Reviews of Bayan-ul-Quran

This is Urdu translation of the Holy Quran with extensive commentary by Maulana Muhammad Ali (including Arabic text). The commentary is about twice as long as in the English work.

1. In the Urdu book Quran aur Insan, which quotes verses of the Holy Quran dealing with various problems and aspects of human life, the author Safdar Hasan Siddiqi writes in the Preface:

“I have taken the translation of the verses of the Holy Quran mostly from the translation by the late Maulana Muhammad Ali because it is, to a great extent, a translation of the words and not his own interpretation, and for this reason it expresses the Divine will in the Urdu language in a better way.”

(Quran aur Insan by Safdar Hasan Siddiqi, published 1995 by Ferozsons, Lahore, page 29)

Details of the Review shown below in Urdu:

2. The Urdu monthly Islami Digest of Karachi (editor: Syed Qasim Mahmud) in its March 1996 issue opened a series entitled Tashrih-ul-Quran. After mentioning Maulana Muhammad Ali’s English translation of the Quran, regarding Bayan-ul-Quran it says:

“Five years after his English translation and commentary the Urdu translation and commentary was published, having the title Bayan-ul-Quran. … Expressing her view about this work Dr. Saliha writes:

‘The translation, while being simple, has literary weight. The language is eloquent and chaste. As to the meaning, some people have objections against his translation and commentary because of his beliefs and views. The fact is that he was the head of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama‘at. Despite this, we consider that his translation and commentary is almost free of ‘wrong beliefs’. He has done the translation very cautiously, with great sincerity, and having kept before him the generally prevailing views. Despite closely following the text and the order of the original words, the translation has continuity and flow.’ ”

The reference here to Dr Saliha is to: Dr Saliha Abdul Hakim Sharf-ud-Din, Quran Hakim kay Urdu Tarajam, published by Qadimi Kutub Khana, Karachi (the Preface being dated 1981 by the author). This quotation from her book is on p. 325, with some words incorporated from p. 326. At this link we provide the pages from Dr Saliha’s book containing her review of Bayan-ul-Quran. We have indicated on them the words quoted above by a red line in the margin.

Details of the Review from Islami Digest, Karachi, shown below in Urdu:

The part which is translated above in English is marked by red lines below. The first part of the Urdu below, which we have not translated, relates to Maulana Muhammad Ali’s English translation of the Quran.

3. Professor Dr. Muhammad Nasim Usmani in his book Urdu Main Tafsiri Adab: Aik Tarikhi aur Tajziyati Ja’iza (‘Quranic Commentaries in Urdu: A Historical and Critical Analysis’, published Karachi, 1994) writes on pages 416 to 418:

“This translation and commentary is different from the famous commentary Bayan-ul-Quran by Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi. Its author is the Head of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Jama‘at, Maulana Muhammad Ali of Lahore, and it was published by the Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha‘at Islam Lahore. Maulana Muhammad Ali first produced a translation and commentary of the Holy Quran in English, and then, to make it more widely available, he rendered it into Urdu. As the commentary in Urdu is more comprehensive, the size of the book increased considerably. So for convenience it was first published in three volumes, around the year 1922. Since Pakistan came into being, three editions have been published which were in one volume, in 1969, 1972 and 1980.”

He then gives two quotations from the Maulana’s Preface, in the first of which the Maulana has stressed the need for Muslims to understand the Quran, and in the second the Maulana has refuted the notion that the Quran does not have a systematic arrangement of subject matter. After citing these quotations, the reviewer makes the following comment:

“The views that the translator has expressed in these lines are not very different from what the vast majority of Muslims believe. In fact, this commentary is clearly different from the Tafsir Saghir of Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad. To see this difference, look at the translation and commentary of the following verses.”

He quotes as his example the translation and explanation of the ‘finality of prophethood’ verse (33:40) from Bayan-ul-Quran.

Scans of pages from the original book by Professor Dr. Muhammad Nasim Usmani:

The pdf of the whole book is at this link.

4. In the Urdu journal Fikr-o-Nazar, published by the Islamic Research Institute, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan, there is a lengthy article by Muhammad Arshad entitled Bar-i Saghir mein tafsir-i Quran ka kalami usloob or ‘Styles of exegesis of the Quran in the Indian subcontinent’ (vol. 41, no. 3, 2004, pages 13–17).

On pages 20–21 it reviews Bayan-ul-Quran by Maulana Muhammad Ali.

At this link we provide pages 20–21 extracted from the pdf version of the full article. Since the article refers to many endnotes, we have also added the pages containing those endnotes (pages 54–55).

This is largely an unfavourable and adverse review, criticising the commentary for trying to reconcile the supernatural phenomena and miracles mentioned in the Quran with modern scientific knowledge, and giving rational explanations for them. The reviewer also objects to Maulana Muhammad Ali’s interpretations on jihad, polygamy, abrogation, and death penalty for apostasy as being “apologetic”. He goes on to say:

“The author of Bayan-ul-Quran was also a follower of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, although instead of believing Mirza sahib to be a prophet he believed him to be a great mujaddid and reformer. Therefore, in Bayan-ul-Quran he has tried to show in many places that Mirza sahib was a mujaddid appointed for the renewal and reform of the religion of Islam, and he has tried to prove that it is incumbent and obligatory on the Muslim Ummah to obey and follow his revelations and visions.”

(Underlining of the last words is ours.)

The statement we have underlined is absolutely baseless and untrue. Nowhere has the Maulana written that it is incumbent and obligatory on Muslims to obey and follow the revelations and visions of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. The reviewer at this point has given ten references to pages in Bayan-ul-Quran where the Maulana is alleged to have expressed this view. There is nothing whatsoever on those pages to support the reviewer’s assertion.

Quite the contrary, in his footnote no. 1942 under verse 18:65, Maulana Muhammad Ali gives a heading: “The revelation of a wali is not binding in Shariah, unless Shariah supports it.” There he relates the incident that once, after the 29th of Ramadan, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received a revelation: “Eid is today, you may celebrate it or not.” However, the moon had not been sighted. His followers asked if, in view of his revelation, they should end fasting and hold Eid. He replied: “No, according to Shariah Eid can only be held if the moon was sighted on the 29th.” It was only when reports of sighting were received that Eid was held after the 29th.

This incident shows that, according to Maulana Muhammad Ali, in any matter which is determined by the Shariah of Islam the revelations and visions of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad were not even incumbent and obligatory on his own followers, let alone on the entire Muslim Ummah.

At this link we provide the full article in pdf format. See at this link the website of Fikr-o-Nazar magazine.