Abstract
Faithfulness and equivalence are two issues that gained the attention of many scholars in the translation field. It has always been presumed that a faithful translation is the one that could achieve equivalence at its maximum level. However, one theory of translation, namely, the Skopos theory, suggests that the aim or Skopos of a translation should be the target of a translator. Adopting such a theory, equivalence does not mean sameness; it rather means achieving the least dissimilarness. In relation to this, a translation of the Holy Quran is supposed to target conveying the primary meaning of the source text (ST) and its function rather than unachievably aiming at rendering its stylistic features. This study aims to highlight the problems faced in the translation of some verses of the Holy Quran and how they can be handled from a different theoretical and practical perspective and in regard to the Skopos theory. To this end, six verses (ayahs) from the Chapter of the Heights and the Chapter of Cattle were purposively selected and analyzed. Frequent problems and loss in translation were found in the translations of Abdel Haleem, Pickthall, Shakir, and Sarwar. This study, guided by the Skopos theory with some modifications, suggests a new perspective in the translation of the Holy Quran. It also provides a more applicable definition of faithfulness in the translation of the Holy Quran.
Introduction
Faithfulness in translation has always been an issue that preoccupied the minds of translators and readers of translation (Diniz, 2003). This aspect has been given more priority in practice and in evaluations of translation even over the quality of translation when the translated text is authoritative in nature (Diniz, 2003). Diniz (2003) believes that translator’s failure to keep the original wording and expression at all leads to unfaithfulness to the source text (ST). Similarly, Nida and Taber (1982) stress the importance of being faithful to the ST. Nord (1997) argues that translation has always been more concerned with faithfulness to the ST although sometimes it results in a translation that is not appropriated for the intended purpose. In relation to this, Zhongying (1990) argues that there are different interpretations about what faithfulness in translation is. Pym (2001) argues that if a target text (TT) leaves some parts of the ST out, the translation is likely to be unfaithful. In a similar vein, Chesterman (2001) states that a translator should be like a mirror that reflects the ST, and he adds that without faithful interpretation of the ST, the translation will be prejudiced, biased, and unethical. Newmark (1988) claims that issues related to faithfulness arise when a translator is doing a service translation. However, a good translator is likely to be faithful to the ST.
Faithfulness, in this sense, is regarded in relation to equivalence. In other words, to be faithful to a ST, it is a requisite to achieve equivalence. However, the practicability of achieving such assumed equivalence might be questioned. Furthermore, the type of equivalence needs to be achieved, namely, form-related (grammatical) equivalence, lexical equivalence, textual equivalence, stylistic equivalence, and so on, is still unanswered. Jakobson (1959/2000) argues that full equivalence between any two linguistic codes (i.e., words) is not reachable. In line with Jakobson’s views, Vinay and Darbelnet (1958/2004) believe that translation is possible despite the cultural and linguistic limitations, and therefore we should aim at attaining situational equivalence.
Nida and Taber (1982) believe that correspondence in meaning must have priority over correspondence in style, if an equivalent effect can be achieved. However, Baker (2004) questions the measurability of achieving an equivalent effect, and she concludes that this notion can be hardly verified.
Achieving faithfulness in translation is not an easy job for a translator. Zhongying (1990), for example, believes that achieving such a kind of faithfulness to the ST seems to be challenging. In a similar vein, iÇöz (2012) claims that a translator sometimes is forced to deviate from the faithful translation of the ST to a less faithful translation. Similarly, Vinay and Darbelnet (1995) argue that faithful translation should not be the proper option all the time. Sometimes, a translator needs to be unfaithful to the ST to convey the ST message more effectively in the TT. In a similar way, Noss (1986) as cited in Nae (2004) mentions that faithfulness to an ST might render a TT unintelligible. Thus, it is, therefore, paramount for a translator to attempt being faithful to an ST without creating an unintelligible translation. Baker (2004) puts it that faithfulness to the original is related to the desirability of equivalence. Baker concludes that the notion of equivalence is so important because other theoretical notions of translation are interlinked with it, and that is why the notion of equivalence should not be discarded or discredited. However, again the same argument about the perspective of equivalence that should be considered as the most appropriate one in translation is still arguable. There are many perspectives of equivalence. Equivalence can be regarded either as a semantic category, in terms of equivalence effect, or in terms of functional equivalence. Baker (2004) explains that the notion of equivalence as a semantic category, which is drawn from the representational theory of meaning, 1 is static and close to the interlingual synonyms. It is dedicated by the content of the ST rather than the communicative situation. This semantic view of equivalence, as Baker (2004) states, is rejected in most disciplines, and it is not applicable or tenable in translation.
In this regard, Pym (1992/2018) believes that the notion of equivalence is a “social illusion,” which people believe in though it does not have linguistic certainty; however, he states that we have to deal with such “equivalence beliefs.” Pym (2018) makes a distinction between two types of equivalence: natural equivalence and directional equivalence. Natural equivalence is basically based on the paradigm of equal value. In other words, what is said in one language can be translated into another language, with the same function or worth. As a result, the relation between an ST and a TT is one of equal value at the level of form, function, or anything in-between. For example, the English “the Friday 13th” is a natural equivalent for the Spanish “the Tuesday 13th” because the two terms work functionally the same, as both of the respective days refer to bad luck in their respective cultures. However, this approach was critiqued for its presupposition of a “nonexistent symmetry” between languages, its lack of a verifiable “psychological basis,” an underlying “imperialistic” agenda, and the promotion of “parochialism” that prefers meaning over form (Wendland, 2012, p. 95).
Directional equivalence is an asymmetric relation, in which equivalence may exist one way but it is not necessary that it exists the other way. Contrary to natural equivalence, which assumes the existence of equivalence between items bidirectionally, this approach assumes that equivalence can exist one-directionally. This approach is likely to adopt only two opposed poles such as literal translation versus free translation (Wendland, 2012). Wendland (2012) sees that there is no borderline between the two types of translation proposed by Pym (1992/2018), as natural equivalence includes directional equivalence. In addition, there is no full equivalence between any two languages unless they are culturally close. It seems that Pym’s notion of equivalence is not clear.
As it seems to be quite clear, achieving equivalence and faithfulness in translation is challenging. Therefore, a new notion of faithfulness and equivalence was needed to be proposed, which was proposed through the Skopos theory. The Skopos theory is based on the “functional equivalence” which was presented in the 1970s and 1980s (Baker, 2004). This notion postulates that translation should produce “equivalent message” of the ST in TT. Skopos was established by Hans Vermeer and Katharina Reiss, whereby they regard the target of the translation is what matters. This approach is adopted basically by functionalists such as Vermeer (1989). With few exceptions (e.g., Reiss, 1971/2000), most functionalists (e.g., Vermeer, 1989) do not believe that equivalence between ST and TT is achievable. According to this approach, the target-side purpose, or communicative Skopos, is the dominant factor in the translation process, and hence, one ST can be translated into different TTs to achieve different functions. According to Pym (2001), “Skopos,” which means “goal,” is the key to the functionalist approach. In this kind of translation, the translator is more concerned with the TT, or in other words how to translate an ST communicatively, regardless of the lexis. Pym (2001) sees that, according to Skopos theory, a translator should work hard to convey the intellectual and emotional intent of the ST. Reiss and Vermeer (1984) aimed to establish a general translation theory for all texts. The basic underlying “rules” of the theory of Reiss and Vermeer (1984) as cited in Munday (2008) are as follows:
A trunslatum (or TT) is determined by its Skopos.
A TT is an offer of information in a target culture and target language (TL) concerning an offer of information in a source culture and source language (SL).
A TT does not initiate an offer of information in a clearly reversible way.
A TT must be internally coherent.
A TT must be coherent with the ST.
The five rules above stand in a hierarchical order, with the Skopos rule predominating. Thus, translation is viewed as nondirectional. In other words, reversibility is not a prerequisite for a good translation. Vermeer and Reiss also underscore the importance of the coherence and fidelity for a successful translation. The coherence rule means that the TT must be interpretable as coherent with the TT receiver’s situation (Reiss & Vermeer, 1984 as cited in Munday, 2008), whereas the fidelity rule merely states that there must be coherence between the trunslatum. According to the aforementioned hierarchical order of the rules, intertextual coherence is of less importance than intratextual coherence, which, in turn, is subordinate to the skopos (Rule 1; Munday, 2008). Thus, based on Skopos theory, the same text can be translated in different ways according to the purpose of the TT and the commission, which is given to the translator. Therefore, if a text is ambiguous, according to Skopos theory, it can be literally translated and then explained in a footnote (Munday, 2008). However, this theory is criticized as, according to it, any translation can be justified if a translator declares his or her intention at the beginning of their translation process. The Skopos theory is also criticized for locating coherence at the bottom of the theory rules.
Practically speaking, when the source and TLs belong to different cultural groups, it is truly difficult to find terms in the TL that express the highest level of faithfulness possible to the meaning of certain words (Haque, 2012). Connotations and associations of words in one language may differ from those in another language, or they may have different emotive associations. In relation to this, Abdelaal and Md Rashid (2015) found semantic losses in the translation of Surah al-Waqiah. Also, Abdelaal and Md Rashid (2016) found that semantic losses may be caused by grammatical losses as well. Abdelaal (2018, 2019) found problems in rendering qualitative and denotative meaning in the translation. In regard to the discussion above, this study, therefore, aims to address the following research questions:
Method
Research Design
This study fits in the interpretive paradigm of a qualitative research, which is pertinent with the descriptive translation studies. A qualitative approach is appropriate for this study as this study focuses on a complex detailed understanding of an issue sought, and thus the quantitative measurements and analyses do not fit the research problem (Creswell, 2007). Furthermore, a qualitative research design is appropriate for this study because the Holy Quran translation is complex and cannot be deeply investigated using any other alternative approaches. Furthermore, this study does not depend on quantities or numbers. This study falls under the hermeneutic or interpretive inquiry type of qualitative research, which involves “the construction (or collation) and interpretation of new (or existing) texts” (Higgs & Cherry, 2009, p. 10).
Data of the Study
In a qualitative inquiry, such as this study, sampling is usually purposive or nonprobability. Thus, sampling is not intended to be statistically representative, but the selection is based on the shared characteristics of a population (Ritchie, Lewis, & Elam, 2003). Although statistical representation is not sought in qualitative research, symbolic representation, which refers to the selection of units based on their features of relevance to the investigation, is required (Ritchie et al., 2003). Another important requirement as highlighted by Ritchie et al. (2003) is the diversity of sampling. Diversity is important because it optimizes the chances of identifying the full range of factors or features that are associated with a phenomenon, and because it gives access to investigating interdependency between variables, and that is, to disengage the most relevant from those of lesser importance. In practice, six ayahs (verses) of the phenomenon under study, namely, problems related to the faithfulness of translation, were selected from two long chapters (Surahs) of the Holy Quran. Only six examples were presented in this study, which is a part of a larger study for space reasons. These two Surahs are Surah Al-Aaraf (The Heights) and Surah Al Anaam (The Cattle). Four famous translations were selected, which are the translations of Abdel Haleem, Pickthall, Shakir, and Sarwar. These translations were selected because they are popular ones.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was guided by Diniz (2003), who believes that a translator’s failure to keep the original wording and expression at all leads to unfaithfulness to the ST, and Nida and Taber’s (1982) notion of faithfulness, who stress the importance of being faithful to the ST. The STs were compared with the TTs and the failure to convey some parts of the ST meaning was highlighted and explained. Suggestions for a better translation were guided by the Skopos theory.
Results and Discussion
In this section, some examples of the samples collected are analyzed to highlight the losses in translation and thus the failure to achieve faithfulness in its outdated sense. It is also highlighted how the Skopos theory can be a guide for a more practical and modern theory of the Holy Quran translation. The Skopos of the translation of the Holy Quran is to practically convey the primary meaning and, if possible, the associations of the primary meaning of the ST. Conveying the other features of the Holy Quran, such as the style, may be sacrificed for the sake of the meaning.
Examples of Faithfulness Issues in Translation
This section aims to address the first research question, which is about the problems found in the translation of the Holy Quran. Examples are provided with suggested translations in some cases (whenever needed).
In Example 1 above, the ST phrase
TRANSL. Waminhum man yastamiAAu ilayka wajaAAalna AAala quloobihim akinnatan an yafqahoohu wafee athanihim waqran wa-in yaraw kulla ayatin la yu/minoo biha hatta itha jaooka yujadiloonaka yaqoolu allatheena kafaroo in hatha illa asateeru al-awwaleena
The ST ayah refers to that disbelievers used to listen to the prophet’s preaching about monotheism and call to Islam; however, they do not understand or follow what has been said to them by the prophet (Alt-Tabari, 2004). As seen in Example 2, the Quranic verb يستمع was rendered as “(appear) to listen” by Abdel Haleem, whereas it was translated as “listen” by Sarwar and Pickthall. Similarly, it was translated as “hearkens” by Shakir. It seems that Abdel Haleem’s translation is the least faithful to the ST because it reflects a kind of redundancy. Adding “appear” to indicate that the disbelievers listened but they did not follow what they listened is not justifiable because “listen” alone could have conveyed the meaning because listening does not necessarily suggest understanding and following what is listened to. “Listen” entails paying attention, but it does not necessarily designate accepting what is listened to. According to Collins Cobuild Dictionary (2006), “listen” means to pay attention to what someone says. But we may listen to what others say without following them. This justifies Shakir and Sarwar’s translation of the verb as “listen.” Shakir opted to translate the ST verb as “hearken,” which might be less faithful. “Hearken” tends to mean to listen attentively, which is not the case in the ayah. The ayah refers to the situation when disbelievers listened to the Holy Quran but they did not benefit from that, as their hearts are sealed off because of their disbelief (Ibn Kathir, 2002). The point here is that following the Skopos theory does not mean being less faithful to the ST if the meaning can be conveyed while being faithful. Faithfulness to the ST should be seen as how to convey the same message of the ST, even in different lexis or different grammar. In this regard, Nord (1997) proposed two types of functional equivalence that can exist between an ST and a TT, namely, equifunctional translation and heterofunctional translation. Equifunctional translation happens when the translation conveys the same function intended in the ST, whereas heterofunctional translation occurs when the function of the ST needs to be adapted by the translator to convey the aim of the sender. So, a translator needs to attempt achieving equifunctional translation, and if he fails to do so, he can then attempt heterofunctional translation.
In a similar vein, وَجَعَلْنَا عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ أَكِنَّةً was translated as “we have placed covers over their hearts” by Abdel Haleem, but it was translated as “We have placed upon their hearts veils” by Pickthall, which seems more faithful to the ST. Pickthall could preserve the ST syntactic order, which affects the ST meaning. In the ST the prepositional phrase عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ is fronted to highlight the fact that the hearts are veiled and thus understanding is not possible. This is the nature of the Arabic language, that is, to front the most important or underscored facts. Similar to Abdel Haleem, Shakir and Sarwar could not keep the same syntactic order of the ST in the TT. Also, using the verb “cast” to translate the ST verb
Another thing about Abdel Haleem’s translation is that he rendered the pro-drop pronoun in the Quranic phrase as “we” without capitalizing the pronoun. This may confuse the reader of the translation because the pronoun is vague to whom it refers, though it refers to Allah Almighty in the ST. In contrast, all the other translations above were more faithful to the ST by capitalizing the pronoun in the TT.
The ST conditional clause وَإِن يَرَوْا كُلَّ آيَةٍ لَّا يُؤْمِنُوا بِهَا was translated as “Even if they saw every sign they would not believe in them” by Abdel Haleem. Similarly, it was translated by Pickthall as “If they saw every token they would not believe therein.” The two translations do not seem to show faithfulness to the ST because the ST phrase is in the first conditional clause, that is, in the present tense or Aorist tense (Mudareaa). The ST phrase indicates stability of the action. Put in other words, disbelievers throughout ages will never believe whatever pieces of evidence and proofs were given to them. They share the same nature of disbelieving prophets throughout ages. This explains the reason behind the ST clause being in the Aorist tense. However, rendering it as a second conditional clause makes the ST phrase applicable only to the disbelievers during the revelation of the ayah, which is not true. Scholars have established a rule in jurisprudence (fiqh) that states that the general meaning of the ayah should be considered rather than its specific meaning or cause of revelation (As-Sadi, 1999). Sarwar rendered the ST clause as “They disbelieve all the evidence (of Our existence) that they may have seen,” which seems to be the least faithful to the ST. Sarwar opted to resolve the problem of translating the ST clause, that is, translating it in a first conditional clause or a second conditional clause, by a strategy of avoidance. He avoided rendering it as a conditional clause and rendered it as a statement, which makes the TT lose the overtones and undertones that exist in the ST. However, Shakir translated the conditional clause as “even if they see every sign they will not believe in it,” preserving the tense of the ST. It seems that Shakir’s translation of the ST clause is the most faithful one, as the translator preserved the overtones of the ST to a great extent. It is important in this context to underscore that skopos of the translation does not mean ignoring equivalence when it is possible to be achieved, and as long as the translation and the ST convey the same function.
TRANSL. Fadallahuma bighuroorin falamma thaqa alshshajarata badat lahuma saw-atuhuma watafiqa yakhsifani AAalayhima min waraqi aljannati wanadahuma rabbuhuma alam anhakuma AAan tilkuma alshshajarati waaqul lakuma inna alshshaytana lakuma AAaduwwun mubeenun
The ST phrase فَدَلَّاهُمَا بِغُرُورٍ was rendered by Abdel Haleem as “he lured them with lies,” which may convey the ST meaning properly. The ST clause means, as explained by Alt-Tabari (2004), to deceive and convince by telling lies in a way that looks to be nice. Pickthall translated it as “Thus did he lead them on with guile,” which seems less accurate than Abdel Haleem’s because leading with guile implicates deception but it does not necessarily implicate telling lies. However, Pickthall’s use of the word “guile” seems to be plausible and conveying to the meaning of the ST word بِغُرُورٍ. As for Shakir, he translated the ST clause as “Then he caused them to fall by deceit,” which seems to be less faithful to the ST. However, Sarwar rendered the ST clause as “Thus, he deceitfully showed them (the tree),” which is the least faithful to the ST. It is an unjustifiable divergence from the ST meaning. Sarwar put it as if Satan showed them that tree. However, in fact, Satan convinced and lured them to eat from the tree rather than only know it (Alt-Tabari, 2004). In total, Abdel Haleem’s and Pickthall’s translations are the most acceptable and faithful translations to the ST. Shakir’s translation is acceptable as well, but it is less faithful than the two aforementioned translations. By contrast, Sarwar’s translation seems to be the least faithful to the ST.
The ST conditional clause فَلَمَّا ذَاقَا الشَّجَرَةَ بَدَتْ لَهُمَا سَوْآتُهُمَا was translated by Abdel Haleem as “Their nakedness became exposed to them when they had eaten from the tree.” Abdel Haleem translated ذاقا as “had eaten,” which is a divergence from the more accurate and literal meaning of the word (i.e., tasted). According to tafsir books (e.g., Alt-Tabari, 2004; Ibn Ashour, 1984; Ibn Kathir, 2002), the ayah indicates that prophet Adam and Eve were told lies and got deceived by the Satan talks, as he took an oath to them that he was telling them the truth, and that eating from the forbidden tree would make them angels or immortals. The ayah indicates that the moment Adam and Eve started to eat (literally taste) the fruit of the tree, their privates were exposed. In addition, the word ذاقا is used in the ST to indicate that Adam and Eve did not eat until they became full with the fruits of the tree. Thus, translating the ST word ذاقا into “ate” instead of “tasted,” which is the literal meaning of the ST word does not convey the specific meaning. According to Newmark (1988), a literal translation is the most proper translation in case an equivalent exists. Although Abdel Haleem’s selection of the verb “ate” conveys the meaning partially, it does not convey the complete meaning of the ST, as it may be argued that the moment Adam and Eve started to eat, their private parts got exposed to them. In short, Abdel Haleem could have been more faithful to the ST by rendering the ST word as “tasted,” as the three other translators did. As noted, the ST word سَوْآتُهُمَا was rendered as “nakedness” by Abdel Haleem, which does not show faithfulness to the ST. The ST word refers to the private parts only. In other words, the ST can be a hyponym for the TT if it is back-translated (as عري). Pickthall attempted to preserve the euphemistic nature of the ST word by rendering it into “shame.” However, it affected the faithfulness to the ST because it renders an explicit meaning in the ST into an implicit meaning in the TT, which may be difficult to infer. Shakir’s rendition of the ST word as “evil inclinations” shows a serious lack of faithfulness to the ST. The ST does not refer to any evil inclinations as the translation proposes. Sarwar’s translation of the ST word as “private parts” seems to be the most accurate and faithful to the ST word. It may have not preserved the euphemistic nature of the ST word, but it could convey the primary meaning of the ST word, which is the Skopos of the translation of the Holy Quran.
The ST word أقل was translated by Abdel Haleem as “warn.” However, it was translated by Pickthall and Sarwar as “tell.” By contrast, it was rendered by Shakir as “say.” Shakir’s choice seems to be the most faithful to the ST and Abdel Haleem’s choice is the least faithful. Although the warning is embedded in the Quranic ST verb, a direct equivalent for the Quranic verb is “said.” If the TT word “warn” was back-translated, it would result in a different word (i.e., يحذر). Divergence from the literal and authentic meaning of the word to another word does not seem to be justifiable. In this light, the word “said” would be closer in meaning as it can be considered as a hypernym for the word “warn” and not vice versa. The verb “said” implies a warning, as in the Oxford Advanced English Dictionary (2006); it is defined in one of its multiple meanings as “to give instructions to or direct somebody to do something with authority.” Moreover, the Quranic language is very precise, and the Arabic language has an equivalent for the TT verb “warn,” which was not used purposefully in the ST. Pickthall’s and Sarwar’s choices seem to be acceptable because tell and say are near synonyms.
By the same token, all the translators rendered the Quranic word الجنة as “Garden,” with initial capitalization only in Abdel Haleem’s and Pickthall’s translations. Although it is arguable whether al Jannah Adam and Eve were asked to descend from is the Jannah all Muslims will enter in the Hereafter or not (cf. Ibn Al Qayem in
TRANSL.: Ya banee adama qad anzalna AAalaykum libasan yuwaree saw-atikum wareeshan walibasu alttaqwa thalika khayrun thalika min ayati Allahi laAAallahum yaththakkaroona
The verb أَنزَلْنَا was translated by Abdel Haleem and Sarwar as “given,” which conveys the primary meaning of the ST word, though the ST verb implies constant giving from Allah Almighty to His servants. “Give,” however, may imply giving for one time as it is used in the present perfect which indicates an action that was completed shortly. Shakir opted to translate the ST word as “sent down,” which seems more literal approximation of the ST word and it conveys the ST word meaning faithfully. It, then, can be claimed that both “give” and “send down” convey the primary meaning of the ST word, though “send down” might be more faithful. This does not imply that “give” is not a faithful translation of the ST verb. Astonishingly, Pickthall translated the ST verb as “revealed,” which might convey the general meaning of the ST word but it is less faithful than the previous translations because it diverges from an approximate equivalent (i.e., sent down) to a more general term.
The ST phrase وَلِبَاسُ التَّقْوَىٰ was translated by Pickthall as “the raiment of restraint from evil,” which does not convey the primary meaning of the ST word, that is, لتَّقْوَى . The ST phrase is quite semantically complex that connotes refraining from doing prohibited deeds and doing the demanded and recommended deeds of Allah the Almighty. Abdel Haleem opted to translate التَّقْوَى as “God consciousness,” which seems to convey the primary meaning partly, as it does not convey the real rich meaning of the ST word. The ST phrase refers to faith, good deeds, modesty, fear of God (Alt-Tabari, 2004).
Sarwar rendered the word as “piety,” which is closer in meaning to the ST word. Shakir opted for a shift in the translation by paraphrasing the ST word as “guards (against evil),” which does not convey the meaning of the ST word. I suggest that the ST word be transliterated and be followed by the word “piety” between brackets. I also suggest providing a rich explanation of the word at its first occurrence in the translation in a footnote. In a similar vein, Abdel Haleem and Sarwar translated الله as “God.” Which does not convey the ST greatest name because the ST name is a name that should be transferred, without any rendition. “God” can be used if it is assumed that the readers will not be able to know the word “Allah.” Otherwise, transferring the ST name الله as “Allah” is more appropriate. Pickthall and Shakir transferred the great name of Allah as it is which is true.
TRANSL. WanazaAAna ma fee sudoorihim min ghillin tajree min tahtihimu al-anharu waqaloo alhamdu lillahi allathee hadana lihatha wama kunna linahtadiya lawla an hadana Allahu laqad jaat rusulu rabbina bialhaqqi wanoodoo an tilkumu aljannatu oorithtumooha bima kuntum taAAmaloona Abdel Haleem: We shall have removed all ill feeling from their hearts; streams will flow at their feet. They will say, “Praise be to God, who guided us to this: had God not guided us, We would never have found the way. The messengers of our Lord brought the Truth.” A voice will call out to them, “This is the Garden you have been given as your own on account of your deeds.” . Pickthall: And We remove whatever rancour may be in their hearts. Rivers flow beneath them. And they say The praise to Allah, Who hath guided us to this. We could not truly have been led aright if Allah had not guided us. Verily the messengers of our Lord did bring the Truth. And it is cried unto them: This is the Garden. Ye inherit it for what ye used to do.
Abdel Haleem and Sarwar translated الْأَنْهَارُ as “streams,” which seems to be a divergence from a more faithful word to the ST, that is, rivers. However, Pickthall and Shakir translated it as “rivers,” which is more faithful to the ST. Similarly, The ST verbal phrase تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهِمُ was rendered by Abdel Haleem as “will flow under their feet,” which seems to be a divergence from the ST meaning. The ST refers to the rivers that will be flowing under the believers’ palaces and houses. However, the translator rendered it to their feet, which is not accurate and, thus, faithfulness is lacking. Shakir and Pickthall translated it as “flow beneath them,” which is faithful to the ST and it is communicative, as well. Sarwar translated it as “They will enjoy the flowing streams,” which is an evident divergence from the ST. Another aspect of lack of faithfulness shows itself in translating رُسُلُ رَبِّنَا as “The (angelic) messengers,” which is not true because the meaning in the ST is the messengers and prophets who were sent to their people or to guide them to the right pathway of Allah the Almighty (Alt-Tabari, 2004).
Sometimes translators undertranslate many words in the ST either through omission or improper selection of vocabulary. Mian Wang (2012) argues that both overtranslation and undertranslation result from a nonequivalence problem, in terms of meaning or style. Wang, then, identifies undertranslation as the case in which the TT contains less information than the ST. In addition, she states that both overtranslation and undertranslation show unfaithfulness to the ST. Example 6 below indicates such a type of loss that occurs due to undertranslation.
Example 6
As seen in Example 6, the Quranic wordالطيبات was not rendered into the TT, which results in a semantic loss because Allah Almighty described such food and sustenance by being legal “halal.” This is a kind of loss due to undertranslation. This may have been done by the translators due to lack of equivalence problem. The TT does not have an equivalent lexeme for the ST word الطيبات, which means good and halal food. However, I think that transliterating the word or providing a near synonym would have been better than omitting the word in the TT, especially the word is an important content word in the context of the ayah. Leaving the word out in the TT might make a reader think that any kind of adornment or nourishment is allowed, which is not true. There are several foods which are eaten by non-Muslims, but they are not allowed for Muslims. Similarly, there are some very nice clothes and jewelry that are not allowed for men in Islam. Thus, leaving the word out in the TT has affected the meaning crucially. Pickthall translated the word as “good things.” Similarly, Shakir translated it as “good.” Both Pickthall’s and Shakir’s translations attempted to render the ST word. Although the English word is not equivalent to the ST word, it is still an approximation of the ST word meaning. Sarwar translated it as “pure,” which is an unfaithful rendition of the ST word. “Pure” does not necessarily mean halal (permissible) in Islam. “Pure” means harmless and clean (Collins Cobuild Dictionary, 2006), which is different from being permissible in Islam. For example, natural “silk” is pure and clean; however, it is not allowed to be worn by Muslim men.
The problem of undertranslation results from some strategies adopted by translators, such as the “functional equivalent” strategy (Newmark, 1988). Newmark mentioned that a translator may follow the “functional equivalent” strategy in translation, in case she or he did not find an equivalent for a word. It is a kind of cultural componential analysis, whereby the translator deculturalizes a culture-bound word to make it occupy a middle position between the SL culture and the TL culture. Newmark mentioned that one of the drawbacks of this strategy is that it can result in undertranslation when the SL word is translated into a TL word on a one to one basis. I guess it should be sought only when there is no equivalent for the ST word; however, the translators under study have adopted it even when there is a near equivalent word for the ST word.
The ST noun phrase زِينَةَ اللَّهِ was translated by Abdel Haleem as “the adornment,” whereas it was rendered by Shakir as “embellishment,” which does not covey the precise meaning of the ST noun phrase. Sarwar translated it as “beauty,” which is a divergence from the ST phrase meaning. The Quranic ST word, in the context of the ayah, refers to every kind of dressing whether for adornment or not. Ibn Ashour (1984), in his tafsir, interpreted the ayah as referring to clothing including ordinary clothing. Also, Abu Muhammed Al-Baghawi (1989) and Ibn Kathir (2002) interpreted زينة as “clothing.” Likewise, Abu Abdullah Al-Qurtubi (2004) mentioned that the word refers to dressing, especially good dressing. All these meanings are lost in the translation as the English word “adornment” refers to things that make someone beautiful (Collins Cobuild Dictionary, 2006), and thus it does not include the basic needs of the human being. In addition, the ayah was revealed to refute the disbelievers’ assumptions that putting on clothes while circumambulating the Ka’ba is not legal, or that some foods are forbidden (Ibn Ashour, 1984), which is not conveyed in the TT.
Another loss of connotative meaning occurred in Example 6 in translating the Quranic word الرزق as “nourishment” by Abdel Haleem. The Quranic ST word الرزق refers to every type of food whether necessary for living or for enjoyment. It also refers to meat and samn (ghee) during hajj days, which were considered illegal and forbidden during the pre-Islamic era (Al-Baghawi, 1989; Ibn Kathir, 2002). It also refers to what has been considered as forbidden or illegal such as al bahirah 5 and al saibah 6 (Al-Baghawi, 1989). However, the English TT word “nourishment” refers to the food that is necessary for living and growth (Collins Cobuild Dictionary, 2006). Thus, the connotative meaning is lost in the TT. Pickthall translated the ST word الرزق as “providing,” whereas Shakir rendered it as “provisions.” Both Pickthall’s and Shakir’s translation seem to be more faithful to the ST because “providing” entails the different shades and aspect of Allah’s bounties such as food and clothes. Unfaithfully, Sarwar translated the ST word as “foods,” which is a poor and unfaithful translation of the ST word because “foods” limit the ST word meaning to a one type of “provisions” that Allah the Almighty bestowed upon us.
Loss of denotative and connotative meaning seems to have also occurred in translating عباده as “His servants” by Abdel Haleem, Shakir and Sarwar. The Quranic word عباده refers to “worshippers,” in this context, and to Allah Almighty’s creatures in the general meaning (Al-Baghawi, 1989; Ibn Kathir, 2002). However, the word “servant” implies serving or working for someone (Collins Cobuild Dictionary, 2006), which seems to be a semantic loss in the translation. Pickthall translated it as “bondmen,” which is an unfaithful and inaccurate rendition of the ST word. Although Muslims admit that they are bondmen and slaves to Allah the Almighty, the meaning of the ST word in this context does not refer to this meaning. In addition, the ST word عباده is mostly used in the Holy Quran to refer to believers, whereas another word is used to refer to disbelievers, that is, عبيد. Thus, bondmen or slaves can be an accurate translation of the word عبيد rather than عباد. None of the translations above could provide a faithful translation to the ST word, which could have been rendered as “worshippers.”
A Proposed Model for the Holy Quran Translation
This section aims to address the second research question, that is, how the translation problems can be dealt with from a different theoretical and practical perspective and in regard to the Skopos theory and the functional approach in translation.
Based on the thorough analysis of the data above, I propose that the translation of the Holy Quran should be guided by its Skopos, which is conveying the primary meanings and functions of the ST and sacrificing the less important features of the ST. Nobody claims that the translation of the Holy Quran is the Holy Quran itself; it is a mere rendition of the meanings of the Holy Quran to convey the ST message. It is intended for those who do not know Arabic. Otherwise, the only way to get the full comprehensive meanings of the Holy Quran is to know Arabic and to study the Holy Quran and its interpretations. Put differently, the translation of the Holy Quran does not aim to provide the original Holy Quran or to provide an exhaustive explanation of the meanings of the Holy Quran, which can be sought in commentary and interpretation books. It rather aims to enlighten non-Arabic-speaking Muslims or Islam-interested researchers and to provide them with the simple meanings of the Holy Quran. This study suggests that translation of the Holy Quran should attempt to be faithful to the ST by conveying its message rather than providing the ST stylistic features or its literal meaning. Achieving faithful translation does not mean to achieve sameness or equivalence in its narrow meaning. It rather means to reduce differences and maximize sameness and in light with the Skopos of the TT. In other words, the translation of the Holy Quran may have different skopii in the TL such as educating people on the meanings of the Holy Quran, providing evidence of some scientific facts among others. Therefore, a translator should consider the purpose the translation is conducted for. In most cases, such as most the translations of the whole Holy Quran and like those examples provided in the analysis earlier, the purpose of the translation is to convey the utmost possible meanings of the Holy Quran, and which is the Skopos of the translation in the TT. Having said that the Skopos of the TT should be the main aim of a translator, this does not mean that equivalence should be ignored if it is possible to be achieved. A prompting question in this context is how to handle the problem of lack of equivalence. Some Quranic words lack equivalents in the TL, and therefore, strategies should be proposed. The following steps are suggested to be followed in the translation of the Holy Quran:
The Skopos of the TT should be the bedrock of the translation process. However, Skopos in translating the Holy Quran leaves little room of commission to a translator. A translator should be aware of the different interpretations of the Holy Quran and the causes of revelation. It goes beyond the mere linguistic understanding of the ST to a more comprehensive understanding of the meanings of the Holy Quran in their contexts. A translator, then, has the commission to decide which meaning or meanings are the more accurate ones. The same Quranic text can be rendered in different ways due to the fact that that one lexical item can have many near synonyms. However, such several renditions should not be based on a translator’s whims or tendencies; they rather should be based on established Islamic books. In the examples provided earlier, it has been postulated that more than one translation is possible as long it conveys the meaning of the ST. To put it clearer, let us take the ST phrase أقيموا الصلاة, which can be translated differently based on a translator’s linguistic beliefs. Let’s make the below assumed translations:
Option 1: “establish prayers,”
Option 2: “perform prayers properly.”
Option 3: “perform salah properly.”
Each of the suggested translations can be considered acceptable as each translation is based on linguistic justifications. Option 1 might be intelligible to a target reader who does not know the transliterated term salah, and thus, translating it as “prayers” can approximate the ST word meaning, though it is not absolutely an equivalent to the ST word. The word أقيموا is translated as “establish” in Option 1, which does not convey the ST verb meaning precisely; however, it gives the reader knowledge that prayers should be established, and implicitly in a proper way. The second option seems to be more communicative and faithful to the ST than the first option, as the word أقيموا is rendered as “perform properly,” which tends to convey the ST verb meaning. Although the ST verb was translated into two words (verb + adverb), it is more faithful to the ST because it expresses the intended meaning of the ST verb. In this regard, the componential analysis seems to help in translating semantically complex words. Therefore, equivalence should not be regarded as an issue of linguistics, that is, semantic and grammatical sameness, which can be rarely achieved. Adopting such a notion of Skopos with the suggested modifications suggests a solution for many problems in the translation of the Holy Quran. For example, the past tense in the Holy Quran that refers to future events can be translated to future to convey the message of the ST that tells about inevitable future events. A footnote, however, can be used to draw the attention of the reader to the fact that the ST is coined in the past tense to express the assuredness and inevitability of the occurrence of such future occurrences. However, if the past tense is used in the Holy Quran to express real past, it then should be rendered as past tense.
In a similar vein, sometimes passive voice needs to be rendered into active voice or vice versa in the TL so as to heighten the meaning intended in the ST. In general, though grammar is an issue of meaning in Arabic and English, it should not be an impediment to render the ST meaning. Translators should admit the fact that there are many mismatches between Arabic and English in terms of tenses, aspects, syntactic features, and stylistic features.
A translation should aim at finding an approximate meaning of the ST lexemes, considering a word as the unit of the translation. This should not, however, affect the intended ST message.
Faithfulness should be regarded as a notion that holds a position on a scale that can start from very faithful to unfaithful. A faithful translation is a translation in which no effort was spared to achieve equivalence and to convey the ST message. It is not justified that a translator sacrifices meaning to preserve the stylistic features of an ST. The ultimate goal should be to convey the ST message, with the highest attempt to keep the ST stylistic features in the TT. In case a stylistic feature contradicts the intended message, the message should win out.
In case an equivalent does not exist in the TL, a proper strategy should be followed, which can be the following: Paraphrase. Transliteration accompanied by an explanation of the ST lexeme meaning. Borrowing.
Figure 1 summarizes the suggested approach in translating the Holy Quran.
Proposed model of translating the Holy Quran (stemmed from the Skopos theory).
The model indicates that the skopos of translating the Holy Quran is conveying the ST message with keeping the loss of meaning at a minimal level. In case of a lack of a grammatical equivalent problem, the most communicative translation of the ST tense, based on the Skopos of the TT and the functions of the ST, should be provided. Although if the problem in translation arises from a lack of lexical equivalent, componential analysis of the ST lexical item should be implemented, and then the most communicative translation of the ST lexical item, based on the Skopos of the TT, should be provided.
Conclusion
This study aimed to highlight the problems faced in the translation of the Holy Quran and how they can be dealt with from a different theoretical and practical perspective and in regard to the Skopos theory. The translation of six verses (ayahs) from the Chapter of the Heights and the Chapter of Cattle was purposively selected and analyzed. Several problems and losses in the four translations examined were found. This study suggests that faithfulness be considered as a notion that holds a position on a scale that can start from very faithful to unfaithful. A faithful translation is a translation that indicates that no effort was spared to achieve equivalence and to convey the ST message. The study also suggests that translation of the Holy Quran should be guided by its Skopos rather than unrealistically aiming at achieving equivalence.
Footnotes
Appendix
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
