FAQ-Content: Translation and Commentary on The Holy Qur-an: by Dr. Zohurul Hoque

Accurate translation of the Qur-an is impossible. How can Dr. Hoque claim that his work is accurate?

(based on a printed review - Texas)

(Based on two other reviews from St. Louis, Missouri)

We agree that accurate translation of the Qur-an is virtually impossible. However, what is humanly possible is (1) not to delete any Arabic words of the Qur-an from the translation, (2) not to add unwarranted words inside the translation suggesting these are equivalent of Arabic words and (3) follow the same grammatical syntax of the verses.

Dr. Hoque has not deleted any word from translation, has not added unwarranted words inside the translation, and has followed the same grammatical syntax. While almost all translators have arbitrarily refrained from translating far too many words, simultaneously far too many unwarranted words were added by them inside actual translation. Thirdly, the grammatical syntax of the Arabic verses was often not followed by many translators. While translating the Divine words of Allah, no human being has any authority to arbitrarily delete anything from and add anything in to the Qur-an.

Keeping these points in mind, Dr. Hoque has attempted to provide a translation that is more accurate than many of the widely circulated translations.

Commentary is limited to the extent of the verse and is considered to be a negative point.

(Based on a review from St. Louis, Missouri)

The scope of this work is to provide brief commentary rather than to provide elaborate exegesis. In the preface of the translation, Dr. Hoque mentioned that his work is not to be viewed as final word in the serious research on the Quran. His attempt was more for those Muslims who are under time crunch to undertake lengthy studies of the Qur-an yet wish to understand its message a little beyond what a plain translation can provide. The idea to put the commentaries under parenthesis and let the text of the translation and commentary flow smoothly was designed to minimize the need to reinterpret the explanation. Under this context, it does appear that the commentary is brief.

Large number of cross-references of the verses from the Qur-an is given everywhere. If they were explained in each instance, the commentary would have been very detailed. The purpose of quoting cross-references is to urge the readers to explore the supportive verses. Depending on the available time, a reader can explore some or all the cross-references and can relatively easily find out related verses. Based on this argument, the commentary is not as brief as it really appears.

Quran should be printed to read from right to left. You have printed it to read from left to right. You have broken the norm, it is not fair.

(Based on a review from St. Louis, Missouri)

Before publishing the translation, we discussed at length about this issue and decided to follow the traditions of contemporary translations in English and some foreign languages. Most of the translators, who were non-Arabs, opted left to right as the style of writing in the English language. Allamah Yusuf Ali in his original work had opted left to right. Once his translation was published in Saudi Arabia, it was converted to right to left. It seems that this was done due to the comfort level of Arabic speaking people who are more used to reading right to left and they will find no difficulty reading English in the same pattern. However, our attempt was to provide an English translation. We intended this book to be primarily used as a English version and Arabic was provided for the purpose of comparison. Many contemporary translators such as Muhammad Asad, Nooruddin, M.H. Shakir, Muhammad Ali, Farooq Malik opted for left to right to conform to English reading style.

In your translation, you have used Arabic names like Musa, 'Isa, Nuh etc. It would have been much better if you had used Moses, Jesus, Noah etc. as these names are easily understood by all English speaking people.

(Based on a review from St. Louis, Missouri)

Our decision of using Arabic proper nouns was decided after lengthy discussions. Westerners often distort proper nouns, and in many occasions we correct them. Such as Mahomet is now corrected to be Muhammad, Mecca is corrected to Makkah, Bombay is corrected to Mumbai, Dacca is corrected to be Dhaka, Peking is corrected to Beijing etc. We agree that biblical Moses, Jesus, Aaron, David, Mary, etc. are easy to follow for an English speaking person. By not using the biblical names, Dr. Hoque is trying to preserve the Proper names as used by Allah, secondly to distinguish the biblical personalities and their 'distorted' activities from Quranic perspective. For example, Jesus could be son-of -God by Bible's theory, but 'Isa is not. Likewise, many westerners will spell Koran, but we decided to use the spelling Qur-an that more closely reflects the Arabic pronunciation.

Far too many Arabic words were used in the translation, making it difficult for English speaking person to understand it. In page 2, use of Hamd, Rabb, Rahman, Rahim, Malik etc. add to confusion.

(Based on a review from St. Louis, Missouri)

The translator felt that there are no single English words available to adequately mean what these words stand for. One of the objectives in the Translation and Commentary of the Holy Quran is to provide word-for-word translation without being verbose. Any single English equivalent word could NOT have unearthed the volumes of underlying meaning of these Arabic words. For this reason, some of the actual Arabic words were left as it is in the translation and their meaning is explained in detail in the commentary section.

In page 2, the meaning of each of the words are given at the bottom of the same page. The understanding of the meaning of each of these words can literally run pages. The scope of this work is to provide brief explanations to the extent of bringing out the sum and substance of the verse. However brief may be, none of these Arabic words were left unexplained.

In Surah Al-Kahf (Surah # 18), terms like Allah, Rabb, Lord are used interchangeably - there seems to be no consistency in translation. Please explain why?

(Based on a review from St. Louis, Missouri)

The reviewer expressed that in Surah Al-Kahf, Dr. Hoque used "Allah" in verse 15,16,17,26,39,43,44. The reason for using "Allah" in those verses is that in actual Arabic verse, the word, "Allah" was used. The word "Allah" is the proper name of Allah. A proper name should not be translated into another language just as Dr. Hoque's name or my name or your name should not be translated into a different language to explain who Dr. Hoque, I or you are.

The reader expressed that "Rabb" was used in verse 14, 27. Rabb is a qualifying name of Allah. There is no single English word that could adequately explain all the attributes of Rabb. Briefly speaking, Rabb is master, chief, determiner, provider, sustainer, rewarder, perfecter, ruler, creator, maintainer, evolver, and more. So in the entire translation, wherever, Allah used the term Rabb to mean Himself, it was left as it is without attempting to translate it.

The reader further points out that in verse 21, the meaning of Rabb is used as "Lord" [Rabbuhum 'aalamu bihim]. This rabb is not the same Rabb who is Allah. This rabb is the unbelievers' rabb, as claimed by them. The unbelievers' rabb cannot have all the attributes that our Rabb is qualified to possess. For this reason, Lord was used distinguish between the two terms.

In Surah Maryam, 19:42, Dr. Hoque used "sire", preferable word should be "father". Please explain.

(Based on a review from St. Louis, Missouri)

The Arabic word "Abun" means a father, an ancestor, a fatherly person, or even a person addressed with respect, not necessarily a progenitor in every situation.

Question here is whether Azar is the biological father, who has begotten Ibrahim or is he another person - a fatherly person. If Azar is the biological father then use of "father" in place or "sire" would be more appropriate. If not, then use of "sire" would probably distinguish between the biological father versus a fatherly person. The following discussion will explain.

Sire also means father, male ancestor, a man of rank or authority, an elderly man, a senior (vide Webster). Therefore use of 'sire' to mean 'abun' is technically correct. Allah raised His prophets in noble families and they were born of pious parents. The Quran does not contain genealogy of prophets, but wherever mention of their father or mother was made, we find they were all either prophets or noble people. Verse 6:88 states the fathers, descendants and brethren of prophets including Ibrahim were good people, unless otherwise stated,--such as in case of son of Nuh, some stepbrothers of Yusuf. We find that prophet Ibrahim (pbh) prayed for his parents and Believers for protection of Allah (14:41). His prayer cannot go futile. Therefore his father must have been protected from the most grievous sin of polytheism. Who could then be the sire Azar? Can he be the progenitor of Ibrahim, or a fatherly person in the family? The Quran is not a book on genealogy of prophets, while the book Genesis of Tawrat is to some extent. Genesis names Tarah as the father (progenitor) of Ibrahim (Gen. 11:27), and that he had several uncles (Gen.11:25). If this view is acceptable, the polytheist Azar could have been Ibrahim's one of the uncles. Ibrahim (pbh) preached to his sire to shun polytheism (19:42-45), but he would not listen. Ibrahim (pbh), by virtue of his kindheartedness, prayed to Allah for his sire Azar (9:114; 19:47), but Allah made it clear to him that Azar is a sinner and enemy of Allah (9:114). As Azar was a bigoted idol-worshipper (6:75), Ibrahim (pbh) dissociated himself from him (9:114; 19:49; 43:26).

Based on all these Dr. Hoque found it difficult to take a perpetual sinner as the biological father of such a respectable prophet Ibrahim (pbh). For this reason, in the Translation and Commentary of the Holy Quran, in the verse 19:42 'sire' is used and not 'father'. Only Allah knows best.

In Surah Baqarah, 2:10, Dr. Hoque used "belying" - preferable word should be "lying". Please explain.

(Based on a review from St. Louis, Missouri)

In Surah Baqarah, verse 2:10, Dr. Hoque used "belying" the reviewer preferred "lying".

The meaning of lie is: untrue or inaccurate statement, tell untruth.

The meaning of belie is: To show (something) to be false or wrong. To give a false impression of. [Webster Dictionary]

Dr. Hoque translated the verse as: "……For them is a painful punishment because they have been belying." The unbelievers (and some believers too) would be punished for lying. Islam does not permit lying. Issue here is whether the unbelievers are simply lying to each other or are they belying the truth expounded in the Qur-an? Use of the word 'belying' shows that the unbelievers were showing something (i.e. Allah, Akhiraat (last day), the Qur-an and its message) to be false of wrong. In summary of 2:8 Allah said the munafiq's say they believe in Allah and the Akhiraat, but they really don't believe. In summary of 2:9 the munafiq's deceive only them. Both these activities support that the munafiq's are 'belying' rather than just 'lying'. They are belying the truth as false and giving a wrong impression by deceiving.

In verse 2:173, several references to the verses of Bible are given. Except Leviticus 11:7, other verses do not speak of prohibited food. So why are these references given?

(Based on a review from Dayton, Ohio)

It is true that only Lev 11:7-8 explicitly prohibits eating pork. All the other cross references discuss about pig being a filthy animal. Qur-an does not elaborate on the filthy nature of pigs, but goes specifically to prohibit pork. Bible, which was for earlier generations, had more elaborate descriptions of pig being a filthy animal or dog eating its own vomit etc. Obviously, we cannot trust Bible in its present form and we are not trying to get support from Bible to validate Qur-an. Qur-an does not need validation from any book or person. These references from Bible are mainly meant for non-Muslims to compare their scriptures to find what was ordered to them. Pig is prohibited for them, so is pork. The Christians continue eating pork defying their injunction not to eat pork. In the Translation and Commentary on the Holy Qur-an, there are abundant cross-references from Bible, some are very specific and some are related thoughts. As we discuss this ayat about prohibited foods, Lev 11:7 is a specific prohibition on pork, while other references provide related thoughts. Due to the nature of brief commentary given in the Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur-an , it was not possible to elaborate on each of the verses quoted. It was left for interested readers to undertake more studies and draw their own inferences. In many instances, a reader will find reference to an exactly opposite thought mentioned in Bible. Again, such reference is not to validate the Qur-an, but to show that such thoughts in Bible or other scriptures are wrong in the light of the Qur-an. What we had desired in this commentary of Qur-an is to allow an inquisitive readers to study in depth on any topic.

In Surah Al-Naml, verse 27:18, who are the Naml? Convention is that they are Ants. Dr. Hoque translated it as a tribe called Naml. Please explain.

(Based on a published review, London)

The word Naml literally means Ants. Many classical commentators of the Qur-an translated it as Ants. The classical belief is that, among other things, Sulaiman (pbu) understood the 'speech' or 'language' of the ants. By speech they actually meant the language as spoken and understood by human, using words, sentences etc. Question arises whether ants, being such lowly creature, can speak a human language articulated with thoughts, reasoning, intellect as perfectly as human, and structure sentences in precise grammatical syntax using words and phrases as mentioned in the verse?

The language skill as we understand is a quality Allah bestowed only on human race (55:4) by making them the best of the creations and by shaping them in perfect shaping. The faculty of speech makes human being superior to other animals.

Science proves that ants and for that matter insects, birds animals communicate with each other various ways, mainly by producing sounds of different frequency, emission of lights, secretion of pheromones etc. Each frequency of light or sound means a different aspect of communication. Such sound by no means suggest that these are complete structured sentences, on the contrary they simply express different degree of danger, desire, hunger, love etc. Science has not suggested anything that would say intellectually higher animals like chimps, dogs, dolphins, monkeys speak a language comparable to human language, let alone lowly creatures like ants or wasps or bees. Nevertheless, Sulaiman understood the 'language' of birds and ants suggest, in all probability that, he was a great Naturalist or an animal behavioral specialist, as these terms would mean today. He had the knowledge and skill to understand animal behavior, which in other words would mean their language.

This spurs the question whether the ants in the verse spoke a human language structured with words and grammar as precisely as quoted. Instead of mystifying the whole thing and alluring to supernatural myth, other commentators of the Qur-an wondered what the word Naml could mean.

Why would Sulaiman(pbu) smile in askance at the fear of such lowly creature ants? What valor would a mighty king Sulaiman earn by trampling such lowly creatures suggest on the contrary that these ants were symbolic to a meek tribe lived in the valley, proved from history. Based on this argument, Dr. Hoque, agreed with other scholars who suggested that the word Naml, does not mean the arthropod ants, rather they were a human tribe that lived in that region.

In Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:3, you have taken the original Arabic word Salat, whereas equivalent word in English worship has been used by other translators. Is there any reason for using 'salat' instead of worship?

(Based on a review from Belgium)

English equivalent of the word salat could be prayer or worship. Salat, fasting during Ramadan or other time, dua, hadj, and acts of kindness, all are some form of worshipping Allah. In this verse, Allah had specified a particular type of worship, i.e. Salat. This is the reason that we opted to keep the word Salat without translating it to worship or prayer. The word Salat, which embodies both spiritual and physical aspects of worship, has no close English equivalent. Hardly other type of worship teaches us to be punctual, following a leader or equality between rich and poor. The word “prayer” or “worship” does not do justice to the Arabic word “Salat”.