See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269469083

Qur'an Translation: Discourse, Texture and

Exegesis. By Hussein Abdul-Raof. Pp. 297.
Curzon, 2001.

Article in Journal of Qur anic Studies · April 2002

DOI: 10.3366/jqs.2002.4.1.87

CITATIONS READS

0 147

1 author:

Peter Riddell
Melbourne School Of Theology, Melbourne, Australia
35 PUBLICATIONS 61 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tafsir in the Malay-Indonesian World View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Riddell on 05 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Qur’an Translation: Discourse, Texture and Exegesis
Hussein Abdul-Raof
Curzon, Richmond, 2001, xiv & 297pp

Dr Abdul-Raof identifies two clear goals at the outset of his work. He first wishes to add a new
dimension to the study of the Qur’an by focusing on its syntactic, semantic, phonetic, prosodic,
pragmatic and rhetorical features. Second, he aims “to show the reader what is so special about
Qur’anic discourse that makes it different from other types of discourse" (xiii). The author has thus
affirmed the doctrine of Qur’anic inimitability (i`jaz) as the starting point of his study.

Abdul-Raof is concerned with what he sees as an insurmountable challenge: “The ‘translation’ of the
Qur’an remains in limbo for the word of God cannot be reproduced by the word of man.” (1) He is
determined to engage with this challenge through linguistic channels, by explaining the linguistic and
rhetorical limitations that “shackle” the translator of the Qur’an. This is not merely an academic study
however, as the author also aims to produce a work which can serve as a guide for Qur’an translators in
addressing the major problems which they are likely to encounter. These problems, says Abdul-Raof,
are ultimately insurmountable. His conclusions more represent strategies to get around the hurdles
rather than eliminate them, for he says that after years of research “I have finally reached an
independent conclusion based on translation theory and linguistic analysis that Qur’anic discourse is
inimitable and cannot be reproduced into a target language.” (3)

The first chapter begins by outlining the debate among translation studies specialists surrounding the
notion of translation “equivalence”. The author clearly holds a sceptical view himself, preferring the
term “approximation”. He then presents a number of specific cases to illustrate the impossibility of
achieving full translation equivalence. He expresses concern in discussing various forms of shift from
source text (ST) to target language translation (TT). He cites the shift from the feminine Arabic noun
al-shams to the use of a masculine pronominal referent used in Yusuf Ali’s translation in “By the sun
and his (glorious) spendour” (Q91:1-2). After providing further examples the author laments that
“these cases prove that translation is simulation (pretending to be what it isn’t)...” (11).

The author then examines various theories of translation. He surveys the history of Bible translation
into Latin, English, Polish, Dutch etc., pointing to the preference for literal methods until the modern
era, with a current search underway for a satisfactory contemporary translation. He laments that
“[Bible] translators feel perfectly free to change actives into passives, to take long subordinate clauses
and make independent clauses out of them ... or to take a short, staccato pattern of sentences and make
something a little longer and more fluid out of it... it is debatable, however, whether this approach fits
Qur’an translation.” (18-19).

In his following survey of the history of Qur’an translation, Abdul Raof identifies two types of
translation into English: literal/semantic (Bell, Pickthall, Arberry, Asad, Ali) and communicative
(Akbar, Irving, Turner). He does not hesitate to criticise some translators such as Asad who sometimes
change the word order from ST to TT with loss of stylistic effect. He emphasises that Qur’anic style is
semantically motivated and cannot be altered without loss of effect, citing Q20:14 as an example, and
lauding Arberry’s rendering of “Verily I am God; there is no god but I; therefore serve Me.”

However, Abdul Raof is not advocating a purely literal approach to translation, which he says “can
confuse the target language reader and provide wrong socio-cultural presuppositions” (28). He gives as
an example Q4:34, and applauds Ali’s exegetical insertion in “beat them (lightly)” which reflects the
interpretation of the classical exegetes. He laments that many translators have merely rendered the
phrase as “beat them” which, says Abdul-Raof, is missing the key semantic content of the Qur’anic
original.

The author declares that “translating the Qur’an, therefore, requires a thorough exegetical analysis and
reference to exegetical works otherwise the meaning of the Qur’an will be distorted and drastically
misrepresented in the target language.” (30) He adds that “the only way to penetrate this highly
fortified text is to explicate its intricate multi-layered meanings through either ‘within-the-text’
exegetical material... or through marginal notes and commentaries...” (40). He identifies the levels at
which untranslatability is most clearly manifested: form (which is key to the Qur’anic message and
should not be sacrificed), word order, cultural elements, special syntactic structures, semantico-
syntactic interrelation, Qur’anic particles, Qur’anic style, flow of sound, Qur’anic emotive and non-
emotive expressions.

In chapter two, Abdul-Raof focuses upon what he sees as “prototypical linguistic, rhetorical, textural
and phonetic features” of the Qur’an, with these features being advanced as evidence of the
inimitability of the text. He first considers syntactic features, such as chandelier structures, multi-tiered
structures, syntactic chunking, parallelistic structures, reiteration etc. He then considers
phonetic/prosodic features, such as assimilation, nasalisation and lengthening. This is followed by a
discussion of rhetorical features, structural features along the lines of Hallidayan Systemic Functional
Linguistics (SFL), and finally ethical features.

The third chapter explores the texture of the Qur’an, again engaging with Hallidayan SFL concepts.
Abdul-Raof argues for a unique system of cohesion through features of texture in the Qur’an. He
observes that “Non-Qur’anic texts in Arabic display mostly linguistic cohesive elements; the Qur’an,
however, displays abundantly both linguistic as well as rhetorical cohesive elements which cannot be
divorced from each other; in other words they are the bedrock of Qur’anic texture and the major
vehicle for the attainment of perfection and sublimity in style...” (108) A list of rhetorical textural
elements in the Qur’an is provided and discussed, including hyperbole, antiphrasis, antithesis,
chiasmus, imagery, rhetorical questions and synechdoche. This is followed by a consideration of
linguistic textural elements: conjunction, ellipsis, lexical cohesion, reference, substitution, thematic
structure, recursive ties and contrastive structures.

In his final main chapter, Abdul-Raof formally proposes “explanatory translation” as the only valid
approach to translating the Qur’an, through the use of footnotes or commentaries to address specific
details in the sacred text. He provides a useful listing of 17 major features of the Qur’an which will
require explanatory addition. He also includes a brief discussion of major exegetes and their works
which will serve as important source material for the translator. He concluded with a reminder of his
belief in the ultimate untranslatability of the Qur’anic text, saying “... the thrilling Qur’anic rhythms
and acoustics that touch the very core of the source text reader’s heart cannot be induced in the target
text.” (182)

This work by Dr Abdul-Raof is valuable for a range of reasons. First, its interdisciplinary approach,
bringing together key findings of the two fields of Islamic Studies and Translation Studies, represents
ground-breaking research. In the process, the author engages with major studies of translation theory,
including the works by Nida, Newmark, Hatim & Mason, and Bell. In support of this, Abdul-Raof’s
rigorous application of Hallidayan SFL principles to the analysis of the Qur’anic text opens significant
new windows into Islam’s most sacred work. In this context, his meticulous listing of syntactic,
semantic, prosodic/phonetic, pragmatic and rhetorical features of the Qur’anic text is original and
important.

Furthermore, the stated aim of providing a practical guide for Qur’an translators represents a worthy
contribution of this work. Given the difficulty and sensitivity surrounding translation of the Qur’anic
text, such practical support for translators from the scholarly community is overdue and welcome.

Another important feature of this work is its central goal of seeking internal linguistic evidence for the
Qur’anic doctrine of i`jaz. Previously Islamic scholars have sought such evidence in other areas, such
as the style of Qur’anic Arabic, or the belief in the Prophet’s illiteracy. Abdul-Raof’s approach in this
work thus introduces a whole set of new ideas to this key Islamic doctrine.

However, it is on this latter point that the work is most vulnerable. The specific “prototypical
linguistic, rhetorical, textural and phonetic features” of the Qur’an which Abdul-Raof identifies are
mostly also characteristic of the text of the Hebrew Bible. It too contains chandelier structures, multi-
tiered structures, syntactic chunking, parallelistic structures, reiteration etc. It too manifests the very
same linguistic textural and rhetorical textural elements which the author has so skilfully identified in
the Qur’anic text. Thus the “prototypical” features presented may well be reflective of Semitic literary
norms, rather than a specifically divine element. Or in other words, either we are talking about generic
features of Semitic writing, or we are talking about divine authorship of multiple works.

Another weakness in this work is the order in which the author presents his findings. An essential
principle of scholarly writing is that the author should let his data speak for itself, rather than feeding
 his conclusions to the reader at the beginning of the book. However, Abdul-Raof has indicated from the
very first page that he considers the Qur’an to be untranslatable, with a promise that his data will bear
out his viewpoint. The risk is that the reader will feel that the author has prejudged his research.

Ultimately, this study is essentially source-text focused, whereas most of the Translation Studies world
today places primary emphasis on the target language text. This may seem a curious anachronism.
However, the reason is self evident; namely that Abdul-Raof affirms a belief in the Arabic text of the
Qur’an as being the word of God, and the other-language texts of translations as being the word of
man. In this way Abdul-Raof’s latest study poses a timely and exciting challenge to Translation Studies
theorists, a challenge which should also be addressed by those involved in the translation of the sacred
texts of other faith traditions, including the biblical materials.

Peter G. Riddell

Published in Journal of Qur’anic Studies IV/1 (2002), 87-90

View publication stats