John Benjamins Publishing Company · stood su˚ciently (cf. al- Ghazālī 1932: 13; al- Shā˙‘ī...

This is a contribution from Babel, Vol. 54:1.© 2008. All rights reserved.

This electronic file may not be altered in any way.The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute.For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com

Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Babel 54: 1 (2008), 1–18. doi 10.1075/babel.54.1.02kha issn 0521–9744e-issn 1569–9668 © Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

Translating the Invisible in the Qur’an

Aladdin Al- Kharabsheh and Bakri Al- Azzam�e Hashemite University, Jordan

1. Introduction

�e term invisible in this paper refers to any Qur’an- speci�c, semantically invisible lexical element (henceforth SILE) that ostensively, has a visible meaning, normally mistakingly taken to be the intended one, while at the same time, has another in-visible meaning that acts as the intended meaning, but which is extricably bound up to go unnoticed and unrecognized in the act of any customary reading of the text and context in which it emerges. Such invisibility can generally be accounted for by the fact that the Qur’an represents a unique, religious document, inimitable in all its di�erent lexical and textual layers (for more details on the matchlessness of the Qur’an, cf. al- Rāzī 2000: vols. 1 and 2). �e di�culty associated with this type of lexical construction is that it is very familiar to most translators and readers who, subsequently and spontaneously, are prone to rule out the possibility of envisag-ing a second invisible meaning, which requires exerting conscious e�ort, such as taking a scrutinizing look at the relevant text and context (cf. Gutt 2000: 76–77), or consulting one of the chief Muslim exegeses. Surveying the available literature, it was found that an SILE represents an inimitable linguistic phenomenon that has been never been explored in the Qur’an- oriented translation studies. In this exploratory study, a Qur’anic SILE tends to have two meanings: a sur-face meaning (i.e. visible meaning), and a second deeper meaning (i.e. invisible meaning). �e latter, which is the main focus of this study, is normally either con-tradictory or opposite to the �rst one; indeed the invisible meaning constitutes the meaning intended by the scriptural- theological context, and therefore, constitutes our point of departure in translation. It should be pointed out that other technical terms could be used conveniently to describe this unique phenomenon. It is a pos-sibility, for instance, that one may suggest the syntactic label embedded or the prag-matic label unembodied. However, choice has rested with the label invisible, mainly because such contextually and/or pragmatically embedded meanings go unnotice-able, i.e., they can betray the reader’s inferencing (i.e. �guring out). �e persistent high Muslim view of the Qur’an rests on the belief that God’s word is not just in the message communicated, but is basically and powerfully

Translating the invisible in the Qur’an

Aladdin Al- Kharabsheh and Bakri Al- AzzamThe Hashemite University

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue BabelAll rights reserved

2 Aladdin Al- Kharabsheh and Bakri Al- Azzam

present in the very form in which it was originally given (cf. Al- Baqillani 1985: 48 and Al- Jurjani 1981: 40–41). �us, the Qur’an, unlike the Bible in Christian un-derstanding, can only exist in its original language. It follows also that this Arabic Qur’an has been translated, and the available translations convey the main mean-ings of the Qur’an but can never be considered the actual Qur’an; the meaning cannot be understood fully by non- Arabic speakers, but can, however, be under-stood su�ciently (cf. al- Ghazālī 1932: 13; al- Shā�‘ī 1961: 88–109). To a limited ex-tent, thus, translations can shed light only on the meanings of the Qur’an. Indeed, the gulf between the original and the translation is an important reason why Mus-lims must recite the Qur’an only in Arabic for the required daily prayers (cf. Ibn Qutaiba 1954: 16 and Abdelali 2004) Accordingly, it could be argued that SILEs do seem to present insurmountable translation hurdles, which make the translation of the Qur’an a perennial topic of debate. �is point is accentuated by the view that canonical texts generally require re- translating every couple of generations (cf. Lewis 1998). Qur’anic translations should, therefore, be occasionally reviewed and assessed as to ensure e�ective ren-derings for particularly complex and beguiling words and phrases. Hence, SILEs appear to be translated properly, but if we look more closely into the faithfulness of such translations, we get a quite di�erent picture, especially if these translations are cross- referenced with leading Muslim authoritative commentaries, which are supposed to reveal all shades of meaning. In light of all of this, this paper substantiates the orthodox Muslim view that the Qur’an is “translation- resistant” (Abdul- Raof 1999: 45; Al- Bundaq 1983: 49). It also lends further support to the notion that “translation loss is an inevitable con-sequence of the fact that languages and cultures are di�erent” (Dickins et al. 2002: 25; Barnwell 1983: 20). Based on this view, the purpose of this caveat lector paper is twofold. First, the paper attempts to prove the inevitable occurrence of translation loss in the act of rendering SILEs. Second, it seeks to investigate the texts and con-texts where these cases occur in order to pinpoint the invisible meaning through providing a theologically precise and ironclad explanation of the meanings of such cases, so that a rigorous grounding in Islamic theology is not necessary for non- native speakers of Arabic. As part of a larger context, adequate rendering of SILEs may partly assist recreate the experience of reading the Arabic original for non- native readers through a true transposition into English of the beauty and pro-foundity of these SILEs and the psycho- spiritual reaction they engender. To achieve the objectives of this study, and for spatial limitations, restriction is made to three o�cial translations, produced at di�erent times. �ese are: Ali’s (1983) �e Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary; �e Presidency’s (1992) �e Holy Qur’an: English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary; and Pick-thall’s (2002) �e Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an: Explanatory Translation. �ough


Translating the invisible in the Qur’an 3

each subsequent translation tends to improve upon its predecessors (as is o�en the case with successive translations), not a single translation appears to have resolved the translation of SILEs once and for all. �is does not imply that the translators are incompetent, but rather suggests that they were unaware of the existence of these SILEs, which requires the consultation of famous, commendable exegeses. To gain more insights into these unnoticeable meanings, three chief Muslim exe-geses were selected as to be the yardstick against which the invisible meaning will be identi�ed, and the adequacy of the proposed renderings of the SILEs chosen for this study will be assessed and judged. �ese exegeses (or commentaries) are: Ibn Kathir 1997 (Tafseer Al- Qur’an Al- Kareem); Al- Sabuni 2001 (Safwat Al- Tafaseer); and Al- Zamakhshari 2005 (Al- Kashshaf ).

2. SILEs in the Qur’an: Visible Meaning vs. Invisible Meaning

First of all, it should be made clear right from the beginning that we are not here discussing invisible meaning vs. visible meaning in the sense given in the functional- theoretic approach proposed by House (1981: 249–250 and 2001); rather, we are discussing the two concepts generally in support of the view that re-ligious ideas are more complex than normal thoughts in the sense that they may sometimes deal apparently with objective external realities; and, sometimes, with a man’s inner states. A proof that countenances such a view is that hundreds of interpreters have written commentaries on the Qur’an during its fourteen centu-ries of existence, and none has claimed to understand all of its various aspects and meanings. Two types of meaning can be recognized in the Qur’an: visible meaning and invisible meaning. �e visible meaning is that meaning which any reasonably intel-ligent reader is expected to capture; the invisible meaning, however, is that mean-ing accessible to those who are more “sharp- eyed” (France 1981: 241), or better instructed in it, owing to the fact the such a meaning is purposefully designed to slip capturing. Hence, the inner meaning (i.e. the invisible), which is psychologi-cal or spiritual, is always the true one, whereas the outer meaning (i.e. the visible) acts as a cloak for preserving it from exposure to most translators and readers. In-deed, what a reader could grasp in the Qur’an will vary according to his/her exe-getical background, as the Qur’an is rich in potentially semantically- complicated nuances (cf. al- Ra�‘i 1945: 282). A Qur’anic passage should o�en be viewed as be-ing layered, and the Qur’an is like an organism having all of its parts interlinked. It seems safe to claim that there are a few, if any, Arabic- speaking readers who would naturally derive this complicated deeper meaning from the original texts, let alone English- speaking readers from the available English translations.


thall’s (2002) �e Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an: Explanatory Translation. �ough each subsequent translation tends to improve upon its predecessors (as is o�en the case with successive translations), not a single translation appears to have resolved the translation of SILEs once and for all. �is does not imply that the translators are incompetent, but rather suggests that they were unaware of the existence of these SILEs, which requires the consultation of famous, commendable exegeses. To gain more insights into these unnoticeable meanings, three chief Muslim exe-geses were selected as to be the yardstick against which the invisible meaning will be identi�ed, and the adequacy of the proposed renderings of the SILEs chosen for this study will be assessed and judged. �ese exegeses (or commentaries) are: Ibn Kathir 1997 (Tafseer Al- Qur’an Al- Kareem); Al- Sabuni 2001 (Safwat Al- Tafaseer); and Al- Zamakhshari 2005 (Al- Kashshaf ).

2. SILEs in the Qur’an: Visible meaning vs. invisible meaning

First of all, it should be made clear right from the beginning that we are not here discussing invisible meaning vs. visible meaning in the sense given in the functional- theoretic approach proposed by House (1981: 249–250 and 2001); ra-ther, we are discussing the two concepts generally in support of the view that re-ligious ideas are more complex than normal thoughts in the sense that they may sometimes deal apparently with objective external realities; and sometimes with a man's inner states. A proof that countenances such a view is that hundreds of interpreters have written commentaries on the Qur’an during its fourteen centur-ies of existence, and none has claimed to understand all of its various aspects and meanings. Two types of meaning can be recognized in the Qur’an: visible meaning and invisible meaning. �e visible meaning is that meaning which any reasonably intel-ligent reader is expected to capture; the invisible meaning, however, is that mean-ing accessible to those who are more “sharp- eyed” (France 1981: 241), or better instructed in it, owing to the fact the such a meaning is purposefully designed to slip capturing. Hence, the inner meaning (i.e. the invisible) which is psychologic-al or spiritual is always the true one whereas the outer meaning (i.e. the visible) acts as a cloak for preserving it from exposure to most translators and readers. In-deed, what a reader could grasp in the Qur’an will vary according to his/her ex-egetical background as the Qur’an is rich in potentially semantically- complicated nuances (cf. al- Ra�‘i 1945: 282). A Qur’anic passage should o�en be viewed as be-ing layered, and the Qur’an is like an organism having all of its parts interlinked. It seems safe to claim that there are a few, if any, Arabic- speaking readers who would naturally derive this complicated deeper meaning from the original texts, let alone



�us, behind the visible structure is the invisible structure, the intended mean-ing. It is this invisible meaning that serves as the base for translation into another language. Likewise, the idiomatic approaches presume that a text should have ‘vis-ible structures’, which are syntactic, lexical, morphological and phonological, and should also have an ‘invisible structure’ which consists of propositions, and other elements indicative of speech acts and interpropositional links. �e relationship between the ‘visible structure’ and the ‘invisible structure’ is indeed not as straightforward as one might think. It is essentially these complica-tions that make translation so di�cult. Typically, language allows for ‘skewing’ be-tween the ‘visible structure’ and the ‘invisible structure’. For instance, there can be ‘skewing’ between the grammatical form of a language and its illocutionary force. For instance, in a chilling weather, a person who feels cold sitting in a hall might say “It is freezing”, as to yield the semantic illocutionary force of request (request-ing anyone near the window to close it), but the syntactic form is that of a sentence which would normally be used to express a declarative sentence about weather. In all the examples to be quoted in this study, such ‘skewing’ serves to provide psy-chological, emotive and �ne nuances of meaning and serves as the platform for translation. Another problem that can be encountered in Qur’anic discourse, and which is attributable to the di�erence between the ‘visible structure’ and the ‘invis-ible structure, is that the ‘implicit information’ or ‘invisible meaning’ normally has no linguistic form, but is considered part of the total communication intended or assumed by the Creator. It is clear, therefore, that the translator needs to take into careful consideration the presence of implicit information in the original, so that it may be used explic-itly when it is needed in the RL [receptor language] version. Implicit information will sometimes need to be made explicit in the Qur’an, since it is not shared by the receptor language audience. Accordingly, it can be said that interpretation must have a deep respect for the signi�cance of every word and phrase in the religious discourse, and it is the translator’s job to dig deep within the text to �nd what God means. �erefore, when something does not make sense in a Qur’anic text, it is the reader who does not understand it; the reader’s knowledge and understanding of the word and/or text that is inadequate. As a corollary, the resulting translations may well obscure the original meanings of such divine texts (cf. Nida and Taber 1969: 12; Nida 1964: 159)

3. Discussion

For the sake of analysis and economicality, we will be using the following Roman numerals to stand for the three translations; that is, I, II, and III stand for Pick-



thall’s translation (2002), Ali’s (1983), and the Presidency’s (1992), respectively. �e running con�guration here will be as follows: the original Arabic text is pro-vided �rst, which includes only one SILE being highlighted by underlining; then, followed by its three translations in the order explained above, and �nally a dis-cussion is presented.

54 :10 /

I. And if each soul that does wrong had all that is in the earth it would seek to ransom itself therewith; and they will feel remorse within them, when they see the doom. But it has been judged between them fairly and they are not wronged. (2002: 185).II. Every soul that hath sinned, if it possessed all that is on earth, would fain give it in ransom: they would declare (their) repentance when they see the penalty: but the judgment between them will be with justice, and no wrong will be done unto them (1983: 498–499).III. Every soul that hath sinned, if it possessed all that is on earth, would fain give it in ransom: they would declare (their) repentance when they see the chastisement: but the judgment between them will be with justice, and no wrong will be done unto them (1992: 564).

�e Arabic SILE to conceal or to hide is semantically complex, hatching in a context that does not give enough clues to �gure out its invisible meaning. At �rst blush, readers of the text, particularly those who do not possess linguistic competence and full understanding, will go for the visible meaning as the intend-ed one. �ere is nothing �nal about a semantic change: a word may acquire a new sense or scores of new senses without losing its original meaning (cf. Ullmann 1972: 195). �e verb to conceal is a case in point here. Situations may make it indispensable that someone behaves abnormally and unexpectedly, which is the case of the unbelievers who openly declare repentance as a source of shame and ignomity. Given exactly the contrasting meaning does not necessarily mean that

to conceal has in its very sense two contradictory meanings, nor does it have many distinct though not contrasting ones; it is the eloquence of the Qur’an which forces it to behave in such a fashion. Di�cult to be captured by those relatively incompetent in the Qur’anic stylis-tics, one may opt for the visible meaning, i.e., the daily used and the directly un-derstood by ordinary people (cf. Ibn Kathir 1997, v.2, 944; Al- Sabuni 2001, v.1, 546). �is is a fact that might have led Pickthall (2002: 185) to translate into will feel with a description of the case including the lexical element remorse. Feel in this translation is no more than an equivalence of secrecy or concealment, which,



in turn, does not convey the invisible meaning declare in the original text (cf. Al- Zamakhshari 2005: 466). Conversely, aware enough of the meanings that an SILE may drive at, Ali (498–499) and the Presidency (1992: 564) properly relayed the meaning of as declare into English. �e choice has not haphazardly been arrived at or justi-�ed; the translators could have consulted exegetes’ commentaries of the Qur’an, or could have rested heavily on the pertinent theological context. Basically, remorse has the implications of secrecy and bitter regret of wrongdoings or word-ings. And since it can be naturally hidden, the use of to conceal must be re-dundant unless rhetorically used, which is the case in the relevant verse under dis-cussion. Another similar example that can illustrate the reverse meaning, where

functions similarly, is

3 :21 /

which Ali (1983: 822) literally translates as: “�eir hearts toying as with tri�es. �e wrong- doers conceal their private counsels, (saying), ‘Is this (one) more than a man like yourselves? Will ye go to witchcra� with your eyes open?’”

26 :2 /

I. Lo! Allah disdains not to coin the similitude even of a gnat or what is above it. �ose who believe know that it is the truth from their Lord; but those who disbe-lieve say: what does Allah wish (to teach) by such a similitude? He misleads many thereby, and He guides many thereby; and He misleads thereby only miscreants (2002: 8).II. God disdains not to use the similitude of things, lowest as well as highest. �ose who believe know that it is the truth from their Lord; but those who reject Faith say: “what means God by this similitude?” by it He causes many to stray, and many He leads into the right path; but He causes not to stray, except those who forsake (the path) (1983: 22).III. Allah disdains not to use the similitude of things even of a gnat as well as an-ything above it. �ose who believe know that it is the truth from their Lord; but those who reject Faith say: “what means God by this similitude?” by it He causes many to stray, and many He leads into the right path; but He causes not to stray, except those who forsake (1992: 13–14).

In Arabic, the SILE adverb above, in the verse above, is problematic translation- wise. An interpretation against a slightly wrong context will not only be erroneous,



but also misleading. �e overall context of the verse can give a further enlight-ment of the pragmatic meaning, which might contradict with the visible, surface meaning. �e small two- winged �y is lowly and mean that made it appropriate to be given a similitude with. Had the pragmatic or the intended meaning of not been below or beyond, it would not have been opted for the parable; had it also not been so, a seemingly imbalance would have taken place in the stylistic struc-ture and implications of the verse. In order to convey the meaning reliably and informatively, translators should give more care to the religious text- in- context. �ough not always infallible or inerrant, only competent linguist- translators, and, to a greater extent, those enjoying a linguistic sense of the Arabic religious text, can capture the meaning that lurks below the surface level. And since consult-ing the context might not be enough to achieve this goal, translators of such a text should refer to commentaries of the Qur’an that can explain such an extraordinary and strange phenomenon. Based on this discussion and in reference to the three translations, one can argue that none of the translations has successfully conveyed the invisible mean-ing of above, being below in the verse (cf. Al- Zamakhshari 2005: 64 and Al- Sabuni 2001, v.1, 36). Pickthall (2002: 8) rendered it literally as above, which totally contrasts with what is actually intended, i.e. below. Ali (1983: 22) rendered the adverb above paraphrasingly as lowest as well as highest, which again not only failed to convey the invisible meaning, but also resulted in a semantic confusion. Being vague as such could have misled the translators, and thus misguided them to produce proper translations. �e Presidency’s translation (1992: 13–14), which is the same literal translation as Pickthall’s, is close to the Qur’anic interpretation of Ibn Kathir (1997, v.1, 68), for example.

249 :2 /

I. But those who knew that they would meet Allah exclaimed: how many a little company has overcome a mighty host by Allah’s leave! And Allah is with the stead-fast (2002: 37).II. But those who were convinced that they must God, said: “how o�, by God’s will, hatha small force vanquished a big one? God is with those who steadfastly persevere.”(1983: 100).III. But those who were convinced that they must Allah, said: “how o�, by Allah’s will, hath a small force vanquished a big one? Allah is with those who steadfastlypersevere” (1992: 111).

�e Arabic SILE to think shows a state of mind in forming opinions and com-



ing to conclusions. Opinion, in this regard, is not �nal and clear- cut as it requires negotiation, and is an ebb and �ow process. Being otherwise, readers of a text or listeners of a speech should be a ware enough of the total discourse to determine its invisible meaning. If the context at the sentence or verse level is not enough for the translator as a reader to extract the invisible meaning, s/he ought to go for an outer and other linguistic contexts. In other words, the translator should not give up delving deep as a result of the existence of confusing meanings of such an SILE. �is situation of the translator can be viewed in rendering to think in the above verse into English. In translating it as knew, Pickthall (2002: 37) pro-duced an approximate equivalence. �e meaning achieved lies between its visible and invisible meanings in generally and peculiarly envisaged contexts. Pickthall (Ibid.:37) does not provide any illuminatory information to dispel any material that can give hint to the erroneous and matted meaning of to think as the or-dinary and habitually used one (cf. Ibn Kathir1997, v.1, 296). Ali (1983: 100) and the Presidency (1992: 111) also partially failed to transfer the corresponding meaning of to think into English. In the two translations, were convinced does not show the extraordinary belief that the Muslim believers have gained (cf. Al- Sabuni 2001, v.1, 296; Al- Zamakhshari 2005: 143). �is belief became an integral part to the believers’ faith and hence indisputable. Generally, and based on the three translations, it seems that the context has been fully mar-ginalized in rendering to think into English as completely certain, thus de-throning it from its prominent and easily �gured out meaning.

77 :18 /.

I. So the two journeyed on till, when they came unto the folk of a certain town-ship, they asked its folks for food, but they refused to make them guests. And they found therein a wall upon the point of falling into ruin, and he repaired it. (Moses) said: If you had wished, you could have taken payment for it (2002: 271).II. �en they proceed: until, when they came to the inhabitants of a town, they asked them for food, but they refused them hospitality. �ey found there a wall on the point of falling down, but he set it up straight. (Moses) said: “If thou hadst wished, surely thou couldest have exacted some recompense for it (1983: 751).III. �en they proceed: until, when they came to the inhabitants of a town, they asked them for food, but they refused them hospitality. �ey found there a wall on the point of falling down, but he set it up straight. (Moses) said: “If thou hadst wished, surely thou couldest have exacted some recompense for it. (1992: 751).

�e Arabic verbs indeed want and on the point of are contradictory with regard to certainty. While on the point has implications of uncertainty,



indeed want indicates dogmatization and cutting o�. Sometimes, a meaning of a word is greatly context- based and thus semantically idiosyncratic. �e context of the verse in question is a determinant factor in favouring on the point of as a coun-terpart for indeed want to describe the dilapidated wall (cf. Ibn Kathir 1997, v.3 1265; Al- Sabuni 2001, v.2, 188; Al- Zamakhshari 2005: 626). �us, the translators of the text found it easy to determine on the proper meaning, i.e., upon the point of, owing to its scriptural dominance. Being so, and di�erent from other cases select-ed in this study, the three translations have safely managed to transfer the mean-ing to English (cf. Pickthall 2002: 271; Ali 1983: 751; and the Presidency 1992: 842).

/ . 79 :18

I. As for the ship, it belonged to some poor people working on the water, and I wished to mar it, for there was a king behind them who is taking every ship by force (2002: 271).II. “As for the boat, it belonged to certain men in dire want: they plied on the wa-ter: I but wished to render it unserviceable, for there was a�er them a certain King who seized on every boat by force (1983: 751–752).III. “As for the boat, it belonged to certain men in dire want: they plied on the wa-ter: I but wished to render it unserviceable, for there was a�er them a certain King who seized on every boat by force (1992: 843).

�e Arabic adverb behind or a�er is misleading in the verse. It is entirely mis-taken to think that this confusion does not pose translation problems. Since near-est sentential structural elements do not assist in specifying the invisible or the run behind meaning and cannot bring about meaning exactness, translators as readers, should envisage the SILE’s broader context, i.e., they have to start from where the theme starts or relates. �e story begins when Khidr and Moses were in the boat that the former scut-tled. It was in its way to the king who used to forcefully seize everything on eve-ry boat, a�er it is being loaded and charged with goods. Based on this, the boat can be taken to be on its way to the king, and this can uncover the meaning of the word residing behind its surface level, which forms the con�uence of the disput-ing meanings. As such being the case, translators should exert all possible e�orts to extract the should- be rendered meaning in the receptive language. �e adverb

behind or a�er in the verse does not seem to have received enough attention, and is thus mishandled in the three translations (cf. Pickthall’s 2002: 271 as behind and Ali’s 1983: 751–752 and the Presidency’s 1992: 843 as a�er). �e adverb , ostensively behind or a�er, is elusive and problematic, not only to translators who might not be native- speakers of Arabic, but also to Arabic native speakers and



some exegetes who fail to disclose its plot (cf. Ibn Khathir, v.3 1266); i.e., it is cam-ou�aged in the sense that its actual (invisible) meaning is di�cult to be spotted as in front of (cf. Al- Sabuni 2001, v.2, 188; Al- Zamakhshari 2005: 548). On the other hand, some exegetes could seize the near and the far contextual opportunity, thus interpreting as in front of (cf. Al- Sabuni 2001, v.2, 188; Al- Zamakhshari 2005: 548).

36 :22 /

I. And the camels! We have appointed them among the ceremonies of Allah. �erein you have much good. So mention the name of Allah over them when that are drawn up in lines. �en when their �anks fall (dead), eat thereof and feed the beggar and the suppliant. �us have We made them subject unto you, that you may give thanks (2002: 310).II. �e sacri�cial camels We have made for you as among the Symbols from God: in them is (much) good for you: then pronounce the name of God over them as they line up (for sacri�ce): when they are down on their sides (a�er slaughter), eat ye thereof, and feed such as (beg not but) live in contentment and such as beg with due humility: thus have we made animals subject to you, that ye may be grateful (1983: 860–861).III. �e sacri�cial camels We have made for you as among the signs from Allah: in them is (much) good for you: then pronounce the name of Allah over them as they line up (for sacri�ce): when they are down on their sides (a�er slaughter), eat ye thereof, and feed such as (beg not but) live in contentment and such as beg with due humility: thus have we made animals subject to you, that ye may be grateful etc. (1992: 960–961).

In Islamic law, needy people, even non- Muslims living in the Muslim communi-ty, are worth being fed or paid to from the property of rich Muslims. Given this, the rich and those satis�ed with what they have are not included in this ‘giving’. A word sometimes can show formidable resilience in changing its meaning, which is evident in the way it expresses something other than or opposite to the com-mon sense or the truth- conditional semantics of such a word. Hence, when a giv-en SILE illustrates and conveys a noticeable function or purpose, it is not likely to o�er any problem to the audience. It may, however, raise a problem for readers when it does not stand for the allegedly expected meaning. In the verse under dis-cussion, the completely satis�ed is semantically two- sided. At �rst glance, an ordinary reader may easily comprehend its visible meaning, which falls short of providing the contextually intended meaning. At this juncture, it should be point-ed out that Qur’anic texts o�en bear stylistic, rhetorical and semantic properties



that can never be properly treasured and preserved in translation without a solid linguistic pro�ciency in the relevant SL and TL, and a profound knowledge of the complexities of Qur’anic Arabic and its semantics. As far as the translations are involved, Pickthall (2002: 310) rendered as beggar which largely covers the invisible meaning. �e context itself can be a teller as satis�ed people are not to be sustained with food. However, a translation loss is incurred due to the incongruence between the two languages; the Qur’anic Arabic is rhetorical, eloquent and indirectly conveys the meaning, while the English text declines to convey such a meaning invisibly or explicitly in translation. �at is the English translations should explicitate in order to retain the meaning, while Ara-bic does the opposite. �is exposure of the invisible meaning is in itself a transla-tion loss in the sense that its aestheticity in Arabic entails being kept half ‘buried’. �e other two translations (Ali 1983: 860 and the Presidency 1992: 960–961) rendered paraphrasingly and comparatively; their translations not only pro-vided beg not but live in contentment for , but also compared it with another word that �gures in the same verse, i.e. to beg with due humility. �ough such renderings show the invisible intended meaning, they do not highlight any rhet-oric use of the word . In other words, there is an inevitable and unavoidable semantic loss that the translator may not be able to redress. Due to these com-plications, a full explanation on the part of the translator is required to convey most of the meaning. To illustrate, one corresponding translation such as con-tent or satis�ed can be enough for rendering the surface meaning, but should be supplemented by extended explanation to display the invisible meanings such as needy, indigent, and poverty- stricken among others (cf. Al- Sabuni 2001, v.2, 272; Al- Zamakhshari 2005: 696).

54 :55 / I. Reclining upon couches lined with silk brocade, the fruit of both gardens near to hand (2002: 536).II. �ey will recline on carpets, whose inner linings will be of rich brocade: the fruit of the Gardens will be near (and easy of reach) (1983: 1480).III. �ey will recline on carpets, whose inner linings will be of rich brocade: the fruit of the Gardens will be near (and easy of reach) (1983: 1480) (992: 1668).

�e lexical elements inner and outer are semantically opposite. �is can create a translation problem as a certain word may have two contrasting senses. It be-comes more complicated when a lexical element does not convey its ordinary meaning that is likely to be captured by lay people. �e SILE linings or inners in the above verse is an illustrative example of lexical elements that unexpected-ly convey meanings other than what one might expect from a �rst reading. �is



somewhat ignored or haphazardly would- be- thought or misplaced use is quite functional, and should not be interpreted otherwise. Sound interpretation of a text can warrant an adequate transfer of this invisible meaning into the target language.

linings or inners is problematic by virtue of the fact that it could be analyzed, interpreted and comprehended in more than one way. �e religious text in hand does not have solecism as the strange use of its words is deliberate which repre-sents a Qur’anic linguistic feature that is ‘immune’ to imitation in a text other than the Qur’an. Pickthall (2002: 536) translated as lined with silk brocade. �is rendition fails to grasp the invisible meaning. �e fact that such an SILE is some-what opaque hindered the translator from attaining the intended meaning, outer covers or linings. Ali (1983: 1480) and the Presidency (1992: 1668) similarly ren-dered as inner linings. �is rendering seems to have failed to hark back to the invisible meaning that is distinct from the normally relayed one. According to its pragmatic- theological context, the invisible (intended) mean-ing of its linings is, however, its outer covers, which is rhetorical in the sense that God intentionally wants to express the luxury of the outer by means of using a lexical element expressing the luxury of the inner (cf. Ibn Kathir 1997, v.4 2020).

249 :2 /

I. And when Saul set out with the army, he said: Lo! Allah will try you by (the ordeal of ) a river. Whosoever therefore drinks thereof he is not of me, and who-ever tastes it not he is of me, save him who takes (thereof) in the hollow of his hand (Pickthall 2002: 37).II. When Tālūt set forth with armies, he said: “God will test you at the stream; if any drinks of its water, he goes not with my army: only those who tastes not of it go with him. A mere sip out of the hand is excused.” But they drank of it, except a few (Ali 1983: 99–100).III. When Tālūt set forth with armies, he said: “Allah will test you at the stream; if any drinks of its water, he goes not with my army: only those who tastes not of it go with him. A mere sip out of the hand is excused.” But they drank of it, except a few (Presidency 1992: 111).

�e two Arabic lexical elements and respectively to drink and to eat are semantically contradictory to each other. According to Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (1999: 508 & 524), drinking is taking liquids into the mouth and swal-lowing it, while eating is to put something into your mouth, chew it, and swal-low it. Based on this semantic di�erence, the two lexical items cannot be used interchangeably; they cannot replace each other in any context, except when used



functionally, ironically, or rhetorically, so to speak. In the verse above, the army of Tālūt are tested at the water of the river. �is relevant extralinguistic locative con-text is helpful in arriving at the invisible meaning. Prior to the interpretation of any SILE, context should be taken into serious account as to gain more insightful clues. It is assumed that “the semantic prop-erties of a lexical item are fully re�ected in appropriate aspects of the relations it contracts with actual and potential contexts” (Cruse 1986: 1). �us, and based on this discussion, to eat in the verse carries the meaning of eating or devouring, which does not apply to water since eat does not collocate with liquids. Moreover, the utterance which comes later a�er to eat clearly in-dicates that the latter means to drink it (cf. Al- Sabuni 2001, v.1, 140). Pickthall (2002: 37), Ali (1983: 99–100) and the Presidency (1992: 111) collectively yielded tastes it for , which is the equivalence of ( cf. Al- Zamakhshari 2005: 143). �is states the fact that what is tried of the water is very little. Such a rendition, thus, may be based upon a shallow understanding of the text, where to eat it could have been rhetorically used to avoid repetition of , for example, in the Qur’anic text.

15 :20 / I. Lo! �e Hour is surely coming. But I almost keep it hidden, that every soul may be rewarded for that which it strives ( to achieve) (2002: 285).II. “Verily the Hour is coming —I have almost kept it hidden—for every soul to re-ceive its reward by the measure of its Endeavour. (1983: 792–793).III. “Verily the Hour is coming—my design is to keep it hidden for every soul to receive its reward by the measure of its Endeavour (1992: 881–882).

�e verb almost refers to something that is on the brink or on the verge of its current state or position. �e Hour of the Herea�er is kept hidden from man’s knowledge. �e change of the case or the state of the Hour is conceived from the linguistic knowledge of the text. �e contextual state of the Hour, being coming implies that it is about to take place a�er the long time of concealment. More speci�cally, the following clause that every soul is re-warded for which it has strived, which constitutes part of its wider scriptural con-text strongly reveals that the meaning of to hide it is to reveal it. Owing to the fact that the text is semantically demanding, necessitating extra mental processing, translators should put more e�ort into interpreting any given SILE. Hence, the surrounding context plays a major role in delimiting the right meaning. Besides, the consultation of Qur’anic commentaries requires no fur-ther emphasis here. Pickthall (2002: 285), Ali (1983: 792–793) and the Presidency (1992: 881–882) aggregately produced almost keep it hidden for , recours-



ing in that to the meaning of as hardly hidden or with souls stressed hidden (cf. Ibn Kathir 1997, v.3 1313; Al- Sabuni 2001, v.2, 218). �is translational under-achievement or semantic loss might be ascribed to an unawareness of the invis-ible meaning, on the one hand, and the ‘hegemony’ of the visible meaning, on the other. Obviously, a living religious document such as the Qur’an, lands translators and readers alike with the enormous task of digging out such pragmatically invis-ible sense, as intended by its theological context. �e lexical element to re-veal (cf. Al- Zamakhshari 2005: 652) that is opposite to in the context can be grasped from a thorough consideration of text- in- context.

4. Conclusion

In closing, it can be claimed that SILEs are incessantly prone to pose transla-tion di�culties and hurdles to translators and readers of the Qur’an. Only well- trained translators who have philological and theological background can ef-fectively translate a Qur’anic discourse. However, if such linguistic- exegetical background is somewhat insu�cient, the results they achieve are likely to be unsatisfactory and misrepresenting. �is study has attempted to show that SI-LEs are problematic and elusive in translation in the sense that they, prima facie, seem to have one meaning, i.e. the visible one, while they are virtually found to entertain an overriding, unthinkable meaning, i.e. an invisible one that is adher-ent to such lexical elements and is hardly being taken notice of. It is hoped that this timely study has succeeded in sensitizing translators and readers to a peculiar, uncommon, linguistic phenomenon that happens to enter-tain little currency and frequency in Arabic, and happens to have received scant attention in Qur’anic translation. One reason that may account for the di�culty of translating SILEs is that average readers are unaware of the existence of the in-visible meaning alongside the ordinary one. �is explains why the translations concerned have o�en unconsciously peripheralized such ‘bonus’ meaning. Lack of theological and philological background knowledge is also found to add to the confusion that is likely to �gure in the minds of translators who, sometimes, seem prone not to engage themselves in a careful or leisurely reading, which, in turn, not only scratches the surface but also warrant deriving other layered meanings. Investigating a set of SILEs against their proper scriptural– theological texts and contexts showed the high processing e�orts needed in digging up and grasp-ing the overall layered meaning. As a corollary, many semantic nuances and idi-osyncrasies of these SILEs were either partially conveyed over to the target lan-guage, bringing about distortion, or totally dropped out, a fact that hints to the



ineluctable occurrence of semantic loss in Qur’anic translation. A chief aesthetic aspect of these SILEs in Arabic lies in their invisibility, and once stripped out of this feature, they immediately lose such invisible semantic power in translation. Indeed, this state of a�airs ought not to be ascribed to translators only, but also to the nature of the religious discourse, which is remarkably free from any aber-rations from an Islamic theological perspective. �e study has also shown that context plays a key role in pinpointing the invisible meaning. �e fact that SILEs have such meanings, which normally pass by unnoticeably, entails that transla-tors have to seek full comprehension of the text on the basis of its broader con-text. Sound interpretation and adequate translation of any given SILE hinge not only on text knowledge alone, nor on extra- knowledge, but also on the combina-tion of both, i.e. on its textual- scriptural context.

References

Abdelali, A. 2004. “Localization in Modern Standard Arabic”. Journal of �e American Society for Information Science and Technology. Vol 55, Issue 1. pp. 23–28.

Abdul- Raof, H. 1999. “Untranslatability of Semantically Oriented Qur’anic Syntax.” OFF-SHOOT: A Journal of Translation and Comparative Studies. Vol. II, No. 2, pp.39–46.

Ali, A. 1983. �e Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary. Amana Corp: Brentwood, Mary-land, USA. xvi + 1862 pp.

al- Baqillani, Abu Bakr, M. 1985. I‘jaz A l- Qur’an. Beirut: Dar Al- Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyya. 328 pp.Barnwell, K. 1983. “Towards Acceptable Translations”. Notes on Translation Vol. 95, pp. 19–25.al- Bundaq, Muḥammad Saliḥ 1983. Al- Mustashriqun wa Tarjamat Al- Qur’an Al- Karim, Beirut:

Dar Al-’Afaq Al- Jadida. 238 pp.Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 310 pp. France, R. 1981. “�e Formulae- Quotations of Matthew 2 and the Problem of Communication.”

New Testament Studies Vol. 27, pp. 233–251.al- Ghazali, Abu Hamid 1932. Ijam al-‘Awam ‘an ‘Ilm al- Kalam. Cairo: Idarat Aṭ-ṭiba‘a al-

Muniriyya. 142 pp.Gutt, E. 2000. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Manchester & Boston: St.

Jerome Publishing:. xi + 271 pp.House, J. 1981. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.

344 pp.House, J. 1981. 2001. “Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social

Evaluation”. Meta, Vol. XLVI, No. 2, pp. 243–257.Ibn Kathir, A. 1997. Tafsir Al- Qur’an Al- Azim. First Edition. Al- Maktaba Al- Asriyya: Beirut.

Vol. I 583 pp., vol. II 1165 pp., vol. III 1790 pp., vol. IV 2392 pp.Ibn Qutaiba, Abu Muḥammad 1954. Ta’wil Mushkil al- Qur’an. (ed.) by Saqr Ahmed. Cairo: Dar

Iḥya’ ul- Kutub l-‘Arabiyya. 705 pp.al- Jurjani, ‘Abd al- Qahir ‘Abd al- Rahman. 1981. Dala’il Al-’I‘jaz. Beirut: Dar- Al- Ma‘rifa. 363 pp.Lewis, F. 1998. “Translating the Hidden Words”, by Diana Malouf. An extended review. In:

Baha'i Studies Review 8. London: Association for Bahá’í Studies. pp. 1–16.



Nida, E. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Proce-dures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill. x + 331 pp.

Nida, E., and Taber C. 1969. �e �eory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill. 220 pp.Pickthall, M. 2002. �e Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an: Explanatory Translation. Revised edi-

tion. Beltsville, Maryland: Amana Publications. xxxiv + 709 pp.Presidency 1992. �e Holy Qur’an: English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary. Re-

vised and edited by the Presidency of Islamic Researchers, IFTA, Call and Guidance. �e Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an: Al- Madinah Al- Munawarah, Saudi Arabia. x + 2082 pp.

Sinclair, John, et al. 1999. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary. London: HarperCollins. xxxix + 1951

al- Ra�‘i, M. Sadiq 1945. I‘jaz Al- Qur’an wa l- Balagha Al- Nabawiyya. Cairo: Matba‘at al- Istiqama. 334 pp.

al- Razi, M. Fakhr al- Din 2000. Mafatiḥ l- Ghaib. Beirut: Dar Al- Kutub l- ‘Ilmiyya. Vol. I 267 pp., vol. II 239 pp.

al- Sabuni, M. 2001. Safwat Al- Tafasir. First edition. Beirut: Dar Al- Jil. Vol. I 568 pp., vol. II 558 pp., vol. III 624 pp.

al- Sha�‘i, Muḥammad 1961. Islamic Jurisprudence: Sha�‘i Risala, trans. by Majid Khadduri. Bal-timore, MD: �e Johns Hopkins University Press. 587 pp.

Ullmann, S. 1972. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell. 278 pp.

al- Zamakhshari, A. 2005. Al- Kashshaf. Beirut: Dar Al- Ma’rifa. 1233 pp.

Abstract

�is study investigates the translation of semantically invisible lexical elements (SILEs), which constitute a Qur’anic- speci�c, linguistic phenomenon that has never been addressed in Arabic- English translation studies. An SILE is de�ned here as any Quranic- lexical element that, osten-sively, has a visible meaning, normally mistakingly taken to be the intended one, and another invisible meaning that acts as the intended meaning, and which is extricably bound up to skip recognition in the act of any customary reading of the text and context in which it �gures. To prove that SILEs present insurmountable translational hurdles, this paper analyzes some of the problems and di�culties associated with rendering a number of SILE instances taken from the Qur’an. �e examples of the study were taken from three selected o�cial transla-tions of the Qur’an, namely, Ali’s (1983) �e Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary; �e Presidency’s (1992) �e Holy Qur’an: English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary; and Pickthall’s (2002) �e Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an: Explanatory Translation. �e three translations of each SILE were semantically compared and contrasted in reference to three chief Muslim exegeses, viz. Ibn Kathir’s (1997) Tafseer Al- Qur’an Al- Kareem; Al- Sabuni’s (2001) Saf-wat Al- Tafaseer ; and Al- Zamakhshari’s (2005) Al- Kashshaf. Alongside investigating the relevant texts and contexts of the selected SILEs, the three exegeses were also used as the point of depar-ture in the detection and identi�cation of the invisible meaning, and evaluation of the three se-lected translations. �e study shows that SILEs are translationally problematic and elusive in the sense that they incessantly trigger an inevitable translation loss. Besides, translating these cases requires



possessing a working linguistic- exegetical background, without which the results would be un-satisfactory and misrepresenting. Finally, sound interpretation and proper rendering of any given SILE hinge not only on its textual context or broader context (the scriptural- theological context), but also on the combination of both. Peripheralizing this combination revealed that many semantic nuances and idiosyncrasies of the selected SILEs were either partially conveyed, or totally dropped out. Failure to grasp the invisible meaning in the selected translations was also accounted for.

Résumé

Cette étude examine la traduction des éléments lexicaux sémantiquement invisibles (ELSIs), qui constituent un phénomène linguistique spéci�que au Coran qui n’a jamais été traité dans la traductologie arabo- anglaise. Un ELSI est dé�ni ici comme tout élément lexical coranique qui a, ostensiblement, une signi�cation visible, habituellement considérée à tort comme voulue, et une autre signi�cation invisible qui fait o�ce de signi�cation voulue et qui est inextricablement destinée à ne pas être reconnue pendant une lecture habituelle du texte et du contexte dans le-quel il �gure. A�n de prouver que les ELSIs présentent des obstacles insurmontables en traduction, cet ar-ticle analyse certains problèmes et di�cultés associés à la traduction d’un certain nombre d’EL-SIs, tirés du Coran. Aux �ns de l’étude, trois traductions o�cielles du Coran ont été sélection-nées, à savoir �e Holy Qur’an : Translation and Commentary d’Ali (1983), �e Holy Qur’an : English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary de la Présidence (1992) et �e meaning of the glorious Qur’an : explanatory Translation de Pickthall (2002). Les trois traductions de cha-que ELSI ont été comparées sémantiquement et opposées en référence à trois principales exé-gèses musulmanes, notamment Tafseer Al- Qur’an Al- Kareem d’Ibn Kahtir (1997), Safwat Al- Tafaseer d’Al- Sabuni (2001) et Al- Kashshaf d’Al- Zamakhshari (2005). Outre l’examen des textes et contextes pertinents des ELSIs sélectionnés, les trois exégèses ont aussi été utilisées comme point de départ de la détection et de l’identi�cation de la signi�cation invisible, et de l’évaluation des trois traductions sélectionnées. L’étude a montré que les ELSIs sont problématiques et élusifs en traduction, en ce sens qu’ils provoquent sans cesse une inévitable perte de traduction. De plus, la traduction de ces cas né-cessite une formation linguistique- exégétique sans laquelle les résultats sont insatisfaisants et déformants. En�n, une bonne interprétation et une traduction correcte de tout ELSI ne por-te pas seulement sur son contexte textuel ou sur un contexte plus large (le contexte biblique et théologique) mais également sur une combinaison des deux. La périphéralisation de cette com-binaison a révélé que de nombreuses nuances sémantiques et particularités des ELSIs sélection-nés étaient soit transmises partiellement, soit complètement supprimées. L’incapacité de saisir la signi�cation invisible dans les traductions sélectionnées a également été expliquée

About the authors

Dr. Al- Kharabsheh is an assistant professor of Translation. He obtained his B.A. in English language and literature from Yarmouk University, Jordan (1996), his M. A. in Translation from Yarmouk University (1999), and his PhD in Translation from �e University of Salford, UK (2003). He has taught Translation, English Linguistics and Arabic Grammar in the UK for



three years (2000–2003). Al- Kharabsheh has been teaching Translation, Interpreting, and English linguistics at the English Department at �e Hashemite University, Jordan since 2003. Al- Kharabsheh's main research interests include translation and interpreting, comparative and contrastive linguistics, lexical semantics, pragmatic semantics, and corpus- based translation studies. His recent publication (2005) is entitled "�e Interpretation of Terminological Con-structions: �e Case of Technico- Scienti�c Nominal Compounds" Journal of Language and Lin-guistics, Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 161–182.Address: �e English Department, �e Hashemite University, P. O. Box 330186, Zarqa 13133, Jordan.Email: [email protected]/[email protected]

Dr. Al- Azzam is an assistant professor of Translation. He obtained his B.A in English Lan-guage and Literature from Yarmouk University, Jordan (1991), his MA in Translation from Yar-mouk University, Jordan (1998), and his PhD in Translation from the University of Durham, UK (2005). He worked as a full- time lecturer of English at Jordan University of Science and Tech-nology (1999–2002), a lecturer of Arabic at Durham University, UK (2003–2005), and a lecturer of Arabic at the Centre for Lifelong Learning at the University of Sunderland, UK (2004–2005). Presently, he is teaching at the Department of English at the Hashemite University, Jordan. He is mainly interested in religious translation, literary translation, cultural issues in translation, interpretation, and semantics.

Address: �e English Department, �e Hashemite University, P. O. Box 330186, Zarqa 13133, Jordan.Email: [email protected]

TRADUIRE

TRADUIRE TRADUIRE

Revue de la Société Française des Traducteurs

TRADUIRE, revue trimestrielle, réunit des articles d’auteurs de tous hori-zons – praticiens, théoriciens, terminologues, donneurs d’ouvrage, gens de lettres – dans des numéros tantôt thématiques, tantôt hétérogènes. Outre les articles de fond, interviews, enquêtes et autres tribunes, TRADUIRE rend compte des différentes manifestations telles que col-loques, ateliers, Journée mondiale de la traduction, organisées par la Société Française des Traducteurs et par d’autres instances, ainsi que des publications – revues, dictionnaires, ouvrages traductologiques – in-téressant les traducteurs aussi bien au titre immédiat de leur pratique quotidienne que comme horizon de réflexion.

Abonnement (4 numéros par an): € 58 TTC pour la France (tarif 2007)Autres pays: contacter le sécretariat.

TRADUIRE / Société Française des TraducteursS.F.T. CERTEx, 22, Rue de la Pépinière – 75008 Paris – France

Téléphone: +33 1 42 93 99 96 – Télécopie: +33 1 45 22 33 55Courriel: [email protected]

John Benjamins Publishing Company · stood su˚ciently (cf. al- Ghazālī 1932: 13; al- Shā˙‘ī...

Documents

Transcript of John Benjamins Publishing Company · stood su˚ciently (cf. al- Ghazālī 1932: 13; al- Shā˙‘ī...