Arabic is not at all easy to
translate.
By:
Shahid Bin Waheed شاهد
بن وحيد
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمدلله رب العالمين والصلوة والسلام على اشرف الانبياء
وسيدالمرسلين نبينا محمد صل ا لله عليه وعلى آله واصحابه وازواجه اجمعين - امابعد
All the praises and thanks be to Allaah, Sustainer of the Universe, and blessing and salutation to be the most distinguish of the Messengers and foremost among the Prophets, our Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allaah be on him and on his wives, children and Companions.
In this treatise we will briefly explore that Arabic
is not at all easy to translate, and the difficulty is increased hundred times
when translator has to render into English, with any degree of accuracy and
precision, a work so rich in meaning, so pithy in expression, so vigorous
in style and so subtle in implications as the Glorious Qur’aan. The impediments confronting an honest
translator may be summed up under six main parts and various sub headings,
however, we will only discuss here the relevant parts about, why “parenthesis”
are used in translations, especially Arabic into English.
The very first things are the comparative poverty of
the English language in several respects, for instance there is a large
number of Arabic verbs untranslatable into English as verbs, such as: اَبطَلَ ـ
اَسرَفَ ـ صَدَقَ ـ
etc.
Thus,
one has perforce to render each of these words not by a single word but by a
combination of words. Thus, يبخل
has to be translated as “is niggardly” [(is) niggardly], يسرف as “is extravagant” and صَدَقَ as “is truthful.”
There is no equivalent for the Arabic مضارع (aorist) in English. This would also explain the why the Bible does not make sense
and is confusing, since the Greek language also has same aorist. I
wonder how the translators of the Bible get around this without compromising
the accuracy of the text. However, the Arabic مضارع
is both
present and future tenses combined, contrary to that in many other languages
including English a tense is either present or future. Thus, thousands of Arabic verbs are to
be rendered in English, only incompletely.
In English grammar there are only two ‘numbers’ i.e.
singular and plural, and there is no single word to convey the
sense of the Arabic dual تثنيه in nouns as well as verbs,
both in the 2nd and 3rd persons.
There is an absolute comparative dearth of اسماعافاعل (nomina agentis) in English language, whereas
they abound in Arabic. مفلحون ـ معجزون ـقانتون ـ مستقدمون ـ مستاخرون مشرقون ـ متقون ـ شاكرون ـ
صادقون ـ آخرون and many similar
words have to be rendered as adjective or participles, not as substantives.
In Arabic, the feminine plural in the 2nd
and 3rd person is always distinguishable from the masculine. Whereas
in English both genders are covered by
“you” and “they.”
Another
serious difficulty is caused by the case with which ellipses occur in the best
and finest Arabic style, while both words and phrases have to be supplied by
the reader to make the sense complete. At one time, it is only subject that is
mentioned and the predicate is entirely suppressed; and at another time, the
reverse is the case. The obvious duty of the translator at all such occasions
is to supply the omission, although his attempts is many cases must be
hazardous.
Another perplexity is caused to the translator by the abrupt
grammatical transition, in one and the same sentence that are frequent in
Arabic language.
1. Of person, as
from the first and second person to the third, or vice versa;
2. Of number,
from plural to singular, or vice versa;
Another obvious complication is caused by what is known as انتشار ضمار i.e., a personal or relative
pronoun having different antecedents in one and the same sentence. The
translator cannot afford to allow such ambiguities, thus, he/she has to make
his or her choice.
Also, there is no real equivalence in the import of many of the
Arabic and English words generally held to be synonyms. The Arabic words Zina
زنی for instance, has no equivalent in English,
both adultery and fornication being of much narrower import.
Similarly English has few words to express such closely related (متقارب المعنی) Arabic terms as: خوف خشيت ـ
اشفاق ـ ترهيب ـ تقوی. Nor is English
perhaps rich enough to indicate the shades of meanings of such sets of words
as: قادرـ قديرـ مقتدـ رحمنـ رحيمـ ثعبانـ حيةـ
and جان.
Alfred Guillaume writes:
‘Arabic is fitted to express relations with more conciseness
than the Aryan language because of the extraordinary flexibility of the verb
and noun. Thus, the ideas in breaks, shatter, try to break, cause to break,
allow to be broken, break one another, ask someone to break, pretend to break,
are among many variations of the fundamental verbal theme which can. Or could,
be expressed by the vowel changes and consonantal augments without the aid of
the supplementary verbs and pronouns which we have to employ in English. The
noun, too, has an appropriate form for many diverse things, such as the time
and place of an action, bodily defects, diseases, instruments, colors, trades,
and so on.’
The above facts clearly lead us to understand that how
impossible it is to translate the Glorious Qur’aan and Ahadeeth in to English
language? Also without knowing the Islaamic Shariah rules of elucidation and
interpretation, one cannot understand and/or comprehend the true meanings of
Glorious Qur'aan and Ahadeeth. If you are among those Muslims who have no
proper Islaamic education and depends on English translation (mainly) and/or
translation in any other language, it is obvious that you may experience
confusion or lack of clear understanding. Any translation of the Glorious
Qur’aan and/or Ahadeeth is the word of men according to his/her understanding.
Let me briefly state these rules hoping that it will help to eradicate any
confusion in readers’ minds.
In Islaamic Shariah we have textual meaning, suggestive
meaning, required meaning, the obverse meaning and the rules
dealing with the clash of meanings. This continues on to the kinds of
lucid words and texts i.e. (1) Obvious (2) Contextual (3) Construed
and (4) invariable and much more.
Clash of Texts
If obvious and contextual texts come into clash,
contextual text would be preferable; since it conveys the sense intended. In
the event of a conflict between contextual and construed texts, the latter
would be preferred; for it’s meaning is evident and admits no interpretation.
However, if invariable texts come into clash with construed one, the former
would claim preference inasmuch as the sense of the invariable one is more
emphatic than that of the construed text.
In Shariah Obscure texts is further subdivided
into four classes i.e. (1) Equivocal (2) Difficult (3) Concise
and (4) The Unknown. Let me explain very briefly to educate the
readers.
1.
In
juristic terminology an equivocal word is one, which in spite of
conveying an obvious meaning, involves complication and ambiguity, and
therefore calls for careful consideration in its application.
2.
A
difficult word is one which by its mood and grammatical form does not
signify what is actually meant by it, but its meaning can be determined with
the help of something extraneous.
3.
A
concise word is one whose grammatical form does not indicate the actual
meaning; nor is there any literal or circumstantial object of reference that
may help in apprehending such meaning. Concise words include all those
terms, which are given specific technical meaning by detaching
them from their lexical meaning.
4.
A
mystic word is that whose grammatical form does not signify what is
actually meant by it; nor are there any extraneous probabilities indicative of
its meaning and whose significance the law-giver has confined to His/his own
knowledge by leaving it unexplained.
Words fall under three categories according to the
meanings they are designed to convey: (1) Common (2) General (3) Special
1.
A
common word is that which is designed to convey two meanings in
different contexts and serves as a substitutes for the sense it signifies, that
is to say, it sometimes conveys one meaning and sometimes the others; for
instance the word “Qura” applies to both the monthly periods of a woman
(the period of menstruation and period of cleanliness {which are different to
each other}) Another example is the word “Aedihuma” in the Qur’aanic
injunction relating to the imputation of the thief’s hands may mean either the
right hand or left hand of a person found guilty of committing the offence of
theft. Again, hand means part of human body stretching from fingers’ tips up to
the wrist as well as up to the shoulders.
2.
A common word is sometimes shared by lexical and technical
Shariah senses. If it is common in lexical meaning and specific connotation of
the Shariah, it must be taken in its specific connotation. For example, the
dictionary meaning of the word “talaq” {divorce} is to do away with
bondage, whereas in the Shariah it connotes doing away with bondage of wedlock.
Thus, in the Divine decree the above word would be taken to mean breaking
matrimonial tie.
3.
If
a common word is shared by more than two meanings, it must on the basis
of cogent grounds, be taken only in one sense to the exclusion of others. The jurist
is supposed to determine that one particular sense by taking into
consideration all the probabilities and indications. An example of a common word
shared by two dictionary meanings is provided by the letter in this divine
injunction: {“ And do not eat of that on which Allaah’s name has not been
mentioned and that is most surely a transgression” (6:122)}. In this Ayaah is
a common word. It conveys the dictionary meanings of a conjunction
as well as of present tense. If one takes it in the sense of present tense, it
would mean prohibition of that on which Allaah’s name has been mentioned, as
mentioning the name of what is other than Allaah amounts iniquity. If treated
as a conjunction it would mean absolutely unlawful, whether the name of what is
other than Allaah is mentioned or not. Whatever the number of senses
conveyed by a common word, the lawmaker intends only one out of those senses.
If it is designed to convey one meaning, the other meaning/s is excluded.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007