The Qurʾān, A New Annotated Translation, by A. J. Droge
The Qurʾān, A New Annotated Translation, by A. J. Droge
Equinox recently published a new translation and annotation of the Qur’an which has attracted considerable interest and which may become a useful textbook in the field of Islamic Studies. Details on the book and an option to order can be found on the book home page. Customers in North American can order directly from Equinox’s US distributor, here.
(With thanks to Equinox Publishing Ltd)
Book Description*
This new, annotated translation of the Qur’ān is specifically designed to meet the needs of students of religion, and provides them with a one-volume resource comparable to what is available for the Jewish and Christian scriptures. The meticulously crafted translation affords readers not only a better sense of what the Qur’ān says, but how it says it, in a rendition that strives to remain faithful to the way it was originally expressed. Accompanying the translation is an extensive set of annotations. These are keyed to the text for ready reference, and divided according to their boldface topical headings at the bottom of each page. The annotations offer a wealth of linguistic and historical detail to enhance the understanding and appreciation of the text. They also contain abundant references to parallel passages within the Qur’ān, as well as comparatively among the ‘scriptures’ of Judaism and Christianity. With an introduction, map, timeline, guide to further reading, and comprehensive index, this is the edition of the Qur’ān all students of religion – beginning as well as advanced – will want to possess for their exploration of Islam’s central text.
The Author
A. J. Droge is the author of Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture and, with James Tabor, of A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews in Antiquity. You can hear prof. Droge pesent at IQSA’s meeting in Baltimore.
Our Annual Meeting in Baltimore, MD (Full Schedule and Registration Details)
By Emran El-Badawi and Gabriel Reynolds (With special thanks to Charles Haws)
The International Qur’anic Studies Association is happy to announce the full schedule of its first annual meeting, taking place in Baltimore, MD from November 22-24, 2013. You may recall our earlier announcement informing you about our exciting program for the first day. See the schedule below, but note that room assignments are still pending.
(baltimore.org)
Given that this is IQSA’s inaugural meeting as well as the heightened public interest, the directors and steering committee have decided to make registration for to all IQSA panels on Friday Nov 22 (including the keynote lecture and response) free and open to the public. Those interested are further encouraged to attend IQSA panels on Saturday Nov 23 and Sunday Nov 24 by paying the registration fee of the Society of Biblical Literature– or – American Academy of Religion. Finally, you are encouraged to subscribe to our blog in order to receive weekly news updates about our meetings, as well as informed posts on Qur’anic Studies today.
On behalf of the co-directors, steering committee and partners we thank you for your enthusiasm and support for IQSA.We look forward to seeing you in Baltimore!
International Qur’anic Studies Association
11/22/2013
1:30 PM to 4 PM
Room: Baltimore Convention Center – 345
Qur’an Manuscripts: Text, Object and Usage
Gabriel Reynolds, University of Notre Dame, Presiding
Aziz al-Azmeh, Central European University, Respondent (10 min)
Discussion (20 min)
International Qur’anic Studies Association
Joint Session With: International Qur’anic Studies Association, Qur’an and Biblical Literature
11/23/2013
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Room: Marriott Baltimore Inner Harbor – Stadium Ballroom II
International Qur’anic Studies Association
Joint Session With: International Qur’anic Studies Association, Qur’an and Biblical Literature
11/24/2013
1:00 PM to 3:30 PM
Room: Hilton Baltimore Convention Center Hotel – Johnson B
Theme: Modern Muslim Critics of Bible and Isra’iliyyat
Brannon Wheeler, United States Naval Academy, Presiding
Divergence in Qur’an Translations: Causes and Examples
By Sohaib Saeed*
(from citizenwarrior.com)
The translation of the Arabic Qur’an into the languages of the world has received the broad acceptance of Muslim scholars since the middle of last century, though the practice of translating the whole Qur’an extends back to the sixteenth century or earlier. The original missionary goals were replaced by those of academic research, as well as Muslim efforts to clarify the teachings of their faith not only for non-Muslims but also for new generations of foreign believers. Translation is a particular method of explaining the Qur’anic text and can serve as a succinct way of expressing the meanings of its words and sentences.
Many Muslims make a fundamental distinction between the Qur’an—revealed verbatim in Arabic as a divine challenge—and its translations, understood as human renderings of its meaning into other languages. Any product of the human mind is subject not only to the possibility of error but also to the capacity for difference of opinion. Translation of any complex and highly literary text is necessarily a difficult task, and one in which expert opinions can diverge at various points.
After recognising the particularities of interpreting and translating a sacred text (too many to expand on here), the role of choice in the work of a translator is a reality that must also be appreciated. The translator may have to select exactly which text to translate (in this case, between the canonical readings, qirā’āt). On the level of vocabulary, a single word may have multiple meanings, more than one of which may be possible in a particular context. Indeed, it is possible that both meanings are intended, but that no single word in the target language will carry them both. There is also the challenge of observing the subtle distinctions between near-synonyms, e.g. the various words conveying senses of “fear,” even in a single verse.[1]
Then, on the phrasal and sentence level, the translator must decide which grammatical interpretation (iʿrāb) to follow. While the recent Qur’anic Corpus project is performing a valuable service in presenting the concept of grammatical parsing more widely, what may not be obvious from this project is the scope for diversity of opinion on this matter, as can be readily seen by consulting the books of iʿrāb and tafsīr. Similarly, the translator needs to decide on the referents of pronouns when they are ambiguous (e.g. between “he”, “He” and “it”), and how to incorporate punctuation such as sentence divisions and speech marks. After all this come the stylistic choices, such as how to render idioms and how the text will best flow in the target language.
Accordingly, we can compare between existing translations of the Qur’an to find that the differences between them fall within the following categories:
Vocabulary: lexical meanings and subtle distinctions
Grammar and sentence structure
Pronouns etc.
Stylistic choices
Multiple readings (qirā’āt) – rarely [2]
What follows is an analysis of a selection of translations of some verses (or parts of verses, as relevant) from the beginning of Surat al-Baqarah, in order to apply the above theory and discover the basis of difference between them. The method is to group the translations that are substantially identical (i.e. in all but style), and then identify the cause of divergence wherever it exists. It should be emphasized that this analysis will not indicate all the translations that could exist, because it is applied to a finite group (namely, those currently available on Quran.com); moreover, it is possible that translators tended to see things the same way, or indeed were influenced by each other. Indeed, there might be more diversity if they were to rely more pronouncedly on the books of iʿrāb and tafsīr, which present obscure interpretations alongside the more obvious.[3]
As such, what follows is designed to illustrate choice and divergence in translation and enable the reader to appreciate what is involved in the task. It is not intended to be an exhaustive treatment, but contains hints for further study. A subsequent project may be to do the same for the rest of the Qur’an, as well as to look at a greater number of actual translations, and indeed possible translations that were not selected by anyone before. It should also be noted that it is outside our present scope to discuss whether some mistakes were made by the translators, or which of their approaches is best in each case.
Whether to render literally the demonstrative pronoun usually reserved for distant things (“that”) or consider the distance here as indicating greatness of “this” book.
Whether to interpret the two words as being a complete nominal sentence (thus with “is”), or together as the subject (“This book”) which is then followed by the predicate.
Choice between general “book” and the more contextual “scripture.”
Sahih International: about which there is no doubt
Ghali: there is no suspicion about it
Muhsin Khan: whereof there is no doubt
Pickthall: whereof there is no doubt
Shakir: there is no doubt in it
Yusuf Ali: This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt
Causes of divergence:
Whether to render it literally as “in” or understand it as “about”/“whereof.”
Different sentence structures depending on stopping place. Yusuf Ali’s rendering depends on reading it as ذَٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لا رَيْبَ followed by فِيهِ هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِين—resulting in the Book containing guidance, rather than being guidance. He has adjusted the phrasal order for flow in English.
Sahih International: Who believe in the unseen, establish prayer…
Pickthall: Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship…
Yusuf Ali: Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer…
Shakir: Those who believe in the unseen and keep up prayer…
Ghali: Who believe in the Unseen, and keep up the prayer…
Muhsin Khan: Who believe in the Ghaib and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat)…
Cause of divergence:
Rendering certain Arabic terms as they are. As this is a regular occurrence in Muhsin. Khan’s translation (as well as its excessive glosses), it will not be mentioned further.
Sahih International: Those are upon [right] guidance from their Lord
Muhsin Khan: They are on (true) guidance from their Lord
Yusuf Ali: They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord
Ghali: Those are upon guidance from their Lord
Shakir: These are on a right course from their Lord
Pickthall: These depend on guidance from their Lord
Causes of divergence:
Renderings of the word hudā, with Shakir perhaps being influenced by its being indefinite here.
Interpretations of the metaphor of being “upon” guidance. Pickthall has apparently understood that a word was left unmentioned; perhaps this ought to have been placed in parenthesis.
Sahih International: they say, “We are but reformers”
Muhsin Khan: they say: “We are only peacemakers”
Pickthall: they say: We are peacemakers only
Yusuf Ali: they say: “Why, we only want to make peace!”
Shakir: they say: We are but peace-makers
Ghali: they say, “Surely we are only doers of righteousness” (i.e. reformers, peacemakers)
Cause of divergence:
Meanings of the term iṣlāḥ
2:12 أَلا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ الْمُفْسِدُونَ وَلَٰكِن لا يَشْعُرُونَ
Sahih International: Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not
Muhsin Khan: Verily! They are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive not
Yusuf Ali: Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not
Shakir: Now surely they themselves are the mischief makers, but they do not perceive
Ghali: Verily, they, (only) they, are surely the corruptors, but they are not aware
Pickthall: Are not they indeed the mischief-makers? But they perceive not
Cause of divergence:
Interpretation of the opening particle as being interrogative (its origin), rather than emphatic. Similarly in the following verse: “Are not they indeed the foolish?”
Yusuf Ali: Allah will throw back their mockery on them…
Cause of divergence:
Taking the verb as being a direct action in the present, or as an expression of the punishment which God will enact on the hypocrites, described with a verb that matches their wicked behaviour to indicate that the punishment will fit the crime in perfect justice and wisdom.
Sahih International: And if Allah had willed, He could have taken away their hearing and their
sight
Muhsin Khan: And if Allah willed, He could have taken away their hearing and their sight
Pickthall: If Allah willed, He could destroy their hearing and their sight
Yusuf Ali: And if Allah willed, He could take away their faculty of hearing and seeing
Shakir: and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have taken away their hearing and their sight
Ghali: and if Allah had so decided, He would indeed have gone away with (i.e., taken away) their hearing and their beholdings (Literally: eyesights)
Causes of divergence:
The latter translator’s understanding of the literal meaning of the transitive construction dhahaba bihi.
His attempt to convey the plural nature of abṣār, because the word for hearing (samʿ) occurs in the singular.
To be continued …
[1] See Q 4:9. This example is interesting, because the generally precise translators of Saheeh International have simply written “fear” three times. Yusuf Ali and Muhsin Khan have even combined the first two and called them “the same fear”! Dr. M.M. Ghali (who pays particular attention to synonymy) has perhaps done the best job of distinguishing between their senses in the verse; likewise Pickthall.
[2] The vast majority of translators have relied solely on the reading of Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim, being the preponderant narration throughout the Muslim world since the era of publishing and indeed earlier. However, ten canonical readings (qirā’āt) are recognised as being equally authentic and authoritative. While most differences between them pertain to pronunciation only, some affect meaning and thus translation. The Bewley translation (1999) is based on the reading of Warsh ʿan Nāfiʿ. In addition, there are instances where translators deviate from the reading of Ḥafṣ, whether knowingly or unwittingly. These issues will receive a detailed treatment in the future.
[3] The books of tafsīr also contain divergence based on their stances concerning certain creedal and juristic matters, and so on. It is unclear to what extent many translators have relied on works of tafsīr to develop their interpretations; one could imagine that a linguistic treatment would be enough. We know that some, such as Muhsin Khan, make explicit reference to works of tafsīr; such can be seen in Yusuf Ali’s footnotes too. Unfortunately, most translators make little to no use of footnotes, and those who do write footnotes tend not to use them to explain their choices in translation.
Sohaib Saeed is presently pursuing a degree in Qur’anic Studies at the Faculty of Theology (Usul al-Din) of the world-renowned Al-Azhar University, Egypt, after attaining degrees in philosophy from the University of Edinburgh.
*This blog post is a slightly revised version of Sohaib Saeed’s essay from the website Quranica.com, which he manages.
