British Society for Middle Eastern Studies

Qur'an Translation: Discourse, Texture and Exegesis by Hussein Abdul-Raof Review by: James Dickins British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Nov., 2005), pp. 283-285 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30037710 . Accessed: 06/12/2013 12:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and British Society for Middle Eastern Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 12:29:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

F: REVIEWS: LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

AND TEXTURE HUSSEIN ABDUL-RAOF. DISCOURSE, QUR'ANTRANSLATION: Curzon EXEGESIS. 2001, ISBN 0700712275 (Hardcover). Press,Richmond, This book is writtenfrom the perspectiveof a practisingMuslim with a profound knowledge of Qur'anic exegesis and associated disciplines such as rhetoric (baldgha). It provides a survey of Qur'anic stylistics and, to lesser extent semantics and grammar,and considers the implications these have for Qur'an translation. A wide range of topics are covered, including general issues in religious translation,syntactic features of the Qur'an,ellipsis, lexical repetition, alliteration,assonance,figuresof speech, and Qur'anictexture,as well as general background material on the text and exegesis of the Qur'an. The book is strongin its analysisof the Qur'an fromthese perspectives.The author particularly both the subtletyof the Qur'anic text, andthe impossibilityof clearly demonstrates relaying all these subtleties simultaneouslyin a translationof the Qur'an. The book accepts the traditionalIslamic doctrineof the Inimitability(i 'jdz) of the Qur'an,arguingthat the Qur'anhas unique structuraland other featuresnot sharedby otherArabic texts Althoughthis may be true, the argumentitself is not exemplified;no otherArabictext, whetherpoetryor prose, is analysedin the book Arabic writing.The in orderto show how the Qur'andiffers from more standard notion thatthe Qur'an displaysuniquefeaturesalso raises anotherissue. Normally readersrecognise linguistic featuresbecause they are iconic, that is imitative of reality(e.g. extremecases of onomatopoeia),or because they obey extra-linguistic the known conventionsof a language (e.g. that 'John'is a man's name in English but 'Jean' a woman's name), or because of a combinationof imitativeness and conventionality (e.g. 'cuckoo' in English; cf. the also imitative but differently conventionalised Kuckuck in German). If Qur'anic cohesion (Chapter 3), for example,has uniquefeaturesnot sharedby otherArabictexts, the issue arisesas to how these featuresarerecognisedby readersas cohesive, i.e. as helpingto bind the text together- since the uniquenessof these featuresseems to imply both thatthey are not imitative of extra-linguisticreality and that they fall outside the normal conventions of the language. The discussion of Qur'an translations is generally insightful and thoughtprovoking. My main caveat relates to the issue of translatability.Two central argumentsare invoked in the book. The first is that there is no such thing as a perfect translation: all translation involves some kind of loss, because all languages and culturesrepresentedare different.Thus, a translationmay succeed (perhapseven perfectly) in conveying the message content of an original text. However, there are bound to be losses other kinds, for instance at the level of alliterationor other phonic devices. The second argumentis that the Qur'an is than other texts, and may even be uniquely untranslatable. more untranslatable The first argumentis uncontroversialin translationstudies, and is in practice borne out by close analysis of original texts and their translations.The second argument can be seen as an extension of the Islamic doctrine of Qur'anic Inimitability(i'jaz); if nothingcan be producedin Arabic,andby extensionin any language, of the same sublimity as the Qur'an,no translationof the Qur'ancan 283

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 12:29:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS:LANGUAGEAND CULTURE

fully match the original: 'the word of God cannot be reproducedby the word of man' as the authorputs it (p. 1). The two argumentsare not kept entirely distinct. The well-exemplifiedargumentthat even a relatively adequateQur'antranslation is difficultto achieve tends to be linked to the more poorly substantiated claims of the unique untranslatablity of the Qur'an. The concernto demonstrate thatthe Qur'anis untranslatable also tendstowardsa focus on the deficienciesof Qur'antranslations, ratherthanan examination of their merits. The Koran for is in specific Arberry's Interpreted, example, many ways a remarkable of work and the translation to to piece onlyfull-length attempt consistently mirror of therhythmic andotherpoetic-type of theQur' anitself.It something properties to haveananalysisof therhythmical features would,forexample,havebeeninteresting of a sectionof Arberry 's translation as compared to thoseof the Qur'anic original. The deficiency-oriented perspectivesometimesgives rise to a lack of interestin other respects to actual or possible translations. For instance, in discussing (Q 18: 13), the authorsays, quotingthe translation'We relate 4 r' ~ ~ to thee their story in truth', that in respect of alliteration 'equivalent rhetorical texturecannotbe provided' (p. 119). The translation is in fact densely alliterative, the repetitionof 'r', 't' 'th' (if we include togetherthe phonemes/0/ and/8/) being particularlyprominent.Whetherthe translationprovides an equivalentrhetorical textureto thatof the originaldependson whetherthe textualeffects of thesepatterns of alliterationin the two languagescan be takento be the same. Similarly, the authorargues that Qur'anicmetaphoris typically untranslatable into English, giving as one example ".L 'barren, sterile' (p. 96) in I (Q51: 41), translated as: 'We sent against them the IyP. *, ~~Ij1 'barren, devastating Wind'. The author explains that the wind is called sterile' because it was hoped that it would bring life-giving water, but instead turned into a destructive hurricane (p. 115). He notes that of various nonmetaphoricaltranslationsexamined, none, such as 'life-destroying' (Asad) or 'fatal' (Pickthall), relay the associated contextual meaning of the metaphoric Qur'anic expression (p.116). However, metaphoricalpossibilities in English are not explored.While 'sterile', for example, is probablyto ruledout, on the grounds of having too strong medical and/or technical associations, 'barren wind' (arguably metonymic rather than metaphorical) seems a perfectly reasonable English translation r41'.lC retaining both the literal and non-literal senses of the Qur'anic original; 'barrenwind' is in / (metaphorical metonymic) fact used by Syed Abu-Ala' Mawdudiin his translationof this Qur'anicpassage. Anotherexample where I felt the translation meritedmore attentionis provided 'until the camel can by i pass throughthe eye of the needle' The author notes the 40; (from Q7: p. 115). hyperbolicnatureof this. However, to of a Christian cultural anyone backgroundwhat is most striking about both the and the translation is the echo of Jesus' statement'It is easier for a camel original to pass throughthe eye of a needle thanfor a rich man to enterinto the Kingdomof Heaven' (Matthew 19: 24). This echo certainly has translation implications (perhapseven contradictory ones), which are worth considering. The author argues at various points, particularly Chapter 4, that Qur'an translationshould have an exegetic element. For example, he commends Yusuf
Ali's translation of jijji
(Q4: 34)

'As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next) refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly)'. 284

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 12:29:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS: LANGUAGE AND CULTURE - beat them gently) He comments: 'Ali has rightly renderedthe word 28). While not wishing to according to the meaning provided by exegetes' (p. y.Aja.,.I of this verse, I believe that the challenge the traditionalexegetical interpretation translation raises significantissues: does "i in Qur'anicArabicreally mean 'to hit lightly', or is this an interpretation (exegesis) of how the hitting should be carried out? I believe that if the 'lightly' element is exegetical, rather than linguistic, there is a case for keeping it out of the actual translation(even as a bracketedelement), and puttingit into a specifically exegetical footnote. The above caveats notwithstanding,this is a very useful book. It presents in condensed form a large amount of informationon the Qur'anictext, combining Arabic grammar and rhetoricwith insights from modem analysesfrom traditional text linguistics. I found some of the author's own proposals (e.g. the structural analyses on pp. 68-75) particularly interesting.Scholarsinterestedin the language of the Qur'an,from whatever perspective, as well as Arabic-Englishtranslation specialists, will benefit from this book. UNIVERSITYOF DURHAM JAMES DICKINS

JAMESDICKENS,SANDORHERVEY& IAN HIGGINS. THINKINGARABIC A COURSE IN TRANSLATION TRANSLATION. METHOD: ARABIC TOENGLISH. ISBN 0415250641 London, 2002, (Hardcover). Routledge, This book consists of eighteen chapters and is supplementedby a twelve-page andArabic-language and references,and a Latin-script glossary,English-language 4 to tackle translation as and index. process Arabic-script Chapters1 product,and discuss cultural and compensation issues. Chapters 5 to 11 cover aspects of semantics and the formal propertiesof text. Stylistic issues and genre are dealt within with in chapters12 and 13, whereaschapters14 to 16 focus on translation specific genres, such as scientific, constitutional,and consumer-orientedtexts. Chapter17 tackles revision and editing of the targettext. Each of these seventeen chaptersare reinforcedby two practicalsbased on Arabic source texts covering a wide-rangingchoice of genres, such as political, journalistic,literary,academic, to develop solutionsto touristic,etc. These exercises aim at trainingthe translator translationproblems.The source texts, like the rest of the Arabic sections in the book, are presentedin a very clear printand in a suitablesize of font and spacing. Finally, chapter18 presentsa summaryand conclusion. This translationtextbook may be conveniently covered duringone academic year, and althoughit focuses on translating from Arabicinto English, thus targetingnative speakersof English, it can be equally beneficial to Arab students. is not directlyconcernedwith translation Arabic Translation AlthoughThinking commended for the lucid way in which they present the authors are to be theory, the essential theoreticalnotions. The technical terminologyis clearly markedin bold lettersand collated in the glossarywhere it is succinctlyexplained.A number of theoretical and practical issues, such as synonymy, hyperonymy-hyponymy, etc. are capturedin very effective simple figures partiallyoverlappingtranslation, which go a long way in relieving the readerfrom the usual drab of theoretical treatises. 285

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 12:29:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions