The author is from the Department of Islamic Studies in English, Al-Azhar University, and he is Currently doing MA in Islamic Studies at Leiden University, the Netherlands
 

Introduction

The Qur’an is the Divine literal Word of God, Muslims believe, revealed in Arabic to His Prophet Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. However, Muslims also believe that Prophet Muhammad was not sent to Arabs only but to all mankind. That the message of Islam is a universal one, is a fact admitted by the Qur’an itself in the early Meccan suras (34: 28, 7: 158, 21: 107, etc). Therefore, it is Muslims’ duty to convey the message of Islam and the meanings of the Qur’an to all humanity. But in the meantime there is the concept of the inimitability of the Qur’an; i.e. it is in the highest rank of Arabic rhetoric and beauty that it challenged Arabs to produce the like of the shortest sura of it and they failed.

The problem of translating the Qur’an into foreign languages became more pressing when Muslims came in close contact with non-Arabs, notably Persians, after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. The first appearance and discussion of the issue in classical books of fiqh was related to the issue of reciting the translation of the Qur’an in prayer. However, in the 1920s and 1930s, the issue of translating the Qur’an reappeared due to several historical factors, which played a significant role in this debate, namely the translations made for nationalistic and sectarian purposes[1] as well as those made by Orientalists and missionaries for polemical purposes. Thus the different opinions of this period should be discussed in light of these factors.
 

The present study will try to provide an account of the early twentieth century debate providing the arguments and counter-arguments regarding the translation of the Qur’an. Only some of the opinions of Muslim scholars on the translation of the Qur’an will be discussed. In doing so four eminent scholars (two of each side), will be taken as examples of the debate at that time.

1. Opponents of the Translation of the Qur’an

In a separate study, the opinion of Rashid Rida regarding the translation of the Qur’an ‘was discussed.[2] Rida was not alone in his opposition to the translation of the Qur’an to non-Arab Muslims, yet we will see other scholars who adopted more or less the same opinion because of the early twentieth century conditions, which incited this approach. Among these scholars we the opinions of Sheikh Muhammad Hasanayn Makhluf and Sheikh Muhammad Shakir will be discussed.

1.1 Sheikh Muhammad Shakir[3]

In 1925 Sheikh Muhammad Shakir, former Wakil of al-Jami‘ al-Azhar, wrote a long article published in four parts[4] respectively in Al-Muqattam daily newspaper. This article was published later in the same year as a book entitled Al-Qawl al-Fasl fi Tarjamat al-Qur’an al-Karim ila al-Lughat al-A‘jamiyya.[5] Sheikh Shakir started by explaining what is meant by translation. He defined it as “the transference of speech from one language to another.” He then stated that a translator must know the meaning of each individual word, the idea that each one is intended to convey, either literally or metaphorically, and the special rules of composition whereby these individual words can express a sequence of ideas. The translator’s knowledge of the target language, he continued, must be equal to his knowledge of the language from which he translates — not merely as to the meaning of individual words and their literal and metaphorical use, but also the syntactical modes of expression — otherwise the translation will fail to convey the sense of the original or will differ from it.[6]

He compared the translation from one language to another to substituting one expression for another in the same language, in the sense that a balance of meaning must be preserved between the original and the translation, and between one phrase and another. Then he inquired if, in the case of the Qur’an, a due balance of meaning can be achieved in the replacement of one expression of the sacred text for another, no matter how much we strive to preserve this balance of meaning. In answer, he stated that no Muslim since the time of the Prophet to the present age had hesitated to give a definite answer in the negative and to condemn it absolutely, and that no man may change one word for another in the order it is set down in the Qur’an, even though the two words may be exactly synonymous.[7] He gave an example with the word walad in surat ’Al ‘Imran (4: 47) and ghulam in surat Maryam (19: 20) stating that all Muslims agree that we are not at liberty to read in both suras, either walad or ghulam, nor put one of these words in place of the other in either of the two suras. He then stressed that if this kind of change of one expression for another in the language of the Qur’an itself is forbidden by all Muslims, then such a change as would be implied by the transference of all the words in the sacred text from the Arabic language into any foreign language is much more strictly forbidden.[8]

He also argued that the Qur’an is distinguished from all other heavenly books by the sacred character that accompanies its arrangement in Arabic. As to the Tawrah and the Injil, he continued, each one of them is a sacred book but through a sacred meaning quite apart from sacred words.[9] He condemned those persons making demands for a translation of the Qur’an reminding them that the Qur’an is the abiding remnant of the Islamic community, after the great war had torn asunder the countries of Islam, and after the Turkish republic had demolished the throne of the exalted caliphate and thrown aside the chief capital of Islam. Then he warned them that they will see another battle-ground for the Islamic community, when they find in the Turkish republic a Turkish Qur’an, and in the English colonies an English Qur’an, and in the colonies of other governments a French or Italian, or Spanish or Dutch Qur’an, which the translators will have to correct and revise whenever they recognize a need for correction and revision as is the case with the Tawrah and the Injil.[10]

Finally, he concluded that it is not lawful to make a translation of the Qur’an just as it is not lawful to proceed to change any single one of its sacred words and substitute another Arabic one for it, or to transfer any word or verse from its original place to any other place in a verse or chapter. He also stated that the proper way to propagate the religion of Islam is by means of what the Book brought and spread among the peoples and nations, in spite of the diversity of their languages, for it does not depend upon translations.[11]

1.2 Sheikh Muhammad Hasanayn Makhluf[12]

In the same year (1925) Sheikh Hasanayn Makhluf, former Mufti of Egypt, published a treatise entitled Risala fi Hukm Tarjamat al-Qur’an al-Karim wa-Qira’atihi wa-Kitabatihi bi-ghayr al-Lughati al-‘Arabiyya which was originally the last of four treatises he started on Rajab 1340/1922 and dedicated to some themes pertaining to Qur’anic sciences.[13] First, he distinguished between three kinds of translation (1) equal literal translation, (2) unequal literal translation, and (3) interpretative translation, stating that the first, i.e. the word for word translation which is identical to the original in its composition, style and rhetoric, is out of discussion for there is consensus among scholars that it is unimaginable and impossible to achieve.[14] Also he stated that the interpretative translation is not a translation of the words of the original but of their interpretation, in other words, it is an interpretation of or commentary on the Qur’an in another language. Sheikh Makhluf, maintained that this translation is unanimously permissible provided that it is based on the sound Prophetic traditions, a knowledge of the sciences of Arabic language, and of other Qur’anic sciences which are required for the interpretation of the Qur’an.[15]

As for the unequal literal translation, which is the focus of his treatise, he said that in this kind of translation the translators try to replace each word by its equivalent in the target language as much as possible and thus it is not necessary to preserve the characteristics of the original in the translation.[16] He went on to explain that this occurred in the various translations made by Orientalists since the time they commenced translating the Qur’an in the eleventh century. The purpose of the majority of them, he said, was to damage it, distort its composition, and change its meanings. His opinion was that the best method of combating this campaign was to inform them that what they produced was not the Qur’an, and to convey to them the true message of the Qur’an, because most of what they knew about it was false due to the faults of translators or intentional distortion and alteration.[17] Then he stated that this kind of translation (i.e. the unequal literal trans.) is unlawful arguing that Allah and His Messenger took the responsibility of protecting and guarding the composition and style of the Qur’an and ordered us to protect it, so any act that contradicts this protection is an evil and a bad thing for it gives way to its alteration and distortion. In this sense the translation is an aggression against Allah and His Messenger and alteration of His Book. The same applies to the interpretative translation if it deviated from the Sunna of the Prophet, the basic sciences and principles of interpretation upon which the commentators relied.[18]

He referred to the opinions of the jurists of the four schools of jurisprudence stating that they did not permit the literal translation of the Qur’an. He pointed out that none of them was reported to have permitted it in any age except for what was reported about the Hanafis that they permitted the recitation of the translation of the Qur’an for the obligatory part needed in prayer on the basis of a certain proof.[19]

The method of conveying and propagating the message of Islam to all humans, he elucidated, was through explaining the principles of Islam that the Qur’an brought and were embodied in the biography of the Prophet which can be expressed in all languages without any need for translation [of the Qur’an].[20] Then he gave examples with the Muslim Turks, Persians, and Indians who read the Qur’an in Arabic, though they do not know Arabic but understand as much of it [the Qur’an] as is necessary to fulfill the obligations of Islam without any need for the translation of the Qur’an.[21]

He concluded that the unequal literal translation is unlawful; the interpretative translation is permitted provided that it is based on a valid interpretation of the Qur’an; and that spreading Islam to all humans is not dependant on the translation of the Qur’an but on a sound translation of the principles of Islam, which is fard kifaya (collective duty).[22]

2. Proponents of the Translation of the Qur’an

We will study now the opinions of two scholars who permitted the translation of the Qur’an.

2.1 Sheikh Muhammad Mustafa al-Maraghi[23]

Sheikh Muhammad Mustafa al-Maraghi, former Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar, advocated the translation of the Qur’an and expressed the opinion that it is absolutely permissible in a treatise first published in 1932. In 1355/1936 he added to it some other quotations of classical works supporting his viewpoint. This treatise was republished in Nur al-Islam under the title Bahth fi Tarjamat al-Qur’an al-Karim wa-’Ahkamuha and it was also distributed as a supplement to the second issue of the magazine on the occasion of the cooperation between al-Azhar and the ministry of Education in translating the meanings of the Qur’an. He used some quotations of al-Shatibi, Ibn Hajar, and al-Zamakhshari as the basis of his arguments. He started by quoting a passage of al-Shatibi, a Maliki scholar who died in Granada in 790 AH, which reads: “Arabic words, on their own or arranged in literary form to make sense, may be considered from two aspects: either they convey absolute meanings (ma‘anin mutlaqa) or auxiliary meanings (ma‘anin khadima). The first is common to all languages, so that it is possible to express in foreign languages what is expressed in Arabic and vice versa. …The second, derived from highly developed rhetoric, is peculiar to Arabic. If this second view is admitted, it is not possible to translate, in any way, Arabic into foreign tongues, still less to translate the Qur’an, unless the two languages concerned be proved equal… a very difficult thing to do conclusively….”[24] Al-Maraghi then stressed al-Shatibi’s conclusion that it is possible to translate the Qur’an, if the absolute meaning alone is considered, since by common agreement of all Muslims it is permissible to comment on it, and this agreement on its tafsir was an argument for the legitimacy of its translation.[25] Al-Maraghi went on to maintain that translation is similar to commentary in that both are meant to explain the meanings and purposes of the Qur’an in other words. The only difference is that the commentator uses Arabic while the translator uses a non-Arabic language. Since it is possible that a commentator be wrong or right in expressing the meanings, the same possibility should be accepted in respect to the translation as long as the commentator and translator possess the required qualifications.[26]

Al-Maraghi also quoted al-Zamakhshari’s aforementioned commentary on verse (14: 4) in which he stated, “If you argue that the Messenger of Allah was not sent to the Arabs alone but to all mankind…who speak different languages, so that if the Arabs could not make any plea (of ignorance) others could, then I would say this: The Qur’an could have been revealed either in all numerous languages, or only in one language. If the revelation were to be communicated in all languages, it would lead to needless repetition, since translation could serve as a substitute for such repetition. Hence it was revealed to the Prophet in the language of his own people, to whom he was sent, in the preliminary stage of the call to Islam. Once these people came to understand comprehensively the meaning of this message, they took the task of transmitting it to the rest of mankind throughout the world. This is evident in all non-Arab countries, where Muslims get their instruction in the Qur’an through translations in their native tongues…”[27] Furthermore, al-Maraghi stated that Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani in his commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari under the chapter entitled “Nazala al-Qur’an bilisan Quraysh wal-‘Arab…” [The Qur’an was revealed in the language of Quraysh and the Arabs…] quoted Ibn Battal who said, “The Qur’an was revealed in the Arabic tongue but this does not contradict the fact that the Prophet was sent to all peoples because he conveyed it [the Revelation] to the Arabs and they in turn would translate it to non-Arabs in their own tongues.”[28]

Al-Maraghi then commenced to respond to the arguments of the opponents of the translation of the Qur’an. He stated that the Qur’an is unanimously the literal word of Allah revealed to Prophet Muhammad in the Arabic language. He denied that Abu Hanifah once held that it is the meaning of the revealed Arabic text as it was reported. Al-Maraghi then asserted that the Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet for two purposes: first, [instruction] through the meanings it comprised such as tawhid (the unity of Allah), the code of Divine laws dealing with all spheres of life, the code of ethics and manners, etc., and second, a proof for the veracity of Muhammad’s Prophethood, that is i‘jaz[29] (the inimitability of the Qur’an).[30] He stated that the majority of Muslim scholars view that the i‘jaz consists in the excellence of its literary composition. Hence no translation could transfer both of the meaning and literary style of the Arabic text to the target languages, but this does not mean that it is impossible to transfer the meaning. As for the i‘jaz, i.e., the inimitability of the literary style, it is still preserved in the Arabic text for the Arabs and non-Arabs who read the Arabic text.[31] then al-Maraghi argued that if the inimitability of the Qur’an lies in the fact that it contained certain forecasts of the future, as some believed, then the translation can convey this proof for this aspect of inimitability is connected to the meaning not to wording.[32]

Al-Maraghi stressed that the translations cannot be called Qur’an and thus if they are altered or happened to differ from one another, this has nothing to do with the Arabic text which is preserved against any change or alteration as Allah promised. It is, he continued, the official text, which must be resorted to in case of differences, and the criterion for judging any translation to exist.[33]

Finally, al-Maraghi concluded that it is not permissible to change the words of the Arabic text or alter their arrangement and composition, which we are required to protect against distortion and alteration. Translations have nothing to do with this, for they are not the Qur’an and should not be described as such; they are no more than the meanings of the Qur’an. He added that it is not possible to translate the whole Qur’an literally, but this is possible with regard to the majority of its verses. He admitted that the interpretative translation may change the meaning intended by Allah for it is dependant on the understanding and interpretation [of the translator] but he stated that the Hanafis permitted this kind of translation and that al-Shatibi also permitted it comparing it to commentary. Then he stated that arabizing non-Arab Muslims is a pleasant aspiration and every Muslim wishes that Arabic would be the tongue of the whole Muslim world so that all Muslims could read and understand the Arabic text of the Qur’an. However, he emphasized that until this wish is fulfilled it is better that the meanings of the Qur’an be translated to non-Arab Muslims so that they could comprehend and reflect upon them. He also stated that the true meanings of the Qur’an should not be hidden from Christian communities but they should be properly transferred to them so that their scholars could study its social institutions, codes of ethics, etc.[34]

2.2 Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut[35]

In 1355/1936 Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut [former Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar] wrote an article entitled “Tarjamat al-Qur’an wa-Nusus al-‘Ulama’ fiha” in Majallat al-Azhar expressing his attitude regarding the translation of the Qur’an.[36] He adopted the same opinion as Sheikh al-Maraghi. First, he explained that the cause of the controversy on the issue was that some Muslim reformers noticed that many translations of the Qur’an were made by non-Muslims and contained many mistakes, which in turn led to misunderstanding of the meanings of the Qur’an. These Muslim reformers called for the making of a translation containing precise and adequate meanings of the Qur’an, which could then be spread all over the world so that, on the one hand, the guidance and principles of Islam would be propagated, and that it would overcome the corrupt translations on the other hand.[37]

Shaltut then referred to the three kinds of translation previously identified by Sheikh Shakir and stated that the equal literal translation which is intended to preserve the inimitability and excellence of the literary composition of the original was out of discussion for it is impossible and beyond human ability. As for the unequal literal translation and the interpretative translation, he stated that none of them could convey the inimitable aspects of the Qur’an, so such translations were not the Qur’an or its equal, for the Qur’an is the inimitable word of Allah revealed in Arabic and reached us through successive transmission. He emphasized that the existence of any of these two kinds of translation neither challenges the inimitable aspects of the Qur’an nor suffices to convey its purposes, i.e. i‘jaz and tabligh (instruction). But he stressed that the inimitability of the Qur’an consisted not only in its rhetoric and literary composition but also in that it contained certain forecasts of the future, which could not be perceived except through revelation, as well as distinctive codes of laws and social and ethical principles, which no one could say were capable of invention either wholly or partially by an unlettered man. If the translation could not transfer the inimitable rhetoric and composition, he argued, it could transfer the other great aspects of inimitability, which are connected to the original meanings, and thus humanity should not be deprived from them.[38]

Like Sheikh al-Maraghi, Shaltut quoted the aforementioned passages of al-Shatibi, al-Zamakhshari, and Ibn Hajar in support of his views. He then quoted the opinions of Muslim jurists which focused on the issue of reciting the translated Qur’an in prayer. He mentioned the opinions of the Hanafi School who made the permission to do so conditional on the inability to recite it in Arabic. He went on to say that the other schools opposed the Hanafis not because the translation itself was not permissible but because they held that what is required in prayer is the recitation of the Qur’an and the translation cannot unanimously be described as the Qur’an.[39] Then he stated that both Sheikh Bakhit[40] (former Mufti of Egypt from 1915 to 1920) and Sheikh Muhammad Hasanayn al-‘Adawi held that Muslim jurists agreed on translating the meanings of the Qur’an for instruction and propagation. Furthermore, he quoted Sheikh Bakhit to the effect that the translation of the Qur’an was a collective duty to protect the Qur’an against any alteration or invalid translation.[41]

In 1959, as a Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar, Shaltut stated that it is the duty of the Corps of High Scholars to write a simplified interpretation of the Qur’an which should be translated in all eastern and western languages so that the corrupt thoughts which imperialism introduced in the minds of the children of Muslims would be removed.[42]

3. Analysis

From the previous discussions we can identify many common points between both the opponents and advocates of the translation of the Qur’an. In general, none of them opposed translation of the meanings of the Qur’an to non-Muslims for the purpose of enabling them to have knowledge of the message of Islam. None of them denied the fact that the style of the Qur’an is inimitable and that it is impossible to transfer this inimitable aspect into a translation, and thus none of them stated that a translation could serve as a substitute for the original. None denied the need to have access to the Arabic original.

However, we have observed differing attitudes towards the issue on two main grounds: first, on legal grounds, for the issue was one of controversy among Muslim scholars in the past and thus the old debate was retained in the new discourse and each side more or less adopted one of the old attitudes. The second is a historical ground that had different effects on the discussion. It is obvious that all the fatwas issued at a particular period were affected by certain historical elements, which represented external threats to the solidarity of the community.

We have looked at the phase of history when the Turkish government was endeavoring to severe all ties and relations with Muslim countries, and to isolate the Turkish people from the language of the Qur’an by providing a substitute for it, with which they would have no need of the Arabic Qur’an. As we have seen this threatened the solidarity of the Muslim nation, and that is why all the fatwas more or less stressed the fact that a translation cannot be described as the Qur’an. Thus in response to this threat, some scholars opposed the idea of translation in general, and permitted only a translation of a commentary on the Qur’an so as to preserve the composition of the Qur’an from corruption, and to ensure that the remaining bond of Islamic unity (i.e. the Qur’an) after the collapse of the Islamic caliphate would not be severed in favor of nationalistic goals. This attitude was represented in the positions of Muhammad Shakir, Mustafa Sabrî, and Hasanayn Makhluf, who by invoking the principle of sadd al-dhara’i‘ were keen to preserve Islamic unity and fight against those, who tried to divert the peoples from the Arabic Qur’an and the Arabic language.
 

On the other hand, we encounter the long history of the Orientalist-missionary polemics towards the Qur’an and their production of a distorted image of the Qur’an, the Prophet Muhammad and the religion of Islam in general in the Western world. Though the first group felt this danger, some of them did not think that the production of a true translation of the Qur’an could prevent this campaign. This was the opinion of Sheikh Makhluf. In his opinion, the best method of opposing this campaign was to inform them that what they produced was not the Qur’an, to convey to them the true message of the Qur’an and assure them that the Qur’an is untranslatable. However, the second group perceived a danger and tried to react in a more positive way by calling for the production of a faithful translation of the Qur’an as an attempt to correct the misconceptions spread in the West. The reaction to the Qadiani threat was more or less the same as that to the Orientalist-missionary approach by both sides.

I submit that prominent among the reasons which caused the differences are variations in the way each scholar defined tarjama, the distinctions which the scholar makes in consequence of that definition, what he approves and rejects of the different kinds of translation, as well as the inimitable nature of the Arabic text of the Qur’an and how they respond to this issue.

4. Conclusion

From the aforementioned discussions we can reach two important conclusions. The first is that Muslim scholars did not stand aloof from their society, but were aware of its problems and tried their best to solve these problems and fight against the various threats endangering the solidarity and development of their societies. By dealing with the problem of the translation of the Qur’an, which serves here as an example, we can touch this aspect of the Muslim society very closely. The historical elements which surrounded the issue at particular moments of history emphasize this conclusion, for they reveal how Muslim scholars responded to the needs of society at these times. The second conclusion was the important role that the Arabic language has played in unifying the Muslim world, for it is not the language of Arabs but of all Muslims; it is the language of the Qur’an, of worship, and Islamic heritage.

From here I call upon all Muslims to pay more attention to the Arabic language in their educational curricula, and to establish institutions in the West to shoulder the task of teaching Muslims there the language of the Qur’an. In the meantime, I call upon Muslim scholars from all Muslim countries to convene an International Islamic committee including professionals both in Arabic as well as in the different foreign languages to examine the present translations of the Qur’an and revise whatever mistakes they find in them and hold regular revision sessions for these translations.