On the following pages, you will find several comparisons between our translation and that of traditional orthodox English renditions of the Quran. By the word “tradition,” we refer to the works that heavily rely on hearsay reports such as hadith, sunna, and sectarian jurisprudence. We chose to compare our work primarily with the translation of Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, and Shakir, since they reflect most of the common errors and distortions, and because they are popular translations among the English-speaking Sunni population.
Apparently, they were convinced or intimidated by a review (more accurately, a fatwa) of “a very well-established professor,” who misleadingly likened our annotated translation of the Quran to Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses. This was akin to a medieval publishing house turning down Martin Luther’s 95 Theses after consulting “a very well-established” Catholic Bishop! It is telling that Palgrave’s “very well-established scholar” in his several-page review, had only one substantive criticism, which consisted of our usage of a word, yes a single word in the translation: progressive.
Despite clear and numerous evidence to the contrary, some so-called Submitters who left the ranks of Sunni, Shiite, Christian, Hindu polytheism continue their idolization of Rashad by claiming the third revision of his translation to be infallible. In fact, some of them have devolved further and now they claim mathematical miracles for the English translation. Of course the re-re-revised version! I have discussed this issue in length with those who replaced Muhammed’s, Ali’s or Jesus’ idol with of Rashad.