ISLAM – 204
Translations With Inaccuracies
Inaccurate translation is so rampant and so enormous in so many works that I wonder if those engaged in such noble work ever knew of the rules of Arabic Grammar and the impact on their mistranslations they have flooded in this multi-million dollars market.
I
The following examples are just the tip of one ice-berg of one glaring mistake which so many translators have done so many times, so frequently, and so incoherently contradicting each other and often themselves in translating the different clauses of the same one verse.
The translation of verse 003:048 for example by Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Dr Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali shows an element of one serious mistake. Our footnote to the verse shows that “The words لَمۡ يَمۡسَسۡنِىۡ are in the present participle form and show the contemplated action to be in the present tense or will occur in the future. Those words do not reflect that the action has already occurred in the past. That is why the translation ‘have not touched’ or ‘have not had’ conjugal relations is incorrect. Such incorrect translation is also contrary to and below the piety and virtuous dignity of a Prophet’s mother.”
The translation of verse 003:113 shows a different effect of mistranslating several words shown in our Note 003:113 as follows.
“Describing an event in the past tense means that the stated event has already occurred in the past. It is no more a matter of conjecture. The accuracy of the narration is borne by history.
“Describing an act in the present (or present participle) tense shows the specified act as a matter of faith. God Almighty guarantees that it will always happen, keep recurring again and again, at all times in the present and the future. Some people could construe such statement of a forecast as a mere conjecture but really it is a Rule of Universal Application with no exception.
“A repeated disregard of the Arabic grammar and arbitrarily changing the present to the past or the past to the present in translating the Holy Qor-aan strengthens the contention of all opponents of Islam who portray it to be just a narration of events in the past history of religions.”
II
Our simple and straightforward translation of the verse 003:141 and the Note there show how various other works conspicuously differs as quoted below.
- A Yusuf Ali translated it as a direction for vengeance. “If a wound has touched you, be sure a similar wound has touched the others.”
- AR/AM Omar translated it as a consolation. “If you have received an outer injury (in the battle of Uhud), surely, the (disbelieving) people have already received a similar injury (in the same battle).”
- M Mohsin Khan and T D Al-Hilali translated it as an assurance. “If a wound (or killing) has touched you, be assured a similar wound (and killing) has touched the others (disbelievers).”
- N J Dawood translated it as follows. “If you have suffered a defeat, so did the enemy.”
Not only above the translations differ in range between martial tones to kind assurances for the believers, they also are in the past tense. Using past tense invariably describes one event that had happened. But the Holy Qor-aan lays the divine rule in the present participle tense. Using present tense indicates that it is a rule of universal application that will keep on happening in all times to come, for the whole mankind, everywhere, in perpetuity
The translation of verse 003:173 shows another result. “The Holy Qor-aan has used both words [اَحۡسَنُوۡ] and [اتَّقَوۡا ] in the past tense. So it is inaccurate to translate them in the present tense. The context also shows that using the past tense is appropriate and makes more sense since that would describe the feat accompli [i.e., the doer had already done] the good [اَحۡسَنُوۡ] and acted righteously [اتَّقَوۡا ] before they could deserve to receive the great reward [اَجۡرٌ عَظِيۡمٌ ].”
III
The accurate translation of وَمَنۡ لَّمۡ يَسۡتَطِعۡ مِنۡكُمۡ طَوۡلًا اَنۡ يَّنۡكِحَ الۡمُحۡصَنٰتِ الۡمُؤۡمِنٰتِ in verse 004:026 is that whoso among you “can’t freely afford that he marries chaste believing women.”
But most authors have copied each other and translated the relevant words with a glaring inaccuracy into “can’t afford to marry free believing women.”
The fact is that the word طَوۡلًا (tao-lun) meaning freely, openly or unreservedly qualifies the preceding verb يَسۡتَطِعۡ (yus-ta-tay) and makes perfect sense as can’t afford freely and openly.
Several inaccuracies developed in the translations by removing the meanings of the word طَوۡلًا from its intended and immediately preceding word which is the verb يَسۡتَطِعۡ and attaching it to the non-intended third word that follows it and is a noun الۡمُحۡصَنٰتِ (moh-sa-naa-tay).
Firstly, the Holy Qor-aan empowered the groom with ability and capacity to marry freely and openly but the inaccurate translations took it away and reduced the impact of the Command.
Secondly, the Holy Qor-aan did not burden the chaste and righteous believing bride to be free as well, but the inaccurate translations arbitrarily added there this burden.
Thirdly, the inaccuracy attached the unintended addition of free to a believing bride, thus differentiating it from a non-free captive slaves and implying the cruel continuation of slavery.
IV
The translation of verse 004:002 by Abdullah Yusuf Ali is another example. The word هَا (Haa meaning ‘it’) is a pronoun describing someone in feminine gender and the Holy Qor-aan used it because the word نَّفۡسٍ (Nufs meaning ‘soul’) is for a word in feminine gender and that is further augmented by its descriptive word وَّاحِدَةٍ which also is in feminine gender. Thus the correct translation of the Almighty God’s words is the ‘one soul and He created from it its mate.‘ The incorrect translation is what man stated as “a single Person Created, of the like nature, His mate.” The Almighty Allah knew best when to use a pronoun for the feminine gender as in this verse, and when to use a pronoun in the masculine gender for that person as in the verse 002:038, or when to use verbs for that person in masculine gender as in the verse 002:038, or when to even name him as Adam like He did in the verses 002:032, 002:034, 002:035, 002:036, 002:038 and so many other places in the Holy Qor-an.
Dozens of other inaccurate translations are shown in our Commentaries like Arabic Grammar 4 – Preciseness – Hallmark of the Arabic that illustrates the disregard of the Arabic Grammar rules in just a small portion of the Holy Qor-aan.
Centuries ago Allama Al-Baizaavi authoritatively and exhaustively did his Interpretation of Third Chapter of the Holy Qor-aan (Tafseer Soorah Aa-lay-Imrtaan). His work is still held as a pivot in the World of Islam and a cross-check with that would have kept some inaccuracies out.
Tafseer Al-Baizaavi was part of the Masters Degree in Arabic in the Punjab University in 1957-59 when I completed that program there. It took one year for Maulana Noor-ul-Hasan to cover the entire work that all students had to learn thoroughly to get an MA (Arabic) Degree.
My mother Sakina Begum started teaching us the Holy Qor-aan but passed away when I was 13. My father Chaudhry Azam Ali, an Ahmadi Moslem, (several Commentaries are on this site) was left alone to home-school all his children in the basics of Arabic for he wanted us to understand the Holy Qor-aan and follow the true teachings of Islam.
My father drilled the rules of Arabic Grammar in us to correctly understand the Arabic and the Holy Qor-aan. That drill took firm roots in my mind, paid me well in comprehending the Arabic language, and easily obtaining my Master’s degree in the Arabic.
In my growing years I never knew that the Arabic Grammar rules would one day play so crucial a part in the accurate translation, or show disregarding them how vitally damages the true comprehension, of God’s word in The Holy Qor-aan – The Most Read Book In The World.
One mistranslation may be a human mistake. Repeated mistakes amount to a deliberate pattern. But the repeated pattern duplicated time and again in several works strongly suggests a lack of knowledge of later translators who blindly and unknowingly copied their predecessors.
V
The translation of verse 006:120 done by Abdulla Yusuf Ali, M Marmaduke Pickthall, M Muhsin Khn, Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and NJ Dawood as ‘is forbidden’ is wrong because the Holy Qor-aan has used the word حَرَّمَ ( hur-ra-ma ) in the active voice which means He the Almighty Allah has prohibited, and NOT the word حُرِّمَ ( hoor-ray-ma ) in the passive voice which means that the said thing was prohibited.
Islam – 204 – Translations With Inaccuracies
ISLAM – 204
Translations With Inaccuracies
Inaccurate translation is so rampant and so enormous in so many works that I wonder if those engaged in such noble work ever knew of the rules of Arabic Grammar and the impact on their mistranslations they have flooded in this multi-million dollars market.
I
The following examples are just the tip of one ice-berg of one glaring mistake which so many translators have done so many times, so frequently, and so incoherently contradicting each other and often themselves in translating the different clauses of the same one verse.
The translation of verse 003:048 for example by Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Dr Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali shows an element of one serious mistake. Our footnote to the verse shows that “The words لَمۡ يَمۡسَسۡنِىۡ are in the present participle form and show the contemplated action to be in the present tense or will occur in the future. Those words do not reflect that the action has already occurred in the past. That is why the translation ‘have not touched’ or ‘have not had’ conjugal relations is incorrect. Such incorrect translation is also contrary to and below the piety and virtuous dignity of a Prophet’s mother.”
The translation of verse 003:113 shows a different effect of mistranslating several words shown in our Note 003:113 as follows.
“Describing an event in the past tense means that the stated event has already occurred in the past. It is no more a matter of conjecture. The accuracy of the narration is borne by history.
“Describing an act in the present (or present participle) tense shows the specified act as a matter of faith. God Almighty guarantees that it will always happen, keep recurring again and again, at all times in the present and the future. Some people could construe such statement of a forecast as a mere conjecture but really it is a Rule of Universal Application with no exception.
“A repeated disregard of the Arabic grammar and arbitrarily changing the present to the past or the past to the present in translating the Holy Qor-aan strengthens the contention of all opponents of Islam who portray it to be just a narration of events in the past history of religions.”
II
Our simple and straightforward translation of the verse 003:141 and the Note there show how various other works conspicuously differs as quoted below.
Not only above the translations differ in range between martial tones to kind assurances for the believers, they also are in the past tense. Using past tense invariably describes one event that had happened. But the Holy Qor-aan lays the divine rule in the present participle tense. Using present tense indicates that it is a rule of universal application that will keep on happening in all times to come, for the whole mankind, everywhere, in perpetuity
The translation of verse 003:173 shows another result. “The Holy Qor-aan has used both words [اَحۡسَنُوۡ] and [اتَّقَوۡا ] in the past tense. So it is inaccurate to translate them in the present tense. The context also shows that using the past tense is appropriate and makes more sense since that would describe the feat accompli [i.e., the doer had already done] the good [اَحۡسَنُوۡ] and acted righteously [اتَّقَوۡا ] before they could deserve to receive the great reward [اَجۡرٌ عَظِيۡمٌ ].”
III
The accurate translation of وَمَنۡ لَّمۡ يَسۡتَطِعۡ مِنۡكُمۡ طَوۡلًا اَنۡ يَّنۡكِحَ الۡمُحۡصَنٰتِ الۡمُؤۡمِنٰتِ in verse 004:026 is that whoso among you “can’t freely afford that he marries chaste believing women.”
But most authors have copied each other and translated the relevant words with a glaring inaccuracy into “can’t afford to marry free believing women.”
The fact is that the word طَوۡلًا (tao-lun) meaning freely, openly or unreservedly qualifies the preceding verb يَسۡتَطِعۡ (yus-ta-tay) and makes perfect sense as can’t afford freely and openly.
Several inaccuracies developed in the translations by removing the meanings of the word طَوۡلًا from its intended and immediately preceding word which is the verb يَسۡتَطِعۡ and attaching it to the non-intended third word that follows it and is a noun الۡمُحۡصَنٰتِ (moh-sa-naa-tay).
Firstly, the Holy Qor-aan empowered the groom with ability and capacity to marry freely and openly but the inaccurate translations took it away and reduced the impact of the Command.
Secondly, the Holy Qor-aan did not burden the chaste and righteous believing bride to be free as well, but the inaccurate translations arbitrarily added there this burden.
Thirdly, the inaccuracy attached the unintended addition of free to a believing bride, thus differentiating it from a non-free captive slaves and implying the cruel continuation of slavery.
IV
The translation of verse 004:002 by Abdullah Yusuf Ali is another example. The word هَا (Haa meaning ‘it’) is a pronoun describing someone in feminine gender and the Holy Qor-aan used it because the word نَّفۡسٍ (Nufs meaning ‘soul’) is for a word in feminine gender and that is further augmented by its descriptive word وَّاحِدَةٍ which also is in feminine gender. Thus the correct translation of the Almighty God’s words is the ‘one soul and He created from it its mate.‘ The incorrect translation is what man stated as “a single Person Created, of the like nature, His mate.” The Almighty Allah knew best when to use a pronoun for the feminine gender as in this verse, and when to use a pronoun in the masculine gender for that person as in the verse 002:038, or when to use verbs for that person in masculine gender as in the verse 002:038, or when to even name him as Adam like He did in the verses 002:032, 002:034, 002:035, 002:036, 002:038 and so many other places in the Holy Qor-an.
Dozens of other inaccurate translations are shown in our Commentaries like Arabic Grammar 4 – Preciseness – Hallmark of the Arabic that illustrates the disregard of the Arabic Grammar rules in just a small portion of the Holy Qor-aan.
Centuries ago Allama Al-Baizaavi authoritatively and exhaustively did his Interpretation of Third Chapter of the Holy Qor-aan (Tafseer Soorah Aa-lay-Imrtaan). His work is still held as a pivot in the World of Islam and a cross-check with that would have kept some inaccuracies out.
Tafseer Al-Baizaavi was part of the Masters Degree in Arabic in the Punjab University in 1957-59 when I completed that program there. It took one year for Maulana Noor-ul-Hasan to cover the entire work that all students had to learn thoroughly to get an MA (Arabic) Degree.
My mother Sakina Begum started teaching us the Holy Qor-aan but passed away when I was 13. My father Chaudhry Azam Ali, an Ahmadi Moslem, (several Commentaries are on this site) was left alone to home-school all his children in the basics of Arabic for he wanted us to understand the Holy Qor-aan and follow the true teachings of Islam.
My father drilled the rules of Arabic Grammar in us to correctly understand the Arabic and the Holy Qor-aan. That drill took firm roots in my mind, paid me well in comprehending the Arabic language, and easily obtaining my Master’s degree in the Arabic.
In my growing years I never knew that the Arabic Grammar rules would one day play so crucial a part in the accurate translation, or show disregarding them how vitally damages the true comprehension, of God’s word in The Holy Qor-aan – The Most Read Book In The World.
One mistranslation may be a human mistake. Repeated mistakes amount to a deliberate pattern. But the repeated pattern duplicated time and again in several works strongly suggests a lack of knowledge of later translators who blindly and unknowingly copied their predecessors.
V
The translation of verse 006:120 done by Abdulla Yusuf Ali, M Marmaduke Pickthall, M Muhsin Khn, Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and NJ Dawood as ‘is forbidden’ is wrong because the Holy Qor-aan has used the word حَرَّمَ ( hur-ra-ma ) in the active voice which means He the Almighty Allah has prohibited, and NOT the word حُرِّمَ ( hoor-ray-ma ) in the passive voice which means that the said thing was prohibited.
Related Posts
None