Yusuf Ali or Pickthall

[Rival]

I've been reading the Quran lately and as an English only speaker I'm using translations. I am already familiar with this book, layout etc., but never paid much attention to translation. On a previous thread I asked @Debater Slayer about my Yusuf Ali translation and he approved it, and I like it too so it's my go to, but I've also recently bought the Pickthall translation, as well as owning the Sahih International translation, which isn't as positively reviewed by some.

For those who are more familiar, which mainstream English version do you use? I like to use paper books, not online, and have bought some second hand for lack of money, so I'm sticking to the 3 versions I already own. Which is the best and for what reason, strengths, weaknesses of each, etc?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Hi Rival. Am I ok to post in this thread? If not my apologies and can you let me know so I can delete it? Thanks.

As far as the Holy Quran. There is only one Quran - the Arabic one. All else are “interpretations“ some more accurate, some terrible. For example. One translation says not to befriend Christians but that’s not what the Arabic says and the Quran praises Christians in many passages. It says not to ally politically, morally and be subservient to Christian ethics and morals as many things Christians are free to do, are against Muslim laws for example drinking alcohol and gambling. So there may be ten meanings in Arabic but a lazy translator only lists one or two.

I use about 10 or more translations but am guided by the ‘spirit of the Quran’. The Quran never teaches violence or harm but to do good not evil. So when I come across a translation not in that spirit I cross check it with other translations and inevitably discover something has been left out or not translated properly. Another verse. 4:34 beating of women. With any punishment a number is always stipulated but none in this verse. Men traditionally before the Quran arrived beat their wives. This culture of wife beating was automatically assumed as being the intent of 4:34 yet other meanings in the Arabic infer to ‘stay away’ or abandon a wife if she is disobedient. Muhammad never beat His wives but walked away if there was a problem. A Book of God promoting love and harmony in marriage promoting wife beating? Again that is an assumption but God doesn’t promote violence nowhere in the Quran. So there are many ‘wrong or half-baked’ interpretations and translations of the Holy Quran. But it always promotes good not evil, peace not war and calmness never violence. That is what I believe and what guides me so I refer to many translations.

The two you have mentioned are good but some verses are better translated by others.

 

[sun rise]

For those who are more familiar, which mainstream English version do you use? I like to use paper books, not online, and have bought some second hand for lack of money, so I'm sticking to the 3 versions I already own. Which is the best and for what reason, strengths, weaknesses of each, etc?

I use about 10 or more translations but am guided by the ‘spirit of the Quran’.

I have not read the Quran cover to cover. But I have used multiple versions because translations inevitably put some of the translator into the version which is what @loverofhumanity noted in different words. Among other things, Quranic Arabic allows for different tenses in translation. 17:104 has illustrates that difference in at least one translation.

Some passages are translated just about the same in multiple versions. But some are a different matter such as my favorite example 17:104. Depending on how you read it, 17:104 prophesizes that the state of Israel will be born when the end times arrives which is a highly controversial interpretation, of course. Ayah al-Isra` (Children of Israel, The Israelites) 17:104 and The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation are multiple sources

And there's an even more interpretive translation by Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi:
"Pharoah sought to scare them [the Israelites] out of the land [of Israel]: but We [Allah] drowned him [Pharoah] together with all who were with him. Then We [Allah] said to the Israelites: 'Dwell in this land [the Land of Israel]. When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel]."

Of course how to interpret the Quran is another layer because Quranic exegesis depends on the date of revelation, the principle of succession of revelations and more that I don't know.

 

[Rival]

I have not read the Quran cover to cover. But I have used multiple versions because translations inevitably put some of the translator into the version which is what @loverofhumanity noted in different words. Among other things, Quranic Arabic allows for different tenses in translation. 17:104 has illustrates that difference in at least one translation.

Some passages are translated just about the same in multiple versions. But some are a different matter such as my favorite example 17:104. Depending on how you read it, 17:104 prophesizes that the state of Israel will be born when the end times arrives which is a highly controversial interpretation, of course. Ayah al-Isra` (Children of Israel, The Israelites) 17:104 and The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation are multiple sources

And there's an even more interpretive translation by Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi:
"Pharoah sought to scare them [the Israelites] out of the land [of Israel]: but We [Allah] drowned him [Pharoah] together with all who were with him. Then We [Allah] said to the Israelites: 'Dwell in this land [the Land of Israel]. When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel]."

Of course how to interpret the Quran is another layer because Quranic exegesis depends on the date of revelation, the principle of succession of revelations and more that I don't know.

This sounds more like the messianic prophecy that the 10 lost tribes will return to Israel. It's likely based on this.

 

[dybmh]

I use about 10 or more translations but am guided by the ‘spirit of the Quran’. The Quran never teaches violence or harm but to do good not evil. So when I come across a translation not in that spirit I cross check it with other translations and inevitably discover something has been left out or not translated properly.

When a translation doesn't feel right, my go-to is corpus.quran.com then I click on the "morphology" and research each word as best I can.

Isn't it amazing what is available in this modern world for free?

 

[Link]

A word you cannot translate in English is what appears a lot in the Quran in various forms. Wali, Awliya, Mawla, Mawali, Awla, Tawala, etc, the various forms, all actually just mean there is a relationship between x and y and you have to see the context to see the relationship that is established. If the context does not tell you the relationship (verses before and after), it means it would be a wrong usage of the word, since it can ONLY be defined DYNAMICALLY by CONTEXT. Wali emphasizes more on the x in the x to y relationship, while Mawla is emphasizing more of the y in the x to y relationship. But they aside from that has no difference, but just about emphasis and they are defined by context.

Yet translations all decide a particular word for it when usually it's chosen because there is more than one word in the relationship otherwise why not just use the one word? The context defines the many words attributed to the relationship and constraints of it.

What translations should have done in this regard, is explain this in the introduction, and then leave all those words untranslated.

 

[sun rise]

A word you cannot translate in English is what appears a lot in the Quran in various forms. Wali, Awliya, Mawla, Mawali, Awla, Tawala, etc, the various forms, all actually just mean there is a relationship between x and y and you have to see the context to see the relationship that is established. If the context does not tell you the relationship (verses before and after), it means it would be a wrong usage of the word, since it can ONLY be defined DYNAMICALLY by CONTEXT. Wali emphasizes more on the x in the x to y relationship, while Mawla is emphasizing more of the y in the x to y relationship. But they aside from that has no difference, but just about emphasis and they are defined by context.

Yet translations all decide a particular word for it when usually it's chosen because there is more than one word in the relationship otherwise why not just use the one word? The context defines the many words attributed to the relationship and constraints of it.

What translations should have done in this regard, is explain this in the introduction, and then leave all those words untranslated.

Thanks. I did not know that.

It's different but I'm reminded of words that can have multiple meanings, homonyms. The word "light" can mean illumination or weight. A poem might mean one or the other or both at the same time. In the case of "light" saying it's "light outside" is about illumination and "I feel light" about weight. A poem might be designed to evoke feeling that a weight is off your shoulders (weight) and the happiness that someone feels when emotional darkness is lifted (turning on a light switch). So, yes to your point about context.

 

[Link]

Thanks. I did not know that.

It's different but I'm reminded of words that can have multiple meanings, homonyms. The word "light" can mean illumination or weight. A poem might mean one or the other or both at the same time. In the case of "light" saying it's "light outside" is about illumination and "I feel light" about weight. A poem might be designed to evoke feeling that a weight is off your shoulders (weight) and the happiness that someone feels when emotional darkness is lifted (turning on a light switch). So, yes to your point about context.

The multiple meaning words exist in Arabic a lot as well. In English sometimes you can distinguish words for example "Knight" from "Night" because of the silent K, but in Arabic, it sounds the same. There are no silent letters nor do spelling differ when it sounds the same.

 

[stevecanuck]

I've been reading the Quran lately and as an English only speaker I'm using translations. I am already familiar with this book, layout etc., but never paid much attention to translation. On a previous thread I asked @Debater Slayer about my Yusuf Ali translation and he approved it, and I like it too so it's my go to, but I've also recently bought the Pickthall translation, as well as owning the Sahih International translation, which isn't as positively reviewed by some.

For those who are more familiar, which mainstream English version do you use? I like to use paper books, not online, and have bought some second hand for lack of money, so I'm sticking to the 3 versions I already own. Which is the best and for what reason, strengths, weaknesses of each, etc?

When I first read the Qur'an I saw a lot of references that I didn't understand. After I figured out what they meant I wished I'd known them all along. It would have made understanding it a lot easier. Here is the code I came up with. Others may disagree:

1. "Your companion" is Mohamed.
2. "Corruption" ('fasad' in Arabic) is any action or thought contrary to God's wishes as defined in the qur'an.
3. "Persecution" ('fitnah' in Arabic) usually refers to the actions of the pagans of Mecca for not allowing Muslim prayer in the Ka'aba.
4. "Drive you from your home" refers to Mohamed's flight from Mecca to Yathrib (later renamed Medina after Mohamed cleansed it of Jews).
5. "jihad" means struggle or strive. Context is needed to tell you if it refers to physical or personal struggle.
6. "Go forth in the cause of God" means fight.
7. "Leave your home in the cause of God" is the same as above.
8. "Strive with your property and your life" also means fight.
9. "That which was sent down before" is the bible (but mostly the O.T.).
10. "That which has been sent down to you (Mohamed)" refers to the Qur'an being revealed to Mohamed.
11. "People of the book" are Jews and Christians.
12. "Pagans or Idolaters" are the pagans of Mecca.
13. "Those in whose heart is a disease" is mostly used to describe the Bedouin Arab tribes that claimed to adopt Islam and promised to fight, but failed to show up for battle. They are frequently referred to as Hypocrites.
14. "Say..." is God speaking directly to Mohamed telling him what to preach.
15. "We" is God referring to himself in the third person plural.
16. "Host" is an army.
17. "Company" is also an army.
18. "Unseen host" is an army of angels.
19. "Grievous punishment, horrible destination, etc." is Hell.
20. "Jinn" is a demon (It is the origin of the English word "Genie").
21. "Our signs" refer to revelations in either the bible or the Qur'an, depending on context.
22. "The Hour" is Judgment Day.
23. "The Day" is Judgment Day.
24. "Partners" are any gods other than Allah.

 

[stevecanuck]

The Quran never teaches violence or harm ...

These are commands to commit violence taken from the Qur'an minus context. Most are explicit, but some do require context to understand that violence is the topic at hand, so I've added minimal explanation in square braces. Comments in parentheses are comments added by the original interpreters found in The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran. The purpose of this list is to prove that the Qur'an contains many verses that call for Muslims to kill.

- 2:190 "Fight in the cause of Allah".
- 2:191 "And slay them ... slay them".
- 2:193 "Fight with them".
- 2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you".
- 2:218 "those who ... fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah".
- 2:286 "give us victory over the disbelieving people".
- 8:12 "Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them".
- 8:17 "And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them".
- 8:39 "fight them".
- 8:65 "O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight".
- 3:143 "And certainly you desired death [martyrdom in battle]".
- 3:145 "in their fight for the cause of God".
- 3:146 "grant us victory over the unbelievers".
- 3:152 "when you slew them by His permission".
- 3:157 "And if you are slain in the way of Allah or you die, certainly forgiveness comes from Allah".
- 3:167 "Come now, fight in the way of God".
- 3:169 "Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead".
- 33:16 "Flight will not avail you if ye flee from death or killing".
- 33:18 "Allah knows those among you who do not come to the fight".
- 33:20 "They [Hypocrites] would not fight except for a little".
- 33:26 "some you [Mohamed] killed"
- 33:61 "wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering".
- 4:71 "Believers, march [to battle] in small groups or all together".
- 4:74 "Those who want to buy the life hereafter with this life should fight for the cause of God".
- 4:75 "And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah".
- 4:76 "Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of Satan. Fight therefore against the friends of Satan".
- 4:77 "when the fighting was ordained for them ... they say: 'Our Lord! Why have you ordained fighting for us?'"
- 4:84 "Then fight in Allah's cause ... and rouse the believers".
- 4:89 "seize them and slay them wherever ye find them".
- 4:91 "seize them and slay them".
- 4:94 "go forth [to fight] in the cause of Allah".
- 4:95 "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) ... to those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah".
" Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight".
"Those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home)".
- 4:110 "Forsake your home in the cause of Allah".
- 4:104 "Relent not in pursuit of the enemy".

.... continued (yes, too many for one post).

 

[stevecanuck]

- 47:4 "So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike their necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them ...".
"God could have taken vengeance upon them, but (He ordered armed struggle) to test some of you ...".
"Those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds".
- 47:20 through 47:23 "when a precise surah is revealed and fighting is mentioned therein, you see those in whose hearts is hypocrisy looking at you with a look of one overcome by death... when the matter (preparation for Jihad) is resolved, then if they had been true to Allah [by fighting], it would have been better for them".
- 47:31 "We will surely test you until We make evident those who strive [wage jihad]".
- 47:35 "So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior".
- 22:58 "Those who emigrated for the cause of Allah and then were killed or died - Allah will surely provide for them a good provision".
- 49:15 "The believers ... strive with their properties and their lives in the cause of Allah".
- 66:9 "O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them".
- 61:4 "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure".
- 61:10 through 61:13 "Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty? You shall believe in Allah and His Messenger, and struggle hard in Allah's way with your property and your lives. He will admit you to Gardens. and other things you love, help from God and a nigh victory".
- 48:16 "You shall be called against a people possessed of great might to fight them".
- 48:29 "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers".
- 5:33 "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified".
- 5:35 - "O ye who believe! ... strive in His way".
- 5:54 "mighty against the unbelievers, they shall strive hard in Allah's way".
- 9;5, "kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush".
- 9:13 "Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first".
- 9:14 "Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands".
- 9:16 "Do you think that you will be left (as you are) while Allah has not yet made evident those among you who strive (for His cause)".
- 9:19 "strives in the cause of Allah".
- 9:20 "The ones who have believed, emigrated and striven in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives".
- 9:29 "Fight against those who have been given the Scripture [Jews and Christians]".
- 9:30 "The Christians say the Messiah is the son of Allah ... May Allah destroy them".
- 9:36 "Fight against the disbelievers".
- 9:38 "What is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth?".
- 9:39 "If you do not go forth, He will punish you".
- 9:41 "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah".
- 9:44 "Those who believe in God and the Day of Judgment do not ask you whether they should fight for the cause of God".
- 9:45 "It is only those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts are in doubt that ask your leave (to be exempted from Jihad)" [clarification added by Mohsin Khan translation].
- 9:52 "Can you expect for us (any fate) other than one of two glorious things- (Martyrdom or victory)?".
- 9:73 "O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them".
- 9:81 "they hated to strive and fight with their properties and their lives in the Cause of Allah''.
- 9:86 "Believe in Allah and strive hard along with His Messenger".
- 9:88 "But the messenger and those who believe with him strive with their wealth and their lives".
- 9:93 "The blameworthy ones are those who ask for exemption [from fighting] despite their ability".
- 9:111 "Surely Allah has bought from the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain".
- 9:123 "Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you"

 

[dybmh]

Is there a translation that prevents cherry picking? ( Kidding )

 

[loverofhumanity]

These are commands to commit violence taken from the Qur'an minus context. Most are explicit, but some do require context to understand that violence is the topic at hand, so I've added minimal explanation in square braces. Comments in parentheses are comments added by the original interpreters found in The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran. The purpose of this list is to prove that the Qur'an contains many verses that call for Muslims to kill.

- 2:190 "Fight in the cause of Allah".
- 2:191 "And slay them ... slay them".
- 2:193 "Fight with them".
- 2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you".
- 2:218 "those who ... fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah".
- 2:286 "give us victory over the disbelieving people".
- 8:12 "Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them".
- 8:17 "And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them".
- 8:39 "fight them".
- 8:65 "O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight".
- 3:143 "And certainly you desired death [martyrdom in battle]".
- 3:145 "in their fight for the cause of God".
- 3:146 "grant us victory over the unbelievers".
- 3:152 "when you slew them by His permission".
- 3:157 "And if you are slain in the way of Allah or you die, certainly forgiveness comes from Allah".
- 3:167 "Come now, fight in the way of God".
- 3:169 "Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead".
- 33:16 "Flight will not avail you if ye flee from death or killing".
- 33:18 "Allah knows those among you who do not come to the fight".
- 33:20 "They [Hypocrites] would not fight except for a little".
- 33:26 "some you [Mohamed] killed"
- 33:61 "wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering".
- 4:71 "Believers, march [to battle] in small groups or all together".
- 4:74 "Those who want to buy the life hereafter with this life should fight for the cause of God".
- 4:75 "And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah".
- 4:76 "Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of Satan. Fight therefore against the friends of Satan".
- 4:77 "when the fighting was ordained for them ... they say: 'Our Lord! Why have you ordained fighting for us?'"
- 4:84 "Then fight in Allah's cause ... and rouse the believers".
- 4:89 "seize them and slay them wherever ye find them".
- 4:91 "seize them and slay them".
- 4:94 "go forth [to fight] in the cause of Allah".
- 4:95 "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) ... to those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah".
" Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight".
"Those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home)".
- 4:110 "Forsake your home in the cause of Allah".
- 4:104 "Relent not in pursuit of the enemy".

.... continued (yes, too many for one post).

Minus the context is what proves the Quran does not teach violence because you have to remove the context to make such a claim. There is absolutely no violence taught in the Quran. Only self defense, which is the unalienable right of every nation and people on earth which is attacked. The ’enemy’ are those who attacked Muslims for believing in one God, destroyed their homes, seized their possessions and tortured and killed them to try and force them to recant their faith. They eventually were forced into exile or be killed. After they reached Medina Muhammad received this verse telling Muslims to defend themselves even though they were against fighting. Self defense is a cornerstone of western democracy and a main teaching of the Quran. There is NO teaching in the Quran to conquer countries and force people to accept Islam. “There is no compulsion in religion” (Quran) But later, after the death of Muhammad, the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties disobeyed the Quran and went conquering. But that is not and never has been a law of the Quran. Just like Christians went on the Crusades yet in the Bible it clearly states ‘Thou shalt not kill’. Holy Books teach good and peace but people do not always obey which is why the world is the way it is. If people obeyed the law “love one another” there would be peace and prosperity everywhere.

Here is from various translators what the Quran really teaches with regards to attacking others.

2: 190 And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for GOD loveth not the transgressors.

George Sale

2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

J M Rodwell


2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.

N J Dawood


2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.


Marmaduke Pickthall


2:190 AND FIGHT in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression –for, verily, God does not love aggressors.

Muhammad Assad


[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.

Rashad Khalifa

 

[sun rise]

There's also the positive injunction to "incline to peace" if "they" incline to peace Surah Al-Anfal Ayat 61 (8:61 Quran) With Tafsir - My Islam

 

[loverofhumanity]

There's also the positive injunction to "incline to peace" if "they" incline to peace Surah Al-Anfal Ayat 61 (8:61 Quran) With Tafsir - My Islam

Yes that and many other such similar quotes. Thanks for mentioning that one.

 

[stevecanuck]

Is there a translation that prevents cherry picking? ( Kidding )

How many 'cherries' does it take to prove someone wrong? He made the very unambiguous claim the "the Quran does not teach violence", and I proved that's not true. Seriously, how does it not?

 

[exchemist]

Hi Rival. Am I ok to post in this thread? If not my apologies and can you let me know so I can delete it? Thanks.

As far as the Holy Quran. There is only one Quran - the Arabic one. All else are “interpretations“ some more accurate, some terrible. For example. One translation says not to befriend Christians but that’s not what the Arabic says and the Quran praises Christians in many passages. It says not to ally politically, morally and be subservient to Christian ethics and morals as many things Christians are free to do, are against Muslim laws for example drinking alcohol and gambling. So there may be ten meanings in Arabic but a lazy translator only lists one or two.

I use about 10 or more translations but am guided by the ‘spirit of the Quran’. The Quran never teaches violence or harm but to do good not evil. So when I come across a translation not in that spirit I cross check it with other translations and inevitably discover something has been left out or not translated properly. Another verse. 4:34 beating of women. With any punishment a number is always stipulated but none in this verse. Men traditionally before the Quran arrived beat their wives. This culture of wife beating was automatically assumed as being the intent of 4:34 yet other meanings in the Arabic infer to ‘stay away’ or abandon a wife if she is disobedient. Muhammad never beat His wives but walked away if there was a problem. A Book of God promoting love and harmony in marriage promoting wife beating? Again that is an assumption but God doesn’t promote violence nowhere in the Quran. So there are many ‘wrong or half-baked’ interpretations and translations of the Holy Quran. But it always promotes good not evil, peace not war and calmness never violence. That is what I believe and what guides me so I refer to many translations.

The two you have mentioned are good but some verses are better translated by others.

This is preaching rather than answering the academic question posed by the OP. It risks taking the thread off-topic.

 

[Link]

How many 'cherries' does it take to prove someone wrong? He made the very unambiguous claim the "the Quran does not teach violence", and I proved that's not true. Seriously, how does it not?

Reactive parrying, is not violence. It's a reaction to violence.

 

[stevecanuck]

Minus the context is what proves the Quran does not teach violence because you have to remove the context to make such a claim. There is absolutely no violence taught in the Quran. Only self defense, which is the unalienable right of every nation and people on earth which is attacked. The ’enemy’ are those who attacked Muslims for believing in one God, destroyed their homes, seized their possessions and tortured and killed them to try and force them to recant their faith. They eventually were forced into exile or be killed. After they reached Medina Muhammad received this verse telling Muslims to defend themselves even though they were against fighting. Self defense is a cornerstone of western democracy and a main teaching of the Quran. There is NO teaching in the Quran to conquer countries and force people to accept Islam. “There is no compulsion in religion” (Quran) But later, after the death of Muhammad, the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties disobeyed the Quran and went conquering. But that is not and never has been a law of the Quran. Just like Christians went on the Crusades yet in the Bible it clearly states ‘Thou shalt not kill’. Holy Books teach good and peace but people do not always obey which is why the world is the way it is. If people obeyed the law “love one another” there would be peace and prosperity everywhere.

Here is from various translators what the Quran really teaches with regards to attacking others.

2: 190 And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for GOD loveth not the transgressors.

George Sale

2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

J M Rodwell


2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.

N J Dawood


2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.


Marmaduke Pickthall


2:190 AND FIGHT in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression –for, verily, God does not love aggressors.

Muhammad Assad


[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.

Rashad Khalifa

And then comes 2:191 with a caveat that you conveniently ignored - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."

The Meccans and Muslims had not yet gone to war, so the criterion for fighting in 2:190 (fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you), did not apply, so Mohamed couldn't use that excuse to fight the Meccans. He immediately solved that problem in 2:191 by providing a work-around that moves the goal posts in such a vague and open-end manner as to designate virtually any unbeliever an enemy.

The importance of the definition of 'fitnah', and of adding it to self defense as the basis for which Muslims can justify attacking non-Muslims, cannot be stressed enough. 'Fitnah' is described in various English translations as any action that either impedes the practice of Islam ("suppresses faith") or simply violates any of God's commandments. The only 'crimes' the Meccans had committed against Islam were to "deny God's signs" (refuse to adopt Islam), and to 'desecrate' the Kaaba by using it for polytheist prayer. But, thanks to verse 2:191, it became enough to warrant attack.

Verse 2:191 is noteworthy for another reason. Although it targeted the pagans of Mecca, it demonstrates a method of instruction commonly used in the Qur'an. While the first part of the verse is specific to a given circumstance, the concluding statement is generic and suggestive of a wider application. In this case, "Such is the reward of those who suppress faith", implies that military action would be an appropriate response against any person, tribe, or nation deemed guilty of 'suppressing faith'.

 

[stevecanuck]

There's also the positive injunction to "incline to peace" if "they" incline to peace Surah Al-Anfal Ayat 61 (8:61 Quran) With Tafsir - My Islam

All that means is that if they incline to ISLAM. Otherwise it makes no sense. If you attack someone who wants peace, and then stop fighting them when they ask for it, then why attack them in the first place?