From Polemics to Peacebuilding: Tracing Interfaith Ideologies in Premodern and Contemporary Qur’ān Translations

Abstract

This paper argues that English translations of the Qur’ān play a pivotal role in shaping interfaith dialogue, either fostering mutual understanding or reinforcing religious division, depending on the translator’s ideological stance. While interreligious relations have historically been marred by conflict, the 1893 Parliament of the World’s Religions marked a turning point toward more inclusive and dialogical engagement. In this context, translating the Qur’ān emerged as a crucial medium through which Islamic teachings could be made accessible to non-Muslim audiences. Several scholars, including Kidwai and Elmarsafy, have explored the Orientalist framing of Qur’ān translation; however, few researchers have examined how modern renderings consciously reposition the text as a site of interfaith ethics. This study critically examines whether George Sale’s influential translation of the Qur’ān—reprinted nearly 200 times—contributes to or hinders interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Christians. It compares Sale’s Qur’ān rendition into English with five contemporary translations. The paper analyzes the translations of five Qur’ānic verses promoting coexistence, with particular attention to key terms such as إِكْرَاهَ ikrah (compulsion), الدِّينِ ad-dīn (religion), تَّقْوَىٰ taqwā (piety), and مُسْلِمُونَ muslimūn (submitters). Guided by Munday’s theory of ideology in translation, the analysis demonstrates that Sale’s rendering adopts a distinctly polemical tone intended to assert Christian superiority. The findings indicate a clear shift from polemical to dialogical translation strategies. Sale’s Orientalist approach—evident in his footnote on Q.4:157, where he characterizes Muslim exegesis as intellectually deficient—ultimately constrains meaningful interfaith engagement. In contrast, Khattab employs an inclusive and ethically grounded approach that actively fosters interreligious dialogue. By positioning Qur’ān translation at the intersection of theology, linguistics, and interfaith relations, this paper demonstrates that translation choices hold significant power: they can either bridge divides or exacerbate tensions between religious communities.

1. Introduction

For Muslims, the Qur’ān is the unaltered word of God, and any translation of it is traditionally understood not as a substitute for the original text but as an interpretive rendering of its meanings. This distinction reflects a long-standing recognition within Islamic scholarship that the Qur’ān’s linguistic and rhetorical structure is inseparable from its semantic content. Classical scholars were already aware of the challenges posed by the Arabic language itself. In his discussion of linguistic competence, Ibn Khaldūn observes that mastery of Arabic eloquence requires immersion in its cultural and rhetorical traditions and remains particularly difficult for non-native speakers, who often struggle to grasp the subtle meanings embedded in Arabic expression (Rashwan 2024a). Ibn Khaldūn’s insight underscores a central problem in Qur’ān translation: the difficulty of encapsulating the semantic and rhetorical richness of Qur’ānic language within a single equivalent in another language.

Scholars widely argue that the language of the Qur’ān is uniquely inimitable and that rendering a perfect translation is unattainable. A. Ali (1993) notes that the Qur’ān’s distinctive fusion of poetic and prose features produces a stylistic form that cannot be replicated in another language (Al-Halawani 2026; Abdul-Raof 2018; Al-Rafii 1997). Drawing on the classical tradition of Arabic rhetoric (balāgha), Rashwan (2024b) further explains that eloquence arises from the inseparable relationship between vocal form (lafẓ) and meaning (maʿnā), where linguistic structure and semantic content function together to produce literary beauty and persuasive force.

This theoretical commitment to the inseparability of form and meaning did not remain an abstract linguistic claim; rather, it directly shaped pre-modern exegetical practices and attitudes toward the Qur’ān. This conviction informed broader hermeneutical approaches, as seen in the works of Aṭ-Ṭabarī (1954) and Al-Zamakhsharī (1934), who emphasized the primacy of Arabic philology, context (asbāb an-nuzūl), and transmitted reports in interpreting the text. Consequently, many scholars were wary of translating or freely reproducing the Qur’ān, often restricting its use to liturgical recitation and carefully controlled exegetical citation, in order to preserve its divine integrity and avoid conflating human interpretation with the revealed word.

Against this backdrop, modern analytical studies provide concrete illustrations of the very translational limitations that pre-modern scholars theorized. A number of studies demonstrate how Qur’ānic rhetorical devices resist straightforward translation when examined in specific textual contexts. In his literary analysis of passages concerning Moses, Rashwan (2024b) compares six English translations of Q. 20:68— لَا تَخَفۡ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ ٱلۡأَعۡلَىٰ lā takhaf innaka anta alaʿlā—and shows that the translators fail to reproduce key rhetorical features embedded in the Arabic. As he explains, “this verse repeats the second-person pronoun three times: first as a hidden pronoun in the negated verb lā takhaf; second as a suffix attached to the emphatic particle inna (innaka); and third as an independent pronoun anta” (pp. 35–36). This layered pronominal repetition intensifies the divine reassurance addressed to Moses. Most English translations compress these forms into a single ؛you,؛ thereby losing the cumulative emphasis and rhythmic reinforcement created by the Arabic syntax. The example illustrates how devices such as pronominal repetition and syntactic parallelism—central elements of Arabic balāgha—are often flattened in translation, reinforcing the broader argument that Qur’ānic meaning emerges from the interaction of sound, structure, and semantics.

The difficulty is compounded by the culturally embedded nature of literary terminology itself. Rashwan (2020) argues, “literary and philosophical terms are not mere terms. They are mirrors that reflect the unique nature of each culture and its people’s literary tastes… Each language creates its own literary terms that conceptually and culturally express its own literary culture” (p. 369). Because such terms are culturally and rhetorically grounded, they cannot be treated as universally interchangeable in the way technical terms in the sciences might be. Consequently, literary concepts rooted in Arabic rhetorical culture resist direct equivalence in English, a problem that becomes particularly acute in the translation of the Qurʾān, whose discourse relies heavily on such culturally embedded forms of expression.

These linguistic and cultural dynamics explain why many scholars regard Qur’ān translation as interpretive rather than substitutive. Mustapha (2009) argues that translations inevitably lack the Qur’ān’s iʿjāz—its inimitable rhetorical power—and therefore function primarily as commentary. Classical Islamic jurisprudence acknowledged this limitation. Abu Hanifa permitted the translation of Qur’ānic meanings; Al-Azhar clarified that translations convey interpretations of meaning rather than the Qur’ān itself. Within Qurʾānic discourse, the interaction between phonetic form, rhetorical structure, and semantic depth generates layers of meaning that are difficult to reproduce in other languages.

Because Qur’ānic vocabulary is deeply rooted in its historical and cultural context (Abassian and Nazerian 2016; Arberry 1996), translation may convey the general sense of a passage but rarely captures the full rhetorical resonance or semantic density of the original. This challenge has generated longstanding debates about the translatability of sacred texts more broadly. As recent scholarship on conceptual untranslatability suggests, translation often involves negotiating between linguistic equivalence and cultural interpretation, a process that inevitably entails some degree of semantic loss or transformation (Nida 2003; Najjar 2020; Noorain and Alamin 2026). Consequently, Qur’ān translation is best understood not as a neutral transfer of meaning but as an interpretive act shaped by the translator’s intellectual, theological, and historical framework.

In Qur’ān translation studies, the term premodern generally refers to interpretive and translational practices developed before the rise of modern linguistic theories, secular academic methodologies, and contemporary interfaith discourse. Such translations were deeply embedded in the theological and polemical contexts of their time, often reflecting the priorities of classical exegetical traditions and the interreligious debates that shaped Muslim–Christian–Jewish relations in earlier centuries (Abdul-Raof 2012). These historical conditions influenced translators’ interpretive choices, particularly when dealing with Qur’ānic vocabulary carrying complex theological and cultural connotations.

Translation therefore becomes a site where theology, ideology, and interpretation intersect. Premodern English translations were often shaped by Orientalist1 and missionary agendas that framed Islam through polemical narratives (Al-Bundāq 1983; Elmarsafy 2014). By contrast, contemporary translations produced by Muslim scholars increasingly emerge within a global intellectual environment shaped by interreligious dialogue and the globalization of religious studies. In a world characterized by religious diversity, interfaith dialogue has become central to promoting mutual understanding (Ciocan 2024; Al-Ryahneh 2024). The Qur’ān articulates a theological framework grounded in rational engagement and the recognition of difference, yet its reception in English is often refracted through the ideological orientations of translators (Kidwai 2018). This dynamic can be clarified through reader-response approaches, which foreground the role of the interpreter in meaning-making. As Al-Sha’ar (2017) argues that meaning emerges through the interaction between text, reader, and interpretive context, confirming that “the application of meaning to a text is inseparable from its interpretation” (2). Accordingly, Qur’ān translation reflects not only linguistic transfer but also the situated hermeneutics of distinct interpretive communities.

Within this broader historical shift, forums such as the Parliament of the World’s Religions (2023) have contributed to the emergence of a transnational discourse emphasizing mutual recognition and shared ethical language (Lukman 2023; Parliament of the World’s Religions 2023; Abdelkarim et al. 2025). Originating in Chicago in 1893, the Parliament has since developed into a recurring global forum that brings together representatives of diverse religious traditions to promote interreligious dialogue, ethical cooperation, and peacebuilding. Its contemporary iterations (notably 1993, 2015, and 2023) have foregrounded themes such as religious pluralism, justice, environmental responsibility, and the cultivation of shared moral vocabularies across faith traditions. Although such initiatives did not directly determine Qur’ān translations, they fostered intellectual environments in which translators increasingly address plural audiences and seek to present the Qur’ān within frameworks of dialogue rather than polemic.

The theoretical framework of this study therefore approaches translation as an ideologically mediated practice rather than a neutral linguistic transfer. Drawing on Munday’s (2007) conception of ideology as a belief system expressed through language, Lefevere’s (1992) theory of the ideological turn, and Abdul-Raof’s (2012) analysis of translation as cultural mediation, the study examines how translators’ theological perspectives shape both textual and paratextual representation. Specifically, it analyzes lexical choices, syntactic structures, and paratextual commentary—elements through which translators encode interpretive assumptions and communicative intentions.

Against this backdrop, the study compares textual and paratextual strategies in the translation of George Sale with five modern English versions: al-Hilali and Khan (2020), Abdel Haleem (2016), Bakhtiar (2012), The Monotheist Group (2022), and Khattab (2019). By situating each translation within its socio-historical context, the analysis evaluates how shifting theological perspectives and institutional environments influence the representation of religious difference. Rather than assuming linear progress, the study investigates whether contemporary translations reinterpret Qur’ānic discourse in ways that either facilitate or constrain interfaith understanding.

2. The Qurʾān, Interfaith Ethics, and the Evolution of Global Religious Dialogue

This section adopts a comparative, text-oriented methodology to examine how selected Qur’ān translations encode ideological positions through lexical choice, paratextual framing, and interpretive strategies. Building on the historical trajectory from Orientalist to contemporary renderings, the analysis focuses on a deliberately curated corpus that reflects hermeneutical diversity—ranging from doctrinally interventionist to contextualist and reformist approaches. By closely comparing key verses associated with interfaith relations, the study identifies patterns of addition, omission, and semantic modulation, while also attending to paratexts as sites of ideological mediation. In this way, the methodology treats translation not as a neutral transfer of meaning but as a discursive practice through which theological, ethical, and interfaith perspectives are actively constructed.

2.1. Qurʾānic Foundations of Interfaith Ethics: Justice, Cooperation, and Mutual Understanding

The semantic density of key Arabo-Islamic terms renders them resistant to automatic or reductive English equivalents. Rashwan (2024b) argues that Qur’ānic concepts operate within interwoven theological, legal, and ethical registers that exceed the scope of single-word translation. Terms such as عدل ʿadl (justice, moral equilibrium), تعارف taʿāruf (mutual recognition grounded in reciprocity), and تعاون taʿāwun (cooperation in morally defined الخير) are not merely lexical items but nodes within a broader normative worldview shaped by revelation and prophetic praxis. This ethical vision is articulated explicitly in Q.49:13: يَا أَيُّهَا ٱلنَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَـٰكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍۢ وَأُنثَىٰ وَجَعَلْنَـٰكُمْ شُعُوبًۭا وَقَبَآئِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوٓا۟ ۚ إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ أَتْقَىٰكُمْ Yā ayyuhā an-nāsu innā khalaqnākum min dhakarin wa-unthā wa-jaʿalnākum shuʿūban wa-qabāʾila li-taʿārafū, inna akramakum ʿinda Allāhi atqākum. This verse can be interpreted as ‘O humankind, We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most God-conscious.’

In his Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, Aṭ-Ṭabarī (1954) situates this verse within debates over lineage pride, emphasizing that li-taʿārafū signifies social recognition that dismantles tribal arrogance and affirms shared human origin. Likewise, in Tafsīr al-Kabīr, Al-Rāzī (2008) interprets diversity as a manifestation of divine wisdom (ḥikma), arguing that difference invites ethical engagement rather than exclusion. Contemporary studies on Qur’ānic pluralism further underscore how taʿāruf implies sustained interaction, not passive tolerance, thereby resisting minimalist translations such as ‘to know.’

Similarly, Q.5:2 frames cooperation in explicitly moral terms: وَتَعَاوَنُوا۟ عَلَى ٱلْبِرِّ وَٱلتَّقْوَىٰ وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا۟ عَلَى ٱلْإِثْمِ وَٱلْعُدْوَٰنِ Wa-taʿāwanū ʿalā al-birri wa-t-taqwā wa-lā taʿāwanū ʿalā al-ithmi wa-al-ʿudwān, rendered as ‘And cooperate in righteousness and piety, and do not cooperate in sin and aggression.’ Here, taʿāwun is conditioned by al-birr and al-taqwā, indicating an ethically delimited solidarity that, as Sunni exegetes maintain, extends beyond confessional boundaries in matters of justice and public welfare. The related concept of ولاية wilāya (protective alliance, moral guardianship) further complicates translation, as it oscillates semantically between intimacy, authority, and solidarity depending on context—an elasticity explored in both classical tafsīr and modern semantic studies. Likewise, دعوة daʿwa signifies not coercive proselytization but reasoned invitation, historically grounded in Qur’ānic exhortations.

Also, Q.16:125, وٱدْعُ إِلَىٰ سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِٱلْحِكْمَةِ وَٱلْمَوْعِظَةِ ٱلْحَسَنَةِ Udʿu ilā sabīli rabbika bil-ḥikmati wa-al-mawʿiẓati al-ḥasanah rendered as ‘Invite all to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and kind advice,’ outlines three approaches to daʿwah— ḥikma (wisdom), mawʿiẓa ḥasana (kind advice), and respectful debate. It encourages reasoned and gentle persuasion while affirming that ultimate guidance rests with Allah. Additionally, verses frequently isolated as militant must also be read within their historical and exegetical frames. Q.9:5 states: فَإِذَا ٱنسَلَخَ ٱلْأَشْهُرُ ٱلْحُرُمُ فَٱقْتُلُوا۟ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ… فَإِن تَابُوا۟ وَأَقَامُوا۟ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَءَاتَوُا۟ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ فَخَلُّوا۟ سَبِيلَهُمْ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌۭ رَّحِيمٌۭ Fa-idhā ansalakha al-ashhuru al-ḥurum faqtulū al-mushrikīna ḥaythu wajadtumūhum… fa-in tābū wa-aqāmū as-ṣalāta wa-‘ātaw az-zakāta fa-khallū sabīlahum, inna Allāha ghafūrun raḥīm. It can be translated as “But if they repent, establish prayer, and give alms, then let them go their way. Indeed, God is Forgiving, Merciful.” Classical commentators contextualize this passage within specific treaty violations, delimiting its application to a state of active hostilities rather than construing it as a universal mandate for aggression. Many exegetes further highlight the immediately following verse (Q.9:6), which commands granting ijāra (protection) to those seeking safety.

Taken together, these examples illustrate how Qur’ānic terms such as ʿadl, taʿāruf, taʿāwun, wilāya, and daʿwa function within historically situated and exegetically elaborated semantic fields. Their translation demands more than lexical substitution; it requires engagement with Sunni interpretive tradition and contemporary scholarship alike. Salama’s (2018, pp. 1–18) study demonstrates that Euro-American translators frequently misinterpret Qur’ānic terms, giving examples such as qarya and madīna by rendering them as “city,” “town,” or “village.” He confirms that translation overlooks their rich cultural and semantic nuances—such as associations with prophetic authority or broader geographic contexts—and argues that these terms resist modern translation categories, prompting a reconsideration of how Arabo-Islamic urban metaphors are translated and understood.

Qur’ān translation has long been entangled with ideological agendas, most notably when Protestant missionaries made Qur’ānic translation a central component of their efforts “to compare the quality of the Bible to that of the Qur’an … and demonstrate the superiority of the Christian scriptures” (Shah and Haleem 2020, p. 553). Recent scholarship, however, shifts the conversation toward the epistemic and cultural stakes of translation itself. Rashwan et al. (2025) call for more rigorous cross-cultural literary methodologies that recognize untranslatable Qur’ānic terms as repositories of cultural memory and intellectual heritage rather than reducible lexical units, emphasizing that their deeply embedded conceptual meanings rarely transfer accurately across languages. Building on this insight, this paper argues that the untranslatability of the Qur’ān can generate ideological distortions, shaping readers’ perceptions according to the translator’s cultural and theological assumptions rather than the text’s own epistemic framework. Within the broader theme of Qur’ānic Foundations of Interfaith Ethics: Justice, Cooperation, and Mutual Understanding, this challenge underscores the ethical responsibility of translators, who must convey not only surface meaning but also the theological, historical, and moral dimensions essential to preserving the integrity of the Qur’ānic message. When approached with such responsibility, translation becomes a vital instrument for fostering just representation, meaningful cooperation, and genuine mutual understanding across religious traditions.

2.2. The Parliament of the World’s Religions (1893–2023): From Scriptural Ethics to Global Dialogue

The semantic and conceptual depth of key Arabo-Islamic terms—rooted in Qur’ānic theology, ethics, and legal discourse—often resists encapsulation in English translations, challenging translators to convey both literal meaning and the intricate moral, spiritual, and social resonances these terms carry. Al-Sha’ar (2017) argues that the ethical framework of the Qur’ān—grounded in justice, compassion, and rational deliberation—closely aligns with contemporary models of Islamic peacebuilding that emphasize cooperative reason, civic virtue, and social reconciliation. The Qur’ānic spirit of coexistence aligns with the objectives of the Parliament of the World’s Religions, first convened in 1893 in Chicago amid rapid social and cultural transformations (Marshall 2015). Though predominantly Christian in tone, the Parliament inaugurated a global dialogue that transcended theological rivalry, gathering over 200 representatives to promote mutual respect (Savage 1893; Barrows 1893). Mohammed Alexander Russell Webb—the sole Muslim speaker—embodied Qur’ānic ideals of reasoned dialogue and justice, rejecting the notion of Islam as a “religion of the sword” and emphasizing its ethical core (Savage 1893, p. 322). According to (Sharpe 2003) and (Elmarsafy 2014), Webb’s defense of Islam reflected a move away from Orientalist hostility toward more empathetic engagement with the Qurʾān, later echoed in the translations of Pickthall (1935) and A. Y. Ali (1934), which integrated the humanistic and moral dimensions of the Qurʾān.

The centennial 1993 Parliament extended these principles into actionable global ethics, culminating in Towards a Global Ethic (Küng and Kuschel 1993; O’Connor 1994), a declaration grounded in justice, nonviolence, and truthfulness—values deeply rooted in Qur’ānic teaching. Across its nine gatherings (1893–2023), the Parliament’s evolution parallels the interpretive shift in Qur’ān translation from polemical renderings to dialogic and peace-oriented exegeses, reflecting the enduring convergence between scriptural interfaith ethics and contemporary global dialogue. This paper examines Qur’ān translations to explore whether they prioritize clarity, inclusivity, and avoidance of sectarian bias, aligning linguistic choices with principles of justice and mutual respect.

3. Comparative Analysis of the Selected Translations

3.1. Brief Overview of Sale’s Qur’ān Translation

In 1734, George Sale (1697–1736), a British lawyer and scholar of Middle Eastern languages, produced the first English translation of the Qur’ān rendered directly from Arabic, distinguished by a pronounced Orientalist perspective. While often praised for its scholarly depth, Sale’s translation is biased against Islam. Its title, The Koran: Commonly called The AlKoran of Mohammed, ascribes authorship to the Prophet Mohammad and thereby negates the Qur’ān’s divine origin. Sale claimed a “genuine interest in learning about Islam” (Aly 2023, p. 6); however, as Shah and Qadri (2017) argue, he subverts the source text through a polemical mode of translation that recasts Qur’ānic concepts within a Christian apologetic framework. In contrast, Lawrence (2017) suggests that Sale may have privately harbored deeper sympathies for Islam, to the extent that contemporaries speculated about his possible secret conversion (p. 39). Despite these interpretive tensions, the significance of Sale’s work lies not only in its content but also in its extensive circulation and lasting influence in shaping Western perceptions of the Qur’ān.

Despite these tensions, Sale’s translation became a foundational reference in the West for nearly two centuries, with over 160 editions, including sixty-seven in the United States alone (Kidwai 2020). It has also been translated into numerous European languages, including “Dutch, German, Russian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian” (Kidwai 2019, p. 163), thereby perpetuating a Eurocentric interpretation of the Qur’ān across linguistic and cultural boundaries. Beyond its wide circulation, however, a closer examination of Sale’s translational methodology reveals how such influence was constructed at the level of textual and interpretive choices.

Sale employs a variety of translational strategies, including addition, omission, paraphrastic interpretation, and extensive explanatory footnotes (Nadeem and Akhtar 2017). His preliminary discourse and annotations consistently frame Islamic teachings through a comparative, often critical lens, that privileges Christian interpretations. For instance, he translates Q.2:21 يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّاسُ ٱعْبُدُوا۟ رَبَّكُمُ ٱلَّذِى خَلَقَكُمْ وَٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُونَ, yā ayyuhā an-nās uʿbudū rabbakumul-ladhī khalaqakum wa-alladhīna min qablikum laʿallakum tattaqūn as “O men of Mecca! serve your Lord who hath created you, and those who have been before you: peradventure ye will fear htm.” Sale’s use of “O men of Mecca!” narrows the Qur’ān’s universal address, distorting its inclusive intent (Abu Mousa et al. 2025; Nadeem and Akhtar 2017). This example illustrates how Sale’s translational strategies are not merely linguistic choices but ideologically inflected interventions that reshape the Qur’ān’s communicative scope.

While Sale’s translation is shaped by an overtly polemical agenda, it also exhibits moments of philological precision and methodological rigor that complicate a purely ideological reading. Recognizing this interplay between linguistic scholarship and theological bias is crucial; otherwise, his “rigor” risks appearing underappreciated. Consequently, Sale’s translation constitutes a critical site for examining how translation can both mediate and manipulate interfaith understanding, warranting detailed comparative analysis alongside contemporary English renderings of the Qur’ān.

3.2. Beyond George Sale: Corpus Delimitation and the Rationale for Selecting Contemporary Qur’ān Translations

In this section, ‘interfaith dialogue’ is employed as an analytical category for examining translational strategies and interpretive orientations, rather than as a uniform or explicitly stated objective of all modern Qur’ānic translations. Contemporary translation projects emerge from diverse intellectual and institutional contexts, including academic philology, missionary engagement, Muslim reformist discourse, and, in some cases, explicitly ecumenical or interreligious initiatives. Accordingly, references to interfaith considerations are contextualised within the specific aims and paratextual materials of individual translators, avoiding the assumption that such a goal characterises modern translation practice as a whole.

While George Sale provides the historical foundation for this study, the analytical focus is deliberately placed on contemporary translators. The selected corpus is not based solely on popularity, but on hermeneutical diversity, ideological distinctiveness, and discursive influence, allowing for a nuanced comparison of how key Qur’ānic verses are mobilised across competing theological frameworks.

In particular, Hilali and Khan exemplify a doctrinally interventionist model in which translation functions as an extension of tafsīr. Their rendering of Q. 3:85, augmented by parenthetical insertions such as “(i.e., Islamic Monotheism),” restricts interpretive openness and reinforces an exclusivist soteriology. As Saeed (2006) argues, such strategies reflect a broader hermeneutical tendency to prioritise theological closure over semantic plurality.

By contrast, Khattab and Haleem represent a contextualist and reader-oriented paradigm that seeks to recover the ethical and dialogical potential of the Qur’ānic text. In their translations of Q. 2:62, both avoid polemical interpolation and foreground the verse’s emphasis on belief in God and righteous action, thereby aligning with contemporary articulations of interpretive openness. Abdullah (2014) similarly highlights such readings as reflective of a “pluralist ethic” embedded within the Qur’ān itself. This approach underscores how translation can function as a mediating practice that reopens interpretive possibilities rather than foreclosing them.

Further expanding this hermeneutical spectrum, Bakhtiar and the Monotheist Group introduce reformist and non-sectarian perspectives that challenge inherited exegetical authority. Bakhtiar’s rendering of اضِربُوهُن iḍribūhunna in Q. 4:34 as “go away from them” (Bakhtiar 2012, p. 76) illustrates how lexical choices can reconfigure ethical paradigms toward nonviolence and reciprocity, with broader implications for interreligious ethics. Meanwhile, the Monotheist Group’s translation prioritises direct accountability to God and downplays confessional boundaries, advancing a markedly universalist theological stance. The inclusion of these translators is further justified by their wide circulation and digital accessibility, which have amplified their impact on both scholarly and lay audiences.

Overall, this corpus captures salient contemporary tensions between exclusivism and pluralism, literalism and contextualism, and translation and exegesis, thereby providing a focused yet representative framework for analysing how interpretive and ethical orientations are negotiated in modern Qur’ān translation.

3.3. Paratextual Framing and Ideological Mediation in Qurʾān Translation

Comparing the paratexts2 in Sale’s translation to those in the five selected versions can offer insight into his perception of and attitude toward other religions. Paratexts—prefaces, introductions, and footnotes—are not peripheral; they are interpretive thresholds that reveal how translators frame the Qur’ān ideologically. As Genette (1997) argues, the paratext mediates between text and reader, shaping reception through implicit commentary. In the context of Qur’ān translation, these thresholds have historically mirrored broader interreligious dynamics, evolving from Orientalist polemic to interfaith dialogue.

Sale employs paratexts as instruments of theological containment. His Enlightenment rationalism recasts Islam as an imitation of Judeo-Christian monotheism, labeling Prophet Mohammad as “a subtle and crafty impostor” (Sale [1734] 1801, p. xiii). Sale’s preface framed Islam as both derivative and politically suspect, anchoring the colonial discourse that justified Europe’s moral and civilizational supremacy (Hassen 2011; Ganaie 2024). The paratext here functions as a site of epistemic control—preconditioning the reader to approach the Qur’ān as a document of error rather than revelation.

In contrast, the Saudi-sponsored translation of al-Hilali and Khan (2020) reveals a reverse but equally ideological intervention. Endorsed by the Saudi Presidency of Islamic Research, its foreword enshrines Salafī3 orthodoxy and employs didactic footnotes to impose a monolithic interpretive lens. Lefevere’s (1992) concept of “patronage systems” illuminates how such state-controlled translations convert paratexts into mechanisms of religious gatekeeping, privileging doctrinal purity over interpretive plurality. This translation was first published in 1977 and republished annually; in the 2020 edition, an introduction was added, in which Hilali and Khan declared that they adopted an explanatory translation.

Since the late twentieth century, English translations of the Qur’ān have increasingly moved away from overtly polemical or heavily exegetical models toward linguistically attentive and ethically inclusive renderings. Bakhtiar’s (2012) The Sublime Qur’an exemplifies this trajectory, framing the revelation within a shared prophetic continuum and foregrounding its universal moral message. At the same time, her methodology reflects feminist translation theory4 as articulated by Von Flotow (1991), particularly through strategies of prefacing and supplementing that make gendered language explicitly visible in English.

As Hassen (2011) and Aldeeb (2023) note that Bakhtiar privileges lexical and dictionary-based analysis over reliance on classical exegetical authorities, a methodological choice that enables her to challenge entrenched patriarchal readings. Her rendering of wa-ḍribūhunna (Q 4:34) as “go away” rather than “beat them” illustrates this approach: by selecting a linguistically defensible but nonviolent semantic range, she advances an ethical interpretation aligned with contemporary commitments to gender justice. The implications of her strategy are significant. While it opens interpretive space for egalitarian readings and empowers marginalized voices within the tradition, it also raises critical questions about the balance between linguistic possibility, interpretive authority, and the translator’s ideological positioning in the mediation of sacred text.

Abdel Haleem (2016) positions his translation within a more dialogic framework, emphasizing the Qur’ān’s role in confirming earlier revelations and thereby dismantling barriers between faiths (Aldeeb 2023; Kidwai 2018). He states “The Quran stresses that all these prophets preached the same message and that the Quran was sent to confirm the earlier messages. It states that Muslims should believe in all of them without making any distinction between them.” (xviii). Within the historical landscape of reform, The Monotheist Group (2022) advances a markedly different paratextual strategy. Rejecting ḥadīth authority and clerical mediation, they urge readers: “Do not be quick to ask ‘others’ what God says” (XVI). As Al-Shahrani (2024) argues, this minimalist framing reflects a Qur’ānist epistemology that presents the text as universally accessible, rational, and self-sufficient—thereby situating their translation within contemporary movements that seek to democratize scriptural interpretation and reconfigure traditional structures of religious authority. In turn, Khattab’s The Clear Qur’an synthesizes traditional scholarship with contemporary readability (Kidwai 2018). In his introduction, he clarifies contested notions such as jihād and gender, asserting that both the Qur’ān and the Bible “came originally from the same source—divine revelation” (Khattab 2019, p. 37). Such phrasing reclaims the Qur’ān as a text of ethical universality rather than civilizational conflict.

Collectively, these paratexts trace a significant ideological transformation (Aldeeb 2022): from colonial distortion to theological exclusivism, and finally to dialogic pluralism. This evolution reflects the broader trajectory of global interfaith engagement, particularly in the period following the 1893 Parliament of the World’s Religions and its twentieth- and twenty-first-century revivals—a context marked by expanding cross-cultural dialogue, globalization, and renewed efforts at religious coexistence. In this post-Parliament era, Qur’ān translators increasingly frame their work in alignment with the Qur’ānic ethos of taʿāruf (mutual recognition, Q.49:13) and taʿāwun (cooperation in goodness, Q.5:2), emphasizing shared ethical values over polemical boundary-making. In this sense, modern translation paratexts function as contemporary spaces of daʿwa—not as proselytizing instruments, but as intellectual and ethical invitations that reaffirm the Qur’ān’s capacity to cultivate understanding within a religiously plural world.

3.4. Textual Analysis

The five verses analysed in this section are widely interpreted as Qur’ānic passages that promote tolerance and encourage peaceful coexistence (Al-Awidi and Tajari 2024). However, identifying these verses in George Sale’s translation is complicated by the absence of systematic verse numbering. While Nadeem and Akhtar (2017, p. 108) argue that Sale “removed the verse numbers to give the impression of the incoherence of the Quranic text,” this claim should be treated with caution. The formatting is more plausibly understood within the broader context of early Qur’ānic translation practices, in which consistent verse enumeration had not yet been standardised in European editions.

The first example is drawn from Q.3, a polemical passage that directly engages with various theological and ideological communities, particularly Jews, Christians, and pagan Arabs. Q.3:64 serves as a powerful invitation to interfaith dialogue. It calls Jews and Christians to unite on the foundational principle of Tawḥīd—the worship of one God without associating partners. This verse urges the People of the Book to recognize this shared monotheistic belief and to refrain from elevating religious figures to divine status, a practice that contradicts the essence of divine unity (Ibn Kathīr 2002). The verse reflects a conciliatory yet firm approach: if the invitation is declined, Muslims are instructed to affirm their own submission to God, underscoring Islam’s commitment to monotheism. Revealed during the Prophet’s encounter with a Christian delegation from Najrān, the verse exemplifies Islam’s emphasis on common theological ground while firmly asserting its distinct message. The comparison of the translations of Q.3:64 might reveal the translators’ ideologies behind their lexical choices:

Example 1: Q. 3:64

قُلْ يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ تَعَالَوْا إِلَىٰ كَلِمَةٍ سَوَاءٍ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ أَلَّا نَعْبُدَ إِلَّا اللَّهَ وَلَا نُشْرِكَ بِهِ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُنَا بَعْضًا أَرْبَابًا تفضل دُونِ

اللَّهِ ۚ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا فَقُولُوا اشْهَدُوا بِأَنَّا مُسْلِمُونَ ‏[‏سورة آل عمران، الآية ‏64‏]

Qul yā ahla al-kitābi taʿālaw ilā kalimatin sawāʾin baynanā wa-baynakum allā naʿbuda illā Allāha wa-lā nushrika bihi shayʾan wa-lā yattakhidha baʿḍunā baʿḍan arbāban min dūni Allāh. Fa-in tawallaw fa-qūlū ishhadū bi-annā muslimūn.

Sale: Say, O ye who have received the scripture, come to a just determination between us and you; ^d that we worship not any except God, and associate no creature with him; and that the one of us take not the other for lords, ^e beside God. But if they turn back, say, Bear witness that we are true believers. (Sale [1734] 1801, p. 39)

Hilali and Khan: Say (O Muḥammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم: “O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Come to a word that is just between us and you-that we worship none but Allāh (Alone), and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allāh⁽¹⁾. Then, if they turn away, say: “Bear witness that we are Muslims.” (al-Hilali and Khan 2020, p. 88)

Haleem: Say, ‘People of the Book, let us arrive at a statement that is common to us all: we worship God alone, we ascribe no partner to Him, and none of us takes others beside God as lords.’ If they turn away, say, ‘Witness our devotion to Him.’ (Abdel Haleem 2016, p. 39)

Bakhtiar: O People of the Book! Approach now to a word common between us and between you that we worship none but God and ascribe nothing as partners with Him, that none of us take others to ourselves as lords besides God. And if they turned away, then, say: Bear witness that we are ones who submit to God. (Bakhtiar 2012, p. 52)

The Monotheist Group: Say: “O people of the Book, let us come to a common understanding between us and between you; that we serve none except God, and that we do not set up anything with Him, and that none of us takes each other as patrons besides God.” If they turn away, then say: “Bear witness that we have submitted.” (The Monotheist Group 2022, p. 35)

Khattab: Say, ‘O Prophet,’ “O people of the Book! Let us come to common terms: that we will worship none but Allah, associate none with Him, not take one another as lords instead of Allah.” But if they turn away, then say, “Bear witness that we have submitted ‘to Allah alone’.” (Khattab 2019, p. 103)

Sale employs confrontational expressions such as “just determination,” notably omitting the noun Kalimatin (Shah and Qadri 2017), and “associate no creature with Him,” thereby framing the verse within a legalistic and adversarial discourse that contrasts with the Qur’ān’s Bridge-building purpose. Translation is never ideologically neutral but shaped by the translator’s worldview (Grant et al. 2017; Munday 2007). Sale’s Enlightenment-era Orientalist lens thus constructs Islam as oppositional and impedes interfaith understanding. Also, he italicized the word “any” to emphasize distinctions and introduce a tone of exclusivity5 and opposition, implying a polemical distinction between Muslims and the “People of the Book.” Furthermore, in a footnote he adds, “besides other charges of idolatry on the Jews and Christians, Mohammed accused them of paying too implicit an obedience to their priests and monks” (p. 39). This commentary subtly undermines interfaith understanding by casting the Prophet’s critique as an accusation rather than a theological clarification, reinforcing a perception of Islam as hostile to Jews and Christians.

Hilali and Khan’s rendering, rooted in Salafī-Wahhabī6 ideology (Kidwai 2008), adds parenthetical glosses and restrictive footnotes, reinforcing theological exclusivism and limiting dialogical engagement. For instance, their insertion of glosses such as “(i.e., the Prophet Muhammad and his followers)” within verses illustrates how commentary intrudes into the translation itself, turning interpretation into part of the text rather than its explanation. In line with Tymoczko’s (2003) view that translation is inseparable from its socio-political context, their rendering reflects and reinforces conservative exegetical orthodoxy. In contrast, Haleem’s inclusive phrase “a statement that is common to us all” highlights shared monotheism and promotes dialogue.

Bakhtiar’s translation reclaims the Qur’ān’s dialogic ethos. Her universalist tone in saying “approach now to a word common between us” and her rendering of Muslimūn as “ones who submit to God” reveal a reform-minded vision that challenges sectarian interpretations and promotes interfaith understanding. The Monotheist Group’s rationalist substitutions of “serve” for “worship,” and “patrons” for “lords” recast faith as ethical service, reflecting an anti-sectarian stance. Khattab merges doctrinal fidelity with diplomatic clarity in “let us come to common terms,” embodying a moderate, bridge-building approach. These variations illustrate Lefevere’s (1992) view that ideology is embedded in translation, shaping how the Qur’ān is presented to English-speaking readers.

Similarly, Q.2:256 articulates Islam’s foundational commitment to freedom of belief and coexistence (Al-Awidi and Tajari 2024). The verse reflects an enduring theological principle that authentic belief cannot be imposed externally but must arise from inner assent. As Ibn Kathīr (2002) notes, true faith must emerge from conviction, not coercion, since Islam’s truth appeals to reason and conscience. Misreadings of jihad as forced conversion ignore its historical role in defending justice and community (Esposito 2002). Even the system of jizyah protected religious minorities and affirmed pluralism within Islamic governance (Donner 2010). Comparing the translators’ lexical choices reveals how language itself reflects their divergent ideological positions:

Example 2: Q.2:256

لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ [سورة البقرة، الآية ‏256]‏

Lā ikrāha fī ad-dīn

Sale: Let there be no violence in religion.^S (Sale [1734] 1801, p. 28)

Hilali and Khan: There is no compulsion in religion. (al-Hilali and Khan 2020, p. 68)

Haleem: There is no compulsion in religion. (Abdel Haleem 2016, p. 29)

Bakhtiar: There is no compulsion in the way of life. (Bakhtiar 2012, p. 39)

The Monotheist Group: There is no compulsion in the system. (The Monotheist Group 2022, p. 25)

Khattab: Let there be no compulsion in religion. (Khattab 2019, p. 89)

Drawing on Munday’s (2007) conception of translation as an ideologically situated practice embedded within socio-political discourse, this study illustrates how lexical and paratextual decisions reflect underlying interpretive frameworks. In George Sale’s translation, the rendering of ikrah (compulsion) as “violence,” together with his explanatory footnote, constructs a reading that foregrounds coercion in early Islamic practice. The note—“This passage was particularly directed to some of Mohammed’s first proselytes…” (p. 28)—frames Islam in moral and doctrinally charged terms that align with a critical, apologetic perspective. Such representations correspond to broader Orientalist discursive patterns identified by Said (1978), in which Islam is frequently framed through reductive categories of coercion and violence, potentially limiting more nuanced interfaith engagement.

In contrast, Khattab’s translation recontextualizes the verse historically, countering the Orientalist reading. His explanatory note clarifies that “this verse was revealed when some new Muslims tried to force their Jewish and Christian children to convert to Islam after the Prophet’s emigration (Hijrah) to Medina. The verse prohibits forced conversion” (p. 89). By situating the verse within its socio-historical setting, Khattab foregrounds the Qur’ānic principle of freedom of belief and promotes interfaith respect. Sale’s and Khattab’s opposing interpretive strategies exemplify Munday’s notion of translation as a site of ideological negotiation, oscillating between portrayals of Islam as coercive or just.

Hilali and Khan, as well as Haleem, render ikrah as “compulsion,” aligning linguistically with Bakhtiar, The Monotheist Group, and Khattab. However, their choices for ad-dīn differ. Bakhtiar and The Monotheist Group employ “the way of life” and “the system,” respectively, the former emphasizing universality (Bakhtiar 2012) and the latter suggesting reformist interpretation (Kidwai 2018). Thus, these translation choices reveal a trajectory from Sale’s insinuation of coercion to contemporary translations that reaffirm Islam’s universalism and commitment to interfaith tolerance.

Interpreting Q.60:8–9, Ibn Kathīr (2002) distinguishes between peaceful and hostile non-Muslims: verse eight commands justice and kindness toward those who live peacefully, while verse nine forbids alliances only with aggressors. The principle, rooted in justice rather than faith divisions, underscores Islam’s ethic of coexistence. Example 3 below reveals how translators’ ideological lenses, whether exclusivist, apologetic, or dialogical, shape the Qur’ān’s portrayal of interfaith relations.

p conformity rather than ethical reciprocity.

As Munday (2007) observes, translation choices inevitably reflect the translator’s ideological positioning. Unlike Sale and Bakhtiar, who render تَوَلَّوْهُمْ tawallūhum as “friendship,” Hilali and Khan use “befriend,” and Khattab opts for “friends”. In contrast, Haleem and The Monotheist Group translate the term as “allies” and “ally,” respectively, shifting the sense from personal or religious attachment to political affiliation. Their choices draw on wujūh al-Qur’ān to produce historically grounded and contextually nuanced interpretations. Translating الدِّينِ ad-dīn, Bakhtiar utilizes “way of life,” reframing Islam as an ethical worldview, while The Monotheist Group uses “system,” emphasizing justice and personal responsibility over religious essentialism. In line with contemporary interfaith values (Kidwai 2019), Khattab’s translation balances textual fidelity with modern sensibility, distinguishing between combatants and peaceful non-Muslims while reaffirming the Qur’ānic prohibition of forced conversion.

A related example appears in Q.5:8, which emphasizes impartial justice even toward adversaries. Rooted in social and legal contexts, the verse commands truthfulness for God’s sake and cautions against allowing hostility to compromise fairness (Ibn Kathīr 2002). Examining the translators’ lexical choices can reveal their ideological orientations:

Example 4: Q.5: 8

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ لِلَّهِ شُهَدَاءَ بِالْقِسْطِ ۖ وَلَا يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَىٰ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا ۚ اعْدِلُوا هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَىٰ ۖ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ ۚ

إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُون [سورة المائدة، الآية ‏8‏]

Yā ayyuhā alladhīna āmanū kūnū qawwāmīna li-llāhi shuhadāʾa bil-qisṭ, wa-lā yajrimannakum shanaʾānu qawmin ʿalā allā taʿdilū; iʿdilū huwa aqrabu lil-taqwā, wa-ttaqu Allāh; inna Allāha khabīrun bimā taʿmalūn.

Sale: O you who believe, stand for God and be witnesses for justice, and let not the hatred towards a people make you avoid being just. Be just, for it is closer to righteousness, and be aware of God. God is expert over what you do. (Sale [1734] 1801, p. 74)

Hilali and Khan: ⁸O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allāh as just witnesses; and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety; and fear Allāh. Verily, Allāh is Well-Acquainted with what you do. (al-Hilali and Khan 2020, p. 152)

Haleem: ⁸You who believe, be steadfast in your devotion to God and bear witness impartially: do not let hatred of others lead you away from justice, but adhere to justice, for that is closer to awareness of God. Be mindful of God: God is well aware of all that you do. (Abdel Haleem 2016, p. 86)

Bakhtiar: O those who believed! Be staunch in equity as witnesses to God and let not the hatred towards a people make you avoid being just. Be just. That is near to God-consciousness. And be Godfearing of God. Truly, God is Aware of what you do. (Bakhtiar 2012, p. 98)

The Monotheist Group: O you who believe, stand for God and be witnesses for justice, and let not the hatred towards a people make you avoid being just. Be just, for it is closer to righteousness, and be aware of God. God is expert over what you do. (The Monotheist Group 2022, p. 65)

Khattab: ⁸O believers! Stand firm for Allah and bear true testimony. Do not let the hatred of a people lead you to injustice. Be just! That is closer to righteousness. And be mindful of Allah. Surely, Allah is All-Aware of what you do. (Khattab 2019, p. 148)

Sale’s use of “righteousness” for taqwā reflects Enlightenment rationalism and Orientalist detachment, framing justice as regulation rather than spiritual consciousness (Macfie 2000). Although his choice is similar to that of The Monotheist Group, the latter’s rationalist tone avoids sectarian bias but flattens moral nuance. Hilali and Khan heighten exclusivism with “the enmity and hatred of others” and translate taqwā as “piety,” emphasizing obedience over ethical universality. In contrast, Khattab highlights moral awareness; his rendering, “Be mindful of Allah,” balances reverence and ethical responsibility, sustaining the Qur’ān’s interfaith ethic (Kidwai 2019). Haleem’s “awareness of God” and Bakhtiar’s “God-consciousness” exemplify Lefevere’s (1992) pluralistic engagement, reinterpreting the verse as a call to self-reflective justice.

While all translations affirm prophetic unity, their ideological framing varies, Haleem, Bakhtiar, and Khattab advance universality and interfaith understanding, whereas Sale and Hilali and Khan reflect historical detachment and theological rigidity respectively. Through Munday’s (2007) lens, translation emerges as an ethical and ideological intervention, shaping the Qur’ān’s potential to foster mutual recognition among faith communities. This dynamic is illustrated in Q.29:46, where variations in diction and emphasis reveal how translators negotiate the Qur’ān’s call to interfaith dialogue:

Example 5: Q.29: 46

وَلَا تُجَادِلُوا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ إِلَّا بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا مِنْهُمْ وَقُولُوا آمَنَّا بِالَّذِي أُنزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَأُنزِلَ إِلَيْكُمْ وَإِلَهُنَا وَإِلَهُكُمْ وَاحِدٌ

‏[‏سورة العنكبوت، الآية ‏46‏]

Wa-lā tujādilū ahla al-kitābi illā bi-allatī hiya aḥsanu illā alladhīna ẓalamū minhum, wa-qūlū āmannā bi-alladhī unzila ilaynā wa-unzila ilaykum wa-ilāhunā wa-ilāhukum wāḥid.

Sale: Dispute not against those who have received the scriptures, unless in the mildest manner; ^m except against such of them as behave injuriously towards you: and say, We believe in the revelation which hath been sent down unto us, and also in that which hath been sent down unto you; our GOD and your GOD is one. (Sale [1734] 1801, p. 300).

Hilali and Khan: And argue not with the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), unless it be in (a way) that is better (with good words and in good manner, inviting them to Islāmic Monotheism with His Verses), except with such of them as do wrong; and say (to them): “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you; our Ilāh (God) and your Ilāh (God) is One (i.e., Allāh). (al-Hilali and Khan 2020, p. 522)

Haleem: [Believers], argue only in the best way with the People of the Book, except with those of them who act unjustly. Say, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you; our God and your God is one [and the same]. (Abdel Haleem 2016, p. 254)

Bakhtiar: And dispute not with the People of the Book unless in a way that is fairer, but with those who did wrong among them. And say: We have believed in what was caused to descend to us and was caused to descend to you and our God and your God is One. (Bakhtiar 2012, p. 381)

The Monotheist Group: And do not argue with the people of the Book except in that which is better; except for those who are wicked among them; and say: “We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our god and your god is the same. (The Monotheist Group 2022, p. 270)

Khattab: Do not argue with the People of the Book unless gracefully, except with those of them who act wrongfully. And say, “We believe in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to you. Our God and your God is ‘only’ One. (Khattab 2019, p. 423)

Sale’s rendering of “Dispute” for tujadilū suggests confrontation or hostility, implying opposition rather than exchange. In a footnote, he states that the verse was “abrogated by that of the sword; though some think it relates only to those who are in alliance with the Moslems” (p. 300). This addition reflects an Orientalist agenda that undermines the Qur’ān’s interfaith ethic. Also, Hilali and Khan impose a preaching, exclusivist lens with additions like “inviting them to Islamic Monotheism with His Verses” and “Allāh”. Such additions reinforce boundaries and limit the Qur’ān’s call to mutual recognition.

In contrast, modern translations foreground inclusivity. Haleem preserves the original spirit with “argue only in the best way” and renders muslimūn as “devoted,” adopting a neutral, universally spiritual tone that supports interfaith understanding (Munday 2007). Bakhtiar similarly uses “submit,” maintaining literal fidelity while allowing theological overlap, and the Monotheist Group employs comparable vocabulary, though a term like “wicked” for ẓalamū risks moral alienation. Khattab balances fidelity and dialogue, translating bi-illatī hiya aḥsan as “gracefully” and emphasizing “fully submit,” fostering sincerity and shared devotion without demanding conformity. Thus, while Sale constrains the verse’s interfaith scope, Haleem, Bakhtiar, and Khattab highlight its ethical universality.

Pink’s (2019) Muslim Qur’ānic Interpretation Today offers a concise, analytical overview of contemporary Qur’ānic exegesis by showing how it is shaped by modern contexts rather than being purely textual or traditional. The book argues that current interpretations emerge from interactions between tradition and new forces—such as globalisation, media (especially digital platforms), nation-state politics, and diverse interpretive communities—while also reflecting ongoing tensions between authority and innovation. Through transregional case studies, Pink demonstrates that Qur’ānic interpretation today is a dynamic, contested field influenced by social, historical, and ideological conditions, not a unified or static tradition.

The summary Table 1 below highlights the translators’ different lexical and interpretive choices:

Table 1. Summary of Selected Qur’ānic Terms in George Sale’s Translation and Five Contemporary English Renderings, as Analyzed in Examples 1–5.

Verse	Sale	Hilali & Khan	Haleem	Bakhtiar	The Monotheist Group	Khattab
Q.3:64 كَلِمَةٍ سَوَاءٍ	determination	word	statement	word	understanding	terms
نَعْبُدَ	worship	worship	worship	worship	serve	worship
مُسْلِمُونَ	true believers	Muslims	our devotion to Him	We submit to God	We have submitted.	We have submitted.
Q.2:256 إِكْرَاهَ	violence	compulsion	compulsion	compulsion	compulsion	compulsion
الدِّينِ	religion	religion	religion	way of life	system	religion
Q.60:8-9 قَاتَلُوكُمْ	borne arms	fought	fought	fought	fought	fought
تَبَرُّوهُمْ	not to deal kindly	deal justly	deal kindly	be good	deal kindly	dealing kindly
تَوَلَّوْهُمْ ۚ	enter into friendship with them	befriend them	take them as allies	turn to them in friendship	ally with them	take them as friends
Q.5: 8 تَّقْوَىٰ	righteousness	piety	awareness of God	God-consciousness	righteousness	righteousness
Q.29: 46 تُجَادِلُوا	dispute	argue	argue	dispute	argue	argue
وَإِلَهُنَا وَإِلَهُكُمْ وَاحِدٌ	our GOD and your GOD is one.	our Ilāh (God) and your Ilāh (God) is One (i.e., Allāh).	our God and your God is one [and the same].	our God and your God One.	our god and your god is the same.	Our God and your God is ‘only’ One.

The summary table highlights clear ideological and stylistic contrasts among the selected translators (see examples 1–5). Sale’s lexical choices such as “violence” and “determination” (Sale [1734] 1801, p. 39) carry polemical and archaic tones, reflecting Orientalist distance. Hilali & Khan’s additions and capitalizations reveal doctrinal emphasis. In contrast, Haleem and Bakhtiar employ inclusive, interpretive phrasing that promotes interfaith resonance, while The Monotheist Group and Khattab favor accessible, contemporary diction aligning with reformist or communicative intent. Overall, the table traces a shift from Sale’s polemics in 1734, through Hilali and Khan’s theologically driven rendering in 1977, to more dialogical and humanistic approaches by modern translators.

4. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that English translations of key Qur’ānic verses addressing tolerance, coexistence, and ethical engagement with religious others are significantly shaped by the translators’ ideological orientations. Through a comparative reading of Q.3:64, Q.2:256, Q.60:8–9, Q.5:8, and Q.29:46, the analysis shows that translation functions as a site where theological commitments, historical context, and socio-political assumptions intersect. Building on Munday’s (2007) framework of translation as an ideologically embedded act and Lefevere’s (1992) concept of refraction, the findings reveal that each translator constructs a distinct interpretive lens through which the Qur’ān’s interfaith ethos is reframed, either expanded or constrained.

Sale’s eighteenth-century translation, shaped by Enlightenment polemics and Protestant critiques of Islam, embeds adversarial diction and paratextual commentary that reconfigure the Qur’ān’s conciliatory discourse into a polemical narrative. Hilali and Khan’s rendering, grounded in a Salafī-Wahhabī hermeneutical tradition (Kidwai 2008), similarly re-inscribes theological exclusivism through parenthetical insertions and interpretive intrusions that foreground doctrinal boundaries over dialogical possibility. These translations demonstrate how lexical and paratextual choices can restrict the Qur’ān’s call to mutual recognition by situating the text within narrow theological or ideological frameworks.

In contrast, modern translations by Haleem, Bakhtiar, The Monotheist Group, and Khattab adopt a markedly different orientation (Aldeeb 2023). Their lexical precision, contextual sensitivity, and discursive openness recover the Qur’ān’s ethical imperatives concerning justice, freedom of belief, and principled coexistence. Bakhtiar’s universalist phrasing (Hassen 2011), Haleem’s emphasis on shared theological ground, and Khattab’s historically grounded commentary (Kidwai 2018) collectively reflect contemporary efforts to articulate the Qur’ān within a global interfaith landscape. Their translations highlight how Qur’ānic ethics can be rendered in ways that facilitate cross-cultural understanding, counteract polemical misreadings, and foreground the text’s moral universality.

The comparative table underscores this spectrum of translation strategies, revealing a historical trajectory from Orientalist polemic to dialogical engagement. This shift aligns with broader movements in Qur’ānic studies and interreligious scholarship that advocate for translations attentive to both linguistic fidelity and ethical resonance. By examining how translators negotiate key terms such as kalimah sawāʾ (terms), ikrāh (compulsion), ad-dīn (religion), and tawallūhum (take them as friends), the study contributes to ongoing discussions about translation ethics, hermeneutical responsibility, and the role of scripture in shaping contemporary interfaith relations.

While this study identifies important shifts beyond earlier Orientalist frameworks, it suggests that we have not fully reached a “post-Sale” or “post-Orientalist” moment, as many contemporary translations still echo earlier linguistic, methodological, and ideological patterns. Rather, the current landscape reflects a transitional phase in which inherited paradigms persist alongside emerging, more self-reflexive and contextually grounded approaches to Qur’ānic translation.

Ultimately, the findings highlight that translation is not merely a linguistic act but a theological and ethical intervention. The ways in which translators frame Qur’ānic discourse directly influence how diverse readers—Muslim and non-Muslim alike—encounter its teachings on justice, tolerance, and coexistence. Recognizing these dynamics invites scholars, translators, and interfaith practitioners to approach Qur’ānic translation with heightened attentiveness to the ideological forces that shape textual representation. Such awareness is essential for fostering more constructive and empathetic readings of the Qur’ān within pluralistic contexts. In this regard, the study affirms the potential of contemporary translation practices to advance the Qur’ān’s vision of ethical pluralism and contribute meaningfully to interreligious understanding.