Telegraph clarifies “Ban Qur’an” call

The Sunday Telegraph today published a letter from Abdul-Haqq Bewley (eighth letter down, “Most Muslims in Britain have conservative values”) regarding the remarks Patrick Sookhdeo made regarding his and his wife’s translation of the Noble Qur’an two weeks ago ([1], [2]). It appears that Sookhdeo was indeed referring to a different translation which had the same English title (the Noble Qur’an, as opposed to Holy Qur’an for example) though not the same sub-title (“A New Rendering …”). Most likely this was the infamous, ear-jarring, propaganda-laden Khan-Hilali translation. Even so, this is the edition beloved of even pro-Saudi Wahhabis who oppose the use of terrorism.

The problem is that Sookhdeo clearly referred to the subtitle of the translation, which has very little commentary (unlike Khan & Hilali), which does give the impression that it was the content of the Qur’an which Sookhdeo was suggesting was the issue, not commentary alongside the text. So people were justified in fearing that the Qur’an itself was under attack and not one person’s writings.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
  • Bikhair

    Is it true that Hook Hamza’s son is starting a rap career? These deviants never stop. Its in their blood.

  • http://www.blogistan.co.uk/qt/ Yusuf Smith

    Bikhair: so the press claims. Pity his papa is in jail, he could be the bouncer at his gigs.

  • http://www.blogistan.co.uk/qt/ Yusuf Smith

    For anyone wondering what I meant, Abu Hamza was at one time a nightclub bouncer (in the 1980s I think).