The miracle of the Quran lies in its inimitable language, its beauty
and eloquence of style. It was revealed to Prophet Muhammad,, in the
7th century CE for all nations, people and races. Therefore, there has
always been the need for translating its meanings into other
languages. In this paper, I will present a brief review of some
English translations of the Quran that exist upto the present day.
The first translation was carried out by Robertus Rotensis and
Hermannus Dalmata in 1143 CE, when the Quran was translated into
Latin in the interest of the convents during the time of the Crusades.
This Latin translation was then translated into other languages like
German, Italian and Hindi. In 1647 CE, it was translated into French
by the French Consul inEgypt, Andre du Ryer. The first English
translation was from the French version in 1688 CE by Alexander Ross,
which was described, "as despicably unsavory and a very bad one and no
better than its French origin bySale".
In 1689 CE another Latin translation was presented by Maracci, that
included the Arabic text as well as extracts from different
commentaries of the Quran. According to Mehana )1978( these
commentaries were chosen in such a way so as to give a bad impression
about Islam to Europeans. The translator, who was a priest and one of
the leading church members, started with an introduction which was
entitled 'Refutation of the Quran.'
It was in 1734 CE, that George Sale presented an English translation
of the Quran from Latin, which was then considered the original
English source for the translation of the Quran and was republished
several times inEurope. From then onwards, there followed many English
and other European translations of the Quran, through which the
translators expressed what they believed about Islam. This was
sometimes done within the core of the translated text or in the form
of footnotes or comments.This led some Muslims such as Abdullah Yusuf
Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall to translate the meanings of the
Quran into English, in an attempt to give the reader, as far as
possible the most adequate rendering of the Quran into English.
The first Muslim who tried to translate the Quran into English was Dr.
Muhammad Abdel Hakeem Khan in 1905 CE. However, the first published
English translation was presented in 1861 CE by Reverend J.M. Rodwell
and reprinted several times, entitledThe Koran: Translation from the
Arabic.
In 1930 CE, there appeared another translation by Mohammed Marmaduke
Pickthall entitledThe Meanings of the Glorious Quran. He was a
Christian Englishman who converted to Islam. In his view, the Quran
cannot be translated and his work was merely an attempt to present the
meanings of the Quran into English. This translation was followed in
1934 CE by that presented by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, which is most
commonly used now, entitledThe Holy Quran. Yusuf Ali was a Muslim
scholar who had a good command of both Arabic and English languages.
His translation was free from the grave misinterpretations found in
other translations like those presented by the Qaadiyaani sect. Yusuf
Ali also added some comments at the bottom of each page, helping the
reader to comprehend the text correctly.
In 1956, another translation into English appeared entitledThe Koran:
A New Translation, presented by N.J. Daawood, which was published
underThe Penguin Classicsseries In his introduction, Daawood says
that the reason he presented this work was to supply the reader with a
version of the Quran translated into modern English.
The translation presented by Arthur J.Arberry in 1955, entitledThe
Koran Interpretedwas published by Oxford University Press. Arberry was
a Christian professor in aBritishUniversitywho died recently. He was
of the opinion that the Quran being a great work should not be
translated. Hence he chose to name his work an "interpretation" rather
than a translation. Despite the fact that Arberry was a non-Arab,
non-Muslim, yet he had moderate views about Islam and the Quran.
Then there were the three translations of the Quran presented by the
deviated Qaadiyaani sect. These three translations were done by the
followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed El Qaadiyaani who is known to this
sect as the "Expected Christ". The members of this sect have beliefs
of their own and are so proud of them that they declare and admit to
them publicly. These translations areThe Holy Quranby Mawlana Mohammed
Ali, first published 1918 CE;The Holy Quranby Malik Ghulam Fareid,
first published in 1969 CE;The Quranby Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, first
published in 1971 CE.
The last and most recent translation is presented by M.M. Khatib
entitledThe Bounteous Koran, authorized by Al-Azhar in 1984 and first
published in 1986. Khatib is an Egyptian Muslim who has a good command
of both languages and has acquired a good deal of knowledge about
Islamic culture.
The aim of this paper is to discuss some of the pitfalls of these
translators of the Quran, namely Reverend J. Rodwell, Arthur J.
Arberryand M.M. Khatib. However, as this is just a short paper,
therefore, I will select no more than two or three examples from each
translation. The reason for choosing these translations lies in the
fact that Rodwell's was the first translation done from the Arabic
text and being a member of Church, he was affected by Christian
teachings and was against Islam. His aim was to falsify Islam as a
revealed religion. On the other hand, Arberry had moderate views about
Islam. He disagreed with Rodwell on many of his views, especially the
belief that the Quran is not the "word of God" revealed to Muhammad,.
The third translator, Khatib is a Muslim whose translation is the most
recent one and authorized by Al-Azhar.
In the preface to his book entitledThe Koran: Translation from the
Arabic, Rodwell commented on the gathering of the Quran and
arrangement of the chapters )Soorahs(, during the time of both Caliphs
Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and 'Uthmaan bin 'Affaan. He mentioned that
theSoorahsrevealed in Al-Madeenah were placed in the middle
ofSoorahsrevealed in Makkah and vice versa. Thus, to him the Quran
appeared to be an "almost unreadable and incongruous patchwork".
Rodwell is definitely mistaken here, as it is well known and
documented that the Quran was dictated and written during the life of
the Prophet Muhammad,, under his supervision.
As Khalifa states in hisThe Sublime Quran and Orientalism)1983 pp 38(:
"Islamic history bears ample witness to the fact that Quranic
revelations were recorded in writing under the Prophet's personal
supervision. His scribes, who were often with him and to whom he
dictated the heavenly message, were well known to their fellow
Muslims".
Khalifa also adds on page 42:
"It so happens that there is ample evidence proving the Prophet,, had
set a textual order for theSoorahs, both in the form of instructions
to his companions and in his recitations of successiveSoorahs".
However, Rodwell carries on saying:
"…and convey no idea whatever of the development and growth of any
plan in the mind of the founder of Islam, or of the circumstances by
which he was surrounded and influenced".
In the above quotation, he doubts the prophethood of Muhammad,and
considers him the "founder of Islam". This main idea prevails as he
carries on saying on page 8.
"The sources whence Muhammad derived the material of his Koran are,
over and above the more poetical parts, which are his own creation,
the legends of his time and country, Jewish traditions based upon
Talmud or perverted to suit his own purposes and the floating
Christian traditions of Arabia and Syria."
Then on page 10 of his preface he contradicts himself by saying:
"We have no evidence that Muhammad had access to the Christian Scripture."
He carries on saying:
"There is but one direct quotation )Soorah21:105( in the whole Koran
from the Scriptures and though there are a few passages, as where
"alms" are said to be given to be seen of men, and as none forgives
the sins but God only, which might seen to be identical with texts of
the New Testament, yet this similarity is probably merely accidental."
From the above quotation, it is clear that Rodwell is contradicting
himself all the time. He first states that Muhammad,has said the words
of the Quran in a poetic version of his own or it could have been
taken from either the Old or New Testament. Then later, he said that
there is no evidence that he,, could have access to these texts, but
adds that it might "seem to be identical with the text of the New
Testament". The use of this expression means that he is not sure and
could not confirm the similarity.
Moreover, Rodwell could not comprehend the discourse of the Quran
which is full of great meaning. This can easily be illustrated by the
many mistakes, misinterpretations and misunderstandings which he has
fallen into in his translations of the different verses of which
examples are given below:
In Rodwell's translation of ChapterAl-Ma'oonverse 5:
ÇáÐíä åã Úä ÕáÇÊåã ÓÇåæä
Which means:"But in their prayers are careless".]Quran 107:5[
He obviously misinterpreted the meaning, for there is a great
difference between "forgetting to pray" ) ) "Úä ÕáÇÊåã " and "being
careless in prayers" ) Ýí ÕáÇÊåã (. The use of the preposition " Úä
" means that people could get oblivious or forget to pray, but it does
not refer to those people who are praying and could forget to perform
part of the prayer or recite part of what they should be saying during
prayers. He also dropped the translation of the relative pronoun.
"åã " .
Arberry was Christian and yet unlike Rodwell and Dawood, he agrees
that the Quran being a great work should not be translated. Hence the
title he chose was,The Koran Interpreted, which is to indicate that
his work was merely the interpretation of the text and not its
translation. However, Arberry as a non-native speaker of Arabic has
fallen into many misinterpretations of the words and sometimes verses
of the Quran. Thus, for example, inSoorah Al-Baqarah, Ayah61, Arberry
translated the sentence:
"ÅåÈØæÇ ãÕÑÇ "
as:"Get you down toEgypt".]Quran 2:61[
This is definitely a misinterpretation as the word "ãÕÑÇ" marked with
nunnation makes it an indefinite noun, referring to any inhabited city
and notEgypt. The second reason for his misinterpretation is the fact
that this sentence "ÇåÈØæÇ ãÕÑðÇ " refers to Moosaa )Moses(and his
people who had finally got out of Egypt safely. Therefore, how would
Mosesask them to go back?
Another example of the Arberry's misinterpretation of the Quran can be
seen inAyah184 ofSoorah " Al-Baqarah".
æÚáì ÇáÐíä íØíÞæä ÝÏíÉ ØÚÇã ãÓßíä
Which he translated as:
"..and for those who are able to fast, a redemption by feeding a poor
man..".]Quran 2: 184[
Here, he has used the word "able" for the word "íØíÞæäå" which
actually means those who can bear fasting with difficulty. The word
"able" used in his translation simply means "íÞÏÑ " which
contradicts the proper meaning of theAyah,which means that those who
are not able to fast should make a redemption by feeding the poor.
It is of great importance, however, to look at the most recent
translation of the Quran by M.M. Khatib entitledThe Bounteous Koranand
authorized by Al-Azhar in 1984. In the preface to this work, Khatib
talks about "The eternal miracle of Islam"-- the Quran -- which
includes the best of moral values, the perfect guide for the happiness
of mankind and a style which is most bountiful, concise , influential
and having an inimitable means of expressing the "majesty and
sublimity of God". Khatib carries on explaining some of the
difficulties which he had to face in accomplishing his work. He says
on page VI of the preface:
"The most tangible difficulty that I faced, and that which surely
faced those who have translated the Koran before me, was the omissions
and additions of the figurative words that are of the beauty,
eloquence sequence and rhythmic pattern of the Book."
Then, he carries on listing more difficulties, saying:
"The second difficulty was the commitment to an extreme precision in
translating letter by letter and word by word, maintaining the exact
sequence and construction of the Arabic verse."
At this point, I would like to mention that Khatib, in his title of
the Book, gives a subtitle in smaller print "A Translation of Meaning
and Commentary". Therefore, how can this work be a translation of
meaning and commentary while he did his best in "maintaining the exact
sequence and construction of the Arabic verse". The question, then
arises as to why does he want to preserve the construction of the
original Arabic text, when he is only translating the meanings of the
Quran? It must be noted that these two languages originate from
different families of languages: Semitic and Germanic, and it is
therefore impossible to "maintain the exact sequence".
In order to see how he has actually dealt with the translation of the
Quran, it would be more illustrative to give a sample of his work.
Unlike Arberry, Khatib translated Ayah 181 ofSoorah "Al-Baqarah" as:
"æÚáì ÇáÐíä íØíÞæäå ÝÏíÉ ØÚÇã ãÓßíä"
"As for those who can afford with hardship, )there is( redemption in
feeding an indigent".]Quran 2:181[
Khatib's use of the word "afford" is more suitable in rendering the
meaning of the Arabic word "íØíÞæäå" ; as according to Webster's
dictionary, the meaning of the word "afford" can be "to manage to bear
without serious detriment". Being a native speaker of Arabic Khatib
could comprehend the meanings of the Quranic words and verses better
than Arberry.
InSoorah Al-Qasas,Ayah68:
æÑÈß íÎáÞ ãÇ íÔÇÁ æíÎÊÇÑ ãÇ ßÇä áåã ÇáÎíÑÉ
he translated it as follows:
" As your Lord creates whatever He will and He chooses they have no
choice…"]Quran 28: 68[
Khatib, similar to Rodwell, explains in a footnote the meaning of the
pronoun "they" as "false Gods". This interpretation of the pronoun
"åã" is unacceptable according to Al-Muntakhab interpretation of the
Quran, which is authorized and presented by the Supreme Council for
Islamic Affairs. Al-Muntakhab interprets the pronoun to be "ÇáÎáÞ"
meaning people and this interpretation is also supported by Al-Nasafi
interpretation of the Quran. Furthermore, it could be also emphasized
by theAyahfollowing that says:
æÑÈß íÚáã ãÇ Êßäø ÕÏæÑåã æãÇ íÚáäæä
translated as:
" And your Lord Knows what their breasts conceal and what they
avow".]Quran 28: 69[
It must be noted that the use of word "ÕÏæÑåã" translated by Khatib
as "breasts", in the aboveAyah, which immediately follows the
preceding one inSoorah Al-Qasas, cannot be used for God. It is only
people who can have "breasts" and not God. Therefore we conclude that
the pronoun "åã" in the aboveAyahmust be referring to people and
not false Gods as Khatib interpreted.
It must be noted from the above discussion and illustrations that the
translation presented by Khatib has, to some extent, overcome many of
the misinterpretations and pitfalls which previous translators have
presented. The main reason lies in the fact that Khatib is an Egyptian
Muslim scholar who is a native speaker of Arabic and has a good
command of English. Moreover, he has dedicated a good deal of time to
reading classic and modern books on Islamic studies as well as
studying many classical commentaries, which have had a great effect on
his understanding of the Quran.
However, it is necessary to conclude my paper by discussing some
important issues about the art of literary translation and to suggest
qualities recommended for translators in general, and for Quran
translators in particular.
The first and most important point is that both Arabic and English
languages come from two different families of languages: Semitic and
Germanic families respectively. Therefore, they have two quite
different sentence structures and we would expect different kinds of
problems in translation arising from the gaps between these two
languages. For example, a particular word in one of these languages
might not have an equivalent in the other; as the word "ar-Rahmaan"
for which Khatib )1986: VI( encountered great difficulty in "finding
English words that precisely match the Arabic meaning."
Another major point that the translator must realize is that any
literary text is composed of a complex set of systems in relation to
other sets outside its boundaries; and thus, he must not focus on one
set at the cost of the other. The translator must also observe the
cultural differences between the original language and the translated
language and should not ignore any cultural factor. This means that
the translator must be well acquainted with the cultural and social
factors in both the languages.
Therefore, the art of literary translationnecessitates that the
translator be skillfully trained, have good linguistic knowledge
cultural and social knowledge, a good deal of imagination and common
sense. He must also work hard to reach a translation that is as close
as possible to theoriginal.
The art of translating the Quran, however, requires in addition to the
above qualities, that the translator must be a native speaker of
Arabic as well as a Muslim who acquired deep knowledge of Islamic
history, culture and tradition. These qualities being present in
Khatib made his translation more adequate than the other previous
translations mentioned above. However, as we have seen from the above
discussion, even Khatib has some misinterpretations of words or verses
of the Quran despite the fact that he is a Muslim, native speaker of
Arabic.
The question that arises is: How could we allow a non-native speaker
of Arabic to attempt a translation of the Quran? If native speakers
like Khatib could encounter great difficulty in fully comprehending
the interpretation of the Quran, what about non-native speakers and
non-Muslims? It must also be noted that translation is itself a sort
of judgment, as discussed by David Ross )1977(. It is a judgment in
the sense that the translator usually selects the word that suits the
meaning he arrives at. This leads to the question: Who could possibly
be a competent judge of the meanings of the Quran?
It is obvious that not many individuals would be qualified for such a
daunting task. Therefore, I suggest that the translation of the Quran
should not be an individual effort, but rather a team effort of
Al-Azhar scholars who have reasonable command of English as well as a
team of linguists who are native speakers of Arabic and have a good
background on Islam and Islamic teachings. These two teams sitting and
working hard together should be able to overcome most of the
difficulties, misunderstandings and misinterpretations faced and
presented by Khatib and previous translators. This type of translation
is urgently needed today, especially when Islam is facing challenges
from the West.
