It’s not just Christians who do this, and it’s not necessarily an indication of particular beliefs but an avoidance of confusion which can arise from the common usage of ‘God’ in English as a specific reference to the Judeo-Christian deity.
Sure, it works, but it’s somewhat less efficient than the modern system using one standard transliteration into roman script.
Remember that English is by no means the only language that uses roman letters. If each language that uses roman script does its own arbitrary transliteration of other scripts into roman script, you get a lot of confusing unnecessary variation. As in, for instance, the traditional practice of calling the Qur’an “Koran” in English but “Coran” in French.
If English, French, Spanish, Hungarian, Czech, etc., all use the same standard transliteration “Qur’an”, we don’t have to worry about all these variant forms.
(By the way, the issue of standardizing transliteration of Arabic names isn’t just an academic quibble, but can have some serious practical consequences. For instance, the 9/11 hijackers were described in the Western media as using “aliases” on different occasions, without pointing out that in some cases they were just using differently-transliterated versions of their own real names. It’s been argued that the inability of security software programs to identify differently-transliterated versions of the same Arabic name may have helped prevent spotting the hijackers as a security threat.)
Well the way it is pronounced usually is “Mussalman”, or that is how I have percieved it in 24 years of being one.
Can’t say about transliteration of course.
Except that “Bombay”, unlike “Constantinople”, is still widely used to refer to the city in question, even among people who currently live there.
But in general, you’re quite right that clinging to the past in geographical nomenclature becomes counterproductive beyond a certain point. I’m a big fan of the colonial Dutch heritage here in upstate New York, for example, but when I want to go to Albany I don’t ask the bus driver for a ticket to “Beverwyck”.
But I think the Muslims’ point is that their deity is the same as the Judeo-Christian deity. Surely, if we use the same word “God” to refer to the deity of both Jews and Christians, even though they are theologically quite distinct in some ways (that whole incarnation-and-Trinity thing), we should use that same word for the deity of the Muslims as well. (In fact, the Muslim deity is arguably closer to the Jewish deity in many ways than the Christian deity is: more strictly monotheistically defined, for instance.)
Then, would someone who is named, Yayha, be called John in English?Or a Haroon; Aaron? Or Sikander as Alexander? Matta as Matthew? Saira as Sarah? Yousaf as Joesph.
Oh sure, pronunciation can often be significantly different from spelling, as anybody knows who has tried to deal with English names like “Featherstonehaugh” (which is apparently pronounced “foo”, or “fernio” or something completely counterintuitive like that :)).
But I think transliteration of a written word should depend on the written form of the word in its original script. Written Arabic, thank goodness, has a fairly standard orthography, and we might as well take advantage of that in determining standard transliterations of Arabic words.
I would actually agree with you on that issue. In fact, I have always used translated names, whenever I can. At the end of the day, its just an identifier.
Fair point.
Huh? (FWIW, my Irish relatives often use the Irish version of my Welsh first name, and I don’t mind one bit.)
ah, we all know that should be Byzantium
As for names, I usually change mine a bit depending upon the language spoken. Just for the convenience of other people (and to avoid far too long discussions on how it should be pronounced/spelled).
Second line of the article: ‘The name “Byzantium” is a Latinization of the original name Byzantion.’ 
Hey, you can’t go forcing me to read the articles now can ya… hmpfr 
The united States is full of old native names. The names are native the spelling is the best English that could be constructed at the time.
But “Koran” is much closer to Urdu and Hindi, and there are more Urdu-Hindi speaking Muslims than there are Arabic-speaking Muslims.
That doesn’t make sense, though, the point is about the Arabic origins of the text and of the religion.
That’s the point, according to whom? More actual Muslims use a pronuncation that’s closer to “Koran” than it is to “Qu’ran.” and the pronunciation of “Qu’” is both unclear and difficult for English speakers.
So rather than an accurate transliteration from Arabic to English, you prefer an accurate transliteration from a different language, in turn derived from the Arabic? (Edit: are you sure there’s not more Indonesian-speaking Muslims than Urdu, anyway?)
We’re talking about the name of something in English. What does it matter which language the name is based on?
Who says it has to be an accurate transliteration of any particular language? Transliteration is useful for certain specialized functions. There’s no reason to let it dictate in situations like this.
If English speakers began to use the word commonly based on contact with Urdu speakers, it doesn’t matter what the form is in Arabic. The name of something in English should be based upon the convenience of English speakers not of Arabic speakers.
The original question was why ‘Koran’ has fallen out of favour in preference of Qur’an. The answer was that they are both transliterations of the same Arabic, but that Qur’an more closely resembles the religion. Transliteration, not translation. Urdu has nothing to do with it.
“English speakers began to use the word commonly based on contact with Urdu speakers” - is this backed up by evidence, or is it speculation?
Is this backed up by evidence or speculation? My speculation is that “Koran” became popular among English speakers because of contact with Muslims in India, who speak Urdu, not Arabic.
I’m not sure what this means.
I’m not sure what you mean by this either. You’re identifying “accurate transliteration of Arabic” as somehow important. I’m saying that “accurate transliteration of Arabic” is not necessarily an important consideration when deciding what to call something in English.
It is if English speakers had extensive contact with Urdu speakers and developed the “Koran” spelling because of it.
Notice I prefaced that with “if.” That’s my guess as to why “Koran” became the popular spelling in English in the first place.
Nitpick: “Ayers Rock,” no apostrophe. It is named after a man named Ayers, but not in the possessive.