Thank you also Wakas for your resources, and to the others for the welcome. I certainly would not expect any perfect translation of any writing, as that is always an issue, whether religious or secular literature. It is commonly held in Christian studies of Holy Scripture that it is good to have many translations, since they will all have their pros and cons, and knowing the original languages can be a big help. On the other hand it would seem to me that God does not expect us to all be scholars and intellectuals, given that He made many people with various capacities, and that people have been holy without much studying or instruction. But it would still be good, if possible, to avoid beginning with a translation known to be extra biased. I will look into those ones you mentioned.

The forum is dominated by those who follow a Quran based islam. This is unlike most Muslim forums.

Thanks, I was just looking for an approximation. Avoiding labels is fine, but a little indication at least makes a difference considering another forum might be dominated by Muslims of a very different set of views!

Your link to quran434 looks very interesting. I appreciate the endeavor to go about your studies in a logical way--and also the note headed under "Time", considering that, if we are dealing with divine mysteries, I would expect that they will at some time or another elude our human understanding, or at least be more than we have time for, either right now or for this life.

I will also take a look at the section about grammar when I get the chance, because I have found the Quran to have an interesting sort of grammar, which is sometimes confusing. I don't know whether those links will help me unless I am really trying to learn Arabic, which I'm not, or if there is something there where I can get a better general sense of how its sentences are phrased, so that at least I mistake the surface meaning due to grammar.

Hello Good Logic.
Thank you for the links. I read through them. What do you mean when you say "there is no religion called..."? Do you mean that those are false religions, or that they are not really religions at all? Or that there is no essential distinction between religions as long they lead to submission to the one God? Or do you mean something else?

You said, among the others, that there is also no religion called Islam, but that there is God's religion. Your first link says earlier Scriptures taught this religion which is taught by the Quran is that only the Old and New Testaments, or does that go for others? Do you believe the Quran is a fuller and more reliable source of revealing this religion? Would it be wrong to give it some other name; and if so, why not Islam? Why not say, for example, I believe that the true Islam is the Islam which is guided by no writings except the Qur'an? Is it perhaps that you consider it more something you do (to submit to God) rather than a "thing" to be believed? I recently read, in the midst of some of the dietary ordinances, "This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed my favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion..." (53). Would you say, perhaps, that this could just as well have been translated "and chosen for you submission (to God) as a religion," and that this would more closely convey your view of this religion as something universal and not exclusive to the Quran?

But you do also call it God's system, and the Quran does sound to me to describe something of a system, one with various specific requirements (ordinances, instructions, prohibitions) and beliefs that must be kept (such as the resurrection)--some which are to be found in other religions but some which as far as I know are not part of other religions or are even contrary to other religions. Do any of these differences need to be reconciled, or are they not necessarily hindrances to submission to God? While reading the Quran and its various commandments and principles it teaches, if I am to give it its due respect, I would assume these were written in order to be followed. This caused me to wonder what precisely the first link means by, "GOD could not have made His message any simpler than being 'universal'". As an example of this universal simplicity it quotes 2125 "We did not send any messenger before you except with the inspiration ?There is no god except Me; you shall serve/worship Me alone."" I'm reminded of when Christ explained that the love of God is the greatest commandment and love of neighbor is the second greatest, and He then says, "On these two commandments, all the law and the prophets depend" (Matt 2240). Therefore having this always in mind, we are not dispensed from following all the other teachings, some being more on the particular side and some more universal; on the contrary, the love of God and neighbor--in itself simple and universal--implies and motivates adherence to all the other teachings. Is this similar to what you believe regarding the Quran, that to know that there is one God and to serve and worship Him alone implies and motivates the following of all the other teachings of the Quran? Or is living by the other commandments in the Quran not an necessary part of what it means to serve and worship the one God for those who know Him?

Sorry this is so many questions at once, and some of them are redundant, but they're all meant to clarify what it is you all believe here.

Hello human titled Jafar. Thank you for sharing your perspective on this. I have noticed a tendency to avoid labels and sources of religion outside of the Qur'an on this website, so I am glad you give some more explanation of how you see it. As far as I can tell, this may well be itself another form of Islam, whether you avoid labeling it or not; but if that is not so, perhaps you can share something to clarify.
To be clear, even if you do not associate with such words as Muslim and Islam, do you consider the Qur'an to be the primary (or exclusive) source of revelation from God to man? You seemed to say it also has man for it's author, or is that only if it isn't Arabic, or did I misunderstand you? Do you consider the Qur'an in any way unique with regard to this general rule that whatever man writes contains bias?

I have various thoughts concerning the potential problems and uses and benefits of labels, but I'm much more interested in hearing the thoughts of people who strive to live by the Qur'an and am hoping they can indicate a more or less authentic understanding of what is essential to their beliefs and way of life, even if they disagree on many particulars. Not that I'm not interested in hearing about the particulars too.
Being new to reading the Qur'an, I have no way yet of knowing whether your way of approaching your beliefs is more faithful to the Qur'an's teachings than that of those who do use labels. It doesn't seem to be from what I've read so far, but what do I know?-- perhaps you can explain.

I thought the mention of my religion might matter to some people so I mentioned it. If it doesn't matter to you, great. To try to give a quick answer, by wholly orthodox, I mean I believe that God gives the fullness of His revelation to man through His Catholic Church specifically and uniquely, and that, trusting His authority above my own judgment, I therefore believe all the Church's official teachings.

Well, I'm interested to hear something of what you believe concerning islam without the I and the Qur'an, so feel free to elaborate. Thanks for your time.

And thank you good logic and Wakas, I will take a look at your links soon.

Hello Free-Minds forum, I recently began reading the Qur'an, and have so far only a vague idea of what makes Islam what it is.

The version/translation/interpretation I have is the Tahrike Tarsile (1999), just because that was what I happened to find. Could you give me your takes on how this translation compares to others? Do you consider it faithful, as far as translations go? Does it have particular biases? Would those biases necessarily obscure the text? In what ways? I read an article which said it is a Shi'ite translation which was originally printed with many footnotes explaining Shi'a doctrine, but my copy appears to be the same translation but without the footnotes.

How much do you consider that one ought to take into account the branch or sub-branch, sect, denomination, etc. of translators/interpreters?

What do you consider to be the most faithful English version?

Just so you know something about who is asking, I am a Catholic Christian. I strive my best to be wholly orthodox and am at times frustrated with misrepresentations of my own religion, so I would like to try my best to avoid misrepresenting Islam as I go about these studies. That is why I am asking you, Muslims, rather than simply consulting Islam's critics, and rather than simply reading the Qur'an and trying to interpret it at face-value. Therefore, I welcome detailed and thoughtful answers! I may have some more specific questions later about what I have read so far. Anything else you think I ought to know about the Qur'an or the issue of translation and interpretation would be appreciated.

Thank you for your time and God bless you!