The Problem in Translating the Noble Quran

The problem in translating the noble Quran

http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=733

In the name of GOD, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Once my dear brother, Fawzi Farraj, in one of his comments said that the translation will make the meaning weaker and sometimes it changes it no matter how much the translator was faithful and efficient. The Bible is a good example, as Jesus (PBUH) used to speak in Aramaic with the people of Israel but the first known translation of the Bible was in Greek. Hence no matter how much the Greek translators of the Bible were faithful, the meaning should have been interpreted in wrong manner in many aspects. Also that was followed by different translations which appeared with man-made modifications on it. All of that happened with the disappearance of the original Aramaic Bible so we can’t determine the efficiency of the translations (meaning that the original scripture of the Bible was lost). For the noble Quran the case is different as the Arabic language ,in which the Quran was sent down to Mohammed (PBUH), still exists and I will not be exaggerating if I say that the Quran itself helped the Arabic language to survive against the call for its division into different (public) languages (meaning that we will see Shami language, Egyptian language, Khaliji (Gulf) language, Moroccan language…….etc and the original Arabic language will be lost). Hence the believers’ belief has increased more and more on the fact that the promise of GOD is the truth: ((WE have sent down the message and WE are protecting it (from corruption) )) The noble Quran, Chapter 15, Verse 9
1

All that is supported by the existence of the first written Quran till now. Hence the Quran survived against the attempts to remove some verses from it or to remove some chapters and keep some others………………..etc and I am sure that these attempts are well known to everyone. As for the translation of the Quran, there is no fear because the original scripture of the Quran exists (and will always exist) but the translation of the Quran can not be considered as the Quran itself. It is better to call it the interpretation of the Quran from the translator’s point of view. Hence the translator is expected to commit mistakes whether he had a good intention or (a bad intention) as the Quran has the following specifications: ((And no one knows its interpretation other than GOD)) The noble Quran, Chapter 3, Verse 7 ((for each revealed thing (in the Quran) there is a time for its fulfillment and you will come to know (when that time comes).)) The noble Quran, Chapter 6, Verse 67 One of the translations of the noble Quran which I want to discuss in this article is the English translation of the noble Quran by Mohammed M. Pickthall. Using that translation, the enemies of the Quran accuse us of following a book which is violent and self-contradicting. I don’t want to dispraise Mohammed M. Pickthall as he surely had a good intention and he will have a reward (by the will of GOD) for all the effort he made for translating the Quran but his translation should be discussed. From my point of view, I think that the way he translated the Repentance chapter gave an impression that it is a very violent chapter which is permitting Muslims to be violent for all the times and places. For example
2

the verse 5 in the Repentance chapter (in Arabic) says: ((5 ‫فاقتلوا المشركين حيث وجدتموهم وخذوهم واحصروهم واق ُدوا لهمْ كل مرصد(( التوبة الية‬ ٍ َ ْ َ ّ ُ ُ َ ْ ُ ‫َ ْ ُ ُ ْ ْ ُ ْ ِ ِ َ َ ْ ُ َ َ ّ ُ ُ ْ َ ُ ُ ُ ْ َ ْ ُ ُ ُ ْ َ ْع‬ ((faktoloo almoshrikeena haitho wagattomohom wa khothohom wa ehsoroohom wa ake’do lahom kolla marsad)) The repentance, Verse 5 You can refer the article named (The Repentance chapter) to know the reason of these verses and what is meant from them. Anyways the translation of Mohammed M. Pickthall was as follows: ((slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush)) Quran 9:5 Pickthall This did not specify the Meccian soldiers. It is easily known (to us) that the idolaters meant in this verse are the Meccian soldiers and not all idolaters for all times, but this fact will not be known for a (non- Muslim) who is reading the translation of the Quran for the first time. So from my point of view it was better to be translated as follows: ((slay the pagan Meccian soldiers wherever you find them, take them captives, besiege them and prepare for them each ambush)) The noble Quran, Chapter 9, Verse 5 So the one who is quoting this verse from the translation of the Quran will understand that it a story and not an order for all the times and places. Another problem in Pickthall’s translation of the Quran is his translation of the following noble verse:

3

))61 ‫جعل الرض قرارا (( النمل الية‬ ((Ga’l Al-arda karara)) The ants, Verse 61 Hetranslated it as follows: ((Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode)) Quran 27:61 Pickthall So the enemies of the Quran accused us on believing a book that says that the earth is fixed and does not move. From my point of view the noble verse should be translated as follows: ((HE made the earth a resting-place)) The noble Quran, Chapter 27, Verse 61 Another problem was his translation of the story of Zul-Qarnain (the man with two Horns). He translated it in a way that gives an impression that the Quran says that the earth is flat and that Zul-Qarnain reached the extreme west of earth. It also gives an impression that the Quran says that the sun-setting place in the universe is a hot water!!!!!! There are so many other examples, but it will be so long to mention all of it. Suggestion:Why don’t we put a section in (Ahl-Alquran) website for reading the noble Quran? We can also put an English translation of the Quran which reflects the views of the people of the Quran. We can consider that as a big project which requires the participation of a lot of brothers and sisters from this website to discuss the meaning of some words and verses. What do you
4

think as I am ready to participate in the translation of the Quran (by the help of GOD almighty)? Such a project will make the participants read further and further and more thoroughly in the Quran.
The views and opinions of authors whose articles and comments are posted on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of IQC.

ments ( 2 )
Comment By Hossam Mansour - 2006-12-25

Very important point Here is the dilemma with this problem:

Translation is finding the equation between the wording and the meaning. So it is not just to find the accurate meaning that is identical to the original language in strength, beauty, and depth, but it is also to word this meaning in the closest lingual form in the new language. The problem with translating the Quraan then can be divided into translating the lingual form and the meaning. The form is doable, I think. The meaning is the biggest problem because the Quraan is not just another book; it is a book that is always understood differently by the readers. The Differences we talk about here are huge, that is the reason why we, the Quranic, exist. The problem is which vision of the Quraan to translate? The translation here gets more subjective than any where else. Shadi suggests it should be called an explanation not a translation. I think it should be called a vision of the Quaran because the Quraan does not need explantion. So instead of translating the Quraan, we will word how we see the Quraan in English. We have to clearly say that this is just our vision of Islam, because although we believe that our vision is right, we can not say that this is the authentic vision of Islam

Comment By Shadi EL-Farran

- 2006-12-26

Translating The Untranslatable http://www.4islam.com/translations.shtml

5

Translations of the Qur'an are regarded as interpretations in languages other than Arabic. Eventhough translating the Qur'an has been a difficult concept, both theologically and linguistically, The Qur'an has been translated into most languages. In Islam, The Qur'an is a revelation specifically in Arabic, and so it should only be recited in the Arabic language. Translations into other languages are the work of humans and so no longer possess the uniquely sacred character of the Arabic original. Since these translations subtly change the meaning, they are often called "interpretations." For instance, Pickthall called his translation The Meaning of the Glorious Koran rather than simply The Koran. Please read more on the topic below: Translating the Untranslatable: A Survey of English Translations of the by A.R. Kidwai Despite the historical fact that the early Muslim community's stand on the translation of the Arabic text of the Quran was ambivalent, as indeed, the general Muslim attitude remains so to this day, the act of translation may be logically viewed as a natural part of the Muslim exegetical effort. However, whereas the idea of interpreting the Quran has not been so controversial, the emotional motives behind rendering the Quranic text into languages other than Arabic have always been looked upon with suspicion. This is obvious as the need for translating the Quran arose in those historic circumstances when a large number of non-Arabic speaking people had embraced Islam, and giving new linguistic orientations to the contents of the revelation - as, for instance, happened in the case of the 'New Testament' 6

Qur'an

could have led to unforeseeable, and undesirable, developments within the body of the Islamic religion itself. (For a brief, though highly useful, survey of the Muslim attitudes towards the permissibility of translating the text of the revelation to non-Arabic tongues, see M. Ayoub, 'Translating the Meaning of the Quran: Traditional Opinions and Modern Debates', in Afkar Inquiry, Vol. 3, No. 5 (Ramadan 1406/May 1986), pp.34 9). The Muslim need for translating the Quran into English arose mainly out of the desire to combat the missionary effort. Following a long polemical tradition, part of whose goal was also the production of a - usually erroneous and confounding - European version of the Muslim scripture, Christian missionaries started their offensive against a politically humiliated Islam in the eighteenth century by advancing their own translations of the Quran. Obviously, Muslims could not allow the missionary effort - invariably confounding the authenticity of the text with a hostile commentary of its own to go unopposed and unchecked. Hence, the Muslim decision to present a faithful translation of the Quranic text as well as an authentic summary of its teaching to the European world. Later, the Muslim translations were meant to serve even those Muslims whose only access to the Quranic revelation was through the medium of the European languages. Naturally, English was deemed the most important language for the Muslim purpose, not least because of the existence of the British Empire which after the Ottomans had the largest number of Muslim subjects. The same rationale, however, applies to sectarian movements within Islam or even to renegade groups outside the fold of Islam, such as the Qadiyanis. Their considerable translational activities are motivated by the urge to proclaim their ideological uniqueness.
7

Although there is a spate of volumes on the multi-faceted dimensions of the Quran, no substantial work has so far been done to critically examine the mass of existing English translations of the Quran. Even bibliographical material on this subject was quite scant before the fairly recent appearance of World Bibliography of the Translations of the Meanings of the Holy Quran (Istanbul, OIC Research Centre, 1986), which provides authoritative publication details of the translations of the Quran in sixty-five languages. Some highly useful work in this field had been done earlier by Dr. Hamidullah of Paris. Appended to the Cambridge History of Arabic Literature Volume 1, Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period (Cambridge university Press, 1983) is a bibliography of the Quran translations into European languages, prepared by J.D. Pearson, as is the latter's article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. It is, however, of not much use to the Muslim. Since none of the above-mentioned works is annotated, the reader gets no idea about the translator's mental make-up, his dogmatic presuppositions and his approach to the Quran as well as the quality of the translation. Similarly the small chapter entitled 'The Qur'an and Occidental Scholarship' in Bell and Watt's Introduction to the Qur'an (Edinburgh, 1970, pp. 173-86), although useful in providing background information to Orientalists' efforts in Quranic studies, and translations, more or less for the same reasons, is of little value to general Muslim readers. Thus, studies which focus on those aspects of each translation of the Quran are urgently needed lest Western scholars misguide the unsuspecting non-Arabic speaking readers of the Quran. An effort has been made in this survey to bring out the hallmarks and shortcomings of the major complete translations of the Quran.
8

The early English translations of the Quran by Muslims stemmed mainly from the pious enthusiasm on their part to refute the allegations leveled by the Christian missionaries against Islam in general and the Quran in particular. Illustrative of this trend are the following translations: (i) Mohammad Abdul Hakim Khan, The Holy Qur'an:'with short notes based on the Holy Qur'an or the authentic traditions of the Prophet, or and New Testaments or scientific truth. All fictitious romance, questionable history and disputed theories have been carefully avoided' (Patiala, 1905); (ii) Hairat Dehlawi, The Koran Prepared, by various Oriental learned scholars and edited by Mirza Hairat Dehlawi. Intended as 'a complete and exhaustive reply to the manifold criticisms of the Koran by various Christian authors such as Drs. Sale, Rodwell, Palmer and Sir W. Muir' (Delhi, 1912); and (iii) Mirzal Abu'l Fadl, Qur'an, Arabic Text and English Translation Arranged Chronologically with an Abstract (Allahabad, 1912). Since none of these early translations was by a reputed Islamic scholar, both the quality of the translation and level of scholarship are not very high and these works are of mere historical interest. Later works, however, reflect a more mature and scholarly effort. Muhammad Marmaduke William Pickthall, an English man of letters who embraced Islam, holds the distinction of bringing out a first-rate rendering of the Qur'an in English, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an (London, 1930). It keeps scrupulously close to the original in elegant, though now somewhat archaic, English. However, although it is one of the most widely used English
9

translations, it provides scant explanatory notes and background information. This obviously restricts its usefulness for an uninitiated reader of the Qur'an. Abdullah Yusuf Ali's The Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary (Lahore, 1934 37), perhaps the most popular translation, stands as another major achievement in this field. A civil servant by vocation, Yusuf Ali was not a scholar in the classical Muslim tradition. Small wonder, then, that some of his copious notes, particularly on hell and heaven, angels, jinn and polygamy, etc. are informed with the pseudo-rationalist spirit of his times, as for instance in the works of S. Ahmad and S. Ameer Ali. His overemphasis on things spiritual also distorts the Qur'anic worldview. Against this is the fact that Yusuf Ali doubtless was one of the few Muslims who enjoyed an excellent command over the English language. It is fully reflected in his translation. Though his is more of a paraphrase than a literal translation, yet it faithfully represents the sense of the original. Abdul Majid Daryabadi's The Holy Qur'an: with English Translation and Commentary (Lahore, 1941 - 57) is, however, fully cognate with the traditional Muslim viewpoint. Like PIckthall's earlier attempt, it is a faithful rendering, supplemented with useful notes on historical, geographical and eschatological issues, particularly the illuminating discussions on comparative religion. Though the notes are not always very exhaustive, they help to dispel the doubts in the minds of Westernized readers. However, it too contains inadequate background information about the Suras (chapters of the Quran) and some of his notes need updating.

10

The Meaning of the Qur'an (Lahore, 1967), the English version of Sayyid Abul A'la Mawdud'i's magnum opus, the Urdu Tafhim al-Quran is an interpretative rendering of the Qur'an which remarkably succeeds in recapturing some of the majesty of the original. Since Mawdudi, a great thinker, enjoyed rare mastery over both classical and modern scholarship, his work helps one develop an understanding of the Qur'an as a source of guidance. Apart from setting the verses/Suras in the circumstances of its time, the author constantly relates, though exhaustive notes, the universal message of the Qur'an to his own time and its specific problems. His logical line of argument, generous sensibility, judicious use of classical Muslim scholarship and practical solutions to the problems of the day combine to show Islam as a complete way of life and as the Right Path for the whole of mankind. Since the translation of this invaluable work done by Muhammad Akbar is pitiably poor and uninspiring, the much-needed new English translation of the entire work is in progress under the auspices of the Islamic Foundation, Leicester. The Message of the Quran by Muhammad Asad (Gibraltar, 1980) represents a notable addition to the body of English translations couched in chaste English. This work is nonetheless vitiated by deviation from the viewpoint of the Muslim orthodoxy on many counts. Averse to take some Qur'anic statements literally, Asad denies the occurrence of such events as the throwing of Abraham into the fire, Jesus speaking in the cradle, etc. He also regards Luqman, Khizr and Zulqarnain as 'mythical figures' and holds unorthodox views on the abrogation of verses. These blemishes apart, this highly readable translation contains useful, though sometimes unreliable background information about the Qur'anic Suras and even provides exhaustive notes on various Qur'anic themes.
11

The fairly recent The Qur'an: The First American Version (Vermont, 1985) by another native Muslim speaker of English, T.B. Irving, marks the appearance of the latest major English translation. Apart from the obnoxious title, the work is bereft of textual and explanatory notes. Using his own arbitrary judgment, Irving has assigned themes to each Qur'anic Ruku' (section). Although modern and forceful English has been used, it is not altogether free of instances of mistranslation and loose expressions. With American readers in mind, particularly the youth, Irving has employed many American English idioms, which, in places, are not befitting of the dignity of the Qur'anic diction and style. In addition to the above, there are also a number of other English translations by Muslims, which, however, do not rank as significant ventures in this field. They may be listed as: 1. Al-Hajj Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar, Translation of the Holy Qur'an (Singapore, 1920) 2. Ali Ahmad Khan Jullundri, Translation of the Glorious Holy Qur'an with commentary English (Lahore, (Lahore, 1962) 1966) 3. Abdur Rahman Tariq and Ziauddin Gilani, The Holy Qur'an Rendered into 4. Syed Abdul Latif, Al-Qur'an: Rendered into English (Hyderabad, 1969) 5. Hashim Amir Ali, The Message of the Qur'an Presented in Perspective (Tokyo, 1974) 6. Taqui al-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Explanatory English Translation of the Holy Qur'an: A Summarized Version of Ibn Kathir Supplemented by At-Tabari with Comments from Sahih al-Bukhari (Chicago, 1977)
12

7. Muhammad Ahmad Mofassir, The Koran: The First Tafsir in English (London, 1979) 8. Mahmud Y. Zayid, The Qur'an: An English Translation of the Meaning of the Qur'an (checked and revised in collaboration with a committee of Muslim scholars) 1981) 10. Ahmed Ali, Al-Qur'an: A Contemporary Translation (Karachi, 1984). (In view of the blasphemous statements contained in Rashad Khalifa's The Qur'an: The Final Scripture (Authorized English Version) (Tucson, 1978), it has not been included in the translations by Muslims). Even amongst the Muslim translations, some are representative of the strong sectarian biases of their translators. For example, the Shia doctrines are fully reflected in accompanying commentaries of the following books: S.V. Mir Ahmad Ali, The Holy Qur'an with English Translation and Commentary, according to the version of the Holy Ahlul Bait includes 'special notes from Hujjatul Islam Ayatullah Haji Mirza Mahdi Pooya Yazdi on the philosophical aspects of the verses' (Karachi, 1964); M.H. Shakir, Holy Qur'an (New York, 1982); Syed Muhammad Hussain at-Tabatabai, al-Mizan: An Exegesis of the Qur'an, translated from Persian into English by Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi (Tehran, 198~). So far five volumes of this work have been published. Illustrative of the Barelvi sectarian stance is Holy Qur'an, the English version of Ahmad Raza Khan Brailai's Urdu translation, by Hanif Akhtar Fatmi (Lahore, n.d.).
13

(Beirut,

1980)

9. S.M. Sarwar, The Holy Qur'an: Arab Text and English Translation (Elmhurst,

As pointed out earlier, the Qadiyanis, though having abandoned Islam, have been actively engaged in translating the Qur'an, Apart from English, their translations are available in several European and African languages. Muhammad Ali's The Holy Qur'an: English Translation (Lahore, 1917) marks the beginning of this effort. This Qadiyani translator is guilty of misinterpreting several Qur'anic verses, particularly those related to the Promised Messiah, his miracles and the Qur'anic angelology. Similar distortions mar another Qadiyani translation by Sher Ali, The Holy Qur'an: Arabic Text with English Translation (Rabwah, 1955).Published under the auspices of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, second successor of the "Promised Messiah" and head of the Ahmadiyyas, this oft-reprinted work represents the official Qadiyani version of the Qur'an. Unapologizingly, Sher Sher Ali refers to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the "Promised Messiah" and mistranslates and misinterprets a number of Qur'anic verses. Zafarullah Khan's The Qur'an: Arabic Text and English Translation (London, 1970) ranks as another notable Qadiyani venture in this field. Like other Qadiyanis, Zafarullah too twists the Qur'anic verses to opine that the door of prophethood was not closed with the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). The obtrusion of similar obnoxious views upon the Qur'anic text is found in the following Qadiyani translations, too: (i) Kamaluddin and Nazir Ahmad, A Running Commentary of the Holy Qur'an (London, (ii) (iii) Salahuddin Malik Peer, The Ghulam Farid, The 1948) Wonderful Holy Koran Qur'an (Lahore, (Rabwah, 1960) 1962)

(iv) Khadim Rahman Nuri, The Running Commentary of the Holy Qur'an with
14

under-bracket

comments

(Shillong,

1964)

(v) Firozuddin Ruhi, The Qur'an (Karachi, 1965) Apart from the Qadiyanis, Christian missionaries have been the most active non-Muslim translators of the Qur'an. As already noted, origins of this inglorious tradition may be traced back to the anti-Islamic motives of the missionaries. Small wonder, then that these ventures are far from being a just translation, replete as they are with frequent transpositions, omissions, unaccountable liberties and unpardonable faults. A very crude specimen of the Orientalist-missionary approach to the Qur'an is found in Alexander Ross's The Alcoran of Mahomet translated out of Arabique into French, by the Sieur Du Ryer...And newly Englished, for the satisfaction for all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities (London, 1649). In translating the Qur'an, the intention of Ross, a chaplain of King Charles I, was: 'I thought good to bring it to their colours, that so viewing thine enemies in their full body, thou must the better prepare to encounter...his Alcoran.' In the same rabidly anti-Islamic vein are the two appendices in the work entitled as (a) 'A Needful Caveat or Admonition, for them who desire to know what use may be made of or if there be danger in reading the Alcoran' (pp. 406 20) and 'The Life and Death of Mahomet: the Prophet of the Turks and author of the Alcoran' (pp. 395-405). George Sale, a lawyer brought out his The Koran, commonly called The Al Koran of Mohammed (London, 1734), which has been the most popular English translation. Sale's exhaustive 'Preliminary Discourse', dealing mainly with Sira and the Qur'an, betrays his deep hostility towards Islam and his missionary
15

intent in that he suggests the rules to be observed for 'the conversion of Mohammedans' (q.v.). As to the translation itself, it abounds in numerous instances of omission, distortion and interpolations. Dissatisfied with Sale's work, J.M. Rodwell, Rector of St. Ethelberga, London, produced his translation entitled The Koran (London, 1861). Apart from hurling all sorts of wild and nasty allegations against the Prophet and the Qur'an in the Preface, Rodwell is guilty of having invented the so-called chronological Sura order of the Qur'an. Nor is his translation free from grave mistakes of translation and his own fanciful interpretations in the notes. E.H. Palmer, a Cambridge scholar, was entrusted with the preparation of a new translation of the Qur'an for Max Muller's Sacred Books of the East series. Accordingly, his translation, The Qur'an, appeared in London in 1880. As to the worth of Palmer's translation, reference may be made to A. R. Nykl's article, 'Notes on E.H. Palmer's The Qur'an', published in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, 56 (1936) pp. 77-84 in which no less than 65 instances of omission and mistranslation in Palmer's work have been pointed out. Richard Bell, Reader of Arabic, University of Edinburgh, and an acknowledged Orientalist produced a translation of the Qur'an with special reference to its Sura order, as is evident from the title of his work, The Qur'an translated with a critical rearrangement of the Surahs (Edinburgh, 1937-39). In addition to describing the Prophet as the author of the Qur'an, Bell also believes that the Qur'an in its present form was 'actually written by Muhammad himself' (p. vi). In rearranging the Sura order of the Qur'an, Bell, in fact, makes a thorough mess of the traditional arrangement and tries to point out 'alterations substitutions and derangements in the text.
16

A.J. Arberry, a renowned Orientalist and Professor of Arabic at the Universities of London and Cambridge, has been, so far, the latest non-Muslim translator of the Qur'an. Arberry's The Koran Interpreted (London, 1957) no doubt stands out above the other English renderings by non-Muslims in terms of both its approach and quality. Nonetheless, it is not altogether free from mistakes of omission and mistranslation, such as in Al' Imran 111:43, Nisa' IV: 72, 147 and 157, Ma'ida V: 55 and 71, An'am VI: 20, 105, A'raf VII: 157, 158 and 199, Anfal VIII: 17, 29, 41, 59, Yunus X: 88, Hud XI: 30 and 46 and Yusuf XII: 61. N.J. Dawood is perhaps the only Jew to have translated the Qur'an into English. Available in the Penguin edition, Dawood's translation, The Koran (London, 1956) is perhaps the most widely circulated non-Muslim English translation of the Qur'an. The author's bias against Islam is readily observable in the Introduction. Apart form adopting an unusual Sura order in his translation, Dawood is guilty also of having mistranslated the Qur'an in places such as Baqara II:9 and A'raf VII:31, etc. No doubt, the peculiar circumstances of history which brought the Qur'an into contact with the English language have left their imprint on the non-Muslim as well as the Muslim bid to translate it. The results and achievements of their efforts leave a lot to be desired. Unlike, for instance, major Muslim languages such as Persian, Turkish and Urdu, which have thoroughly exhausted indigenous linguistic and literary resources to meet the scholarly and emotional demands of the task, the prolific resources of the universal medium of English have not been fully employed in the service of the Qur'an.
17

The Muslim Scripture is yet to find a dignified and faithful expression in the English language that matches the majesty and grandeur of the original. The currents of history, however, seem to be in favour of such a development. Even English is acquiring a native Muslim character and it is only a matter of time before we have a worthy translation of the Qur'an in that tongue. Till them, the Muslim student should judiciously make use of Pickthall, A. Yusuf Ali, Asad and Irving, Even Arberry's stylistic qualities must not be ignored. Ultimately, of course, the Muslim should try to discover the original and not allow himself to be lost in a maze of translations and interpretations. (Originally printed in The Muslim World Book Review, Vol. 7, No. 4 Summer 1987)

Qur'an Translation - Difficulties of Qur'an Translation
Difficulties of Translation
By Huda, About.com Guide

http://islam.about.com/od/qurantranslations/a/qurantranslate.htm
While the text of the original Arabic Qur'an is identical and unchanged since its revelation, you will find various translations and interpretations. Anytime a translation is done into another language, the translator (who is only human) has to interpret the meaning and render it in the new language. It is, by nature, an approximation of the meaning, since words and ideas cannot be expressed identically in different languages. Arabic is a very rich language, and words have many shades of meaning. Thus in many languages it often requires more wordiness to get the meaning across, which detracts from the beautiful simplicity of the Qur'anic message. Arabic idioms, and the weight of the words, are difficult to understand and translate. While Arabic is a living language, the classical Arabic of the Qur'an requires more study in order to fully appreciate and understand the depths of meaning. Another concern is the translator's familiarity with the target language. Some translations are done by individuals who are very knowledgeable in Arabic, but they are not able to render the intended meaning because they are not familiar with the nuances of the other language. In the end, the dilemma is to find a translation that is linguistically and spiritually as accurate as possible, yet is readable and flowing. In English, such a translation is difficult to find, though many have tried.

18

Many of the early translations of the Qur'an into English were done by Christian missionaries. Not surprisingly, they are not known for their accuracy or faithfulness to the intended message. Currently, translations are available from Hilali and Khan, Ali, Shakir, Pickthall, and others. Read below for a review of the various translations currently on the market.

Translating the Untranslatable: A Survey of English Translations of the Quran
by A.R. Kidwai

http://www.soundvision.com/Info/quran/english.asp
Despite the historical fact that the early Muslim community's stand on the translation of the Arabic text of the Quran was ambivalent, as indeed, the general Muslim attitude remains so to this day, the act of translation may be logically viewed as a natural part of the Muslim exegetical effort. However, whereas the idea of interpreting the Quran has not been so controversial, the emotional motives behind rendering the Quranic text into languages other than Arabic have always been looked upon with suspicion. This is obvious as the need for translating the Quran arose in those historic circumstances when a large number of non-Arabic speaking people had embraced Islam, and giving new linguistic orientations to the contents of the revelation - as, for instance, happened in the case of the 'New Testament' - could have led to unforeseeable, and undesirable, developments within the body of the Islamic religion itself. (For a brief, though highly useful, survey of the Muslim attitudes towards the permissibility of translating the text of the revelation to non-Arabic tongues, see M. Ayoub, 'Translating the Meaning of the Quran: Traditional Opinions and Modern Debates', in Afkar Inquiry, Vol. 3, No. 5 (Ramadan 1406/May 1986), pp.34 9). The Muslim need for translating the Quran into English arose mainly out of the desire to combat the missionary effort. Following a long polemical tradition, part of whose goal was also the production of a - usually erroneous and confounding - European version of the Muslim scripture, Christian missionaries started their offensive against a politically humiliated Islam in the eighteenth century by advancing their own translations of the Quran. Obviously, Muslims could not allow the missionary effort - invariably confounding the authenticity of the text with a hostile commentary of its own - to go unopposed and unchecked. Hence, the Muslim decision to present a faithful translation of the Quranic text as well as an authentic summary of its teaching to the European world. Later, the Muslim translations were meant to serve even those Muslims whose only access to the Quranic revelation was through the medium of the European languages. Naturally, English was deemed the most important language for the Muslim purpose, not least because of the existence of the British Empire which after the Ottomans had the largest number of Muslim subjects.

19

The same rationale, however, applies to sectarian movements within Islam or even to renegade groups outside the fold of Islam, such as the Qadiyanis. Their considerable translational activities are motivated by the urge to proclaim their ideological uniqueness. Although there is a spate of volumes on the multi-faceted dimensions of the Quran, no substantial work has so far been done to critically examine the mass of existing English translations of the Quran. Even bibliographical material on this subject was quite scant before the fairly recent appearance of World Bibliography of the Translations of the Meanings of the Holy Quran (Istanbul, OIC Research Centre, 1986), which provides authoritative publication details of the translations of the Quran in sixty-five languages. Some highly useful work in this field had been done earlier by Dr. Hamidullah of Paris. Appended to the Cambridge History of Arabic Literature Volume 1, Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period (Cambridge university Press, 1983) is a bibliography of the Quran translations into European languages, prepared by J.D. Pearson, as is the latter's article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. It is, however, of not much use to the Muslim. Since none of the above-mentioned works is annotated, the reader gets no idea about the translator's mental make-up, his dogmatic presuppositions and his approach to the Quran as well as the quality of the translation. Similarly the small chapter entitled 'The Qur'an and Occidental Scholarship' in Bell and Watt's Introduction to the Qur'an (Edinburgh, 1970, pp. 173-86), although useful in providing background information to Orientalists' efforts in Quranic studies, and translations, more or less for the same reasons, is of little value to general Muslim readers. Thus, studies which focus on those aspects of each translation of the Quran are urgently needed lest Western scholars misguide the unsuspecting non-Arabic speaking readers of the Quran. An effort has been made in this survey to bring out the hallmarks and shortcomings of the major complete translations of the Quran. The early English translations of the Quran by Muslims stemmed mainly from the pious enthusiasm on their part to refute the allegations leveled by the Christian missionaries against Islam in general and the Quran in particular. Illustrative of this trend are the following translations: (i) Mohammad Abdul Hakim Khan, The Holy Qur'an:'with short notes based on the Holy Qur'an or the authentic traditions of the Prophet, or and New Testaments or scientific truth. All fictitious romance, questionable history and disputed theories have been carefully avoided' (Patiala, 1905); (ii) Hairat Dehlawi, The Koran Prepared, by various Oriental learned scholars and edited by Mirza Hairat Dehlawi. Intended as 'a complete and exhaustive reply to the manifold criticisms of the Koran by various Christian authors such as Drs. Sale, Rodwell, Palmer and Sir W. Muir' (Delhi, 1912); and

20

(iii) Mirzal Abu'l Fadl, Qur'an, Arabic Text and English Translation Arranged Chronologically with an Abstract (Allahabad, 1912). Since none of these early translations was by a reputed Islamic scholar, both the quality of the translation and level of scholarship are not very high and these works are of mere historical interest. Later works, however, reflect a more mature and scholarly effort. Muhammad Marmaduke William Pickthall, an English man of letters who embraced Islam, holds the distinction of bringing out a first-rate rendering of the Qur'an in English, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an (London, 1930). It keeps scrupulously close to the original in elegant, though now somewhat archaic, English. However, although it is one of the most widely used English translations, it provides scant explanatory notes and background information. This obviously restricts its usefulness for an uninitiated reader of the Qur'an. Abdullah Yusuf Ali's The Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary (Lahore, 1934 37), perhaps the most popular translation, stands as another major achievement in this field. A civil servant by vocation, Yusuf Ali was not a scholar in the classical Muslim tradition. Small wonder, then, that some of his copious notes, particularly on hell and heaven, angels, jinn and polygamy, etc. are informed with the pseudo-rationalist spirit of his times, as for instance in the works of S. Ahmad and S. Ameer Ali. His overemphasis on things spiritual also distorts the Qur'anic worldview. Against this is the fact that Yusuf Ali doubtless was one of the few Muslims who enjoyed an excellent command over the English language. It is fully reflected in his translation. Though his is more of a paraphrase than a literal translation, yet it faithfully represents the sense of the original. Abdul Majid Daryabadi's The Holy Qur'an: with English Translation and Commentary (Lahore, 1941 57) is, however, fully cognate with the traditional Muslim viewpoint. Like PIckthall's earlier attempt, it is a faithful rendering, supplemented with useful notes on historical, geographical and eschatological issues, particularly the illuminating discussions on comparative religion. Though the notes are not always very exhaustive, they help to dispel the doubts in the minds of Westernized readers. However, it too contains inadequate background information about the Suras (chapters of the Quran) and some of his notes need updating. The Meaning of the Qur'an (Lahore, 1967), the English version of Sayyid Abul A'la Mawdud'i's magnum opus, the Urdu Tafhim al-Quran is an interpretative rendering of the Qur'an which remarkably succeeds in recapturing some of the majesty of the original. Since Mawdudi, a great thinker, enjoyed rare mastery over both classical and modern scholarship, his work helps one develop an understanding of the Qur'an as a source of guidance. Apart from setting the verses/Suras in the circumstances of its time, the author constantly relates, though exhaustive notes, the universal message of the Qur'an to his own time and its specific problems.
21

His logical line of argument, generous sensibility, judicious use of classical Muslim scholarship and practical solutions to the problems of the day combine to show Islam as a complete way of life and as the Right Path for the whole of mankind. Since the translation of this invaluable work done by Muhammad Akbar is pitiably poor and uninspiring, the much-needed new English translation of the entire work is in progress under the auspices of the Islamic Foundation, Leicester. The Message of the Quran by Muhammad Asad (Gibraltar, 1980) represents a notable addition to the body of English translations couched in chaste English. This work is nonetheless vitiated by deviation from the viewpoint of the Muslim orthodoxy on many counts. Averse to take some Qur'anic statements literally, Asad denies the occurrence of such events as the throwing of Abraham into the fire, Jesus speaking in the cradle, etc. He also regards Luqman, Khizr and Zulqarnain as 'mythical figures' and holds unorthodox views on the abrogation of verses. These blemishes apart, this highly readable translation contains useful, though sometimes unreliable background information about the Qur'anic Suras and even provides exhaustive notes on various Qur'anic themes. The fairly recent The Qur'an: The First American Version (Vermont, 1985) by another native Muslim speaker of English, T.B. Irving, marks the appearance of the latest major English translation. Apart from the obnoxious title, the work is bereft of textual and explanatory notes. Using his own arbitrary judgment, Irving has assigned themes to each Qur'anic Ruku' (section). Although modern and forceful English has been used, it is not altogether free of instances of mistranslation and loose expressions. With American readers in mind, particularly the youth, Irving has employed many American English idioms, which, in places, are not befitting of the dignity of the Qur'anic diction and style. In addition to the above, there are also a number of other English translations by Muslims, which, however, do not rank as significant ventures in this field. They may be listed as: 1. Al-Hajj Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar, Translation of the Holy Qur'an (Singapore, 1920) 2. Ali Ahmad Khan Jullundri, Translation of the Glorious Holy Qur'an with commentary (Lahore, 1962) 3. Abdur Rahman Tariq and Ziauddin Gilani, The Holy Qur'an Rendered into English (Lahore, 1966) 4. Syed Abdul Latif, Al-Qur'an: Rendered into English (Hyderabad, 1969) 5. Hashim Amir Ali, The Message of the Qur'an Presented in Perspective (Tokyo, 1974) 6. Taqui al-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Explanatory English Translation of the Holy Qur'an: A Summarized Version of Ibn Kathir Supplemented by At-Tabari with Comments from Sahih al-Bukhari (Chicago, 1977) 7. Muhammad Ahmad Mofassir, The Koran: The First Tafsir in English (London, 1979) 8. Mahmud Y. Zayid, The Qur'an: An English Translation of the Meaning of the Qur'an (checked and revised in collaboration with a committee of Muslim scholars) (Beirut, 1980) 9. S.M. Sarwar, The Holy Qur'an: Arab Text and English Translation (Elmhurst, 1981) 10. Ahmed Ali, Al-Qur'an: A Contemporary Translation (Karachi, 1984).

22

(In view of the blasphemous statements contained in Rashad Khalifa's The Qur'an: The Final Scripture (Authorized English Version) (Tucson, 1978), it has not been included in the translations by Muslims). Even amongst the Muslim translations, some are representative of the strong sectarian biases of their translators. For example, the Shia doctrines are fully reflected in accompanying commentaries of the following books: S.V. Mir Ahmad Ali, The Holy Qur'an with English Translation and Commentary, according to the version of the Holy Ahlul Bait includes 'special notes from Hujjatul Islam Ayatullah Haji Mirza Mahdi Pooya Yazdi on the philosophical aspects of the verses' (Karachi, 1964); M.H. Shakir, Holy Qur'an (New York, 1982); Syed Muhammad Hussain at-Tabatabai, al-Mizan: An Exegesis of the Qur'an, translated from Persian into English by Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi (Tehran, 198~). So far five volumes of this work have been published. Illustrative of the Barelvi sectarian stance is Holy Qur'an, the English version of Ahmad Raza Khan Brailai's Urdu translation, by Hanif Akhtar Fatmi (Lahore, n.d.). As pointed out earlier, the Qadiyanis, though having abandoned Islam, have been actively engaged in translating the Qur'an, Apart from English, their translations are available in several European and African languages. Muhammad Ali's The Holy Qur'an: English Translation (Lahore, 1917) marks the beginning of this effort. This Qadiyani translator is guilty of misinterpreting several Qur'anic verses, particularly those related to the Promised Messiah, his miracles and the Qur'anic angelology. Similar distortions mar another Qadiyani translation by Sher Ali, The Holy Qur'an: Arabic Text with English Translation (Rabwah, 1955).Published under the auspices of Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, second successor of the "Promised Messiah" and head of the Ahmadiyyas, this oft-reprinted work represents the official Qadiyani version of the Qur'an. Unapologizingly, Sher Sher Ali refers to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the "Promised Messiah" and mistranslates and misinterprets a number of Qur'anic verses. Zafarullah Khan's The Qur'an: Arabic Text and English Translation (London, 1970) ranks as another notable Qadiyani venture in this field. Like other Qadiyanis, Zafarullah too twists the Qur'anic verses to opine that the door of prophethood was not closed with the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). The obtrusion of similar obnoxious views upon the Qur'anic text is found in the following Qadiyani translations, too: (i) Kamaluddin and Nazir Ahmad, A Running Commentary of the Holy Qur'an (London, 1948) (ii) Salahuddin Peer, The Wonderful Koran (Lahore, 1960) (iii) Malik Ghulam Farid, The Holy Qur'an (Rabwah, 1962) (iv) Khadim Rahman Nuri, The Running Commentary of the Holy Qur'an with under-bracket comments (Shillong, 1964) (v) Firozuddin Ruhi, The Qur'an (Karachi, 1965)

23

Apart from the Qadiyanis, Christian missionaries have been the most active non-Muslim translators of the Qur'an. As already noted, origins of this inglorious tradition may be traced back to the antiIslamic motives of the missionaries. Small wonder, then that these ventures are far from being a just translation, replete as they are with frequent transpositions, omissions, unaccountable liberties and unpardonable faults. A very crude specimen of the Orientalist-missionary approach to the Qur'an is found in Alexander Ross's The Alcoran of Mahomet translated out of Arabique into French, by the Sieur Du Ryer...And newly Englished, for the satisfaction for all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities (London, 1649). In translating the Qur'an, the intention of Ross, a chaplain of King Charles I, was: 'I thought good to bring it to their colours, that so viewing thine enemies in their full body, thou must the better prepare to encounter...his Alcoran.' In the same rabidly anti-Islamic vein are the two appendices in the work entitled as (a) 'A Needful Caveat or Admonition, for them who desire to know what use may be made of or if there be danger in reading the Alcoran' (pp. 406 20) and 'The Life and Death of Mahomet: the Prophet of the Turks and author of the Alcoran' (pp. 395-405). George Sale, a lawyer brought out his The Koran, commonly called The Al Koran of Mohammed (London, 1734), which has been the most popular English translation. Sale's exhaustive 'Preliminary Discourse', dealing mainly with Sira and the Qur'an, betrays his deep hostility towards Islam and his missionary intent in that he suggests the rules to be observed for 'the conversion of Mohammedans' (q.v.). As to the translation itself, it abounds in numerous instances of omission, distortion and interpolations. Dissatisfied with Sale's work, J.M. Rodwell, Rector of St. Ethelberga, London, produced his translation entitled The Koran (London, 1861). Apart from hurling all sorts of wild and nasty allegations against the Prophet and the Qur'an in the Preface, Rodwell is guilty of having invented the so-called chronological Sura order of the Qur'an. Nor is his translation free from grave mistakes of translation and his own fanciful interpretations in the notes. E.H. Palmer, a Cambridge scholar, was entrusted with the preparation of a new translation of the Qur'an for Max Muller's Sacred Books of the East series. Accordingly, his translation, The Qur'an, appeared in London in 1880. As to the worth of Palmer's translation, reference may be made to A. R. Nykl's article, 'Notes on E.H. Palmer's The Qur'an', published in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, 56 (1936) pp. 77-84 in which no less than 65 instances of omission and mistranslation in Palmer's work have been pointed out. Richard Bell, Reader of Arabic, University of Edinburgh, and an acknowledged Orientalist produced a translation of the Qur'an with special reference to its Sura order, as is evident from the title of his work, The Qur'an translated with a critical rearrangement of the Surahs (Edinburgh, 1937-39). In addition to describing the Prophet as the author of the Qur'an, Bell also believes that the Qur'an
24

in its present form was 'actually written by Muhammad himself' (p. vi). In rearranging the Sura order of the Qur'an, Bell, in fact, makes a thorough mess of the traditional arrangement and tries to point out 'alterations substitutions and derangements in the text. A.J. Arberry, a renowned Orientalist and Professor of Arabic at the Universities of London and Cambridge, has been, so far, the latest non-Muslim translator of the Qur'an. Arberry's The Koran Interpreted (London, 1957) no doubt stands out above the other English renderings by non-Muslims in terms of both its approach and quality. Nonetheless, it is not altogether free from mistakes of omission and mistranslation, such as in Al' Imran 111:43, Nisa' IV: 72, 147 and 157, Ma'ida V: 55 and 71, An'am VI: 20, 105, A'raf VII: 157, 158 and 199, Anfal VIII: 17, 29, 41, 59, Yunus X: 88, Hud XI: 30 and 46 and Yusuf XII: 61. N.J. Dawood is perhaps the only Jew to have translated the Qur'an into English. Available in the Penguin edition, Dawood's translation, The Koran (London, 1956) is perhaps the most widely circulated non-Muslim English translation of the Qur'an. The author's bias against Islam is readily observable in the Introduction. Apart form adopting an unusual Sura order in his translation, Dawood is guilty also of having mistranslated the Qur'an in places such as Baqara II:9 and A'raf VII:31, etc. No doubt, the peculiar circumstances of history which brought the Qur'an into contact with the English language have left their imprint on the non-Muslim as well as the Muslim bid to translate it. The results and achievements of their efforts leave a lot to be desired. Unlike, for instance, major Muslim languages such as Persian, Turkish and Urdu, which have thoroughly exhausted indigenous linguistic and literary resources to meet the scholarly and emotional demands of the task, the prolific resources of the universal medium of English have not been fully employed in the service of the Qur'an. The Muslim Scripture is yet to find a dignified and faithful expression in the English language that matches the majesty and grandeur of the original. The currents of history, however, seem to be in favour of such a development. Even English is acquiring a native Muslim character and it is only a matter of time before we have a worthy translation of the Qur'an in that tongue. Till them, the Muslim student should judiciously make use of Pickthall, A. Yusuf Ali, Asad and Irving, Even Arberry's stylistic qualities must not be ignored. Ultimately, of course, the Muslim should try to discover the original and not allow himself to be lost in a maze of translations and interpretations.
(Originally printed in The Muslim World Book Review, Vol. 7, No. 4 Summer 1987)

25

Lost in translation. Most English-language editions of the Qur'an have contained numerous errors, omissions and distortions. Hardly surprising, writes Ziauddin Sardar, when one of their purposes was to denigrate not just the Holy Book, but the entire Islamic faith

Ziauddin Sardar
Published 09 August 2004 http://www.newstatesman.com/200408090035

The Qur'an Translated by M A S Abdel Haleem Oxford University Press, 464pp, £14.99 ISBN 0192805487 Translations of the Qur'an have long been a battleground. Ostensibly, the purpose of translating the most sacred text of Islam is to make it accessible to those without Arabic - Muslims and nonMuslims alike. But English translations of the Qur'an have frequently been used to subvert the text as well as its real message. The most obvious point to be made about any translation of the Qur'an (and the correct spelling is Qur'an, not Koran) is that, strictly speaking, it is not the Qur'an. Literally, "qur'an" means "reading", or that which should be read. It is an epic poetic text, meant to be read aloud, whose true import can be communicated only in the original. A translation is not that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men and women to tears and ecstasy. It is only an attempt to give the barest suggestion of the meaning of the Qur'an. This is why both classical and contemporary Muslim scholars and jurists agree that translations of the Qur'an cannot be read during daily prayers. Indeed, some scholars go so far as to argue that the Qur'an cannot be written down in letters other than the original Arabic characters. It is not just the heightened language and poetic nature of the Qur'an that creates problems for translators. The Qur'an is not a book like any other. It cannot, for example, be compared with the Torah or the Bible, simply because it is not a book of narrative records of ancient peoples although it does contain some stories of prophets and earlier nations. It is not a "linear" text with a chronological order or a "logical" beginning, middle and end. Its chapters can be very short or very long. It repeats stories in different chapters, often skips from one subject to another, and offers instruction on the same subject in different places. It has a specific lattice structure that connects every word and every verse with every other word and verse by rhythm, rhyme and meaning. European thinkers have frequently used the special structure of the Qur'an to denigrate the Holy Book. The otherwise sensible Thomas Carlyle found the "Koran" to be "a wearisome confused jumble", and declared that only "a sense of duty could carry any European through the Koran". The 18th-century French philo-sopher and historian Constantin Volney described the Qur'an as "a tissue of vague, contradictory declamations, of ridiculous, dangerous precepts". Given that most European translators have seen the Qur'an in this way, it is not surprising that their translations have left a great deal to be desired. Some have even gone so far as to say that the Qur'an lacks the necessary structure, logic and rationality to be thought of as a book at all. The first direct translation of the Qur'an into English was by George Sale, in 1734; this, Sale said, provided clear evidence that the Qur'an was the work of several authors. Subsequent translators thought that the only way to make any sense of the Qur'an was to rearrange it into some sort of
26

chronological order. The first translation to do so - by J M Rodwell, rector of St Ethelburga, London - was published in 1861. A more thorough rearrangement was attempted by Richard Bell, a noted Scottish orientalist, whose translation, published in Edinburgh in four editions between 1937 and 1939, was entitled The Qur'an, Translated, With a Critical Rearrangement of the Surahs. Playing havoc with the structure of the Qur'an, however, was not enough. Translators also used omission, distortion and mistranslation to subvert the message and meaning of the Holy Book. Consider, for example, the most widely available translation in English, by N J Dawood, the first edition of which was published by Penguin in 1956. This translation subverts the original in several ways. Often a single word is mistranslated in a verse to give it totally the opposite meaning. In 2:217, for example, we read: "idolatry is worse than carnage". The word translated as "idolatry" is "fitna", which actually means persecution or oppression. Dawood's translation conveys an impression that the Qur'an will put up with carnage but not idolatry. In fact, the Qur'an is making persecution and oppression a crime greater than murder. The extract should read: "oppression is more awesome than killing". At other times, Dawood uses subtle mistranslation to give an undertow of violence to the language of the Qur'an. This is evident even in his translations of chapter titles. "Az-Zumar", which simply means "crowd", is translated as "The Hordes"; "As-Saff", which means "the ranks", is translated as "Battle Array". "Al-Alaq", which literally means "that which clings", and refers to the embryo as it attaches to the wall of the uterus, is translated as "Clots of Blood". Most Muslim translators simply call the chapter "The Clot". What is intended to convey the idea of birth, Dawood projects as the notion of death. Like previous orientalist translators, he also goes out of his way to suggest that the Qur'an is a sexist text. The Qur'an demands that humanity serve God; in Dawood's translation, this injunction applies only to men. Spouses become virgins. Conjuring witches appear from nowhere. Thus, readers of Dawood's version - and most other popular translations of the Qur'an have come away with the impression that the Holy Book sanctions violence or sexual oppression. For those interested in getting to the heart of the holy text, the good news is that there is now a much more accurate translation available. Muhammad A S Abdel Haleem, professor of Islamic studies at London's School of Oriental and African Studies, has set out not only to translate the text faithfully, but also to make it accessible to ordinary English readers. He achieves this by offering a purely linguistic reading of the Qur'an. He transforms the Holy Book's complex grammar and structure into smooth, contemporary English mercifully free from archaisms, anachronisms and incoherence. The result is both accessible and compelling. Abdel Haleem makes use of a simple but ingenious device to solve two critical problems. The Qur'an often addresses different parties - for example, the Prophet, or the Community of Believers, or the hostile Meccan tribe of the Quraysh - and switches from one to another in the same verse. Abdel Haleem inserts parentheses to make it clear who is speaking or whom is being addressed. He uses the same device to provide context: for example, when the Qur'an says "those who believed and emigrated", Abdel Haleem adds "[to Medina]". He also includes brief summaries at the beginning of each chapter, as well as judicious footnotes explaining geographical, historical and personal allusions. Abdel Haleem's emphasis on context - the way that each verse connects with many others, and how the different parts of the Holy Book explain each other - makes this translation a remarkable
27

achievement. For the first time, readers of the Qur'an in translation are able to see that it is a commentary on the life of the Prophet Muhammad. It spans a period of 23 years; and to understand what is going on in any particular verse, you need to appreciate what is happening in the Prophet's life at the moment the verse was revealed. Moreover, to understand what the Qur'an says about a particular subject in one particular verse, you have to know what the Qur'an says about the same topic in different places. This is why, as Abdel Haleem points out in the introduction, you cannot lift a single verse out of context and use it to argue a point or to show what the Qur'an has to say about something. To illustrate the point, he refers to the oft-quoted verse "Slay them wherever you find them" (2:191). This was taken out of context by Dawood, Haleem argues, and thus used to justify the claim that the Qur'an sanctions violence against non-Muslims; and, after 9/11, to rationalise the actions of extremists. In fact, the only situation in which the Qur'an sanctions violence is in self-defence. This particular verse has a context: the Muslims, performing pilgrimage in the sacred precinct in Mecca, were under attack and did not know whether they were permitted to retaliate. The verse permits them to fight back on this - but not necessarily any other - occasion. Yet even a translation as good as this has limitations. Despite its originality, it is very much an orthodox reading of the Qur'an. The explanatory footnotes rely heavily on classical commentaries, particularly that of the late 12th-century scholar and theologian Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. And it does not inspire a sense of poetic beauty. But then, in a translation of a text as rich and complex as the Qur'an, you can't expect to have everything. Ziauddin Sardar's Desperately Seeking Paradise: journeys of a sceptical Muslim is published by Granta Books

Assessing English Translations of the Qur'an
by Khaleel Mohammed Middle East Quarterly Spring 2005, pp. 58-71
28

http://www.meforum.org/717/assessing-english-translations-of-the-quran
Multiple English translations of the Qur'an, Islam's scripture, line shelves at book stores. Amazon.com sells more than a dozen. Because of the growing Muslim communities in English-speaking countries, as well as greater academic interest in Islam, there has been a blossoming in recent years of English translations. Muslims view the Qur'an as God's direct words revealed in Arabic to the Prophet Muhammad (d. 632).[1] Because the Qur'an stresses its Arabic nature, Muslim scholars believe that any translation cannot be more than an approximate interpretation, intended only as a tool for the study and understanding of the original Arabic text. [2] Since fewer than 20 percent of Muslims speak Arabic, this means that most Muslims study the text only in translation. So how accurate are the Qur'an's renderings into English? The record is mixed. Some are simply poor translations. Others adopt sectarian biases, and those that are funded by Saudi Arabia often insert political annotation. Since translators seek to convey not only text but also meaning, many rely on the interpretation (tafsir) of medieval scholars in order to conform to an "orthodox" reading.

Contextualizing the Qur'an
No serious researcher denies that Muhammad came to a milieu that was highly influenced by Judeo-Christian ideas. Indeed, the Qur'an presupposes familiarity with Judeo-Christian ideas to the extent that it often does not give the full version of a narrative; there is no need to identify what is supposed to be common knowledge.[3] A typical example is in the verse that was only partially cited by Muslims commenting on news programs in the wake of the 9-11 terror attacks: "Whoever has killed a single human without just cause, it is as if he has killed the entire humankind."[4] In fact, the full verse is: "And for this reason, we ordained for the children of Israel that whoever has killed a single human without just cause, it is as if he has killed the entire humankind." Significantly, the complete verse refers to a divine edict not found in the Torah, but rather in the Mishnah, part of the Jewish oral tradition.[5] Evidence of Muhammad's familiarity with Judaism is present in the Qur'an. One verse suggests that his contemporaries accused him of having a Jewish teacher.[6] When some Arabs challenged Muhammad's claim to be a prophet based on his mortality, he suggested that they consult Jewish scholars about history.[7] Early Muslims resorted to Jewish lore so heavily that they produced a genre of literature: the Isra'iliyat, loosely translated as the Judaic traditions.[8] An oral tradition was even attributed to Muhammad wherein he supposedly said, "Relate from the people of Israel, and there is no objection,"[9] thereby enabling Islamic scholars to cite precedents from Jewish scholarship.[10] By the ninth century, this began to change. Muslim jurists, increasingly opposed to reliance upon Jewish lore, created new sayings from the Prophet and his companions that contradicted the original allowances. In one of these apocryphal traditions, Muhammad's face changes color when he sees his follower Umar reading the Torah. Muhammad declares that had Moses been their contemporary, he, too, would have followed the Muslim prophet.[11] An alternate version claims that the Prophet asked Umar, "Do you wish to rush to perdition as did the Jews and Christians? I have brought you white and clean hadiths [oral traditions]."[12] Despite the unreliability of this hadith, it has evolved into a position that any Muslim who questions it could be accused of heresy. Since Muslims could no longer seek support from Jewish sources, successive generations of scholars lost understanding of Qur'anic references.[13] From the tenth century on, the result has been that voices of the medieval scholars have trumped the vox-dei. Without a serious reexamination, it is uncertain whether Muslims
29

will be able to get to the essence of their religion's main document. The inaccuracies and artifices of medieval biases remain, unfortunately, pervasively present in English translations by Muslim scholars.

Early Translations
The first translations to English were not undertaken by Muslims but by Christians who sought to debunk Islam and aid in the conversion of Muslims to Christianity. Alexander Ross, chaplain to Charles I (r. 1625-49) and the first to embark on the translation process, subtitled his 1649 work as "newly Englished for the satisfaction for all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities."[14] Interestingly, Ross did not speak Arabic and relied on secondarily translating from the French, a language in which he was not well-schooled. He, therefore, based his interpretation on a problematic rendition by Andrew Du Ryer. According to George Sale (1697-1736), "[Du Ryer's] performance … is far from being a just translation; there being mistakes in every page, besides frequent transpositions, omissions and additions, faults."[15] Most eighteenth and nineteenth century translations were undertaken by authors without strong background in Islam. As they were goaded by the urge to answer Christian polemic, their forgettable works do not reflect any intellectual depth; as such, copies are extremely rare. Among the best known, albeit pejorative, Englishlanguage analyses of Islam during this time were those by Christian authors such as George Sale, John Rodwell (1808-1900), Edward Palmer (1840-1882), and Sir William Muir (1819-1905).[16] Of these, Sale was probably the most important because he wrote a detailed critique about earlier translations.[17] His work became the standard reference for all English readers until almost the end of the nineteenth century.[18] However, his work was limited by his lack of access to public libraries forcing him to rely only upon material in his personal collection.[19] While Sale gave the impression that he based his translation on the Arabic text, others have suggested that he relied on an earlier Latin translation.[20] Sale did not insert verse numbers into his work, nor did he insert footnotes or other explanations. The result, therefore, is a work that is extremely difficult to comprehend. Indian Muslims were the first from within the faith to translate the Qur'an to English according to Abdur Rahim Kidwai, professor of English at Aligarh University, India. All wrote at a time of British colonialism and intense missionary activity. Kidwai noted works by Mohammad Abdul Hakim Khan (Patiala, 1905), Mirza Hairat Dehlawi (Delhi, 1912), and Mirza Abu'l Fazl (Allahabad, 1912).[21] Dehlawi was motivated consciously by a desire to give "a complete and exhaustive reply to the manifold criticisms of the Koran by various Christian authors such as Drs. Sale, Rodwell, Palmer, and Sir W. Muir." The early twentieth century reaction spurred a lasting translation trend. There have been successive new English translations, ranging from mediocre to reservedly commendable. Western university presses have undertaken publication of renditions: Princeton has published Ahmed 'Ali's rendition, and Oxford University Press has published the work of M.A.S. Abdel-Haleem. These productions are among the most widespread translations that are analyzed below.

Twentieth Century Classics
The Holy Qur'an. By Muhammad 'Ali. In 1917, an Ahmadi[22] scholar, Muhammad 'Ali (1875-1951), who later would become the leader of the Lahori subgroup, published his translation.[23] He constantly updated his work and had published four revisions by his death in 1951. Contemporary reviewers praised Muhammad 'Ali both for his excellent English
30

and explanatory notes.[24] Importantly, the Muhammad 'Ali translation became the version adopted by the Nation of Islam, both under the stewardship of Elijah Muhammad and current leader Louis Farrakhan. Muhammad 'Ali's biases show through, however. Consistent with his Lahori-Ahmadi creed, Muhammad 'Ali sought to eschew any reference to miracles. He sometimes departed from a faithful rendering of the original Arabic, as in the second chapter[25] in which the Qur'an replicates the Biblical story of Moses striking the rock for water,[26] and states "idrib bi asaka al-hajr," literally, "strike the rock with your staff." Muhammad 'Ali, however, changed the text to "March on to the rock with your staff," an interpretation for which the Arabic construction does not allow. Both Muhammad 'Ali's disbelief in the miraculous and his disdain for Judaism and Christianity undercut his work in other ways. The Qur'an makes frequent mention of jinn (spirits), from which the English word "genie" is derived. Muhammad 'Ali, curiously, argues that the Qur'an equates jinn with Jews and Christians.[27] While the Qur'an supports the story of Jesus' virgin birth,[28] Muhammad 'Ali denies it, providing a footnote to deny that the Qur'an was referring to anything miraculous.[29] Despite its blatant sectarian warp, Muhammad 'Ali's translation—now in its seventh edition[30]—has formed the basis for many later works, even if the majority of both Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims avoid directly acknowledging or using an Ahmadi translation. Nevertheless, among the Lahori Ahmadis, many of whom live in the United States, Muhammad 'Ali's work remains the definitive translation. The Meaning of the Glorious Koran. By Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall. Marmaduke Pickthall (1875-1936) was the son of an Anglican clergyman who traveled to the East and acquired fluency in Arabic, Turkish, and Urdu. He was a novelist, traveler, and educator who converted to Islam in 1917. In 1920, he traveled to India and became a journalist for Muslim newspapers as well as headmaster of a Muslim boys' school.[31] While teaching in Hyderabad, Pickthall took a two-year sabbatical to complete his translation[32] and was aided by several notables, among them, Mustafa al-Maraghi, then-rector of Al-Azhar, one of Sunni Islam's top institutions of Islamic studies, and the nizam[33] of Hyderabad to whom the work is dedicated. Pickthall was aware of the problems of the Christian missionaries' translations and sought to remedy the defects since "some of the translations include commentation offensive to Muslims, and almost all employ a style of language which Muslims at once recognize as unworthy."[34] He first endorsed the position of Muslim scholars that the Qur'an was untranslatable but maintained that the general meaning of the text could still be conveyed to English speakers. Aware that heavily annotated works detracted from focus on the actual text, Pickthall provided few explanatory notes and tried to let the text speak for itself. As much as Pickthall strove to maintain the spirit of the Qur'an, he was, nonetheless, heavily influenced by Muhammad 'Ali, whom he had met in London. He adopted Muhammad 'Ali's bias against descriptions of miracles and argued, for example, that the Qur'anic description of Muhammad's night voyage to the heavens[35] was just a vision,[36] even though most Muslim theologians argue that it should be taken literally. While Pickthall's work was popular in the first half of the twentieth century and, therefore, historically important, its current demand is limited by its archaic prose and lack of annotation. Perhaps the death knell for the Pickthall translation's use has been the Saudi government's decision to distribute other translations free of charge. The Koran Interpreted. By Arthur Arberry.

31

The 1955 translation of Arthur Arberry (1905-69) was the first English translation by a bona fide scholar of Arabic and Islam. A Cambridge University graduate, he spent several years in the Middle East perfecting his Arabic and Persian language skills. For a short while, he served as professor of classics at Cairo University; in 1946, he was professor of Persian at University of London, and the next year transferred to Cambridge to become professor of Arabic, serving there until his death in 1969. His title, The Koran Interpreted, acknowledged the orthodox Muslim view that the Qu'ran cannot be translated, but only interpreted.[37] He rendered the Qur'an into understandable English and separated text from tradition. The translation is without prejudice and is probably the best around. The Arberry version has earned the admiration of intellectuals worldwide, and having been reprinted several times, remains the reference of choice for most academics. It seems destined to maintain that position for the foreseeable future.

Saudi-endorsed Translations
The Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary. By Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali. Among those Qur'an translations which found Saudi favor and, therefore, wide distribution, was the Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali (1872-1952) rendition[38] that, from its first appearance in 1934 until very recently, was the most popular English version among Muslims. While not an Islamic scholar in any formal sense, Yusuf 'Ali, an Indian civil servant, had studied classics at Cambridge University, graduated as a lawyer from Lincoln's Inn in London, and was gifted with an eloquent, vivid writing style. He sought to convey the music and richness of the Arabic with poetic English versification. While his rendering of the text is not bad, there are serious problems in his copious footnotes; in many cases, he reproduces the exegetical material from medieval texts without making any effort at contextualization. Writing at a time both of growing Arab animosity toward Zionism and in a milieu that condoned anti-Semitism, Yusuf 'Ali constructed his oeuvre as a polemic against Jews. Several Muslim scholars have built upon the Yusuf 'Ali translation.[39] In 1989, Saudi Arabia's Ar-Rajhi banking company financed the U.S.-based Amana Corporation's project to revise the translation to reflect an interpretation more in conjunction with the line of Islamic thought followed in Saudi Arabia. Ar-Rahji offered the resulting version for free to mosques, schools, and libraries throughout the world. The footnoted commentary about Jews remained so egregious that, in April 2002, the Los Angeles school district banned its use at local schools.[40] While the Yusuf 'Ali translation still remains in publication, it has lost influence because of its dated language and the appearance of more recent works whose publication and distribution the Saudi government has also sought to subsidize. The Noble Qur'an in the English Language. By Muhammad Taqi al-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Now the most widely disseminated Qur'an in most Islamic bookstores and Sunni mosques throughout the English-speaking world, this new translation[41] is meant to replace the Yusuf 'Ali edition and comes with a seal of approval from both the University of Medina and the Saudi Dar al-Ifta.[42] Whereas most other translators have tried to render the Qur'an applicable to a modern readership, this Saudi-financed venture tries to impose the commentaries of Tabari (d. 923 C.E.), Qurtubi (d. 1273 C.E.), and Ibn Kathir (d. 1372 C.E.), medievalists who knew nothing of modern concepts of pluralism. The numerous interpolations make this translation particularly problematic, especially for American Muslims who, in the aftermath of 9-11, are struggling to show that Islam is a religion of tolerance. From the beginning, the Hilali and Muhsin Khan translation reads more like a supremacist Muslim, antiSemitic, anti-Christian polemic than a rendition of the Islamic scripture. In the first sura, for example, verses
32

which are universally accepted as, "Guide us to the straight path, the path of those whom You have favored, not of those who have incurred Your wrath, nor of those who have gone astray"[43] become, "Guide us to the Straight Way, the way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who have earned Your anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians)."[44] What is particularly egregious about this interpolation is that it is followed by an extremely long footnote to justify its hate based on traditions from medieval texts. Contemporary political disputes also pollute the translation, marring what should be a reflection of timeless religion. Whereas the Qur'an reports Moses's address to the Israelites as "O my people! Enter the Holy Land that God has assigned unto you,"[45] this Saudi version twists the verse with modern politics, writing, "O my people! Enter the holy land (Palestine)." The appendix includes a polemical comparison of Jesus and Muhammad, reporting that the former had no claim to divinity.[46] From a Muslim perspective, what Jesus did or did not do should be drawn from the Qur'anic text, not an appendix, and certainly not by Muslim readings of the gospels. In fact, while the Qur'an does take issue with the Christian claims of divinity for Jesus, it views him, along with his mother Mary, as being truly blessed and peaceful, much in concordance with the general Christian belief.[47] Although this Saudisponsored effort, undertaken before 9-11, is a serious liability for American Muslims in particular, it still remains present in Sunni mosques, probably because of its free distribution by the Saudi government.

Bucking the Saudi Orthodoxy
The Message of the Qur'an. By Muhammad Asad. Not every translation preaches the Saudi line. Muhammad Asad, for example, presents a rendering that is simple and straightforward.[48] A Jewish convert to Islam, the former Leopold Weiss (1900-1992) sought to depart from the traditional exegetic approaches and reflect independent thought. Asad, an Austrian journalist, was well-versed in the Jewish and Christian scriptures and brought this knowledge to bear in the form of erudite footnotes. Strangely, though, he chose to interpolate material in his translation of chapter 37 to show that the sacrificial son was Ishmael and not Isaac.[49] This is rather unusual, for while most contemporary Muslims opine that Ishmael was the sacrificial son, early exegetes differed on his identity, and as is well known, the Bible clearly states that it was Isaac (Genesis 22:9).[50] Indicative of the desire and drive of Saudi Arabia to impose a Salafi[51] interpretation upon the Muslim world, the kingdom has banned Muhammad's work over some creedal issues. Because the Saudi government subsidizes the publication and distribution of so many translations, the ban has in effect made Asad's translation both expensive and difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, it remains one of the best translations available, both in terms of its comprehensible English and generally knowledgeable annotations. Al-Qur'an, A Contemporary Translation. By Ahmed 'Ali. Other translations have bucked the Saudi orthodoxy. Ahmad 'Ali, noted Pakistani poet and diplomat, has put aside the sometimes archaic prose of Yusuf 'Ali and Marmaduke Pickthall in order to present the Qur'an in contemporary English.[52] While 'Ali writes that he seeks to present "a translation, not an interpretation, theological or otherwise,"[53] he, like Muhammad 'Ali, seeks to downplay any report that may seem farfetched, and in so doing, denies certain Biblical, Midrashic, and Talmudic antecedents. In dealing, for example, with the Qur'anic version of Moses's anger at the Jews for worshipping the golden calf, he translates the 'aqtulu anfusakum[54] as "kill your pride"[55] rather than the literal "kill yourselves" which is how it also appears in
33

Exodus 32:27. The Qur'anic retelling and reliance on the Biblical narrative to demonstrate the seriousness of idol worship is thus lost. 'Ali also seeks to downplay Christian parallels within the Qur'an. He translates Jesus's speech in 3:49 as, "I will fashion the state of destiny out of mire for you, and breathe (a new spirit) into it, and (you) will rise by the will of God." The literal translation is, "I will fashion from you, from clay, the likeness of a bird, and will breathe unto it; and by God's will it will fly." 'Ali's footnote does not acknowledge that the Qur'anic view parallels the Gospel of Thomas. These departures from the literal portrayal of events from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are important because they might lead lay readers to miss the Qur'anic imperative to seek the history of the prophets from the earlier scriptures.[56] The influence of its flaws may be short-lived, though. Despite its accessibility to non-Muslim and academic readers due to its recent Princeton University Press publication, many Muslim scholars have criticized the translation because of the liberties it takes with the text.[57] Future editions are unlikely. The Qur'an: The First American Version. By Thomas B. Irving. Just as Ahmad 'Ali sought to produce a contemporary translation, so did Thomas Irving, an American convert to Islam who changed his name to Ta'lim 'Ali. While Irving provides a useful introduction to the Qur'an, its language, and previous translation history, his own translation is fundamentally flawed.[58] While seeking to stick to linguistic accuracy, Irving makes some basic linguistic errors. Arabic words are built from three-letter roots to which are added prefixes, infixes, suffixes, and vowels, and their context can lead to a wide range of meanings. For example, Irving translated ahl ad-dhikr both as "people of the reminder" and "people of long memories" instead of "people of remembrance."[59] In the latter example, he misses the fact that the Qur'an is referring to Jewish scholars who, based on the Biblical command of zakhor (to remember) were at the time of Muhammad referred to as "the people of remembrance."[60] Many Muslims reject the subtitle, "The First American Version," because it sounds too much as if the Qur'an is being put into a paradigm of the various versions of the Bible—an idea not welcome to Muslim scholars who feel that multiple versions lead to corruption of the text. The translation has never been in great demand, and since Irving's death in 2002, there can be no revision; so, it is likely that, without the interest and subsidy from Islamic institutions, the version will simply be another forgettable effort.

Sectarian Translations
The Holy Qur'an. By Syed V. Mir Ahmed 'Ali. While the Saudis may seek to monopolize Qur'anic interpretation among the Sunni community, many Shi'ites reject their annotation. Syed V. Mir Ahmed 'Ali, an Indian scholar of Arabic and Persian, has produced a translation that has become the standard Shi'ite translation.[61] The copious instructions on Shi'ite doctrine and ritual observances ensure that the audience remains almost exclusively Shi'ite. Mir Ahmed 'Ali's translation relies strongly on the commentary of his spiritual advisor, Ayatollah Mirza Mahdi Pooya Yazdi, an Iranian scholar noted for his focus on mysticism. While the latest 2002 version is marred by typographical errors, more serious for the general reader is its heavy sectarian bias and its disparagement of several figures that are revered by Sunni Muslims. Yazdi states in his introduction, for example, that neither of the first two caliphs was an authority on the Qur'an and that there are "authentic evidences of their ignorance of it."[62] The ayatollah also makes the dubious claim that Zaid bin Thabit, deemed by many to be Muhammad's scribe, had no "academic" qualifications for the compiling of the Quran.[63]
34

Stylistically, too, the most recent edition is unwieldy for the general reader. The translation is published in Arabic reading style, so that the pages are arranged from right to left; the first page therefore appears as the last page. This peculiarity, combined with the ungainliness and heaviness of the large tome, makes Mir Ahmed 'Ali's work more suited for mosque ritual reading than scholarly consultation. Yet, the translation carries gravitas that the previous Shi'ite rendition[64] did not have, since it is written, as the term 'Syed' (or sayyid) indicates, by a descendant of Muhammad and because it includes commentary by one of the highest-ranking authorities in contemporary Shi'ism. A paperback edition, printed in the more conventional left-right format, is widely found in Shi'ite institutions in North America.[65] The Noble Qur'an: A New Rendering of Its Meaning in English. By Abdalhaqq Bewley and Aisha Bewley. The Shi'ites have their translation, and so, too, do the Sufis.[66] The creedal bias of the Abdalhaqq and Aisha Bewleys' Sufi-inspired work is evident in the translators' preface: "Acknowledging the complete impossibility of adequately conveying the meanings of the Qur'an in English or indeed in any other language, Allah, may He be exalted, chose pure, classical Arabic as the linguistic vehicle for His final Revelation to mankind because of its unique capacity of retaining and conveying great depth of meaning in a multi-faceted way which is beyond the scope of any other language, particularly in the debased form which they have arrived in at the time in which we live."[67] This creedal statement is not supported by the Qur'an, which holds that the revelation was in Arabic simply because, had it been in another language, the Arabs would have questioned why Muhammad, who was Arab, was issuing them a revelation in a foreign tongue.[68] For all this obvious bias on the part of the translators, the work is in excellent, readable English, rendered in a manner that is neither flowery nor prosaic. The translators seem to have fulfilled their "main objective in presenting this new rendering: to allow the meaning of the original, as far as possible, to come straight through."[69] The lack of footnotes allows the reader to see the text as it is, and despite the creedal issue mentioned at the beginning of this analysis, there is little evidence of sectarian bias in the actual translation. Because of their Sufi leanings, the translators are not likely to be endorsed by the mainstream Islamic religious trusts and most definitely not by the Saudi religious foundations. The result is that an excellent work will most probably remain expensive and unavailable at most libraries and mosques.

Falling Short
An Interpretation of the Qur'an. By Majid Fakhry. Many new translations seek to improve upon past translations. Sometimes they fall short. This is the case with Majid Fakhry's translation.[70] A professor emeritus of philosophy at the American University of Beirut, Fakhry seeks to present the Qur'an in comprehensible English, correcting "the errors or lapses" of previous translations.[71] For someone versed in Islamic philosophy, and therefore presumably aware of the focus on the linguistic uniqueness of the Qur'an, Fakhry's prosaic rendition never comes close to communicating to the reader the powerful rhetoric of Islam's main document. His inattention to verb structure results, as noted by one reviewer in an academic journal, in the "tendency to translate an active Arabic verb into an English passive and vice versa. This undercuts both theological clarity and rhetorical effectiveness."[72] While the publisher claimed that Al-Azhar University had approved the translation, the facsimile Arabic document included with the book simply notes that "there is nothing in the translation that goes counter to the Islamic Faith, and that there is no objection to its printing and distribution."[73] This is an appropriate formula for any book containing Qur'anic verse and does not confer special status. Since this work does not contribute in any specific way to what is already available in a crowded market, Fakhry's work will lack staying power. Its absence in mosques indicates its lack of status among Muslims. The unflattering academic reviews[74] also indicate that, although produced by a Western university press, it is likely to be overlooked by the academic world as well.
35

The Qur'an, A New Translation. By M.A.S. Abdel-Haleem. The most recent mass-market attempt to publish an English translation of the Qur'an is the result of a sevenyear effort by a University of London professor.[75] Consistent with his traditional Egyptian training, M.A.S. Abdel-Haleem has memorized the Qur'an. As a believer, he writes an introduction to his work that reflects the age-old Muslim tradition, and therefore, simply reports the Muslim stories without any question as to their reliability. He feels that Gabriel instructed Muhammad on how to design the final corpus and that there are indeed "records" to show that there were twenty-two scribes for writing the text of the document.[76] Considering that the translator is a professor of Islamic studies at a secular university and ought to be aware of the haziness of early Islamic history, he should have adopted a more cautious approach to presenting such information as fact. Revisionist theories advanced by John Wansbrough, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, and others would not have commanded scholarly attention if the reports that Abdel-Haleem seeks to pass as reliable were indeed so.[77] He does provide an excellent analysis of the context of certain verses and points out a fact that is still unknown to many scholars: that the terms Islam and Muslim in the Qur'an refer not to the reified constructs of later Islam but to devotion to God, and that as such, earlier prophets are described as Muslim.[78] The translator makes it clear that he intends to "go further than previous works in accuracy, clarity, flow, and currency of language."[79] The preciseness of English is certainly commendable, but there are problems that show that Abdel-Haleem has incorporated his doctrinal bias into his translation. As Fazlur Rahman, former professor of Islamic Studies at University of Chicago, has shown, the Qur'an contains no evidence of the corpus-soul dualism of later Islam, and so the word nafs as used in the Qur'an is not representative of "soul" as understood in Greek philosophy, Christianity, or post-Biblical Judaism.[80] Yet, Abdel-Haleem translates nafs as "soul" throughout his work.[81] By comparison, the Bewleys render the word in the more linguistically correct "self."[82] Footnotes and commentary are kept to an absolute minimum, supplied only when there is absolute need. An excellent example is where in rendering the word ummi as "unlettered," Abdel-Haleem provides a note to show that it could also be translated as "gentile."[83] This allowance for difference of opinion is particularly noteworthy since most traditional Muslim approaches do not wish to consider the "gentile" interpretation, although in the context of the entire Qur'an, that certainly seems the more correct version. The Abdel-Haleem translation comes without accompanying Arabic text. This can actually be a positive factor since it allows Muslims to take this version anywhere without having to worry about ritual protections for a sacred document that the Arabic version would mandate. The lack of footnotes and commentary promote research and a reading of the actual text. Noteworthy also is the fact that throughout, the translator renders the Arabic Allah as God, an astute choice, since the question of why many Muslims refuse to use the word God as a functional translation has created the misconception for many that Muslims worship a different deity than the Judeo-Christian creator. Abdel-Haleem has done a good job. If any Qur'anic English-language translation might stand to compete with the Saudifinanced translations, this Oxford University Press version is it. Nevertheless, the field remains open for future attempts to reflect the true meaning of the Qur'an because this mandates not only translation but also a better understanding of context. The revisionist works of scholars such as John Wansbrough, Michael Cook, Patricia Crone, Christoph Luxenberg, Gerd-Rudiger Puin, and Andrew Rippin, while opposed by many, indicate that there is much that is unclear about the early history and
36

interpretation of the Qur'an. Their theories about such key elements as the influence of contemporary politics should be addressed in any work seeking to elucidate Islam's main document.[84]

Conclusion
Even for native Arabic speakers, the Qur'an is a difficult document. Its archaic language and verse structure are difficult hurdles to cross. Translation only accentuates the complexity. The fact that translators and theologians have, over time, lost much of the Judeo-Christian cultural references rife in the Qur'an is just one more impediment. Medieval Muslim scholars sought to abandon consideration of the Jewish and Christian testaments as sources of understanding the Qur'an; they largely succeeded. Most religious authorities in Islamic countries, particularly in Saudi Arabia and Iran, oppose any attempt to reinterpret the Qur'an without relying on medieval scholarship. For most Muslims unaware of the evolution of Islamic scholarship, the Qur'an is immutable and uncreated, even though the Qur'an never makes such a proclamation, and theologians reached such a conclusion only after much debate. Immutability means that the seventh century values of some Qur'anic verses, rather than being placed in their seventh century Arabian context, are portrayed as the eternal divine mandate, giving rise, for example, to an argument that females must inherit half as much as males. The failure of Muslim scholars to place the Qur'an into historical or spatial context has lead to generalizations that have harmed Islam, a trend accentuated by the fact that most Quranic translators are now Muslims. Such a failure facilitates the use of the Qur'an by governments that support chauvinism and incite hate and by terrorists such as those who brought down the World Trade Centers. In order to make itself acceptable to a world torn by Islamist terrorism, Islam faces more than just the hurdle of a proper English translation of its main document. Until Muslims learn to question the reliability of the Muslim oral traditions, or divorce themselves from medieval exegetical constructs, they will be living in a world much apart from the Judeo-Christian entity that has known reformation and enlightenment. Perhaps this is the reason why, for most academics, the translation of choice still seems to be that of Arthur Arberry. The urge among many translators—especially now that many adhere to the religion itself—is to produce a functional and relatively accurate English rendition. Many of these believers fail to take an academic approach to the history and the Judeo-Christian references in Islam's main document. Polished English prose should not substitute for poor scholarship. In addition, sectarian differences within Islam have undercut any Muslim consensus on a translated version. Increasingly, it looks like the quest for the perfect rendition will be endless. Khaleel Mohammed is an assistant professor in the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University. [1] This is based several verses of the Qur'an, among them, Qur. 15:9, 26:195, 97:1. [2] Mahmoud Ayoub, The Awesome News (Hiawatha, Iowa: Cedar Graphics, 1997), p. xi. [3] Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam (New York: Random House, 2004), p. 5. [4] Qur. 5:33. [5] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a. [6] Qur. 16:103: "We know well that they say, 'A mortal teaches him.' But the language of the one to whom they allude is foreign, and this is the clear Arabic tongue." Abrahamian teachings could come only from Christianity or Judaism. Because the local Christian community spoke Arabic and the local Jewish community Judeo-Arabic, then contemporary context would suggest a teacher with a foreign tongue to be Jewish. [7] Qur. 16:43, 21:7; Khaleel Mohammed, "The Identity of the Qur'an's Ahl al-Dhikr," in Andrew Rippin and
37

Khaleel Mohammed, eds., Coming to Terms with the Qur'an (Montreal: McGill University Press, forthcoming), pp. 39-54. [8] See Gordon Newby, "Tafsir Israiliyaat," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Dec. 1980, pp. 68597. [9] See M.J Kister, "Haddithu 'an Bani Israil wa la Haraja: A Study of an Early Tradition," Israel Oriental Studies, 2 (1972): 215-39. [10] Ibid. [11] Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 194, Alim CD, English Translation. Hadith refers to oral reports attributed to Muhammad. [12] Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1971), pp. 2, 131. [13] Closing the door on Jewish sources did not prevent adaptation of Christian traditions. [14] Abdur Rahim Kidwai, "Translating the Untranslatable: A Survey of English Translations of the Qur'an," Muslim World Book Review, Summer 1987, pp. 66-71. [15] George Sale, The Koran Commonly Called the Al-Koran of Mohammed (New York: W. L. Allison Co, 1880), p. x. [16] Ibid.; John Rodwell, The Koran—Translated from the Arabic (London: J.M. Dent & Co., 1909); Edward Palmer, The Qur'an (Clarendon: Oxford Press, 1880); Sir William Muir, The Coran (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1878). [17] Sale, The Koran Commonly Called the Al-Koran of Mohammed, pp. vii-xii. [18] Arthur Arberry, The Koran Interpreted (New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1955), p. 11. [19] Sale, The Koran Commonly Called the Al-Koran of Mohammed, p. xi. [20] Thomas B. Irving, The Qur'an: First American Version (Battleboro, Vt.: Amana Books, 1985) p. xxii. [21] Kidwai, "Translating the Untranslatable," pp. 66-71. [22] A follower of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (d. 1908), who claimed to be the reviver of Islam. Mainstream Islam opposed his beliefs, and his sect bifurcated into the Qadiani and Lahori subgroups after his death. His followers are severely persecuted in Pakistan, which has declared them as non-Muslims. [23] Muhammad 'Ali, The Holy Qur'an (Columbus: Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore Inc, 1991). [24] For example, "Reviews of the English Translation of the Holy Quran with Commentary," Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore Inc. U.S.A., accessed Feb. 17, 2005. [25] Qur. 2:60. [26] Exodus 17:1-6. [27] Muhammad 'Ali, The Holy Qur'an, sura 72:1. [28] Qur. 3:46. [29] Muhammad 'Ali, The Holy Qur'an, sura 3. [30] Dublin, Ohio: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore Inc. U.S.A., 2002, redesigned, with expanded index. [31] Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), s.v. "Pickthall." [32] Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (Hyderabad: Hyderabad Government Press, 1930). [33] An honorific title given to the ruler of Hyderabad in British India. [34] Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, p. vii. [35] Qur. 17: 60. [36] Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, p. 208. [37] Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, p. 24. [38] Yusuf 'Ali, The Holy Qur'an: Translation and Commentary (Lahore: 1934-37). [39] A.R. Kidwai, "Abdullah Yusuf Ali's Views on the Qur'anic Eschatology," Muslim World League Journal, Feb. 1985, pp. 14-7. [40] "L.A. Schools Review Donated Korans, Citing Derogatory Commentary," Magazine of the American
38

Library Association, Feb. 11, 2002. [41] Muhammad Taqi al-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan, The Noble Qur'an in the English Language: A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir with Comments from Sahih alBukhari (Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers, 1996). [42] Ibid., pp. 5-6; Steven Schwartz presents a scathing review, "Rewriting the Koran," Weekly Standard, Sept. 27, 2004. [43] Qur. 1: 7; Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an in the English Language, p. 10. [44] Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an in the English Language, p. 10. [45] Qur. 5:21. [46] Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an in the English Language, p. 1181. [47] Qur. 3:42-57; 19:16-36. [48] Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur'an (Gibraltar: Andalus Press, 1980). [49] Qur. 37:100; Asad, The Message of the Qur'an, p. 688. [50] The change from Isaac to Ishmael was not due to Qur'anic directive but rather the efforts of later interpretations. See, Reuven Firestone, "Abraham's Son as the Intended Sacrifice: Issues in Qur'anic Exegesis," Journal of Semitic Studies, 1(1989): 95-132. [51] A term meaning "predecessors" and applied to the ideology that seeks to recreate a lifestyle and world based on the practice of the earliest Muslims. [52] Ahmed 'Ali, The Qur'an: A Contemporary Translation (Karachi: Akrash Printing, 1984). [53] Ibid, p. 8. [54] Qur. 2:54. [55] Ahmed 'Ali, The Qur'an: A Contemporary Translation, p. 17. [56] Qur. 10:94, 16:43, 21:7. [57] See, for example, Kidwai, "English Translations of the Qur'an," Anti-Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, Oct. 2000. [58] Irving, The Qur'an: The First American Version (Battleboro, Vt.: Amana Books, 1985). [59] Qur. 16:43, 21:7; ibid., pp. 140, 171. [60] Mohammed, "The Identity of the Qur'an's Ahl al-Dhikr," pp. 39-54. [61] Syed V. Mir Ahmed 'Ali, The Holy Qur'an, Arabic Text with English Translation and Commentary. Special Notes from Ayatullah Mahdi Pooya Yazdi (New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., 1988). [62] Ibid., p. 30a-b. [63] Ibid. [64] Muhammad Shakir, Holy Qur'an (New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an Inc., 1987). This translation draws heavily—and without acknowledgement—on the work of Marmaduke Pickthall. [65] New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an Inc., 1988. [66] AbdalHaqq Bewley and Aisha Bewley, The Noble Qur'an: A New Rendering of Its Meaning in English (Norwich: Bookwork, 1999). [67] Bewley and Bewley, The Noble Qur'an, p. v. [68] Qur. 41:44. [69] Bewley and Bewley, The Noble Qur'an, p. iii. [70] Majid Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Qur'an (New York: New York University Press, 2002). [71] Ibid., p. 4. [72] A.H. Johns, "Review of an Interpretation of the Qur'an," Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, June 2004, pp. 83-4. [73] Ibid. [74] Ibid. See also Andrew Rippin, "Review of Two Translations of the Qu'ran," H-Mideast-Medieval, Dec. 2004. [75] M.A.S. Abdel-Haleem, The Qur'an, A New Translation (New York: Oxford University Press 2004).
39

[76] Ibid., pp. xvi-xvii. [77] John Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978); Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); Michael Cook, The Koran: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). [78] Abdel-Haleem, The Qur'an, A New Translation, p. xxiv. [79] Ibid., p. xxix. [80] Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur'an (Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1994), p. 112. [81] Abdel-Haleem, The Qur'an, A New Translation, p. 50. [82] Bewley and Bewley, The Noble Qur'an, p. 68. [83] Abdel-Haleem, The Qur'an, A New Translation, p. 105, note a. [84] Christoph Luxenberg, Die Syro-aramaishe Lesart des Koran (Berlin: Das Arabische Buch, 2000); Andrew Rippin, ed. Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur'an (Oxford and New York: Clarendon and Oxford University Presses, 1988). For Puin's views and findings, see Toby Lester, "What Is Koran?" Atlantic Monthly, Jan 1999, pp. 43-56. author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

40