J. King Saud Univ., Vol. 2, Arts (2), pp. 93-134 (AH, 1410/1990). On Translating the Quran (An Introductory Essay) Abdel Moneim A. Hosni Associate Professor, Department of English, College of Arts, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Received 13/3/1408; accepted 14/7/1409) Abstract. This essay is divided into five sections. The first is a short note on whether itis permissible to translate the Quran, In section two the author demonstrates that many of the well-known translations are not accurate in rendering the meaning of the original, In section three the writer discusses English trans” fators- attempts to “rearrange” the contents of the Quran and points to the wisdom underlying the present onder of the Book, Section four, entitled “General Observations,” deals with some of the issues raised in Sections IT and TI, The recommendations proposed here are based on the facts which emerged during the discussion of specific translations in the two sections, The last section calls attention to the dearth of refer- scnees on transtating the Quran, offers some useful tips on where to find information on the subject, and then lists the available references I Introductory Orthodox opinion rightly maintains that the Quran is untranslatable. For from the points of view of “style” and “subject-matter” and the fusion of the two, the Book is inimitable (rau‘jiz). It follows therefore that every believer should learn to under- stand its meaning in the original Arabic - a task which non-speakers of Arabic find daunting. On the other hand, Abii Hurairah and Ibn Hajar seem to imply that translating the meanings of sacred books into Arabic and other languages is permissible. For Tibawi writes, Abii Hurairah relates that the People of the Book (which in this case means the Jews only) used to reac the Torah in Hebrew and interpret it to the Muslims in Arabic and that the Prophet dic 9394 Abdel Moncim A. Hosni not disapprove. The command in the verse, “Say, Bring the Torah and read it if ye are truthful” was addressed to the Jews when they submitted a man and a woman of their community, who had committed adultery, to the Prophet to deal with them. The Prophet inquired what was the punishment prescribed in the Torah (sic),()) This brings us to Ibn Hajar who comments that since the Torah was in Hebrew, and God commanded that it be read to Arabs who knew no Hebrew, this was an authority to express it in Arabic. To him the converse is also per- missible: “to express what is in Arabic in Hebrew.” The context suggests that the author had the Qur'an in mind.® The purport of these statements is that it is permissible to translate the meanings of sacred books. For Abii Hurairah uses the word interpret and Ibn Hajar uses the word express. 1 Accuracy The Quran has been translated many times into many languages (classical and modern, foreign and Islamic). The question here is not therefore whether the Quran should be translated but whether or not a certain translation is accurate in rendering the meanings of the Book. This essay deals with well-known English translations of che Quran. (For a list of the translations discussed in this essay sec Section V “Of References on Translating the Quran.”) The first English translation was done by Alexander Ross. This translation, which is in fact a translation of the first French translation of Du Ryer of 1647, can- 1ot, for obvious reasons, be accurate.©) I say for obvious reasons because a transla- ion at a second remove is never accurate, even when the first translation is accurate. 3ut in this case the first translation is far from being accurate. Here is Sale’s account of Du Ryer’s achievement: Some years within the last century, Andrew Du Ryer, who had been Consul of the French nation in Egypt, and was tolerably skilled in the Turkish and Arabic languages, took the pains to translate the Quran into his own tongue; but his performance, though it be beyond comparison preferable to that of Retenensis, is far from being a just transla- tion, there being mistakes in every page, besides frequent transpositions, omissions and additions, faults unpardonable in a work of this nature. And what renders it still more incomplete is the want of Notes to explain a vast number of passages, some of which are 1) ALL, Tibawi, “Is the Qur'an Translatable,” The Muslim World, 52 (1962). 6-7. “Sa and reac it if ye are truthful" is verse 92 of Surah HI, The original is: 2) Tibawi, p. 7. 3) Ross’s translation was published a few years after Du Ryer's.On Translating the Quran... 95 difficult, and others impossible to understand, without proper explications, were they tranclated ever so exactly, which the author is so sensible of that he often refers his reader to the Arabic commentators. What about the English version? “The English version is ... a very bad one; for Alexander Ross, ..., being utterly unac- quainted with the Arabic, and no great master of the French, has added a number of fresh Ahistakes of his own to those of Du Ryer, not to mention the meanness of his language, which would make a better book ridiculous." This is what Sale has to say about the first English translation: a defective version of a grotesque French translation of the Arabic Quran. This brings us to the second English translation, or rather to Sale’s translation. George Sale’s translation (1734), which is in fact based on Maracci’s Latin version of 1698, is not accurate cither. Sale’s work has what he calls “The Preliminary Discourse” (in which he acquaints “the reader with the most material particulars proper to be known previ- ously to the entering on the Quran itself”) and copious “Notes.” But, like his trans: lation, his “Preliminary Discourse” and his “Notes” are based on Maracci, whos« work gives the worst possible impression of Islam. Of Maracci’s translation and his indebtedness to it Sale writes: In 1698 a Latin translation of the Quran, made by Father Lewis Marracci, who hay been Confessor to Pope Innocent XL, was published at Padua, together with the origin text, accompanied by explanatory notes and a refutation. This translation of Marracct’s generally speaking, is very exact; but adheres to the Arabic Idiom too literally to be easil understood ... The notes he has added are indeed of great use, but his refutations, whic swell the work to a large volume, are of little or none at all, being often unsatisfactory and sometimes impertinent. The work, however, with all its faults, is very valuable, an I should be guilty of ingratitude did { not acknowledge myself much obliged thereto; bt Oe (2) G. Sale and E.M. Wherry, “Sale's Preface,” A Comprehensive Commentary om the Quran (London Kegan Paul, 1896) 1,7, (Allreferences to Sule this essay are to thisedition Oftthe Latin translation by Robertus Retenensis, which appeured in 1143, Sale has this fo say, the book “deserves not th: tame of a translation; the unaccountable liberties therein taken, and the numberless faults, both c vvnesion and commission, leaving scarce any resemblance of the original”. p. 6 (5) Sale and Wherry, pp. 7-8. (6) Tbid., p. 9 (7) Maracci’s work includes quotations fror to discredit Islam. Maracci also introduces his work by a vol tion of the Quran.” m various Muslim authorities, carefully selected and garble lume containing what he calls a “Refuti96 Abdel Moneim A. Hosni still, being in Latin, it can be of no use to those who understood not that tongue.) Maraczi, who “spent forty years in transtating and refuting the Koran,” adopted the right system when in translating he used the verse as a unit. But he made a grave mistake when he decided to translate the Book mechanically, without thought. Maracci’s shoddy work prompted one critic to say: He has not expressed the ideas of the Koran, but travestied the words of it into barbarous Latin. Yet though all the beauties of the original are lost in this translation, itis preferable to that by Du Ryer.) The critic is correct when he tells us that Maracci has “travestied the words of” the Quran “into barbarous Latin” and that “all the beauties of the original are lost in this translation.” He is, however, wrong when, earlier in his criticism, he suggests that Maracci “neglected,” or was not aware of, the rules governing good translating when he chose to render the Book in that way. Maracci was a very learned monk. We cannot therefore accept the idea that he chose the wrong translating methods. Maracci himself is quite clear about the object of the exercise. For, as pointed out earlier,(' he introduces his work by a volume containing what he terms a “Refuta- tion of the Quran.” Of his own translation Sale writes: Thave endeavoured to do the original impartial justice, not having, to the best of my knowledge, represented it, in any one instance, either better or worse than it really is, I have thought myself obliged, indeed, in a piece which pretends to be the Word of God, to keep somewhat scrupulously close to the text, by which means the language may, in some places, seem to express the Arabic a little too literally to be elegant English: but this, I hope, has not happened often; and I flatter myself that the style I have made use of will not only give a more genuine idea of the original than if I had taken more liberty (which would have been much more for my ease), but will soon become familiar; for we must not expect to read a version of so extraordinary a book with the same ease and ple- asure as a modern composition.) Sale, who in the same “Preface” says that in translating this “extraordinary 200k” he has “ had no opportunity of consulting public libraries,""9) speaks here of tis endeavor “to do the original impartial justice.” But even a casual reading of the ‘Translation shows that what Sale saysis one thing and what he does is quite another. (8) Sale, p. 8. (9) Ibid. (10) Ibid. (11) See footnote No. 7 above. (12) Sale, pp. 8-9. (13) Ibid., p. 9On Translating the Quran... 97 Because his main source was Maracci, and because he did not bother to consult other sources or even verify Maracci’s translation or his (Maracci’s) busy comments, and because he was not skilled in Arabic, Sale’s translation is extremely “sloppy.” To give only one example, here is his translation of the “Opening Chapter”: JN THE NAME OF THE MOST MERCIFUL GOD (1) Praise be to GOD, the LORD of. all creatures; (2) the most merciful, (3) the King of the day of judgment, (4) Thee do we worship, and of thee do we beg assistance, (5) Direct us in the right way, (6) in the way of those to whom thou hast been gra- cious, (7) not of those against whom thou art incensed, nor of those who go astray. Vol. I, pp. 289-90. In this translation <2'3'3)___» _is not considered a verse. In this Sara, it should be verse No. 1, because this is the “Opening Chapter” to the whole Quran. Opinion on whether or not the Bismillah in this Sira should be numbered is however divided. Sale’s translation of x: (3,3 does not do “impartial justice” to the original. Lumping (L,; _3' and <2), in one phrase (“THE MOST MER- CIFUL GOD”) is contrary to both the meaning and the spirit of the original. Moreover, using THE here implies that there are other Gods, which is against the main tenets of Islam. -“The LORD of all creatures” is all wrong. “The” and “ creatures” here imply that there are other Lords, each has a certain domain or sphere of influence and that the LORD mentioned here is that of all creatures. The original is So HS which is completely different. It means “LORD of the Worlds” which means not just all creatures but everything animate and inanimate. - “the most merciful”: again here Sale oversimplifies the two concepts —_ and zi and lumps them together in one phrase. The word “beg” which occurs in Sale’s translation of verse 4 is nowhere to be found in the original. And his translation of verse 5 is not accurate. “Direct us in the right way” should simply be “Show us the straight path.” Sale’s use of the word “incensed” in the last verse reduces God to the rank of a petty human being, which is the contrary of the original. Of Sale’s translation of this verse E.H., Palmer says: the placing the preposition before the verb gives a completely different ring to the English to that of the Arabic, to say nothing of the absence of that colloquial freedon98 Abdel Moneim A. Hosni which distinguishes the original.(! The first part of Palmer’s criticism is correct, but the second is obviously wrong. What he calls colloquial freedom is simply #jaz. There is nothing colloquial about this verse. But to return to Sale, all these errors occur in just one siira - one of the shortest sdras. Sale’s translation of the whole Book is, as pointed out above, extremely “sloppy.” And to do his translation “impartial justice” an equal number of volumes is needed (Sale’s translation is in four volumes). But the trouble with Sale is, as Rod- well says in his “Preface” to his translation of the Quran, that he “has ... followed Maracci too closely.) ‘The question now is: Why? Like Maracci, Sale is against Islam. One of his aims in translating the Quranis, as he saysin his “Preface,” “to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original." Sale is not happy about what other Christian sects are doing in the way of refut- ing “Muhammadism.“) In this connection he observes: The writers of the Romish communion, in particular, are so far from having done any ser- vice in their refutations of Muhammadism, that by endeavouring to defend their idolat- ory and other superstitions, they have rather contributed to the increase of that aversion which the Muhammadans in general have to the Christian religion, and given them great advantage in the dispute.“% He then comes to the conclusion that ‘The Protestants alone are able to attack the Quran with success; and for them, I trust, Providence has reserved the glory of its overthrow.) So why should Sale do “impartial justice” to the original, if this is hisaim? In his “Pre- face” he goes so far as to “lay down rules to be observed by those who attempt the conversion of the Muhammadans.”) Sale’s “Preface,” we notice, abounds in comments offensive to Muslims. This is also true of his “Preliminary Discourse” and his “Notes.” (14) E.H. Palmer, The Quran (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1880), p. LXXVIUL. (15) JM. Rodwell, The Koran (London: Dent, 1909), p. 17. (16) Sale and Wherry, pp. 3-4. (17) See Ibid, p. 4. (18) Ibid. (19) Ibid. (20) Ibid.On Translating the Quran... 99 E.M. Wherry’s Preface to Sale’s translation and his “additional notes and emen- dations” are also replete with offensive comments. To give only one example: As to the matter of the notes, the reader will perceive occasional repetition. This is due in part to the repetitions of the text, and partly in order to call special attention to certain doctrines of the Quran, e.g. its testimony to the genuineness and credibility of the Chris- tian Scriptures current in the days of Muhammad; the evidence it affords to its own character as a fabrication; its testimony to the imposture of the Arabian prophet, in his professing to attest the Former Scriptures, while denying aimost every cardinal doctrine of the same, - in his putting into the mouth of God garbled statements as to Scripture his- tory, prophecy, and doctrine, to suit the purposes of his prophetic pretensions, - and in his appealing to Divinity to sanction his crimes against morality and decency. Wherry here calls the Prophet bad names and calls the Quran “a fabrication.” Wherry’s aim is clear: his additional notes and his emendations are not therefore included to shed more light on Sale’s translation of the Quran; they are there to dis- credit Islam. It is however worth noting here that Wherry does not substantiate these remarks either in his “Preface,” from which the passage quoted above is taken, or in his additional notes. What Wherry and Sale say in this connection is usually subjec- tive or based on speculation and conjecture. So much for Sale’s work, this brings us to another English translation of the Quran. ‘The Rey. J.M. Rodwell, who arranged the Siias in a rough chronological order, published his translation in 1861. It is not accurate and his notes suffer from the fact that he was a Christian clergyman first and a translator second. Rodwell, whose work is entitled “The Koran Translated from the Arabic”) fails, in many places, to understand the Arabic text. Let us give a few examples from the shorter suras. To begin with, take Sara CVIII. This is how he renders the first two verses: TRULY we have given thee an ABUNDANCE: Pray therefore to the Lord, and slay the victims. p. 30. “an ABUNDANCE?” should be Abundance or the Fount of Abundance. “ ... and slay the victims” should be “and sacrifice.” “Slay the victims” gives the wrong mean- ing and the wrong impression. “To the Lord” is a minor mistake; nevertheless it is a mistake. It should be “to thy Lord.” Three mistakes in two verses. (21) Tbid., p. vii, (22) For a discussion of this arrangement see Section II). (23) All references to Rodweil in this essay are to the edition published in London by Dent in 1909.100 Abdel Moneim A. Hosni In Stra I he renders the fourth verse as follows: King on the day of reckoning! p. 28. This should be “Master (or Owner) of the Day of Judgment.” Rodwell’s use of the word “King” and the preposition “on” in this verse distorts the meaning of the orig- inal. It means that God is King on that day only, to say nothing of the fact that “King” is not the right word here. In Arabic “day of reckoning” is not the same as “Day of Judgment.” The first is Lf but the second is iN is and the second is what we have in the Arabic Text. “T shall never worship that which ye worship”. p. 29. This is how he renders verse 4 of Sara CIX. This should be rendered as follows: “And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship.” “Never” is nowhere to be found in the Arabic Text. And his translation of (2 as “ye worship” is, from the point of view of gram- mar, wrong. For 222 is not prescnt simple. Now consider Rodwell’s translation of Sura CVII (p. 31). He gives the Sura the title “RELIGION” (it should be a/-Ma‘dn or “Neighbourly Needs” or “Small Kindnesses”) because the word ¢#3 occurs in the first verse. What Rodwell does not know is that not every sdira takes its name from a word in the first verse. The original title is Oyetl! which is the last word of the last verse. Rodwell translates the first verse as follows: “WHAT thinkest thou of him who treateth our RELIGION as a lie?”5) The verse should read: “Seest thou one who denies the judgment (to come)?” His translation of verses 4 and 5 is also inaccurate, “Woe to those who pray,” should be “ So woe to the worshippers” and “But in their prayer are careless,” should be “Who are neglectful of their Prayers,” or “Who are heedless of their prayer.” Rodwell’s tendency to give the Sdras strange and sometimes misleading names (in many cases completely different from the original titles) is painfully obvious. One of his blunders in this connection is to give stra CVII the title RELIGION because, as pointed out above, the word cz20ccurs in the first verse. Another blunder is to give Sara XCIV (p. 26) the title “THE OPENING.” For Sura 1 Fatiha iA is THE OPENING CHAPTER to the whole Quran. And this is likely to confuse the unin- itiated reader. (In Rodwell’s transtation The Opening Chapter is No. 8 and has no title). In translating the title of Sara XCIV Rodwell does not deviate from the origi- (24) See our discussion of Sale’s translation of this verse above. (25) 3. (Din) may mean either (1) the Judgement to come, or (2) Faith, Religion, Rodwell, we notice, chose the second meaning, whereas the context requires the first. For the main point here is this: because some people deny the Judgement to come, they “treat the helpless with contempt and lead arrogant selfish lives.”‘On Translating the Quran... 101 nal ¢ +! but he makes a mistake when he renders it as THE OPENING a4 here means “The Expansion.” Rodwell’s translation of the first verse of this sira is there- fore wrong. “HAVE we not OPENED thine heart for thee?” p. 26 should be “Have We not expanded thee thy breast?” or “Have We not caused they bosom to dilate?” The word used in the Arabic Text is 4iGand not AG - Before discussing other mistakes, some examples to illustrate Rodwell’s odd way of translating the titles must be cited here: Sura Original Title Rodwell’s Translation XCIII woul THE BRIGHTNESS CXI a ABULAHAB cI ss DESIRE XC a ‘THE SOIL - and this is how he translates verse 1: “I NEED not to swear by this SOIL.” p. 35, LXXXV gr THE STARRY LXXVII ett THESENT LxIX ut THE INEVITABLE LVI dal THEINEVITABLE, ‘The last two titles are good examples to illustrate Rodwell’s bankruptcy in giving/ translating titles. But let us return to the main point (Rodwell’s failure to understand the Arabic Text). Verse 2 of Sura CXII1 is rendered: “Against the mischiefs of his creation”. p. 27. This should be: “From the mischief of created things.” Rodwell translates verse 4 of the same stra: “And against the mischief of weird women”; p. 27 and in a foot- note points out that he used “weird women” instead of the literal meaning of the Arabic original which is “who blow on knots.” Rodwell then goes on to explain: ‘According to some commentators an allusion to a species of charm, Comp. Vig. ECVI. But the reference more probably is to women in general, who disconcert schemes at thread is disentangled by blowing upon it. p. 27. The reference here is to witchcraft practised by some perverted women and not tc women in general. But Rodwell reads too much into the text. (Moreover he is all the time asking the reader, in many cases unnecessarily, “to compare”). Pickthal renders this verse in such a manner as to clarify the problem phrase (“And from the evil of malignant witchcraft.”) and in a footnote writes:102 Abdel Moneim A. Hosni Lit. “from the evil of the blowers (feminine) upon knots,” it having been a common form of witchcraft in Arabia for women to tie knots in a cord and blow upon them with an imprecation.2) Rodwell’s translation of the last verse of Sara CXIV is inexact. “Against djinn and men”, p. 27, should be “Among Jinns and among Men.” “The Army of the ELEPHANT” which occurs in his translation of the first verse of Sura CV should be “the Companions (or the Owners) of the Elephant. In Rodwell’s work the first two verses of CVI are translated thus: For the union of the KOREISCH:- Their union in equipping caravans winter and summer. p. 36 These should read as follows: For the uniting of Quraish, For their uniting (We cause) the caravans to set forth in winter and in summer. Enough has been said to show that Rodweil’s translation is not accurate. It is worth noting here that “the Arabic Text from which this translation has been made is that of Fluegel, Leips 1841”. p. 16. Rodwell should have used the received version. In his “Preface” Rodwell lavishes praise upon Maracci and others whose trans- ations of the Quran are, for one reason or another, defective (to say nothing of their anti-Muslim feelings), and points out that these have more or less been his main sources. In the same “Preface” he tells us that he allowed himself some freedom in trans- lating “the more brief and poetical verses of the earlier Suras” (see p. 17). And the question that springs to mind now is; Why? Of his translation of proper names Rodwell writes: The proper names are usually given as in our Scriptures: the English reader would not casily recognize Noah as Nah, Lot as Lit, Moses as Musa, Abraham as Ibrahym, Pharaoh as Firaun, Aaron as Harun, Jesus as Isa, John as Yahia, etc. p. 17. This is a lame excuse. To preserve something of the spirit of the original, Rodwell should have kept the Arabic forms and given a list of their counterparts in the Bible at the beginning of his translation. (26) The Glorious Koran, a bilingual edition with English translation, introduction and notes by Mar- maduke Pickthall (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1976). p. 826.On Translating the Quran... 103 Towards the end of his “Preface” Rodwell declares: Thave nowhere attempted to represent the rhymes of the original. The “Proben” of H.V. Purgstall, in the Fundgruben des Orients, excellent as they are in many respects, shew that this can only be done with a sacrifice of literal translation. p. 17. Itis indeed wise of Rodwell not to have “attempted to represent the rhymes of the original.” Not only because they are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to repre- sent, but also because one can plainly see that the man’s knowledge of Arabic is not all that great. He would have grossly misrepresented the whole pattern. Finally, G. Margoliouth’s “Introduction” to Rodwell’s book and Rodwell’s “Preface” and his “Notes” include hints and comments offensive to Muslims. But these remarks, usually rude and crude, are not substantiated. In some of these remarks the writer goes so far as to ignore or twist the facts to suit his own purposes. A case in point is when Margoliouth contends that Muhammad is the author of the Quran. Here is the crucial passage: ‘The secret of the power exercised by the book, of course, Jay in the mind which produced it, It was, in fact, at first not a book, but a strong living voice, a kind of wild authoritative proclamation, a series of admonitions, promises, threats, and instructions addressed te turbulent and largely hostile assemblies of untutored Arabs. Asa book it was publishec after the prophet’s death. In Muhammed’s life-time there were only disjointed notes speeches, and the retentive memories of those who listened to them. To speak of the Koran is, therefore, practically the same as speaking of Muhammed, and in trying tc appraise the religious valuc of the book one is at the same time attempting to form ar opinion of the prophet himself. Tt would indeed be difficult to find another case in whicl there is such a complete identity between the literary work and the mind of the man whe produced it.” Margoliouth’s assertion here does not show deep thinking or extensive learning. Tt the following passage, A.J. Arberry proves that Margoliouth’s contention is wrong: We know quite well how Mohammed spoke ia his normal, everyday moods; for his obite dicta have been preserved in great abundance. It is simply untrue therefore to say. @ Margoliouth said, that “it would be difficult to find another ease in which there is such complete identity between the literary work and the mind of the man who produced it. ‘Accepting, as we have good reason to accept, the sayings of Mohammed recorded in th books of Traditions as substantially authentic, and supposing, as Margotiouth supposec that the Koran was Mohammed's conscious production, it would be more reasonable t say that it would be difficult to find another case in which the literary expression of ama differed so fundamentally from his ordinary speech.) Oe @1) G. Margoliouth, “Introduction” to The Koran, translated from the Arabic by J.M. Rodwell (Lor don, 1909), p. (28) AJ. Arberry, “Introduction,” The Holy Koran 32. (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), pp. 31104 Abdel Moneim A. Hosni Arberry’s point is not difficult to deduce. But Margoliouth,@%) who, paradoxically enough, was a professor of Arabic at the University of Oxford, is not objective in his “Introduction” to Rodwell’s work. Another English translation must be discussed here. Professor E.M. Palmer, whose translation was first published in 1876, believed that the Quran should be translated into colloquial language. Palmer, to whom the style of the Quran was “rade” and “rugged,” failed to appreciate the beauty and the grandeur of the origi- nal. Of the language of the Quran he writes: Regarding it ... from a perfectly impartial and unbiased stand-point we find that it expres- ses the thoughts and ideas of a Bedawi Arab in Bedawi language and metaphor. The lan- guage is noble and forcible, but it is not elegant in the sense of literary refinement. To Mohammed's hearers it must have been startling, from the manner in which it brought great truths home to them in the lagnuage of their every-day life. There was nothing antiquated in the style or the words, no tricks of speech, pretty conceits, or mere poetical embellishments; the prophet spoke with rude, fierce eloqu- ence in ordinary language. The only rhetorical ornament he allowed himself was that of making his periods more or less rhythmical, and most of his clauses rhyme, - a thing that was and still is natural to an Arab orator, and the necessary outcome of the structure of the Arabic tongue.) Palmer’s analysis of the language of the Quran is not free from error. In these two paragraphs he is quite certain that the Prophet is the author of the Quran. Inthe first paragraph, he tells us that the language of the Quran is “not elegant in the sense of literary refinement” without giving us his definition of “literary refinement” in those days. And in the same paragraph he describes the reaction of “Muhammed’s hearers” to the words of the Quran, but his description is based on guesswork. In the second paragraph the word “rude” occurs and in his long “Introduction,” from which these paragraphs are taken, he keeps repeating it. He also keeps repeating the words “rugged” and “colloquial”@) in connection with the language of the Quran. Palmer is quite sure that “the prophet spoke with rude, fierce eloquence in ordinary lan- guage.” How did he come to this conclusion? And how did he come to the conclusion that the language of the Quran is “rude,” “rugged” and “colloquial”? Palmer’s state- ments, we notice, are not substantiated and as such they are, in the language of research, worthless. (29) “Margoliouth’s successor in the Laudian Chair of Arabic at Oxford, Professor H.A.R. Gibb, also takes the view that Mohammed was the author of the Koran.” See [bid., p. 16. (30) E.H. Palmer, The Quran (London, 1880), Part 1, pp, LXXVI-LXXVIL. All references to Palmer in this essay are to this edition (31) See, for example, his criticism of Sale’s translation of the last verse of the “Opening Chapter” cited above where the word “colloquial” is used.On Translating the Quran. 105 Palmer is aware that “the language of the Quran is universally acknowledged to be the most perfect form of Arab speech.”?) But he is not ready to accept Muslims’ attitude towards the language of their Holy Book. In this connection he has this to say: ...We must not forget that the acknowledged claims of the Quran to be the direct utter- ance of the divinity have made it impossible for any Muslim to criticise the work, and it became, on the contrary, the standard by which other literary compositions had to be judged. Grammarians, lexicographers, and rhetoricians started with the presumption that the Quran could not be wrong, and other works therefore only approached excel- lence in proportion as they, more or less, successfully imitated its style.) Palmer begins his assessment of the language of the Quran by saying “regarding it from a perfectly impartial and unbiased standpoint.” But, as demonstrated above, his assessment of the language of the Book is far from being “impartial and unbiased.” What about his translation? In this respect he observes that to translate the Quran “worthily is a most difficult task” and then goes on to say: To imitate the rhyme and rhythm would be to give the English an artificial ring from which the Arabic is quite free; and the same objection lies against using the phraseology of our authorised version of the Bible: to render it by fine or stilted language would be quite as foreign to the spirit of the original: while to make it too rude or familiar would be to err equally on the other side. I have, therefore, endeavoured to take a middle course; I have translated each sentence as literally as the difference in structure between. the two languages would allow, and when possible I have rendered it word for word. Where a rugged or commun place expression occurs in the Arabic I have not hesitated to render it by a similar English one, even where a literal rendering may perhaps shock the reader. To preserve this closeness of rendering, I have had in several instances to make use of English constructions which, if not incorrect from a strictly grammatical point of view, are, lam aware, often inelegant. pp. LXXVII-LXXVIII. The fact that Palmer refrained from imitating the rhyme and the rhythm of the orig- inal is commendable. Equally commendable is the fact that he refrained from using the phraseology of the authorised version of the Bible. His reasoning however about whether “to render it by fine or stilted language” or “to make it too rude or familiar” is indeed very strange. For one of the simplest rules of translating is to reproduce the meaning and the spirit of the original. There is thus no problem here. The translator studies the text and then tries to render it in the most appropriate manner possible. But behind Palmer’s kind of twisted logic there is a serious purpose: the idea is to convince the reader that he had to adopt the method of “mechanical” translation, and that he had to use “rude” and “rugged” expressions and “commonplace” and “inelegant” constructions. (32) Palmer, p. LXXVI. (33) Ibid.106 Abdel Moneim A. Hosni Palmer, it would seem, was unable to understand the significance and the shades of meaning of certain Arabic words and phrases. Thus referring to ambiguous words in the Quran, he discusses the ambiguous nature of £454 .{|istawd and then writes: Thave, therefore, adopted rendering which has a similar confusion of significations, and translated it ‘made for’, as in Chapter II ver. 27, ‘He made for the heavens.’ Where no question can arise concerning its interpretation, as, for instance, when it is used ofa rider balancing himself on the back of his camel, I have rendered it simply ‘settled.’ (See Chap- ter XLII, ver.12).04 Palmer’s note on the translation of &3—4i| shows that his knowledge of Arabic was imperfect. &.21 is not an ambiguous word. But, like many Arabic words, it possesses an extraordinary breadth of meaning. In cach of the verses cited by Palmer the meaning is however clear. Here is the first verse (which is II. 29 and not II. 27 as Palmer says): WEE ibe ene cee 24 278 Fey rat At ne Sf EE ht eA RAS SEAS NEAL oN BE SIE sith Palmer’s use of “made for” in translating this verse is not correct, because it does not bring out the meaning of the original, which is: having done one thing, Allah “turned” his attention to something else. The following rendering of the verse is a good approximation of the Arabic version: He it is Who created for you all that is in the carth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens. And He is Knower of all things.*. Moreover, Palmer’s translation and the explanatory words in defence of the translation quoted above tend to give Allah human qualities/Muslim scholars oppose this tendency since it does not suit the greatness of God to Whom there is no equal (Stee X5255 . Palmer labors here under the impression that God is a physical body which He is not. To be able to translatel 3652 «{ properly, this verse should be read in conjunction with verse 255 of Sara 2 and verse 54 of Sura7 where [ii feist should be translated to read “took hold of the Throne” (which embraces the heavens and the earth), Palmer's other equivalent (“settled”) is equally wrong. The verse he cites should be XLIII. 13 and not XLII. 12. Here are the two verses (12 and 13) because without 12 one cannot hope to understand 13: (34) Thid. p. LXXIX. (35) The Meaning of the Glorious Quran, Text and Explanatory Translation by Marmaduke Pickthall (Hyderabad-Deccan: Govt, Central Press, 1938), I, 6. (Reprinted in London by George Allen & Unwin in 1957).On Translating the Quran. 107 SPM ADESC AIG ATS SSN GE sal PCA Soci So GI, ‘The word in question is used twice in verse 13 and in each case it should be “mount” and not “settle.” Palmer’s idea of a rider balancing himself on the back of his camel which he cites to justify his use of the word “settled” is not to be found in the verse under consideration. Pickthail’s translation of the two verses is close to the original. Consider: (12) He Who created all the pairs, and appointed for you ships and cattle whereupon ye ride. (13) That ye may mount upon their backs, and may remember your Lord’s favour when ye mount thereon, and may say: Glorified be He Who hath subdued these unto us, and we were not capable (of subduing them):@9 “Mount” is much more convincing than “settle” here.) But Palmer was not only mediocre in his knowledge of Arabic, he also tended to show off. This we deduce from the following: In my rendering I have, for the most part, kept to the interpretation of the Arabic com- mentator Baidhdvi, and have only followed my own opinion in certain cases where a word or expression, quite familiar to me from my experience of everyday desert life, appeared to be somewhat strained by these learned schoolmen. Chapter XXII, ver. 64, is an instance in which a more simple rendering would be preferable, though I have only ventured to suggest it in a footnote. (See Part II, p. 63, note). ‘The question here is; what has the language of modern every-day desert life to do with the language of the Quran? The fact that a certain word or expression is used these days by people in the desert does not mean that it still retains the old meaning. Palmer is trying to say that he is also well-versed in the lagnuage spoken in the desert. He, however, failed to say which desert and in what part of the particular desert the particular word or expression is used. Palmer's idea of “a more simple rendering” does in fact mean “oversimplification.” From notes on the translation to the translation itself. [f Palmer's notes on trans- (36) Ibid., 2, 647. (37) In simple English the problem word means ride or use, And the general meaning of the verse is this: When you use these facilities, you will come to appreciate their importance or usefulness and so you will thank Allah for having created them and made them subservient to you (G8) Palmer, p. LXXX.108 Abdel Moneim A. Hosni lating the Quran raise doubts about his ability to translate the Book, his translation does not dispel them. Here is a specimen to show what the rest is like (the siira quoted here is very short; Palmer’s performance in the longer stiras is worse): ‘THE CHAPTER OF THE EARTHQUAKE (XCIX Place of origin doubtful) in the name of the merciful and compassionate God When the earth shall quake with its quaking! And the earth shall bring forth her burdens, and man shall say, “What ails her!” On that day she shall tell her tidings, because thy Lord inspires her. (On the day when men shall come up in separate bands to show theit works: and he who does the weight of an atom of good shall see it! and he who does the weight of an atom of evil shall see it! Volume 2, pp. 338-339. Before commenting on Palmer’s translation, let us read Pickthall’s version of this Sura: SURAH XCIX Az-Ziizal takes its name from a word in verse 1. A very carly Meccan Sarah. THE EARTHQUAKE Revealed at Mecca In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful BS _2 1. When Earth is shaken with her (final) stp $A mach Ack Bee varhquake, GHANA OOD AM ARG 2. And Earth yieldeth up her burdens, he Od tig 3. And man saith: What aileth her? Oosseigs 0 des yS5O 4, That day she will relate her chronicles, Cy, [Aaa 8 2OG ol aan na hg B20 5. Because thy Lord inspireth her. < ~ 6. That day mankind willisue forth inseat- FERGAL EGO May tered groups to be shown their deeds. en ne ~ 7. And whoso doeth good an atom’s weight nh SO ts DS will see it then, 8. And whoso doeth ill an atom’s weight will see it then.(40) (39) Regarded by many as revealed at AJ-Madinah. (40) The Glorious Koran, Translated by Marmaduke Pickthall (London, 1976) pp. 816-17.On Translating the Quran... 109 Pickthall’s translation of the Quran is not the best. But it is one of the accepted translations. A striking characteristic of Pickthall’s work is that it is very close to the original. Now, if the reader compares the two versions of the sara under considera- tion (I should say the three versions, the third being the original), he cannot fail to see that Palmer’s version is far from being accurate. His method of “simple render- ing” is everywhere to be seen here. To give some examples: his translation of 4.5! © ..aSia/ English is compara- tively poor in this respect, which is not likely to help the translator in finding equiva- ents to express words which belong to this category. These linguistic and stylistic difficulties (the above survey does not pretend to be exhaustive) are greatly compounded when one tries to translate the Quran. For the Quran has “its own extremely individual qualities.” Arberry sums up these qualities when he writes: ‘The Koran undeniably abounds in fine writing; ... ; the language is highly idiomatic, yet for the most part delusively simple; the rhythms and rhymes are inseparable features of its impressive eloquence, and these are indeed inimitable.) Now to say this of the nature of the Book and of the source language in relation to the target is not to say that we should despair of translating the Quran, but to say that the translator of this great work must be equally great, in the sense that he must really be well-versed in the two languages, source and target. Some of the translations discussed in the previous sections have been prepared by writers who had little knowledge of Arabic. They were thus unable to understand the Arabic text and so they either translated from other translations (which made the meaning only more remote from the original) or produced distorted versions of the Arabic Quran. These translations do in fact prove that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” (70) For more on the subject see “Aids to translating the Quran" in this section. (71) The Holy Koran (London, 1953), p. 28.126 Abdel Moneim A. Hosni Incorporating Arabic Words into the Translation In this respect one scholar writes: Almost all languages spoken by Mustims have translations of the Qur'an in them. Usually the Text is printed with the translation. If the language is underdeveloped, many of the Arabic words of the Qur'an are taken over bodily into it for want of corresponding words in the language. Even in cultivated languages like Persian or Turkish, the introduction of religious terms from Arabic gave a body of words which were common to the whole Islamic world, and thus cemented the unity of the Muslim Brotherhood which is typified by the Qibla, Where the notion itself is new to the speakers of polished languages, they are giad to borrow the Arabic word expressing that notion and all the associations con- nected with it. Such a word is Qibla.?) The last two sentences sum up the case for introducing Arabic words into the new text. “When the notion is new” to the speakers of the target language, the translator should use the Arabic word, because it expresses “that notion and all the associations connected with it,” Modern scholarship seems to favor this view. For in discussing Islamic literature writers nowadays speak of ashab (Companions), hadith (Traditions), tafsir (exegesis) and “ulamd (those well-versed in the sciences of the Quran). That is to say they mention the Arabic term first and then give the nearest equivalent (or words to explain or paraphrase the concept) in brackets. This is not to imply that the transtation should read like a string of transliterated Arabic words punctuated with brackets. But, as pointed out earlier, it means that the method should be adopted whea the notion is new to the speakers of the target lan- guage. It should also be adopted when the Arabic word is so pregnant with meaning that translating fails to do it justice. In translating however the explanation should be in a footnote because brackets used in the body of the translation are usuaily reserved for the sole purpose of adding cementing words, i.e. words, not in the original but, added to render certain parts of the translation comprehensible. Reproducing “the Sublime Rhetoric” of the Original Attempts to reproduce “tre sublime rhetoric” of the original or devise varied rhythms or rhythmic patterns to suit changes in subject-matter or tone in the original have not always been successful. Small wonder, the Book is inimitable. Unless one (72) ALY. Ali, The Holy Quran (U.S.4., 1975), p. xiv.On Translating the Quran. 127 is therefore really “inspired,” one should not attempt to reproduce this aspect in his translation. For one is likely to end up with a jingly or inorganic string of rhythmic patterns, which may produce the wrong effect or give the the wrong impression. Take, for example, Arberry’s translation of Sra LXXV quoted earlier. The original Arabic consists of 40 short verses. Some of the verses are very short indeed, no more than two words. Rhyme is a striking feature of the Sara. In certain places, especially the first 12 verses, groups of verses have the same rhyme. The Stra is divided into two sections: Section I from verse 1 to verse 30; Section II from 31 to 40. The first section is divided into five paragraphs. These sub-divisions are: 1-2, 3-6, 7- 15, 16-19, and 20-30. The second section is divided into two paragraphs. The two subdivisions are: 31-35, 36-40. The rhythms of the whole Sara give the impression of “impetuous haste” and (in some places) impatience. What about Arberry’s transla- tion? His lines tend to be long and the tempois a bit slow and leisurely, to say nothing of his inexact formula of divisions and subdivisions. Biblical Style The translator of the Quran should avoid the Biblical style favored by the earlier translators. (73) The reason for this is that the Quran is not the Bible. Every holy book is written in a different language. Thus to use the “Biblical” style in translating the Quran does not help in reproducing the spirit of the original Arabic. The right policy is to try “to compose clear and unmannered English,”("4) because it is, as pointed out above, almost impossible to solve the riddle of the Quran's “jaz, let alone reproduce it. Order A translator's job is to translate, and not rearrange the chapters or contents of acertain work. This is one of the essentials of translating. The principle applies to all types of translating. The original is always sacrosanct. Why should the Quran be dif- ferent? The translator of the Quran should translate the Book as it is. Any remarks on chronology, contents or order should find a place in an introduction, or better still in a separate treatise. And before pontificating on these matters one should study the subject(s) thoroughly. The question “why the surahs of the Quran were not arranged in the sequence in which they were revealed” is, as we have seen, “based on ignor- ance of the wisdom underlying the present order of the Quran.” (73) To these we shouid also add A. Majid who tried in his translation (The Holy Quran, Lahore: M. Astral, 1943) “to follow closely the style and phraseology of the Authorised Version of the English ible.” (74) See: Arberry (1964), p. xii.128 Abdel Moneim A. Hosni The trouble with most European translators of the Quran is that, because they have little knowledge of the Arabic language, they do not read the longer and more reliable commentaries. If they do, the charges of “wearisome repetition and jumbled confusion” they level at the Quran will disappear. For they will find (a) that the present order of the Book is significant in the extreme; {b) that the Quran forms “a thoroughly coherent and consistent reading”; and (c) that there is a serious purpose behind repetition in this Holy Book.(?) Learning from One’s Predecessors Before embarking on a translation of the Quran, one should read as many English translations as possible. For one is bound to learn something from each. To give a few examples from the translations discussed here: from Pickthall’s one learns to choose befitting language; from Arberry’s one learns that one should “compose clear and unmannered English”; from Ali’s one learns how to present his translation in such a manner as to really help the reader to understand the meaning of the text; from those who sought to change the order, or the contents of the suras, of the Quran, one learns not to pontificate on any point before making a thorough study of the particular point. The Right to Compare The translator should not deprive the reader of the opportunity of comparison. The Arabic text should therefore be given side by side with the English translation. Muslim translators of the Quran abide by the “rule”. (The carly editions of Pickthall’s translation do not include the Arabic text). But, for obvious reasons, non- Muslim translators do not. Explanatory Notes The Quran is not an easy book to read. Explanatory notes should therefore be a feature of any new translation. (One of the demerits of Pickthall’s transtation is the fact that it has very few notes). These notes should however be as short as possible. And the object should be to give the reader a fairly complete but concise picture of what the translator understands to be the meaning of the text. The notes should not deal with theological controversies or polemical arguments. This does not mean that these are not necessary or valuable, but it means that, because the translator seeks to present the meaning of the text, controversies and arguments have no place in the (75) In defending “repetition in the Quran” A.J. Arberry writes: “Truth cannot be dimmed by being fre- a y iz quently stated, but only gains in clarity and convincingness at every repetition.” The Holy Koran (London, 1953), p. 27.On Translating the Quran... 129 translation. They should be dealt with in a separate book. Some translators do not very much believe in “notes.” A.J. Arberry is one of them. In this connection, he writes in his “Introduction” to his work: As footnotes and glosses do not interrupt the smooth flow of the Arabic Koran, so in this English interpretation footnotes and glosses have been deliberately avoided; readers anxious for further guidance should consult the earlier annotated versions.7 Arberry is not perhaps fair here. Firstly, any interpretation is not the “Arabic Koran.” Secondly, footnotes and glosses do not interrupt the “smooth flow” of any interpretation. One can always skip them, because they do not form an integral part of the main text. Thirdly, if the reader (who needs guidance) must consult the earlier annotated versions, why should he read Arberry’s translation in particular? Aids to Translating the Quran The vocabulary of the Quran is not easy to translate.) The reasons for this are: (a) An appreciable number of the words is not used in “everyday classical Arabic.” (b) Each root-word in the vocabulary of classical Arabic is so pregnant with meaning that it is often difficult to interpret the language of the Quran on a one-to- cone basis, “or by the use of the same word in all places where the original word occurs in the Text” (78) The Arabic word sabr, for example, implies many shades of mean- ing. Itis therefore a gross error to use the English word “patience” in rendering it in all contexts, (c) Seemingly similar, but in fact different, words are used in the Quran “to dis- tinguish between things and ideas of a certain kind ..., for which there is only a gen- eral word in English,”) badaca, khalaga (created); fo gop SU Tp ale 6 ele Ly dal OV Of ee Finally, as pointed out above, because of the dearth of references on the techni- cal side of the question, the main source of information on the subject remains the translator's introduction. Most of the translations discussed in this paper have intro- ductions. Here is a list of these translations: Early Translations: (Complete/exact bibliographical details are not available for these.) 1. Lewis Maracci’s translation was published at Padua in 1698. 2. Robertus Retenensis’s translation was made about 1143 but not published till 1543. The place of publication was Basle and the publisher Bibliander. 3. Andrew du Ryer’s translation was published in Paris in 1647. 4, Alexander Ross’s translation was published a few years after du Ryer’s. Modern Translations: (Dates refer to editions used.) 1. The Holy Quran, translation and commentary by A.Y. Ali. New York: TheOn Translating the Quran... 133 Muslim Students’ Association of the United States and Canada, 1975. (First edition, 1934). 2. The Koran Interpreted, by A.J. Arberry. London: Oxford University Press, 1964, 3. The Quran Translated, by R. Bell. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1937. 4. The Koran, translated with notes by N.J. Dawood. Harmondsworth: Pen- guin, 1979. 5S. The Quran, translated by E.H. Palmer. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1880, 6. The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, by M. Pickthall. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1930. ~ The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, by M. Pickthall. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1957. — The Glorious Koran, a bilingual edition with English translation, Introduc- tion and notes by M. Pickthall. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1976. 7. The Koran, translated from the Arabic by J.M. Rodwell. London: Dent, 1909. (Reprinted 1974). 8. A Comprehensive Commentary on THE QURAN, by G. Sale and E.M. Wherry, London: Kegan Paul, 1896. (Four volumes: comprising Saie’s Translation and Preliminary Discourse, with additional notes and emendations together with a complete index to the Text, Preliminary Discourse, and Notes by the Rev. E.M. Wherry.) In addition to these, the reader should also consult the introduction to the fol- lowing new translation: The Bounteous Koran (a translation of meaning and Com- mentary) by M.M. Khatib, London: Macmillan Press, 1984. (The translation is here printed alongside the Arabic text.) Afterword This is the scope of the present essay. It does not claim to be exhaustive. As an introductory essay, it raises the main points about the subject and tries to discuss them in same detail. From Section V, it is clear that more work on translating the Quran is badly needed and that any worthwhile contribution, in a field which lacks references, is welcome.134 Abdel Moneim A. Hosni oS ol all dag J gem tel pacllane ASL Ale Hc aynee LLU deal EIS gles) LAU peed AjLte SLeol ape dealt elpel dam J tad hie peky tod ale Spe pS OL a dans 5g fo 1 SLI pall fo Se Yl Ayes 29 gt! Sine GH in Bay pS Ob Glee ding he pgs alse Bull of GLY : gill gt Shy pall UL ad UY aces FG 5 peed ee ge OLB argh ye polane Of ill a reed sf pe Yh SL BLY G2 Lalps hy gull Gi dole] Call ae OYLe ep Le Got Gly SS a ASE il eK Sf ntes AST Sy GU OSI G cud gil baal ae fe dale Olin te gay taal gd! sale Ping Cal doleLy 1 SII Oba dans J Oeil ae obalél Ltd SAN SU nye ob LM Eo ge Emad 4S yo bbe sl opt!