Hilali-Khan Qur’an Translation
by Sheila Musaji
Over the years we have published a number of articles on problematic Qur’an translations.
“On the ‘New Revised Edition’ of Yusuf Ali’s Qur’anic Translation by Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D.  which discussed the censorship of the commentary, removal of some appendices, evisceration of footnotes, added material, and the decision to “detranslate” the word “God” back into the Arabic “Allah” in this 1989 “New Revised Edition” by Amana.
In an interview with Prof. T.B. Irving by Sheila Musaji the sad history of how his commentary was not included in the published version of his translation was discussed. 
In the January 2002 issue of The American Muslim we published an article by Dr. Robert D. Crane ‘Playing Into the Hands of the Extremists?’ (Hilali Khan Qur’an Translation) discussed what is “Perhaps the most extremist translation ever made of the Qur’an”. 
We have also published many articles discussing translations, mis-translations, and different interpretations of particular verses. 
This Hilali-Khan interpretation of the Qur’an is still widely available in the U.S. - perhaps because so many free copies were given out by the case to mosques by the Saudis. It is also still given out to English speaking Hajjis at the end of the pilgrimage. I know this because I received one of these as a parting gift in 2005. You can still download this translation on the net, and it is still advertized for sale on many Muslim sites.
This “Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language” published by Maktaba Dar-Us Salam in Riyadh (aka the Hilali-Khan translation) and given out so freely is shocking in its distortions of the message of the Qur’an and amounts to a rewrite not a translation.
The number of comments in parenthesis in this particular translation is more than excessive, and instead of clarifying the text or explaining a word or phrase that cannot be easily translated into English, these comments make the text very difficult to follow and often distort rather than amplify the meaning.
The appendices contain discussions of Christian versus Muslim beliefs that read more like a polemical debate and really do not belong as part of a translation.
I will give just a few examples of the difficulties with this translation. Sadly, I could give many more examples, but these should sufice to show the extremist character of this translation.
Beginning immediately with Surah Fatiha 1:1 (the opening chapter of the Qur’an) we find a translation not to be found anywhere else:
“Guide us to the Straight Way. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who have earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).” (HK translation 1:1-7)
This can only give the impression to any non-Muslim or Muslim who either does not have fluency in Arabic or access to individuals with competency in Classical Qur’anic Arabic that the Qur’an denounces all Jews and Christians. This is a great untruth.
This unique translation is then followed by an extremely long footnote which justifies this hateful translation based on traditions from texts that go back to the Middle Ages (Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi, Tabari) as if these are the only interpretations, and without any discussion of the history of these commentaries and the hadiths on which they are based. (Compare this with the Muhammad Asad translation and commentary on Qur’an 1:1-7) 
In Surah Baqrah 2:62 the actual translation of the verse is not distorted, but a footnote is added saying that this verse has been abrogated by verse 3:85 leaving the impression that this is the last word on the subject.
In Surah Baqrah 2:190 the HK translation seriously distorts the concept of jihad. Raschid Bockemuhl writes about this:
Let us take the often cited sura 2, verse 190, which begins with the words: wā qātilū fī sabīli’llah alladhīna yuqātīlūnakum: ’And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you’ – and let us see how Hilali & Khan interpret this verse, and how they use their translation for carrying out their religious and political purposes.
Qātala means ‘to fight’, qitāl is ‘the fight’, that means a regular military action with soldiers and weaponry. This may not be confused with the well-known term of jihād, derived from the verb jáhada, the translation of which is ‘to exert oneself, to make an effort, to try hard’. According to this, jihād means ‘effort’. That contains all lifelong efforts the believers have to make to improve their living and thinking. This may be a military effort, too, but very rarely and only on strict conditions. The word jihād occurs just once in the whole Quran – and then in the general meaning of ‘effort’, not of ‘warfare’ (sura 9, verse 24).
In the cited verse the Quran speaks about qitāl, that is military action, not about jihād. But that does not hinder Hilali & Khan, in their commentary, to deliberately confuse both terms. The word jihād they explain in the following non-Quranic manner:
Al-Jihād (holy fighting) in Allah’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihād Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (…) and His religion is propagated. By abandoning Jihād (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position. (…) Jihād is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim (…).
These belligerent words and thoughts do not refer to defense (which is the only justification for Muslims to fight), but to aggression (By Jihad Islam is established; Allah’s Word is made superior; His religion is propagated). Even the famous ‘holy war’ or, as Hilali & Khan put it, the holy fighting, would only make sense, if any, as aggression, not as ‘holy defense’. Our translators and commentators did not heed the fact that Muslims, according to the Quran, don’t worship anything or anybody as ‘holy’, except Allah. Therefore, there may never be a ‘holy war’ in Islam – a term, by the way, that has been given to Islam by Christians.
Hilali & Khan’s ideas do not reflect the definition of Jihād in the Quran (see above). Nevertheless, Jihād was the general Islamic ideology over centuries (as it was for the Crusaders). In those times, to the famous ‘Five pillars of Islam’ (as prayer, or fast, or pilgrimage) Jihād was added as the sixth pillar (though not ordained in the Quran, as the five other pillars). But these times are over. Since long time, Islam has returned to its original five pillars. In our days, only radical fundamentalists and so-called ‘Jihadists’ dream of (and sometimes work for) a revival of the sixth pillar. These people seem to be the spiritual kindred of Hilali & Khan.
Not to be misunderstood: Jihād (as ‘individual effort’) is and remains an obligatory duty on every Muslim, as Hilali & Khan correctly say. But their description (holy fighting with full force of numbers and weaponry) is not only wrong, but dangerous – and under no circumstances a duty for Muslims.
Note: the complete paper by Raschid Bockemuhl titled Abrogation Between Orthodoxy and Radicalism is available online in English only as a word document HERE.
In Surah Baqrah 2:216 the HK translation is that “Jihad (islamic holy war) is ordained for you ...”
When I read this I was shocked and again had to go to several translations:
YUSUFALI: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
PICKTHAL: Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
SHAKIR: Fighting is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.
ASAD: FIGHTING is ordained for you, even though it be hateful to you; but it may well be that you hate a thing the while it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing the while it is bad for you: and God knows, whereas you do not know.
HILALI-KHAN: Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.
The first mistake in this translation is that this Qur’anic verse actually does not use the word “Jihad”. This verse actually uses the word “Qitaal”, which refers to physical fighting. Fighting is ordained for Muslims in order to defend themselves and their rights, as well as the rights of others. There is nothing written here about war being “holy”. This confusing of the terms “jihad” and “qitaal” or ignorance of the difference between “jihad” and “hirabah” is something we have come to expect from Islamophobes, but it is beyond belief to find such confusion in a translation done by Muslims. (I showed the Arabic text to one of my sons who has completed only one year of college Arabic and asked him to read this verse and he read the word as “qitaal” and translated it as “fighting” or “warfare”.) It is completely puzzling to me how the Arabic word “qitaal” could be translated into English as “Jihad” another Arabic word with a different meaning, and not an English word at all.
Dr. Muzammil Siddiqui has written an excellent article on the differences between “Jihad” and “Qitaal” or “Harb” entitled “Jihad: It’s True Meaning and Purpose”. 
The translation of Sura Baqrah 2:223 adds a lengthy comment in parenthesis to the simple statement Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will…” that is uncomfortable and unnecessarily explicit. It was so uncomfortable for me to read that I could not bring myself to reprint the full text here.
(Compare this with the Muhammad Asad translation and commentary on Qur’an 2:223) 
Surah Imran 3:110
“You (true believers in Islamic monotheism and the real followers of Prophet Muhammad and the Sunnah) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” (HK translation 3:110)
A footnote to this verse “explains” who are the best of all people “the best for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam (and thereby save them from the eternal punishment in the Hell-fire and make them enter Paradise in the Hereafter. Bukhari vol. 6, Hadith 80)
This is beyond comprehension and a deliberate choice to locate and promote the most extreme interpretation by any commentator, and to present that as if it is the only interpretation. ( Compare this with the Muhammad Asad translation and commentary on 3:110) 
As Dr. Robert D. Crane wrote discussing the translation of 3:110:
Once such “difficult passages” are overcome, the official Saudi extremists lay the groundwork for Osama bin Laden by translating Surah Ali Imran 3:110 to read, “You [true believers in Islamic monotheism and the real followers of Prophet Muhammad and the Sunnah] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” This, according to the official Saudi annotation, means “the best for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam (and thereby save them from the eternal punishment in the Hell-fire and make them enter Paradise in the Hereafter.” Unfortunately, freedom of speech does not permit the confiscation of this inflammatory incitement from the hundreds of mosques all over America. Or does it? If not, the responsibility lies on the “silent majority” of Muslims to “bite the bullet” themselves, because this English version of the Qur’an and the annotations are truly bullets aimed at the American people and at all civilization.
The Saudi mullahs and their political henchmen who dare to approve such a Qur’an are plumbing the depths of darkness. Their reigning pseudo-religion in Saudi Arabia today is a mockery of everything Islamic. In no century of Muslim history and in no Muslim culture have self-proclaimed Muslims preached and proselytized such a bizarre distortion of divine revelation. They have given birth to the mother of all black sheep among religions. And the rabid ram, Osama bin Laden, is its true son.
The HK translation of Sura Maida 4:157-158 adds material to the normal translations that would support the “substitution theory” of Jesus’ crucifixion as if this was the only interpretation of those verses, thus adding confusion and dispute unecesarily.
In order to show how unique these translators interpretation is, here is the Hilali-Khan translation of 4:157-158 next to the translation of the same verses by yusuf Ali, Pickthal, Shakir and Asad:
YUSUF ALI: That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
PICKTHAL: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
SHAKIR: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
ASAD: and their boast, “Behold, we have slain the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, [who claimed to be] an apostle of God!” However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him, but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so; and, verily, those who hold conflicting views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture. For, of a certainty, they did not slay him:
HILALI-KHAN: And because of their saying (in boast), “We killed Messiah ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allâh,” - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of ‘Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)
YUSUF ALI: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-
PICKTHAL: But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.
SHAKIR: Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
ASAD: nay, God exalted him unto Himself - and God is indeed almighty, wise.
HILALI-KHAN: But Allâh raised him [‘Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allâh is Ever All Powerful, All Wise.
Surah Maidah 5:65 -66 has been translated as:
“And if only the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) had believed (in Muhammad) and warded off evil (sin, ascribing partners to Allah) and had become Al-Muttaqun We would indeed have blotted out their sins and admitted them to Gardens of pleasure (in Paradise). And if only they had acted according to the Torah, the gospel, and what has (now) been sent down to them from their Lord (the Qur’an) they would surely have gotten provision from above them and from underneath their feet. There are from among them people who are on the right course (i.e. they act on the revelation and believe in the Prophet Muhammad like Abdullah bin Salam) but many of them do evil deeds.”
Again, we need to look at other translations:
YUSUFALI: If only the People of the Book had believed and been righteous, We should indeed have blotted out their iniquities and admitted them to gardens of bliss.
PICKTHAL: If only the People of the Scripture would believe and ward off (evil), surely We should remit their sins from them and surely We should bring them into Gardens of Delight.
SHAKIR: And if the followers of the Book had believed and guarded (against evil) We would certainly have covered their evil deeds and We would certainly have made them enter gardens of bliss
ASAD: If the followers of the Bible would but attain to [true] faith and God-consciousness, We should indeed efface their [previous] bad deeds, and indeed bring them into gardens of bliss; (66)
YUSUFALI: If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil.
PICKTHAL: If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.
SHAKIR: And if they had kept up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet there is a party of them keeping to the moderate course, and (as for) most of them, evil is that which they do.
ASAD: and if they would but truly observe the Torah and the Gospel and all [the revelation] that has been bestowed from on high upon them by their Sustainer, they would indeed partake of all the blessings of heaven and earth, and for most of them vile indeed is what they do.
The differences in interpretation here are subtle, but nevertheless important.
Surah Maidah 5:69 “Surely, those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah and his messenger Muhammad and all that was revealed to him from Allah), and those who are Jews and Christians - whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and works righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” (HK translation 5:69)
This is translated in the same way as others have translated, but the HK translation adds a footnote saying that this passage also is abrogated by 3:85. As to abrogation, the notes in this translation state that 3:85 abrogates 2:62 and 5:69; 9:29 abrogates 2:109; 2:185 abrogates 2:109; 2:185 abrogates 2:184; 9:36 abrogates 2:217 and 45:14; 5:90 abrogates 2:219; 4:12 abrogates 2:240; 24:2 abrogates 4:15-16. Again, making these statements as if they are the only interpretations and without any discussion of the fact that this theory of abrogation is not universally accepted by Islamic scholars. For a discussion of the theory of abrogation see Muhammad Al-Ghazali’s View on Abrogation (Naskh) in the Qur’an, by Khaleel Mohammed ; and also Ahmad von Denffer’s discussion in Ulum al Qur’an “al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh”  See also Qur’an & Hadith Against Extremism
Over and over again this HK translation uses these same tactics and presents the most extreme and narrow minded interpretation possible. This could not be any more misrepresentative of Islam than if it were produced by some anti-Muslim group wishing to purposefully distort and hide the beauty of Islam. Interestingly, if you go to the page where this translation is being sold on Amazon.com you will see a list under “customers who bought this book also bought” and listed there are only books by Robert Spencer and Mark Gabriel, two very Islamophobic authors. Also references to this translation are used on anti-Muslim sites (e.g. Answering Islam ) to document their points against Islam. This is also the translation that you will find on Muslim extremist sites. Such biased interpretations posing as divine revelation serve only as grist for the mill of those who have created a whole new industry dedicated to indiscriminate attacks on Islam and Muslims worldwide.
In the interests of preserving the purity of the Qur’an as much as possible for non-Arabic speakers and also as a means to combat the tirades of professional Islam bashers and Muslim haters, and to combat extremism within our communities, I would strongly recommend that every copy of the Hilali-Khan translation be removed from every mosque in the U.S. In fact, I would request that all concerned Muslims check to see if this translation is available in their local mosque, to look it over themselves, and to bring the issue up with their local Imam or board of directors and ask that it be removed from the shelves. If there are large quantities of this translation sitting around to be given out to non-Muslims, I would request that you point out the damage that giving out such a translation could do. This translation may have been “free” monetarily, but there is certainly a high price to pay for such an extremist interpretation.
Perhaps concerned Muslims could offer to replace these with one of the readily available translations that are in clear English. A few of these are:
- Message of the Qur’an (Muhammad Asad) http://islamicbookstore.com/b8257.html
- Majestic Qur’an (Translation Committee, Abdal Hakim Murad, Uthman Hutchinson) http://www.fonsvitae.com/quranmurad.html
- Translation (Thomas Cleary) http://www.fonsvitae.com/qurancleary.html
- Translation (Abdal Haqq and Aisha Bewley) http://www.black-stone.net/books/Quran_Review.html
- Text, Translation and Commentary (Abdullah Yusuf Ali) the original still available at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0940368323/qid=1138716259/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-6125651-5490337?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
It is important to remember that: “Not all translations of the Qur-an are the same. Not all translations match the Arabic Qur-an in rhythm of text, depth of meaning, syntax of sentences, word usage and adherence to the divine words. While some translations are truly loyal to actual Arabic words, some are liberal in bringing out the meaning of the verses. Some translations are truly academic in nature, while others are informative in their objective. Some translators disliked strict loyalty to each and every Arabic words, for fear of obscuring the inherent meaning; while others were vehemently loyal to the revelation, yet succeeded in conveying the meaning. Some translators enjoyed slight liberty with choice of words, while others guarded themselves from what could very well be interpolation of thoughts. “  and, I would add that some are just plain wrong.
Unfortunately, last year, as part of CAIR’s distribution of packages of books on Islam to libraries, the Saudi revised version of Yusuf Ali’s Qur’an translation (which contains footnotes and commentary that many consider anti-semitic) was included in the package and was the translation that was being sent out to anyone who requested a free Qur’an. This happened, even though a 2001 donation of these Qur’ans to a Los Angeles school district by the Omar Ibn Khattab Foundation had led to a major scandal in which the L.A. school system pulled this translation from all of their libraries. The free Qur’an project now uses a new edition of the Muhammad Asad translation, thank God. There is a real problem when we don’t even do our homework - or try to save money by using free translations donated by the Saudi’s, or whatever the reason was for getting the community involved in unnecessary scandals.
There is another translation by a Dr. Mohsin which seems to mirror the translations found in the Hilali-Khan translation. An online site called Qur’an Explorer includes this translation and also the Saudi’s “revised” Yusuf Ali translation. We have added an article Qur’an Explorer site and extremist Qur’an translations discussing this.
The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) has begun a “Why Islam” project which will include distribution of free Qur’ans. I was contacted by an individual who picked up one of these distributed in California, and it is a paperback translation titled “The Glorious Qur’an”. Although it doesn’t say Hilali-Khan translation anywhere, it is based on this translation, and not something that anyone should be passing out anywhere. (UPDATE 5/2010 - Iftikhar Hai of United Muslims of America UMA informs me that he understands that after this was brought to ICNA’s attention, they will no longer be distributing this translation)
How many mosques and bookstores in the U.S. still have the Hilali-Khan Qur’an Translation on their shelves because they also were donated free of charge by the Saudi’s? This translation will definitely lead to problems for all of us. I know that it has been on the shelves of the largest mosque in Saint Louis, and that the individual in charge of the library there proudly showed me a large poster that they were going to put up which included the translation of Surah Fateha from this translation ”“Guide us to the Straight Way. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who have earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).” (HK translation 1:1-7)” This in a library where they plan to hold interfaith meetings. I told the library director in person and in a letter how concerned I was about this and why - but don’t know whether or not he considered my concerns. He did not respond to my letter. Getting this translation removed seems to be an uphill battle.
On TAM, we have published a number of articles on the current controversy over a series of ads being published in public spaces across the country by the hate groups AFDI/SIOA. The current ad, and much of the controversy surrounding it focuses on the meaning of the term “jihad”. This ad says (paraphrasing Ayn Rand) “In a war between the civilized man and savages, support the civilized man - support Israel defeat jihad”. In one of these articles, How Muslims understand the term “jihad” the issue is discussed at length, and an extensive article collection is included.
This current crisis (and many others), I believe is a direct result of such translations as the Hilali-Khan which have been responsible for influencing some Muslims with extremist interpretations (and also providing them “justification” for criminal actions), and for providing Islamophobes with “proof” of the supposed “savagery” of Islam. Basically, this translation (and others like it) are propaganda coming out of Saudi Arabia which attempts to spread their particular supremacist, divisive, bigoted, and very dangerous interpretation of Islam.
There are only two groups who equate jihad and terrorism - the terrorists and the Islamophobes. Even Prof. Bernard Lewis said just after the terrorist attack of 9/11: “At no time did the (Muslim) jurist approve of terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism (in Islamic tradition). Muslims are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged, not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners, to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities, and to honor agreements. Similarly, the laws of Jihad categorically preclude wanton and indiscriminate slaughter. The warriors in the holy war are urged not to harm non-combatants, women and children, “unless they attack you first.” A point on which they insist is the need for a clear declaration of war before beginning hostilities, and for proper warning before resuming hostilities after a truce. What the classical jurists of Islam never remotely considered is the kind of unprovoked, unannounced mass slaughter of uninvolved civil populations that we saw in New York two weeks ago. For this there is no precedent and no authority in Islam.”
Across the world, even in countries where Muslims and their non-Muslim neighbors have lived together for centuries in peace, we are seeing violence against churches and against minorities, and seeing violent non-Islamic responses to the provocations of Islamophobes. Why?
I believe that propaganda such as the Hilali-Khan translation and other materials coming primarily out of Saudi Arabia are one of the root causes.
We need a counter-narrative, not only to the Islamophobes, but to the Muslim extremists, and our scholars and community leaders need to help get the message of traditional Islam out to the masses.
I believe that it is time for ordinary Muslims to go into their local mosque or Islamic bookstore and see if this translation is there, and if it is to ask the Imam or mosque leadership to remove it immediately and dispose of it in the appropriate Islamic manner. And, it is time for the leadership of national organizations to speak out loudly and clearly condemning such translations and materials.
The Saudi’s may provide “free” copies of this translation, but there is a cost, and we are all paying it.
Here is the address for writing to the Saudi Ambassador and asking that they stop distributing copies of the Hilali-Khan translation through their embassies:
Adel A. Al-Jubeir, Saudi Ambassador to the U.S.
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia
601 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037
 Dr. Zohurul Haque http://www.qurantoday.com/BaqSec9.htm
For those who don’t have access to these translations they are available online. The Hilali-Khan translation at http://quranline.tripod.com/Qur-khan.htm and the Muhammad Asad translation at http://www.geocities.com/masad02/ and the side by side translations by Shakir, Pikthal and Yusuf Ali at http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
First published February 1, 2006.