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.

Translation Study
(Surat al-Baqarah 2:1-20)

2:2 ذَٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ

Sahih International: This is the Book

Muhsin Khan: This is the Book

Yusuf Ali: This is the Book

Pickthall: This is the Scripture

Ghali: That is the Book

Shakir: This Book

Causes of divergence:

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.”

2:2 لا رَيْبَ فِيهِ

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.

2:2 هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ

Yusuf Ali: in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah

Sahih International: a guidance for those conscious of Allah

Ghali: a guidance to the pious

Pickthall: a guidance unto those who ward off (evil)

Shakir: a guide to those who guard (against evil)

Muhsin Khan: a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqun

Causes of divergence:

Different approaches to rendering the concept of taqwā, including the strategy of retaining the Arabic term.
The literal “guidance” (verbal noun) or a more contextual “guide” (active participle).
The different sentence structure used by Yusuf Ali, as explained previously.

2:3 الَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْغَيْبِ وَيُقِيمُونَ الصَّلاةَ

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.

2:5 أُولَٰئِكَ عَلَىٰ هُدًى مِّن رَّبِّهِمْ

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.

2:5 وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

Sahih International: and it is those who are the successful

Muhsin Khan: and they are the successful

Pickthall: These are the successful

Ghali: and those are they who are the prosperers

Yusuf Ali: and it is these who will prosper

Shakir: and these it is that shall be successful

Cause of divergence:

Reading the active participle as indicating the present or the future.

2:6 لا يُؤْمِنُونَ

Sahih International: they will not believe

Muhsin Khan: they will not believe

Yusuf Ali: they will not believe

Shakir: …will not believe

Pickthall: they believe not

Ghali: they do not believe

Cause of divergence:

Reading the imperfect verb as indicating the present or the future.

2:8 وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَن يَقُولُ آمَنَّا بِاللهِ وَبِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ

Sahih International: And of the people are some who say, “We believe in Allah and the Last Day”

Yusuf Ali: Of the people there are some who say: “We believe in Allah and the Last Day”

Shakir: And there are some people who say: We believe in Allah and the last day

Muhsin Khan: And of mankind, there are some (hypocrites) who say: “We believe in Allah and the Last Day”

Pickthall: And of mankind are some who say: We believe in Allah and the Last Day

Ghali: And of mankind (there) are some who say, “We have believed in Allah and in the Last Day”

Cause of divergence:

Whether to consider al-nās as referring to a specific number of people, or all mankind. This distinction is significant in certain other verses.
Here and elsewhere: approaches to the past-tense verb “believed,” often rendered in the present to suit the meaning.

2:10 وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ بِمَا كَانُوا يَكْذِبُونَ

Sahih International: and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie

Muhsin Khan: A painful torment is theirs because they used to tell lies

Pickthall: A painful doom is theirs because they lie

Shakir: and they shall have a painful chastisement because they lied

Ghali: and for them is a painful torment for (that) they used to lie

Yusuf Ali: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves)

Cause of divergence:

Taking the verb to apply to the act of lying, or as a mode of behaviour which is the opposite of being true (i.e. sincere).

2:11 قَالُوا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ

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?”

2:15 اللَّهُ يَسْتَهْزِئُ بِهِمْ

Sahih International: [But] Allah mocks them…

Muhsin Khan: Allah mocks at them…

Pickthall: Allah (Himself) doth mock them…

Ghali: Allah mocks them…

Shakir: Allah shall pay them back their mockery…

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.

2:17 وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لَّا يُبْصِرُونَ

Sahih International: and left them in darkness [so] they could not see

Muhsin Khan: and left them in darkness. (So) they could not see

Pickthall: and leaveth them in darkness, where they cannot see

Yusuf Ali: and left them in utter darkness. So they could not see

Shakir: and left them in utter darkness– they do not see

Ghali: and left them in darkness(es) (where) they do not behold (anything)

Cause of divergence:

The plural form of “darkness” being ignored, treated as an emphasis (“utter”) or rendered literally (“darknesses”) as a new coinage in English.

2:19 أَوْ كَصَيِّبٍ مِّنَ السَّمَاءِ

Sahih International: Or [it is] like a rainstorm from the sky

Muhsin Khan: Or like a rainstorm from the sky

Pickthall: Or like a rainstorm from the sky

Yusuf Ali: Or (another similitude) is that of a rain-laden cloud from the sky

Ghali: Or as a cloudburst from the heaven

Shakir: Or like abundant rain from the cloud

Cause of divergence:

How they understood these two terms and their meanings and relation in the context.

2:20 وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللهُ لَذَهَبَ بِسَمْعِهِمْ وَأَبْصَارِهِمْ

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.

Translation and Exegesis: Travis Zadeh’s The Vernacular Qur’an

By Michael Pregill

The claim that Muslims do not translate the Qur’an, or rather that a translation of the Qur’an is not  really the Qur’an at all but only a dim approximation of the basic sense of the text, has often been  repeated by scholars. This notion has even informed the production of translations by Muslims  themselves at times, as in the case of Marmaduke Pickthall’s famous The Meaning of the  Glorious Koran (1930)—the title implying that the text in English represents only the meaning,  with something substantial literally having been lost in translation. It is difficult to escape the  conclusion that any rendition of the Qur’an into the vernacular—that is, into any language other  than the original Arabic—should and must have a secondary and marginal status in Islamic society.

But there is a paradox here, inasmuch as the public recitation and explanation of the Qur’an has played a significant role in attracting converts to Islam since the earliest days of the community’s  expansion after the Arab conquests. Historically, the process of reciting and explaining the  Qur’an surely involved some element of translation; the parallel with the reading of the Torah  and exposition of targum in Jewish synagogue services is obvious here. Further, scholars have  often asserted (at least since the time of Goldziher’s seminal Die Richtungen der islamischen  Koranauslegung, 1920) that tafsir (Qur’an commentary) most likely originated in this context,  built upon the most ancient understandings of the Qur’an that had circulated among the earliest followers of the Prophet. Initially grounded in the need to interpret the Qur’an’s essential message for converts—often with considerable mythological and homiletic expansions—this tradition  eventually coalesced into one of the core disciplines within the ulum al-Quran or “Qur’anic  sciences.” All of this implies that translation of the Qur’an has in fact been central to Islamic  society, at least at times, and that such translation has been absolutely vital for the survival and  expansion of the community at numerous junctures in Islam’s long history.

The complex relationship between translation of and commentary upon the Qur’an is explored in  depth in Travis Zadeh’s magesterial and far-ranging study, The Vernacular Qur’an: Translation and the Rise of Persian Exegesis (Oxford University Press in association with the Institute of  Ismaili Studies, 2012), which specifically examines the phenomenon of translation as it lies at the foundation of both Persian literary and Iranian Islamic religious tradition. The significance  of this study cannot be overstated. Iran was most likely the first region or culture area outside  of Arabia proper to achieve a Muslim majority. Further, several of Iran’s urban centers became preeminent centers of religious learning in the ninth and tenth centuries, producing ulama whose  works became critical for the further development of the religious sciences, especially hadith;  and, as is well known, by the high Middle Ages, so-called New Persian came to rival—and  eventually surpass—Arabic as the preeminent literary language of Islamic society, at least in the  eastern regions of the Dar al-Islam.

Zadeh’s study explores the intersections between theological and juridical controversies,  devotional practice, and an emerging Persian literary culture, informed both by an admirable command of the theoretical literature on translation and a nuanced understanding of the complex  conjunction of factors that contributed to the misrepresentation of Qur’an translation as somehow  inferior or illegitimate. In Western scholarly discourse, the claim of the Qur’an’s untranslatability  originates in medieval Christian polemic, in which Muslims’ supposed insistence that the Qur’an  can only be approached in the original Arabic was caricatured as proof of Muslim “rigidity”  and legalism – ritual rectitude purportedly being more important in Islam than rational  understanding. This gross oversimplification of Muslim attitudes was then reinforced by the  misapprehensions of more contemporary (and well-meaning) scholars such as Wilfred Cantwell  Smith, who inadvertently conflated theological assertions of the Qur’an’s inimitability with some  jurists’ opposition to the use of verses of the Qur’an in other languages in the devotional context into a blanket prohibition on translation that somehow applied to all times, places, and contexts.

Smith thus characterized an opposition to translation as somehow essential to Islam, but as  Zadeh demonstrates, the translation of the Qur’an into Persian, even for devotional purposes,  appears to have been a basic fact in the Iranian milieu; the “early pattern of wrapping the sacred  language of the Qur’an in Persian reflects the practical hermeneutic, if not liturgical, importance  of approaching scripture through a linguistic medium other than Arabic” (133). Moreover, translation into Persian was not simply driven by the practical considerations of disseminating  the Qur’an in a recently converted, and thus only superficially acculturated, population.  Rather, Zadeh’s theoretically sophisticated approach shows that the general recognition of the  polyvalence of scripture—for example, the idea that the Qur’an was revealed in seven ahruf  (modes or recitations)—opened up a wide discursive space in which many scholars not only  tolerated but even explicitly sanctioned the ongoing use of the Qur’an in Persian and other languages for a variety of purposes.

Astonishingly, Zadeh’s treatment of his subject stretches from the period just after the Arab  conquests of the seventh century all the way to the flourishing of Persian tafsir in the eleventh  and twelfth centuries with figures such as Abu’l-Futuh al-Razi, Surabadi, and Isfara’ini, as well  as discussing the later reception of this tradition in subsequent centuries. Even as the use of  Persian renditions of Qur’anic verses was largely abandoned in specifically devotional contexts,  the dynamic interplay between the Arab and Iranian cultural and linguistic milieux continued to  inform the evolution of Islam in the Persian-speaking world. As their tradition matured, Iranian  scholars continued to have a complicated relationship with Arab Islamic religious authority and  exegetical discourse—especially the latter, as “exegesis served as a platform for the articulation  of religious commitments” (448), particularly as attitudes towards Persian came to inform and in  turn be inflected by sectarian considerations.

This brief notice hardly does justice to Zadeh’s wide-ranging, yet lucidly argued and eloquently written, treatment of the Qur’an in Persian and the Persianate world. We may hope that his nuanced and imaginative study draws attention to this long-neglected subject and inspires new scholarly research in this area in the future.

Divergence in Qur’an Translations: Causes and Examples

Divergence in Qur’an Translations: Causes and Examples

Translation and Exegesis: Travis Zadeh’s The Vernacular Qur’an

Follow Us