This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
H.....u.....g....e controversies? according to who? Some "Youtube scholars"? All I see is some (non-academic) WP:RS reporting that Salafists/Wahabbists/Saudis are in a way "pissed off" at its publication. Criticism on the other hand is an essential characteristic of scholarly tradition. No human work lies (or should lie) beyond the grasp of criticism. And most of the reviewing scholars I see are in agreement that this book is a "monumental contribution" to Quranic studies despite some of their legitimate criticisms targeted at few interpretations of the book where it departs, of course upon rigorous consideration of millennial exegetical tradition, from modern day theological consensus. Here are some of the scholarly reviews:
Drury, Abdullah (2016). "The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary". Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations. 27 (4): 493–495. doi:10.1080/09596410.2016.1148886. ISSN0959-6410.
Lawrence, Bruce B. (2016). "The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary". The Muslim World. 106 (3). Wiley: 633–638. doi:10.1111/muwo.12136. ISSN0027-4909.
Leaman, Oliver (2017). "The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary". Philosophy East and West. 67 (2). Project Muse: 594–596. doi:10.1353/pew.2017.0049. ISSN1529-1898.
Fudge, Bruce (2018). "Study the Quran or The Study Quran?". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 138 (3). American Oriental Society: 575-588. doi:10.7817/jameroriesoci.138.3.0575. ISSN0003-0279.
Geissinger, Aisha (2016). "The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 85 (1). Oxford University Press (OUP): 270–272. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfw074. ISSN0002-7189.
Miller, Caleb (2015). "Review of 'The Study Quran'". Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice. Retrieved 2021-02-14.
Gökkır, Necmettin (2016). "The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary". İslam Araştırmaları Dergisi. 36: 179–182.
Laabdi, Mourad (2017). "The Study Quran: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary". Iranian Studies. 50 (3). Informa UK Limited: 467–471. doi:10.1080/00210862.2017.1285602. ISSN0021-0862.
Bauer, Karen (2017). The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences. 34 (4): 70–74.
Alexandrin, Lisa (2016). Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi Society. 49: 104–108.
Ford, Peter (2016). Theological Review. 37 (1–2): 140–142.
Görke, Andreas (2018). Speculum. 93 (1): 250–251.
Ibrahim, Celene (2016). "The Study Quran: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary". Journal of Islamic and Muslim Studies. 1 (2). Indiana University Press: 89–92. doi:10.2979/jims.1.2.08. ISSN2470-7066.
Medoff, Louis (2016). Journal of Shi‘a Islamic Studies. 9 (3): 367–371.
Metzler, Berenike (2018). "The Study Quran: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary". Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. 168 (2): 500–502.
In addition, Criticism section in general "should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." On the other hand, presenting both the positive and negative viewpoints from reliable scholarly sources, I repeat, scholarly sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias within the article (that would be most preferable) or within the existing Reception section would be the best thing to do. The book reviews included in this comment can be a guide for anyone willing to do that job. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be listed a Shi'a Translation in My Opinion