I have been researching and reading the Qur'an over the past two months, and while recently enjoying breakfast with a friend and discussing what I was learning about Islam, I was asked this question: "If one were to buy an English translation of the Qur'an, which one should he buy?"

There is no such thing as an English Translation of the Qur'an

What a great question! But before I answer it, there are a few comments that are necessary. Muslims reject English translations of the Qur'an, insisting that only the original Arabic will suffice for any true version or copy of it. I admire their fierce insistence upon the original language of the text. Actually, I share it to a certain degree. I think that the Church would be better served if more took the time and discipline necessary to learn the original languages of the Scriptures.

However, it is one of my core beliefs that the one true God desires His Word, the Bible, to reach to the ends of the earth, and therefore, His blessing is upon efforts to translate the Bible into as many languages as possible, far and wide. Our God is a God of love, and desires to send His Word to the ends of the Earth. We have every reason in love to strive to make His Word known to as many people as possible.

While it is true that there is a syntactical range of meaning between words in one language and words in another language, it is not true to insist that meaning is incapable of being accurately transmitted between languages. It is just not true to insist that a person reading in English is incapable of understanding what is being spoken and discussed in Arabic. Nevertheless, you should not purchase an English copy of the Qur'an and then share with your Muslim friends that you, indeed, own a copy of the Qur'an. They will laugh at you and deny that your English translation actually counts.

What are the options available?

So, which ripped-off version of the Qur'an, horrifically reduced to English words, should one buy? This is a very important question! Translators who render the Arabic of the Qur'an into English are already violating certain principles of Islam in doing so. This means that those who engage in translation work with the Qur'an are either apostate Muslims who have lost their way, faithful Muslims who acknowledge in their translation that it is insufficient, or unbelievers altogether. Should one expect a fair reading of the Qur'an from a scholar or translator who is not bound to the principles, ethics, or teachings of Islam or who doesn't regard translation to be a matter of extreme accuracy since any English rendering is so... un-Islamic? Who is to say that it may not be a more liberal translation as opposed to a more literal translation? Who judges these things? Who has oversight in this matter? After all, there are no translation committees and no academic scholars sitting around in a hotel conference room somewhere debating the best rendering of an Arabic phrase or paragraph from the Qur'an into English.

So, it will take some careful thought to answer this question. Fortunately, I have at least one thing going for me. There are really only a few (three) options of an English translation to choose from as a result of the fact that Muslims fiercely object to the Qur'an being translated into English. Since there are only three options to work with, anyone with a rudimentary understanding of Arabic and basic translation theory can explain those three options to you.

Here are your three basic English translations:

1. The Koran, translated by N.J. Dawood
2. The Holy Qur'an, translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali
3. The Glorious Qur'an, translated by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall

Which one should I get?

In a nutshell, I suggest getting two of them together: The Koran by Dawood, and The Holy Qur'an by Ali.

N.J. Dawood's translation is the most accessible in my humble opinion. He writes in the smoothest possible rendering of the English language, however there are some numbering problems with the verses. Dawood is not Muslim, and he apparently didn't take too much care in making sure that the verse numbers were inserted correctly. It is common in any translation for the first half of a sentence often to be located in one verse, and for the second half of the sentence to be located in the next verse. Dawood didn't place his verse numbers as accurately as he could have from one word, sentence or paragraph to the next, and so this makes discussion of the Qur'an with someone who has a different translation a little interesting at times. However, if you're willing to read a few lines forwards or backwards, eventually you can find the text being referenced with little difficulty. Despite the difficulty of the incorrect verse numbering, Dawood's translation is the best for modern English readers. He follows an essential literalism. What it says in Arabic is exactly what he attempts to produce into English.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali is Muslim. His translation comes with a verse by verse commentary in the foot notes which can be very helpful for historical background and contextual details, but don't trust his translation. He's obviously worried about Western sensibilities, so he tends to water down and sugar coat the meaning of the text. For example, in Sura 4:34 Ali adds the word "lightly" to the directive given to husbands that they should beat their wives if their wives disobey them. The actual Arabic doesn't say for husbands to "lightly" beat their wives. It just says to beat them. The severity and duration of the physical beating is entirely up to the husband. In this regard, Dawood's translation is more literal and more careful. He just translates in Sura 4:34 that husbands are to beat their wives. There is no adding of words or sugar coating of the command. It's literal.

Marmaduke Pickthall is also very literal in the same way that Dawood is. He is very careful to hold to a literal translation, but I don't recommend him because both he and Ali translate the Qur'an into a stilted King James Version style of English. They both have this weird tendency to translate the Qur'an into something akin to a 1600's version of the King James Bible with a bunch of "Verily," "Thees," and "Thous." Since both translations were made in the late twentieth century and not in the 1600's, this is befuddling to me. I can only guess that they had a desire to make their translation of the Qur'an feel like something familiar to a Western audience, not realizing that Christians have been abandoning the old school King James version for the last seventy years.

All of that to say, if you wish to own a copy of the Qur'an in order to read it for yourself, purchase N.J. Dawood's for ease and clarity of English reading, but you should also pick up a copy of Ali's version for the sake of the commentary and contextual notes. With both Ali's version and Dawood's, Pickthall is superfluous.