Answering Christianity Research Center

Sometimes the brackets are a couple words explanation for Arabic words that don't have their equivalent in English. At other times they are to keep the context intact. Most translations don't include the surrounding events for the verse, such information is included in the Tafsirs.

For word-by-word translations you can use: http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp
For up to 53 translations from different (Muslim and non-Muslim) sources.: http://www.islamawakened.com/index.php/qur-an

Regarding your discourse:

Although not entirely incorrect, it would've been better if you hadn't used the words "a more PRECISE translation", "a more descriptive" or "more explanatory" translation would have been better. The thing is Islam or the Qur'an can't really be taken as on an individual level. The whole of religion and scripture has to be taken holistically for a person to be sure (at-least as much as he/she can be) of what the interpretation of a particular verse is.

For example, there is a verse in the Holy Qur'an which says that the punishment for a thief is to cut off his hand. Taken on an individual level, it would mean that all thieves' hands should be cut off. But from the events of Prophet Muhammad and Caliph Umar's lives, we find out that a person's circumstances, the monetary value of the thing that was stolen and the protection that was put on it, all are to be taken into account.

This is what Muhsin Khan's translation is doing, i.e. providing short explanations for things that, although the scholars are well aware of and there is little to no difference of opinion, but for the average reader (especially a non-Muslim reader) are completely unknown.

Regarding his claims,

- "DON'T YOU AND YOUR SCHOLARS KNOW ALLAH HAS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN ANY INTERPRETATION BY MEN.
ONLY ALLAH HIMSELF CAN INTERPRET IS QURAN."

As far as I know, this is completely ludicrous. No verse's interpretation has ever been forbidden by Allah. The most that can be said is that there are some verse about which we can perform our best efforts, spend our entire lives but at the end of the day we cannot ever be absolutely sure whether our interpretation is right or wrong. We will make our laws or ideologies according to our best efforts but will never reject the idea that we can be wrong and have made mistakes.

For example, using the example given by "submit" like Surah 2:1, Quran 20:1 includes the Arabic letters "Ta" and "Ha". According to Shabir Ally it was found that interestingly the letters "Ta" and "Ha" are repeated exactly equal number of times in that Surah. Now this could be the only meaning that was intended by Allah from this verse or there could be several others. Whatever may be the case we can never be sure.

- "NO ONE KNOWS ITS INTERPRETATION EXCEPT ALLAH."

It is a complete non sequitur fallacy to say that because only Allah knows the meaning He has forbidden any research on it. How can someone take such a huge leap and come to this conclusion?

- "Your scholars are described by the Qur'ān as "those in whose hearts is deviation"."

The same argument as for the previous point.

- "The Qur'ān must be understood and obeyed litteraly."

There are both literal and metaphorical verses. What I have personally seen is that unlike the Hadiths literature, there is usually little difference of opinion among scholars on which verse has literal meaning and which has metaphorical.

Aside from "human" evolution, Islamic scripture has pretty much no problem. On the matter of humans, there is another interpretation which goes more in line with the modern concepts of evolution. It basically says that Allah ordered the angels to gather mud from different places on Earth and then made a creature, then that creature went through a process. This creature that wen through the process, could have been one, two or a thousand in number. And from them Allah chose one on whom he bestowed consciousness (language, intelligence etc.).

I am unable to explain the interpretation, if you know Urdu I can share the video link.

A relevant video by Dr. Yasir Qadhi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPuoGVlCjZ0

Can't really comment on the Rothschild issue, don't know what the Saudis say in response to that.

But regarding the matter of Wahabism and Daesh, I have come across such reports a number of times. The "Salafis" argue that this and many other things were fabricated lies against Muhammad Ibn-Saud and Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab.

While I don't have much reason to believe either story, there is one fact that does give legitimacy (to at-least a small part) of the Saudi argument. From what I have studied of these terrorist groups, they have two most significant foundations which are used to justify their actions.

One is the creation and enforcement of a Khilafah on the whole world, even on peaceful non-Muslims. They consider this as a part of Deen or a responsibility from God to fight until this becomes a reality.

Second is the concept that all Muslims who are not actively striving for the creation of a Khilafah are sinners (or have even become apostates), and until they do not strive for the cause they will remain as sinners/apostates. Their doctrine says that, leaders of Muslims nations are on the payroll of Western governments and now it is a duty of all Muslim populations to rise up, violently fight against their governments and overthrow them, so that the first steps for the creation of a global Khilafah can be taken.

Daesh and Tehrik Taliban Pakistan follow this ideology. Hizb-ut-Tahrir might not be a terrorist organization but apparently a significant portion of them believes in this doctrine too. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, are for the most part concerned with Western targets than overthrowing Muslim governments.

The first point might possibly be a part of Wahabbi ideology too (don't know enough to comment on this) but the second point is definitely problematic. The factor in Wahabbi interpretation of Islam that is most contradictory with the terrorist ideology, is the concept that the Muslim populations do not have the right to rise-up against their rulers even if they oppress them. This fact is obvious in their societies.

The Wahabbis argue that they come to this conclusion because of Hadiths of the Prophet regarding this matter. This opinion was held by Ibn Taymiah and later following in Taymiah's footsteps by Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab too.

These "Salafis" blame (1) the Pakistan scholar Syed Ala' Maudoodi, who was instrumental in the creation of the concept that it is the responsibility of Muslims to "Aqeem-ud-Deen" i.e. "establish" religion over the world, and (2) Sayyid Qutb, a leading member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, who apparently was instrumental in the evolution of Maudoodi's interpretation into the shape that it exists today among the terrorists.

George Galloway's take on this incident:
https://www.facebook.com/OfficialGeorgeGalloway/videos/10154190222020797/?permPage=1

Update: Orlando Shooter Was Reportedly a Regular at Pulse and Had a Profile on Gay Dating App
Source: http://gawker.com/orlando-shooter-was-reportedly-a-regular-at-pulse-and-h-1781920316

@adilriaz123,
I wasn't talking about your comment.

People have been calling the shooting as hoaxes for a long time, but there is usually very little evidence to support such claims. The people who propagate these theories the most are the pro-gun Americans trying to show that Obama's administration is enacting these false flag attacks to create support for gun control laws and eventually take away their guns, a right enshrined in the first Amendment.

It is doubtful that Daesh is directly responsible for this, at the moment it appears to be a spur of the moment attack. But it is pertinent to note that Daesh hasn't been directly linked to most, if any, of these lone wolf attacks. After the attacks happen, they just claim responsibility to get credit. This is the primary goal of terrorist attacks; to get the world's attention.

Regarding, "... just doing it to match the death toll of civilians killed in Iraq, Syria. Lives paid with lives"; it would appear from the point-of-view of an outsider that this statement in some small limited way is trying to justify what Daesh does. Although, I do believe from a naturalistic/secular point-of-view it is expected from a group to inflict losses on their enemies in an identical fashion as they believe have been inflicted upon them; from an Islamic point-of-view it is absolutely disgusting, repulsive and revolting. Additionally, from what I've read, the primary focus of Daesh from these high impact attacks is to polarise the world so that non-Muslims are filled with hatred against the Muslims and when Muslims get persecuted they leave their homes and join-up with Daesh. A fundamental feature of their doctrine that they try to inculcate into their followers is that the time of a final "believer Vs. disbeliever" confrontation has come very near and they are the ones who are going to fight this final battle on behalf of the Muslims.