THE ROLE PLAYED BY QUR'AN TRANSLATIONS IN STEERING PUBLIC OPINION

AGAINST ISLAM IN NON-MUSLIM COMMUNITIES

COUNTERACTING ANTIPATHY AGAINST ISLAM:
INSIGHTS IRONICALLY INSPIRED BY TWO NON-MUSLIMS AND MORE ..
Dahlia Sabry, The Language and Translation Centre, Academy of Arts in Cairo
dsabry_2000@yahoo.com
Ibrahim Saleh, The American University in Cairo (AUC)
librasma@aucegypt.edu
A Paper Submitted at the IAMCR Conference hosted at AUC
July 2006
ABSTRACT
This paper pinpoints the important role that Qur'an translations have played in forming
the image of Islam past and present. This importance has remarkably increased in the
aftermath of 9/11 with the unprecedented curiosity to know about Islam by reading its very
revealed Book. As Thomas Cleary, a non-Muslim Qur'an translator mentions, Qur'an
translations are supposed to provide "an authentic point of reference from which to examine
the biased stereotypes of Islam to which Westerners are habitually exposed." However,
unfortunately, most of these translations have not fulfilled this function. They either fail to give
a precise image of Islam or rather give a negative distorted one.
Firstly, the paper starts with a historical review indicating that the libels levelled against
Islam are deeply rooted in the misconceptions propagated by the first Latin Qur'an translations
perverted on purpose out of fear that Islam would shake the established faith of Christians .
Besides, the first English translation by Alexander Ross entitled The Alcoran of Mahomet
highlights a basic misconception spread in the West, namely that Prophet Muhammad is the
author of the Qur'an. This drives non-Muslims to doubt its authenticity being supposedly not of
divine revelation. These translations led to embedding distorted facts in the western mentality
that have now become like axioms. This section also indicates how some Muslim translations
have been manipulated to serve certain needs. For instance, the translations of some Shi'ites
and those influenced by scientific rationalism reflect some views that may be somewhat
different from basic Muslim beliefs. Besides, the translations by the Indian Qadiyanis and
Ahmadeyyis encompass major distortions.
Secondly, the paper explains some of the ways Qur'an translations contribute to giving a
false or negative impression about Islam through either deliberate manipulation or nondeliberate mistranslations or inadequacies.
Thirdly, the paper proposes some insights as to how to take action against the campaigns
discrediting Islam. The researchers suggest that this should go on two levels: a project to
publish a more reliable Qur'an translation in addition to bridging the information gap through
explaining and clarifying the controversial issues that usually lead to misunderstanding Islam.
The latter can be done on the official level through media programs or on the layperson level
through cross-cultural communication via alternative media. Ironically, two non-Muslim
scholars, Maurice Bucaille and Thomas Cleary, highlight aspects of Islam that give an
alternative perspective different from that presented in the media.
I. INTRODUCTION
In the aftermath of the events of 9/11, there was a boom in the sales of Qur'an
translations. For instance, according to Mustafa Maher, about six million translations were sold
in Germany (as cited in Abdul Aal, February 5, 2006, p. 64). Similarly, in Israel, Muhammad
Mahmoud Abu Ghadeer indicates that bookstores ran out of their Qur'an translation stock (as
cited in Abdel Aal, January 29, 2006, p. 79). In this era, Qur'an translations have become far
more crucial than any time before. Apart from their essentiality to non-Arabic speaking
Muslims, they represent the primary source of information and the major recourse for the non-

Muslims who are curious to pursue familiarity with Islam through first-hand knowledge instead
of simply "imbibing received opinions and attitudes without individual thought and reflection",
as Thomas Cleary (1993) puts it (p. X). The role of such translations is gravely serious in
formulating recipients' opinion about Islam. About the benefit of reading the Qur'an by nonMuslims, Cleary (1993) states:
For non-Muslims, one special advantage in reading the Qur'an is that it provides an
authentic point of reference from which to examine the biased stereotypes of Islam to which
Westerners are habitually exposed. Primary information is essential to distinguish between
opinion and fact in a reasonable manner. This exercise may also enable the thinking
individual to understand the inherently defective nature of prejudice itself (1993, p. VIII).
However, translations should be objective and accurate to realize the advantage Cleary
refers to. This has not always been the case since sometimes, as Hassan Ma'ayergi (1984)
points out, "[translating] the meanings of the Quran offered an opportunity to distort and
misinterpret its meanings " (p. 442).
Lately, western media have been propagating the idea that Islam is a religion that
promotes terrorism as it ingrains hostility and the love of bloodshed in Muslims. Obviously, the
defamation of Islam has been on the rise in recent years; however, some people may not be
aware that the commencement of this movement is deeply rooted in the past. In fact, the early
renderings of the meanings of the holy Quran into western languages deliberately targeted
spreading misconceptions about Islam.
II. MILESTONES IN THE HISTORY OF QUR'AN TRANSLATIONS
According to Mofakhar Hussain Khan (1986), the first attempt of translating the Qur'an
was into Latin. At the request of the Abbot of the monastery of Cluny, it was made by Robert of
Ketton in 1143, yet it was not published until 1543. Afaf Ali Shukry (2000), points out that the
basic goal behind this translation was to find out the differences that shook the foundations of
Christian beliefs in order to support Christianity against Islam (pp. 21-22). After this first
translation, the Qur'an was translated into other languages like Italian, German and French in
1547, 1616 and 1647 respectively. Hussein Abdul-Raof (2001) asserts that the first Latin
translation "abounds in inaccuracies and misunderstandings, and was inspired by hostile
intention" (p. 19). Another Latin translation by Ludovicus Marracci was published in 1698.
Colin Turner (1997) indicates that it was supplemented with quotes from Quran commentaries
"carefully juxtaposed and sufficiently garbled so as to portray Islam in the worst possible light"
(p. xii). To understand the intention of the translator, suffice it to say that the title of the
introductory volume of such translation was A Refutation of the Quran.
Hassan Ma'ayergi (1984) argues, "[after] the first glimpse of Islam through these
translations, Europeans grew all the more aggressive in their fight against Islam. Various
attacks were launched against Islamic culture and heritage" (p.442). What aggravated the
problem is that such translations formed the foundation for a number of subsequent works.
The first English translation was that of Alexander Ross published in 1649. There is no
better evaluation of the type of work it is than the translator's statement of his goal in the
introduction, "I thought good to bring it to their colours, that so viewing thine enemies in their
full body, thou must the better prepare to encounter his Alcoran" (p. A3). Along the same
line, Muhammad Galaa Edris, Professor of Comparative Religions, states that H. Reckendorf
(1857) says in his Hebrew translation of the Qur'an, "I can now stop writing and ask God's
pardon for the sin I committed when I profaned our sacred language and transferred to it the
talk of lies and falsehood" [my trans.] (as cited in Abdul Aal, January 29, 2006, p. 78).
It should be also noted that the title of Ross' translation is The Alcoran of Mahomet
newly Englished for the satisfaction of all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities. The title
is self-explanatory, and it underlines one of the basic misconceptions prevalent in the West,
namely that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was the author of the Qur'an. In this
context, it is worth mentioning that Maurice Bucaille (1986), an eminent French surgeon and
scientist who defends the authenticity of the Qur'an in his book The Bible, Qur'an and Science,
states that some western translations meant to deliberately mistranslate the word " " ummei
(unlettered), referring to Prophet Muhammad in some Qur'anic ayat (verses). This was meant
to hide the fact that it could have never been possible for an unlettered person to be the author
of the Qur'an that encompasses meticulous scientific facts that were discovered long after his
death and could not have been thought of at the time of revelation (pp. 10-11). As Bucaille
states, this fact about the Prophet used to shock westerners whenever he revealed it to them.

In 1734, George Sales translation came out based on Marraccis earlier notorious work. In
1861, J. M. Rodwells work provided a further example of a writer "gunning for Islam" (Turner,
1997, p. xii).
The wide circulation of these early unfair translations, essentially predetermined to
discredit Islam, led to embedding distorted facts in the western mentality that have now
become like axioms despite the appearance of a few subsequent somewhat better translations
by non-Muslims. Bucaille (1981) stresses the existence of mainstream inaccurate ideas that
brainwash westerners stating, "as most people in the West have been brought up on
misconceptions concerning Islam and the Qur'an; for a large part of my life, I myself was one
such person". He adds:
As I grew up, I was always taught that 'Mahomet' was the author of the Qur'an; I
remember seeing French translations bearing this information. I was invariably told that
the 'author' of the Qur'an simply compiled stories of sacred history taken from the
Bible, while setting forth the principles and rules of the religion he himself had
founded.
Besides, at the International Seminar on Islam in Paris, held under the auspices of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference, Bucaille (1986) explains:
When I started my in-depth research on the reality of Islam, for the first time, I started to
study its scripture, the Qur'an, and I was obliged to use translations done by various
Islamologues or orientalists. Alas, the script under these conditions was not selfexplicative, and I remember having found in several translations of the same paragraph
such differences that it was evident that these interpretations were due to translators
and their commentaries, often added to the text. Later on having acquired the knowledge
of the Arabic language, enabling me to read the Qur'an in the original text, I discerned
the evident desire to camouflage or to willfully change the meaning, evidently in order to
adapt the text to a personal point of view. (p. 10)
Besides, testifying to the deliberate mistranslation of the Qur'an by some Orientalists to
confirm the misconceptions about Islam taught to students at schools, Husain Rofe, a British
convert to Islam states:
Reading Rodwell's translation of the Qur'an Al-karim had specially fixed these
preconceptions into my subconscious. Rodwell had purposely mistranslated some parts
of the Qur'an al-Karim and distorted its meanings, thus turning the holy book into a mass
of unintelligible words altogether different from the original version. It was not till after
having contacted the 'Islamic Society' in London and having read a true translation of the
Qur'an al-karim did I know the truth. (as cited in Why did they become Muslims?, 1995)
Similarly, Muhammad John Webster, another convert to Islam explains that before being
a Muslim, he got a Qur'an translation by a non-Muslim out of curiosity. Then, he explains:
I had hardly finished the introduction of the book, when I immediately closed the book.
For the translator used such an abusive and defamatory language about the Qur'an alkarim right in the introduction that it meant there was no sense in reading a book of that
sort I took the matter more seriously, and when I went to the city of Perth in western
Australia a couple of weeks later, I visited the grand library of the city and queried
whether there was a translation of the Qur'an al-karim rendered by Muslims. They found
a translation of that sort and gave it to me. No words could define the emotions that
began to stir in the depths of my soul when I opened it and read the first chapter in it,
the chapter (sura) called Fatiha-i-Sharifa (as cited in Why did they become Muslims?,
1995)
The early non-Muslim translations distorted the spirituality of the holy Quran and
damaged the concepts of Islam. Unfortunately, as Sir Edward Denson Ross (1940) asserts in his
introduction to George Sales' translation:
[for] many centuries the acquaintance which the majority of Europeans possessed of
Mohammedanism was based almost entirely on distorted reports of fanatical Christians
which led to dissemination of a multitude of gross calumnies. What was good in
Mohammedanism was entirely ignored, and what was not good, in the eyes of Europe, was
exaggerated or misinterpreted. (as cited in Sales, 1940, p. 7)

Due to the problems of the early non-Muslim translations, the twentieth century
witnessed the publication of a plethora of Muslim translations. The axiomatic supposition is
that these translations should have provided a genuine representative image of the spirit of
Islam and an accurate version of its Scripture. However, with some of these translations further
complications have emerged.
Firstly, some controversial translations are those influenced by scientific rationalism like
those of Ahmad Zidan and Dina Zidan (1979), Muhammad Asad (1980), and Ahmad Ali (1984).
They intend to interpret any references to miracles in the Qur'an on rational or figurative basis
as they reject the idea of miracles. For example, while Muslims believe that Prophet Abraham,
peace be upon him, was saved by God's grace from the fire in which he was plunged by some of
the disbelievers, Asad (1980) argues that the reference in the Qur'an is "apparently an
allegorical allusion to the fire of persecution which Abraham had to suffer" (p. 496). Similarly,
he believes that Jesus Christ's miraculous talk in his cradle is "a metaphorical allusion to the
prophetic wisdom which was to inspire Jesus from a very early age" (p. 73). Similar tendencies
are perceived in Asad's translation and the other similar translations in reference to the other
miracles of Christ, Moses, Solomon etc., peace be upon them all. Unfortunately, these views
reflect false refutation of basic mainstream beliefs of the majority of Muslims who fully
acknowledge these miracles.
Secondly, some translations project sectarian views that differ from common Muslim
beliefs. In Shi'ites' translations, e.g. that of S. V. Mir Ahmad Ali (1964), the basic concern is
with the Shi'ites' queer imposed interpretations on some general ayat that they mean to make
particularly referring to Ali, Prophet Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, and his household,
may God be pleased with them. On the basis of these interpretations, they support their
tendency to confer unbounded glory on Ali. Thus, such translators digress from the mainstream
understanding of the ayat in some places to reflect their own doctrinal biases rather than give
an accurate presentation of the Muslims' Scripture.
Thirdly, the most serious distortions by far, however, emerged on account of the
translations by the Indian Qadiyani and Ahmadeyya communities. To serve their own crooked
needs, they marred their translations with twisted ayat. Similarly, they disseminate ideas that
contradict basic Muslim beliefs. A prime example is their claim that Jesus Christ, peace be upon
him, was crucified and was not raised alive to God, as Neal Robinson (1997, p. 266) points out.
They meant to give support, on the basis of such perverted translations, to the claims of their
leader Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that he was the Promised Messiah and Mahdi.
The dissemination of such doctrines that drift far away from the common Muslims'
beliefs did severe injustice to Islam. Sadly, in these works lies the utmost danger -- even more
than those by orientalists. Being supposedly by Muslim translators, their distortion and
misguidance sail under the banner of Islam. However, as the translation committee of the
Majestic Quran (2000) state, they "often contain interpretations which are eccentric and
speculative and do not reflect the mainstream understanding of the text, which most readers
wish to know" (VIII). Apart from the aforementioned works, some other moderate translations
by Muslims appeared. However, it is important to stress that translations are not always a
reliable source to judge Islam. Any translator brings to his work the beliefs, inferences and
doctrines that are the substance of personal biases, theological leaning, and even tactical
scheming. Hence, the only criterion for judgment is the text in Arabic. It should be borne in
mind that translations, no matter how accurate, can hardly be objective.
III. MANIPULATIONS AND INADEQUACIES OF QUR'AN TRANSLATIONS
After giving a review of some milestones in the history of Qur'an translations, this section
sheds light on some of the ways Qur'an translations, can play a role in, deliberately or nondeliberately, giving a false or negative impression about Islam.
A. MISTRANSLATIONS OR INADEQUATE TRANSLATIONS
Some misconceptions about Islam arise from mistranslations of certain words or ayat,
not necessarily on purpose. This section cites only three examples to highlight the problem at
hand. One of the basic misconceptions is related to the status of women in Islam. Some people
argue that Islam degrades women, and they base their argument on some Qur'anic ayat. In this
regard, for instance, a mistranslation of the verb " ", fadala, as "preferred" in aya 34 of sura
4 in the Bewleys translation gives a meaning different from the one intended. The aya is
translated by the Bewleys (1999) as:

"Men have charge of women because Allah has preferred the one above the other and
because they spend their wealth on them" (p. 73).
Indeed, the verb fadala, in one of its senses, means "to prefer". However, in this aya, it is
used in the sense of giving more privileges in terms of physical strength and affording for
women's needs etc. ... Thus, a better translation by Thomas Cleary (2004) is:
"The men are supporters of the women, by what God has given one more than the other"
(p. 40).
It is worth noting that, in fact, a woman in Islam is given unique privileges: the right to
own property in the women's name alone, the right to be divorced from a husband for the sole
reason of the inability of living with him even if he were good, the right to keep her own name
and property after getting married, the right of inheritance, the right to own and run business
of her own, the right to choose the partner, the right to be maintained by the husband etc.
Dirks (2003), a convert to Islam, refutes the misconception about the degraded women in Islam
stating:
Some estimates place the percentage of American converts to Islam that are women as
high as 80%... it is crucial to emphasize that the erroneous stereotype of women being
subjugated and oppressed by Islam is flatly and mistakably refuted by the fact that a
large majority of American converts to Islam are women. (p. 11)
Another example of a wrong meaning results from the inadequate translation of aya 179
of sura 2 in Mahmoud Ghali's translation, for instance. The aya is translated as:
"And in retaliation there is life for you, O men endowed with intellect, that possibly you
would be pious" (p. 27).
On asking a Spanish friend of what he understands of this aya, he replied "the first phrase
means fight, acting on revenge, and youll get a reward (e.g. extra life, in this world or
hereafter). The second phrase I dont understand at all" (personal communication, March 30,
2006). In the previous translation, the apparent meaning of the first phrase is that Muslims
rejoice in the act of retaliation. However, the intended meaning is that retribution, executing
the murderer, is a deterrent penalty that can save peoples' lives through scaring those who
want to murder anybody that their penalty would be being murdered themselves. Thus, men of
understanding would guard against retaliation by avoiding killing. The problem here is that in
trying to adhere so closely to the Arabic idiom, the translator rendered a misleading and an
incomprehensible translation of the first part. In the second part, the word " etaqa",
translated as "be pious", in Arabic may mean several things among which are "be pious in the
sense of fearing God", "to guard against", "be cautious of", "beware of" etc. The translator
chose a wrong meaning that does not suit the context without referring to the exegesis.
A further problem may arise from the translation of the Arabic words " " , Islam, and
"", Muslimun in Qur'anic ayat. These words literally mean in Arabic "submission to God"
and "those who submit themselves to God", respectively, rather than "Islam only as the religion
of Prophet Muhammad" and "Muslims as the followers of Prophet Muhammad". Using the
words "Islam" and "Muslims" in the translation of such ayat without an explanatory footnote
may make the ayat appear as if based on anachronisms as the persons involved came before
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his religion. It may also be understood that the Qur'an is
based on falsifications as it describes people who came long before Prophet Muhammad as
"Muslims". Examples of these ayat are:
"And when Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundations of the house, [they prayed]:
'Our Lord! Accept
from us [this act]. You are indeed The Ever-Hearing, The Ever Knowing. Oh our Lord!
Make us both
Muslims to You. And raise from among our offspring a community who are Muslim to
You'" [2: 127-128]
"Or where you present when death came to Jacob? When he said to his sons: 'what
will you worship when I

am gone?' They answered: 'We shall worship your God and the God of your fathers:
Abraham, Ishmael and
Isaac, the One God, and to Him we are Muslims' " [2: 133)
"When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be my helpers to God?" The
disciples said,
'we are God's helpers: We believe in God, and do thou bear witness that we are
Muslims' " [3: 52]
Translations should explain that the word "Muslim" is derived from the verb aslama (past
tense) or yuslim (present tense) which means "submit to God" not "a follower of the Islamic
religion" only. It was coined first by Prophet Abraham (PBUH), the founder of monotheism, to
be followed later by Prophets Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad who supposedly introduced
different phases of the same essence submitting one's will to God and associating no other
with Him to be culminated by the final religion Islam. Hence, Prophet Abraham is a great
Prophet in Islam as he originally founded the basis of what Islam culminated. That is why the
Great Bairam in Islam is a celebration of the rescue of his first born son.
B. DECONTEXTUALIZATION
A major trend that helped in spreading the idea that Islam is a religion of terrorism is that
the western media decontextualize ayat of the Qur'an dealing with war and use them to
criticize Islam. Such ayat were revealed on certain occasions at the time of the Prophet. Along
the same lines, in their book The Dark Side of Islam, Abdul Saleeb and R. C Sproul (2003)
decontextualize some ayat to prove that Islam is a religion that instigates violence. One of the
examples they mention is ayat 190-193 of sura 2. This is how they cite them:
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, and slay them wherever you catch
them, ... and fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail
justice and faith in Allah" (p. 87)
However, the full ayat read:
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not attack them first. God does not
love the aggressors, and slay them wherever you catch them [those who fight against you];
drive them out of the places from which they drove you, for persecution is worse than
killing. But do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque until they first attack you there, but if
they attack you [there], then kill them. Such is the retribution of the disbelievers. But if they
desist, then [know that] God is Forgiving, Compassionate, and fight them on until there is no
more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. But if they desist,
then let there be no hostility except against the transgressors." [emphasis mine].
Obviously, all the parts giving restrictions on fighting, reasons for it, and the emphasis on
the fact that Muslims should not be the initiators of war are omitted. As these ayat indicate,
war here was not a war of aggression but in self-defense to prevent the occurrence of
persecution in the land. Two further examples from sura 9 are cited by Abdul Saleeb and Sproul
(2003):
"Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and
lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) [sura 9: 5]" (p. 88).
"Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame [9: 14]"
(p. 89).
These two ayat are often singled out in the media and it is important to understand their
context. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had an accord with the idolaters of Mecca called AlHudaybeyya Conciliation. It entailed a 10-year truce between the Muslims and the idolaters in
which people of both sides should enjoy peace. There were two tribes called Khuza?ah and
Banu Bakr. The former was an ally of the Prophet (PBUH) while the latter was an ally of the
idolaters of Quraish. During the truce period, Banu Bakr broke the treaty and committed an
aggression against Khuza?ah who sought the help of the Prophet (PBUH). Accordingly, he
decided to conquer Mecca and was victorious. Later, after the conquest of Tabuk against the
Romans whom the Prophet knew that they were preparing to attack Muslims, the Prophet

wanted to go for pilgrimage, but he was told that the idolaters were going to Mecca as they
used to do and that they go around the Kaaba, the cubic building inside the Sacred Mosque,
naked. Hence, he did not want to go for pilgrimage again and find them like this. The ayat of
this sura were revealed to him giving permission to fight the idolaters after the sacred months.
Hence, the Prophet sent Abu Bakr and Ali, two of his companions and later Khalifs, to notify the
idolaters with this and warn them. The omitted ayat between the two above quoted ayat, give
reasons why permission was given to fight the idolaters at that time. However, the ayat are
taken out of context and manipulated to drive the required point home. The full ayat read as
follows:
5
When the [four] sacred months are over, wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill
them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post, but if they
turn [to God], maintain the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, let them go in their
way, for God is most Forgiving and Merciful.
6
If any one of the idolaters should seek your protection [Prophet], grant it to him so
that he may hear the word of God, then take him to a place safe for him, for they
are people with no knowledge.
7
How could there be a treaty with God and His Messenger for such idolaters? But as
for those with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque, so long as
they remain true to you, be true to them; God loves those who are mindful of Him
[keeping their treaties].
8
How and if they where to get the upper hand over you, they would not respect any
tie with you of kinship or of treaty? They please you with their tongues but their
hearts are against you and most of them are lawbreakers.
9
They have sold God's message for a trifling gain, and barred others from His path.
How evil their actions are.
10
Where believers are concerned, they respect no tie of kinship or treaty. They are
the one who are transgressors.
11
If they turn to God, keep up the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, then they are
your brothers in faith: We make the messages clear for a people who [are willing
to learn].
12
But if they break their oath after having made an agreement with you, if they revile
your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, as oaths mean nothing to them, so
that they may stop.
13
How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive
the Messenger out, who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God you should
fear if you are true believers.
14
Fight them: God will punish them at your hands, He will disgrace them, He will
help you conquer them, He will heal the believers' feelings. [9: 5-14]
These are just two examples of many other cases where decontextualized Qur'anic ayat
are exploited to mislead the publics as far as Islam is concerned, hence stimulating the feelings
of Islamophobia.
C. NON-INCLUSION OF THE OCCASIONS OF REVELATION OF THE AYAT
Many Qur'an translations do not include any footnotes for explaining allusions and
ambiguous pronominal references or giving the cultural background and a brief explanation of
the occasions of revelation at least of the ayat that may be controversial or misunderstood. It
may be argued that the Qur'an in Arabic does not have such explanations. This is certainly the
case. However, readers who want to check any information may refer to exegeses that are
available in Arabic, yet they hardly exist in other languages. In fact, even if they are available, it
is highly unlikely that non-Muslim laymen would possess exegeses of the Qur'an or would take
pains to check them. Thus, if they encountered Qur'anic controversial ayat that are cited
somewhere and they wanted to check for themselves, they would not find any clarification to
dispel their misunderstanding. For example, aya 216 of sura 2 reads:
"Fighting is prescribed upon you, and ye dislike it. But is possible that ye dislike a thing
which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth and
ye know not" (p. 87)

Without knowing the background of this aya, it gives the impression that fighting per se
is an obligation on all Muslims. However, it should be noted that in the early days of Islam,
Muslims were not allowed by God to fight. Hence, they used to bear all the persecution they
were exposed to by the idolaters of Mecca. However, later when the Prophet immigrated to
Medina, God allowed Muslims to fight the aggressors. Permission to fight was given through
ayat 39 and 40 of sura 22 which read:
"Permission to fight is given to those who have been fought against because they have
been done injustice, and God is well able to help them .. those who have been unjustly
driven from their homes only for saying, 'our Lord is God'. If God did not drive back some
people by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where
God's name is mentioned much, would be surely be demolished " [22: 39-40].
As the ayat indicate, fighting was allowed for Muslims to defend themselves against the
aggression they were subjected to. Besides self-defense, fighting was prescribed to keep all
places of worship, which used to be attacked at that time, intact for supplicants of all religions
to worship God there. Ahmad Subhi Mansour points out, however, that Muslims, contrary to
what was expected, did not want to use the license given to them. They were reluctant to fight
for defending themselves and guarding against aggression, which was good for them, and
preferred passivity and submissiveness, which was bad because they could have been
annihilated. Hence, these ayat prescribing fighting were revealed showing that fighting, at that
time, was necessary for their good.
It is interesting that despite taking the ayat cited out of context to prove their point and
omitting the parts that would refute their claim as shown above, Abdul Saleeb and Sproul
(2003) state that "these are not isolated passages that people are misinterpreting or quoting
out of context" (p. 89). They further state that no where in the Qur'an it is said that the ayat of
fighting were intended for the time of Prophet Muhammad. This last point is true; however,
Abdul Saleeb and Sproul overlook an important point which is that the Qur'an was not revealed
to Prophet Muhammad at one shot. It was revealed piecemeal over the twenty three years of
his Prophetic mission with groups of ayat revealed to him upon the occurrence of different
events to tell him how to behave, which answers to give to Muslim's queries and what actions
to take at this occasion. Thus, it was understood that these ayat were in response to that
situation, hence the importance of clarifying in the translations briefly the occasions of
revelation.
It is hoped that the previous discussion could have highlighted, at least in part, how
Qur'an translations have had a great role in framing the image of Islam. However, before
moving to the next section, it should be noted that apart from the Orientalist translations,
driven by hostile intentions, and some of the sectarian Muslim translations, which do not reflect
the mainstream Islamic perspective, most of the supposedly reasonable unbiased available
translations are far from satisfactory. There are two trends in Qur'an translations. Some of
them are "woodenly" literal to the extent of barring the meaning, and this leads many readers
to discard the Book. Others, in trying to make their translations readable and fluent, take
liberties with the text by adding explanations and making interpretative decisions for the
readers in the case of ambiguous ayat without indicating these changes. This leads to
destabilizing the text when comparing different translations and results in perplexing the
readers. The Muslim German Ambassador, Murad Hoffman points out the negative
consequences of the differences in translations. He mentions that he has a book of an American
author who talks about 12 translations of the meanings of the Qur'an and says that when
reading the 12 translations, it is as if you are reading 12 different books (as cited in Abdula
Aal, 2006, February 5, p. 62). The departure from the original text results in different
translations that open the door to claims like "contradictions in the Qur'an", "versions of the
Qur'an" or "perversion of the Qur'an". We are living in an era in which the need to provide "the
other" with translations that make it possible to grasp the true spirit and instructions of Islam,
on the one hand, and that do not demote the full dignity and exegetical potential of the original,
on the other, is far greater than any time in the past.
IV. FURTHER REASONS OF THE NEGATIVE IMAGE OF ISLAM AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
DISPELLING THE MYTHS

Apart from the false information and calumnies that some Orientalists included in their
translations, some schools as well as some parents and family members in western and other
non-Arab communities teach children wrong information about Islam and Muslims. Mumin AbdUr Razaq Selliah, a Sri Lankan convert to Islam, explains:
Formerly, I was an arch enemy of Islam. For, all the members of my family and all my
friends were telling me that Islam was an absurd and concocted religion that would lead
man to Hell, and they were even preventing me from talking with Muslims. As soon as I
saw a Muslim I would turn and walk away, and I would curse them behind their back. (as
cited in Why did they become Muslims?, 1995)
Similarly, Muhammad John Webster says:
It is very difficult to get in touch with Muslims in Western countries. For (sic) in those
countries there is a deep-seated rancor against Islam, which dates back to the crusading
expeditions. Europeans reject Islam with hatred, though they know nothing of it. They
raise their children with an education dressed with a strong feeling of animus towards
Islam. So much so that talking about Islam means a violation of the established rules of
decorum in their society. If someone should bring up this subject in a social gathering,
the others will protest with a mute frown. (as cited in Why did they become Muslims?,
1995).
Western public opinion is swayed by the information propagated. Only those who go
against the norms and try to learn something about Islam themselves or get in touch with
Muslims start to be disillusioned. The scientific approach of investigation and objectivity are
what is needed to realize that the coverage of Islam in the media is highly partial. Only the
sides seen as negative are highlighted. The following Qur'anic aya, "Fight those who believe
not in God nor the Last Day nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of
the Book [Jews and Christians]" is often cited in anti-Islamic books and in the media. This may
be a significant finding about the Muslims' holy Book; however, readers fail to acknowledge that
in Arabic the ayah stipulates three conditions that should be found collectively in the People of
the Book in order to be liable to being fought against, namely non-belief in God AND non-belief
in the Last Day AND non-belief in the religion of Truth. It should be noted that the three
conditions are joined with AND rather than OR in Arabic. Who among people of the Book, one
wonders, are subject to such criterion? Moreover, it should be noted that the Islamic Scripture
also teaches the following about the People of the Book:
"He (God) has sent down to you [Muhammad] the Book with the truth, confirming that
which was sent down before it, and He earlier sent down the Torah and the Gospel; as a
guidance to people, and sent down the Criterion [one of the names of the Qur'an]" [3:
3-4)
" 'Say: O people of the Book! Come to common terms between us and you, that we
worship none but God,
that we assign no partner to Him, and that we do not obey each other in disobedience
of God'. If they turn
away, then say: 'Bear witness that we are submitters to God'" [3: 64].
"The believers, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians any who believes in God and
the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. There is nothing for
them to fear nor will they grieve" [2: 62].
"God does not forbid you to be benevolent and equitable to those who have neither made
war on your religion or driven you from your homes. God loves the equitable. God only
forbids you to make friends with those who have fought against you on account of your
religion and driven you from your homes, or abetted others to do so. Those who make
friends with them are unjust." [60:8-9]
Prophet Muhammad, who married 12 women, nine of whom were widows and divorced,
for social, political and educational reasons, is often accused of being driven by the sexual
drive. One wonders whether the same standards apply to Prophet David, peace be upon him,
who had numerous wives (1 Chronicles, chapter 3) and Prophet Solomon (peace be upon him)
who "had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines" (1 kings 11: 3)]!

Islam is known as the religion allowing polygamy. How many know that after being practiced
unlimitedly before, it was actually Islam that confined polygamy to 4 women, and that the aya
allowing polygamy in the Qur'an was revealed following the battle of Uhud, in which thousands
of Muslim men were killed leaving widows and orphans with no supporters?
The Qur'an encompasses ayat that stipulated fighting for certain reasons at the time of
the Prophet. Is it difficult to recall that the Old and New Testaments contain some verses
indicating violence too?
"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And
it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all
the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt
besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt
smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones,
and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto
thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given
thee. But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an
inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy
them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the
Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee". (Deuteronomy
20:10-17)
The terrorists' attacks are said to be rooted in Prophet Muhammad's teachings. By the
same token, can Muslims regard Jesus Christ (PBUH) as stimulating violence and war on the
basis of the following words?
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither,
and slay them before
me" (Luke 19: 27).
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a
sword. For I am come to
set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter in law against
her mother in law." (Matthew 10: 34-35)
The answer is "by no means". For Muslims, Jesus Christ (PBUH) and Virgin Mary are
revered characters who cannot be subject to criticism. If the West can accept the allusions in
The Di Vinci Code, for Muslims, these are profanations that no sensible believer dare do.
Apart from the media partiality, indeed Muslims cannot be spared the blame for the
current situation. They are so passive towards what is going on. They do not seriously attempt
to explain the true principles of Islam. In this regard, Hussain Rofe says:
One thing I would regret to say at this point is that Muslims are doing very little to
advertise this lovely religion of theirs to the world. If they try to spread the true essence
of Islam over the entire world with due attention and knowledge, I am sure that they will
achieve very positive results. In the near east (sic) people are still reserved towards
foreigners. Instead of coming into contact with them and illuminating them, they prefer
to keep as far away as possible from them. This is an exceedingly wrong attitude. I am
the most concrete example. For I was somehow hindered from being interested in the
Islamic religion. Fortunately, one day I met a very respectable and highly cultured
Muslim. He was very friendly with me. He listened to me with attention. He presented
me an English version of the Qur'an al-karim translated by a Muslim. He gave beautiful
and logical answers to all my questions. (as cited in Why did they become Muslims?,
1995)
Is it not yet high time to take some positive steps in this regard? What can be done to
dispel the myths about Islam? In fact, action can be taken in different directions.
First of all, a more reliable translation of the Qur'an should be prepared as a team work
with both language specialists and religious figures, who have a good command of the target
foreign language, to be involved. The former should consult the latter for meaning problems
and the latter should make sure the former managed to convey the intended meaning correctly.
Such translation should include an introduction for each sura giving the reasons for the

revelation of its ayat as well as alternative translations based on alternative interpretations,

cross-references to other related ayat etc. In the light of the advances made in the field of
information technology, electronic versions can even facilitate matters.
Second, Muslims should attempt to make people acquainted with their religion and to
clear the misconceptions related to issues like the status of women in Islam, polygamy, jihad
etc. This can be done on two different levels. More explanatory programs in the media should
be devoted to addressing such issues in a rational scientific documented way. On another level,
lay Muslims can engage in such tasks making use of the Internet technology and chat talks,
that are used only for nonsensical activities, through what Ibrahim Saleh (2006) calls "popular
diplomacy". In fact, good experiences of engaging Arab students, at the American University in
Cairo as well as some other Arab universities, with American students in fruitful cross-cultural
dialogues were made possible through videoconferencing and web conferencing. The students
could discuss different issues including Islam. The experience managed in a way to help bridge
part of the knowledge gap about this topic. One student in the project stated, "I learned that
the American media is the main reason why there are many stereotypes and false ideas on
Islam and the Arab World" (Female, Qatari, University of Qatar). Another from the same
university mentioned, "I was happy to see how my American partners in this program could
express themselves freely and were brave to tell us about the stereotypes they have. I enjoyed
answering all their questions about Islam and the Arab world" (Female, Qatari, University of
Qatar). An American student said, "[the] actual real-time discussions were amazing in that we
were actually able to speak and ask anything to people we knew so little about. I think it was
the best way to learn about the Middle East and Islam that a student could experience" (female,
Virginia Commonwealth University).
Third, Maurice Bucaille, an eminent French surgeon, argues that an exact knowledge of
Islam should come through an accurate non-distorted version of the Qur'an. However, he
argues, since many of the available translations misinform the readers, then action should be taken to
provide other means of information about important aspects of Islam. In his book The Bible, Quran
and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge, Bucaille
pinpoints an important issue which is the total conformity between the facts mentioned in the
Qur'an and modern science. This leads him to the conclusion that it could have never been
possible for an unlettered man to be the author of this Scripture. Bucaille asserts:
The Qur'an offered extremely interesting points of comparison with completely established
fields of knowledge of our times [Once] it was admitted that the mentioned paragraphs of the
Holy Book did not have possible human explanations, the study of other purely religious aspects
attracted the interest of people. (p. 13)
The compatibility between science and religion in Islam is in contrast with the divorce between
science and other religions. The latter is one of the reasons that led to secularism on account of which
many people in the world suffer immensely because of their spiritual bankruptcy. Thomas Cleary
(1993) draws attention to the fact that Islam finds a solution to the dilemma of the "Post-Christian
West". He explains that the Qur'an:
offers a way to explore an attitude that fully embraces the quest for knowledge and
understanding that is the essence of science, while at the same time, and indeed for the same
reasons, fully embraces the awe humility, reverence, and conscience without which 'humankind
does indeed go to far in considering itself to be self-sufficient' (Qur'an 96: 6-7). (p.viii)
In support of Bucaille's and Cleary's argument, Captain Jacques Cousteau, a French famous
undersea explorer, explains that what made him believe that the Qur'an is the true word of God, was
the discovery that the water of the Red Sea and Indian Ocean do not mix. Following is what he says:
In 1962, German scientists said that the waters of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean did
not mix with each other in the Strait of Bab-ul-Mandab where the Aden Bay and the Red
Sea join. So we began to examine whether the waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the
Mediterranean mixed with each other. First we analyzed the water in the Mediterranean
to find out its natural salinity and density, and the life it contained. We repeated the same
procedure in the Atlantic Ocean. The two masses of water had been meeting each other
in the Gibraltar for thousands of years. Accordingly, the two masses of water must have
been mixing with each other and they must have been sharing identical, or, at least,
similar properties in salinity and density. On the contrary, even at places where the two
seas were closest to each other, each mass of water preserved its properties. In other
words, at the point where the two seas met, a curtain of water prevented the waters

belonging to the two seas from mixing. When I told Professor Maurice Bucaille about this
phenomenon, he said that it was no surprise and that it was written clearly in Islam's
Holy Book, the Qur'an al-Karim. Indeed, this fact was defined in a plain language in the
Qur'an al-karim. When I knew this, I believed in the fact that the Qur'an al-Karim was the
'Word of Allah'.
Indeed, ayat 19 and 20 of sura 55 read, "He has loosed the two seas meeting together
without overflowing a barrier between them". According to Richard A. Davis (1972), modern
Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier
between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature,
salinity, and density. Although there are large waves, strong currents, and tides in these seas,
they do not mix or transgress this barrier (as cited in http://www.islam-guide.com/). A number
of astronomy, marine and anatomy scientists testify to the accuracy of Qur'anic facts related to
their fields, among many other facts related to the clouds, plants, water etc. mentioned
accurately in the Qur'an, on a videotape entitled This is the Truth (http://www.islamguide.com/truth.htm). Islam is based on rational thinking. It does not ask Muslims to act
against reason nor to accept things they do not understand but to work their minds and seek
knowledge. This idea is also referred to by Cleary. He argues that Islam "does not demand
unreasoned belief. Rather it invites intelligent faith, growing from observation, reflection, and
contemplation" (p. vii). As Dr. Hamid Marcus argues:
The Islamic religion does not contain any irrational or unbelievable tenet In Islam you
cannot find a single dot disagreeable with or contradictory to modern sciences. All its
commandments and inculcations are entirely logical and useful. In Islam, belief and logic do
not contradict each other, which is the common blemish of other religions. Consequently, for
a person like me who has dedicated all his life-time to natural sciences, what could be more
natural than preferring Islam, which is in full conformity with the scientific results that he
obtained from his lucubration, to the other religions that are quite the other way round?
Another reason I feel compelled to add is that the other religions are awash in a score of
grotesque ideas that suggest only a far-fetched mood of spirituality. They have nothing to
do with real life situations. Islam, on the other hand, is a practical religion which guides man
also in his trek of life. Commandments of the Islamic religion lead a person to the right way
not only in the Hereafter, but also in the world, and, in the meanwhile, they never restrict his
freedom.
The last part of the previous quote answers one question raised by some non-Muslims.
Some of them think that Islam is so materialistic and far from spirituality. In fact, since Islam is
the last religion that provides man with legislations necessary for his life in this world, it
acknowledges that people are humans not angels. It provides guidance for them in their actual
practical life. It does not mean to engage them in pure spirituality that overlooks their human
nature. Hence, it combines spirituality with pragmatism. Besides, Islam combines within itself
the essence of all heavenly revelations, and it entails an acknowledgment of all the previous
religions and Prophets. A Muslim's faith is never complete without this. These are just few facts
that are worth knowing about Islam.

REFERENCES
Abdul Aal, A. (2006, January 1). The English Translations are the most famous. Muslims
translated the Qur'an and after 70 years demanded confiscating and burning the
translation. Nesf Ad-Donia Magazine, 829, 50-53.
Abdul Aal, A. (2006. January 29). Calumnies against Islam. The Jews translated the Qur'an
Hebrew to realize Balfour Promise. Nesf Ad-Donia Magazine, 833, 76-80.
Abdul Aal, A. (2006. February 5). The old German translations of the Qur'an wronged Islam
[7]: One translation claimed Prophet Muhammad wrote the Quran in an epileptic fit.
Nesf Ad-Donia Magazine, 834, 60-64.
Abdul Raof, H. (2001). Quran translation: Discourse, texture and exegesis. Surrey:

RoutledgeCurzon.
Asad, M. (1980). The message of the Quran: Translated and explained. Gibraltar: Dar AlAndalus.
Bewley A. & Bewley, A. (1999). The Noble Qur'an: A new rendering of its meaning in
English. Dubai: Dubai Printing Press.
Bucaille, M. (1979). The Bible, Quran and Science: The holy scriptures examined in the
light of modern knowledge. Translator Alastair D. Pannell, & Maurice Bucaille.
Indianapolis, IN: American Trust Publications.
Bucaille, M. (December 1986). On translation of the holy Qur'an. The Muslim World
League Journal, 13 (3&4), 10-13.
Bucaille, M. (1986, March 21). Reflections on mistaken ideas spread by orientalists
through mistranslations of the Quran. Proceedings of the Symposium on Translations
of the Meanings of the Holy Quran, IRCICA, Istanbul, pp. 93-102.
Cleary, T. (1993). The essential Koran. New York: HarperSanFrancisco.
Davis, R. A. (1972). Principles of Oceanography. Addison-wesley
Dirks, D. L. (2003). "America and Islam in the 21 st century: Welcome to the sisterhood". In
Debra L. Dirks (Ed.), Islam our choice: Portraits of modern American Muslim
women. Maryland: amana publications, pp. 1-16
Ghali, M. M. (2003). Towards understanding the ever-glorious Quran. Cairo: Dar An-Nashr
for Universities.
Ma'ayergi, H. (1984). An academy for translating the exegesis of the holy Qur'an.
Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, 5, 441-445.
Mansour, A S. Al-Islam deen As-salam. Retrieved May 1, 2006 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.metransparent.com/texts/ahmad_sobhi_mansour_text/ahmed_sobhi_
mansour_peaceful_islam.htm
Ozbec, A., Uzunolu, N., Topuzolu, T. R., & Maksutolu, M. (2000).The majestic
Quran: An English rendition of its meanings. (Eds) Abdal Hakim Murad, Mostafa
Badawi, Uthman Hutchinson. London: The Ibn Khaldun Foundation.
Robinson, N. (1997). Sectarian and ideological bias in Muslim translations of the Qur'an.
Islam and Christian Muslim Relations, 8 (3), 261-278.
Ross, A. (1649). The Alcoran of Mahomet translated out of Arabique into French, by
the sieur Du Ryer, Lord of Malezair, and resident of the king of France, at
Alexandria. And newly Englished, for the satisfaction of all that desire to look into
the Turkish vanities, London.
Saleh, I. (2006). Prior to the eruption of the grapes of wrath in the Middle East: The
necessity of communicating instead of clashing. Cairo: Teeba Corporation.
Sales, G. (1734). The Koran, commonly called Alcoran of Mohammed, translated into
English immediately from the original Arabic, with explanatory notes, taken from the
most approved commentators, to which is prefixed a preliminary discourse. London:
C. Akers.
Shukri, A. A. (September 2000). On the translation of the meanings of the Qur'an.
Majallat Al-Shari'aa wal Dirasat Al-Islameyya, 42, 17-61.
Sproul, R. C., & Saleeb, A. (2003). The dark side of Islam. Illinois: Crossway Books.
Tabibi, A. H. (1986, March 21). The interpretation of the Qur'an and its translation.
Proceedings of the Symposium on Translations of the Meanings of the Holy Quran,
IRCICA, Istanbul, pp. 39-48.
Turner, C. (1997). The Quran: A new interpretation. Surrey: Curzon
Why did they become Muslims? (1995). HizmetBooks [online']. Retrieved May 15, 2006
from the World Wide web: http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Why_Become_Muslims/