RQR | Review of Qur’anic Research

Shari Lowin, Editor

rqr@iqsaweb.org
www.iqsaweb.org

Review of Qur’anic Research, vol. 5, no. 4 (2019)

Abdur Raheem KIDWAI

God’s Word, Man’s Interpretations: A Critical Study of

the 21st Century Translations of the Quran

New Delhi: Viva Books, 2018. Pp. xvii + 178.

Paperback Rs 695. ISBN 978-9387486294

Colleagues and fellow scholars of Islam, how many times have you been asked about the

best English translations of the Qurʾān and how many times have you mumbled in response

something along the lines of “Arberry is good, there is Yusuf Ali, Abdel Haleem’s is more recent

I guess”? Abdur Raheem Kidwai’s God’s Word, Man’s Interpretations is the book to read for a

better, more learned answer concerning the English translations of the Qurʾān that have

appeared since 2000. Kidwai’s admirable effort in this book can truly spare the scholars of

Islam the time of sifting through the ever-growing numbers of recent translations—that is, if

one can look past his unflinching policing on behalf of the Sunni-Jamāʿī interpretations of the

Qurʾān and his unapologetic disdain for every other approach to the Qurʾān including what he

calls “the Orientalist enterprise” (142).

RQR | Review of Qur’anic Research
Shari Lowin, Editor
rqr@iqsaweb.org
www.iqsaweb.org

Kidwai’s book is organized as short book reviews (from 2 to 6–7 pages, except in the

case of one 11-page outlier) evaluating thirty-two English Qurʾān translations published

between 2000 and 2017. In addition, the book has a short preface and an appendix titled “Tafsir

Studies: An Assessment of the Orientalist Enterprise,” both written by the author, as well as a

comprehensive bibliography of studies on Qurʾān translation prepared by Sajid Shaffi. The

back cover of the book has a brief blurb about Kidwai, which states that the author has two

Ph.D. degrees in English, one from the University of Leicester and the other from the Aligarh

Muslim University, the latter being the place where he currently teaches. As a professor of

English and the director of a center for Qurʾānic Studies at the Aligarh Muslim University who

has published comprehensive works on the matter, including Bibliography of the English

Translations of the Qurʾan 1649–2002 (2008) and Translating the Untranslatable—A Critical Guide to 60

English Translations of Qurʾan (2011), Kidwai seems to have the essential credentials for writing

about Qurʾān translations in English. The book under review should be considered, therefore,

as an update to his earlier works.

Kidwai lays out some of his criteria for evaluating the Qurʾān translations in the preface

of the book; others can be gleaned from his comments on particular works. He frankly

acknowledges in the preface that part of the impetus for writing both this book and previous

ones is to provide a quality control filter for unsuspecting readers, especially Muslims, who

may unwittingly read a “tendentious translation” composed by “an Orientalist or a sectarian

zealot” and “fill their heart and mind with what the Qur’an does not intend at all” (xi). He

notes the increase in the number of Qurʾān translations written by Muslims in recent years but

he is quick to stress that the Muslim name of a translator is not a guarantee for the quality of
RQR | Review of Qur’anic Research
Shari Lowin, Editor
rqr@iqsaweb.org
www.iqsaweb.org

the work nor for his endorsement of the translation. A case in point is his harsh treatment of a

translation by two Ahmadi authors, Amatul Rahman Omar and Abdul Mannan Omar.1

What, then, makes a Qurʾān translation satisfactory in Kidwai’s opinion? Even though

he never states this explicitly in the preface or elsewhere in the book, Kidwai appears to look

for in a translation faithfulness to what he calls the “mainstream Islamic stance” (mentioned

in page 23 and again in page 91), “in accordance with the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamah

[sic]” (91). Accordingly, any translation of the Qurʾān that is “dismissive of the divine origin of

the Quran, the Prophet’s integrity, the authenticity of the Quranic text and the sound

credentials of the Prophet’s Companions, Hadith and all things Islamic” (xv) receives

unfavorable reviews from Kidwai regardless of the translator’s professed identity as a Muslim.

Kidwai finds many recent translations of the Qurʾān lacking in this respect. He criticizes

ʿAli Quli Qara’i for his “Shīʿa stance” (16), Edip Yuksel and Ijaz Chaudry for submitting to

Rashad Khalifa’s Nineteeners school,2 Kader Abdolah for his rejection of the Qurʾān’s divine

origin, the previously mentioned Omars for their Ahmadi interpretations, Tahirul Mohammad

Qadri for his stress on saint veneration and extreme reverence for the Prophet, and Laleh

Bakhtiar for her feminist readings of certain verses (particularly Q Nisāʾ 4:34). Of the three

non-Muslim authors whose work he reviewed in this book, Alan Jones and A. J. Droge bear the

brunt of his “Orientalist” censure as they “resurrect almost all the Medieval misconceptions

and misperceptions about Islam and the Quran” and “seek to discredit the text of the Quran,

dismiss its contents as a poor replica of the Judaeo-Christian material and reject the Quran as a

‘problematic and obscure work’” (xiv). Thomas Cleary’s translation, on the other hand, is

1
Kidwai refers to Ahmadis throughout the book as “Qadyanis,” after the name of the town where their leader
Ghulam Ahmad was born. I will avoid using this term as it is considered pejorative by the Ahmadis themselves.
2
Followers of Rashad Khalifa (1935–1990), an Egyptian-American biochemist and Qurʾān dilettante, believe that
number 19 is the secret code of the Qurʾān and the foundation of its mathematical miracle.
RQR | Review of Qur’anic Research
Shari Lowin, Editor
rqr@iqsaweb.org
www.iqsaweb.org

commended for approaching the Qurʾān on its own terms and “introducing Islam and the

Quran as Muslims believe” (5). Amid all the scathing criticism that Kidwai reserves for many

recent Qurʾān translations, what is really commendable, however, is that he does not use

translators’ backgrounds as props for ad hominem vitriol. Rather, he gives specific examples as

to how the different perspectives of the translators surface in their interpretations and how

these interpretations fare in view of the principles of what he believes to be the orthodoxy and

orthopraxy of Sunni Islam.

As a second criterion, Kidwai asserts that a Qurʾān translation should help readers

“advance their understanding of the Quran’s meaning and message,” a phrase that he uses no

fewer than eight times in slightly different wordings (4, 34, 49, 53, 115, 124, 137, and 141). What

he seems to mean by this is that it is incumbent upon the translator to make readers

appreciate the Qurʾān’s “life-giving and spiritually invigorating message” (121, but also 129).

Since, however, the Qurʾān is full of “terms, concepts, personalities, geo-historical allusions,

and juristic rulings” (53), for him a translation should have a reader-friendly introduction and

explanatory notes. Kidwai bashes many translators—including Muhammad Mahmud Ghali,

Muhammad Sharif Chaudhary and Abdalhaqq and Aisha Bewley—for not providing any

parenthetical or independent notes, or for not having enough of them. Some translators are

criticized for not steering clear of isrāʾīliyyāt in their explanatory notes (Assad Busool, Kader

Abdolah, Mustafa Khattab) and others, such as M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, for “inane observations”

in their notes (12). It is rather contradictory, I must say, that while Kidwai takes issue with

translators who describe certain verses of the Qurʾān as obscure or vague (xiv, 29, and 106), he

nonetheless demands that they pepper their translations with comprehensive notes so as to

clear up any ambiguity. He is right, however, in his disapproval of translations that leave
RQR | Review of Qur’anic Research
Shari Lowin, Editor
rqr@iqsaweb.org
www.iqsaweb.org

certain Arabic terms, such as taqwā or zakāt, untranslated without offering a glossary of such

terms (118).

Still in the spirit of bringing out the Qurʾān’s life-enriching message, Kidwai reserves

special praise for translations that address contemporary issues that the Muslim world faces

and those that dispel prejudices concerning the Qurʾān in particular and Islam in general. His

appreciation for Wahiduddin Khan’s translation of jihād as “peaceful ideological struggle” (59)

or for Tahirul Muhammad Qadri’s interpretation of fasād fī’l-arḍ as “terrorism and massacre

amongst Muslims” (80) gives away Kidwai’s predilection for translations that mine the Qurʾān

for messages of relevance to the contemporary world. Yet he insists that such readings into

the qurʾānic text be executed cautiously in order not to make the Qurʾān subservient to

fashionable trends and ideologies. For example, he criticizes Laleh Bakhtiar and Assad Nimer

Busool for translating the phrase wa-ḍribūhunna (“and strike them [disobedient wives]”) in Q

4:34 as “go away from them” and “make love to them” respectively. For Kidwai, such

interpretations are desperate attempts for apologetics by “heretic, feminist translators” (72).

He is equally displeased by interpretations of certain verses in the Qurʾān as prognostications

of scientific discoveries.

A very useful feature of Kidwai’s evaluations is his discussion of each translation’s

language and readability. As a professor of English he is alert to unidiomatic usages, obsolete

expressions, and infelicitous performance of style, grammar, and syntax. He fittingly

comments in his review of Assad Nimer Busool’s translation that “a translator must enjoy

command over the target language” in order not to put off the reader regardless of his or her

mastery of Qurʾānic Arabic (71). It is a testimony to Kidwai’s diligent scholarship that he can

cite copious examples of inelegant English for nearly all of the thirty-two translations he
RQR | Review of Qur’anic Research
Shari Lowin, Editor
rqr@iqsaweb.org
www.iqsaweb.org

reviews in this book. Yet he also applauds what he calls the “chaste” English of some

translators, including Ahmad Zaki Hammad and Tarif Khalidi, and he notes particular cases

where their interpretations improve on earlier renditions by Marmaduke Pickthall and

Abdullah Yusuf Ali.

Speaking of Pickthall’s and Yusuf Ali’s popular translations, the most fascinating

sections of Kidwai’s book in my opinion are those where he catches many twenty-first century

translators of the Qurʾān red-handed as they blatantly steal from these two translations, as

well as from that of A. J. Arberry, without any acknowledgments. In some cases, the

appropriation is verbatim and therefore easy to spot, but translators often strip away the

archaisms of earlier translations making it harder to detect the instances of plagiarism in the

final, doctored product. Thanks to Kidwai’s erudition and meticulousness, however, we now

know that seven out of the thirty-two translations reviewed in the book are guilty of directly

lifting large sections from earlier translations.

Now that I have listed Kidwai’s criteria for a satisfactory Qurʾān translation one might

wonder which twenty-first century translations receive positive reviews from him. Towards

the end of the book Kidwai reveals his preference without equivocation: “amid more than 90

complete English translations,” including those published before the year 2000, that he

reviewed in previous books, only the translations of Ahmad Zaki Hammad (2007), Tarif Khalidi

(2008), and Mustafa Khattab (2016) enjoy his wholehearted endorsement and “may be

recommended to readers, Muslims and non-Muslims alike” (128). Kidwai’s survey ends in 2017,

the last entry being on the translation by the so-called “Monotheist Group” published that
RQR | Review of Qur’anic Research
Shari Lowin, Editor
rqr@iqsaweb.org
www.iqsaweb.org

year.3 I find it rather puzzling and consider it as a missed opportunity that the author did not

evaluate in this book The Study Quran (edited by S. H. Nasr et al.), an important addition to

scholarship on the Qurʾān by any measure, considering especially that the latter was published

in 2015, three years before the appearance of the Kidwai’s book and two years before the last

translation reviewed in it.

Much can be said about the disturbingly acerbic tone of the book when it comes to any

readings of the Qurʾān that break from the author’s own outlook, including the Shiʿi, Ahmadi,

feminist, and critical scholarly interpretations. Perhaps we should take solace in the fact that

Kidwai is very consistent in his commitment to his particular strand of qurʾānic interpretation

and in his cold attitude towards what others might cherish as a rich diversity of opinions.

I would be remiss, however, if I did not talk briefly about Kidwai’s use of the label

“Orientalist” in the book. This is a catch-all term for Kidwai—a kind of boogeyman—standing

for all non-Muslim, western scholars who question the divine origin of the Qurʾān, probe the

process of its textual transmission, point out its parallels with Judeo-Christian texts, or use

anything but laudatory terms for its style. Within the parameters of this broad definition all

nuance is lost and the works of a large swathe of scholars, however dissimilar they might be

from each other, are irredeemably dismissed for serving to the “Orientalist enterprise.” For

example, it is disappointing to see that Kidwai mentions the names of Ignaz Goldziher, Jane

Dammen McAuliffe, Theodor Nöldeke, Andrew Rippin, Kers Versteegh, and John Wansbrough

(his own list cited on page 143) all in the same breath and condemns their works without the

slightest effort to identify any degree of distinction among them. Still more unfortunate is his

3
The preface of this translation states that The Qurʾan: A Monotheist Translation is the result of a group effort by
people who do not belong to any denomination, and, for the first time in many centuries, are simply proud to call
themselves “Muslims,” submitting to God alone.
RQR | Review of Qur’anic Research
Shari Lowin, Editor
rqr@iqsaweb.org
www.iqsaweb.org

insinuation in the appendix about the recent tafsīr studies that these “Orientalists” conspire

among each other to “[authenticate] each other’s fallacious notions about the tafsir corpus”

(144). It is high time this indiscriminate and wholesale orientalist-bashing should come to an

end.

All in all, this book could prove to be a helpful resource as long as the reader is aware of

the author’s personal and scholarly inclinations. The extensive bibliography of books, articles,

and dissertations on Qurʾān translation studies prepared by Sajid Shaffi and appended to the

end of the book should be especially commended. The book, however, is regrettably

beleaguered by numerous typos, mistakes of punctuation, and inconsistent transliteration;

considering the author’s attentiveness to the correct use of language I would rather blame it

on poor editing.

Suleyman Dost
Brandeis University