Editing Openai/67f9c019-88f0-8007-a867-29e6f1beeb8b (section)

===== - Murad’s Translation is marked by an external, etymologically driven method that questions the conventional, divinely inspired understanding of the Arabic text by invoking common Semitic origins. This approach is seen as both polemical and inconsistent by its critics. =====
* Qur’an‐bil‐Qur’an Translations—as represented by Rashad Khalifa, Aurangzeb’s modern reformist efforts, Laleh Bakhtiar, and Sam Gerrans—reject traditional commentaries in favor of a self-contained interpretation where the Quran is taken to explain itself. Their methods focus on internal textual consistency, even as they also depart from classical commentarial traditions.

Each approach has its own set of assumptions and implications for theological interpretation and the perceived divinity of the text. While Murad’s work has generated controversy for its reliance on cross-linguistic comparisons, the pure Quran‐bil‐Qur’an interpreters maintain that the text’s divine originality is best revealed when one reads the Quran as an interrelated whole, without the overlay of external scholarly commentary.