exegetical inroads in translation

8/9/2019 Exegetical Inroads in Translation

1/12

10

Lower-Plane Qur an Translation:

Exegetical Inroads into TranslationA relationship of confluence holds between Qur'an translation and commentary. On the

one hand, there is a great exegetical tradition built around this most sacred Islamic Text,

which cannot be simply ignored if the end product of a translation is to be of any success.

This tradition arose from either different interpretational stand points of this hyper

sensitive Text or from sincere intentions of making explicit and penetrable its language

which is shrouded in the veil of time. On the other hand, the translator, while drawing on

this wealth of scholarly subtexts that run along the Prime Text, should not fall in the trap

of getting himself captive to them nor allow his translation to get overloaded or the

representation, to be permeated by it to the extent that it would only be seen through its

kaleidoscope. Such awareness, if existent in the first place, is seldom realized in the

actual mentally demanding act of translating. The line is thin indeed and has to be

clearly demarcated. This long tradition of commentary is not to be ignored altogether

but its flow in the final product of the translation has to be filtered and checked if the

original text is to be better represented and lower-plane translations are to be avoided.

Keywords: the Qur'an, tafsr (commentary, exegesis, interpretation), Qur'an translation, subtexts, parallel texts

Scene-setting:History of Qur'an translation proper can be traced back to the year 1143 when Robert of Kettonproduced the first complete Latin version at the behest of his patron, the Abbot of Cluny. i Ever sincethis beginning it has phenomenally expanded in terms of both quantity within many a one givenlanguage or in different languages and in terms of methodology and approach.iiA history as ancientand vibrant as this inevitably saw the encroachment of the essentially explicatory act of exegesis on

the essentially imitative act of translation as they both share an element of interpretation. In fact, thisis so much so that one would always find a fly in the ointment. The reasons behind this state ofaffairs are legion, but, generally, they can be categorised into necessary, manipulative andinadvertent inroads. This critical situation lead to the so-called Monotheist Group producing theirvery recent translation which they dubbed, the Qur'an: A Pure and Literal Translation, with thefollowing decrial:

With so many English translations of the Qur'an available, it is inevitable thatthe reader would ask: why make another one? The answer to this question liesin the current structure of the Islamic faith, and the fact that, for manycenturies, Islam has been primarily sub-categorized either as Sunni or Shia orone of the many other denominations that have emerged over the years. Assuch, all translations have belonged to one school of thought or another whichclearly comes across in the interpretation of and choice of translation forspecific words or verses. Also, while many translators have been sincere intheir rendering of the Arabic meaning of the words, they have been unable torefrain from adding comments in the form of parenthesis within the text of thetranslation or in the form of footnotes and appendices to reflect their views oncertain verses or the views of the denomination they adhere to. The Qur'an isunique in the fact that it uses neither footnotes nor comments letting the textspeak for itself and delivering to the reader as close a rendition of the puremessage of the Qur'an as physically possible. (Blurb)

Although they manage to bring to the fore the issue of the prevalence of certain exegetical acts intranslation practice, it remains to be seen whether they were successful in freeing translation from


2/12

10

exegetical encroachments and really making "the text speak for itself". However, this is besides thepoint, what is of relevance within the remit of the current paper is that this relationship indeed meritsserious explorative study.

Preliminary discussion:The starting question is; can the Qur'an be separated from its interpretation? And, more importantly;is Qur'an translation separable from commentary? Although related, the answers to these twoquestions bring into sharp focus that translation and exegesis are too different; while the first entailsonly understanding the Text, the second merges the subtext with it to, in some cases, an inseparableextent.The answer to the first part of the question is twofold. Physically the two are very separate indeedall sorts of ways have been employed by Muslim copyists throughout the ages to set the divineQur'an apart from its human interpretation. Prominent among these are simply by using the Qur'an'sunique Uthmanic orthography, beautiful hand,iii and by allocating it the pride of place on the page (orfolio) while the exegesis runs on its margins.iv In other instances the part of the Qur'an to be

interpreted is quoted, set apart from the interpretation that comes below it by the graphic features ofthe Uthmanic orthography and beautiful hand. In other instances colours, illuminations, floweringbrackets, ornate bullets, and different calligraphy and font size are also made use of. Mixing the twois indeed out of the question;vthe interpretation comes only second to the Qur'an and subordinate toit, thus the physical representation as such. With the advent of modern printing technologies, thistime-honoured tradition has been underlined rather than undermined. Cognitively, that the reading ofthe Text will be affected by these parallel texts is two obvious to be ignored. Exegesis is veryimportant for understanding the Qur'an. Muqtil (2003: 1, 27), a forefather of Qur'an commentary,further expounds on what is at stake in understanding the Qur'an:

The Qur'an contains references to particular and general things (kh andcmm), particular references to Muslims and particular references to polytheists, general references to all people; it contains unequivocal andambiguous passages (mu kam and mutashbih), explained and unexplainedpassages (mufassarand mubham); it contains deletions and explicit utterances(idhmrand tamm); it contains connective items; abrogating and abrogatedyahs (nsikh and manskh); it contains changes in word order; it containssimilar utterances with many different aspects (ashbh); it contains passagesthat are continued in a different srah; it contains accounts of earliergenerations and accounts of what is there is in Paradise and Hell; it containsreference to one particular polytheist; it contains commandments; laws,ordinances; it contains parables by which God Almighty refers to Himself,parables by which He refers to unbelievers and idols, and parables by whichHe refers to this world, to resurrection and to the world to come; it containsaccounts of what is in the hearts of the believers, and accounts of what is inthe hearts of the unbelievers, polemics against the Arabian polytheists; and it

contains explanations, and for each explanation there is an explanation.To answer the second part of the starting question above (Is Qur'an translation separable fromcommentary?), one has to recognise that basically exegesis is explicatory in nature while translationis imitative or quasi-imitative. Tradition has it that with exegesis the Original will always be thereoverhanging and overarching. The act of reading is linear: first the original is read, according to setrules of recital, and then the interpretation is read as a helping aid for understanding and gaininginsight. Nobody is liable to fall into the trap of intellectually delusively mixing the Text with thesubtext: the segregation of the two is too obvious to miss. Within the Muslim context, the separationis further emphasised by a longstanding tradition of public explanation of certain Qur'an passages,whereby the Qur'an is read first and then explained.


3/12

10

This dimension is lost in translation. Here the Original is practically replaced by thetranslation/imitation. Thus strict rules have been put in place lest that the translation of the Qur'an isto be taken for the Qur'an itself.vi Among these are the emphasis on including the Arabic Original inthe translation and including the word "meanings of" in the title, or a variant of it to the same effect.Needless to say, however, that these precautionary measures are not followed to the letter by alltranslators. Besides, even if these rules where adhered to, by virtue of posing as a representation ofthe Original, translation will be seen as a reflection of it no matter how subordinate it may be taken tobe. Further explanatory additions, not all of which are exegetical in nature, as we will see shortly, areoften added in translations by means of: parentheses, footnotes (endnotes), prefatory notes, glossariesand appendices. Yet, the superimposition of exegesis on translation is fairly common. Additionally,exegesis is quintessentially different from translation in that it directly quotes references from otherreligious disciplines, such as Prophetic Traditions and biography, jurisprudence, and science ofu l, while translation most likely relies on these in the stage of the analysis of the Original more than inthat of the synthesis of the target text. Some translations may, very well, include references to thesein out-of-the-text annotations, yet still there are some that may superimpose some of these within the

text of the translation itself.

vii

An immediate question arses here: what does the translator need the exegetical corpus for? Just likeany other reader, modern-day readers in particular, the translator needs tafsrin order to decode theQur'an and understand its message. However, unlike any other reader, translators are required tocommit their understanding in writing into a different language. The exigencies of the act oftranslating are indeed enormous in both the stages of analysis of the Original text and synthesis of thetarget text. Moreover, unlike any other translator, the Qur'an translator, is to fulfil the monumentaltask of translating a Text unlike any other both in terms of its source and multi-faceted uniqueness.Fazlur Rahman contends:

There is a consensus among those who know Arabic well, and who appreciatethe genius of the language, that in the beauty of its language and the style andpower of its expression the Qur'an is a superb document. The linguistic

nuances simply defy translation. Although all inspired language isuntranslatable, this is even more the case with the Qur'an. (Moosa: 14)

The pressure, not counting extra-textual pressures, is much greater in the case of the Qur'an translatorthus in their loneliness translators do find support and solace in the exegetical corpus. M.M. Pickthall([1930] 1999: xiii) sums up the dilemma in the introduction to his Qur'an:

The Qur'an cannot be translated. That is the belief of old-fashioned Sheykhsand the view of the present writer. The Book is here rendered almost literallyand every effort has been made to choose befitting language. But the result isnot the glorious Qur'an, that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of whichmove men to tears and ecstasy. It is only an attempt to present the meaning ofthe Qur'anand peradventure something of the charmin English. It cannever take the place of the Qur'an in Arabic, nor is it meant to do so.

Another translator, who decided to take up the gauntlet, puts it so:Briefly, the rhetoric and rhythm of the Arabic of the Koran are socharacteristic, so powerful, so highly emotive, that any version whatsoever isbound in the nature of things to be but a poor copy of the glittering splendourof the original.... My chief reason for offering this new version of a bookwhich has been "translated" many times already is that in no previousrendering has a serious attempt been made to imitate, however imperfectly,those rhetorical and rhythmical patterns which are the glory and the sublimityof the Koran. (Arberry: 24-45)


4/12

10

In the face of this, and in order to produce a translation that is acceptable both in form and style,translators are very likely to intervene while carrying out their task. Two types of intervention areidentifiable:

1- Translational intervention: can take place both within the body of the text andoutside it. Examples of translational intervention take shape in the form of: accounting forcultural and linguistic equivalence; compensating for loss; aiding reading; pronouncingpronoun referents; explaining translational choice (as in the case of diverting from certaininherited translation choices); answering for failings in translation.2- Exegetical intervention: may materialise in the following examples: expoundingmore the meanings of certain lexical items; providing asbb an-nuzl (reasons ofrevelation); explaining a sharc ruling; highlighting the relevance between yahs andsrahs; explaining the ambiguous (taw al-mubham ); spelling out the inclusive (taf l al-mujmal); precisely identifying the unrestricted (taqyd al-mutlaq); pinpointing thegeneralized (takh al- cmm); adding their own exegetical remarks.

One may divide intervention into two types:3- Further random intervention: involves putting a tafsr in place of a directtranslation serving no obvious agenda. Further they can be divided into: (a) necessarytransposition dictated by the nature of the Qur'anic text itselfas in the case of not beingable to actually visualize the meaning and having a mental picture of it. And (b)unnecessary transposition attributed to carelessness or incompetence on the part of thetranslator.4- Pre-meditated intervention: mostly aimed at controlling the Text and to manipulateits authority. These either come as part of the translator's strategy; or as a part of his bias(impartiality).

No claim here is made that the dependency of Qur'an translation on tafsris to be undermined or thatthe two can by any means be prised apart, but to be all the more aware of the nomenclature and

nature of this relationship. This should prove of benefit to on-going and up-coming translationprojects in their attempt to raise the standard and to better reflect the Qur'an through translation.Qur'an translators should beware not to let the commentary seep into the translation, the aim must beto let the Qur'an speak for itself as much as possible and disengage it from subtexts and check thesubtexts in place, that is in annotationsviii but not in the body of the text itself. The aim must be toovercome, as much as possible, the intermediary rule of the exegetical corpus whose importance inunderstanding the Original is undeniable in the actual representation available in the product oftranslation.

Illustrations:I give the following examples as illustration:ix the first being the translation ofayah 15:99:

al-Hilali and Khan And worship your Lord until there comes unto you the certainty (i.e.death).Muhammad Ali And serve thy Lord, until there comes to thee that which is certain.M.M. Pickthall And serve thy Lord till the Inevitable cometh unto thee.Rashad Khalifah And worship your Lord, in orderto attain certainty.Sheikh MuhammadSawar

Worship your Lord until you achieve the ultimate certainty.

M.H. Shakir And serve your Lord until there comes to you that which is certain.Sher Ali And continue worshiping thy Lord till death comes to thee.A. Yusuf Ali And serve thy Lord until there come unto thee the Hour that is Certain.


5/12

10

Muhammd Ali, Pickthall, Shakir provide a literal translation of the Original (yaqn). Al-Hilali andKhan intervene exegetically by explaining that what is meant by "certainty" is "death". Going a stepfurther Sher Ali actually replaces with literal with the exegetical "death". It is helpful to note herethat yaqn (the certain) in this yah is interpreted by almost all mainstream Muslim authorities as"death", yet there is a different understanding of in some quarters. Extreme stands of Sufism interpretit as a certain station which they call yaqn, if attained by some awliy they will be relived from the obligation of performing acts of worship. S.M. Sarwar's translation, to "achieve the ultimatecertainty", reflects this interpretation. Unlike the rest of the translators, Rashad Khalifah, who hasbeen known for his disregard for the exegetical corpus, found his own interpretation, "to attaincertainty", which subscribes to no standard exegetical stand.x

Another example of a more linguistic nature occurs in ayah 8:7, which has been translated asfollows:

al-Hilali and Khan And (remember) when Allah promised you (Muslims) one of the twoparties (of the enemy i.e. either the army or the caravan) that it should be

yours, you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours,but Allah willed to justify the truth by His Words and to cut off the roots ofthe disbelievers (i.e. in the battle of Badr).

Muhammad Ali And when Allah promised you one of the two parties that it should beyours, and you loved that the one not armed should be yours, and Allahdesired to establish the Truth by His words, and to cut off the root of thedisbelievers

M.M. Pickthall And when Allah promised you one of the two bands (of the enemy) that itshould be yours, and ye longed that other than the armed one might beyours. And Allah willed that He should cause the Truth to triumph by Hiswords, and cut the root of the disbelievers;

Rashad Khalifah Recall that GOD promised you victory over a certain group, but you stillwanted to face the weaker group. It was GOD's plan to establish the truth

with His words, and to defeat the disbelievers.Sheikh MuhammadSarwar

When God promised to grant you (believers) victory over either one of thetwo groups, you wished to have control over the unarmed one. Goddecided to prove (to you) the truth of His promises and to destroy theunbelievers

M.H. Shakir And when Allah promised you one of the two parties that it shall be yoursand you loved that the one not armed should he yours and Allah desired tomanifest the truth of what was true by His words and to cut off the root ofthe unbelievers.

Sher Ali And remember when ALLAH promised you one of the two parties that itshould be yours, and you wished that the one unarmed should be yours,but ALLAH desired to establish the Truth by HIS words and to cut off theroot of the disbelievers

A. Yusuf Ali Behold! Allah promised you one of the two (enemy) parties, that it shouldbe yours: Ye wished that the one unarmed should be yours, but Allahwilled to justify the Truth according to His words and to cut off the roots ofthe Unbelievers;-

The expression ghayra dht-i sh-shawkah (lit. not that of the thorn), involves a figure of speechwhere ash-shawkah (thorn) is metaphorically used to express difficulty. This metaphor can beperfectly easily translated into English as the word "thorn" both in the literal and the figurative sensescorrespond with the Arabic shawkah. All of the above translators actually sensed a problem andresorted to the much toned down overall literal sense of it, which is based on their understanding of


6/12

10

its interpretation i.e. ghayra dht-i sh-shawkah (lit. not that of the thorn) being an unarmed easy tocapture caravan as opposed to the more thorny dispatch of soldiers.

Yet another example of this nature is found in ayah 79:14:al-Hilali and Khan When, behold, they find themselves over the earth alive after their death,Muhammad Ali When lo! they will be awakened.M.M. Pickthall And lo! they will be awakened.Rashad Khalifah Whereupon they get up.Sheikh MuhammadSarwar

to bring them out of their graves and back to life on the earth's surface .

M.H. Shakir When lo! they shall be wakeful.Sher Ali And behold ! they will all come out in the open.A. Yusuf Ali When, behold, they will be in the (full) awakening (to Judgment).

The lexical item as-shirah proved problematic to all of these translators. Their dependence on tafsris brought to the full in this example. Both Ibn Fris (1991: 3/108-109) and ar-Rghib al-Isfahn

(1992: 430) have it that what is meant by it is the earth which is metaphorically spoken of as "theever-awaking", as it never sleeps, because of peoples' constant tramping and treading as they walk, orbecause of it works day and night without cease about producing plant. The yah replies to thosewho deny that they will be brought to life after their death. This image is lost in all these translations.Not a single translator was able to capture it, though some of them were wider off the mark thanothers.

A linguistically problematic term features in 2:138al-Hilali and Khan [OurSibghah (religion) is] the Sibghah (Religion) of Allah (Islam) and

which Sibghah (religion) can be better than Allah's? And we are Hisworshippers.

Muhammad Ali (We take) Allah's colour, and who is better than Allah at colouring, and weare His worshippers.

M.M. Pickthall (We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah atcolouring. We are His worshippers.

Rashad Khalifah Such is GOD's system, and whose system is better than GOD's? "Himalone we worship."

Sheikh MuhammadSarwar

Say, "Belief in God and following the guidance of Islam are God's meansof purification for us. Islam is the baptism of God. No one is a betterbaptizer than He and we Muslims worship Him."

M.H. Shakir (Receive) the baptism of Allah, and who is better than Allah in baptising?and Him do we serve.

Sher Ali Say, We have adopted the religion of ALLAH; and who is better thanALLAH in teaching religion, and him alone do we worship.'

A. Yusuf Ali (Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than

Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.The wordsibghah is multi-stratal in meaning. Literally it means "colouring", but it is applied here, byextension, to "religion", which is Islam, as contrasted to Christianity in which the act of immersion(colouring) in water, baptism, is taken as an indicator of one's initiation into the religion. So Islam isthe colouring of God, as opposed to Christianity which the colouring of man. There is also thedimension if Islam being a religion that colours one's life in all states. Although Muhammad Ali andPicthall managed to capture the essence of the meaning, other translators, particularly, al-Hilali andKhan who using a double technique of transliteration and bracketing, went a step further towardssuperimposing the explicatory on the imitative. Others did not do much better, especially Khalifahwho, by imposing the word "system", broke off from even the exegetical corpus.


7/12


8/12

10

Sheikh MuhammadSarwar

and sit during the day, or by the darkening night

M.H. Shakir And the night when it departs,Sher Ali And I call to witness the night as it draws to a close,A. Yusuf Ali And the Night as it dissipates;

The word cascasa in the ayah is said to carry the contradictory meanings of "arrive" and "depart". InArabic linguistics such items are termed a da. This is how it is spoken of in the tafsrcorpus and,by the same token, reflected in the translations above. However, a major chunk of the meaning ofcascasa is scooped out in such a simplistic approach. There is an element of imagery to it. Ibn Fris(ibid.: 42) says that this word is componentially made of the two elements of (a) approaching andseeking, and (b) sneaking and stealth. A beautiful imagery characteristically applied to night,especially as it is contrasted with the day which is described as "breathing" in the following yah.Furthermore, the phonic composition of the word also back the added meaning of stealth.xiNone ofthis wealth of meaning is reflected in the translations above, and the result is feeble representation ofthe Original. Total dependence on certain tafsrs, which are not concerned with linguistic issues, does

not help in reaching a better understanding of the Original and thus producing a better translation.

Discussion:As we have seen in the examples above, certain exegetical views were, advertently or otherwise,grafted on the primary text of the translation. To put it otherwise, they were not checked outside thetext and limited to the annotations. By virtue of being a "representation" of the Original, this shouldhave negative reflections by the new readership's perception of it. There is a marked change in theconditions of reception for the Text in its translationmany translations are merely periphrastic, aform of inter-lingual exegesis which have profound implications for its reception by its new readers.These translations, furthermore, by heavily relying on the tafsrcorpus, wittingly or not, in the stagesof the analysis of the Original and the synthesis of the translation, retain only a fraction of theOriginal's force and message. As we have seen in the examples above, this case is not unavoidable.The relationship of the Original and to its translation can be represented as in the figure below:

The

Quran

Exegetic

Corpus

Translation

Original: the higher-plane

Explicatory sources: the

middle-plane

Imitative replica: the lower-

plane

Reflected in:

Reflects on:


9/12

10

The basic tenet here is that Qur'an translations do not really reflect directly the Original, but they are,in many cases, mere inter-lingual reflections of a middle layer, which, on its own, is reflective of theOriginal. In more cases than not, Qur'an translations do not directly reflect the original, but relyheavily on its body of explicatory corpus and then represent this in a new linguistic code. Thus therelation between the Qur'an and its supposed translations is that of an Original and a poor Replicaretaining only the shadow of the depth of the Original.There are a number of reasons for this. The present researcher holds the following as pertinent:

1- The nature of certain passages of Qur'an being open for more than oneinterpretation. Abu d-Dard is reported to have said: "You will not be fully knowledgeable until you see different facets of the Qur'an". When cAl ibn Abi lib sent cAbdullah in al-cAbbs tothe Kharijites, he cautioned him: "Go to them and engage them in debate. Do not argue withthem on the basis of the Qur'an as it is of probabilities and facets, but dispute with them on thebasis of Sunnah".xii Although we acknowledge this fact, yet overemphasizing it is not healthy intranslation as this fact is of more significance to interpretation than it is to translation. However,translators will always find certain readings more suitable than others. By the same token,

translators' bias in a major cause of permeating translation with tafsr.2- Of relevance to the previous point but more applicable to translators, is that certainpassages of the Qur'an are not easily comprehended without the aid oftafsr. Their structurecould also play a part in their intricacy and hence certain portions oftafisrhave to be reflected intranslation.3- Another relevant point is that in the case of lexical items more than any higherranking portion of text, their meaning is not easily graspable and a definite perception of them isnot easily available. This results in the translators' resorting to tafsr, which finds reflection intheir translations.4- The common perception of Islam being a religion for everyone and the time-honored practice of explaining its tenets, as exemplified in preaching it to in public places suchas mosques, and basically its original oral tradition lead to the spring somewhat simplisticdiscussions for the benefit of laymen. This deeply-entrenched background lead to a tendency for

giving easily graspable synonyms of colourful lexical elements of the original sources of Islam:The Qur'an and the Sunnah. The effects of this notion on the practice oftafsrwere carried onthe dependent practice of translation.5- The overwhelming narratives and Qur'an translation discourse which arepossessed by the notion of the Qur'an's "untranslatablity". This has had profound implications forthe practice of Qur'an translating. The tradition of "untranslatablity" is as over drawn is it is prevalent, that it has impressed an effect so profound in the minds of translators that theyconsciously or not succumbed to the notion and did not, in their endeavours, ponder on thepossibilities and venues of the Qur'an's "translatability", and just how feasible this notion is.Another equally influential notion is that translations are, to no small measure, thought of asthose of the "meanings" of the Qur'an or "interpretations" of it.6- Recent research in Translation Studies identified the so-called universals of

translation. These are recurrent features typically occurring in translated texts. Prominent amongthese universals is the tendency for simplification, of which there are: lexical, syntactic andstylistic types of simplification. Theorists are of the opinion that lexical simplification operatesaccording to six principles or strategies, which are: use of subordinate terms when there are noequivalent hyponyms in the target language, approximation of the concepts expressed in thesource language text, use of common-level; or familiar synonyms, transfer of all functions of asource language word to its target language equivalent, use of circumlocutions instead ofconceptually matching high-level words or expressions (especially theological, culture specificor technical terms), and use of paraphrase where cultural gaps exist between the source and thetarget languages. Although, proving that Qur'an translators resort to these strategies merits aseparate study of its own, we are able to identify some of them in the previous examples. What isparticular to Qur'an translators, by contrast to translators of other texts, is that this simplification


10/12


11/12

10

References

al-Amri, Waleed Bleyhesh (2007) "Qur'an Translatability at the Phonic Level". In

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, vol. 15:3.Arberry, A.J. (1980) The Koran Interpreted. London: George Allen & Unwin.Ar-Rghib al-Isfahn (1992) Mufradt Alfa al-Qur n . Dr al-Qalam: Damascus.Az-Zarqn, Mu ammad cAbdul-cA m (1999) Manhil al-CIrfn fcUlm al-Qur n . Dral-Macrifah: Beirut.Fatwa ash-Shaikh al-Imm Mu ammad a - ahir ibn cshr(2004). Compiled andedited by Mu ammd Buzghaibah . Markaz Jumcah al-Mjid li ath-Thaqfah wa at-Turth:Dubai.Ibn Faris (1991) Mucjam Maqayis al-Lughah. Dr al-Jl: Beirut.Hill, H. (2006) The Bible at Cultural Crossroads: From Translation to Communication. St.Jerome Publishing: Manchester.Khader Salamah (2001) The Qur'an Manuscripts in the al-Haram al-Sharif IslamicMuseum, Jerusalem. UNESCO: Paris.

Kidwai, Abdur-Rahim (2007)Bibliography of the Translations of the Meanings of theGlorious Qur'an into English1649-2002: A Critical Survey. King Fahd Glorious Qur'anPrinting Complex: Madinah.Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. (2001) "Universals of translation". In M. BakerRoutledgeEncyclopedia of Translation Studies. Routledge: LondonM. N. Seferciolu and E. Ihsanolu (2000), World Bibliography of Translations of the HolyQuran in Manuscript Form, I. Istanbul: IRCICA.Moosa, E. (2003)Introduction of F. Rahman, Revival and Reform in Islam. Oneworld:Oxford.Picthall, M. (1999) The Glorious Qur'an. Cagri Yayinlari: Istanbul.Sulaimn al-Qarcw (1413 AH) al-Wujh wa la-Na a r f al-Qur n al-Karm. Maktabatar-Rushd: Riyadh.The Qur'an (1997) (translation of the Meaning of the Qur'an, by Saheeh International.Abulqasim Publishing House: Riyadh.Whissell, C. (2004) "Emotion and Style in an English Translation of the Qur'an". InPsychological Reports, 2004, 94, 523-544.


12/12

exegetical inroads in translation

Documents