Salam to all friends. I think you all do know that Injeel, Torah, Zaboor have been corrupted. As I was thinking about reasons of their corruption I thought main reason was translations. Since long Bible is translated from Hebrew to Greek. Then from Greek to English. Then from English to Urdu. Then from Urdu to Pashto. So the bible in Pashto is very much varied than bible in original Hebrew. There are English, Urdu, Greek etc. versions of bible and the bible in English doesn't have original Hebrew with it. Same is for other languages. In the same time the reason that Quran is not corrupted(there are many but I am discussing one according to my point of view) is that Quran doesn't have English or Urdu or Hindi or Persian version instead with all translations Arabic Quran is also inscribed which reduces the options of being corrupted.

So my question is that here in community, some people quote just translations from Quran without original Arabic. What should we do with them? Should we flag that or edit that or leave that be as that is? Now don't say "Hey! Don't worry. It isn't that much great problem. It will have no effect." But I would say that we have to protect our scriptures by every possible method and Allah will help us in this. I agree it won't create a problem in this century or the next. But if we promoted this then it might become a habit and maybe after a thousand or two thousand years later we would face problems. Now don't say "Hey! Are you crazy! Protection of Quran is Allah's responsibility. Not ours." Indeed, Allah will protect it but we should do what we are meant to do.

  • I'm not a Muslim, but AFAIK, that's not the reason Muslims believe the Torah is corrupted. Jews still use the Hebrew version of the Torah.
    – Daniel
    Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 15:59
  • @Daniel You are very much right! But I said it was a humble thought of mine. By the way, I would like to ask you Do you understand Hebrew Torah and you should give me the honest answer.... Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 16:01
  • Yes I do. I don't always understand every single word, but I understand almost all of it.
    – Daniel
    Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 16:02
  • @Daniel You are great then. But about 99% Christians whom I have met don't understand Hebrew Bible and I have not met any Jew except you. Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 16:05
  • Lots of Jews do understand the Hebrew bible in Hebrew. And AFAIK, Muslims would still consider that version of the Torah to be corrupted. So it doesn't seem that translation is the issue.
    – Daniel
    Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 16:06
  • @Daniel You are 99.9% right my brother. But I said it was my thought and just a risk. Muslims don't believe of corruption of old and new testaments because of translation but I consider it as a factor for the 0.1% corruption and difference between the different versions of these testaments. By the way, do you people believe that these testaments are corrupted? What do you think about Muslims' comments about their corruption? Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 16:11
  • 1
    We can discuss that in chat. I don't think it's particularly relevant to this post.
    – Daniel
    Commented Aug 21, 2015 at 16:34

2 Answers 2


It is important to remember that although we are a site about the topic of Islam, we are not an Islamic site. The Stack Exchange model is all about giving focussed answers to focussed questions, and as an English-language site, that focus should be on giving answers in English.

Your suggestion seems entirely focussed on how Muslims should behave, but we as a site are open to everyone, not just Muslims; I don't see that this provides any actual benefit to either the questioners or the answers. As such, I see no reason to enforce any such practice, and flagging or editing posts just because they choose to only quote English translations to an English audience just comes off as noise to me.

You are of course free to do so with your own posts, but I would discourage such unless it's actually relevant to the answer (i.e. if the subtleties of the Arabic text are vital to the answer and not captured in your translation of choice), otherwise all you're really doing is making the answer longer and harder to read, especially if there's no reason to believe that the questioner can even read Arabic.

My general practice is to just add an external link to either http://quran.com or http://sunnah.com (as applicable), as both of those sites do quote the Arabic text; they're readily available for anyone who actually wishes to read them, without unnecessarily cluttering the answer with text.


Translation is a difficult issue; take for example English and Bengali.

In English it's only possible to say 'he' or 'she'; that is the third person always shows gender; whereas in Bengali it's possible to do without. This means in translating from Bengali to English sometimes a gender inflection is introduced where originally there is none.

There's in fact a whole theory of translation which is constantly renewing itself as more becomes known or understood; with different people being engaged with the whole chain of textual transmission.

Quoting texts makes the answer lengthy; and more difficult to read; not everyone who comes to the site can read Arabic, whereas given the language the site is conducted in we can be sure that they can read English.

If a certain ayat or sura is important one can always link to a sura or an ayat; or refer to it in a standard way - this makes the answer tidier.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .