? 

I note that it refers to early Shiite commentary placing a restriction, but does not extend this to contemporary Shiite practice, which disallows Christian slaughtered meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, really Hosein Nasr being a shia and sufi being brought up here on SC. :) i have some of his works on my laptop,  tho too broke to order this book online. but if if its his work, its worth reading. i folllow the naqshbandi order too apart from  being a shia and hosein nasr said once that in the Alazhar Uni there was a covert group of naqshbandi or naqshbandi awliya. sorry, it just came to my mind but i think its brilliant that Hosein Nasr's work was brought up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been in a great many different churches for a great many different ceremonies. I 've never seen any animal anywhere  "offered to a church", slaughtered in the name of anything related to a church or in " the name if the Messiah", or any practice like that.

 When is this an actual problem?

Also...guess I'm glad my daughter is and cooks vegetarian( unless it's hunted or fished or raised humanely by family or known folks ) or SG will have an interesting relationship.

Edited by LeftCoastMom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haji 2003 said:

Searching for 'Umar ibn al-Khattab' comes up with some interesting results, some would say entertaining.

Share please?  Unfortunately no search option on a hard-copy..  Though I'm sure the index has it.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ali said:

Share please?  Unfortunately no search option on a hard-copy..  Though I'm sure the index has it.. 

l'll have to come back later to give the Surah/Ayat references.

5943.jpg

11207.jpg

11355.jpg

15628.jpg

24205.jpg

34006.jpg

58816.jpg

60003.jpg

60376.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is on my amazon Wish List, but I'm using smile.amazon dot com, so that part of the proceeds go to the charity I have on file with amazon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...