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

Published 09 August 2004

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 non-Muslims 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 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 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

Post this article to

13 comments from readers

hinduzionkafir
16 April 2007 at 07:08

you are an idiot. the terrorists obviously understand the koran in arabic and yet commit violence. If what you said was true, the arabs would be the most peaceful people on the planet. but of course, the reverse is true and has been since the time of muhammed. Mr Ziauddin, i know what you are doing, its called taqiya and some of us infidels know abt it as well.

aibrahem
13 May 2007 at 08:17

This is a fantastic article about translation the Holy Qura'n and I don't know who is that idiot who send the first comment from readers, in my opinion Muslims is peaceful people and they will be always like that throw the centuries, they aren't like Hindus or Jews!!…

Why he is squeezing the word taqiya in his comment this is a clear prove that he don't know any thing about Islam or Muslims.

RSSalem
24 July 2007 at 05:18

The population in the Muslim World is over a billion and a half. Only an idiot would judge this number of people on the basis of the deeds of few extremists.

Islam calls for mercy and tolerance, and a Muslim's fear of Allah prevents him/her from committing acts of agression against people or animals. This can be seen in the low crime rates in Muslim countries compared to many other parts of the world.

ardee
27 November 2007 at 07:53

This Divine Writ calls itself AN-NUR (The Light) and light needs no extrinsic sources in order to shine. Translating the Quran two principles must be kept in mind:

1. Focus on the Language in which the Qur'an was revealed.

2. Make use of TASREEF (how the Qur'an repeats its messages / verses in various ways). Dr Shabbir has rendered the terms and linguistics of the Qur’an using the Quraish dialect since it is the Arabic dialect in which the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad bin Abdullah, the Final Prophet, Messenger and Apostle of God. (570-632 C.E.)

The first ever commentaries of the Qur’an were written in the third and fourth centuries after the Messenger, during the Abbasid Dynasty, when Zoroastrian influence held sway in Islamic politics, society and the Arabic writings.

The commentators of the Qur'an, the historians, MUHADDITHIN (Tradition collectors) and FUQAHA (Jurists) overwhelmingly originated from among non-Arab Persians. The late Allama Ahmad Amin Al-Masri sums up the end result in his excellent work FAJRIL ISLAM: “Very surely, the reader will agree with me that the Persian literature gave an entirely alien complexion to the Arabic linguistics.”

Many celebrated thinkers and authors in the Islamic world strongly agree with the great Egyptian scholar on this score. We need not go into details since the point will become sufficiently clear soon, when we cite some examples.

ardee
27 November 2007 at 07:54

HOW WAS MANKIND ROBBED of the Creator's Final Revelation - the Revelation that He Himself defines, “And this Grace of your Lord (the revealed Guidance) is better than all the (treasures) that they may amass (43:32)?

By 'robbing' I mean giving alien, erroneous and misleading meanings and concepts to the original matchless, powerful and glorious Qur'anic terms. Here is how it happened:

One - THE FIRST DILEMMA: While the language of the Qur’an remained untouched, its words and terms were made to lose the splendor that they so beautifully conveyed in the original Arabic. So much so, that the weak and erroneous concepts prevalent in the once Zoroastrian culture of Persia, and then given to the Qur’anic terms became ‘MA'RUF’ (well-known and accepted) even among the Arabs! This staggering TRAGEDY explains why, how and where, even the ARABIC SPEAKING PEOPLE FALL AND LOSE THEIR TOUCH WITH THE QUR'AN! The Qur'an describes this STAGGERING TRAGEDY most eloquently, "And the Messenger will say: O my Lord! These are my people, the ones who have disabled and made this Qur'an of no account." [(25:30). MAHJUR = They immobilized it like villagers who bind a cow by tying her front foot to her horn]

This ill treatment of the Divine Message and filling the consequent void with conjecture is THE cause of their downfall, and that of the Muslims in general, on a Global scale. Any nation that stays with or implements this Divine Writ in letter and spirit can make the world a paradise on earth. The early Islamic history is a great testimonial to this claim but we will explore this point a little further.

ardee
27 November 2007 at 07:55

HOW, THEN, DO THE OTHERS (NON-MUSLIMS) CONTINUE TO MAKE PROGRESS?

Naturally, a very important question arises here. In the last several centuries, the West and some other non-Muslim countries have been making spellbinding advances in education, science and technology and in their governmental systems without the Qur'an! The short answer is that they have been making great use of their human faculties of reasoning and intellectual inquiry. Another very significant factor has also played its role in this regard. The Qur'an has been, perceptibly and imperceptibly, making its Universal Impact on human civilization and history during the last fourteen centuries.

The celebrated thinker and historian, Robert Briffault has very convincingly demonstrated this truth in his remarkable book, "The Making of Humanity." Muslims, on the other hand, after disabling the Divine Revelation, have also paralyzed their intellect, falling for utterly irrational and senseless themes and traditions fabricated and recorded on hearsay centuries after the blessed times of the exalted Prophet and his noble companions.

However, the Golden Rule holds good for all nations that the Qur'an, the last REVELATION OF GOD, ECONOMIZES HUMAN EFFORT. It can give them EMINENCE they have never imagined before: scientific and moral achievements side by side - and in a short span of time - without going through a prolonged ordeal of learning through trial and error. And thus, they can adopt a Progressive System of Life that embraces that which is good and promotes the well-being of humanity, and avoids that which is evil and harmful to humanity. Furthermore, this Divinely-inspired System of life is fully sustainable and durable.

ardee
27 November 2007 at 07:57

HOW DOES THE CURRENT ARABIC ROB THE QUR'AN?

"Behold, this is indeed a revealed Word in the dialect of a noble Messenger." (69:40) First of all it is of paramount importance to know that the mentioned dialect is not extinct. It is very much alive and well in the Pre-Islamic and ‘Para-Islamic’ poetry and well preserved in outstanding dictionaries such as TAJIL ‘UROOS, LISANAL ARAB, QAMOOS, LANE’S LEXICON, AL-MUFRIDAT FI GHARIBIL QUR’AN and LUGHATIL-QUR’AN. The first of these practically embraces the next two and the last one is from Arabic to Urdu.

Edward Lane’s Lexicon is primarily based on Tajil ‘Uroos. Plenty of such examples are given throughout the rendition for the reader to see for himself how the Ajami (Non-Arab, and more specifically, the non-Qur’anic) concepts rob the Qur’anic terms of their clarity, power and grandeur.

Herein are given only a few of those examples: -

‘Taqwa’ is usually translated as: ‘Righteousness, God-consciousness, warding off evil, piety, fear of God, doing good' etc. Now a non-Muslim, or even a bright youngster from Muslim parents may ask, “Well, the Qur'an in the very beginning claims that it is a guidance for the righteous, the God-conscious, he who wards off evil, the pious, he who fears God, he who does good'. But, how come such people need any guidance?” The answer lies in the Quraish dialect that describes ‘Taqwa’ as ‘walking in security’, like a person who strolls through the garden but watches out that his garment might not get entangled in bushes and thorns. All of a sudden the verse now makes beautiful sense - that the Qur’an is a Guide to those who wish to journey through life in honor and security.

- ‘Manyyasha’ is almost invariably translated as ‘whatever God wills.’ Since this term appears in the Qur’an very frequently, its wrong translation lays down the foundation of FATALISM in Islam. Such erroneous translations can only convey abject messages and results like this: ‘God honors whomever He wills and humiliates whomever He wills.’ Or, ‘God sends astray whomever He wills and guides whomever He wills.’ An intelligent reader has every right to ask, "Why did God reveal His Message, then, in the first place?" The original Qura’nic meaning of ‘Manyyasha’ is, ‘according to His Laws’. God has appointed Laws for success vs. failure, and for guidance vs. straying. (And these Laws are given in the Qur'an. See 4:88).

- Such terms as ‘Sayyeh’, ‘Ithm’, ‘Zanb’, ‘Fisq’ and the like are all blanketed together as the vague term ‘SIN’. I have let the Qur'an explain the true meanings of each term repeatedly in the text, at times in parentheses. - ‘Zulm’ has almost always been given a very vague meaning, ‘wrongdoing’. But the Qur'anic concept of ‘Zulm’ is extremely clear and appealing: ‘To displace something from its rightful place – to harm one’s own self – violation of human rights – living in darkness - oppression – distortion of the Truth – to hurt anyone’s well being. These meanings become crystal clear in their context in every single related verse.

- 'Hasanah', 'Khair', 'Salehat', 'A'mal-e-saleh', 'Birr' etc are all blanketed together as the vague 'good deeds'.

ardee
27 November 2007 at 07:59

HOW WAS MANKIND ROBBED

Two - NOW, THE SECOND DILEMMA:

It occurred when the commentators of the Qur'an, centuries after its revelation, tried to connect every verse with a certain historical event, calling the process ‘SHAN-E-NUZUL’ (Circumstances of a revelation). Here the words and terms of the Qur’an were given tailor-made meanings to fit the supposed story, with total disregard for their original vibrant meanings, concepts and messages. This deplorable practice only attempted to bind the verses of the Timeless Qur'an to some supposed incidents, and chain the Word of God in another set of shackles! A very significant Islamic jurist, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, in those early times saw the chaos and raised a very strong voice against this awful practice. He said: “All the books that have been written on Battles (‘Maghazi’ and ‘Malahim’) and on Explanations of the Qur’an (Tafsirs) are completely false and unfounded.” - "Tazkaratil Maudhua’at", Ash-Shaikh Muhammad Tahir Al-Makki. - "Maudhua’at", Mullah Ali Qari. Worst of all, and inevitably so, this conjecture of 'Shan-e-Nuzul' was attributed to the Prophet and his companions. This led people into believing that this was how they (the Prophet and his companions) used to understand the Qur’an! Hence, the foundation of an Islamic decline was laid down and MANKIND WAS ROBBED of the Supreme Gift of Guidance bestowed upon them by the Creator!

ardee
27 November 2007 at 08:01

Three - NOW THE THIRD DILEMMA:

The later generations of translators and commentators have uncritically followed the men of old and this tendency has been consistently taking its noxious toll.

They have been thinking of the AJAMI Arabic as the known Language of the Qur'an. By Ajami Arabic I mean applying Zoroastrian or any alien concepts to the Arabic words and terms of the Qur'an.

Please recall that this deplorable practice of “Shan-e-Nuzul” was given legitimacy during the Abbasid Dynasty to the extent that the alien, empty and erroneous concepts given to the Qur’anic terms became widely known and well accepted. The Mighty Word of God, the great Equalizer of humanity, threatened the vested interests of the elite, whereas a ‘disabled’ Qur’an very well suited the ulterior motives of the Royalty, the Elite and the Islamic priesthood. A formidable coalition of this ‘eternally’ sinister TRIO thus made their inroads into Islam and supported each other toward a common goal, that is, exploitation and enrichment at the expense of the masses.

The later commentators, whether Arabs or non-Arabs, have since looked at the Qur'an with the tinted glasses of the earlier MUFASSIRIN (explainers or exponents.) This dilemma has only helped perpetuate the pathetic state of mental slavery of the “Islamic” world to this day.

THE BEWILDERMENT: Muslims, then, keep wondering: What went wrong? What has happened to us? How can we stand up? Which way to go? What brought upon us the current, in fact, the last many centuries of Global humiliation? Is a Renaissance possible? If yes, how?

ardee
27 November 2007 at 08:01

The answer is one word, Al-Qur’an – in its true meanings as the companions of the Prophet understood and strove to apply it and, thereupon, success embraced their feet at every step and in every walk of life. Respected reader! Right before you is our sincere effort to break free of those " time-honored" shackles of mental slavery, and to breathe in some fresh air - THE QUR’AN AS IT EXPLAINS ITSELF.

Spirit
16 January 2008 at 22:35

Many English speakers who are Christians who derive their ideas about Christianity more from the speeches on Sundays, or talks with friends, family ..etc more than reading the Bible by themselves.

Likewise, some Muslims who speak Arabic read the Quran too little, and depend on what others peak about Islam. Some will listen to fools who abuse the Religion and then agree with them and start to do horrible mistakes.

The Quran is innocent. And every criminal will be responsible about the crimes he or she committed, no matter what is their religion.

Spirit
16 January 2008 at 22:40

Some Christians don't read the Bible very frequently, and depen on what the priest/pastor says, their friends, familes and the Media to learn about their Religion.

Some Muslims who can read Arabic don't read the Quran that frequent, too. If it happen that they were listening to fools or wrong ideas, and they agree with them, then they start to do stupid things..

The Quran is innocent. Even the Quran itself in the beginning few verses of Surah 3 speaks about how some people abuse some verses in the Holy Books of God to make problems and troubles, instead of trying to link it to the context with the other clear verses to see exactly what is the meaning of them.

My 0.02$, and please lets keep it civil here, for God respects wise people..

anSiarach
12 February 2008 at 14:37

Presumably the Muslims were acting in “self-defence” when they attacked and subjugated Christian Egypt and North Africa? And presumably the attack upon and subjugation of Christian Iberia, the Christian Levant (modern Israel,Syria, Lebanon etc) ,Zoroastrian/Christian mesopotamia (roughly modern Iraq/Iran), Hindu-Buddhist Central Asia and North India were also “self-defence”? Islam has always been a religion of war. It was, and unrepentantly so, under Muhammad and it continued to be so under his ‘rightly guided’ successors as Caliph (regarded by the vast, vast majority of Muslims as having been divinely inspired) under whom most of what we today regard as the traditional Muslim world was conquered having been largely Christian before the coming of the Muslim conquerors. In the first few decades of the existence of Islam 3/5 of the ancient Christian patriarchates (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria) were conquered as well as the largest, richest and most advanced countries of Christendom.

Ziauddin Sardar is a “muslim” of the increasingly common, somewhat schizophrenic, type to be found in the West who cling fiercely to a Muslim identity despite ignoring most of the teaching, tenets and practices of that faith while concocting a preposterous fantasy version of Islam which suits their personal desires where it is a glorious, benevolent religion of peace despite the (totally undisputed amongst historians) historical reality of Islam as a war mongering religion which spread almost entirely via conquest – as we know from both Islamic histories/tradition and from rational/academic historical study of the relevant regions and periods. The constant protests from him and his ilk over Koranic verses being quoted ‘out of context’ are ironically valid. Koranic verses are constantly quoted out of context but not by those who do so to point to the undoubtedly martial nature of Islam but by Sardar and his ilk who selectively quote the Koran out of context in an effort to promote Islam as something completely contrary to what it is and to how it is and has been practiced by genuine muslims across most of the world and throughout history. The fallacy of describing Islam as a ‘religion of peace’ is a modern invention which doesn’t bear up to the slightest historical scrutiny.

An earlier poster quite rightly points out some of the obvious flaws in Sardard article and accuses him of practicing “taqqiya” – that is to hide ones true belief in the face of prosecution. This is not a valid accusation. A more valid description of Sardar and other such ‘muslims’ is as “munafiqun” – religious hypocrites who claim to practice Islam while failing to genuinely believe or to follow its practices.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

Ziauddin Sardar, writer and broadcaster, describes himself as a ‘critical polymath’. He is the author of over 40 books, including the highly acclaimed ‘Desperately Seeking Paradise’. He is Visiting Professor, School of Arts, the City University, London and editor of ‘Futures’, the monthly journal of planning, policy and futures studies.