For Kevin: And a good translation of the Qur'an

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jul 16, 2006 at 08:11

The difficulty in translating the Qur'an is that one must have good command of classical Arabic (although it is very obvious that Qur'anic Arabic at times can be very different from Classical Arabic), one must know Syriac, Greek and Hebrew (it will be a good idea to have a Coptic and Latin dictionaries on hand). These were the languages of the late antique period and you will find many words that are not Arabic in the Qur'an eg: Syriac: Tur or mountain (most of the foreign words in the Qur'an are Syriac words), Latin: Sarat (strata) or road, Hebrew: Michael Cook claims that the Arabic word Zakat is of Hebrew origin, Greek: al-injiil or the Bible, Coptic: al-nassi (Q 9:37) or nasi is the intercalary month in the Coptic calendar and seems to have been the same name for the intercalary month in the pre-Islamic Arabic calendar . And if we are to believe Tabari the words: ababeel and sijeel in Surat al-feel are Persian words. This would not surprise me in the least.

What is surprising about the Qur'an is: it is a flat text. It does not have the textual depth that the Bible or the Tripitaka or the Gita have. And as Peters have said: The Qur'an is "text with no context." More strange is that the Qur'an is full of not just foreign words, but poor Arabic grammar, strange words, allusions that could mean just about anything. Most significant is that the author if the Qur'an assumes that the reader must be very familiar with the Bible (see Wansbrough). And this is a book that claims to be kitab mubeen (clear and self explaining book) and written in 'Arabi Faseeh (or pure Arabic).

More surprising is that by the 3rd century of Islam when the Muslim 'ulama were trying to understand what the Qur'an really says no one seems to have any clue or to agree. Which makes you wonder that Michael might be correct that:

1. The Qur'anic material was already very old and pre-dates Muhammad and in 632 CE no one in 632 CE when Muhammad died had any clue what it means.

2. Or the qur'anic material was circulating as pericopes and logia that were not canonized until the 3rd century and by then no one had any clue what it really means

As for Muahmmad: can we reconstruct his biography by reading the Qur'an? The clear answer here is no we cannot. His name is mentioned 5 times and one of them he is called Ahmad. What is more surprising is that the ancient 'Ulama tell us that his name was: Abul Qasim or Qutham. Go figure.

Now to answer your question:

1. One of the best translations is N.J.Dawood translation (published by Penguin books). It is one of the best, but Muslims do not like because Mr. Dawood is an Iraqi Khaldean or Syriac speaking Mesopotamian Christian....gasp!!. But he knows his Arabic very well, and he does not provide any explanations of what the text is really saying and with very exceptions he will provide a word or two. He allows the reader to reach his/her own conclusions.

2. I also like (if you forget about his funny 19 thing) Rashad Khalifa's translation. He had great respect and command of the Arabic grammar.

3. Pickthall's translation is good.

You must avoid Ali and other translations written by pakistani Muslims (there seems to be an industry here of pakistanis translating the Qur'an!!). And almost all of these translations are poor translations.

So what do I suggest?

Do the following:

1. Get a basic Arabic garmmar book and I suggest: "Arabic Verbs and Essentials of Grammar" by Wightwick and Gaafar. It will provide you with a good introduction to the semitic root system and the genuis of the semitic languages.

2. The Hans Wehr Arabic dictionary.

Do a linear tranlation of the text and it is not difficult at all. If you find a strange or difficult word I can assure you that others have found the same and that no one have any idea what this word would mean eg: the much celebrated kalala and Ilaf.

Good luck

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".