>>24960291
It's very accurate, but just know that it does try to tone down some of the really bad stuff to sound a little better. Otherwise it's very accurate the overwhelming majority of the time.
I'm not sure if there's a better option though.

>>24960302
I got the one by Abdel Haleem (I believe) first, but I don’t have access to it right now, so I bought pic rel. I thought the story of how it was made to be incredible, and very sad.
What do you mean “tone down”?

>>24960291
i wipe my ass with the koran

>>24960302
Arberry

While trying to be as accurate as possible it is kind of a bad faith translation because in cases of doubt or multiple possible translations or interpretations they always pick the option that fits the most to western society/liberal democracy instead of just being honest and writing what they actually meant.

The Quran also contains a lot of repetition which is cut in this translation, which makes for a better reading flow but it's disingenuous and actual Muslims think this repetition is important because it reiterates the point. The localizers realized this would be considered boring or bad writing in the west and therefor condensed it down a bit.

To give you some indication passages originally written as "you shall behead Christians refusing to pay taxes and rape their wives and daughters" are translated as "You shall punish Christians that don't pay their taxes and can confiscate their familial property". As you can see this is technically a correct translation but very bad faith and merely written to maximize the appeal to westerners, not a genuine translation for people to understand as much as possible about the text and implications of the Quran.

>>24960406
Is there even an official version in Arabic tho

>>24960413
Yeah, the Quran is essentially uniform among all branches of Islam. It's the hadiths which are different between the sects and the hadiths recontextualize passages from the Quran.

But originally only the Quran was supposed to be believed in. The hadiths and their importance are more modern inventions and corrupted by politics over history.

A lot of what you consider Muslim thought and beliefs are actually not Islamic at all but just Arab cultural beliefs, traditions and superstitions that everyone just assumes is from the Quran but isn't.

Women wearing hijabs aren't from the Quran, in fact hijabs didn't exist yet during Mohammads life. It's never explicitly said in the Quran that you can't eat pork or drink alcohol either.

The issue is that less than 1% of practicing Muslims actually read the Quran instead of just saying passages out loud without understanding it's meaning. There is an Imam that just says whatever the fuck he wants depending on the sect, hadiths he personally likes and local traditions of whatever village+region+country that particular Muslim happens to be in.

Therefor actual Muslim beliefs are weirdly decentralized and not uniform or strictly informed by the Quran.

It's very similar to Christians in the west believing dantes inferno layers of hell are accurate depictions of how hell looks. And evangelicals thinking currently diseased members of family are looking down on them from heaven and that there will be a rapture where they will be taken into heaven. None of these beliefs come from the Bible yet somehow it still informs behavior and thinking style of Christians in the US.

There's a reason why there's almost a 100% conversion rate from being Muslim to being an atheist when a Muslim actually goes ahead and properly reads the Quran. As they find out that all their beliefs, customs and traditions they had their entire lives including those of their families friends and everyone they know is straight up wrong and never even mentioned in the Quran. It might as well be a foreign religion at that point, this means they have a choice, either they follow the actual passages of the Quran and become a "true Muslim" which is essentially just a new religion they themselves will be following alone. Or they will just continue following their local variant of "Islam" while knowing inside its completely bullshit. Almost all end up just being atheist.

>>24960437
>source: dutch high school curricula
your country is run by jews

>>24960291
if you open quran.com, you can compare multiple translations at once, even clicking each arabic word would give its translation. that said, i don't think there is such a thing as a good translation of the Qur'an. most either bombard the reader with parantheses, reduce words(like sabgha being rendered as religion instead of colour in Sahih International) or outright add things that aren't in the original(like the Clear Quran putting "reflected light" refering to the moon, when he should have put parantheses there).

as for style and wording, it's always either too blunt(Sahih international) or not even outdated but awkward(Pickthall, Arberry in some cases).

that said, you *will* misunderstand the Qur'an without a commentary or some kind of teacher. but the core message of the Qur'an could be understood through any translation and by any person.

so if you find some minor detail or verse that disturbs or upsets you, as the Qur'an says, "ask the people of the remembrance if you do not know"(this too is a subpar translation)

>>24960437
>Yeah, the Quran is essentially uniform among all branches of Islam.
So which version is the right one?

I don't understand (neither am I willing to) why people busy themselves with reading garbage that makes for failed societies.

I'd much rather read the talmud because at least that 'country' produces something. Islamic societies are sterile and dullard.

reader.quranite.com
Come with a translation of its own along with three others, but beyond that it is a very useful website to study the Quran.

>>24960291
Shit

>>24960806
None of them.

>>24960822
this translation is pretty solid

>>24960816
Refugees from said failed societies are flooding the allegedly successful ones, and as the second and third generation of said refugees inevitably grow alienated from a failing capitalist system they will without fail fall back on their roots and traditions to find meaning and purpose
Aren't you the least bit curious about what that would entail, even merely in a know your enemy kind of way?

>>24960291
wiped my ass with better paper

>>24960932
Why do they walk through countless safe countries until they reach the ones with the most attractive welfare programmes? Their nations are bad because they put burning car tyres around you for being gay, for instance, but allegedly I might be wrong, and they are the superior societies.

I don’t have to be curious, because I already know what it entails. The options are massive deportations—or, as darkies call it (when it happens to them, at least), ‘ethnic cleansing’—or the biomass grows beyond control and ‘wins’. Neither option is preferable for them, because they lose access to their white oppressor either way, something they apparently need as they will later revert to dying of malaria and tribal conflict.

Don’t forget that North African countries blackmail Europe by sending their human waste across the Mediterranean, then appeal to international humanitarian accords that the Global South likes to hide behind when things don’t go their way. Spiteful trickery is not new to the Muslim world, as their conduct once invited figures like Jefferson to bomb their harbours after centuries of piracy and human trafficking. It is also the reason why France bothered annexing North Africa at all. I think Israel has got the right idea (yes, even the sandwomen and the sandchildren too).

>>24960932
>>24961141
If you are muslim, you can replace 'they' with 'you'

>>24961155
>>24961141
Islam is going to take over whether you like that or not.

>>24960291
>wat did u think of mudbook
incoherent garbage. pedophilic. rape, murder, sex slavery, camel piss, caravan looting, analphabetism.

>>24960406
Where is the "you shall behead Christians refusing to pay taxes and rape their wives and daughters" verse you clearly cant speak arabic and have never read the quran idk why you would spread such a blatant lie

>>24961141
I smell a projecting jew

>>24961718
>u jew!!
Something in vogue since jew vs muslim round 2023, it seems. Others can't possibly hate muslims, no, it must be a jew writing this. But everyone who isn't muslim must also be subjugated and taxed according to sharia law.

I say have fun with your fantasies as bottom eaters in Western metropolitan cities, not as if you can't win against 8 million frail jews who repeatedly clobbered you (and will do so again next time you fail to get the message).

File: 1743119970184992.jpg (27 KB, 329x427)

27 KB JPG

>>24960822
>Quranite
Jesus Christ how did ONE random autist from England manage to come up with better explanations to various difficult passages of the Quran than 1000 years of exegesis?

>>24961746
Living in a place where bringing new theories doesn't get your head chopped off might be a contributing factor.

>>24960437
Always good to see a rare post on /lit/ where someone knows what the fuck he's talking about. Props my man.

>>24960437
>less than 1% of practicing Muslims actually read the Quran instead of just saying passages out loud without understanding it's meaning
With respect to non-Arabs, sure; but modern Arabic dialects cannot be that distant from Classic Arabic, surely?

File: 1541042840951s.jpg (10 KB, 250x250)

10 KB JPG

>>24960437
>either they follow the actual passages of the Quran and become a "true Muslim" which is essentially just a new religion they themselves will be following alone.
This sounds great actually, unless you are of a kind that will inevitably sperg out at some point

>>24960308
I'm not aware of any English translation of the Quran that's not toning things down.
"Age of marriage" isn't the correct term. It's "age of fucking", which refers to puberty. They toned it down, to be "age of marriage", to sound better.

>>24961754
anyone barely literate in world history knows how ridiculous this claim is

>>24962425
nikah could also mean marriage. but i guess it's common for detractors of islam to pick and choose the translations and interpretations that make islam look the worst

>>24962448
>nikah could also mean marriage. but i guess it's common for detractors of islam to pick and choose the translations and interpretations that make islam look the worst
I've had this explained to me by native Arabic speakers. It's about when you can marriage little girls, but it's not actually saying marriage. It's saying fucking them.
Muslims love to try and make some wiggle room on this, so they can say "Oh, we can marry 12 year olds, we just can't have sex with them".
Muslim apologists love to choose translations and interpretations that make Islam look the best.

>>24962455
A lot of words in arabic have two definitions: the fuzzy "language" definition used in regular forms of life and the precise "jargonic" definition used in law. I'm pretty sure English has this too if you're even aware

The latter definition of 'nikah' means a contract between a man and a girl's guardian, with the assent of the girl, that makes it legal for the man and woman to copulate under certain conditions.

Example: Because of age or maybe some kind of condition, if copulation can harm the girl, that makes copulation forbidden. Which is what those muslims you mention are referring too.

Notice that the harm principle here does not specify an objective age(eg. 18, 16 etc). This is because both mental and physical maturity varies from person to person. Some people could copulate early, some can't. Nikah contracts happen regardless because the jargonic distinction exists. When exactly maturity comes is at the discretion of both parties, but could be overruled by a sharia court.

>Muslim apologists love to choose translations and interpretations that make Islam look the best.
We have no need to pander to a morality that does not come from Allah. But we should also be wary of overcorrection

>>24960437
I wish this was true, most of it isn't.

>>24962470
I should give a footnote:
>When exactly maturity comes is at the discretion of both parties, but could be overruled by a sharia court.
Islam expects parents to make their own decision regarding this matter rather than relying on the state (ie. muslim don't need the state to tell them when they'd be able to get married). This means that Islam expects people to educate themselves - regarding biology, medicine etc. to make the correct decision, or at least to consult experts.

Some people do use this as an excuse to say "Now that modern biology has proven that marriage before 18/16(whatever) is harmful, parents must never do so again". But there are two issues:
1. These findings aren't as watertight as people think. Many of these studies rely on correlation and we couldn't overlook cultural biases too, especially regarding psychological harm.
2. The Prophet himself copulated with his wife A'isha, after puberty, at age 9. If the above is true, did Allah not only let but command the Prophet to harm the daughter of Abu Bakr?

Really, these psychological and biological rationales are justifications for cultural norms. A way to show this is: most liberals have no issue with recently pubescent "children" having sex among themselves, but they have an issue when an "adult" is involved. When harm, conest problems, power dynamics etc. are also present in the former

>>24960291
AYA has problems but is one of the better ones in spite of it
Rodwell is superior

>>24962448
It’s indeed ridiculous that in the 21st century muslim countries still have slavery and death penalties apostasy. Even a barely literate like yourself would agree.

>>24962648
what does being in the 21st century got to do with morality? are ages of consent laws and human rights discovered like relativity and antibiotics? or are they just cultural affects? not that muslim countries practice the sharia fully anyway.

>>24962681
We are an advancing society as progressing technology alleviates most of the hardship of life we develop a moral framework that is more compassionate as life becomes less harsh and thus we have more room to have benevolent moral values towards others.

That's what people mean when they say "21st century morality" it's not about the passage of time itself. It's about the technological advance this represents and how morality adapts to be more docile, forgiving and benevolent as technology takes away more barriers and hardship so that people can be nicer than what life allowed back then.

>>24960620
>ask the people of the remembrance
>the remembrance
lol what is this gay "je me souviens" shit nigga lol
get out of here muhammad pedo

>>24962470
>morality that does not come from Allah
>morality from Allah
oh you mean pedo shit

>>24962681
>I need to marry this 6 year old BECAUSE islam
>I need to chop this man’s head off BECAUSE islam
>…
Stop proselytising on a literature board btw. You’ll find crowds more in line with islamic thinking on x and pol.

>>24962470
>We have no need to pander to a morality that does not come from Allah.
You probably live in Europe don’t you

>'holy' book
>child rape, duplicity, slavery, constant bloodshed
>islamic societies are surprisingly all shitholes

I think I'll pass

>>24962727
Islam is retarded but your view of humanity and "compassion" is pure onions and caustic to the very society. Our modern world exists because we used to execute ~1% of the male population every year and no amount of technology can ever change the need for that.

>>24963780
1% of the male population is removing themselves from life every year, no need to slaughter them anymore, they do it themselves.

>>24964105
Unfortunately not the 1% that need to be culled

>>24962822
>>24962813
>>24962748
>>24962743
low level thinker

>>24960437
>But originally only the Quran was supposed to be believed in.
Originally all that mattered is belief in Muhammad as a messenger of God, the Quran was just seen as an accurate compilation of what he said. After his death people had different views on whom he named his successor. (It was obviously Ali but politics happened) Islamic law was supposed to be malleable and prone to revision as determined by the ruler but once the Abbasids and Fatimids became decadent that notion basically disappeared.
>The hadiths and their importance are more modern inventions and corrupted by politics over history.
This is true.

File: Young_theodore_kaczynski.jpg (897 KB, 2560x1744)

897 KB JPG

>>24962727
someone could also easily make the opposite argument that lack of technology makes for more "compassionate" people because of hardship, the need for cooperation etc.

but really you cannot know what is "compassionate" from what merely is. morality starts somewhere(with some axioms, ie. religious belief) and evolves over time, becoming more incoherent as it is removed from the very axioms it was based upon, and so too does what you mean by "compassionate".

it does not tell me anything that you consider your morality now to be more "compassionate", "decent", "proper" (or whatever loaded term you prefer) other than what i said above.

>Can it be said that the right "model" of compassion existed somewhere in the past, and that because of technology, we have come closer to it? That we are merely updating our standards rather than rewriting the meaning of words?
I think anyone well-read in European history would know the answer to this.

>>24964454
>This is true.
I've always seen people claim this but they never justify it. it doesn't seem to come from any examination of history or historiography. it seems more like a knee-jerk reaction than anything

>>24964544
Let's say there was a historical dispute between two imams, one older and one with more islami knowledge. both want to lead the friday prayer.

but then, a person comes with a hadith that says "The person who is best versed in the recitation of the Book of Allah should lead the prayer; but if all those present are equally versed in it, then the one who has most knowledge of the Sunnah." which seems to vindicate the latter imam.

The question is: is the hadith fake?

Now if you say "of course, it certainly is" then you are clearly an idiot.

But if instead you claim it "most probably is" then how can you justify this? Especially since this is the exact situation, assuming the hadith was real, that it would be brought up.

All you're doing is guessing unless you look at the sources, ie. asking that guy where he got that hadith from. Which is exactly what hadith scholars do to a more scrutinizing degree.

Now it is the contention of some fraud scholars that all of classical hadith scholarship from Morocco to Tajikistan is in league to help the regime in some way (ignoring the fact that hadith scholars more often than not considered each other rivals, or that hadith scholars constantly fought with authorities throughout history) and would create a whole corpus across centuries, inventing a cast of characters to quote from etc.

And all this existed without a trace of doubt or suspicion regarding all this from laypeople, Shi'is, mu'tazilis, christians or atheists at the time?
>all of them were burnt by the evil sunnis
If you say this, you just do not know how much Sunni scholars quote and respond to(sometimes preserving) shi'i, mu'tazili, christian arab polemics against them. And you have no business talking about any of this without the proper knowledge or awareness.

>>24961767
are you kidding me?

>>24964577
>le't say
Nope. Hadith are part of islamic orthodoxy whether you like it or not.

bump

>>24960291
unholy. mohommad is a pedophile prophet. you would have to read the hadith to know that though....