Lilly wrote:

isnt Tafseer Ibn Kathir a really good one? dont know though...might be a salafi one for all i know...

Tafsir Ibn Kathir itself is one of the great tafsirs of the Qur'an, and any Muslim can derive great benefit from it. However, some of the translations (and abbreviations) of this great work cannot be recommended in the same manner--due to the biases and methodology of the translators and publishers.

link

You wrote:

If you ignore books from the last two centuries, anything earlier will generally be agreed upon or arguable at the least.

Having said that, I use Maarful Quran which is recommended in the above link. The English is not hard to understand and references are made to classical tafsirs AND when it comes to specific verses such as jihad or divorce, the fiqhi ruling is also mentioned.

PS. Avoid Mawdudi's translation of the Quran.

MuslimBro wrote:

PS. Avoid Mawdudi's translation of the Quran.

Why?

It is easy to read and concise enough to be useful.

MakeMeRawr_8TeenF wrote:

It's kind of daunting though, sooo much to readdd...

It's daunting if u think of it as a whole, or that u can't be a good Muslim without understanding (or at least knowing of) all of it.

But the Quran was revealed over many years, & the companions of the Prophet used to learn a few verses at a time, & not learn any more until they'd implemented them into their lives.
& I'd suggest reading, rereading (different translations) of some of the shorter surahs at the end rather than try to read al-baqara or al-imran in one sitting & try to make sense of it.

Another suggestion is to get books about particular topics, which bring together verses or chapters that relate to each other... The danger of this is most books of that type in mosques/Islamic bookshops are what u might call 'salafied'..
Check internet bookshops cos they tend 2 have a broader range 2 choose from.

MuslimBro wrote:

Lilly wrote:

isnt Tafseer Ibn Kathir a really good one? dont know though...might be a salafi one for all i know...

Tafsir Ibn Kathir itself is one of the great tafsirs of the Qur'an, and any Muslim can derive great benefit from it. However, some of the translations (and abbreviations) of this great work cannot be recommended in the same manner--due to the biases and methodology of the translators and publishers.

link

You wrote:

If you ignore books from the last two centuries, anything earlier will generally be agreed upon or arguable at the least.

Having said that, I use Maarful Quran which is recommended in the above link. The English is not hard to understand and references are made to classical tafsirs AND when it comes to specific verses such as jihad or divorce, the fiqhi ruling is also mentioned.

PS. Avoid Mawdudi's translation of the Quran.

My dad insists this a wahabi tafsir ¬_¬ :x
Apparently the person has studied at a deobandi place therefore is a wahabi...

ARGHHHHHHHH

يَغْفِرَ لَكَ اللَّهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبِكَ وَمَا تَأَخَّرَ
"So that Allah may forgive you of your previous previous and subsequent faults"

If the particle 'lam' (translated above as 'as that') is taken to be for a “ta'lil”, it indicates the purpose for which and the reason why such a manifest victory was given to the holy Prophet saw. It is mentioned in this verse that the victory was given to him to bless him with three different bounties. The first bounty is forgiveness of all his past and future shortcomings. Attention was drawn in Surah Muhammad that all prophets are infallible. Wherever words like dhanb and isyan (sin or fault) are attributed to them in the Qur'an, they are in relation to their lofty. Works that are merely unadvisable contrary to the preferred practice are also referred to as dhanb in relation to the high status of the Prophets by way of reprimand. 'Previous' shortcomings committed before conferment of prophethood, and 'subsequent'refers to shortcomings committed after the conferment of prophethood. The reason why this victory caused forgiveness for such shortcomings is that large masses of people entered the fold of Islam after it, and naturally the credit of spreading the call of Islam goes to the Holy Prophet for which he received the divine reward, and an increase in reward always entails forgiveness of the shortcomings.

huh? I can't seem to understand it - is it contradicting the fact that the Prophet is sinless? :S

I was talking about this with someone who has studied early Islamic history.

He mentioned how in the early period there were a surprising number of diverganet thoughts in the aqeedah, but people with different beliefs were rarely condemned - beliefs that would not be considered outright heretical.

Huh? So this translation/explanation isn't actually right? But it is accepted?

My post was not referring to your post.

Confusing eh?

the issue with your post is you are confusing "mistakes" with "sins".

A better explanation is eg the case after the battle of Badr, where the prophet wanted to release all of the captured people straight away, but a verse was revealed that some could be released but others would need to pay a price and some even had to be punished for past crimes.

Or another case where the prophet was preaching to the rich and powerful of Makkah when a blind person interrupted and the prophet thinking that it was in the better interest to focus on the rich and powerful (as they would also be able to convince others), but God preferred that the blind person was dealt with and surah abasa was revealed.

So technically its not even "mistakes" but preferences.

Why isn't the explanation clearer, why use the word sin?! :@

it doesnt use the word sin - not even the translation or the explanation you posted. But it is easy to substitute that word in subconsciously and get the wrong meaning.

Oh yeah :oops:

See this is what happened, the local imaam came and tried to explain to me why the above translation/translaTOR is wrong and should not be taken.

The argument was that these people see the Prophet as a normal human being so can sin therefore they do not respect him as required and also build up a different aqeedah.

That verse ^^(surah 48:2) was used as an example of this and was compared to Shaykh Tahir ul Qadri's translation which completely changes the meaning:

" So that Allah may forgive, for your sake, all the earlier and later sins (of all those people) of your Umma (Community, who struggled, fought and sacrificed by your command)"

Clearly, that one is giving the Prophet more respect and status than the former.

So at first I was convinced but then I read the commentary of the latter and when it goes on to explain the rest of the verse it mentions how the Prophet (Saw) was on the right path from the onset.

So I told the imaam and tried to read the first half of the explanation out to him but when I got to the part of the Prophet being forgiven he stopped me there (annoyingly!) and just said how it was clearly contradictory. I couldn't really carry on, and just let him have the last word. But I wasn't convinced that it would be contradictory - that would be rather stupid of them :/ but at the same time I didn't really understand it myself (hence here I am )

But now - which is the correct translation? :S

You wrote:

MuslimBro wrote:

PS. Avoid Mawdudi's translation of the Quran.

Why?

It is easy to read and concise enough to be useful.

Mawlana Mawdudi was a scholar, and had some distinguished service for Islam. However, his methodology and understanding varies from that of traditional Sunni scholarship, and thus he held many untenable or incorrect positions.

link

One such position he held was that Prophets are capable of sinning and his translation reflects this view.

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

But now - which is the correct translation? :S

Allahu 'alim (God knows best)
We have to say authubillahir minash-shaitanir-rajeem, bismillahir-rahamnir-raheem before reading any of the quran.

We (or anyone else for that matter) can never understand the whole quran or even a portion of it fully..

We can just make our best judgement/trust another's interpretation on how it relates to OUR lives..

& for me there's enough 'clear' stuff that I'm struggling to live up to, to worry about stuff like this.

The Prophet was given knowledge of the Unseen & also special Insight, but this was only because it came from Allah (swt)... As far as my understanding, he was not infallible- although he was free from Sin.

Sins are different from mistakes.. & even his mistakes were Written for him by God- so that we may learn from him.

Other prophets who it makes clear made mistakes in the Quran: Adam (as), Yoonus (as) & Musa (as)...

But these are still among the greatest people ever to have lived, & they were 'sinless' in that they didn't act out of selfish reasons or made lies up about God to suit their desires... It just shows they were human, just like us.

Worshipping men & other idolatry was extremely widespread throughout history & even now- look at what happen to the followers of 'Isa (as): they took his good actions & sinless nature too far & begun 2 worship him alongside God.

Maybe I should have stuck with my 1st response: Allahu 'alim.

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

Apparently the person has studied at a deobandi place therefore is a wahabi...

I have some deobandi teachers so that must make me a wahabi aswell.

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

The argument was that these people see the Prophet as a normal human being so can sin therefore they do not respect him as required and also build up a different aqeedah.

The Prophet was human as the below Quranic verse states but he wasn't 'normal'

"Say: I am but a man like you who is divinely inspired that your god is but One God" (Qur’an 18:110)

As the Qasida al-Burda by al-Busayri goes:

"Muhammad is a human being, but not like humankind;
He is a ruby, while people are as stones."

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

huh? I can't seem to understand it - is it contradicting the fact that the Prophet is sinless? :S

No, that is just one possible explanation which is not contradictory. And it says 'shortcomings' which does not have to be sins.

Imam Subki says ""The Umma concurs on the true immunity ('isma) of Prophets, in what pertains to conveyance and other, from grave and small, contemptible sins as well as persistence in small sins but there is disagreement over small sins that do not detract from their rank. The Mu'tazila and many others allow them. The preferred view is that they are precluded because we have been ordered to follow them in what issues from them; how then could something inappropriate occur on their part? As for those that deemed it possible, they did not do so on the basis of any textual stipulation or proof."

There are apparently contradictory examples in the Quran but they are interpreted in a way so to not debase any Prophet (as). "For example, Adam (as) 'disobedience' meant forgetfulness, or he was given Prophethood after he was forgiven. The consensus is that Prophets were sinless but were not necessarily created so nor made so from the very beginning of their Prophetic mission."

@muslimbro:
Story of Adam (as) looking upon all the prophets (as) & giving Yusuf (as) some of his lifespan...

I thought the prophets had their prophethood before they were born.
Am I missing something?

Accounts of prophets in the bible refer to many of them committing sins, but always thought the Quran doesn't mention these

Ya'qub wrote:

I thought the prophets had their prophethood before they were born.
Am I missing something?

It is said that around the age of forty, prophethood is normally given. The Prophet was given prophethood at the age of 40 and there were signs of this, such as the stones of Makkah would give salam to him. Musa (as) was given prophethood in the desert near the fire when he was traveling at night with his wife. According to the minority opinion Luqman was a Prophet as Allah says in the Quran "Indeed we gave Luqman wisdom". However the majority of the commentators say that he was a wise man who was offered to choose between prophethood and wisdom and he chose wisdom.

MuslimBro wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

I thought the prophets had their prophethood before they were born.
Am I missing something?

It is said that around the age of forty, prophethood is normally given. The Prophet was given prophethood at the age of 40 and there were signs of this, such as the stones of Makkah would give salam to him. Musa (as) was given prophethood in the desert near the fire when he was traveling at night with his wife. According to the minority opinion Luqman was a Prophet as Allah says in the Quran "Indeed we gave Luqman wisdom". However the majority of the commentators say that he was a wise man who was offered to choose between prophethood and wisdom and he chose wisdom.

But they still had it when they were born, but just weren't told about it...?

Confused again, as I believed the same as what Ya'qub thought.

MuslimBro wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

I thought the prophets had their prophethood before they were born.
Am I missing something?

It is said that around the age of forty, prophethood is normally given.

Revealed, made public, not given.

MuslimBro wrote:

You wrote:

MuslimBro wrote:

PS. Avoid Mawdudi's translation of the Quran.

Why?

It is easy to read and concise enough to be useful.

Mawlana Mawdudi was a scholar, and had some distinguished service for Islam. However, his methodology and understanding varies from that of traditional Sunni scholarship, and thus he held many untenable or incorrect positions.

link

One such position he held was that Prophets are capable of sinning and his translation reflects this view.

Can you give me examples of where he has clearly said that. Btw i haven't read too much of his translation myself but i liked what i did read.

Its the only readable english translation.

As long as we remember that all translators are human, it is fine, go read any and if there is something in there that is confusing, that confusion can be cleared later.

Foysol89 wrote:

Can you give me examples of where he has clearly said that. Btw i haven't read too much of his translation myself but i liked what i did read.

Scroll down to see the bit about Prophets, its got refs at the bottom if you want to check it out.

Link

MuslimBro wrote:

Foysol89 wrote:

Can you give me examples of where he has clearly said that. Btw i haven't read too much of his translation myself but i liked what i did read.

Scroll down to see the bit about Prophets, its got refs at the bottom if you want to check it out.

Link

Thanks. Did a bit more research on him after your initial comment. I shall do a little more research in future.

I overheard a small segment of a speech by SHaykh Hamza Yusuf the other day where he mentioned that all translations/tafsirs of the qur'an will have issues.

So you will not find a perfect one, but what are peoples interpretations of words and meanings put into them, which may be correct most of the time.

and that is not a problem really - the message is to investigate further if possible.

is pickthal the name of someone?

yes it is. Pickthall with a double ell

Apparently the translation by Abdul Haleem is really good and would be suitable to share with non-Muslims.