ISLAM – 201
Translations with Author’s Whims
Translating from one language into another is quite a formidable feat. No matter how firm one is, an Author’s Whims sneak into his work. Translations of the Holy Qor-aan are no exception even though a later publication having the same phraseology and mistake as in the earlier publication strongly suggests that perhaps the later author took an earlier work and just modified it a bit.
A subsequent publication showing duplication of thought, phraseology and mistakes in an earlier work suggests that the later author had copied his predecessor as illustrated by the following. “A careful comparison of Mr. Pickthall’s translation with that of the Ahmadiyya translator Maulvi Muhammad Ali, shows conclusively, that Mr. Pickthall’s work is not very much more than a revision of the Ahmadiyya version.” (p.289) — Preface (p. vii) by Maulana Muhammad Ali quoting Revd. Zwemer’s quarterly The Moslem World, July 1931.
No one knows everything and we at this site do not claim that. So when we did not know the meaning of a word or a translation looked inaccurate we relied upon Almaany Arabic-English Dictionary at https://www.lexilogos.com/english/arabic_dictionary.htm.
The unique feature of a single root producing several words as derivates makes Arabic very rich – or confusing to those who don’t know or disregard the rules of its grammar. The verses 016:104 (lay-saa-noon-aa-ra-be-yoon-mo-bee-n = Arabic is a language full of meanings and very clear) and 041:045 (aa-ra-be-yoon = Very rich Arabic) provide windows to see what this language is.
An Arabic root essentially carries its inherent meanings into all words made from it. The process of making several different words from a root adds unique shades and nuances to the meanings of each derivate that distinguishes it from all other derivates.
Any translator of the Arabic in the Holy Qor-aan faces challenges including the following.
- Unless well-grounded in the Arabic grammar, it is difficult to correctly comprehend, fully understand and accurately translate the derivate words.
- Unless well-founded in the Arabic language, literally translating a word may alter the sense it conveys in its colloquial use or an idiomatic expression – as in all languages.
- The threat created by the above factors assumes dynamic proportions if a translator’s intent is tainted with an ulterior motive of deliberately misrepresenting the original text.
Moslems coming in from others nations made it necessary to translate the Holy Qor-aan in their own languages. A second-hand translation from an earlier translation naturally failed to convey the intent and thrust of the original message. The differences in various translations have been multiplying and by today have reached critical dimensions as shown by the following examples.
I – Translations by Europeans
Were some translations of the Holy Qor-aan by Europeans really false and frivolous fabrications? At least some in European languages have been accused of dishonestly representing the original text as stated by author Amatul Rahman (pronounced Um-toor-Rahmaan) Omar and Wikipedia.
The first printing of the Latin translation was by Robert of Ketton at Bale (1543).
The next was a French translation The Alcoran by Mahomet by Sieu du Ryer called of little use.
A significant next step was by Alexander Ross (1649) who “did not base his work on … (the) Arabic text” and his English translation was from the aforesaid French translation.
A poor addition in the English literature published in London was a translation by George Sales (1743). This Christian Missionary based his work on a Latin translation by Marcci, the confessor of Pope Innocent XI, “to discredit Islam and the Qur’an in the eyes of Europe” and labeled as “biased, wrong and antiquated.” He presented the Holy Qor-aan badly and published his claim that “This classical Work – the translation of the Koran by George Sale – is held to be the best and most accurate.” His allegations have been contradicted by many like Al-Haj Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar who in his work has enumerated several “forgeries by George Sale.”
Wikipedia cites English translations by clergyman John Medows Rodwell (1861) and Edward Henry Palmer (1880) as “showing in their works a number of mistakes of mistranslation and misinterpretation, which brings into question their primary aim.”
II – Translations by Moslems
The content, language and supportive material reflecting Authors’ Whims inserted in their works are comparatively and significantly lesser in the translations of the Holy Qor-aan by Moslems. But still they are there, even if done in good faith. For example, a translation by Dr. Syed Abdul Latif, a professor of English at Osmania University, Hyderabad, published in 1967 has been held as “short-lived due to criticism of his foregoing accuracy for the price of fluency” — Wikipedia
No amount of words or number of authors can completely cover in another language the wisdom compressed in the Holy Qor-aan. This site selected ten translations of the Holy Qor-aan because of their variety and being of top quality. It is planned to present in our Commentaries the beliefs, practices and issues that the Holy Qor-aan has dealt with authoritatively. The following subject have already been touched somewhat.
- Articles of Faith. Charity. Fasting. Huj.
- Issues like Clergy, Difference of opinion, Jihad, Succession, Translations and Travelling.
- Laws of Bequests, Marriage, Divorce, Inheritance, Polygamy and some crimes.
- Prayers for parents, spouses, children, other believers and society at large.
- Translations with Grammar Violated, Different Ideas, Different Words, etc.
As an example take Slavery. The phrase مَا مَلَـكَتۡ اَيۡمَانُكُمۡ (maa-ma-la-kut-aiy-maa-no-koom) that is in verses 004:025, 004:026, 023:007, 024:034 and 070:031 means accurately as follows.
- The word مَا (maa = all that) means what, whatever, whatsoever, whom or whomever. It includes everything of value including one’s time, talent, energy, abilities, potentials and every kind of physical assets, money, property, possessions and wealth.
- The word مَلَكَتۡ (ma-la-kut = owned) is a verb, in the past tense, in female gender and used for a 3rd person. It means held in ownership or in some sort of servitude.
- The word أَيۡمَـٰنُ (aiy-maa-no = right hands) is a noun in the plural. Since the prior word is a verb in the past tense, this word means all one owned, possessed or controlled. Since everyone has only one right hand, this word means that two persons mutually agreed, confirmed by shaking right hands and acknowledged as to what each owned or must do.
- The word كُمۡ (koom = you) is a pronoun for all in the plural in the 2nd person.
But several translations of this phrase extrapolated, interpreted and validated the inhumane and outlawed institution of Slavery. The verb part of the above phrase is also inaccurately translated in the present tense saying what your right hands own, hold or possess though the Holy Qor-aan has described it as an action in the past tense. In translating this phrase in verse 004:004, various authors stated the following:
— ‘slave girls you own’ – N J Dawood; — ‘(slaves) … your right hands possess’ – M Mohsin Khan; Taqi-ud-in Al-Hilali; — ‘(a captive) that your right hands possess’ – Abullah Yusuf Ali; — ‘(the captives) that your right hands possess’ – M Memaduke Pickthall; — ‘what your right hands possess’ – M Sher Ali; Ahmad Zidan; Dina Zidan; — ‘ that which your right hands possess’ – Maulana Muhammad Ali; — ‘those over whom you have the authority’ – Muhammad Zafrullah Khan; and — ‘that whom your right hands possess (- your female captives of war)’ – Amatul Rahman Omar and Abdul Mannan Omar.
Other translations of verse 004:026 saying that you marry “handmaids … with the leave of their masters” [mawlavi Sher Ali] and ‘owners’ [Abdullah Yusuf Ali] appear allowing Slavery.
Another example of how some authors used their whims is translating the word يُؤۡتِيۡ (yoe-tee = He gifts, gives, grants, etc) in the verse 004:153. The prior word سَوۡفَ turned its meanings from the present tense into the future tense as He shall or will gift, give, grant and many authors correctly translated it. But inaccurately translated are (a) ‘We shall give’ [Mohsin Khan] in the 1st person when the Holy Qor-aan had used it for the 3rd person and (b) ‘they shall be rewarded’ [N J Dawod] in the passive voice when the Holy Qor-aan had stated the fact in the active voice.
III – Some Other Examples
This site provides simple and straightforward translation of the Holy Qor-aan and believes that the Moslem authors did not knowingly twist the original text. However, our Commentaries quote examples where Authors’ Whims sneaked in some works and their quantity makes one wonder if they are not just the tip of an ice-berg of this phenomenon.
The phrase وَاسۡتَغۡفَرَ لَـهُمُ الرَّسُوۡلُ (= And the Messenger sought forgiveness for them) in the verse 004:065 was translated by M Marmaduke Pickthall as ‘and asked forgiveness of the messenger’ totally disregarding the original text.
The phrase وَاللّٰهُ اَعۡلَمُ (= Allah is Well Aware or Most Knowledgeable) gives Allah’s one Attribute which is an adjective. But Maulawi Sher Ali translated it as He ‘knew best,’ a verb in the past tense in verse 003:037, and then inconsistently therewith as He ‘knows … best,’ a verb in the present tense in verse 004:026.
Authors Amatul Rahman Omar and Abdul Mannan Omar correctly translated the verb تَرَكَ (ta-ra-ka) in the past tense as ‘left’ in the verse 004:012. But then inconsistently and incorrectly translated the same word تَرَكَ (ta-ra-ka) in the present tense twice in the verse 004:008 as ‘leave’ even when the Holy Qor-aan used it in the past tense in describing the decedent’s death.
The aforesaid authors entered their thoughts in translating the verse 004:006 by adding ‘out of its profits,’ and in translating the verse 004:012 by adding ‘or (still more important) of any (of their) debt” although the Holy Qor-aan did not impose any such limitation in its Commands.
Authors Dr Ahmad Zidan and Mrs Dina Zidan in translating the verse 004:010 let their whims in by saying ‘how they would have been on the eve of their own death’ although no corresponding words are in the text of the Holy Qor-aan.
Author N J Dawood in translating the verse 004:013 thrice broke the first part of the Injunction with a full stop (.) and began a new sentence with the word ‘If.’ That way he clearly and wrongly conveyed that the first part of the injunction was not covered by the later part of the verse with the condition bequest-made-or-debt. The reality is that the bequest-or-debt condition governs the whole of the Injunction, both parts equally.
Authors A Yusuf Ali and NJ Dawood arbitrarily translated the word كُمۡ (koom) in the verse 004:067 as their by writing ‘their homes’ [aya] and ‘their country’ [njd] in the 3rd person when in reality this pronoun refers to you and only you in the 2nd person.
Again, authors A Yusuf Ali and NJ Dawood inaccurately translated several words in the verse 004:073 and 004:074 in the plural disregarding that the Holy Qor-aan states them in the singular.
Author M Zafrullah Khan translated the word مُحِيۡطًا (mo-he-taa) in 004:109 as ‘will bring to naught’ and author N J Dawood translated it as ‘has knowledge’. Really this word as also shown by several other authors means one who encircles, encompasses, herds together or surrounds like a shepherd who rounds up all his cattle from getting lost and leaves none behind.
Authors A Yusuf Ali, M Marmaduke Pickthal and Maulana Muhammad Ali correctly translated the word نَسُوۡا (na-soo = v., past., pl., 3rd person) as they forgot in the past tense in 005:015, but then translated it as they ‘forget’ [aya, mmp] and ‘neglect’ [mma] in the present tense in 005:014 – incorrectly, arbitrarily and contradicting themselves.
Works of some other authors in the Note reproduced as following.
** Note 005:118. Statements like ‘thou Dost take me up’ (A Yusuf Ali) and ‘You took me up’ (M Mohsin Khan and Dr Al-Hilali) translated the word تَوَفَّيۡتَ in verse 005:118 to follow sects that profess that God Almighty had prevented Jesus from dying on the Cross by physically lifting him up into the heaven where he is alive. Some Christians believe that God did so to save His son.
Such writings are based upon the author’s whims and negate the truth that ‘everyone dies’ (003:186 and 029:058) and ‘death will reach you even if you fortified yourself in strong fortresses’ (004:079). Correct translation is as shown above and done by most authors who are not of ‘those who cut up their religion and had been a sect’ because they are ‘not among them’ (006:160).
Hundreds of doctrines have infiltrated every religion by mistranslating the Scripture. Islam is no exception where hundreds of sects have mushroomed. The leaderships lead their followers to believe in manufactured ideologies to separate them from others. The mistranslations help them to better control their flocks as herds of cattle by feeding them blind faith in total absurdities.
Verse 006:027 includes هُ (ho), a pronoun that means it, it’s, he, him or his and refers to a thing already talked about, or a person mentioned previously. But authors’ whims transpired as follows.
- It — Stated by M Muhammad Ali, M Mermaduke Pickthall, Maulawi Sher Ali and M Zafrulla Khan.
- The Holy Qor-aan — Construed by M Ghulam Farid who said, “The verse constitutes an eloquent commentary on the captivating power of the Quran” and A Rahman Omar who said “(believing in) this (Qur’an).”
- The Holy “Prophet Muhammad a.w” — as said by M Muhsin Khan and Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali.
- ‘(I)n this Truth’ as thought by Dr Ahmad Zidan.
Islam – 201 – Translations with Author’s whims
ISLAM – 201
Translations with Author’s Whims
Translating from one language into another is quite a formidable feat. No matter how firm one is, an Author’s Whims sneak into his work. Translations of the Holy Qor-aan are no exception even though a later publication having the same phraseology and mistake as in the earlier publication strongly suggests that perhaps the later author took an earlier work and just modified it a bit.
A subsequent publication showing duplication of thought, phraseology and mistakes in an earlier work suggests that the later author had copied his predecessor as illustrated by the following. “A careful comparison of Mr. Pickthall’s translation with that of the Ahmadiyya translator Maulvi Muhammad Ali, shows conclusively, that Mr. Pickthall’s work is not very much more than a revision of the Ahmadiyya version.” (p.289) — Preface (p. vii) by Maulana Muhammad Ali quoting Revd. Zwemer’s quarterly The Moslem World, July 1931.
No one knows everything and we at this site do not claim that. So when we did not know the meaning of a word or a translation looked inaccurate we relied upon Almaany Arabic-English Dictionary at https://www.lexilogos.com/english/arabic_dictionary.htm.
The unique feature of a single root producing several words as derivates makes Arabic very rich – or confusing to those who don’t know or disregard the rules of its grammar. The verses 016:104 (lay-saa-noon-aa-ra-be-yoon-mo-bee-n = Arabic is a language full of meanings and very clear) and 041:045 (aa-ra-be-yoon = Very rich Arabic) provide windows to see what this language is.
An Arabic root essentially carries its inherent meanings into all words made from it. The process of making several different words from a root adds unique shades and nuances to the meanings of each derivate that distinguishes it from all other derivates.
Any translator of the Arabic in the Holy Qor-aan faces challenges including the following.
Moslems coming in from others nations made it necessary to translate the Holy Qor-aan in their own languages. A second-hand translation from an earlier translation naturally failed to convey the intent and thrust of the original message. The differences in various translations have been multiplying and by today have reached critical dimensions as shown by the following examples.
I – Translations by Europeans
Were some translations of the Holy Qor-aan by Europeans really false and frivolous fabrications? At least some in European languages have been accused of dishonestly representing the original text as stated by author Amatul Rahman (pronounced Um-toor-Rahmaan) Omar and Wikipedia.
The first printing of the Latin translation was by Robert of Ketton at Bale (1543).
The next was a French translation The Alcoran by Mahomet by Sieu du Ryer called of little use.
A significant next step was by Alexander Ross (1649) who “did not base his work on … (the) Arabic text” and his English translation was from the aforesaid French translation.
A poor addition in the English literature published in London was a translation by George Sales (1743). This Christian Missionary based his work on a Latin translation by Marcci, the confessor of Pope Innocent XI, “to discredit Islam and the Qur’an in the eyes of Europe” and labeled as “biased, wrong and antiquated.” He presented the Holy Qor-aan badly and published his claim that “This classical Work – the translation of the Koran by George Sale – is held to be the best and most accurate.” His allegations have been contradicted by many like Al-Haj Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar who in his work has enumerated several “forgeries by George Sale.”
Wikipedia cites English translations by clergyman John Medows Rodwell (1861) and Edward Henry Palmer (1880) as “showing in their works a number of mistakes of mistranslation and misinterpretation, which brings into question their primary aim.”
II – Translations by Moslems
The content, language and supportive material reflecting Authors’ Whims inserted in their works are comparatively and significantly lesser in the translations of the Holy Qor-aan by Moslems. But still they are there, even if done in good faith. For example, a translation by Dr. Syed Abdul Latif, a professor of English at Osmania University, Hyderabad, published in 1967 has been held as “short-lived due to criticism of his foregoing accuracy for the price of fluency” — Wikipedia
No amount of words or number of authors can completely cover in another language the wisdom compressed in the Holy Qor-aan. This site selected ten translations of the Holy Qor-aan because of their variety and being of top quality. It is planned to present in our Commentaries the beliefs, practices and issues that the Holy Qor-aan has dealt with authoritatively. The following subject have already been touched somewhat.
As an example take Slavery. The phrase مَا مَلَـكَتۡ اَيۡمَانُكُمۡ (maa-ma-la-kut-aiy-maa-no-koom) that is in verses 004:025, 004:026, 023:007, 024:034 and 070:031 means accurately as follows.
But several translations of this phrase extrapolated, interpreted and validated the inhumane and outlawed institution of Slavery. The verb part of the above phrase is also inaccurately translated in the present tense saying what your right hands own, hold or possess though the Holy Qor-aan has described it as an action in the past tense. In translating this phrase in verse 004:004, various authors stated the following:
— ‘slave girls you own’ – N J Dawood; — ‘(slaves) … your right hands possess’ – M Mohsin Khan; Taqi-ud-in Al-Hilali; — ‘(a captive) that your right hands possess’ – Abullah Yusuf Ali; — ‘(the captives) that your right hands possess’ – M Memaduke Pickthall; — ‘what your right hands possess’ – M Sher Ali; Ahmad Zidan; Dina Zidan; — ‘ that which your right hands possess’ – Maulana Muhammad Ali; — ‘those over whom you have the authority’ – Muhammad Zafrullah Khan; and — ‘that whom your right hands possess (- your female captives of war)’ – Amatul Rahman Omar and Abdul Mannan Omar.
Other translations of verse 004:026 saying that you marry “handmaids … with the leave of their masters” [mawlavi Sher Ali] and ‘owners’ [Abdullah Yusuf Ali] appear allowing Slavery.
Another example of how some authors used their whims is translating the word يُؤۡتِيۡ (yoe-tee = He gifts, gives, grants, etc) in the verse 004:153. The prior word سَوۡفَ turned its meanings from the present tense into the future tense as He shall or will gift, give, grant and many authors correctly translated it. But inaccurately translated are (a) ‘We shall give’ [Mohsin Khan] in the 1st person when the Holy Qor-aan had used it for the 3rd person and (b) ‘they shall be rewarded’ [N J Dawod] in the passive voice when the Holy Qor-aan had stated the fact in the active voice.
III – Some Other Examples
This site provides simple and straightforward translation of the Holy Qor-aan and believes that the Moslem authors did not knowingly twist the original text. However, our Commentaries quote examples where Authors’ Whims sneaked in some works and their quantity makes one wonder if they are not just the tip of an ice-berg of this phenomenon.
The phrase وَاسۡتَغۡفَرَ لَـهُمُ الرَّسُوۡلُ (= And the Messenger sought forgiveness for them) in the verse 004:065 was translated by M Marmaduke Pickthall as ‘and asked forgiveness of the messenger’ totally disregarding the original text.
The phrase وَاللّٰهُ اَعۡلَمُ (= Allah is Well Aware or Most Knowledgeable) gives Allah’s one Attribute which is an adjective. But Maulawi Sher Ali translated it as He ‘knew best,’ a verb in the past tense in verse 003:037, and then inconsistently therewith as He ‘knows … best,’ a verb in the present tense in verse 004:026.
Authors Amatul Rahman Omar and Abdul Mannan Omar correctly translated the verb تَرَكَ (ta-ra-ka) in the past tense as ‘left’ in the verse 004:012. But then inconsistently and incorrectly translated the same word تَرَكَ (ta-ra-ka) in the present tense twice in the verse 004:008 as ‘leave’ even when the Holy Qor-aan used it in the past tense in describing the decedent’s death.
The aforesaid authors entered their thoughts in translating the verse 004:006 by adding ‘out of its profits,’ and in translating the verse 004:012 by adding ‘or (still more important) of any (of their) debt” although the Holy Qor-aan did not impose any such limitation in its Commands.
Authors Dr Ahmad Zidan and Mrs Dina Zidan in translating the verse 004:010 let their whims in by saying ‘how they would have been on the eve of their own death’ although no corresponding words are in the text of the Holy Qor-aan.
Author N J Dawood in translating the verse 004:013 thrice broke the first part of the Injunction with a full stop (.) and began a new sentence with the word ‘If.’ That way he clearly and wrongly conveyed that the first part of the injunction was not covered by the later part of the verse with the condition bequest-made-or-debt. The reality is that the bequest-or-debt condition governs the whole of the Injunction, both parts equally.
Authors A Yusuf Ali and NJ Dawood arbitrarily translated the word كُمۡ (koom) in the verse 004:067 as their by writing ‘their homes’ [aya] and ‘their country’ [njd] in the 3rd person when in reality this pronoun refers to you and only you in the 2nd person.
Again, authors A Yusuf Ali and NJ Dawood inaccurately translated several words in the verse 004:073 and 004:074 in the plural disregarding that the Holy Qor-aan states them in the singular.
Author M Zafrullah Khan translated the word مُحِيۡطًا (mo-he-taa) in 004:109 as ‘will bring to naught’ and author N J Dawood translated it as ‘has knowledge’. Really this word as also shown by several other authors means one who encircles, encompasses, herds together or surrounds like a shepherd who rounds up all his cattle from getting lost and leaves none behind.
Authors A Yusuf Ali, M Marmaduke Pickthal and Maulana Muhammad Ali correctly translated the word نَسُوۡا (na-soo = v., past., pl., 3rd person) as they forgot in the past tense in 005:015, but then translated it as they ‘forget’ [aya, mmp] and ‘neglect’ [mma] in the present tense in 005:014 – incorrectly, arbitrarily and contradicting themselves.
Works of some other authors in the Note reproduced as following.
** Note 005:118. Statements like ‘thou Dost take me up’ (A Yusuf Ali) and ‘You took me up’ (M Mohsin Khan and Dr Al-Hilali) translated the word تَوَفَّيۡتَ in verse 005:118 to follow sects that profess that God Almighty had prevented Jesus from dying on the Cross by physically lifting him up into the heaven where he is alive. Some Christians believe that God did so to save His son.
Such writings are based upon the author’s whims and negate the truth that ‘everyone dies’ (003:186 and 029:058) and ‘death will reach you even if you fortified yourself in strong fortresses’ (004:079). Correct translation is as shown above and done by most authors who are not of ‘those who cut up their religion and had been a sect’ because they are ‘not among them’ (006:160).
Hundreds of doctrines have infiltrated every religion by mistranslating the Scripture. Islam is no exception where hundreds of sects have mushroomed. The leaderships lead their followers to believe in manufactured ideologies to separate them from others. The mistranslations help them to better control their flocks as herds of cattle by feeding them blind faith in total absurdities.
Verse 006:027 includes هُ (ho), a pronoun that means it, it’s, he, him or his and refers to a thing already talked about, or a person mentioned previously. But authors’ whims transpired as follows.
Related Posts
None