Lost in Translation: The Ideological Effects of the ... · infidel nations in the war on Islam and Sunna [Sunni Muslims] in Iraq and Syria”.iv Extremist groups such as ISIS have

ALIGARH JOURNAL OF QURANIC STUDIES • VOLUME NO. 1 • ISSUE 1 WINTER 2018

1

Lost in Translation: The Ideological Effects of the Translator and

the Interpreter on the Qur’ānic Text

Professor Abdallah El-Khatib1

Qatar University, Qatar

ABSTRACT:

his article focuses on how the ideological views of an interpreter or translator

of the Qur’ān affect the meaning of the translated verse. Extremist Muslim

groups, such as ISIS, have misinterpreted some verses of the Qur’ān

according to their extreme views to facilitate their political agendas. Some

Orientalist translators have also distorted the meanings of some verses of the Qur’ān

due to their weakness in the Arabic language. This article discusses issues in the

Qur’ān that have been interpreted differently by liberal and classical exegetes of the

Holy text, such as those relating to the reality of the stories of the Prophets and

hitting disobedient wives. While the liberal interpreters have not adhered to the

Arabic language and the traditional interpretation of the text, the classical translators

have emphasized the importance of explaining the Qur’ānic text according to its

traditional meaning, relying on the classical Arabic language and the Prophetic

tradition. This article presents these issues with the goal of proving that many

meanings in the original text have been lost and misinterpreted, mainly because of

the ideological views of the interpreters.

Keywords: Qur’ān translation, Liberal translation, extremist Muslim groups, ISIS,

Orientalists.

1 Qatar University, Qatar

T


2

INTRODUCTION:

The Holy Qur’ān has been subject to various interpretations throughout

history due to the ideologies of its exegetes. Therefore, we have traditional Sunni

(Asharī, Ṣufī, and Salafī), Shiī, Mutazilite, Ibaḍī, and philosophical interpretations.

Since translation is a kind of interpretation, the ideologies of the translators of the

holy text are clearly reflected in the various European language and English

translations of the Qur’ān.

In the West, the Holy Qur’ān has been translated into numerous European

languages, such as Latin (1143), Castilian or Aragonese (1455), Italian (1547),

German (1616), French (1647), English (1649), Dutch (1641), and Russian (1716).i

The ideologies of the Western translators are clearly reflected in the texts.

Furthermore, to this date, there are many new translations of the Qur’ān, also

reflecting the ideologies of their translators.ii

The phrase Tradutoretraditore is especially accurate when it comes to

translating religious texts because of the difficulty of the language used and the deep

meaning that the language carries. This observation is especially true in the case of

the Qur’ān for several reasons but, most notably, because of its highly rhetorical

style, which is impossible to transform into any other language. For this reason,

A. J. Arberry has acknowledged, in his English translation, that the Qur’ān is

untranslatable, thus titling his translation “The Koran Interpreted”. The same view

had been adopted by M. M. Pickthall, the first British Muslim translator of the

Qur’ān. Therefore, the Qur’ānic translations represent but a portion of its meaning.

In addition, the battle for interpreting the holy text is an ongoing issue in the

Islamic world as it faces many interior challenges, such as from ISIS and other

extremist and terrorist groups, who alter the text from its real meaning to meet their

political ends.

This article will shed light on the effects of the exegete or translator’s

ideology on the Qur’ānic translation by looking at English translations of the Qur’ān

by translators from various Islamic sects and trends, and by non–Muslims. (The

religious beliefs of the translator could significantly affect the content of the

translation; e.g., a translation of the Bible by a Buddhist would surely be affected by

the translator’s beliefs.)

Additionally, this article will discuss interpretation of the Qur’ān in relation

to subjects such as governing by the Law of God, i.e., Sharīa; the dispute

over the interpretation of some verses related to fighting non-Muslims, such

as Q. 2: 191: “Kill them wherever you find them”; and the battle between

classical and liberal exegesis in relation to various issues, including how to

interpret physical pleasure in the hereafter relating to matters such as

eating and sexual relations, and whether these issues are to be understood

literally or allegorically. Moreover, I will discuss the treatment of the

rebellious wife and whether the husband possesses the right to hit her.


3

Lastly, I will discuss the Orientalist ideologies reflected in the English

translations from 1649 until present day.

In conclusion, the Holy Qur’ān has been subject to various interpretations,

motivated by political, ideological, or sectarian factors, as the interpreter’s battle for

a claim on the ultimate truth and the true understanding of the meaning of the holy

text.

Governing by the Law of God, i.e., Sharīa

Muslims believe that sharīa must govern all aspects of their life, be it

personal, political, commercial, educational, and so on. Governments, therefore,

have taken on this responsibility and, throughout Islamic history, have applied

sharīa throughout the Muslim world. However, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire

in 1923, sharīa law was abolished in the Muslim world. Apart from family law,

laws derived from both Western civil law and from the Sharīa, are currently applied

in most Muslim countries. In some areas such as criminal law, sharīah has been

completely dismissed, except in Saudi Arabia.

Muslim scholars continuously call upon governments to apply sharīa

without resorting to violence or accusing the government of apostasy for not

adhering to sharīa. Many extremists believe that, if governments do not apply

sharīa, they have revoked their religion and committed apostasy. The extremists

argue that whoever commits apostasy must be killed or removed from power,

justifying violence to achieve their political agenda. The recent call by the ISIS

leader for the Jihadists to defend Mosul and Neineveh is a clear example of this

phenomenon. He said: “God’s enemies from the Jews, Christians, atheists, Shiites,

apostates, and all the world’s infidels have dedicated their media, money, army, and

munitions to fight Muslims and Jihadists in the state of Nineveh…one of the bases

of Islam and one of its minarets under the Caliphate”. In his recorded communique,

the ISIS leader referred to the governments of Saudi Arabiaiii

and Turkey as

apostates, adding: “Turkey today has entered your range of action and the aim of

your jihād…. Invade it and turn its safety into fear”. He also called for launching

multiple attacks against the Saudi government and its rulers for “siding with the

infidel nations in the war on Islam and Sunna [Sunni Muslims] in Iraq and Syria”.iv

Extremist groups such as ISIS have derived their ideologies from

misinterpretation of some Qur’ānic verses, such as the following verse (Q. 5: 44)

“Those who do not judge according to what God has sent down are the

disbelievers”.v

This verse concerns those who totally reject and deny the laws of Allah in

their heart and with their tongues. However, if a person believes in the law of Allah

with his heart and confesses it with his tongue but does something contrary to these

beliefs, he is not regarded as a disbeliever but rather a person who chose not to


4

follow the law of Allah. Thus, this verse does not apply to such a personvi

, according

to most Muslim jurists.

On the other hand, the Khawārij, an Islamic sect that interpreted this verse in

the same manner as ISIS, hold the view that this verse indicates that anyone who

follows a law other than Allah’s Law is a disbeliever (kāfir), not giving any

consideration to whether this person denies being a disbeliever. The Khawārij

deduced from this verse: ‘Whoever leaves the law of Allah is a disbeliever, the

sinner has left the application of the law of Allah; therefore, the sinner is a

disbeliever (regardless of the severity of the sin).’vii

This view of the Kharijites has

been totally rejected by most Muslim theologians and the major schools of lawviii

.

It should be noted here that the act of takfīr (applying apostasy upon

somebody) has its roots in Islamic history with the Kharijites, who used this verse

and others to assert their ideological beliefs. The fourth rightly guided Caliph, Alī,

was assassinated by this group in 661 when the Kharijites excommunicated him,

declaring him a disbeliever, claiming that he had committed a sin when he deviated

from Allah’s law by agreeing to arbitration between himself and his rival Muāwiyah

bin AbīSufyān. Furthermore, the mass and brutal killings of Muslims and non-

Muslims by ISIS have been stimulated by many political and religious factors, one

of which is misinterpretation of the Holy Qur’ān verses.

Another factor that can result in misinterpretation of the Holy Qur’ān is

taking verses out of context, which can lead to disastrous consequences. This

phenomenon is one of the main tools used by those promoting Islamophobia in the

West.ix

Hundreds, if not thousands, of articles have been written about the

relationship between Islam and violence, Islamophobiax and the concept of Jihād

(holy war in Islam). Furthermore, film production companies in Hollywood have

produced many films that portray Muslims and Arabs in a stereotypical manner,

usually as killers, plane hijackers or terrorists. This stereotype of Muslims and

Arabs is portrayed in the Western media, especially since the tragic events of 9/11.

This negative portrayal of Islam even crossed over into politics, as clear hatred

towards Muslims was witnessed during the Trump-Clinton race for the White

House. Unfortunately, some prejudiced people in the West, who promote this

negative image of Muslims and Islam, have not understood the real message of

Islam. The true message promotes peace and security throughout the world. These

individuals have misinterpreted the Qur’ānic texts that speak about how Muslims

should defend themselves against tyrants and dictatorial regimes and against those

who have enmity towards Islam and Muslims. The Qur’ān has clearly allowed

Muslims to wage war in self-defence to protect the lives of Muslims and to provide

freedom of worship for its followers and followers of other religions as well, such as

Jews, Christians, and Buddhists who are living in Muslim states. The meaning of

jihād is fighting in the name of Allah and for the sake of Allah in self-defence.

Taking any verse regarding jihād out of context could result in very bad

consequences.xi


5

The Interpretation of Q. 2:191 (Kill them wherever you find them) and (Q. 9:5)

There are two verses in the Qur’ān that have been misinterpreted, and

therefore misquoted, by non-Muslims, most often propagandists who claim that

these verses promote violence and encourage Muslims to wage war against those

who do not follow Islam. These verses are:

Firstly: Q. 2: 191 (Kill them wherever you find them).xii

This verse has been misinterpreted, misunderstood and taken out of context.

Some have translated “uqtulūhum” as “slay them” instead of ‘kill them’, and we

found an article entitled “Slay them whenever you find them”.xiii

This

misinterpretation lies in the use of the word ‘slay’ instead of ‘kill’, which is the

translation for the Arabic word qatala. The equivalent of “slay” in Arabic is

dhabaḥa, which also means to slaughter; “slay” has a negative connotation and is

not as accurate as “kill”. In addition, the pronoun “them” in “kill them” is not

general in this verse but instead refers to specific polytheists who declared war on

Muslims and broke their oaths of allegiance with Muslims.

We also find some Muslim extremists who deduced from this verse that

Muslims were ordered to kill all the non-believers, which has been totally rejected

by Muslim scholars. Therefore, Abdul Haleem translates this verse as: “Kill them

wherever you encounter them”.xiv

To truly understand this verse, we must understand its context.

The Muslims were driven out of their home country Mecca, their belongings

were confiscated, and they were persecuted by the polytheists who attempted to

convert them back to idolism. The Qur’ān here was addressing whether Muslims

were allowed to defend themselves against the aggression of these Arab polytheists

and their terrible actions against the new religion. Furthermore, the Muslims were

confused about whether it was a sin to fight these aggressors if they encountered

them in the holy sanctuary in Mecca (where killing, hunting, and cutting plants are

prohibited)xv

. Therefore, God allowed Muslims to defend themselves by killing the

aggressors wherever they encountered them, whether in the holy sanctuary or not.

The verses go on to impose some restrictions on this kind of killing: “And drive

them out, for persecution is more serious than killing. Do not fight them at the

Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they fight you, kill them-this is what

such disbelievers deserve-but if they stop, then God is most forgiving and

merciful”.xvi

This verse must be understood within this context: otherwise, it will be

misinterpreted as an open call for killing non-believers, which is how some

extremist Muslims and non-Muslims have mistakenly understood this verse.


6

Secondly, the other verse that caused controversy among Muslims and others

is the so-called “Sword Verse”, which has no actual mention of the word “sword”,

reads as “When the [four] forbidden months are over, wherever you encounter the

idolaters [who broke the treaty], kill them, seize them, besiege them, ambush

them…”xvii

As indicted above, an accurate translation greatly depends on the context,

which plays an important role in understanding specific words and phrases. The

beginning of sūra of al-Tawba (the repentance chapter) states that the polytheists

broke the peace treaty with the Muslims will suffer the consequences. The pagans

had not only broken the peace agreement with the Muslims but also driven the

Muslims off their land, persecuted them, and were determined to convert them back

to paganism or finish them off.xviii

For these reasons and within this context, the

Qur’ān gave permission to the Muslims to defend themselves by waging war against

these aggressors who wanted to destroy and persecute (fitnah) the Muslims.

However, at the same time, the Qur’ān asked Muslims to respect the polytheists who

did not breach the agreement and to safeguard them until they reached a secure and

safe place,xix

proving Islam is a pragmatic and just religion. Furthermore, the

Qur’ān balances permission to fight the enemy with a strong mandate to make

peace, as stated by Espositoxx

. In addition, Islam promotes freedom of religion by

allowing people of other religions (Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc…) to live

within Muslim communities, evidenced clearly in Q 2: 256: “There is no

compulsion in Religion”.

To conclude, as Prof. Abdu Haleem stated: “The whole of this context to

verses [2:191 & 9:5], with all their restrictions, are ignored by those who simply

isolate one part of a sentence to build their theory of war and violence in Islam”.xxi

Islam is a religion of peace that calls its followers to be messengers of peace.

However, the current political turmoil in the Middle East, widespread poverty, and a

lack of education have led many Muslims to extremism, which is totally at odds

with Islamic principles and teachings.

The Battle between Classical and Liberal Exegesis

Classical exegesis of the Qur’ān has been dominant throughout Islamic

history. During the last century, some liberal interpretations of the Qur’ān have been

put forth. Some of these liberal interpretations are totally unacceptable,

contradicting the basic teachings of Islam known to Muslims in both the Qur’ān and

sunna (sayings of the Prophet).

Some liberal translators such as Muhammad Asad holds the view regarding

all the Prophetic stories and their miracles in the Qur’ān as having parable and

allegorical meanings, as myths and legends that are not real. According to Asad, the

Prophet Abraham was not thrown into fire, The Prophet Solomon did not ride the

wind, and Luqman was a mythical figure. Asad has also denied the existence of

creatures called jinn, regarding them as invisible or unseen beings.xxii

The


7

miraculous journey of Isrā and Mi’rāj (the miraculous night journey) was not a

physical journey to Jerusalem and then to heaven but rather a spiritual journey.xxiii

Furthermore, Asad claimed that the Qur’ān did not order women to wear the ḥijāb

veil but rather asked women to wear decent clothes according to the customs of their

society.xxiv

Similarly, the translator Laleh Bakhtiarxxv

translated the verse related to

hitting rebellious women in a manner that conflicts with the established position in

the books of Sharīa, as we will discuss below.

Qur’ān 4: 34 states that hitting disobedient wives is a way to correct their

behaviour, he verse reads: “If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind

them [of the teachings of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit

them”.xxvi

This hitting must neither be on her face, nor should it be severe but rather

should be carried out with minimal harm, such as a single slap, or with a siwāk, i.e.,

a tooth stick used for cleaning one’s mouth, taken from the roots and branches of

particular trees, most notably the Arak tree.

Some translators have tried to produce a new interpretation for

“iḍribūhunna” (hit them) to suit their own understandings. Laleh Bakhtiar claimed

that her translation, The Sublime Qur’ān, was revolutionary because it was the first

translation written by a woman in the history of Islam, and because it was the first to

translate the verse Q. 4: 34 correctly. She translated the verse Q. 4: 34

“Men are supporters of wives because God has given some of them an

advantage over others and because they spend of their wealth. So the ones (f) who

are in accord with morality are the ones (f) who are morally obligated, the ones (f)

who guard the unseen of what God has kept safe. But those (f) whose resistance you

fear, then admonish them (f) and abandon them (f) in their sleeping place then go

away from them (f) and if they (f) obey you, surely look not for any way against

them (f); truly God is Lofty, Great.”xxvii

Bakhtiar insisted that the main reason for her translation lies in correcting

Muslim scholars’ views concerning the verses related to women in the Qur’ān,

especially Q. 4: 34. She claimed that, for fourteen centuries, Muslim scholars have

dismissed women’s views and misinterpreted this verse and the phrase iḍribūhunna.

In addition, out of twenty-six meanings for ḍarb, she chose only one meaning,

which is ‘go away from them’. She did not choose to translate it as hit, spank,

chastise, beat, etc. because the above-mentioned phrase does not mean ‘hit them’,

she argues, for the following reasons:

Firstly, the word “ḍarb” has many meanings in Arabic; thus, why would we

choose a meaning that validates the oppression of women by means of physical

abuse, and does not concur with the ethical principles of the Qur’ān? Furthermore,

these meanings also do not match the conduct of the Prophet, who never hit a

woman during his life. In addition, the verses that follow this verse ask both parties


8

to send an arbitrator to resolve the disputation between the spouses, and these verses

never order the husband to hit his wife.

Secondly, in the case of divorce, which is considered worse than a

high-handedwife, the Qur’ān never resolved this problem by ordering the husband

to hit his wife. Rather, Q. 2: 231 prohibited the husband from causing harm to his

wife: “When you divorce women and they have reached their set time, then either

keep or release them in a fair manner. Do not hold on to them with intent to harm

them and commit aggression: anyone who does this wrongs himself. Do not make a

mockery of God’s revelation”.xxviii

Thus, the Qur’ān prevents harming the divorced

women in any way. Therefore, if hitting was not allowed in the case of divorce, then

surely hitting would not be permissible during the marriage.

The arguments put forward by Laleh Bakhtiar are unacceptable for the

following reasons:

Translation relies on interpretation, and interpretation relies on an accurate

understanding of the language. Therefore, to understand the meaning of a specific

word or phrase, one must consult its lexical meaning. Furthermore, once the word

has been defined, the context helps us choose which meaning best suits that specific

text. Additionally, the context helps us decide whether the word was used literally or

metaphorically. This practice is the standard method for understanding any living

language. Therefore, language usage predominates because nobody should impose

his own understanding of a language by producing a new meaning that was not

intended or contradicts already-established precedent. The practice of forcing a

meaning that contains no lexical or contextual connection upon a word is an act of

pure ignorance. Therefore, when the Qur’ān used the phrase iḍribūhunna, ‘hit

them’, it meant ‘hit them’; it did not mean ‘go away from them’ or ‘have intercourse

with them’, as some have suggested, because this phrase in Arabic, and in this

context, means exactly ‘hit them’. Furthermore, iḍribūhunna, ‘hit them’, does not

mean ‘go away from them’ because the latter in Arabic would be iḍribūanhunna,

using the preposition an (from) and the pronoun hunna (them). In addition, the

context and the chronological order of the phrase iḍribūhunna could not mean ‘go

away from them’ because it implies repetition; the second step for solving the

problem of a discordant women is to leave her bed, while the third step is for the

husband to leave her again! The third step was meant to be an escalation of one’s

reaction, and therefore the other interpretation is illogical.

Even stranger than Bakhtiar’s translation is Ahmad Ali’s translation, as he

translated “iḍribūhunna” as "and go to bed with them (when they are willing)".xxix

Ahmad Ali’s translation contradicts the second step because the second step asks the

husband to abandon his wife in her bed. How can the third step request that the

husband go to bed with his discordant wife when he was ordered in the second step

to abandon her bed? Is this not contradictory? It would seem so.


9

To conclude, neither Bakhtiar nor Ahmad Ali were correct in their

interpretations of verse Q. 4:34, while the exegetes were right. However, Bakhtiar’s

intention was to protect women from men who misunderstood this verse and

independently interpreted it without referring to the books of law and used it to

justify hitting women in an unacceptable manner. This practice is totally rejected in

Islamic law. However, while the protection of women is important, we cannot

change the meaning of the verse to meet our ends.

Orientalist Translations of the Qur’ān

The holy Qur’ān has been subject to various forms of Western criticism.

There are three main trends in the study of the Qur’ān,xxx

one of which is applying

Biblical criticism to the Qur’ān. This method was applied in early Western Qur’ānic

works such as Noldeke’s famous 1859 work, the History of the Qur’ān.xxxi

In

addition, Qur’ānic translation has been an arena for severe Qur’ānic criticism and

distortion, beginning in 1143 with the first Latin translation, continuing with the

first English translation in 1649, and onwards. Currently, we have approximately

seven English translations written by Orientalists.

Some Orientalists, such as A. J. Arberry, have declared that the Qur’ān is

one of the greatest literary works and that it is untranslatable. Another stated that

“the Koran is not only one of the greatest books of prophetic literature, but also a

literary masterpiece of surpassing excellence”.xxxii

Another was quoted to have said

that “the Koran is the earliest and by far the finest work of Classical Arabic

prose”.xxxiii

On the other hand, some translators have disrespected the Qur’ānic text by

altering its order, which is totally at odds with the norms of translation. Such

translations include those written by Rodwell, Bell, and Dawood. Nobody would

translate Shakespeare’s Macbeth by changing its original order, an act that would be

deemed completely unacceptable and heavily criticized. Why, then, are the

standards different when dealing with the Qur’ānic text, which is revered by more

than two billion Muslims as a holy text?

Rodwell, Bell, and Dawood have changed the order of the text, arranging it

chronologically, i.e., by the dates of the revelations, and not according to its

standard order. Each one of these Orientalists has produced a unique order for the

chapters of the Qur’ān, based on the dates of the revelations, which is a matter of

dispute among scholars.

Here, we will discuss Dawood’s alteration of the order of the Qur’ānic Sūras.

Taking liberties with the order of the Qur’ānic Sūras goes against the

consensus of Muslims worldwide (over the past 14 centuries), starting with the

Companions of the Prophet (pbuh), and is considered a very pernicious act. The

order of these Sūras is best thought of as fixed, the position held by Muslim scholars

such as Al-Bayhaqī, Abū Bakr Al-Anbāri, Al-Karmānī in his Al-Burhān, Ibn Ḥajar,


10

and Al-Suyūṭīxxxiv

. Al-Suyūṭī says: “The Sūras and verses of the Qur’ān had this

order during the time of the Prophet Muhammad”xxxv

.

N. J. Dawood has made quite random changes to the order of the Qur’ānic

Sūras. He expresses regret that those who collected the Qur’ān into book form paid

little or no attention to the chronological sequence of the Qur’ānic revelations, and

he references attempts made by some Orientalists, such as Noldeke, Grimme,

Rodwell and Bell, to re-arrange the Sūras in chronological order. To justify his

departure from the order of the Sūras that is familiar to Muslims, Dawood writes:

“In this edition, the traditional arrangement has been abandoned. The present

sequence, while not following a strictly chronological order, begins with the more

Biblical and poetic revelations and ends with the much longer, and often more

topical, chapters. In short, the new arrangement is primarily intended for the

uninitiated reader who, understandably, is often put off by such mundane chapters

as “The Cow” or “Women”, which are traditionally placed at the beginning of the

book”xxxvi

.

In response to those suggesting that the Qur’ān be re-arranged, I would say

that the present order of the Qur’ān was set by the Prophet (pbuh) and, most

probably, inspired by Almighty Allah Himself. There are multiple wisdoms that

explain the reasons behind the ordering of the Sūras. Qur’ānic exegetes have

discussed the harmony or symmetry that exists between the Sūras and the

verses,xxxvii

and a clear example is provided in the commentary of the Qur’ān, Naẓm

al-durar fi tanāsub al-ayywa al-suwar (The Qur’ān’s Sūras and Verses Arranged as

a String of Pearls), by Ibrāhīm ibn ‘Umar al-Ribāt al-Biqā’īxxxviii

. He has

demonstrated connections between every Sūra, highlighting the relationships

between the Sūra and those that precede and follow it. Both Arabic linguists and

exegetes have argued that the traditional order of the Qur’ān shows a marvellous

coherence in the Sūras and the verses, which are interconnected like pearls in a

perfect necklace. If you take out one pearl from that necklace, you destroy the entire

necklace.

Translation studies caution translators against shifting the order of the

elements of a text. This practice goes against the basic function of translation and

can radically alter the meaning of a text and subvert the aims of the text’s author. If,

for instance, we translated the poem titled BānatSu’ād, written by the Arab poet

Zuhayr bin Abi Sulma, by putting the opening lines at the end, and the ending at the

beginning, the poem would be completely changed and would lose its appeal.

Indeed, changing a single word in poetry negatively affects both its meaning and the

effect that the poet aimed to achieve. Imagine if a poet wanted to title a poem

“A Dialogue with Poverty”. He does not call it “A Dialogue about Poverty” because

the word with indicates that the poverty is present with him, which is his intention.

The word about, on the other hand, indicates that the poverty is not there with him,

and this meaning is not at all his intention.


11

If, then, we are so extremely scrupulous with, and avoid tampering with, the

words, phrases and titles produced by humans, how much more this approach

should apply to our interactions with the Book of Almighty Allah – a book whose

sentences, words and even letters contain so much mystery! How, then, can anyone

even think of changing its order?

When I investigated the main reason Dawood changed the order of the

Sūras, I found that he uses the pretext of wanting to begin with the poetic Sūras, or

those relating to the Old Testament. He says that the contemporary reader is put off

by the traditional Muslim order of the Sūras because the initial Suras are about

ordinary and mundane themes, such as ‘The Cow’ (Baqara) and ‘Women’ (Nisā).

The language used by this translator exposes the psychology that lurks behind his

words, in such a way that I feel able to say that, even though he has produced a

translation of the Qur’ān, his translation reveals more about his attitude, and what it

offers is his own reading of the Qur’ān.

The translator’s words reveal what he really wants to say, which is that

Sūras such as Zalzala, Infitār, Takwīr, Insān, Raḥmān, and ‘Adiyāt resemble the

Bible in their content. For instance, he invites the reader to compare Raḥmān with

Psalm 136 in the Old Testament. He also wants to convey that these Sūras are in

fact poetry because of their overall content and their rhythmical schemes and that

they describe things in a romantic style far removed from reality.

Dawood deferred longer Sūras such as Baqara and Nisā, claiming that

readers are put off by them, when both Sūras contain many law-related verses that

enjoin righteous and charitable living. The Sūra Nisā (‘Women’) honours women to

the extent that the entire Sūra is named after them, and it shows clearly how Islam

elevated the status of women and gave them their full rights, which they had

previously been denied. This translator wanted to divert the reader’s attention from

such down-to-earth realities in the Qur’ān, as though the Qur’ān contains no

connection to the real world. Instead, he wished to highlight its poetic themes and

fantastic language, as in the Sūras Zalzala, Infiṭār and Takwīr. When he wishes to

display the more factual side of the Qur’ān, he focuses on the Sūras that resemble

the stories of the Old and New Testaments, such as Maryam (Mary) or

Yusuf (Joseph).

Then, he offers us the pretext that his new arrangement is intended for the

“uninitiated reader”. There is an obvious riposte to that explanation, namely, that

when we are translating any kind of literary text, let alone a sacred text such as the

Holy Qur’ān, we cannot tinker with the text claiming the interests of the “uninitiated

reader”. The Qur’ān is not there to be translated for the benefit of the uninitiated.

Rather, its meanings are to be translated correctly and soundly, without any

corruption or alterations, and for all readers equally, whether they are uninitiated or

otherwise.


12

The Qur’ān is a divinely inspired and sacred text of inimitable construction,

and not a single letter of it should be shifted backwards or forwards. What if all the

Sūras were changed based on similarly fragile excuses? Such acts are nothing short

of sabotage, carried out on the pretext of making improvements. The Qur’ān says:

“When it is said to them: ‘Make not mischief on the earth’, they say: ‘Why, we only

want to make peace!’ Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they

realize (it) not”.xxxix

The other form of Orientalist interference in the translation of the text is

distortion to the meaning of the text due to misconceptions, based on either

ideological precepts or linguistic difficulties.

The Orientalists who translated the Holy Qur’ān did not believe that the

Qur’ān is the word of God; they regarded the text as a fabrication by the Prophet

himself, and they regarded Islam as a heretical religion - a distortion of both

Judaism and Christianity. For example, the word ummī in the Qur’ān means

illiterate or unlettered and was used to describe the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Thus, ‘the unlettered Prophet’ and ‘the illiterate people’ are mentioned more than

twice in the Qur’ān. The adjective was also used to describe the Arab tribes to

whom the Prophet was sent. One of the verses reads Q. 62: 2 ‘It is He who sent

amongst the illiterate people, a Messenger.’ The Orientalists have challenged the

Prophet’s illiteracy, as they totally disagree with Muslim scholars and exegetes on

this issue; because they deny his prophecy, they therefore deny his illiteracy. They

argue that the meanings of the words ummī and ummīyyīn are not illiterate and

illiterates but rather ‘the one who worships idols’ and ‘the one who was sent for the

common folk’. This interpretation is incorrect from both linguistic and historical

points of view for the following reasons.

The Qur’ān states clearly that the message of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

completes and consummates the messages of the prophets who preceded him and

that the Qur’ān authenticates the earlier Old and New Testaments of the Bible. The

fact that these texts are similar to the Qur’ān proves that Allah’s Messenger (pbuh)

was a prophet. Muhammad (pbuh) was unlettered throughout his life, and there is no

evidence that he studied with anybody, including Jews or Christians; therefore, the

precise information in the Qur’ān about Jews and Christians surely points to the fact

that the Prophet’s source was divinely revealed. Moreover, the points of

disagreement between the Qur’ān and the Old and New Testaments are clear

indications – according to Maurice Buccaille – that Muhammad (pbuh) did not rely

upon the Bible,xl

and his only teacher was God, the Wise and All-Knowing One.


13

Another reason for distorting the text concerns linguistic difficulties. Here are some

examples:

Example one:

Sale has misinterpreted the Arabic word wafdan as ambassadors, as in the

following verse (Q. 19: 85): “On a certain day, we will assemble the pious before

the Merciful in an honourable manner, as ambassadors come into the presence of a

prince”.xli

Correct translations regarding wafdan are: “On the Day We gather the

righteous as an honoured company before the Lord of Mercy”,xlii

or “On the Day

when We shall gather to the Merciful the ones who guard themselves like a

delegation”,xliii

or “On the day that We shall muster the god-fearing to the All-

merciful with pomp”.xliv

Example two:

The Qur’ānic verse “wasi’akursiyyuhu al-samāwatiwa al-arḍa”xlv

is

rendered by Dawood as “His throne is as vast as the heavens and the earth”.xlvi

Thus,

he translates the Arabic word kursi as throne. This word can have several meanings

in English, such as chair, footstool, and throne, and is frequently used to mean

throne in royal contexts; thus, kursiyyu al-malik would be translated as royal

throne.xlvii

Nonetheless, even though throne is an acceptable translation of this word,

it is not correct for this verse. One should simply transliterate the word (i.e., kursī),

and then add a detailed explanation in the footnotes. Kursī is the name given to one

of the worlds that encompass the Seven Heavens, and there is another world, called

the ‘arsh, that surrounds the kursi, as related by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

The kursī is like a ring flung into a void, with the ‘arsh surrounding the kursī, and

the kursī itself surrounding the Seven Heavens and the Earth.

When ‘arsh is translated in the Qur’ān, it is usually rendered into English as

throne, as, for example, in the following suras and verses: A’rāf v. 54; Tawba v.

129; Yūnus v. 3; Isrā’ v. 42. To avoid the confusion engendered by translating both

‘arsh and kursī into the same word, one must distinguish between them: ‘arsh

should be rendered as throne, and it is a mistake to render kursī using the same

word. Instead, there should be a replacement for throne; the way to handle this

problem is to transliterate kursī and add detailed comments in the footnotes.

When I checked several translations on this point, I found that all the

translators made the same error – except Al-Hilali and Khan, who distinguished

between ‘arsh and kursī, with an explanation in their notes. They put the word kursī,

just as it is, in their translation, which is, in my opinion, the best way for translators

to address this and similar words.


14

Al- Hilali and Khan’s translationxlviii

reads: “His kursīxlix

extends over the

heavens and the earth”. Others have been less careful, translating kursī as throne, as

did both Pickthall and Abdullah Yusuf Ali. The former has translated as “His throne

includes the heavens and the earth”,l while the latter has translated as “His Throne

doth extend over the heavens and the earth”.li

Example three:

We also find Dawood and other translators at fault when they translate Q 5:7

“wa in kuntumjunuban fa aṭṭahharū”. This verse means that, if someone is in a

state of ritual impurity because of sexual relations or some other act, he or she must

cleanse him or herself via a full, ritual washing of the body.

Dawood’s translation, however, reads: “If you are polluted, cleanse

yourselves”.lii

This is a mistranslation, since the state of ritual impurity does not

mean “being polluted”, nor does fa aṭṭahharū mean “get cleaned up”. The true

meaning is: If you are in a state of ritual impurity because of sexual intercourse or

something similar, purify yourself by washing your whole body properly. Arberry,liii

Majid Fakhry,liv

and Shakerlv

made the same mistake with this phrase. Correct

translations, though, have been rendered by Al-Hilali and Khan and by Abdullah

Yusuf Ali. The former reads, “If you are in a state of janaba (i.e., had a sexual

discourse [sic]), purify yourselves (bathe your whole body)”,lvi

while Abdullah

Yusuf Ali has, “If you are in a state of ceremonial impurity (which arises from sex

pollution) bathe your whole body”.lvii

The examples above typify the sorts of errors made by Dawood and Sale in

their translations. The objective here has not been to count the errors in these

translations but to provide some examples to readers to help them assess these

translations’ worth. Another objective has been to increase awareness of how flawed

the works of individuals are, and how it is consequently necessary for Muslim

scholars, backed by their governments and institutions, to work on team-based

projects rather than individual ones, so that the Holy Qur’ān may be translated into

all the world’s languages.


15

CONCLUSION

This article has discussed how the ideological views of interpreters and

translators affect the translation and interpretation of the Qur’ān, and how the true

meaning of the text might become lost in the process of interpretation and

translation. Therefore, the same verse could have contradictory meanings,

depending on the interpreters’ views. “ISIS” often uses the verse “Kill them

wherever you find them” in their discourse, “justifying” their crimes against

humanity. Sadly, the same verses are also used by Islamophobes to “prove” that

Islam is an intolerant religion. While the fallacy of both arguments is evident in the

contextual understanding of these verses, it is also evident that there is a dire need to

return the religious authority to the scholars, who unfortunately have lost it lately.lviii

Moreover, the views of the liberal translator’s of the Holy Qur’ān, regarding all the

Prophets’ stories and their miracles in the Qur’ān as having parable and allegorical

meanings, as myths and legends, could not be accepted because they contradict

authentic history. Lastly, the Orientalists’ translations of the Qur’ān clearly show

how the meaning of the Qur’ānic text has been distorted, from the first Latin

translation in 1143, until today. This distortion was not limited to the alteration of

the text’s meaning but also included altering the order of the Qur’ānic Sūras

(chapters).

In conclusion, there is no final authority who can claim to be the sole and ultimate

authority on the true meaning and ultimate truth of an open text such as the Qur’ān.

Thus, we need to use traditional linguistics—along with the sayings of the Prophet

Muhammad (pbuh), his companions, and their successors—as well as exercise

tolerance, logic, and interfaith dialogue when translating and interpreting the

Qur’ān.


16

REFERENCES AND NOTES

iA. El-Khatib, Translations of the Meanings of the Holy Qur’ān into English Language (From 1649

till 2013) A Critical Study, (Sharjah: University of Sharjah, 2014), pp.19-22. iiThe Study of Qur’ān: A New Translation and Commentary, Editor-in-Chief Seyyed Hossein Nasr;

General Editors Caner Dagli, Maria Masse Dakake, Joseph E. B. Lumbard; Assistant Editor

Mohammed Rustom. New York: Harper One. iiiThe Salafī Jihadist like Abu Muhammad Aṣim al-Maqdisī regarded the Saudi government as

apostate; furthermore, Muhammad Abdul Salām, in his book al-Jihād al-Farīḍa al-Ghāibah,

has called to fight the nearest enemy inside the Muslim World instead of the outside enemy. See

the views of the different Salafi schools in Ahmad ZaghlūlShallātah and others,Between

Salafism and Terrorism of Takfir: Ideas for Explanation, (in Arabic), (Beirut: MarkazDirāsat al-

Wahda al-Arabiyyah, 2016); and Abdel HaqqDahmān, “al-Salafiyyah al-Khalījiyyah”, (in

Arabic), ibid., pp.97-101. ivISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi urges a fight to the death in Iraq, audio claims, retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/world Thursday 3 November 2016. vCompare this translation with A. J. Dorge, The Qur’ān: A New Annotated Translation, Bristol:

Equinox Publishing Ltd., (reprinted in 2014), p.68; M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, The Qur’ān: English

Translation, 2nd

. ed., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p.116; and A.J. Arberry, The

Koran Interpreted A Translation, p.76, retrieved from

https://ia801706.us.archive.org/20/items/Qur’ānAJArberry/Qur’ān-A%20J%20Arberry.pdf

Wednesday 20 June 2018. viMuhammad bin Umar al-Rāzī, Mafātīh al-Ghayb, 1

st. ed., (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah,

1421/2000), vol.12, p.6. vii

See ibid. and Aḥmad bin Alī al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, ed. by Muhammad Qamhāwi, (Beirut:

DarIhyā’ al-Turāth al-Arabī, n.d.), vol.4, p.94.See also Muhammad al-Hazzat,

“TanẓīmdāishwaTahdīd al-Dawlah al-Waṭaniyyah”, in Ahmad ZaghlūlShallātah and others,

Between Salafism and Terrorism of Takfir: Ideas for Explanation, p.45. viii

Compare al-Jaṣṣāṣ,Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, vol.4, p.94; and al-Ṭabarī, Muhammad binJarīr,Jāmi al-

BayānanTawīl Ay al-Qur’ān, (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1405 H.), vol.6, pp.252-257. Some Jurists

have said that the word (kāfirūn) in the verse does not mean literally the one who rejected the

faith but is rather a kind of rejection (kufr) less than the kufr related to denying the religion

(kufrundūnakufrin). Furthermore, some have suggested that the word kufr here means: denying

the grace of Allah, not the religion; therefore, the person is not regarded as a disbeliever. See al-

Tabari, Jāmi al-BayānanTawīl Ay al-Qur’ān, vol.6, p.256; al-Jaṣṣāṣ,Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, vol.4,

p.92; and Muhammad Ibn Abdallāh Ibn al-Arabī,Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, ed. by Muhammad

AbdelQādirAtā, (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, n.d..), vol.2, p.127. ixFor further information about the importance of the context, see M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, “The Role

of Context in Interpreting and Translating the Qur’ān”, Journal of Qur’ānic Studies, vol.20,

issue 1, 2018, pp.47.66. xSee the following important work: EkmeleddinIhsanoglu, Islamophobia from Confrontation to

Cooperation the task Ahead, (Jeddah: Organisation of Islamic Cooperation: 2013). xiFor the views of al-Būtī on these verses, seeAdel bin KhalīfahBalkahlah, “Mawāqif al-Shaykh

Muhammad Saīd al-Būtī al-Siyāsiyyah: IṣlahīIshtirāīyuḥāribu (al-Rāyāh al-Immiyyah)”, (in

Arabic), Al-Mustaqbal al-Arabī, vol.40, issue 467, January 2018, pp.134-136. xii

Abdel Haleem, The Qur’ān: English Translation, p.31.

https://www.theguardian.com/world


17

xiii

For a detailed discussion of this issue, see the following references: Violence in the Qur’ān,

[Wikipedia]; Abdel Haleem, The Qur’ān: English Translation,pp.xxii (footnote 17)-xxiii; and

Abdel Haleem, “The Role of Context in Interpreting and Translating the Qur’ān”, Journal of

Qur’ānic Studies, (2018), Vol.20, Issue 1, pp.57-63. xiv

See Abdel Haleem, The Qur’ān: English Translation, p.31. and Droge, The Qur’ān: A New

Annotated Translation, p.20. xv

Abdel Haleem, The Qur’ān: English Translation, p. xxii xvi

Ibid.,p.31. xvii

Ibid.,p.xxiii and p.199. xviii

Ibid.,p. xxiii. xix

Adel bin KhalīfahBalkahlah, “Mawāqif al-Shaykh Muhammad Saīd al-Būtī al-Siyāsiyyah:

IṣlahīIshtirāiyuḥāribu (al-Rāyāhal-Immiyyah)”, (in Arabic), Al-Mustaqbal al-Arabī, vol.40,

issue 467, January 2018, pp.134-136. xx

Qur’ān and violence, [Wikipedia] xxi

Abdel Haleem, The Qur’ān: English Translation, p. xxiii. xxii

Muhammad Asad, The Message of The Qur’ān, p.899, footnote:1; compare with Prof. Abdur

Raheem Kidwai’s important comments on Asad’s translation in his excellent book: Translating

the Untranslatable: A critical Guide to 60 English Translations of The Qur’ān,(New Delhi:

Sarup Book Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2011), p.70. xxiii

Muhammad Asad, The Message of The Qur’ān,pp.997-998. xxiv

Ibid., pp.538-539, footnotes 37-38. xxv

Compare with Prof. Abdur Raheem Kidwai’s important comments on Bakhtiar’s translation in:

Translating the Untranslatable: A critical Guide to 60 English Translations of The

Qur’ān,p.146. xxvi

Abdel Haleem, The Qur’ān: English Translation, p.85. xxvii

Bakhtiar, The Sublime Qur’ān, p.94. xxviii

Abdel Haleem, The Qur’ān: English Translation, p.38. xxix

Ahmed Ali, Al-Qur’ān: A Contemporary Translation, (Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1993), pp.78-79, 298. xxx

For further information, see Riḍwān al-Sayyid, al-Mustashriqūn al-Almān: al-Nushū’ wa al-

Ta’thīrwa al-Masā’ir, (Beirut: Dār al-Madār al-Islāmī, 2013.), pp.94-108; and Tarek Elkot, “Is

the Qur’ān Part of the Late Antiquity of Europe? A Reading in German Orientalism”, (in

Arabic), Journal of the College of Sharia and Islamic Studies, Vol.35. issue 2, 2018, pp.101-

130. xxxi

Theodor Nöldeke,Geschichte des Qorāns, ZweiterTeil: Die Sammlung des Qorāns,

völligumgearbeitet von Friedrich Schwally, 2. Auflage, DieterichʼscheVerlagsbuchhandlung,

Leipzig 1919. xxxii

N. J. Dawood, The Koran Translated with Notes, (London, 1978), p.11. xxxiii

Ibid., p.9. xxxiv

Manna’ Al-Qattan, Mabāhithfī ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān, pp.142-145. For more information on how the

Qur’ān was compiled into book form, and on why we have to respect this ordering as per the

consensus of the Companions of the Prophet, see the two introductions to ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān, the

Introduction by Ibn ‘Aṭṭiya, and the Introduction to the kītāb al-mabānī, ed. Geoffrey

Arthur,with the assent of Abdullah Ismā’īl Al-Ṣāwī, (Cairo, 1972), pp. 41-42. See also

Muhammad MuhammadAbūShuhba, Al-madkhal li-dirāsāt al-Qur’ān al-karīm, (Cairo, 1972),

p.333. xxxv

Mannā’ Al-Qaṭṭān, Mabāhith, p.144 – 145.


18

xxxvi

Dawood, The Koran Translated, p.11. It should be noted here, editions since 1990 have had the

true Qur’ānic order of Suras, and the translator has added this note: “Note to all readers: The

reader should bear in mind that the familiar [to Muslims] ordering of the Sūras, as observed in

this translation, is not basic to an understanding of the Qur’ānic text, so those new to the Qur’ān

are advised to start with the short, poetic Sūras such as the ones describing the Day of

Resurrection or Heaven and Hell, e.g.,Takwīr and Raḥmān, or ones like Maryam and Yusuf,

which deal with Biblical topics. These come in the second half of the Qur’ān but should be read

before the long and complex Sūras in the first half, such as Baqaraand Mā’ida, which require of

the reader a prior knowledge of events that took place in the early days of Islam”. Dawood, The

Koran Translated, (London: Penguin Books, 1993), p. 5. xxxvii

See Abdel Haleem’s latest article entitled: “The Role of Context in Interpreting and Translating

the Qur’ān”, Journal of Qur’ānic Studies, 20:1, (2018): pp.47-63. xxxviii

Ibrāhīm bin ‘Umar al-Ribāt Al-Biqā’ī,TafsīrNaẓm al-durar fi tanāsub al-ayywa al- suwar,

(Hyderabad, 1398 AH/1969), vol. 1. xxxix

Qur’ān 2, 11-12 (From A. Yusuf Ali’s translation, p. 19). xl

Maurice Buccaille, The Bible, the Qur’ān and Science, (Tripoli, 1987), p. 269. xli

George Sale, Koran,p.234. [Online Archive] xlii

Abdel Haleem, The Qur’ān: English Translation, p.312. xliii

A. J. Dorge, The Qur’ān: A New Annotated Translation, p.198. xliv

A. J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted A Translation [Online version] xlv

Q. 2: 255. xlvi

Dawood, The Koran Translated, p. 316. xlvii

Hans Wehr, Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, ed. J. Milton Cowan, (New York, 1976), p.

820. xlviii

M. Al-Hilali and M. Khan, Interpretation of the Meanings of the Holy Qur’ān, (Riyadh, 1995), p.

96. xlix

The kursī is literally a footstool or a chair or a throne. In the Qur’ān, it means a world that

surrounds our universe. Our universe compared to kursī is nothing but is like a ring thrown out

upon space of the desert. The kursī compared to the ‘Arsh is nothing but is like a ring thrown

out upon space of the desert. lPickthall, The Glorious Qur’ān, p.42. liA. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’ān, p.103.

liiDawood, The Koran Translated, p. 488.

liiiArthur J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, p.100.

livMajid Fakhry, The Qur’ān: A Modern English Version, (London: Garen Publishing Limited,

1998),p.68. lvM. H. Shakir, The Koran, (New Delhi: Goodword Books, 2000), p. 66.

lviM. Al-Hilali and M. Khan, Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’ān, p. 212.

lviiA. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’ān, p. 242.

lviii< http://jihad.info/isis-a-disgrace-to-islam.html>

http://jihad.info/isis-a-disgrace-to-islam.html


19

Abdel Haleem, M.A.S..The Qur’ān: English Translation, 2nd

. ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2010.

Abdel Haleem, M.A.S.. “The Role of Context in Interpreting and Translating the Qur’ān”, Journal of

Qur’ānic Studies, 20:1, (2018): 47-66.

AbūShahba, Muhammad Muhammad.Al-madkhal li-dirāsāt al-Qur’ān al-karīm, Cairo, 1972.

Al-Biqā’ī, Ibrāhīm bin ‘Umar al-Ribāt.TafsīrNaẓm al-durar fi tanāsub al-ayywaal- suwar,

Hyderabad, 1398 AH/1969.

al-Hazzat, Muhammad. “TanẓīmdāishwaTahdīd al-Dawlah al-Waṭaniyyah”, in Ahmad

ZaghlūlShallātah and others,Between Salafism and Terrorism of Takfir: Ideas for Explanation,

(in Arabic), Beirut: MarkazDirāsat al-Wahda al-Arabiyyah, 2016.

Al-Hilali, M. and Khan, M.. Interpretation of the Meanings of the Holy Qur’ān, Riyadh, 1995.

Ali, Ahmed. Al-Qur’ān: A Contemporary Translation, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Ahmad bin Alī.Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, ed. by Muhammad Qamhāwī, Beirut: Dar Ihyā’ al-

Turāth al-Arabī, n.d..

Al-Qaṭṭān, Mannā’. Mabāhithfī ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān, Kuwait, n.d.

Al-Rāzī, Muhammad bin Umar. Mafātīh al-Ghayb, 1st. ed., Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah,

1421/2000.

Al-Sayyid, Riḍwān. al-Mustashriqūn al-Almān: al-Nushū’ wa al-Ta’thīrwaal-Masā’ir, Beirut: Dār

al-Madār al-Islāmī, 2013.

Al-Ṭabarī, Muhammad bin Jarīr. Jāmi al-BayānanTawīl Ay al-Qur’ān, Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1405 H.

Arberry, A.J..The Koran Interpreted A Translation, retrieved from

https://ia801706.us.archive.org/20/items/Qur’ānAJArberry/Qur’ān-A%20J%20Arberry.pdf,

Friday 22 June 2018.

Arberry, Arthur J..The Koran Interpreted, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Asad, Muhammad. The Message of the Qur’ān, Gibraltar: Dāral-Andalus, 1980.

Balkahlah, Adel bin Khalīfah, “Mawāqif al-Shaykh Muhammad Saīd al-Būtī al-Siyāsiyyah:

IṣlahīIshtirāiyuḥāribu (al-Rāyāh al-Immiyyah)”, (in Arabic), Al-Mustaqbal al-Arabī, vol.40,

issue 467, January 2018, pp.133-144.

Bewley, Abdulhaqq and Bewley, Aisha. The Noble Qur’ān, A New Rendering of its Meaning in

English, Norwich: Bookwork, 1999.

Buccaille, Maurice. The Bible, the Qur’ān and Science, Tripoli, 1987.


20

Dawood, N. J..The Koran Translated with Notes, London, 1978.

Dawood, N.J., The Koran Translated, London: Penguin Books, 1993.

Dorge, A. J..The Qur’ān: A New Annotated Translation, Bristol: Equinox Publishing Ltd., reprinted

in 2014.

El-Khatib, A..Translations of the Meanings of the Holy Qur’ān into English Language (From 1649

till 2013) A Critical Study, Sharjah: University of Sharjah, 2014.

Elkot, Tarek, “Is the Qur’ān Part of the Late Antiquity of Europe? A Reading in German

Orientalism”, (in Arabic), Journal of the College of Sharia and Islamic Studies, 35:2,

(2018):101-130.

Fakhry,Majid.The Qur’ān: A Modern English Version, London: Garen Publishing Limited, 1998.

Ibn al-Arabī, Muhammad Ibn Abdallāh.Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, ed. by Muhammad AbdelQādirAtā,

Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, n.d..

Ihsanoglu, Ekmeleddin.Islamophobia from Confrontation to Cooperation the task Ahead, Jeddah:

Organisation of Islamic Cooperation: 2013.

Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi urges fight to death in Iraq, audio claims, retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/world Thursday 3 November 2016.

Kidwai, Abdur Raheem, Translating the Untranslatable: A critical Guide to 60 English Translations

of The Qur’ān, (New Delhi: Sarup Book Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2011).

Nöldeke, Theodor, Geschichte des Qorāns, ZweiterTeil: Die Sammlung des Qorāns,

völligumgearbeitet von Friedrich Schwally, 2. Auflage, DieterichʼscheVerlagsbuchhandlung,

Leipzig 1919.

Pickthall, M. Marmaduke.The Glorious Qur’ān, (Istanbul: CagriYayinlari, 1996).

Sale, George, Koran, [Online Version]

Shakir, M. H..The Koran, New Delhi: Goodword Books, 2000.

Shallāṭah, Ahmad Zaghlūl, and others, Between Salafism and Terrorism of Takfir: Ideas for

Explanation, (in Arabic), Beirut: MarkazDirāsat al-Wahda al-Arabiyyah, 2016.

The Study of Qur’ān: A New Translation and Commentary, Editor-in-Chief Seyyed Hos- sein Nasr;

General Editors Caner Dagli, Maria Masse Dakake, Joseph E. B. Lumbard; Assistant Editor

Mohammed Rustom. New York: Harper One.

‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān, the Introduction by Ibn ‘Aṭṭiya, and the Introduction to the Kitāb al-mabānī, ed.

Geoffrey Arthur, with the assent of AbdullahIsmā’īl Al-Ṣāwī, Cairo, 1972.

https://www.theguardian.com/world%20Thursday%203%20November%202016


21

Violence in the Qur’ān, [Wikipedia]

Wehr, Hans.Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, ed. J. Milton Cowan, (New York, 1976).

Documents

Lost in Translation: The Ideological Effects of the ... · infidel nations in the war on Islam and Sunna [Sunni Muslims] in Iraq and Syria”.iv Extremist groups such as ISIS have