LOST IN TRANSLATION
Oleh: Nuim Khaiyath
MONASH 08-10-04
Brothers:
There is a saying in the English language “lost in translation”.
The message in that saying is that, nothing is as it is when translated into another language.
The classic example of this is the translation of a verse from the Old Testament which reads “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”, which, according to a story, was translated into Russian, which when retranslated into English, reads “the vodka is good, but the meat is rotten”.
Apparently the Russian translator immediately thought of Russia’s favourite alcoholic beverage, the vodka, when he saw the word spirit and as for the flesh his mind seemingly immediately wandered to the Christian communion in which Christians believe that the bread that is put by the priest on their tongue turns instantaneously into Christ’s body/flesh while the wine becomes Christ’s blood.
Muslims have no comment whatsoever if other people, in this respect Christians, believe in cannibalism, the eating of human flesh, albeit Jesus’, and the drinking of his blood. It is entirely and absolutely their business.
But Muslims must take exception when their - that is our - holy Scripture - The Qur’an - is deliberately emasculated, distorted, perhaps through ignorance but most probably by sinister design in the name of translation by non Muslims, in particular Christians.
A Muslim commentator recently wrote that translations of the Qur’an, particularly into European languages, English and French mainly, have long been a battleground.
Ostensibly, the purpose of translating the most sacred text of Islam is to make it accessible to those without mastery of the Arabic, in particular Quranic language, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
But, alas, English translations of the Qur’an have frequently been used to subvert the text as well as its real message.
As we know the word Qur’an itself means “reading” or that which should be read. It is an epic poetic text, meant to be read aloud, whose true import can be communicated only in the original - Arabic.
As you know the Maronite Christians in the Middle East, have translated the Bible into Arabic. However, not a sentence or a verse in that Arabic Bible has the inimitable symphonic beauty, grandeur and the profundity of meaning which is the Qur’an.
Hence a translation of the Qur’an, no matter how geniusly it is rendered, will never ever be that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which, especially when rendered by such Qari as Ustadz Abdul Bashit Abdushshamad - Allahyarhamu - will move Muslim men and women, even those who do not understand Arabic, to tears of piety and ecstasy.
This is why both classical and contemporary Muslim scholars and jurists agree that the translation of the Qur’an cannot be read during daily prayers. Indeed, some scholars go so far as to argue that the Qur’an cannot be written in letters other than the original Arabic characters.
It is not just the heightened language and poetic nature of the Qur’an that creates problems for translators. The Qur’an is not a book like any other. It definitely cannot be compared with, for example the Torah or the Bible, simply because it is not a book of narrative records of ancient peoples - although it does contain some stories of prophets and earlier nations.
It is not a linear text with a chronological order or a “logical” beginning, middle and end. Its chapters can be very short or very long.
The Qur’an repeats stories in different chapters, often skips from one subject to another, and offers instruction on the same subject in different places. It has a specific lattice structure that connects every word and every verse with every other word and verse by rhythm, rhyme and meaning.
European thinkers have frequently used the special structure of the Qur’an to denigrate the Holy Book.
Even that very sensible and fair minded British poet and thinker, Thomas Carlyle found the Qur’an (he spelled it The Koran) to be, and I quote, “a wearisome confused jumble”, and declared that only “a sense of duty could carry any European through the Koran.”
The 18th century French philosopher Constantin Volney described the Qur’an as “a tissue of vague, contradictory declamations of ridiculous, dangerous precepts.”
Given that most European translators have seen the Qur’an in this way, it is not surprising that their translations have left a great deal to be desired. Some have even gone so far as to say that the Qur’an lacks the necessary structure, logic and rationality to be thought of as a book at all.
Yet the French surgeon, author of “The Bible, The Qur’an and Science”, Maurice Bucaille, acknowledged that he was “surprised to find statements - in the Qur’an - on natural phenomena whose meaning can only be understood through modern scientific knowledge.”
Such as the verse in Azzumar - The Crowd - verse 5:
“Yoo kawwirool laila ‘alannahaar
Wa yoo kawwiroonnahaar ‘ala lail”
The important word here is “kawwara” whose original meaning is to coil turban around the head. This is a totally valid comparison; yet at the time the Qur’an was revealed, the astronomical data necessary to make this comparison were still unknown.
However, when the American Neil Armstrong was on the moon in July 1969, he observed the earth spinning on it axis, and more significant still in the context of our khutbah today, the dark half of the globe appeared to Neil Armstrong, and to us who watched the event live on our television, to wind itself around the light and the light half appeared to wind itself around the dark.
This is what is meant by Dr. Maurice Bucaille as natural phenomena, which are only understandable through modern scientific knowledge. And is this but only a bit of such knowledge to be found in the Qur’an. Subhanallah; subhanallah, subhanallah.
So if many of those critics of the Qur’an mentioned earlier found the Muslim Holy Scripture not up to their liking, it was because of their ignorance. Nothing more, nothing less.
Listen to these facts:
The first direct translation of the Qur’an into English was by George Sale in 1734; this, Sale said, provided clear evidence that the Qur’an was the work of several authors.
Nonsense. Until now people, literary people, have still not been able to determine conclusively that all of William Shakespeare’s works, were either actually written by him alone or together with or by Christopher Marlow alone.
Subsequent translators thought that the only way to make any sense of the Qur’an was to rearrange it into some sort of chronological order. The first translation to do so - by J.M. Rodwell, rector of St. Ethelburga, London - was published in 1861. A more thorough rearrangment was attempted by Richard Bell, a noted Scottish Orientalist, whose translation, published in Edinburgh in four editions between 1937 and 1939, was titled The Qur’an, Translated, With a Critical Rearrangement of the Surahs.
Playing havoc, being too smart by half, with the structure of the Qur’an, however, was not enough.
Translators used omission, distortion and mistranslation to subvert the message and meaning of the Holy Book.
Consider, for example, the most widely available - and most fondly quoted by many non Muslims, including scholars -the translation in English by one N.J. Dawood, the first edition of which was published by Penguin - a very reputable publisher - in 1956.
This translation subverts the original in several ways.
Often a single word is mistranslated in a verse to give it totally the opposite meaning.
For example in Al Baqarah, part of verse 217 in which Allah swt says:
“Wal fitnatoo akbaroo minal qatl”.
N.J. Dawood translates it into English thus:
“Idolatry is worse than carnage”.
The word translated as “idolatry” is “fitnah” which actually means “persecution or oppression” not at all idolatry. Hence in “The Message of the Qur’an” Translated and Explained by Muhammad Asad, that particular verse is rendered into English thus:
“Oppression is more awesome than killing”
But N.J. Dawood’s translation conveys and impression that the Qur’an, Allah swt, will put up with carnage but not idolatry. Carnage means “slaughter, killing”.
See how distorted that translation which is still in existence.
In fact the Qur’an is making persecution and oppression a crime greater than murder.
At other times, Dawood uses subtle mistranslation to give an undertow of violence to the language of the Qur’an.
This is evident even in his translation of chapter titles. “Azzumar” which simply means “crowd” a group of people is translated as “The Hordes” which usually means a large group of people with bad intention. Such as the Mongol Hordes – which conjures an image of thousands of men on horseback ready to pillage and ransack.
“AS-Saff” which means “the ranks” is translated as “Battle Array” ready for war or killing.
“Al ‘Alaq” which literally means “that which clings” and refers to the embryo as it attaches to the wall of the uterus, is translated as “Clots of Blood” - perhaps intended to conjure an imagery of gruesomeness or goriness.
In my research among Muslim translators of the Qur’an, and they are very well versed in English and Arabic, “Al ‘Alaq” is usually translated just as “The Clot”. Hence, what is intended to convey the idea of birth, Dawood projects as the notion of death – blood.
There are numerous other attempts of distortions and mistranslations, which obviously are intended to vilify Islam; to discredit it and cast it in a very bad light.
Notwithstanding that most Muslims, including me, have done nothing to rectify such deliberate sinister attempts to cast Islam in a very negative light, from time to time Allah swt has and will always cause His servants to do something.
Hence the recent work by Muhammad Abdul Haleem, professor of Islamic studies at The London School of Oriental and African Studies.
Prof. Muhammad Abdul Haleem not only set out to translate the Qur’an as such, but to do so in a way that can easily be understood even by English speaking non Muslims.
Many non Muslims, especially Christians, have no idea whatsoever about the Qur’an. They, in their simplicity tinged with arrogance, often think that the Qur’an is just another religion’s Bible, a Scripture written dozens of years after the crucifixion of Jesus, as is believed by Christians, but not Muslims, and written by people or gospellers who never knew Jesus and whom Jesus himself never came to know, yet believed by many Christians as the word of God.
The Qur’an was revealed over a period of 23 years and is a product of what is known as “asbaaboon noozool” - the cause of revelation.
That is why in his translation of nthe Qur’an, Prof. Abdul Haleem, points out in the introduction, you cannot lift a single verse out of context and use it to argue a point or to show what the Qur’an has to say about something.
To illustrate the point, Prof. Abdul Haleem refers to the oft-quoted verse:
“Waqtooloohoom haistoo staqiftoo moohoom” (Al Baqarah 191)
which means: And slay them wherever you find them.
This was taken out of context by Dawood, says Prof. Haleem, and thus used to justify the claim that the Qur’an sanctions violence against non Muslims; and after September 11 2001, to rationalise the actions of extremists.
In fact, the only situation in which the Qur’an sanctions violence is in self-defence.
That particular verse “Waqtooloo hoom haistoo staqiftoo moohoom” has a context: the Muslims, performing pilgrimage in the sacred precinct in Mecca were under attack and did not know whether they were permitted to retaliate.
The verse was revealed allowing them, in that particular instance, to retaliate.
The verse permits them to fight back on this - but not necessarily any other - occasion.#