Lower-Plane Qur\'an Translation: Exegetical Inroads into Translation

elL-.]l ql\s,ilr

iA. Jill

Lower-Plane Qur'an Translation: Exegetical Inroads into Translation

Dr: waleed Al Amri Department of Languages and Translation Taibah University Saudi Arabia

A

relationship of confluence holds between eurran translation and commentary. On the one hand, there is a great exegetical tradition built around

this most sacred Islamic Text, which cannot be simply ignored if the end product of a translation is to be of any success. This tradition arose from either different interpretational stand points of this hyper sensitive Text or from sincere intentions of making explicit and penetrable its language which is shrouded in the veil of time, On the other hand, the translator, while drawing on this wealth of scholarly subtexts that run along the prime Texl should not fall in the trap of getting himself captive to thern nor allow his translation to get

overloaded or the representation to be permeated by them to the extent that it would only be seen through their kaleidoscope. Such awareness, if existent in

the first place, is seldom realized in the actual mentally demanding act of translating. The line is thin indeed and has to be clearly demtrcated. This long

tradition of commeraary is not to be ignored altogethei but its flow in the finai

product of the translation has to be filtcred and checked if the originat text is to be better represented

ard lower-plane translations are to be avoided.

Keywords: the Qur,an, tafslr (commentary, exegesis, interp.etation), eur,an translation, su btexts, par a I I e I texts

Scene-setting:

History of Qur'an translation proper can be traced back to the year t 143 when Robert of Ketton produced the first complete Latin version at the behest of his patron, the Abbot of Cluny.i Ever since this beginning it has phenomenally expanded. in terms of both quantity within -uny u oni given linguage or in different languages - and in terms of methodology and app-roach.,i ,i t ito.y u. ancient and vibrant as this inevitably saw the encroachment of the essentially explicatory act ofexegesis on the essentially imitative act ofkansration as they botir share an element of interpretation. In fact, this is so much so that one would always find a fly in the ointment. The reasons behind this state of affairs are legion, but, generally,.they can categorised into necessary, manipulative and inadvertent lnroaos. rhts cnttcal_be sltuation lead to the so-called Monotheist Group producing their very recent translation which they dubbed, ,/re eur'an: A pure and Literal Translation, with the following decrial: With so many English translations of the eur'an available, it is inevitable that the reader would ask: why make another one? The answer to this question lies in the cunent structure ofthe Islamic

23

Lower-Plane Qur'an Translation: Exegetical Inroads into Translation

faith, and the fact that, for many centuries, Islam has been primarily sub-categorized either as Sunni or Shia or one of the many other denominations that have emerged over the years. As such, all translations have belonged to one school of thought or another which clearly comes across in the interpretation of and choice of translation for specific words or verses.... Also, while many translators have been sincere in their rendering of the Arabic meaning of the words, they have been unable to refrain from adding cofilments in the form ofparenthesis within the text of the translation or in the form of footnotes and apoendices to

reflect therr views on certain verses or the vi'&s of the denomination they adhere to. The eur,an is unique in the fact that it uses neither footnotes nor comments lettins the text sDeak for itself and delivering to the reader as close a iendition oi the pure message ofthe Qur'an as physically possible. (Blurb) Although they manage to bring to the fore the issue of the prevalence of certain exegetical acts in translation practice, it remains to be seen whether they were successful in freeing translation from exegetical encroachments and really making "the text speak for itself'. However, this is besides the point, what is of ielevance within the remit of the current paper is that this relationship indeed merits serious explorative srudy.

Preliminary discussion: The starting question is; can the eur,an be separated from its interpretation? And, more mportantly; is Qur'an translation separable from commentary? Although related, the answers to these two questions bring into sharp focus that translation and exegesis are too different; wh e the fnst enia s only understanding the Text, the second merges the subtext with it to, in some cases, an inseparable exrcnt. The answer to the first part of the question is nvofold. physiJally the two are very separate indeed-all sorts of ways have been employed by Muslim copyists throughout the ages to set the divine eur'an apart from its human interpretaiion. Prominent among these are simply by using the eur,an's unique tJthmanic orthography, beautiful hand,iii and by allocating it the pride ofplace on the page (or folio) while the exegesis runs on its margins.i" In other instances the part of tire Qur'an to be interpreted is quoted, set apart from the interpretation that comes below it by the graphic features of the Uthmanic orthography and beautiful hand. In other

instances colours, illuminations, flowering brackets,' ornate bu ets, and different calligraphy and font size are also made use of. Mixing the two is indeed out of the question;'the interpretation comes onry second to thJeutan and subordinate to it, thus the physical representation as such. With the advent of modern printin! technologies, this time-honoured tradition has been underlined rather than unde.rmined. Cognitively, that the reading of the Text will be affected by these parallel texts is two obvious to be ignored. Exegesis is very important for

24

elt-Jl

r:llS.iJr

iaJsll

understanding the Qur'an. MuqAtil (2003: 1,27), a forefather of eur'an commentary, further expounds on what is at stake in understanding the Qur,an: The Qur'an contains references to particular and general things (&lra.sp and "dmm), paticular references Muslims and

to

particular references to polytheists, general references to all people; it contains unequivocal and ambiguous passages (muhkam and mutashdbih), explained and unexplained passages (mufassar and, mubham); it contains deletions and exolicit utterances (idhmdr and tamdm); it contains connective items; abrogating and abrogated dyahs (nasikh and, mansikh); it contains changes in word order; it contains similar unerances with many different xpects (ashbdh); it contains passages that are continued in a different sirah; it contains accounts of earlier generations and accounts ofwhat is there is in paradise and Hell; it contains reference to one particular polytheist; it contains commandments; laws, ordinances; it contains parables by which God Alrnighty refers to Himsel{ parables by which He refers to unbelievers and idols, and parables by which He refers to this world, to resurrection and to the world to come; it contains accounts ofwhat is in the hearts of the believers, and accounts of what is in the hearts of the unbelievers, polemics asainst the Arabian polyrheisrs: and it contains explanations, anJ for each explanation there is an explanation.

To answer the second part of the starting question above (ls eur'an hanslation separ. able from commentary?), one has to recognise that basically exegesis is explicatory in nature while translation is imitative or quasi-imitative. Tradition has it that with the Original will always be there overhanging and overarching. _exeg_esis The act ofreading is linear: first the original is read, according toiet rules ofrecita-i, and then the interpretation is read as a helping aid for understanding and gaining insight. Nobody is liable to fall into the trap of intellectually delusive'iy mixing th! Text with the subtext: the segregation of the two is too obvious to miss. within the Muslim context, the separation is further emphasised by a longstanding tradition of public explanation of cerlain Qur'an passages, whereby the eur'an is read first and then explained.

This dimension is lost in translation. Here the original is practica y replaced by the translation/imitation. Thus strict rules have been put in plice lest that the translation of the Qur'an is to be taken for the eur'an itself."iAmong these are the emphasis on in^cluding the Arabic Original in the translation and inciuding the word',meanings in the title, or a variant of it to the same effect. Needless-to say, however, th-at these precautionary measures are not followed to the letter by all translators. Besides, even ifthese rules where adhered to, by virtue ofposing as a representation

of

of the Original, translation will be

seen as

a reflection oi

it

no matter how

subordinate it may be taken to be. Further explanatory additions, not all ofwhich are

25

Lower-Plane Qur'an Translation: Exegetical Inroads into Translation

exegetical in nature, as we

will

see shortly, are often added in translations by means

of: parentheses, footnotes (endnotes), prefatory notes, glossaries and appendices. Yet, the superimposition of exegesis on translation is fairly common. Additionally, exegesis is quintessentially different from translation in that it directly quotes references from other religious disciplines, such as Prophetic Traditions and biography, jurisprudence, and science of zsril while translation most likely relies on ftese in the stage ofthe analysis ofthe Original more than in that ofthe synthesis of the target text. Some translations may, very well, include references to these in outof-the-text annotations, yet still there afe some that may superimpose some ofthese within the text ofthe translation itself.'ii

An immediate question arses here: what does the translator need the exegetical corpus for? Just like any other reader, modern-day readers in particular, the translator needs fa.Eir in order to decode the eur'an and understand its message. However, unlike any other reader, translators are required to commit their understanding in writing into a different language. The exigencies of the act of translating arc indeed enonnous in both the stages of analysii of the original text and synthesis of the target text. Moreover, unlike any other translator, the eur,an translator, is to fulfil the monumental task of translating a Text unlike any other both in terms of its source and multi-faceted uniqueness. Fazlur Rahman contends: There is a consensus among those who know Arabic well, and who appreciate the genius of the language, that in the beauty of its language and the style and power of its expression the eur'an

is a

superb document. The linguistic nuances simply defy translation. Although all inspired language is untranslatable, this rs even more the case with the Qur'an. (Moosa: 14)

The pressure, not counting exha-textual pressures, is much greater in the case of the Qur'an translator thus in their loneliness translators do find support and solace in the exegetical corpus. M.M. Pickthall ([1930] 1999: xiii] sums up the dilemma in the

introduction to his Qur,an: The Qur'an cannot be translated. That is the belief of old_ fashioned Sheykhs and the view of the present writer. The Book is here rendered almost literally and every effort has been made to choose befitting language. But the result is not the glorious Qur'an, that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy. It is only an attempt to present the meaning of the eur,an-and peradventure something of the charm-in English. It can never take the place of the Qur'an in Arabic, nor is it meant to do so.

Another translator, who decided to take up the gauntlet, puts it so:

Briefly, the rhetoric and rhyhm ofthe Arabic ofthe Koran are so characteristic, so powerful, so highly emotive, that any version

26

elt Jl qls,ilJ iajl

whatsoever is bound in the nature ofthings to be but a poor copy of the glittering splendour of the original.... My chief reason for offering this new version of a book which has been "translated', many times already is that in no previous rendering has a serious

attempt been made to imitate, however imperfectly, those rhetorical and rhythmical pattems which are the glory and the sublimity of the Koran. (Arberry:24-45)

In the face of this, and in order to produce a translation that is acceptable both in form and style, translators are very likely to intervene while carrying out their task. Two types of intervention are identifiable: 1- Translational intervention: can take place both within the body ofthe text and outside it. Examples of translational intervention take shape in the form of: accounting for cultural and linguistic equivalence; compensating for loss; aiding reading; pronouncing pronoun referents; explaining translational choice (as in the case of diverting from certain inherited translation choices); answering for failings in translation. 2- Exegetical intervention: may materialise in the following examples: expounding more the meanings ofcenain lexical items; providing asbdb an_ nuzul (reasons of revelation); explaining a slarT ruling; highlighting the relevance between dyahs and, sfirahs; explaining the ambiguous (tard;b al_ mubham); spelling out the inclusive (tagtl al-mujmal); precisely identi$ing the unrestricted (taqtd al-mutlaq); pinpointing the generalized (tafuri aI_ 'dmm); adding their own exegetical remarks. One may divide intervention into two types:

3-

Further random intervention: involves putting a tsfslr jn place of a direct translation serving no obvious agenda. Futher they can be divided into:-(a) necessary transposition dictated by the nature of the eur,anic text itself-as in the case ofnot being able to actually visualize the meaning and having a mental picture of it. And (b) unnecessary transposition attribuied to carelessness or incompetence on the part of the translator. 4- Pre-meditated intervention: mostly aimed at controlling the Text and to manipulate its authority. These either come as part of the translator,s strategy; or as a part of his bias (impartiality).

No claim here is made that the dependency of eur'an translation on /d/.slr is to be

a

undermined or that the t',vo can by any means be prised apart, but to be the more aware of the nomenclature and nature of this relationship. This should prove of benefit to on-going and up-coming translation projects in iheir attempt to raise the standard and to better reflect the eur'an through translation. eurbn translators should beware not to let the commentary seep into the translation, the aim must be to let the Qur'an speak for itself as much as possible and disengage it fiom subtexts and check the subtcxts in place, that is in annotationsnii but not in the body of the

27

Lower-Plane Qur'an Translation: Exegetical Inroads into Translation

text itself. The aim must be to overcome, as much as possible, the intermediary rule of the exegetical corpus - whose importance in understanding the Original is undeniable - in the actual representation available in the product oftranslation.

Illustrations: I give the following examples as illustration:i* the first being the translation of a;alr 15:99:

al-Hilali

and

Khan Muhammad

Ali

M.M. Pickthall Rashad

Khalifah Sheikh Muhammad

And worship your Lord until there comes unto you the certainty (i.e. death). And serve thy Lord, until there comes to thee that which certain. And serve thy Lord till the Inevitable comerh unto thee. And worship your Lord, in order to attain certainty.

is

Worship your Lord until you achieve the ultimate certainty.

Sawar

M.H. Shakir Sher

Ali

A. Yusuf Ali

And serve your Lord until there comes to you that which is certain. And continue worshiping thy Lord till death comes to thee. And serve thy Lord until there come unto thee the Hour that is Certain.

Muhammd Ali, Pickthall, Shakir provide a literal translation of the Original (yqln). Al-Hilali and Khan intervene exegetically by explaining that what isrn"unt by "certainty" is "death". Going a step further Sher Ali actually replaces with liter;l with the exegetical "death". It is helpful to note here tha;t yaqtn (the certain) in this dyah is interpreted by almost all mainstream Muslim authorities as ',death", yet there is a different understanding of in some quarters. Extreme stands ofsufism intemret it as a certain station which they call yaqln, if attained by some awtil.a' they wi[lbe relived from the obligation of performing acts of worship. S.M. Sarwar's translation, to "achieve the ultimate certainty", reflects this interpretation. unlike the rest of the translators, Rashad Khalifah, who has been known for his disregard for the exegetical corpus, found his own interpretation, ,,to attain certainty". which subscribes to no standard exegetical stand.x Another example of a more linguistic nature occurs in ayah g:7, which has been translated as follows: al-Hilali and And (remember) when Allah promised you (Muslims) one of Khan the two parties (of the enemy i.e. either the army or the caravan) that it should be yours, you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours, but Allah willed to ify the truth by His Words and to cut off the roots of the

28

elL-Jl lllS.ilr iaJill

disbelievers (i.e. in the battle ofBadr). Muhammad

Ali

M.M. Pickthall

Rashad

Khalifah

Sheikh Muhammad Sarwar

M.H. Shakir

Sher

Ali

A. Yusuf Ali

And when Allah promised you one of the two parties that it should be yours, and you loved that the one not armed should be yours, and Allah desired to establish the Truth by His words, and to cut offthe root of the disbelieversAnd when Allah promised you one of the two bands (of the enemy) that it should be yours, and ye longed that other than the armed one might be yours. And Allah willed that He should cause the Truth to triumph by His words, and cut the root of the disbelievers; Recall that GOD promised you victory over a certain group, but you still wanted to face the weaker group. It was GOD,s plan to establish the truth with His words, and to defeat the disbelievers. When God promised to grant you (believers) victory over either one of the two groups, you wished to have control over the unarmed one. God decided to prove (to you) the truth of His promises and to destroy the unbelievers And when Allah promised you one of the two parties that it shall be yours and you loved that the one not armed should he yours and Allah desired to manifest the truth of what was truE by His words and to cut offthe root ofthe unbelievers. And remember when ALLAH promised you one of the two parties that it should be yours, and you wished that the one unarmed should be yours, but ALLAH desired to establish thE Truth by HIS words and to cut offthe root ofthe disbelievers Behold! Allah promised you one of the two lenemy; partia, that it should be yours: Ye wished that the one unarmed should be yours, but Allah willed to justify the Truth according to His words and to cut off the roots of the Unbelievers;-

The expression ghayra dhat-i sh-shat*ah (lit. not that of the thorn), involves a figure of speech where ash-shav*