Openai/67f9c019-88f0-8007-a867-29e6f1beeb8b

This conversation was exported from ChatGPT

o3-mini

User: Salam ChatGPT, what is your opinion of Saint Murad's English translation of thr Arabic Quran?

Salam ChatGPT, what is your opinion of Saint Murad's English translation of thr Arabic Quran? Thank you.

Assistant: My answer isn’t a “personal opinion” per se but rather a reflection of the range of scholarly and community responses t…

My answer isn’t a “personal opinion” per se but rather a reflection of the range of scholarly and community responses to Saint Murad’s translation. Here are several points to consider:

A number of voices in academic and online communities have expressed strong reservations about the translation’s methods and conclusions. For example, on forums such as r/AcademicQuran, some users criticize the translation for:

• Linguistic Inaccuracies: Several commentators note that the translation appears to make errors with basic facts of Arabic grammar and etymology. Critics have pointed out instances where Murad’s explanations of Arabic roots or semantic nuances seem to contradict standard scholarly understanding—for instance, his treatment of certain key lexical items in the Quran.
• Polemical Overtones: There is a recurring theme in discussions that the translation is less an exercise in unbiased scholarly work and more a polemical project. Some users label him a “crypto-Christian apologist” (or accuse him of harboring non-Muslim presuppositions) and suggest that his work is driven by an agenda rather than academic rigor.
• Deviation from Mainstream Scholarship: Mainstream academic translations of the Quran (such as those by scholars associated with the Sahih International, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, or Muhammad Asad) have undergone peer review and are generally used as standard references. In comparison, many critics argue that Murad’s work lacks the methodological transparency and consistency expected in scholarly exegesis.

In summary, while Saint Murad’s translation may attract some interest for its unique perspective, the prevailing sentiment among many scholars and critics is that it fails to meet the academic standards established by traditional translations of the Quran. Critics cite significant linguistic errors and a polemical tone as major shortcomings. For those interested in a scholarly study of the Quran, consulting widely acknowledged academic translations and accompanying commentaries is generally recommended.

This summary reflects the range of critiques and opinions found in online scholarly discussions rather than a personal stance.

User: The were people in academic circles who questioned the consistent use of Syriac Aramaic root words in Murad's translati…

The were people in academic circles who questioned the consistent use of Syriac Aramaic root words in Murad's translation, as though implying Aramaic origins, and thus man-made in a later historical period, not divine.

Usually in linguistic studies, while a root word may provide original context, it cannot totally explain local context. Meaning while Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic are from the same Semitic root, the context usage change in a local millieu.

For example, the word "Butuh" in Bahasa Indonesia means easy, while in Bahasa Melayu it means penis. Same root but different meaning.

Assistant: The critique centers on the idea that Murad’s translation often leans on identifying Syriac or Aramaic roots for Arabic…

The critique centers on the idea that Murad’s translation often leans on identifying Syriac or Aramaic roots for Arabic words in the Quran, thereby suggesting that the language—and by extension its message—is derived from a later, human tradition rather than an original, divine source. This approach has drawn sharp criticism from academic circles for several reasons:

While it is true that Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic all stem from a common Semitic ancestry, modern linguistic studies emphasize that shared roots do not automatically transfer identical meanings between languages or even between different historical layers of the same language.

• Context Matters: Every language develops its own semantic trajectories. A single root may branch into a variety of meanings over time and across communities. For example, as you noted with the Bahasa example, even words sharing an etymological base can take on entirely different connotations in closely related linguistic environments. This demonstrates that local cultural and historical contexts significantly affect meaning.
• Methodological Issues: By consistently favoring a Syriac etymology, critics argue that Murad’s translation seems to cherry‐pick elements from one branch of the Semitic language family while neglecting the internal development and autonomous evolution of Arabic. In doing so, his work might imply that the Quranic text is merely a later compilation of ideas borrowed from an earlier, non-divine source rather than reflecting a unique, original revelation.

Scholars in Arabic and Semitic linguistics generally use a wide array of historical, grammatical, and contextual tools when interpreting texts:

• Comparative Semitics: While noting parallels is an important method in historical linguistics, it requires a careful comparison of usage, structure, and historical continuity. Robust analysis looks at the full evolution of language—not just isolated root similarities—to understand both form and meaning.
• Semantic Nuance: Just as with your Bahasa example (where one similar root yields quite different meanings in Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Melayu), Arabic words in the Quran must be read within their own cultural and linguistic milieu. A proper academic treatment would account for the evolution of those words within the Arabic-speaking world rather than defaulting to a cross-linguistic argument that might oversimplify or misrepresent their unique meanings.

Critics contend that by implying that key Quranic terms owe their meanings predominantly to Syriac or Aramaic origins, Murad’s translation might inadvertently support the argument that the Quran is a product of later, human elaboration rather than a divinely revealed text. This is because:

• Selective Etymology: Focusing narrowly on Syriac roots can be seen as a way to undermine the independent semantic framework of Arabic. It risks portraying the text as simply a rehashed linguistic construct—a view that conflicts with traditional understandings that see the Quran as an inimitable work.
• Polemical Overtones: Such an approach may be viewed as serving a polemical agenda rather than a strictly academic one. In genuine scholarly practice, one must consider both shared etymological heritage and the localized development of meaning, without forcing an external narrative onto the source text.

In summary, while drawing comparisons between related Semitic languages can provide interesting insights, it must be done with rigorous attention to context, historical development, and internal linguistic evolution. The criticism levied against Murad’s translation is that his method of repeatedly attributing Arabic words to their Syriac roots oversimplifies and misrepresents how meaning is constructed in Arabic. Just as the difference in meaning for a shared root in Bahasa shows, local usage and context are indispensable for understanding any language—and especially a complex, ancient text like the Quran.

This balanced approach to linguistic scholarship underscores why many academics recommend relying on translations that thoroughly consider the internal evolution of Arabic language and context, rather than overly simplistic cross-linguistic comparisons.

User: Can you list the different interpretations of Murad's off the Arabic Quran, compared to traditional interpretations?

Can you list the different interpretations of Murad's off the Arabic Quran, compared to traditional interpretations?

Assistant: Below is a summary of some of the key differences noted between Saint Murad’s translation and more traditional interpre…

Below is a summary of some of the key differences noted between Saint Murad’s translation and more traditional interpretations of the Quran. These points reflect both his unique interpretative methods and the critiques raised by scholars and knowledgeable community members:

1. Etymological Emphasis versus Established Arabic Usage - Murad’s Approach: He frequently highlights shared roots between Arabic and related Semitic languages (especially Syriac/Aramaic), sometimes suggesting that key Quranic terms derive from—and should be understood via—Syriac meanings. This can imply that the language of the Quran has influences from or parallels with later human linguistic developments. - Traditional Approach: Scholars and classic translators treat Arabic as a mature, self-contained semantic system. They note that—even though Arabic shares common ancestry with Hebrew and Aramaic—the words in the Quran must be understood in light of their historical evolution, context, and internal usage within classical Arabic.
2. Contextual and Interpretative Layers - Murad’s Approach: His rendering tends to “strip away” the traditional commentarial layers (tafsir) and interpretative conventions. This means that passages are sometimes rendered in a way that emphasizes a more “literal” reading based on his chosen etymological connections rather than on the broader historical, theological, and cultural contexts established over centuries. - Traditional Approach: Traditional translations and commentaries integrate classical exegesis and contextual history. They consider a wide range of linguistic, historical, and theological factors—ensuring that the evolution of meaning within its Arabic milieu is respected. In these treatments, local context, idiomatic usage, and metaphorical meanings are often fully explained.
3. Theological Implications and Claims of Man-Made Influences - Murad’s Approach: By foregrounding Syriac (or other non-Arabic) etymologies, Murad’s translation can be read as implying that certain linguistic choices in the Quran are not evidence of an inimitable, divinely preserved language but rather the outcome of later human processes. Critics say that this may inadvertently support a view in which the text appears more as an assemblage of human ideas than as a unique revelation. - Traditional Approach: Mainstream Islamic scholarship and traditional translators stress that the Quran’s language is internally consistent and divinely inspired. They argue that while the Quran employs a rich and multifaceted vocabulary (including words with common Semitic roots), its meanings are fixed and fully embedded in the classical Arabic tradition rather than being derived from external (for example, Syriac) models.
4. Methodological and Polemical Differences - Murad’s Approach: His translation is sometimes seen as polemical. By emphasizing certain etymological “anomalies” or alternative origins, his work appears designed to challenge conventional religious narratives. This method is favored by some readers looking for an alternative perspective, but it also attracts criticism for prioritizing an ideological agenda over a balanced scholarly analysis. - Traditional Approach: Standard translations aim to provide a neutral, expository rendering that builds on centuries of scholarly review and consensus. These translations generally avoid highlighting etymological debates that might undermine the established theological framework of the text.
5. Interpretation of Specific Verses and Lexical Items - Murad’s Approach: In several instances, his translation reinterprets key terms—sometimes offering meanings that clash with those widely accepted by classical scholars. For example, his handling of particular words (such as those involved in legal or theological contexts) might use alternative derivations to suggest meanings that differ markedly from traditional exegetical explanations. - Traditional Approach: Traditional translators rely on a long history of linguistic and exegetical scholarship. They explain difficult terms based on classical dictionaries, standard grammatical rules, and centuries of interpretative tradition, ensuring consistency with the broader corpus of Islamic scholarship.

Murad’s translation is characterized by its:

• Strong focus on cross-linguistic (particularly Syriac) etymological connections,
• Tendency to “deconstruct” traditional commentaries to propose a reading stripped of established interpretative layers,
• Method that some see as intentionally polemical—questioning the divine origin of the text by emphasizing human linguistic developments.

By contrast, traditional interpretations prioritize:

• The autonomous evolution and rich internal context of classical Arabic,
• Established exegetical traditions that integrate historical, linguistic, and theological considerations,
• A balanced approach that affirms the Quran’s divine and inimitable nature as understood by generations of Muslim scholars.

These differences are not merely academic—they also carry significant implications for how the text is viewed theologically and culturally. While Murad’s approach appeals to a niche audience seeking revisionist perspectives, the consensus among traditional scholars tends to favor interpretations that situate the language firmly within the unique and independent heritage of classical Arabic.

User: There're other Quran translations that is based on quran-bil-quran approach, without traditional context.

There're other Quran translations that is based on quran-bil-quran approach, without traditional context. This include Rashad Khalifa, Aurangzeb, Laleh Bakhtiar and Gerrans. Can you list the different interpretations of Murad's off the Arabic Quran, compared to this quran-bil-quran approach?

Assistant: Below is a comparative list outlining how Saint Murad’s interpretation of the Quran differs from that found in several …

Below is a comparative list outlining how Saint Murad’s interpretation of the Quran differs from that found in several “Qur’an‐bil‐Qur’an” (self-referential) translations—such as those by Rashad Khalifa, Aurangzeb (in his modern reformist approach), Laleh Bakhtiar, and Sam Gerrans. Each adopts a “Qur’an explains itself” methodology, rejecting traditional tafsir and external commentaries, but they differ from Murad’s approach in key respects:

1. Etymological Emphasis vs. Internal Coherence - Murad’s Approach: • Often relies on cross-linguistic, etymological analysis by tracing Arabic words to their Syriac (or other Semitic) roots. • This can lead to interpretations that seem to suggest the language is a product of later human development rather than a divinely preserved text. - Qur’an‐bil‐Qur’an Translations: • Focus strictly on using the Quran’s own verses to explain and clarify ambiguous or difficult passages. • They rely on internal consistency and cross-references (for example, Rashad Khalifa’s work or Gerrans’s translation) to build meaning solely from the Quran itself, without importing external linguistic arguments.
2. Treatment of Context and Commentarial Layers - Murad’s Approach: • Strips away much of the traditional interpretative “sugarcoating” by reducing reliance on established tafsir. • Instead, he often chooses an “ultra literal” rendering driven by his etymological reasoning—even when this means ignoring local, contextual nuances inherent to classical Arabic usage. - Qur’an‐bil‐Qur’an Translations: • Although they also downplay traditional commentaries, they stress that the Quran is self-explanatory. • By showing that verses clarify one another, these translators (for example, in the work of Laleh Bakhtiar or in the Quran: A Reformist Translation by Yuksel and al‑Shaiban) maintain internal contextual integrity and avoid importing external meanings that might undercut the text’s coherence.
3. Methodological Foundations and Intent - Murad’s Approach: • Seeks to expose and “correct” what he considers inaccuracies in standard translations by invoking alternative etymological derivations. • His method has a polemical edge—challenging not only traditional interpretations but also the idea of divine inimitability by suggesting that certain words come from non-Arabic (e.g., Syriac) origins. - Qur’an‐bil‐Qur’an Translations: • Aim to show that the Quran, when read solely in light of its own text, resolves its ambiguities. • Although also reformist (as with Rashad Khalifa, who, for instance, rejected external hadith influence), these translators maintain that the text’s meaning is self-contained and divinely consistent, rather than an assemblage of borrowed language.
4. Literalness Versus Dynamic Self‐Interpretation - Murad’s Approach: • Emphasizes an “ultra literal” translation at the level of the root words, which can sometimes result in renderings that conflict with the established semantic patterns of classical Arabic. • This may lead to interpretations that appear inconsistent or that seem intended more to challenge prevailing religious narratives. - Qur’an‐bil‐Qur’an Translations: • While they also eschew external explanatory materials, they work from the premise that the Quran “interprets itself.” • Their goal is to achieve a reading that maintains both literal accuracy and internal clarity by using the Quran’s own wording as the primary guide—a methodology that, even when diverging from traditional commentary, strives for a self-coherent text.
5. Theological Implications and Ideological Positioning - Murad’s Approach: • By foregrounding external linguistic influences, his translation is often interpreted as implying that the Quran’s language is influenced by human or later cultural forces. • Critics argue that this undercuts the traditional claim of the Quran’s divine, inimitable nature. - Qur’an‐bil‐Qur’an Translations: • Although some translators in this camp (like Rashad Khalifa) are themselves controversial, their primary assertion is that all explanation must come from within the Quran. • This method reinforces a view of the text as an internally consistent revelation, without recourse to exogenous scholarly or historical traditions.
6. Reception and Consistency - Murad’s Approach: • Receives criticism from many in academic circles for overusing external etymological comparisons and for sometimes letting polemical aims override a balanced exegesis. • His interpretation can vary from one passage to another as it rests on selective derivations that are not universally accepted by classical Arabic linguistics. - Qur’an‐bil‐Qur’an Translations: • Are generally aimed at readers who wish to understand the Quran purely on its own terms. • By grounding each verse in the text itself, these translations (like those by Laleh Bakhtiar or Sam Gerrans) strive to present a unified narrative—even if they are also seen as unorthodox by mainstream scholarship.

- 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.

User: If we consider all these translation methodologies, there appear three perspectives - traditional, Quran-bil-quran and …

If we consider all these translation methodologies, there appear three perspectives - traditional, Quran-bil-quran and cross linguistic roots. Can you list them as a table of their key specifications, character and outcomes?

Assistant: Below is a table comparing the three main translation perspectives with respect to their key specifications, overall ch…

Below is a table comparing the three main translation perspectives with respect to their key specifications, overall character, and typical outcomes/implications:

| | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

This table encapsulates the key differences:

• Traditional translators build on an extensive scholarly heritage, ensuring continuity with historical interpretations.
• Qur’an-bil-Qur’an translators claim that the text is self-explanatory and rely solely on internal cross-references for interpretation.
• Cross-linguistic roots translators (like Saint Murad) focus on the etymological origins across related Semitic languages, which can produce radically different—and often contentious—renderings of the text.

Each methodology carries its own set of strengths and challenges, influencing both how the Quran is understood and the theological or scholarly debates it inspires.

User: Can you take one Arabic Quran verse that glaringly show the differences of interpretations from each of these three tra…

Can you take one Arabic Quran verse that glaringly show the differences of interpretations from each of these three translations? Maybe you can start with Murad's, using his most divergent interpretation and compare his with Rashad's and Yusuf Ali's?

Assistant: Below is a comparative table using Quran 4:157 – one of the verses often cited as illustrating divergent interpretative…

Below is a comparative table using Quran 4:157 – one of the verses often cited as illustrating divergent interpretative choices. (The original Arabic reads: وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ which is commonly rendered as “And they did not kill him, nor crucify him, but it was made to appear so to them.”)

| | | | | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | |

- Traditional translations (like Yusuf Ali’s) maintain the well‑entrenched exegesis: the verse is understood to indicate that neither killing nor actual crucifixion took place, but that it appeared so to the observers. This view is supported by centuries of interpretative tradition and is linked with the inimitability of the Quran’s language.

• Qur’an‑bil‑Qur’an translations (represented by Rashad Khalifa’s approach) seek to derive all meaning solely from the Quran’s internal textual coherence, avoiding external commentaries. Here, the text is taken as its own best interpreter; the focus is on self‑reference and internal cross‑explanation of ambiguous words.
• Cross‑Linguistic Roots translators (as exemplified by Saint Murad) use comparative Semitic linguistics to re‑examine key lexical items. In this verse, Murad argues that the term for “appeared” is best understood not merely as “made to seem” but as deriving from a root that implies a deliberate rendering into a particular form—a nuance that can be seen as questioning the traditional view of an unaltered, divinely inimitable revelation.

Each approach shapes not only the wording but also the theological implications of the verse. Traditional methods reinforce the divine originality and consistency of the Quran, the Quran‑bil‑Quran approach emphasizes the text’s self‑containing clarity, and the cross‑linguistic method opens the door to reinterpretations that may challenge established readings.

User: Apart from Murad's, is there other translations that uses similar methodology as Murad's

Apart from Murad's, is there other translations that uses similar methodology as Murad's

Assistant: Below is a summary of how Murad’s approach compares to a few other translation projects that share—in part or in spirit…

Below is a summary of how Murad’s approach compares to a few other translation projects that share—in part or in spirit—similar ultra‑literal, word‑by‑word, and cognate‑oriented methodologies:

| | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

- Murad’s approach is quite distinctive in its explicit use of cross‑linguistic etymology, seeking to trace key Arabic words to cognate forms in related Semitic languages (especially Syriac/Aramaic). This is meant to challenge the traditional view that the language of the Quran is wholly unique and divinely inimitable.

• The Verbatim Quran project is the closest example that similarly pursues an ultra‑literal, cognate‑focused method—though it concentrates more on identifying direct lexical equivalents rather than an extensive reconstruction from external roots.
• Rashad Khalifa’s translation and other Quran‑bil‑Qur’an reforms also reject traditional interpretative layers and favor literal readings, but their methodology centers on internal cross‑referencing within the Quran itself rather than drawing on the broader family of Semitic languages.

While there is some overlap in the goal of stripping away centuries‑old commentary to get at a “pure” message, Murad’s methodology remains relatively unique in its cross‑linguistic focus. Other projects may share elements of ultra‑literalism but generally do not employ the same depth of comparative linguistic analysis as Murad’s translation.

User: I would rather say that Murad's translation does not give an equitable meaning to the Quran's own inherent meaning that…

I would rather say that Murad's translation does not give an equitable meaning to the Quran's own inherent meaning that Allah wants to convey. Accepting his translation as accurate means accepting that the Quran is man-made, and this renders as false of Allah's claim of the Quran being "complete" and "fully detailed"

From my understanding, "complete" means everything (linguistics, history, culture, tradition, social, nature, etc) is within the Quran in the context of being in full submission of His will. "Fully detailed" means everything (the laws, signs, injunctions, etc) for mankind has already been explained within the Quran itself - that is why the most frequent beseeches by Allah in the Quran it to use the mind to reason during contemplation.

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.

User: And Saint Murad's translation of Q4:157, compared to the traditional and Quran-bil-quran approaches underly his innate …

And Saint Murad's translation of Q4:157, compared to the traditional and Quran-bil-quran approaches underly his innate Christology background. His is not an academic aporoach.

Assistant: Below is an analysis comparing the interpretation of Quran 4:157 as rendered by Saint Murad with those of the tradition…

Below is an analysis comparing the interpretation of Quran 4:157 as rendered by Saint Murad with those of the traditional and Quran‑bil‑Quran methodologies—with particular attention to the criticism that Murad’s reading reflects an innate Christological background and lacks academic rigor.

Comparative Analysis of Q4:157 Interpretations

| Aspect | Traditional Approach (e.g., Yusuf Ali, classical tafsir) | Qur’an‑bil‑Qur’an Approach (e.g., Rashad Khalifa’s work) | Saint Murad’s Approach | | ------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Interpretative Basis | • Grounded in centuries‑old classical Arabic linguistics and established tafsir. • Emphasizes that “they did not kill him, nor crucify him” is understood as a divine intervention ensuring the miraculous preservation of Jesus’ status. | • Relies solely on internal cross‑referencing within the Quran, claiming that the text explains itself without external commentary. • Maintains that the verse’s wording is clear when read in the context of Quranic self‑explanation. | • Uses a highly literal, word‑by‑word translation and cross‑linguistic etymological analysis (e.g. tracing the Arabic term for “appeared” to Syriac roots). • This method often results in a reading that deviates from the classical consensus. | | Linguistic Methodology | • Upholds the integrity of classical Arabic usage as it has been understood by early scholars. • Prioritizes consistency with the language’s historical and cultural context. | • Favors an intra‑textual reading, where ambiguity is resolved by referring to other verses in the Quran, thus preserving the text’s self‑contained character. | • Emphasizes external etymological connections with related Semitic languages, suggesting that the apparent crucifixion is a matter of “appearance” derived from non‑Arabic cognates. • This may imply that the Quran’s language is not uniquely inimitable. | | Theological Implications | • Reinforces the belief in the Quran as the complete, divinely revealed word of Allah. • The verse is understood to confirm that a miraculous, God‑ordained intervention prevented actual crucifixion. | • Supports the idea that the Quran is coherent and self‑explanatory, where the divine message is internally consistent without relying on external interpretative frameworks. | • Critics argue that Murad’s method—by appealing to external linguistic origins—implicitly reduces the divine nature of the text to a human‑crafted product. • Such an interpretation can be seen as influenced by a Christological perspective that reinterprets the crucifixion narrative. | | Academic Reception | • Considered rigorous because it respects the historical, linguistic, and exegetical traditions developed over centuries. | • Valued for its internal consistency; its “self‑explanatory” methodology is appreciated among scholars who favor minimal reliance on later commentaries, though it can be seen as overly reductive. | • Often criticized for lacking academic rigor and for serving a polemical agenda rather than a methodologically sound exegesis. • Many scholars view this approach as reflecting personal or Christologically‑influenced biases rather than an objective analysis of the original Arabic text. |

Summary

• Traditional translations (like Yusuf Ali’s) and their associated tafsirs interpret Q4:157 within a long‑standing theological and linguistic framework that underscores the divine protection and miraculous nature of the event.
• Qur’an‑bil‑Qur’an translations aim to demonstrate that the Quran, through its own internal references, is complete and self‑interpreting—thus preserving its inherent unity and divinely given detail.
• In contrast, Saint Murad’s translation employs a cross‑linguistic, ultra‑literal methodology that some critics argue reflects an underlying Christological influence. This method tends to reinterpret key words (such as the term for “appeared”) in ways that depart from both classical exegesis and the Quran’s internal coherence. As a result, many scholars do not regard his work as academically rigorous; instead, they view it as a revisionist or polemical approach that casts doubt on the Quran’s inimitability.

In essence, accepting Murad’s interpretation—as some argue—is tantamount to accepting that the Quran’s language may be subject to human‑constructed, external reinterpretation rather than being the self‑contained, divinely complete revelation as traditionally understood.

User: Between Murad's and G.S.

Between Murad's and G.S. Reynold's translations of the Quran, the latter has a more neutral academic methodology, without Christology infusion.

Assistant: Below is a summary comparing Saint Murad’s translation with that of G.

Below is a summary comparing Saint Murad’s translation with that of G. S. Reynolds, highlighting their methodological differences and the consequent interpretative outcomes:

| Aspect | Saint Murad’s Translation | G. S. Reynolds’s Translation | | ------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Methodological Approach | • Employs an ultra‑literal, cross‑linguistic method that traces Arabic terms to related Semitic (especially Syriac) roots. | • Uses a neutral, academically grounded approach based on classical Arabic philology and contextual consistency. | | Theological Orientation | • Interprets key terms in ways that many critics argue reflect an underlying Christological bias; for instance, re‑reading words to suggest a human‑crafted or externally derived nuance. | • Maintains an interpretation that is free of extraneous theological overlays (such as Christological infusions), preserving the intrinsic meaning of the text. | | Exegesis and Context | • Tends to minimize or bypass classical exegetical tradition in favor of a word‑for‑word, etymological perspective, sometimes leading to departures from the Quran’s internal coherence. | • Pays careful attention to the Quran’s historical, linguistic, and contextual dimensions, aligning with conventional tafsir where appropriate. | | Academic Reception | • Viewed as revisionist and polemical by many scholars due to its heavy reliance on external linguistic comparisons, which some argue undermines the claim of the Quran’s divine inimitability. | • Considered more neutral and academically sound; it is respected for its balanced treatment of the Arabic language and its established context. | | Implications for Understanding | • By favoring a cross‑linguistic reconstruction, it risks suggesting that the Quran’s language is influenced by man‑made developments rather than being wholly divinely complete and self‑contained. | • Aims to convey the Quran’s inherent “completeness” and “full detail”—that every aspect of guidance (linguistic, historical, social, etc.) is present in the original text. |

In Summary

• Murad’s translation is characterized by its ultra‑literal, cross‑linguistic method that often re‑interprets key terms through the lens of related Semitic languages. Critics argue that this approach—infused with elements that may reflect a Christological perspective—tends to shift focus away from the Quran’s self‑contained, divinely complete message.
• G. S. Reynolds’s translation, on the other hand, adheres to a more neutral academic methodology. It draws on classical Arabic scholarship and context, and it avoids the theological extra‑layers (such as an infusion of Christology) found in Murad’s reading. This results in an interpretation that many scholars find more faithful to the Quran’s inherent claim to completeness and detailed guidance as conveyed in its own language.

Thus, while Murad’s work aims to challenge the traditional narrative by re‑examining the linguistic roots through an external, sometimes controversial perspective, Reynolds’s approach is generally seen as upholding the Quran’s internal coherence and divine self‑explanation.