Qur’an Translation
The distinction between the Qur’an and its translations is crucial, as the latter cannot replace the original. In the Muslim
view, the Arabic form of the Qur’an is essential, and only the Arabic version is considered the true Qur’an, while translations
are merely interpretations. Every translation is an approximation of the meaning, proclaiming its own inadequacy, and can
never fully capture the essence of the original Arabic text.
Historical Background
The first translation of the Qur’an into a Western language was made by Robertus Retenensis in the 12th century, resulting
in a Latin version completed in 1143. This medieval translation was later published in Basel in 1543 and served as the
foundation for early translations into modern European languages, including Italian, German, and Dutch. However, these
translations were often inaccurate and motivated by hostile intentions.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, French and German translations emerged, including Andre du Ryer’s French translation in
1647 and Savary’s version in 1783. Meanwhile, Maracci produced another Latin translation in 1689, which was intentionally
biased against Islam. Early English translations, such as those by Ross and George Sale, were also flawed, with Sale’s version
being based on Maracci’s biased translation.
In response to these inaccurate translations, Muslim writers took up the challenge to produce reliable translations of the
Qur’an in Western languages. Notable examples include Mohammad Abdul-Hakim Khan’s translation in 1905, Mirza Hairat’s
version in 1919, and Hafiz Gulam Sarwar’s translation in 1930. Marmaduke Pickthall, an English Muslim, also published a
translation in 1930, marking a significant milestone in the production of accurate and reliable Qur’an translations.
The first translations of the Qur’an appeared in Persian during the Abbasid reign (c. 750-1258). These translations were
undertaken by Persian converts to Islam and were technically conceived as commentaries, following a word-for-word
strategy. However, this approach often resulted in an estranged effect on Persian readers, highlighting the alien character of
the language in which God’s message was revealed.
The first translations of the Qur’an into other languages, such as Turkish, Syriac, Berber, and Sindhi, were made during the
early centuries of Islam. However, many of these translations have not survived. In the 20th century, translations of the
Qur’an into Serbocroat were published, including those by Mico Ljubibratic and Dzemaludin Causevic. However, these
translations suffer from deficiencies, including the lack of adequate equivalents for Arabic words related to Islamic religion
and civilization.
There are two major types of Qur’an translations: semantic and communicative. Semantic translations, such as those by
Bell, Pickthall, and Arberry, adopt a literal approach, using archaic language and word order. Communicative translations,
on the other hand, aim to convey the meaning of the Qur’an in a contemporary and accessible language. Translators like
Akbar, Irving, and Turner have attempted to create a more readable and understandable translation of the Qur’an.
The challenges of translating the Qur’an into English are significant, as it is difficult to convey the nuances of Arabic words
and phrases. Akbar suggests that a free translation can convey the meaning of an Arabic sentence as a whole, while Irving
defends his translation approach, stating that it aims to create a reverence and beauty in the minds of listeners.
Translating the Quran
Qur’an translations often prioritize formal equivalence, resulting in “formal overloading” characterized by rare word
combinations, adherence to source language syntax, and archaic language. This approach aims to preserve the source text’s
tone, particularly its splendor and stylistic specialty. However, this method can lead to translations that are source language-
oriented, rather than target language-oriented.
The importance of preserving stylistic effects in Qur’an translations is highlighted by the use of foregrounded elements,
such as prepositional phrases or direct objects. These elements contribute to the text's communicative function and
hierarchy of text levels. Ignoring these elements, as seen in Asad’s translation, can diminish the stylistic value of the source
language. Qur’an translators must recognize the correlation between meaning and style, as stylistic properties can create
or contribute to meaning. The Qur’an’s unique style is evident in structures like Q20:14, where the repetition of pronouns
and the use of cohesive ties serve semantic functions. This style conveys two separate but interrelated propositions,
emphasizing the importance of knowing God and His oneness. The use of immediate action verbs and cohesive ties also
adds to the text’s meaning. By preserving these stylistic effects, translators can create more accurate and meaningful
translations of the Qur’an.
The Qur’anic style is semantically-motivated, meaning that its unique structure and word order convey specific meanings
and emphasis. A careful examination of a Qur’anic verse (Q3:30) reveals the importance of the “buffer” word ~~, which
separates two clauses and avoids semantic ambiguity. The sensitive word order, particularly with initial negative particles,
is also retained in translations to preserve the original meaning. However, some translators, like Turner, take a target text-
oriented approach, which may alter the original word order and emphasis. In contrast, other translators, such as Asad and
Ali, prioritize retaining the source language’s structure and word order. The translation of Qur’anic cultural concepts and
metaphors also presents challenges. While some translators provide marginal notes and commentaries, others do not.
Nevertheless, most translators avoid “cultural adaptation,” instead opting for a more literal translation that preserves the
original meaning and cultural context.
The example of the word ~~ (“ewe") in Q38:23 illustrates this approach. Despite the potential for cultural or socio-linguistic
differences, translators have generally chosen to retain the original word, rather than substituting it with a more familiar or
culturally relevant term. This approach prioritizes accuracy and fidelity to the original text over considerations of cultural
adaptation or target audience expectations.
Translating Qur’anic cultural voids, such as (~ Q5:1), poses challenges. Some translators, like Turner, use a combination of
transliteration and English words, while others, like Ali, provide a translation with marginal notes. Al-Hilali & Khan use
footnotes and within-the-text notes to explain cultural voids. Other Qur’anic expressions have culture-bound overtones,
making it difficult for semantic or communicative translations to convey the emotive meaning. For example, the phrase (~
refers to the hair on a date-stone, which may not be familiar to non-Arabic speakers. Different translators have attempted
to convey this meaning, with varying degrees of success.
The translations of (~ in Q4:49 and Q4:53 demonstrate the challenges of conveying cultural nuances. Translators like Bell,
Pickthall, and Arberry attempt to preserve the cultural reference, while others, like Asad and Ali, opt for more general
translations. The incorrect rendering by Pickthall in Q35:13 highlights the importance of accurate cultural understanding
in translation.
Qur’an translation often suffers from literal translation, compromising the source text’s meaning. For instance, the phrase
(~ in Q4:43 is translated as “have touched women” by Pickthall, while Asad provides a more reasonable rendering, “have
cohabited with women.” Literal translation can lead to ambiguity and inaccessibility for the target reader.
The Qur’anic expression (~ has different exegetical interpretations, but translators have opted for the first meaning, “to
laugh,” ignoring the secondary meaning, “to menstruate.” Another example is the expression (.l:;’), which can mean either
“coolness” or “sleep.” Translators have chosen the first meaning, but the secondary meaning can also be considered in the
translation.
Literal translation can confuse the target language reader and provide wrong socio-cultural presuppositions. For example,
the word (~ in Q4:34 is translated as “beat them” by some translators, while Ali renders it as “beat them gently” according
to the meaning provided by exegetes.The provision of literal translation can be attributed to negligence on the part of Qur’an
translators who do not refer to Muslim exegetes to check the accurate underlying Qur’anic meaning. This is evident in the
translation of the word (~ in Q2:106, where all translators have provided the inaccurate meaning “cause to be forgotten.”
Exegetes establish the meaning of Qur’anic expressions through intertextuality by reference to other Qur’anic structures.
For example, the expression (~ in Q6:82 is linked to the expression (<!l~I) in Q31:13, providing the meaning “to worship
others besides God, to taint your belief with sophistry concerning other gods.”
The importance of considering intertextual exegesis in translation is highlighted by the accurate rendering of the expression
(~ in Q6:82 by Al-Hilali & Khan and Turner, which takes into account the meaning provided by exegetes.
In conclusion, Qur’an translation requires careful consideration of the source text’s meaning, cultural context, and
intertextual exegesis to provide accurate and accessible translations for the target reader.
