Lower-Plane Qurʾan Translation:

Exegetical Inroads into Translation

A relationship of confluence holds between Qur'an translation and commentary. On the
one hand, there is a great exegetical tradition built around this most sacred Islamic Text,
which cannot be simply ignored if the end product of a translation is to be of any success.
This tradition arose from either different interpretational stand points of this hyper
sensitive Text or from sincere intentions of making explicit and penetrable its language
which is shrouded in the veil of time. On the other hand, the translator, while drawing on
this wealth of scholarly subtexts that run along the Prime Text, should not fall in the trap
of getting himself captive to them nor allow his translation to get overloaded or the
representation, to be permeated by it to the extent that it would only be seen through its
kaleidoscope. Such awareness, if existent in the first place, is seldom realized in the
actual mentally demanding act of translating. The line is thin indeed and has to be
clearly demarcated. This long tradition of commentary is not to be ignored altogether
but its flow in the final product of the translation has to be filtered and checked if the
original text is to be better represented and lower-plane translations are to be avoided.

Keywords: the Qur'an, tafsīr (commentary, exegesis, interpretation), Qur'an translation, subtexts, parallel texts

Scene-setting:
History of Qur'an translation proper can be traced back to the year 1143 when Robert of Ketton
produced the first complete Latin version at the behest of his patron, the Abbot of Cluny.i Ever since
this beginning it has phenomenally expanded in terms of both quantity – within many a one given
language or in different languages – and in terms of methodology and approach.ii A history as ancient
and vibrant as this inevitably saw the encroachment of the essentially explicatory act of exegesis on
the essentially imitative act of translation as they both share an element of interpretation. In fact, this
is so much so that one would always find a fly in the ointment. The reasons behind this state of
affairs are legion, but, generally, they can be categorised into necessary, manipulative and
inadvertent inroads. This critical situation lead to the so-called Monotheist Group producing their
very recent translation which they dubbed, the Qur'an: A Pure and Literal Translation, with the
following decrial:
With so many English translations of the Qur'an available, it is inevitable that
the reader would ask: why make another one? The answer to this question lies
in the current structure of the Islamic faith, and the fact that, for many
centuries, Islam has been primarily sub-categorized either as Sunni or Shia or
one of the many other denominations that have emerged over the years. As
such, all translations have belonged to one school of thought or another which
clearly comes across in the interpretation of and choice of translation for
specific words or verses…. Also, while many translators have been sincere in
their rendering of the Arabic meaning of the words, they have been unable to
refrain from adding comments in the form of parenthesis within the text of the
translation or in the form of footnotes and appendices to reflect their views on
certain verses or the views of the denomination they adhere to. The Qur'an is
unique in the fact that it uses neither footnotes nor comments letting the text
speak for itself and delivering to the reader as close a rendition of the pure
message of the Qur'an as physically possible. (Blurb)

Although they manage to bring to the fore the issue of the prevalence of certain exegetical acts in
translation practice, it remains to be seen whether they were successful in freeing translation from

10
 exegetical encroachments and really making "the text speak for itself". However, this is besides the
point, what is of relevance within the remit of the current paper is that this relationship indeed merits
serious explorative study.

Preliminary discussion:
The starting question is; can the Qur'an be separated from its interpretation? And, more importantly;
is Qur'an translation separable from commentary? Although related, the answers to these two
questions bring into sharp focus that translation and exegesis are too different; while the first entails
only understanding the Text, the second merges the subtext with it to, in some cases, an inseparable
extent.
The answer to the first part of the question is twofold. Physically the two are very separate indeed—
all sorts of ways have been employed by Muslim copyists throughout the ages to set the divine
Qur'an apart from its human interpretation. Prominent among these are simply by using the Qur'an's
unique Uthmanic orthography, beautiful hand,iii and by allocating it the pride of place on the page (or
folio) while the exegesis runs on its margins.iv In other instances the part of the Qur'an to be
interpreted is quoted, set apart from the interpretation that comes below it by the graphic features of
the Uthmanic orthography and beautiful hand. In other instances colours, illuminations, flowering
brackets, ornate bullets, and different calligraphy and font size are also made use of. Mixing the two
is indeed out of the question;v the interpretation comes only second to the Qur'an and subordinate to
it, thus the physical representation as such. With the advent of modern printing technologies, this
time-honoured tradition has been underlined rather than undermined. Cognitively, that the reading of
the Text will be affected by these parallel texts is two obvious to be ignored. Exegesis is very
important for understanding the Qur'an. Muqātil (2003: 1, 27), a forefather of Qur'an commentary,
further expounds on what is at stake in understanding the Qur'an:
The Qur'an contains references to particular and general things (khāṣṣ and
c
āmm), particular references to Muslims and particular references to
polytheists, general references to all people; it contains unequivocal and
ambiguous passages (muḥkam and mutashābih), explained and unexplained
passages (mufassar and mubham); it contains deletions and explicit utterances
(idhmār and tamām); it contains connective items; abrogating and abrogated
āyahs (nāsikh and mansūkh); it contains changes in word order; it contains
similar utterances with many different aspects (ashbāh); it contains passages
that are continued in a different sūrah; it contains accounts of earlier
generations and accounts of what is there is in Paradise and Hell; it contains
reference to one particular polytheist; it contains commandments; laws,
ordinances; it contains parables by which God Almighty refers to Himself,
parables by which He refers to unbelievers and idols, and parables by which
He refers to this world, to resurrection and to the world to come; it contains
accounts of what is in the hearts of the believers, and accounts of what is in
the hearts of the unbelievers, polemics against the Arabian polytheists; and it
contains explanations, and for each explanation there is an explanation.

To answer the second part of the starting question above (Is Qur'an translation separable from
commentary?), one has to recognise that basically exegesis is explicatory in nature while translation
is imitative or quasi-imitative. Tradition has it that with exegesis the Original will always be there
overhanging and overarching. The act of reading is linear: first the original is read, according to set
rules of recital, and then the interpretation is read as a helping aid for understanding and gaining
insight. Nobody is liable to fall into the trap of intellectually delusively mixing the Text with the
subtext: the segregation of the two is too obvious to miss. Within the Muslim context, the separation
is further emphasised by a longstanding tradition of public explanation of certain Qur'an passages,
whereby the Qur'an is read first and then explained.

10
 This dimension is lost in translation. Here the Original is practically replaced by the
translation/imitation. Thus strict rules have been put in place lest that the translation of the Qur'an is
to be taken for the Qur'an itself.vi Among these are the emphasis on including the Arabic Original in
the translation and including the word "meanings of" in the title, or a variant of it to the same effect.
Needless to say, however, that these precautionary measures are not followed to the letter by all
translators. Besides, even if these rules where adhered to, by virtue of posing as a representation of
the Original, translation will be seen as a reflection of it no matter how subordinate it may be taken to
be. Further explanatory additions, not all of which are exegetical in nature, as we will see shortly, are
often added in translations by means of: parentheses, footnotes (endnotes), prefatory notes, glossaries
and appendices. Yet, the superimposition of exegesis on translation is fairly common. Additionally,
exegesis is quintessentially different from translation in that it directly quotes references from other
religious disciplines, such as Prophetic Traditions and biography, jurisprudence, and science of uṣūl,
while translation most likely relies on these in the stage of the analysis of the Original more than in
that of the synthesis of the target text. Some translations may, very well, include references to these
in out-of-the-text annotations, yet still there are some that may superimpose some of these within the
text of the translation itself.vii

An immediate question arses here: what does the translator need the exegetical corpus for? Just like
any other reader, modern-day readers in particular, the translator needs tafsīr in order to decode the
Qur'an and understand its message. However, unlike any other reader, translators are required to
commit their understanding in writing into a different language. The exigencies of the act of
translating are indeed enormous in both the stages of analysis of the Original text and synthesis of the
target text. Moreover, unlike any other translator, the Qur'an translator, is to fulfil the monumental
task of translating a Text unlike any other both in terms of its source and multi-faceted uniqueness.
Fazlur Rahman contends:
There is a consensus among those who know Arabic well, and who appreciate
the genius of the language, that in the beauty of its language and the style and
power of its expression the Qur'an is a superb document. The linguistic
nuances simply defy translation. Although all inspired language is
untranslatable, this is even more the case with the Qur'an. (Moosa: 14)

The pressure, not counting extra-textual pressures, is much greater in the case of the Qur'an translator
thus in their loneliness translators do find support and solace in the exegetical corpus. M.M. Pickthall
([1930] 1999: xiii) sums up the dilemma in the introduction to his Qur'an:
The Qur'an cannot be translated. That is the belief of old-fashioned Sheykhs
and the view of the present writer. The Book is here rendered almost literally
and every effort has been made to choose befitting language. But the result is
not the glorious Qur'an, that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which
move men to tears and ecstasy. It is only an attempt to present the meaning of
the Qur'an—and peradventure something of the charm—in English. It can
never take the place of the Qur'an in Arabic, nor is it meant to do so.

Another translator, who decided to take up the gauntlet, puts it so:

Briefly, the rhetoric and rhythm of the Arabic of the Koran are so
characteristic, so powerful, so highly emotive, that any version whatsoever is
bound in the nature of things to be but a poor copy of the glittering splendour
of the original.... My chief reason for offering this new version of a book
which has been "translated" many times already is that in no previous
rendering has a serious attempt been made to imitate, however imperfectly,
those rhetorical and rhythmical patterns which are the glory and the sublimity
of the Koran. (Arberry: 24-45)

10
 In the face of this, and in order to produce a translation that is acceptable both in form and style,
translators are very likely to intervene while carrying out their task. Two types of intervention are
identifiable:
1- Translational intervention: can take place both within the body of the text and
outside it. Examples of translational intervention take shape in the form of: accounting for
cultural and linguistic equivalence; compensating for loss; aiding reading; pronouncing
pronoun referents; explaining translational choice (as in the case of diverting from certain
inherited translation choices); answering for failings in translation.
2- Exegetical intervention: may materialise in the following examples: expounding
more the meanings of certain lexical items; providing asbāb an-nuzūl (reasons of
revelation); explaining a sharcī ruling; highlighting the relevance between āyahs and
sūrahs; explaining the ambiguous (tawḍīḥ al-mubham); spelling out the inclusive (tafṣīl
al-mujmal); precisely identifying the unrestricted (taqyīd al-mutlaq); pinpointing the
generalized (takhṣīṣ al-cāmm); adding their own exegetical remarks.

One may divide intervention into two types:

3- Further random intervention: involves putting a tafsīr in place of a direct
translation serving no obvious agenda. Further they can be divided into: (a) necessary
transposition dictated by the nature of the Qur'anic text itself—as in the case of not being
able to actually visualize the meaning and having a mental picture of it. And (b)
unnecessary transposition attributed to carelessness or incompetence on the part of the
translator.
4- Pre-meditated intervention: mostly aimed at controlling the Text and to manipulate
its authority. These either come as part of the translator's strategy; or as a part of his bias
(impartiality).

No claim here is made that the dependency of Qur'an translation on tafsīr is to be undermined or that
the two can by any means be prised apart, but to be all the more aware of the nomenclature and
nature of this relationship. This should prove of benefit to on-going and up-coming translation
projects in their attempt to raise the standard and to better reflect the Qur'an through translation.
Qur'an translators should beware not to let the commentary seep into the translation, the aim must be
to let the Qur'an speak for itself as much as possible and disengage it from subtexts and check the
subtexts in place, that is in annotations viii but not in the body of the text itself. The aim must be to
overcome, as much as possible, the intermediary rule of the exegetical corpus – whose importance in
understanding the Original is undeniable – in the actual representation available in the product of
translation.

Illustrations:
I give the following examples as illustration:ix the first being the translation of ayah 15:99:

al-Hilali and Khan And worship your Lord until there comes unto you the certainty (i.e.
death).
Muhammad Ali And serve thy Lord, until there comes to thee that which is certain.
M.M. Pickthall And serve thy Lord till the Inevitable cometh unto thee.
Rashad Khalifah And worship your Lord, in order to attain certainty.
Sheikh Muhammad Worship your Lord until you achieve the ultimate certainty.
Sawar
M.H. Shakir And serve your Lord until there comes to you that which is certain.
Sher Ali And continue worshiping thy Lord till death comes to thee.
A. Yusuf Ali And serve thy Lord until there come unto thee the Hour that is Certain.

10
 Muhammd Ali, Pickthall, Shakir provide a literal translation of the Original (yaqīn). Al-Hilali and
Khan intervene exegetically by explaining that what is meant by "certainty" is "death". Going a step
further Sher Ali actually replaces with literal with the exegetical "death". It is helpful to note here
that yaqīn (the certain) in this āyah is interpreted by almost all mainstream Muslim authorities as
"death", yet there is a different understanding of in some quarters. Extreme stands of Sufism interpret
it as a certain station which they call yaqīn, if attained by some awliyāʾ they will be relived from the
obligation of performing acts of worship. S.M. Sarwar's translation, to "achieve the ultimate
certainty", reflects this interpretation. Unlike the rest of the translators, Rashad Khalifah, who has
been known for his disregard for the exegetical corpus, found his own interpretation, "to attain
certainty", which subscribes to no standard exegetical stand.x

Another example of a more linguistic nature occurs in ayah 8:7, which has been translated as
follows:
al-Hilali and Khan And (remember) when Allah promised you (Muslims) one of the two
parties (of the enemy i.e. either the army or the caravan) that it should be
yours, you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours,
but Allah willed to justify the truth by His Words and to cut off the roots of
the disbelievers (i.e. in the battle of Badr).
Muhammad Ali And when Allah promised you one of the two parties that it should be
yours, and you loved that the one not armed should be yours, and Allah
desired to establish the Truth by His words, and to cut off the root of the
disbelievers—
M.M. Pickthall And when Allah promised you one of the two bands (of the enemy) that it
should be yours, and ye longed that other than the armed one might be
yours. And Allah willed that He should cause the Truth to triumph by His
words, and cut the root of the disbelievers;
Rashad Khalifah Recall that GOD promised you victory over a certain group, but you still
wanted to face the weaker group. It was GOD's plan to establish the truth
with His words, and to defeat the disbelievers.
Sheikh Muhammad When God promised to grant you (believers) victory over either one of the
Sarwar two groups, you wished to have control over the unarmed one. God
decided to prove (to you) the truth of His promises and to destroy the
unbelievers
M.H. Shakir And when Allah promised you one of the two parties that it shall be yours
and you loved that the one not armed should he yours and Allah desired to
manifest the truth of what was true by His words and to cut off the root of
the unbelievers.
Sher Ali And remember when ALLAH promised you one of the two parties that it
should be yours, and you wished that the one unarmed should be yours,
but ALLAH desired to establish the Truth by HIS words and to cut off the
root of the disbelievers
A. Yusuf Ali Behold! Allah promised you one of the two (enemy) parties, that it should
be yours: Ye wished that the one unarmed should be yours, but Allah
willed to justify the Truth according to His words and to cut off the roots of
the Unbelievers;-

The expression ghayra dhāt-i sh-shawkah (lit. not that of the thorn), involves a figure of speech
where ash-shawkah (thorn) is metaphorically used to express difficulty. This metaphor can be
perfectly easily translated into English as the word "thorn" both in the literal and the figurative senses
correspond with the Arabic shawkah. All of the above translators actually sensed a problem and
resorted to the much toned down overall literal sense of it, which is based on their understanding of

10
 its interpretation i.e. ghayra dhāt-i sh-shawkah (lit. not that of the thorn) being an unarmed easy to
capture caravan as opposed to the more thorny dispatch of soldiers.

Yet another example of this nature is found in ayah 79:14:

al-Hilali and Khan When, behold, they find themselves over the earth alive after their death,
Muhammad Ali When lo! they will be awakened.
M.M. Pickthall And lo! they will be awakened.
Rashad Khalifah Whereupon they get up.
Sheikh Muhammad to bring them out of their graves and back to life on the earth's surface.
Sarwar
M.H. Shakir When lo! they shall be wakeful.
Sher Ali And behold ! they will all come out in the open.
A. Yusuf Ali When, behold, they will be in the (full) awakening (to Judgment).
The lexical item as-sāhirah proved problematic to all of these translators. Their dependence on tafsīr
is brought to the full in this example. Both Ibn Fāris (1991: 3/108-109) and ar-Rāghib al-Isfahānī
(1992: 430) have it that what is meant by it is the earth which is metaphorically spoken of as "the
ever-awaking", as it never sleeps, because of peoples' constant tramping and treading as they walk, or
because of it works day and night without cease about producing plant. The āyah replies to those
who deny that they will be brought to life after their death. This image is lost in all these translations.
Not a single translator was able to capture it, though some of them were wider off the mark than
others.

A linguistically problematic term features in 2:138

al-Hilali and Khan [Our Sibghah (religion) is] the Sibghah (Religion) of Allah (Islam) and
which Sibghah (religion) can be better than Allah's? And we are His
worshippers.
Muhammad Ali (We take) Allah's colour, and who is better than Allah at colouring, and we
are His worshippers.
M.M. Pickthall (We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at
colouring. We are His worshippers.
Rashad Khalifah Such is GOD's system, and whose system is better than GOD's? "Him
alone we worship."
Sheikh Muhammad Say, "Belief in God and following the guidance of Islam are God's means
Sarwar of purification for us. Islam is the baptism of God. No one is a better
baptizer than He and we Muslims worship Him."
M.H. Shakir (Receive) the baptism of Allah, and who is better than Allah in baptising?
and Him do we serve.
Sher Ali Say, `We have adopted the religion of ALLAH; and who is better than
ALLAH in teaching religion, and him alone do we worship.'
A. Yusuf Ali (Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than
Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.
The word sibghah is multi-stratal in meaning. Literally it means "colouring", but it is applied here, by
extension, to "religion", which is Islam, as contrasted to Christianity in which the act of immersion
(colouring) in water, baptism, is taken as an indicator of one's initiation into the religion. So Islam is
the colouring of God, as opposed to Christianity which the colouring of man. There is also the
dimension if Islam being a religion that colours one's life in all states. Although Muhammad Ali and
Picthall managed to capture the essence of the meaning, other translators, particularly, al-Hilali and
Khan who using a double technique of transliteration and bracketing, went a step further towards
superimposing the explicatory on the imitative. Others did not do much better, especially Khalifah
who, by imposing the word "system", broke off from even the exegetical corpus.

10
 Besides the linguistically, there is the exegetically and conceptually problematic. The lexical item
istawā is a telling example. It occurs in ayah 7:54:
al-Hilali and Khan Indeed your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in Six
Days, and then He Istawa (rose over) the Throne (really in a manner
that suits His Majesty).
Muhammad Ali Surely your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six
periods, and He is established on the Throne of Power.
M.M. Pickthall Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days,
then mounted He the Throne.
Rashad Khalifah Your Lord is the one GOD, who created the heavens and the earth in six
days, then assumed all authority.
Sheikh Muhammad Your Lord is God who established His dominion over the Throne (of the
Sarwar realm) after having created the heavens and the earth in six days.
M.H. Shakir Surely your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six
periods of time, and He is firm in power;
Sher Ali Surely, your Lord is ALLAH, who created the heavens and the earth in six
periods, then HE settled Himself firmly on the Throne.
A. Yusuf Ali Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six
days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority):

God's Attributes have been a source of great contention among Muslims. All this division finds its
source in anthropomorphism and the caution or otherwise to apply human attributes to God. This
division cannot be over-emphasised. In fact, certain Muslim denominations like the Mu ctazilites and
the Ashcarites came into being mainly because of their views on this issue. The problem is perceptual
par excellence. Early Muslim stance on it was that of not really touching on it in any way as peoples
belief was in a pristine state. When Imam Mālik (quoted in al-Qurṭubī: 7/218) was asked about it he
replied: "The manner is inconceivable, belief in it is mandatory, asking about it is a bidcah
(ungrounded innovation in religion), and I think you are a man of mischief. Get him out of here!"
Sufyān al-Thawrī's reply to the same question was: "He did an act on the Throne, He called al-
istiwāʾ" (al-Ghazālī: 102). Aṭ-Ṭāhir ibn cĀshūr (2004: 43-50) goes into details on the meaning of al-
istiwāʾ and how it was perceived by different schools throughout the ages. Little wonder then is how
our translators differed in their interpretation based on the school of thought they follow. Some
would have it that in such a case the line of distinction between the stages of analysis and synthesis
of translation becomes very thin indeed.
In fact the issue of Divine Attributes proved to be so much a translational problem that the translators
of a recent English version, widely known as Saheeh International (1997: vi) addressed it:
As for the names and attributes of Allah (suḥānahu wa tacālā), their
translation is surely an impossibility, for even in Arabic they cannot represent
more than an approximation limited by human understanding. To any
description given by Allah to Himself in human terminology, the mind is
required to apply the concept of absoluteness and perfection befitting Him.
Ibn Taymiyyah stated concisely that true belief in Allah (i.e., the correct
Islamic cqeedah of Ahl as-Sunnah) includes belief in whatever is described of
Him in His Book (the Qur'an) or through His Prophet…—belief that is free
from distortion (taḥreef), suspension (tacṭeel), qualification (takyeef) or
comparison (tamtheel).

An interesting case is found in āyah 81:17:

al-Hilali and Khan And by the night as it departs;
Muhammad Ali And the night when it departs.
M.M. Pickthall And the close of night,
Rashad Khalifah By the night as it falls.

10
 Sheikh Muhammad and sit during the day, or by the darkening night
Sarwar
M.H. Shakir And the night when it departs,
Sher Ali And I call to witness the night as it draws to a close,
A. Yusuf Ali And the Night as it dissipates;
The word cascasa in the ayah is said to carry the contradictory meanings of "arrive" and "depart". In
Arabic linguistics such items are termed aḍāda. This is how it is spoken of in the tafsīr corpus and,
by the same token, reflected in the translations above. However, a major chunk of the meaning of
c
ascasa is scooped out in such a simplistic approach. There is an element of imagery to it. Ibn Fāris
(ibid.: 42) says that this word is componentially made of the two elements of (a) approaching and
seeking, and (b) sneaking and stealth. A beautiful imagery characteristically applied to night,
especially as it is contrasted with the day which is described as "breathing" in the following āyah.
Furthermore, the phonic composition of the word also back the added meaning of stealth. xi None of
this wealth of meaning is reflected in the translations above, and the result is feeble representation of
the Original. Total dependence on certain tafsīrs, which are not concerned with linguistic issues, does
not help in reaching a better understanding of the Original and thus producing a better translation.

Discussion:
As we have seen in the examples above, certain exegetical views were, advertently or otherwise,
grafted on the primary text of the translation. To put it otherwise, they were not checked outside the
text and limited to the annotations. By virtue of being a "representation" of the Original, this should
have negative reflections by the new readership's perception of it. There is a marked change in the
conditions of reception for the Text in its translation—many translations are merely periphrastic, a
form of inter-lingual exegesis which have profound implications for its reception by its new readers.
These translations, furthermore, by heavily relying on the tafsīr corpus, wittingly or not, in the stages
of the analysis of the Original and the synthesis of the translation, retain only a fraction of the
Original's force and message. As we have seen in the examples above, this case is not unavoidable.
The relationship of the Original and to its translation can be represented as in the figure below:

The Original: the higher-plane

Quran
:Reflected in

Explicatory sources: the

Exegetic middle-plane
Corpus
:Reflects on

Imitative replica: the lower-

Translation plane

10
 The basic tenet here is that Qur'an translations do not really reflect directly the Original, but they are,
in many cases, mere inter-lingual reflections of a middle layer, which, on its own, is reflective of the
Original. In more cases than not, Qur'an translations do not directly reflect the original, but rely
heavily on its body of explicatory corpus and then represent this in a new linguistic code. Thus the
relation between the Qur'an and its supposed translations is that of an Original and a poor Replica—
retaining only the shadow of the depth of the Original.
There are a number of reasons for this. The present researcher holds the following as pertinent:
1- The nature of certain passages of Qur'an being open for more than one
interpretation. Abu d-Dardāʾ is reported to have said: "You will not be fully knowledgeable until
you see different facets of the Qur'an". When cAlī ibn Abi Ṭālib sent cAbdullah in al-cAbbās to
the Kharijites, he cautioned him: "Go to them and engage them in debate. Do not argue with
them on the basis of the Qur'an as it is of probabilities and facets, but dispute with them on the
basis of Sunnah".xii Although we acknowledge this fact, yet overemphasizing it is not healthy in
translation as this fact is of more significance to interpretation than it is to translation. However,
translators will always find certain readings more suitable than others. By the same token,
translators' bias in a major cause of permeating translation with tafsīr.
2- Of relevance to the previous point but more applicable to translators, is that certain
passages of the Qur'an are not easily comprehended without the aid of tafsīr. Their structure
could also play a part in their intricacy and hence certain portions of tafisr have to be reflected in
translation.
3- Another relevant point is that in the case of lexical items more than any higher
ranking portion of text, their meaning is not easily graspable and a definite perception of them is
not easily available. This results in the translators' resorting to tafsīr, which finds reflection in
their translations.
4- The common perception of Islam being a religion for everyone and the time-
honored practice of explaining its tenets, as exemplified in preaching it to in public places such
as mosques, and basically its original oral tradition lead to the spring somewhat simplistic
discussions for the benefit of laymen. This deeply-entrenched background lead to a tendency for
giving easily graspable synonyms of colourful lexical elements of the original sources of Islam:
The Qur'an and the Sunnah. The effects of this notion on the practice of tafsīr were carried on
the dependent practice of translation.
5- The overwhelming narratives and Qur'an translation discourse which are
possessed by the notion of the Qur'an's "untranslatablity". This has had profound implications for
the practice of Qur'an translating. The tradition of "untranslatablity" is as over drawn is it is
prevalent, that it has impressed an effect so profound in the minds of translators that they
consciously or not succumbed to the notion and did not, in their endeavours, ponder on the
possibilities and venues of the Qur'an's "translatability", and just how feasible this notion is.
Another equally influential notion is that translations are, to no small measure, thought of as
those of the "meanings" of the Qur'an or "interpretations" of it.
6- Recent research in Translation Studies identified the so-called universals of
translation. These are recurrent features typically occurring in translated texts. Prominent among
these universals is the tendency for simplification, of which there are: lexical, syntactic and
stylistic types of simplification. Theorists are of the opinion that lexical simplification operates
according to six principles or strategies, which are: use of subordinate terms when there are no
equivalent hyponyms in the target language, approximation of the concepts expressed in the
source language text, use of common-level; or familiar synonyms, transfer of all functions of a
source language word to its target language equivalent, use of circumlocutions instead of
conceptually matching high-level words or expressions (especially theological, culture –specific
or technical terms), and use of paraphrase where cultural gaps exist between the source and the
target languages. Although, proving that Qur'an translators resort to these strategies merits a
separate study of its own, we are able to identify some of them in the previous examples. What is
particular to Qur'an translators, by contrast to translators of other texts, is that this simplification

10
 tendency is found in exegetical corpus itself. The exegetical "difference of congruence" (ikhtilāf
tanawwuc), as opposed to ikhtilāf taḍaḍḍ (difference of incongruence), in which a certain
Qur'anic word, rich in meaning, is said to be equivalent to a set less meaningful near-synonyms,
is but on manifestation of this exegetical simplification tendency.

Concluding Remarks:
This paper does not constitute a call for literalism. Far from it, what it urges is freeing up Qur'an
translations from gratuitous exegetical intrusions in order to better represent the Original and bring
out some of its richness in translation. Although the importance of exegesis to Qur'an translation is
acknowledged, but being all the more aware of the scope and limits of the relationship between the
two is a very productive, healthy pursuit. As things stand now, there is a real danger of the very deep
Qur'anic message being made two-dimensional and flattened up. "The translation of the Qur'an was
slightly less pleasant and active in emotional tone than everyday English and also less concrete. It
contained an unusual number of negatives and was repetitive but did not contain many rare or long
words", is the result of a psychological study carried on a particular English Qur'an translation
(Whissell: 2004).
One of the main reasons for this lamentable state of affairs is that translators have been so profoundly
influenced by tafsīr that their translations have become overwhelmed by it. Translations have become
representations not of the Original but, in many instances, of the interpretative corpus leading to the
emergence of lower-plane translations. This paper is a first step towards understanding this troubled
relationship, and further studies raising more questions and following different methodologies need
to be undertaken. They should address these serious questions: should exegesis find its place in the
final product of the translation, after it has been utilized in understanding the Text? How much
exegesis should seep through into the final product of the translation? What are the instances in
which this the flow of exegesis is inevitable in the translation? What can we do about it—are there
alternative ways of handling it? What exactly are the reasons behind the confluence of the two?

10
 References
al-Amri, Waleed Bleyhesh (2007) "Qur'an Translatability at the Phonic Level". In
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, vol. 15:3.
Arberry, A.J. (1980) The Koran Interpreted. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Ar-Rāghib al-Isfahānī (1992) Mufradāt Alfaẓ al-Qurʾān. Dār al-Qalam: Damascus.
Az-Zarqānī, Muḥammad cAbdul-cAẓīm (1999) Manāhil al-CIrfān fī cUlūm al-Qurʾān. Dār
al-Macrifah: Beirut.
Fatāwāa ash-Shaikh al-Imām Muḥammad aṭ-Ṭahir ibn cĀshūr (2004). Compiled and
edited by Muḥammd Buzghaibah. Markaz Jumcah al-Mājid li ath-Thaqāfah wa at-Turāth:
Dubai.
Ibn Faris (1991) Mucjam Maqayiīs al-Lughah. Dār al-Jīl: Beirut.
Hill, H. (2006) The Bible at Cultural Crossroads: From Translation to Communication. St.
Jerome Publishing: Manchester.
Khader Salamah (2001) The Qur'an Manuscripts in the al-Haram al-Sharif Islamic
Museum, Jerusalem. UNESCO: Paris.
Kidwai, Abdur-Rahim (2007) Bibliography of the Translations of the Meanings of the
Glorious Qur'an into English—1649-2002: A Critical Survey. King Fahd Glorious Qur'an
Printing Complex: Madinah.
Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. (2001) "Universals of translation". In M. Baker Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Routledge: London
M. N. Sefercioğlu and E. Ihsanoğlu (2000), World Bibliography of Translations of the Holy
Qur’an in Manuscript Form, I. Istanbul: IRCICA.
Moosa, E. (2003) Introduction of F. Rahman, Revival and Reform in Islam. Oneworld:
Oxford.
Picthall, M. (1999) The Glorious Qur'an. Cagri Yayinlari: Istanbul.
Sulaimān al-Qarcāwī (1413 AH) al-Wujūh wa la-Naẓaʾr fī al-Qurʾān al-Karīm. Maktabat
ar-Rushd: Riyadh.
The Qur'an (1997) (translation of the Meaning of the Qur'an, by Saheeh International.
Abulqasim Publishing House: Riyadh.
Whissell, C. (2004) "Emotion and Style in an English Translation of the Qur'an". In
Psychological Reports, 2004, 94, 523-544.

10
i
In fact all attempts in this regard prior to this first Latin version were fragmentary, none of which was a complete concerted effort.
ii
Unfortunately, this spate of Qur'an translation activity was not supplemented by an adequate number of studies, aimed at examining and probing its
different facets.
iii
For more on the physical appearance of the Qur'an viz-a-viz exegesis, cf. M. N. Sefercioğlu and E. Ihsanoğlu (2000), and Khader Salamah (2001).
iv
The term often used to express the appearance of exegetical note alongside the Qur'an is ‫( بحاشيته‬biḥāshiyahihi), i.e. on its margins.
v
Given the nature of humans, some manuscript copyists and bookmakers have diverted from this rule for all sorts of sometimes mundane reasons.
However, this is very much the exception rather than the rule.
vi
Al-Azhar's Qur'an translation criteria in az-Zarqānī (1999: vol. 2, pp. 62-64).
vii
We have to recognize that exegesis here is meant to include those that are in languages other than Arabic. Thus the differences between translation
and exegesis are limited to the ones studied in this paper.
viii
Harriet Hill (2006) sets a distinction between inside the text and outside of the text contextualization. By contextualization she means translators'
additions.
ix
Examples in this article are provided from Clay Smith's Parallel Qur'an: http://www.clay.smith.name, accessed: 2004.03.21
x
In fact the choices of these translators are very much informed by their backgrounds. For background information about the translators discussed in
this article, see Kidwai (2007).
xi
For a detailed discussion of how the phonetic and the semantic are interdependent in certain Qur'anic terms, and how this reflects in translation, see
al-Amri (2007).
xii
Both of these reports are documented in al-Qarcāwī (1413 AH: 21-22)