I really can't recommend most I've seen. I found that when you look at
more than one translation from as varied translators as possible one can
come up with a better understanding. I have translated some parts of the
Quran on my website, which is now ressurected(though I need to address
this problem of Quranic distortions, especially after seeing Politically
Incorrect last night). What most translators DON'T do is look up all of the
possible meanings that the passages could be saying and then exclude
those meanings that
don't make sense or are obviously contradictory to previous
statments or that are contrary to future clarifications
given by the book (staying true to Quranic context). This is why
translation is hard with this type of book because the reader is always
learning and his understanding is always evolving as he reads on. Taking
all passages that deal on one topic and understanding how they all go
together has to be preliminary to any translation, to ensure that one is
given as best a translation as possible but this is rarely done.
This is the intelligent and prudent way to do this. If the translators did
this we
would be getting better translations. But since one can only correct
one's possible mistakes in this improved effort when reading the Qur'an
in Classical Arabic, the original is the best. I intend to one day
organize a Classical Arabic learning institution to promote understanding
of Classical Arabic and it's vocab. particularly outside of the Islamic
Context. I don't know about very much the Aramaic Essene Gospels and
their stating that Jesus was a raw-foodist or a raw-lacto vegetarian.
There is an illusion to raw food in the Gita, I believe also. I find this
very interesting but can't make any conclusion except that raw food has
been constant(though not popular) within the cooking era of humans. I
often wonder why cooking became the dominant practice in food
preparation. It is a wide spread technology that is like much of ours now,
giving short term
productivity with long term damage. One idea that popped up in my head
has to do with weight. I know in acient times(some ancient paleo culture)
and in many cultures now to be fat is a good thing and much desired.
Cooked food achieves this better than raw food. THis is the case with
getting pigs fat too. But this is just and pondering. Jesus, God bless him,
could have been doing the best he knew how to do(?), but atleast we can
assume that this type of diet existed when this document was written. Who
do the books say they are authored by? Other gospels have him eating
fish(whether raw I don't know) and bread(this assumed to have been cooked)
also.

Godbless,
Anwar


Jo
Yoshida wrote: >
> >The problem too is that Muslims just BELIEVE tradition interpretations
> >and these Islamic biases put into the Quran because they are even blind
> >believers in their religion and it serves their purposes. As a muslim I
> >know there is much in the Islamic faith that is not consistent and as a
> >studier of the Quran I know the Quran does not support or proclaim islam.
> >Most Muslims don't even understand the Qur'an, they read it and recite it
> >for mystical blessings. It's a shame but it is reality. Count on a muslim
> >to know Islamic tradition and islamic interepretation of the Quran but
> >not on what the Quran is really saying. THey don't really study the
> >Quran. The Hadeeths are there main article of faith, not the Quran. And
> >wait to you see how numerous and contradictory the Hadeeth are.
>
> Hi Anwar - as a non-Muslim, I'd still be interested in reading the
> Quran because I wasn't aware of the distinction between its contents
> and the faith that draws inspiration from it. Unfortunately, I'm not
> a reader of Arabic. Do you know of any recommended English editions
> that would stay clear of traditional Islamic interpretations you
> described?
>
> Also, in regards to faith, holy scriptures and diet, what is your
> opinion of the Aramaic Essene Gospels which claim that Christ was a
> raw vegan (plus goat dairy)?
>
> Thanks,
> Jo
>