The tradition of English translations of the Qur’an is a disaster for Islam. I am not thinking of the hostile Christian translations whose ancestry is in the medieval Latin versions produced when Islam was in the ascendancy and threatened Christendom. I refer rather to the twentieth-century tradition of Muslim translation, scores of translators, whose work has been supported by Muslims in English-speaking countries and, more importantly, in those where English is a second language. The root failure of this tradition is in the staple of its language and the quality of its expression, in particular in its literariness. I use this word pejoratively not to mean that it fails because it turns the Qur’an into literature, rather the opposite: the translators fail because they try to give their work the dignity and value of Scripture by using what was once living literary language, but which is now the faded, outworn expressions associated with classic works. An obvious recourse is to the King James Bible, with its archaic “thou”, “thee”, “ye” and “thy”; though in fact the King James version is a model of vigorous direct translation into the language of its time.
Wordiness is the chief fault of the tradition, and a tendency to produce verbal ‘constructs’ which are coherent, but which the spirit of the language rejects: they are just not English. The difficulty here is that the translators, who have a remarkable command of English, are not native speakers. Neither, it seems. do many have Arabic as their mother tongue
, so the translations take place from one foreign language to another.
The disaster I began by referring to occurs when a sympathetic non-Muslim makes his first approach to Islam, probably having been given a Qur’an by a Muslim friend. He finds it preposterously unreadable, and cannot understand how such a book came to be the source of religion for 1.5 billion people. He cannot take it seriously, does not progress very far, and throws away his copy in disgust. The gulf of incomprehension between Muslims and non-Muslims, which translations ought to bridge, becomes deeper. I can only imagine what effect these versions have on young Muslims as they begin to explore their religion independently.The texts are difficult to respect.
One mistake of the non-Muslim is to read the suras in order. He needs to begin with the early ones: these are the sources of Muslim spirituality. To see what the tradition does with these, let us first take Yusuf Ali’s translation of 1938. This is the most widely circulated, since it is distributed free world-wide by the Saudi establishment in an edition which includes ideological insertions. Here is Yusuf Ali’s Al-Najm, The Star, 53 1:18:
“By the star when it goes down,
Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled,
Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire.
It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:
He was taught by one Mighty in Power,
Endued with Wisdom: for he appeared (in stately form);
While he was in the highest part of the horizon:
Then he approached and came closer,
And was at a distance of but two bow-lengths or (even) nearer;
So did (God) convey the inspiration to His Servant - (conveyed) what He (meant) to convey.
The (Prophet’s) (mind and heart) in no way falsified that which he saw.
Will ye then dispute with him concerning what he saw?
For indeed he saw him at a second descent,
Near the Lote-tree beyond which none may pass:
Near it is the Garden of Abode.
Behold, the Lote-tree was shrouded (in mystery unspeakable!)
(His) sight never swerved, nor did it go wrong,
For truly did he see, of the signs of his Lord, the Greatest.
Yusuf Ali is an estimable figure and commands respect, but his translation has characteristic limitations; his expression is weak. There is the wordiness of “is [not] being misled,” when “is not misled” is all that is needed, and where the continuous tense and the passive are unnecessary. There is similar slackness in ”of (his own) Desire”, “of but two bow-lengths” (and note that a bow-length is the length of a bow, not the distance a bow can shoot). “Mighty in Power” and “that which he saw” are also wordy. “In mystery unspeakable” with its inversion is limp and literary. “Of the signs of his Lord, the Greatest” is intolerably wordy. There is the pretentious use of “but” meaning “only” in “but two bow-lengths.” “Endued” and “Garden of Abode” are precious literary terms which carry with them a suggestion of unreality. “Ye”, of course, is literary.
“Revelation” must be the correct translation for Ali’s “inspiration” in “inspiration sent down to him.” Revelation can be said to be sent down, but not inspiration; this comes from within or is breathed into one, as the word’s strict sense implies. “Mighty in Power” is close to being tautologous, and stars do not “go down”, in precise English they set. “In mystery unspeakable” is a feeble attempt to express what other translators, and I believe the Qur’an, leave unexpressed. These flaws are the signs of a translator trying to heighten and exalt his English to express what he reveres in the Qur’an. Unfortunately he is manipulating words externally and does not have inward possession of his language.
Let us see how things had improved by 2007 when Professor Ahmad Zaki Hammad PhD, of Al-Azhar, published his prestigious The Gracious Quran: a modern-phrased interpretation in English, with an introduction by Yusuf al-Qaradawi. He is described as “one of the greatest scholars of Arabic and English in modern times” (monthlycrescent.com/understanding-the-quran/English-translations-of-the-quran) so expectations are high.
Al-Najm
“By (every) star
when it descends (into the horizon)!
Your companion, ([sic] Muhammad{SAW}{SAW},
is indeed God’s Messenger
and ([sic] has not strayed (from the path of truth).
Nor has he been deluded.
Nor does he speak out of whim.
This (Quran) is none other
than a (divine) revelation being revealed to him.
None other than an angel -
one of potent power -
has taught (it to) him -
(an angel) of awesome strength
and judiciousness.
For there, in the sky he hovered, poised -
manifesting his (angelic) form -
and he was, (indeed resplendent),
in the highest horizon.
Then he approached
and drew near (Muhammad{SAW}{SAW}),
until he was but two bow-lengths away,
or nearer.
Thus it is He, God Himself,
who revealed to his servant (Muhammad{SAW}{SAW})
that which he revealed (through His angel).
Never did the heart (of Muhammad{SAW}{SAW})
belie what he saw (before his eyes).
Then will you (who disbelieve it)
dispute him about what he saw?
And yet, very truly,
he saw him in a second descent -
(high) near the (Heavenly) Lote-tree
of the utmost bound,
near which is the Garden
of the (Heavenly) abode.
Behold!
The Lote-tree became suffused
with that (Heavenly brilliancy) which suffused it.
(The Prophet’s) sight did not waver
nor exceed (any limit).
It was then that he beheld
some of the greatest signs of his Lord.”
The wordiness is still present: “when it descends (into the horizon)” could be expressed with the one apt word “sets”. The phrase “into the horizon” is impossible in English for “into” cannot be used in relation to an horizon, which is a line and cannot contain. “Has not strayed (from the path of truth)” exhibits the Hammad’s characteristic redundancy: “has not strayed” is perfect in itself: the Qur’an is being robbed of its terseness. Compare Hammad with the admirable Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute Translation:[/justify]
“By the Star when it sets
your companion has neither gone astray; nor has he erred”
Hammad’s “This Quran is none other than a (divine) revelation being revealed to him” is again wordy, especially the empty phrase “none other than;” “divine” is superfluous when taken with “revelation,” and the continuous tense is inappropriate.
“Is, indeed, God’s Messenger” is an unmarked interpolation of Hammad’s, as is “For there, in the sky he hovered, poised.” Hammad feels free to make graphic additions, showing little respect for the Qur’an. He is guilty of this at a climactic moment: “The Lote-tree became suffused with that (Heavenly brilliancy) which suffused it.” Judging by more restrained translations, the Qur’an is here reticent and enigmatic, not revealing the nature of the Lote-tree revelation. Hammad feels he can add expression to the inexpressible.
He takes liberties with the Holy Book; his first is to take “the star” as referring to every star. There are disputes about the translation of the phrase “Al-Najm,” but no suggestion that its reference is plural. It seems that Hammad wishes to strengthen God’s oath by having Him swear by every star that sets, not just one, the star.
A further liberty is the interpolation of Muhammad{SAW}{SAW}’s name. These are out of keeping with the spirit of the Qur’an, since one remarkable feature of the Book is its stark impersonality: as we read we have no sense of the personality of Muhammad{SAW}{SAW} being insinuated into the text: the Prophet is just the Messenger. It is unbelievable that the name of the Prophet, excluded from the Arabic, should be inserted into a translation.
Perhaps Hammad’s greatest offence is that with his many interpolations, which are flagged with mere specks of typography, and his unmarked additions, he attempts to control the reader’s response to the text, especially where this is reticent. The scholar’s interpretation has the upper hand: while he is willing to make additions to the Qur’an, he is unwilling to let it speak for itself, or leave his readers alone with the text.
There are indications that a way forward in translating the Qur’an has been found. I refer toApproaching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations by Michael Sells (2007) and The Koran Handbook: An Annotated Translation by Nicolas Starkovsky (2005). Both writers reject ‘translationese,’ and their texts contain no verbal clutter, no literariness, and no attempt to exalt language and tone. Both writers command an English idiom that is rooted in the the spoken language; their work is consequently stimulating and readable.
This is Starkovsky’s ‘The Star’:
“(I swear) by the star as it sets
Your companion did not lose his way
and did not go astray!
He does not speak for himself,
but reveals the inspiration that inspired him.
He was taught by someone great in power....”
I find this admirable. There is no attempt at effect, just simplicity, plainness and directness. It is natural English that can be spoken without strain. Why has it taken so long to achieve translation of this quality? How is it that the bad tradition was acceptable?
Sells’s version is similar, but less close to the living language. He is more careful of the rhythmic grouping of his phrases, and occasionally attempts a modest rhetorical effect:
“He revealed to his servant what he revealed
The heart did not lie in what it saw
Will you then dispute with him his vision?
“He saw it descending another time
at the lote tree of the furthest limit
There was the garden of sanctuary
when something came down over the
lote tree, enfolding
His gaze did not turn aside nor go too far
He had seen the signs of his lord, great signs”
One might think that such bare simplicity of language offers the translator limited possibilities of expression. In fact, Starkovsky in particular, using contemporary language, is freed from literary constraints. This gives his work freshness and attack: unused resources of the language are available to him. He can use several registers.
Thus in sura 77, Those Who Are Sent:
“What has been promised to you
shall certainly come to pass
when the stars are dimmed,
when the sky is cleft,
when the mountains are blown away,
when the Messengers face a deadline!
To which day shall it be deferred?
- to the Separation Day!”
After the poetic evocation of the dimming of the stars, the cleaving of the vault of heaven, and the disappearance of the mountains, he shifts register to a contemporary idiom: “when the Messengers face a deadline.”The effect produced is of dramatic urgency and actuality. The phrase “Separation Day” is an unidiomatic coinage but perfectly acceptable because it is a precise and expressive rendering of “Judgment Day”. Taking up the sura at line 38:
“Such will be the Separation Day
when we bring you all together -
you and the first ones.
Do you want to plot?
Then try to plot against me!
Woe on that day to those who deny.”
Starkovsky is confident enough to use the unrefined vernacular and its tones: “Do you want to plot? Then try to plot against me!” For some it will be too much to have God talking in this way. Unfortunately, I cannot judge whether the Qur’an justifies what justifies itself as impressive verse in English.
Sells and Starkovsky have broken with a stale tradition in which translator has copied translator; and have brought freshness and integrity to their work. The greatest tribute I can pay is to say that they have given us translations which command respect for the Qur’an and Islam.
------------------
Robert Houghton is a Catholic Christian. He studied English literature at Cambridge University in 1966, and taught English in an English grammar school for some years. He started publishing articles in the reviews and became a research associate in the Department of Comparative Religion at Manchester University. He was a visiting lecturer at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium and was appointed lecturer in English literature at the Taras Shevchenko University of Kiev, Ukraine.
Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:43 am