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

=== Assistant: Below is a thoughtful analysis that responds to your perspective by outlining why many scholars and traditional believe… ===
Below is a thoughtful analysis that responds to your perspective by outlining why many scholars and traditional believers hold that a translation must reflect the Quran’s inherent, self‑contained message—its "completeness" and "full detail"—and how Murad’s methodology might be seen as problematic in that regard.

===== • Divine Completeness: =====
 – In classical Islamic thought, the Quran is regarded as complete because it provides, within its text, all necessary guidance—including linguistic, historical, cultural, social, and legal elements—when understood in the light of submission (Islam).
 – This completeness is seen as a sign of divine origin, meaning every element of human life finds its anchorage in the text when read as a unified whole.

• Full Detail (Ishraaf):
 – The Quran is considered fully detailed in that it offers comprehensive explanations for the laws, signs, and injunctions relevant to mankind.
 – Believers understand this as an invitation to reflect deeply using their intellect—as repeatedly urged in verses that call for contemplation—so that the original message remains self‑explanatory and immune to external “reformulations.”

===== • Cross‑Linguistic and Ultra‑Literal Approach: =====
 – Murad’s translation emphasizes tracing Arabic words to their roots in other Semitic languages (like Syriac), an approach that can lead to a rendering which departs from the classical, internal meaning of the text.
 – In doing so, his interpretation may introduce nuances that suggest a human, evolutionary development of language instead of reflecting the Quran’s inherent, divinely bestowed inimitability.

• Implications of This Method:
 – Accepting such a translation as the definitive meaning of the Quran risks undermining the claim that the Quran is divinely “complete” and “fully detailed.”
 – If the translation appears to rely on external, human‑constructed linguistic analyses, then it can be seen as imposing a man‑made framework onto what believers regard as a divinely curated text.
 – This, in turn, challenges the core claim that every aspect of guidance—from legal injunctions to the subtleties of its literary form—is contained within the original Arabic, in a way that requires submission to Allah’s will rather than reinterpretation by human minds.

===== • Equitability of Meaning: =====
 – Many scholars argue that a faithful translation should preserve not only the literal words but also the deep semantic layers and the unity of the message as intended by Allah.
 – When an interpretation shifts emphasis to cross‑linguistic roots, it might inadvertently detach the verse from its internal contextual fabric, which is essential for understanding the Quran as a complete revelation.

• Maintaining Divine Inimitability (I'jaz al-Quran):
 – The claim that the Quran is “inimitable” (i'jaz) rests on the idea that its language and message cannot be reproduced by human effort.
 – A translation that appears to “correct” or “alter” key meanings by appealing to external linguistic derivations may be perceived as conceding that the text is subject to human re‑interpretation—thereby challenging its divine origin and perfection.

===== In your view, and in the view of many traditional scholars, Murad's translation: =====
* Does not capture the Quran’s inherent self‑contained guidance because it imposes an external, cross‑linguistic interpretation onto a text that is designed to be complete and fully detailed in itself.
* Risks reducing the Quran’s claim to divine perfection by suggesting that its meaning must be reconstructed through human linguistic methods rather than being recognized as a revelation that already contains all aspects of guidance.
* Ultimately, accepting such a translation may imply that the Quran is a product of human manipulation rather than the impeccably complete and detailed word of Allah—a stance that contradicts the self‑understanding of the text as affirmed by classical Islamic scholarship.

This perspective underscores why many believers and scholars maintain that any translation must strive to reflect the Quran’s inimitable nature, ensuring that its internal consistency, cultural context, and divine intent remain intact.