All Things About Quran As A Miracle And English Translation Of It

All Things About Quran As A Miracle And English Translation Of It

By:




In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
All praise is due to God, the Lord of the Worlds.
The Beneficent, the Merciful.
Master of the Day of Doom.
Thee (alone) we Worship; Thee (alone) we ask for Help.
Keep us on the Right Path.
The Path of Those Upon whom Thou hast Bestowed Favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy Wrath is Brought Down, nor of those who go Astray.









Abstract

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. Muslims believe that the Quran is the revealed word of God. It happens to be in Arabic. Any translation into another language, like English, can only be an interpretation of the meaning, as is obvious if you compare two or more translations - sometimes they don't say at all the same thing! In general, the translator can attempt to render the text as literally as possible, or he can attempt to capture the meaning and flavor of the text, but not both.
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 Quran is the Divine literal Word of God, Muslims believe, revealed in Arabic to His Prophet Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. However, Muslims also believe that Prophet Muhammad was not sent to Arabs only but to all mankind. That the message of Islam is a universal one, is a fact admitted by the Quran itself in the early Meccan suras (34: 28, 7: 158, 21: 107, etc). Therefore, it is Muslims duty to convey the message of Islam and the meanings of the Quran to all humanity. But in the meantime there is the concept of the inimitability of the Quran; i.e. it is in the highest rank of Arabic rhetoric and beauty that it challenged Arabs to produce the like of the shortest sura of it and they failed. The problem of translating the Quran into foreign languages became more pressing when Muslims came in close contact with non-Arabs, notably Persians, after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. The first appearance and discussion of the issue in classical books of fiqh was related to the issue of reciting the translation of the Quran in prayer. However, in the 1920s and 1930s, the issue of translating the Quran reappeared due to several historical factors, which played a significant role in this debate, namely the translations made for nationalistic and sectarian purposes [1] as well as those made by Orientalists and missionaries for polemical purposes. Thus the different opinions of this period should be discussed in light of these factors.
1. Opponents of the Translation of the Quran
In a separate study, the opinion of Rashid Rida regarding the translation of the Quran was discussed.[2] Rida was not alone in his opposition to the translation of the Quran to non-Arab Muslims, yet we will see other scholars who adopted more or less the same opinion because of the early twentieth century conditions, which incited this approach. Among these scholars we the opinions of Sheikh Muhammad Hasanayn Makhluf and Sheikh Muhammad Shakir will be discussed.

1.1 Sheikh Muhammad Shakir[3]
In 1925 Sheikh Muhammad Shakir, former Wakil of al-Jami al-Azhar, wrote a long article published in four parts[4] respectively in Al-Muqattam daily newspaper. This article was published later in the same year as a book entitled Al-Qawl al-Fasl fi Tarjamat al-Quran al-Karim ila al-Lughat al-Ajamiyya.[5] Sheikh Shakir started by explaining what is meant by translation. He defined it as the transference of speech from one language to another. He then stated that a translator must know the meaning of each individual word, the idea that each one is intended to convey, either literally or metaphorically, and the special rules of composition whereby these individual words can express a sequence of ideas. The translators knowledge of the target language, he continued, must be equal to his knowledge of the language from which he translates not merely as to the meaning of individual words and their literal and metaphorical use, but also the syntactical modes of expression otherwise the translation will fail to convey the sense of the original or will differ from it.[6]

He compared the translation from one language to another to substituting one expression for another in the same language, in the sense that a balance of meaning must be preserved between the original and the translation, and between one phrase and another. Then he inquired if, in the case of the Quran, a due balance of meaning can be achieved in the replacement of one expression of the sacred text for another, no matter how much we strive to preserve this balance of meaning. In answer, he stated that no Muslim since the time of the Prophet to the present age had hesitated to give a definite answer in the negative and to condemn it absolutely, and that no man may change one word for another in the order it is set down in the Quran, even though the two words may be exactly synonymous.[7] He gave an example with the word walad in surat Al Imran (4: 47) and ghulam in surat Maryam (19: 20) stating that all Muslims agree that we are not at liberty to read in both suras, either walad or ghulam, nor put one of these words in place of the other in either of the two suras. He then stressed that if this kind of change of one expression for another in the language of the Quran itself is forbidden by all Muslims, then such a change as would be implied by the transference of all the words in the sacred text from the Arabic language into any foreign language is much more strictly forbidden.[8]

He also argued that the Quran is distinguished from all other heavenly books by the sacred character that accompanies its arrangement in Arabic. As to the Tawrah and the Injil, he continued, each one of them is a sacred book but through a sacred meaning quite apart from sacred words.[9] He condemned those persons making demands for a translation of the Quran reminding them that the Quran is the abiding remnant of the Islamic community, after the Great War had torn asunder the countries of Islam and after the Turkish republic had demolished the throne of the exalted caliphate and thrown aside the chief capital of Islam. Then he warned them that they will see another battle-ground for the Islamic community, when they find in the Turkish republic a Turkish Quran, and in the English colonies an English Quran, and in the colonies of other governments a French or Italian, or Spanish or Dutch Quran, which the translators will have to correct and revise whenever they recognize a need for correction and revision as is the case with the Tawrah and the Injil.[10]
1.2 Sheikh Muhammad Hasanayn Makhluf[12]
In the same year (1925) Sheikh Hasanayn Makhluf, former Mufti of Egypt, published a treatise entitled Risala fi Hukm Tarjamat al-Quran al-Karim wa-Qiraatihi wa-Kitabatihi bi-ghayr al-Lughati al-Arabiyya which was originally the last of four treatises he started on Rajab 1340/1922 and dedicated to some themes pertaining to Quranic sciences.[13] First, he distinguished between three kinds of translation (1) equal literal translation, (2) unequal literal translation, and (3) interpretative translation, stating that the first, i.e. the word for word translation which is identical to the original in its composition, style and rhetoric, is out of discussion for there is consensus among scholars that it is unimaginable and impossible to achieve.[14] Also he stated that the interpretative translation is not a translation of the words of the original but of their interpretation, in other words, it is an interpretation of or commentary on the Quran in another language. Sheikh Makhluf, maintained that this translation is unanimously permissible provided that it is based on the sound Prophetic traditions, knowledge of the sciences of Arabic language, and of other Quranic sciences which are required for the interpretation of the Quran.[15]

As for the unequal literal translation, which is the focus of his treatise, he said that in this kind of translation the translators try to replace each word by its equivalent in the target language as much as possible and thus it is not necessary to preserve the characteristics of the original in the translation.[16] He went on to explain that this occurred in the various translations made by Orientalists since the time they commenced translating the Quran in the eleventh century. The purpose of the majority of them, he said, was to damage it, distort its composition, and change its meanings. His opinion was that the best method of combating this campaign was to inform them that what they produced was not the Quran, and to convey to them the true message of the Quran, because most of what they knew about it was false due to the faults of translators or intentional distortion and alteration.[17] Then he stated that this kind of translation (i.e. the unequal literal trans.) is unlawful arguing that Allah and His Messenger took the responsibility of protecting and guarding the composition and style of the Quran and ordered us to protect it, so any act that contradicts this protection is an evil and a bad thing for it gives way to its alteration and distortion. In this sense the translation is an aggression against Allah and His Messenger and alteration of His Book. The same applies to the interpretative translation if it deviated from the Sunna of the Prophet, the basic sciences and principles of interpretation upon which the commentators relied.[18]

He referred to the opinions of the jurists of the four schools of jurisprudence stating that they did not permit the literal translation of the Quran. He pointed out that none of them was reported to have permitted it in any age except for what was reported about the Hanafis that they permitted the recitation of the translation of the Quran for the obligatory part needed in prayer on the basis of a certain proof.[19]

The method of conveying and propagating the message of Islam to all humans, he elucidated, was through explaining the principles of Islam that the Quran brought and were embodied in the biography of the Prophet which can be expressed in all languages without any need for translation [of the Quran].[20] Then he gave examples with the Muslim Turks, Persians, and Indians who read the Quran in Arabic, though they do not know Arabic but understand as much of it [the Quran] as is necessary to fulfill the obligations of Islam without any need for the translation of the Quran.[21]

He concluded that the unequal literal translation is unlawful; the interpretative translation is permitted provided that it is based on a valid interpretation of the Quran; and that spreading Islam to all humans is not dependant on the translation of the Quran but on a sound translation of the principles of Islam, which is fard kifaya (collective duty).[22]
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.
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
(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.
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

About the Author:



Article Originally Published On: http://www.articlesnatch.com


Tags: ,

|

Recent Arts-and-Entertainment Articles

Comments

Still can't find what you are looking for? Search for it!

Loading

Site Navigation:

Copyright 2005-2011 ArticleSnatch, LLC - All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service.