Editing Openai/67f9c019-88f0-8007-a867-29e6f1beeb8b (section)

=== Assistant: Below is a summary comparing Saint Murad’s translation with that of G. ===
Below is a summary comparing Saint Murad’s translation with that of G. S. Reynolds, highlighting their methodological differences and the consequent interpretative outcomes:

| Aspect                         | Saint Murad’s Translation                                                                                                                                                                            | G. S. Reynolds’s Translation                                                                                                                                                 |
| ------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Methodological Approach        | • Employs an ultra‑literal, cross‑linguistic method that traces Arabic terms to related Semitic (especially Syriac) roots.                                                                           | • Uses a neutral, academically grounded approach based on classical Arabic philology and contextual consistency.                                                             |
| Theological Orientation        | • Interprets key terms in ways that many critics argue reflect an underlying Christological bias; for instance, re‑reading words to suggest a human‑crafted or externally derived nuance.            | • Maintains an interpretation that is free of extraneous theological overlays (such as Christological infusions), preserving the intrinsic meaning of the text.              |
| Exegesis and Context           | • Tends to minimize or bypass classical exegetical tradition in favor of a word‑for‑word, etymological perspective, sometimes leading to departures from the Quran’s internal coherence.             | • Pays careful attention to the Quran’s historical, linguistic, and contextual dimensions, aligning with conventional tafsir where appropriate.                              |
| Academic Reception             | • Viewed as revisionist and polemical by many scholars due to its heavy reliance on external linguistic comparisons, which some argue undermines the claim of the Quran’s divine inimitability.      | • Considered more neutral and academically sound; it is respected for its balanced treatment of the Arabic language and its established context.                             |
| Implications for Understanding | • By favoring a cross‑linguistic reconstruction, it risks suggesting that the Quran’s language is influenced by man‑made developments rather than being wholly divinely complete and self‑contained. | • Aims to convey the Quran’s inherent “completeness” and “full detail”—that every aspect of guidance (linguistic, historical, social, etc.) is present in the original text. |

===== In Summary =====
* Murad’s translation is characterized by its ultra‑literal, cross‑linguistic method that often re‑interprets key terms through the lens of related Semitic languages. Critics argue that this approach—infused with elements that may reflect a Christological perspective—tends to shift focus away from the Quran’s self‑contained, divinely complete message.
* G. S. Reynolds’s translation, on the other hand, adheres to a more neutral academic methodology. It draws on classical Arabic scholarship and context, and it avoids the theological extra‑layers (such as an infusion of Christology) found in Murad’s reading. This results in an interpretation that many scholars find more faithful to the Quran’s inherent claim to completeness and detailed guidance as conveyed in its own language.

Thus, while Murad’s work aims to challenge the traditional narrative by re‑examining the linguistic roots through an external, sometimes controversial perspective, Reynolds’s approach is generally seen as upholding the Quran’s internal coherence and divine self‑explanation.