873013

research-article20192019
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244019873013SAGE OpenAbdelaal

Original Research

SAGE Open

Faithfulness in the Translation of the Holy

July-September 2019: 1­–14
© The Author(s) 2019
DOI: 10.1177/2158244019873013
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019873013

Quran: Revisiting the Skopos Theory journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Noureldin Mohamed Abdelaal1

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.

Keywords
faithfulness, equivalence, translation, the Holy Quran, Skopos theory

Introduction issues related to faithfulness arise when a translator is doing

Faithfulness in translation has always been an issue that
preoccupied the minds of translators and readers of transla-
tion (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 authorita-
tive in nature (Diniz, 2003). Diniz (2003) believes that
translator’s failure to keep the original wording and expres-
sion 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 interpreta-
tions 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 prej-
udiced, biased, and unethical. Newmark (1988) claims that
a service translation. However, a good translator is likely to
be faithful to the ST.
Faithfulness, in this sense, is regarded in relation to equiv-
alence. 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 possi-
ble despite the cultural and linguistic limitations, and there-
fore we should aim at attaining situational equivalence.
1
University of Nizwa, Oman
Corresponding Author:
Noureldin Mohamed Abdelaal, Department of Foreign Languages, 611,
University of Nizwa, Nizwa, Oman.
Email: nourabdelal@yahoo.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
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 desir-
ability 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 appropri-
ate one in translation is still arguable. There are many per-
spectives 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 tena-
ble 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 equiv-
alence: 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 cul-
tures. However, this approach was critiqued for its presup-
position 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 cul-
turally 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 pro-
posed, 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 estab-
lished 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 com-
municative 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 gen-
eral 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:
1. A trunslatum (or TT) is determined by its Skopos.
2. A TT is an offer of information in a target culture and
target language (TL) concerning an offer of informa-
tion in a source culture and source language (SL).
3. A TT does not initiate an offer of information in a
clearly reversible way.
4. A TT must be internally coherent.
5. A TT must be coherent with the ST.
Abdelaal
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 prerequi-
site for a good translation. Vermeer and Reiss also under-
score 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 situ-
ation (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 afore-
mentioned hierarchical order of the rules, intertextual coher-
ence 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 trans-
lated 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 the-
ory, it can be literally translated and then explained in a foot-
note (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 transla-
tion 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 emo-
tive 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:
Research Question 1: What problems are found in the
translations of Abdel Haleem, Pickthall, Shakir, and
Sarwar of some the Holy Quran’s verses?
Research Question 2: How can these problems be han-
dled from a different theoretical and practical perspective
and in regard to the Skopos theory?
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 anal-
yses do not fit the research problem (Creswell, 2007).
3
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 quanti-
ties or numbers. This study falls under the hermeneutic or inter-
pretive 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 usu-
ally 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 prac-
tice, 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 expres-
sion at all leads to unfaithfulness to the ST, and Nida and
Taber’s (1982) notion of faithfulness, who stress the impor-
tance 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.
4 SAGE Open

The Skopos of the translation of the Holy Quran is to practi- specific context of revelation (As-Sadi, 1999). Similarly, the
cally convey the primary meaning and, if possible, the asso- present simple is used in English to express facts that are
ciations of the primary meaning of the ST. Conveying the permanent (As Samarrai, 2015). Similarly, the use of the
other features of the Holy Quran, such as the style, may be noun form to translate the relative clause of the ST by Sarwar
sacrificed for the sake of the meaning. and Abdel Haleem seems to convey the same purpose of the
ST, because nouns express stability and continuity. However,
it might be argued that rendering the ST word as “disbe-
Examples of Faithfulness Issues in Translation
liever” is more faithful to the ST than “unbeliever.”
This section aims to address the first research question, “Disbeliever” indicates the fact of rejecting faith and belief
which is about the problems found in the translation of the deliberately, which might not be conveyed in the use of
Holy Quran. Examples are provided with suggested transla- “unbeliever.” According to Collins Cobuild Dictionary
tions in some cases (whenever needed). (2006), “unbeliever” is used to refer to a person who does not
believe in a particular religion, whereas “disbeliever” is used
Example 1 to refer to a person who rejects as false and does not accept
what others say. Therefore, we may say that the four transla-
ST (6:7) ‫ين َك َف ُروا إِ ْن‬ َ ‫وه بأَ ْي ِديه ْم لَ َق‬
َ ‫ال الَّ ِذ‬ َ َ َ َ ْ َ
ِ ِ ُ ‫اس َفل َم ُس‬
ٍ ‫َول ْو َن َّزل َنا َعليْك ِك َتابًا ِفي ِق ْرط‬ tions are correct and they meet the Skopos of the TT. In short,
‫هَٰذَا إِلَّا سِحْرٌ مُّبِين‬ considering faithfulness in relation to the Skopos theory
gives more room to a translator to look at the discrepancies
TRANSL. Walaw nazzalna AAalayka kitabanfee qirtasin between an SL and a TL in an attempt to overcome the hur-
falamasoohu bi-aydeehim laqala allatheenakafaroo in hatha illa dles faced.
sihrun mubeen
Example 2
Abdel Haleem: Even if We had sent down to you [Prophet] a
book inscribed on parchment, and they had touched it with their ُ ‫وب ِه ْم أَ ِك َنّ ًة أَن ي َْف َقه‬ ُُ َ ْ
ST ۚ ‫آذا ِن ِه ْم َو ْق ًرا‬ َ ‫ُوه َو ِفي‬ َ َ ْ ‫َو ِم ْنهُم َّمن ي‬
ِ ‫َس َت ِم ُع إِليْك ۖ َو َج َعل َنا َعل ٰى قل‬
own hands, the disbelievers would still say, “This is nothing
َ ‫ول الَّ ِذ‬
‫ين َك َف ُروا إِ ْن َٰه َذا‬ ُ ‫ُجا ِدلُو َن َك ي َُق‬
َ ‫ي‬ َ
‫ُوك‬ ‫ء‬ ‫ا‬‫‏ج‬ ‫ا‬ َ
‫ذ‬ ‫إ‬ ‫ى‬
َ ِ ٰ َ َِ َِّ
‫ت‬ ‫ح‬ ۚ ‫ا‬‫ه‬ ‫ب‬ ‫وا‬ ُ
‫ن‬ ‫م‬ ْ
‫ُؤ‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ا‬ّ
َ‫ل‬ ٍ َ َّ ‫َر ْوا ُك‬
‫ة‬ ‫ي‬ ‫آ‬ ‫ل‬ َ ‫َوإِن ي‬
‎but blatant sorcery.”
‫َوّلِين‬َ ‫(إِلَّا أَسَاطِيرُ الْأ‬6:25)

Pickthall: Had we sent down unto thee (Muhammad) (actual)

TRANSL. Waminhum man yastamiAAu ilayka wajaAAalna
writing upon parchment, so that they could feel it with their
AAala quloobihim akinnatan an y‎ afqahoohu wafee athanihim
hands, those who disbelieve would have said: This is naught
waqran wa-in yaraw kulla ayatin la yu/minoo biha hatta itha
else than mere magic.
jaooka yujadiloonaka yaqoolu allatheena kafaroo in hatha illa
asateeru al-awwaleena
Shakir: And if We had sent to you writing on a paper, then they
had touched it with their hands, certainly those who disbelieve
Abdel Haleem: Among them are some who [appear to]
would have said: This is nothing but clear enchantment.
listen to you, but we have placed covers over t‎ heir hearts– so
they do not understand the Quran– and deafness in their ears.
Muhammad Sarwar: (Muhammad), had We sent you a Book Even if ‎they saw every sign they would not believe in them.
on paper, the unbelievers would have touched it with their So, when they come to you, they a‎ rgue with you: the disbelievers
hands but would still have said, “It is no more than plain say, “These are nothing but ancient fables,” (p. 81).
sorcery.”
Pickthall: Of them are some who listen unto thee, but We have
In Example 1 above, the ST phrase ‫ َالّذِينَ كَفَرُوا‬was rendered placed upon their hearts veils, lest they should understand, and
by Abdel Haleem as “the disbelievers,” whereas it was trans- in their ears a deafness. If they saw every token they would not
lated by Pickthall and Shakir as “those who disbelieve.” believe therein; to the point that, when they come unto thee to
However, it was translated as “unbelievers” by Sarwar. It argue with thee, the disbelievers say: This is naught else than
seems that Pickthall’s and Shakir’s translation are the most fables of the men of old.
faithful translations, among the four translations, to the ST.
The ST phrase is a relative clause, with its verb in the past Shakir: And of them is he who hearkens to you, and We have
cast veils over their hearts lest they understand it and a
tense. However, Pickthall and Shakir opted to render it in the
heaviness into their ears; and even if they see every sign they
present simple, whereas Sarwar rendered it as a noun, which will not believe in it; so much so that when they come to you
might be claimed to violate faithfulness to the ST. However, they only dispute with you; those who disbelieve say: This is
I guess this does not violate faithfulness to the ST because naught but the stories of the ancients.
the Skopos of the TT, namely, conveying the primary mean-
ing, is achieved. The ST phrase refers to disbelievers through- Muhammad Sarwar: Some of them listen to you, but We have
out ages, as Islamic scholars postulate that the Quranic ayahs veiled their hearts so that they cannot understand and made
should be perceived in their universality rather than in their them deaf. They disbelieve all the evidence (of Our existence)
Abdelaal
that they may have seen. They only come to you for the sake of
argument and the disbelievers say that (whatever Muhammad
says) is no more than ancient legends.
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 ‎‫يستمع‬‎was rendered as “(appear)
to listen” by Abdel Haleem, whereas it was translated as “lis-
ten” by Sarwar and Pickthall. Similarly, it was translated as
“hearkens” by Shakir. It seems that Abdel Haleem’s transla-
tion is the least faithful to the ST because it reflects a kind of
redundancy. Adding “appear” to indicate that the disbeliev-
ers 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 n‎ ecessarily 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 transla-
tion 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 lis-
tened 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 equiv-
alence that can exist between an ST and a TT, namely, equi-
functional translation and heterofunctional translation.
Equifunctional translation happens when the translation con-
veys the same function intended in the ST, whereas hetero-
functional 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 equifunc-
tional translation, and if he fails to do so, he can then attempt
heterofunctional translation.
In a similar vein, ‫وب ِه ْم أَ ِك َنّ ًة‬ُُ َ ْ
ِ ‫ َو َج َعل َنا َعل ٰى قل‬was 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 ‫وب ِه ْم‬ ُُ َ
ِ ‫ َعل ٰى قل‬is
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
5
the verb “cast” to translate the ST verb ‫ جَعَلْنَا‬seems to be less
faithful to the ST because it suggests a forceful action, which
is not the case of the ST verb. The ST verb refers to the fact
that these covers are on disbelievers’ hearts due to their rejec-
tion of the truth and belief. The Quranic ayah is figurative; it
shows how t‎hose disbelievers as if they had covers and veils
over their hearts that prevent them from u‎ nderstanding the
Holy Quran. These covers are not in the sense that Allah
Almighty ‎forced them to be unable to perceive the Holy
Quran and its meanings (Ibn Ashour, 1984). It ‎indicates that
their evil deeds covered their hearts and made them unable to
accept the ‎truth. This is similar to another ayah in surah al
MutTafifeen, which reads [Kalla bal r‎ ana AAala quloobihim
ma kanoo yaksiboona]/No indeed! Their hearts are encrusted
with what they have done (Abdel Haleem’s translation)/.
One evidence, as mentioned by Ibn ‎Ashour (1984), that indi-
cates that Allah Almighty did not put such veils over the
hearts of the disbelievers and forced them to ‎be disbelievers
is that Abu Sufiyan2 (radiya Allahu anh) ‎embraced Islam
later, after the revelation of this ‎ayah in Example 2. However,
the verb ‎‫جعلنا‬‎refers to the nature of those disbelievers who
‎reject facts and faith.‎
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 faith-
ful to the ST by capitalizing the pronoun in the TT.
ْ ‫َر ْوا ُك َّل آ َي ٍة لَّا ي‬
The ST conditional clause ‫ُؤ ِمنُوا ِب َها‬ َ ‫ َوإِن ي‬was
translated as “Even if ‎they saw every sign they would not
believe in them” by Abdel Haleem. Similarly, it was trans-
lated 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 juris-
prudence (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 exis-
tence) 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 con-
ditional 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
6 SAGE Open
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 over-
tones of the ST to a great extent. It is important in this con-
text 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.
Example 3
‫ْه َما ِمن َو َر ِق‬ َ
ِ ‫ص َف‬
ِ ‫ان َعلي‬ ْ ‫َت لَ ُه َما َس ْوآتُ ُه َما َو َط ِف َقا ي‬
ِ ‫َخ‬
ّ َ
ُ َ َ ّ
َ ُ َ ُ ّ
َ ُ
َ ‫َاه َما َر ُبّ ُه َما ‏أل ْم أن َهك َما َعن ِتلك َما الش َج َر ِة وأقل لك َما إِ َّن الشيْط‬
‫ان لك َما َع ُد ٌّو‬
ٌ‫(مُّبِين‬7:22)
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
Abdel Haleem: he lured them with lies. Their nakedness
became exposed to them when they had ‎eaten from the tree:
they began to put together leaves from the Garden to cover
‎themselves. Their Lord called to them, “Did I not forbid you to
approach that tree? ‎Did I not warn you that Satan was your
sworn enemy?” ‎(p. 95).
Pickthall: Thus did he lead them on with guile. And when
they tasted of the tree their shame was manifest to them and
they began to hide (by heaping) on themselves some of the
leaves of the Garden. And their Lord called them, (saying): Did
I not forbid you from that tree and tell you: Lo! Satan is an open
enemy to you?
Shakir: Then he caused them to fall by deceit; so when they
tasted of the tree, their evil inclinations became manifest to
them, and they both began to cover themselves with the leaves
of the garden; and their Lord called out to them: Did I not forbid
you both from that tree and say to you that the Shaitan is your
open enemy?
Muhammad Sarwar: Thus, he deceitfully showed them (the
tree). When they had tasted (fruits) from the tree, their private
parts became revealed to them and they began to cover their
private parts with leaves from the garden. Their Lord then
called out to them saying, “Did I not forbid you to eat (fruits)
from the tree and tell you that Satan was your sworn enemy?”
The ST phrase ‫ور‬ ُ َّ‫ َفدَل‬was rendered by Abdel Haleem as
ٍ ‫اه َما ِب ُغ ُر‬
“he lured them with lies,” which may convey the ST mean-
ing 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
ٍ ‫ب ُغ ُر‬.ِ As for Shakir, he translated the ST clause as “Then he
‫ور‬
caused them to fall by deceit,” which seems to be less faith-
ful 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
َّ ‫اه َما ب ُغ ُرور ۚ َفلَ َّما َذ َاقا‬
ْ ‫الش َج َر َة َبد‬ ٍ ِ ُ ‫َفدَل‬
ْ َ َ translation is acceptable as well, but it is less faithful than the
ُ ْ َ
ُ ‫ْال َجن ِة ۖ َوناد‬
َ ّ
َ
two aforementioned translations. By contrast, Sarwar’s
translation seems to be the least faithful to the ST.
The ST conditional clause ‫َت لَ ُه َما َس ْوآتُ ُه َما‬ َّ ‫ َفلَ َّما َذ َاقا‬was
ْ ‫الش َج َر َة َبد‬
translated by Abdel Haleem as “Their nakedness became
exposed to them when they had ‎eaten from the tree.” Abdel
Haleem translated ‎‫ذاقا‬‎as “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
‫ ذاقا‬is used in the ST to indicate that Adam and Eve did not eat
until they became full with the fruits of the tree. Thus, trans-
lating the ST word ‫ ذاقا‬into “ate” instead of “tasted,” which is
the literal meaning of the ST word does not convey the spe-
cific meaning. According to Newmark (1988), a literal trans-
lation 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 com-
plete ‎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 faith-
ful to the ST by rendering the ST word as “tasted,” as the
three other translators did. As noted, the ST word ‫ َس ْوآتُ ُه َما‬was
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
Abdelaal
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 ‫ أقل‬was 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 equiv-
alent 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 lan-
guage 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 ‫ الجنة‬as “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 Hadi alar-
wah ila biladi al afrah3), Ibn Taymyyah4 in Majmouaa
Alfatawa, mentioned that it is agreed-on among Muslims
and scholars of Ahlu Sunnah waljamaah that the Jannah
Adam and Eve were asked to leave is the eternal Jannah that
believers will enter in the Hereafter. Furthermore, even if
the Jannah Adam entered was different from the Jannah in
the Hereafter, it cannot be compared with a garden, even a
special garden. Thus, the eternal Jannah cannot be an equiv-
alent to the word “Garden.” The eternal Jannah refers to
every kind of pleasure believers will experience in the
Hereafter including seeing Allah Almighty’s face in a way
that cannot be imagined in this earthly life. Thus, the TT
word conveyed a very narrow shade of the meanings of the
ST word, but the actual meaning of the ST word is lost in the
translation. I would suggest translating it as “Paradise” or
“Garden of Eden” to make the meaning clearer for readers
of translation. This will also convey the skopos of the ST
word in the TT. Transliteration can be another option to
translate the ST word, but in this case, a footnote may be
needed to explain the meaning of the word, especially in its
first occurrence in the translation.
Example 4
‫ْر ۚ َٰذلِ َك‬
ٌ ‫التّ ْق َو ٰى َٰذلِ َك َخي‬
َ ‫َاس‬ ً ‫َاسا يُ َواري َس ْوآ ِت ُك ْم َور‬
ُ ‫يشا ۖ َولِب‬ ِ
َ ‫َكّرُو‬
‫ن‬ َ ّ‫اللّهِ لَعََلّهُمْ يَذ‬
َ ِ‫ مِنْ آيَات‬ST: (7:26)
ِ ً ‫ْك ْم لِب‬
ُ ‫نز ْل َنا َعلَي‬
7
TRANSL.: Ya banee adama qad anzalna AAalaykum libasan
yuwaree saw-atikum wareeshan walibasu alttaqwa thalika
khayrun thalika min ayati Allahi laAAallahum yaththakkaroona
Abdel Haleem: Children of Adam, We have given you garments
to cover your nakedness and as a‎ dornment for you; the garment
of God consciousness is the best of all garments– this ‎is one of
God’s signs, so that people may take heed.
Pickthall: O Children of Adam! We have revealed unto you
raiment to conceal your shame, and splendid vesture, but the
raiment of restraint from evil, that is best. This is of the
revelations of Allah, that they may remember.
Shakir: O children of Adam! We have indeed sent down to you
clothing to cover your shame, and (clothing) for beauty and
clothing that guards (against evil), that is the best. This is of the
communications of Allah that they may be mindful.
Muhammad Sarwar: Children of Adam, We have given you
clothing to cover your private parts and for beauty, but the robe
of piety is the best. Thus is the guidance of God so that you may
take heed.
َ َ‫ أ‬was translated by Abdel Haleem and Sarwar as
The verb ‫نز ْل َنا‬
“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 giv-
ing 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 ‫التّ ْق َو ٰى‬
َ ‫َاس‬
ُ ‫ َولِب‬was translated by Pickthall as
“the raiment of restraint from evil,” which does not convey
the primary meaning of the ST word, that is, ‫ َلتّ ْق َوى‬. The ST
phrase is quite semantically complex that connotes refrain-
ing from doing prohibited deeds and doing the demanded
and recommended deeds of Allah the Almighty. Abdel
Haleem opted to translate ‫التّ ْق َوى‬ َ 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 trans-
lation by paraphrasing the ST word as “guards (against
َ َ‫يَا َب ِني آ َد َم َق ْد أ‬
evil),” which does not convey the meaning of the ST word. I
suggest that the ST word be transliterated and be followed by
8 SAGE Open

the word “piety” between brackets. I also suggest providing Haleem as “will flow under their feet,” which seems to be a
a rich explanation of the word at its first occurrence in the divergence from the ST meaning. The ST refers to the rivers
translation in a footnote. In a similar vein, Abdel Haleem and that will be flowing under the believers’ palaces and houses.
Sarwar translated ‫ اهلل‬as “God.” Which does not convey the However, the translator rendered it to their feet, which is not
ST greatest name because the ST name is a name that should accurate and, thus, faithfulness is lacking. Shakir and
be transferred, without any rendition. “God” can be used if it Pickthall translated it as “flow beneath them,” which is faith-
is assumed that the readers will not be able to know the word ful to the ST and it is communicative, as well. Sarwar trans-
“Allah.” Otherwise, transferring the ST name ‫ اهلل‬as “Allah” lated it as “They will enjoy the flowing streams,” which is an
is more appropriate. Pickthall and Shakir transferred the evident divergence from the ST. Another aspect of lack of
great name of Allah as it is which is true. faithfulness shows itself in translating ‫ ُر ُس ُل َر ِبّ َنا‬as “The
(angelic) messengers,” which is not true because the mean-
Example 5 ing in the ST is the messengers and prophets who were sent
to their people or to guide them to the right pathway of Allah
ST ‫ار ۖ َو َقالُوا ْال َح ْم ُد لِلَّ ِه‬ ُ ‫ور ِهم ِّم ْن ِغ ٍّل َت ْج ِري ِمن َت ْح ِت ِه ُم ْالأَ ْن َه‬ ِ ‫ص ُد‬ ُ ‫َو َن َز ْع َنا َما ِفي‬ the Almighty (Alt-Tabari, 2004).
‫الَّ ِذي َهدَا َنا لِ َٰه َذا َو َما ُك َنّا لَِن ْه َت ِد َي لَ ْولَا‏أَ ْن َهدَا َنا اللَّ ُه ۖ لَ َق ْد َجا َء ْت ُر ُس ُل َر ِبّ َنا ِب ْال َح ِّق ۖ َونُو ُدوا‬ Sometimes translators undertranslate many words in the
‫(أَن تِلْكُمُ الْج ََنّةُ أُورِثْتُمُوهَا بِمَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ‏‬7:43) ST either through omission or improper selection of vocabu-
lary. Mian Wang (2012) argues that both overtranslation and
TRANSL.   WanazaAAna ma fee sudoorihim min ghillin
undertranslation result from a nonequivalence problem, in
tajree min tahtihimu al-anharu waqaloo alhamdu lillahi allathee
hadana lihatha wama kunna linahtadiya lawla an hadana Allahu
terms of meaning or style. Wang, then, identifies undertrans-
laqad jaat rusulu rabbina bialhaqqi wanoodoo an tilkumu lation as the case in which the TT contains less information
aljannatu oorithtumooha bima kuntum taAAmaloona than the ST. In addition, she states that both overtranslation
and undertranslation show unfaithfulness to the ST. Example
Abdel Haleem: We shall have removed all ill feeling from their 6 below indicates such a type of loss that occurs due to
hearts; streams will flow at their feet. ‎They will say, “Praise be undertranslation.
to God, who guided us to this: had God not guided us, We w ‎ ould
never have found the way. The messengers of our Lord brought Example 6
the Truth.” A v‎ oice will call out to them, “This is the Garden you
have been given as your own on ‎account of your deeds.” .‎
ST ۚ ‫الر ْز ِق‬ِّ ‫ُقلْ َمنْ َحرَّمَ زِي َنةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي أَ ْخ َرجَ لِ ِعبَا ِدهِ وَالطّ َِيّبَاتِ ِم َن‬
Pickthall: And We remove whatever rancour may be in their ‫‏ال ِقيَا َم ِة ۗ َك َٰذلِ َك‬
ْ ‫َو َم‬ َ ِ‫ين آ َمنُوا ِفي ْال َحيَا ِة ال ُّد ْنيَا َخال‬
ْ ‫ص ًة ي‬ َ ‫ُق ْل ِه َي لِلَّ ِذ‬
hearts. Rivers flow beneath them. And they say The praise to 7:32(( َ‫َصّلُ الْآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُون‬ ِ ‫نُف‬
Allah, Who hath guided us to this. We could not truly have been TRANSL. Qul man harrama zeenata Allahi allatee akhraja
led aright if Allah had not guided us. Verily the messengers of liAAibadihi waalttayyibati mina alrrizqi qul hiya
our Lord did bring the Truth. And it is cried unto them: This is lillatheena amanoo fee alhayati alddunya
the Garden. Ye inherit it for what ye used to do. khalisatan yawma alqiyamati kathalika nufassilu
al-ayati liqawmin yaAAlamoona
Shakir: And We will remove whatever of ill-feeling is in their Abdel Say [Prophet], “Who has forbidden the
breasts; the rivers shall flow beneath them and they shall say: All Haleem adornment and the nourishment God has
praise is due to Allah Who guided us to this, and we would not provided for His servants?” Say, “They are
[allowed] for those who believe during the
have found the way had it not been that Allah had guided us;
life of this world: they will be theirs alone on
certainly the messengers of our Lord brought the truth; and it
the Day of Resurrection.” This is how We
shall be cried out to them that this is the garden of which you are
make Our revelation clear for those who
made heirs for what you did. understand.

Muhammad Sarwar: We shall remove all grudges from their

hearts. They will enjoy the flowing streams in the garden and
Pickthall: Say: Who hath forbidden the adornment of Allah
will say, “God who guided us to this, deserves all praise. Had He
which He hath brought forth for His bondmen and the good
not guided us, we would never have been able to find the right
things of His providing? Say: Such, on the Day of Resurrection,
direction. The (angelic) Messengers of our Lord came to us with
will be only for those who believed during the life of the world.
the Truth.” They shall be told, “This is the Paradise which you
Thus do we detail Our revelations for people who have
have inherited because of your good deeds.”
knowledge.

Abdel Haleem and Sarwar translated ‫ار‬ ُ ‫ ْالأَ ْن َه‬as “streams,” Shakir: Say: Who has prohibited the embellishment of Allah
which seems to be a divergence from a more faithful word to which He has brought forth for His servants and the good
the ST, that is, rivers. However, Pickthall and Shakir trans- provisions? Say: These are for the believers in the life of this
lated it as “rivers,” which is more faithful to the ST. Similarly, world, purely (theirs) on the resurrection day; thus do We make
The ST verbal phrase ‫ َت ْج ِري ِمن َت ْح ِت ِه ُم‬was rendered by Abdel the communications clear for a people who know.
Abdelaal
Muhammad Sarwar: (Muhammad), ask them, “Who has made
it unlawful to maintain beauty and to eat the pure foods which
God has created for His servants? They are made for the
believers in this world and are exclusively for them in the life
hereafter.” Thus do We explain Our revelations to the people
who have knowledge.
As seen in Example 6, the Quranic word‫الطيبات ‏‬‎was not ren-
dered 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 pro-
viding a near synonym would have been better than omitting
the word in the TT, especially the word is an important con-
tent 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 sev-
eral 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 mean-
ing 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 (permissi-
ble) 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 strate-
gies adopted by translators, such as the “functional equiva-
lent” 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 ‫ ِزي َن َة اللَّ ِه‬was 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.
9
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) inter-
preted ‎‫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 C ‎ obuild 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 ‫ الرزق‬refers 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
bahirah5 and al saibah6 (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 ‫ الرزق‬as “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 ‎‫عباده‬‎as “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 ‫ عباده‬is
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 ‫ عبيد‬rather than ‫عباد‬. None of the translations above
could provide a faithful translation to the ST word, which
could have been rendered as “worshippers.”
10
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 pro-
pose 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 fea-
tures 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 pro-
vide 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 prompt-
ing 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 fol-
lowing steps are suggested to be followed in the translation
of the Holy Quran:
1. 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 differ-
ent interpretations of the Holy Quran and the causes
SAGE Open
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 transla-
tor’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 الصالة‬, 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 accept-
able 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 con-
vey 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 ‫ أقيموا‬is 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 same-
ness, which can be rarely achieved. Adopting such a notion
of Skopos with the suggested modifications suggests a solu-
tion 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 mes-
sage 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 ren-
dered 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
Abdelaal
Figure 1. Proposed model of translating the Holy Quran (stemmed from the Skopos theory).
Note. TL = target language; ST = source text.
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 mis-
matches between Arabic and English in terms of tenses,
aspects, syntactic features, and stylistic features.
1. 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.
2. 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 stylis-
tic 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 sty-
listic feature contradicts the intended message, the
message should win out.
3. In case an equivalent does not exist in the TL, a
proper strategy should be followed, which can be the
following:
11
a. Paraphrase.
b. Transliteration accompanied by an explanation
of the ST lexeme meaning.
c. Borrowing.
Figure 1 summarizes the suggested approach in translating
the Holy Quran.
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, compo-
nential 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
12
Chapter of Cattle was purposively selected and analyzed.
Several problems and losses in the four translations exam-
ined 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
Appendix
Transliteration table based on Qur’an.com.
SAGE Open
translation is a translation that indicates that no effort was
spared to achieve equivalence and to convey the ST mes-
sage. The study also suggests that translation of the Holy
Quran should be guided by its Skopos rather than unrealisti-
cally aiming at achieving equivalence.
Abdelaal
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, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Noureldin Mohamed Abdelaal https://orcid.org/0000-
0001-7706-0413
Notes
1. This theory sees meaning as “reality” which exists in all lan-
guages, and hence translation’s task is to represent the same
reality of the ST.
2. He is one of the companions who embraced Islam when Holy
Mecca was opened by prophet Muhammed (peace be upon
him).
3. One of the famous books of Ibn Al Qayem, which describes
paradise.
4. Ahmed Ibn Taymyyah is a famous Islamic scholar (661-728
AH).
5. A slit-ear she-camel freed from work.
6. A she-camel let loose for free pasture.
References
Abdelaal, N. M. (2018). Translating connotative meaning in the trans-
lation of the Holy Quran: Problems and solutions. Arab World
English Journal for Translation and Literary Studies, 2, 76-87.
Abdelaal, N. M. (2019). Translating denotative meaning in the
Holy Quran: Problems and solutions. Pertanika Journal of
Social Sciences & Humanities, 27, 1-23.
Abdelaal, N. M., & Md Rashid, S. M. (2015). Semantic loss in the
holy Qur’an translation with special reference to surah
Al-WaqiAAa (Chapter of the event inevitable). SAGE Open,
5(4), 1-10. doi:10.1177/2158244015605880
Abdelaal, N. M., & Md Rashid, S. M. (2016). Grammar-related
semantic losses in the translation of the Holy Quran, with spe-
cial reference to Surah Al A’araf (the heights). SAGE Open,
6(3), 1-11. doi:10.1177/2158244016661750
Abdel Haleem, M. A. S. A. (2005). The Qur’an. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Al Baghawi, A. H. (1989). MAAlem Attanzeel: Tafsir Al Baghawi
[Al-Baghawi Interpretation of the Holy Quran]. Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia: Dar Taibah Publishing House.
Al-Qurtubi, M. S. (2004). Al JamAA liahkam al Qur’an (Tafsir Al
Qurtubi) [Interpretationof the Holy Quran]. Cairo, Egypt: Dar
Al-Fikr.
Alt-Tabari, M. (2004). JaamiAA Al-Bayaan AAn Ta’weel Ayil
Qur’an [The commentary on the Quran]. Cairo, Egypt:
Al-Halabi, Dar Al-Maref.
As-Sadi, A. R. (1999). Al Qawa’ed Al Hisan fi Tafsir al Quran [The
good rules of the Holy Quran interpretation]. Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia: Ar-Rushd Library.
13
As-Samrraai, F. S. (2015). At-Tabeer Al Qurani [The Quranic
expression] . Amman: Dar Ammar.
Baker, M. (2004). The status of equivalence in translation studies:
An appraisal. In Y. Zijian (Ed.), English-Chinese comparative
study and translation (pp. 63-71). Shanghai, China: Foreign
Languages Education Press.
Chesterman, A. (2001). Proposal for a Hieronymic oath. The
Translator, 7, 139-154.
Collins, H. (2006). CoBuild advanced learner’s English dictionary.
Glasgow, Scotland: HarperCollins.
Çöz, N. (2012). Considering ethics in translation. Electronic
Journal of Vocational Colleges, 2, 131-134.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Diniz, T. F. N. (2003). A new approach to the study of translation:
From stage to screen. Cadernos de Traduçao, 2, 29-54.
Haque, M. Z. (2012). Translating literary prose: Problems and solu-
tions. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2, 97-111.
Higgs, J., & Cherry, N. (2009). Doing qualitative research on prac-
tice. In J. Higgs, D. Horsfall, & S. Grace (Eds.), Writing quali-
tative research on practice (pp. 1-12). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense publishers.
Ibn Ashour, M. (1984). Tafsir Attahrir Wattanwir [Liberation and
Enlightenment Interpretation Book] (first). Tunis, Tunisia:
Tunisian Publishing House.
Ibn Kathir, H. D. (2002). Tafsiru AlQur’ani Alkarim [Commentary
on the Quran]. Beirut, Lebanon: Maktabat Nour Al’ilmijja
(Original work published in 1995).
Jakobson, R. (2000). On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. A.
Brower (Ed.), On translation (pp. 30-39). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Munday, J. (2008). Introducing translation studies: Theories and
applications (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
Nae, N. (2004). Markedness, relevance, acceptability in translation.
Forum of International Development Studies, 26, 103-114.
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Hatfield, UK:
Pearson Education.
Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. (1982). The theory and practice of transla-
tion (2nd ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill.
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity. Manchester,
UK: St. Jerome.
Pym, A. (2001). Introduction: The return to ethics in translation
studies. The Translator, 7, 129-138.
Pym, A. (2018). Translation and text transfer. Berlin, Germany:
Intercultural Studies Group.
Reiss, K. (2000). Translation criticism—The potentials and limita-
tions: Categories and criteria for translation quality assess-
ment (E. F. Rhodes, Trans.). Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.
(Original work published 1971)
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Elam, G. (2003). Designing and selecting
samples. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research
practice: A guide for social science students and researchers
(pp. 77-108). London, England: Sage.
Sarwar, M. (2011). The Holy Qur’an: The Arabic text and English
translation online edition. Retrieved from https://en.wikipe
dia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Quran:_Arabic_Text_and_English_
translation
Shakir, M. (1999). The Holy Quran. New York, NY: Tahrike
Tarsile Quran.
14
Vermeer, H. J. (1989). Skopos and commission in translational
action. Readings in Translation Theory, 173-187.
Vinay, J. P., & Darbelnet, J. (1995). Comparative stylistics of
French and English: A methodology for translation (Vol. 11).
John Benjamins Publishing.
Vinay, J. P., & Darbelnet, J. (2004). A methodology for translation
(trans.) by J. C. Sager & M.-J. Hamel. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The
translation studies reader (pp. 128-137). London, England:
Routledge. (Original work published 1958)
Wang, M. (2012). An analysis of over-translation and under-trans-
lation in perspective of cultural connotation. International
Conference on Education Technology and Management
Engineering, 16-17, 129-133.
SAGE Open
Wendland, E. R. (2012). Framing the frames: A theoretical frame-
work for the cognitive notion of “frames of reference.” Journal
of Translation, 6, 27-50.
Zhongying, F. (1990). Some remarks on the criteria of translation.
Babel, 36, 97-110.
Author Biography
Noureldin Mohamed Abdelaal holds a PhD in translation and
interpretation, preceded by an MA in English applied linguistics.
He is an assistant professor of translation at the University of
Nizwa. His research interests and publications are in the areas of
translation and applied linguistics.