Unit 2

Evaluation of English translation of the Quran (1)

Evaluation of English translation of the Quran
English
translation of the Quran began in 9461, some of famous
translators as follows: Alexsander Ross , his translation is named
The Alcoran of Mahomet George Sale his translation is named The
Alcoran of Mohammed Arberry A.J his translation is named the
koran Interpreted Pikthall Mohammad Marmaduke his translation
is named The Meaning of the glorious Quran Irving T.B. his
translation is named
The Quran : The First American Version
Mohammad M. H. his translation is named The Quran Qarai Ali
Quli
The Quran With a Phrase-by-Phrase English
Translation Glorifying of translation era has been proliferated in the
second half of twentieth century. We are presenting the Evaluation
of English translation of the Quran according to the book,
"Translating the Untranslatable" within two lessens (unit 2 & unit
3).
Ross, Alexander The Alcoran of Mahomet, Translated Out
of Arabic for the Satisfaction of All That Desire to Looking into
Turkish Vanities (1649) _______ Alexander Ross was a leading
public figure of his day and enjoyed fame as a polemical writer, man
of letters, historian and chaplain of King Charles I. Born in Aberdeen,
Scotland, he was a student of divinity and philosophy. His interest in
Turkey and Islam, which he dubs as Turkish religion, grew as a
result of the increasing diplomatic, trade and travel links between
Britain and the Ottoman empire, the latter being the superpower of the
day. A few clays before its publication, his translation of the Quran,
which happens to be the first one in English, the Council of State,
England banned its publication on 2 March 1649, fearing that the
Quran, backed by the powerful empire of the Ottomans might...

implant itself in English society. In order to allay this apprehension

Ross added to his work two prefatory flotes: A summary of the
Religion of the Turks, and The translator to the Christian Reader.
Both of these assert that the Turkish religion being a mere heresy
could not shake Christian faith. In pursuance of the same objective
he appended to his work, even after it had been printed, two more
pieces: A Needful caveat or Admonition for them who desire to
know what use may be made of, or if there be danger in reading the
Alcoran, and The Life and Death of Mahornet. The polemical
intent of the former is evident from its title. As to the latter, it is
downright abusive, teeming with imaginary scandalous stories and
calumny directed against the Prophet (peace be UOfl him). His other
works on history too, betrayhis anti-Islam bigotry. His poor
understanding and distortion of things Islamic corne out even in the
title of his translation: The Akoran of Mahorne4 Translated out of
Arabic for the satisfaction of all that desire to looking into Turkish
vanities. (italics mine). Not only its patently polemical, some of its
other features are equally odd. First, contrary to its claim, it is not a
translation from Arabic. Rather, it is a poor English version of Sieur
Du Ryers French translation of the Quran which had appeared in
1647. This French translation, as Henry Stubbe observes is very
corrupt, altering and omitting many passages. Among all the
English translators of the Quran, Ross alone has perhaps the
unenviable, rather unimaginable distinction of being a translator of
the Quran, who did not know any Arabic. Sale, Stubbe and Zwerner
are among several Orientalists who testify to Rosss lack of
knowledge of Arabic. Sales comment is highly instructive: Rosss
English version is no other than a translation of Du Ryers, and that a
very had one; for Alexander Ross who did it, being utterly
unacquainted with Arabic, and no great master of the French, has
added a number of fresh mistakes of his own to those of Du Ryer, not
to mention the meanness of his language, which would make a better
book look ridiculous.2 Nabil Matar elaborates the above point further:

Ross did not know Arabic and relied completely on tht French
translation by Andrew Du Ryer... He translated word for word from
the French.0 Owing to his total unfamiliarity with Arabic and Islamic
(extS. Ross does not cite even a single Muslim source in his notes on
the Quran. Worse, he attributes to Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him) such statements which he never made. tintil the publication
of George Sales translation in 1734, i.e. for more than a century,
however, this extremely defective translation served as the main
source of the study of the Quran and Islam in English.
Notwithstanding its markedly polemical tenor, it stands out as the first
English translation, which paved the way for the study of the Quran in
England on a wider scale in the years to corne. Though it was eclipsed
by Sales translation, it was reprinted at regular intervals in the US in
the nineteenth century. Since 1948, however, it has not been reissued. Rosss work is a telling example of all the characteristics of an
Orientalist writing on Islam sheer hostility and bigotry towards all
things Islamic which Muslims regard as sacred; polemical/missionary
motive behind the writing; shockingly Insufficient knowledge of
Islamic texts and serving the sole objective of misguiding and
prejudicing readers against Islam. The narrowness of Rosss stance is
betrayed by his labelling Islam as a Turkish religion. His audacity
in having translated the Quran without possessing any knowledge of
Arabic is Outrageous.
REFERENCES
1. Heruy Stubbe, AnAaouniof the RAie md Progress of Mahometan
As,, uith the Lije of Ma/jomet, ed. Hafiz Mahmud Khan Shirani.
Lahore, Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1954-1959. 2. George Sale. The
Koran. London, Fredreick Warne, 1734. vii. 3. Nahil Matar,
Alexander Ross and the First English Translation of the Quran,
Muslim W&88:1 (January 1998), 82 and 85. Publication details of
the first edition: LOndo, 1649. &O3 pages

The Koran, Commonly

Mohammed George Sale (1734)

called

the

Alcoran

of

George Sale, the son of a London merchant, studied law and Arabic.
In view of his mastery over Arabic, the Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge (SPCK), London, selected him as a member of
the team entrusted with the job of producing the Arabic translation of
the New Testament for promoting Christianity among the Arabicspeaking people. Prompted by his own interest in the Quran and by
his close association with the SPCK, Sale decided to undertake the
English translation of the Qui-an. He was aware of the deficiencies in
the European translations of the Quran. However, his main motive
behind his venture was polemical, as is evident from his own
statement of intent: imagine it almost needless either to make an
apology for publishing the following translation, or to go about to
prove it as a work of use as well as curiosity.., it is absolutely
necessaty to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair
translations which have appeared, have entertained too favorable an
opinion of the original, and also to enable us effecnially to expose the
imposture... For the Koran being so manifest a forgery! The
Protestants alone are able to attack the Koran with success, and for
them, I think Providence has reserved the glory of its overthrow. Not
content with even this, he offers detailed instructions to Christian
missionaries as to how they should COflvCit Muslims to Christian
faith. Unlike his predecessor in the field, Alexander Ross, Sale was
conversant with both the Arabic language and tajuir corpus. Yet his
translation suffers from every conceivable type of defect
omissions, mistranslations and interpolation of extraneous material
into the body of the translation. In his brilliant critique, Ghulam
Sarwar identifies numerous instances of the unpardonable liberties
taken by Sale: just as Sale distorts the meaning of the Holy Quran by
substitution of O Men of Mecca for the general expression O men
or O mankind in the same he puts in (y. 143, ch. 2) You O

Arabians, whereas God means Ye (Muslims). The words O

Arabians or of Mecca are not in the text hut Sales interpolations.
In verse 191, chapter 2 And persecution in faith is worse than war,
is rendered by Sale, For temptation to idolatry is more grievous than
slaughter. The interpolation of the words to idolatry being
intended by Sale to insinuate the intolerance of Islam to other
religions. In verse 12, chapter 5, And sent forward to Goci a g
sending, is rendered by Sale, And lend unto God on usury. This is
simply ridiculous. In y. 43, ch.15, fourteen words of the original
enlarged into forty-seven in the translation. Let all the readers of the
Holy Quran be aware of forgeries. The following is a most wilful
rnistransI1 of Sales (ch. 22, v.52): We have sent no prophet bef
thee, but when he read, Satan suggested sorne error in reading. All
Christian writers have harped upon this and the fancied occasion on
which it is said to have revealed, ... the translation given above is
entirely for the words read and reading are not in the text.2 nave
Sale is guilty also of having mistranslated a/-gha)b as mysteries of
faith and bi is,,, Al/ab a/-Rahmm a/-Rabee,,, as In the name of the
most merciful God. In the latter instance he tends to take aI-Rahma,i
and a/-Rriheem as perfect synonymous and lumps the two together
under his loose rendering, the most merciful. Throughout his
Preliminary Discourse and his explanatory notes he aims at pressing
home that the Quranic text is imperfect and that Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) erred in composing it. Mohar Ah, a leading
Islamic scholar, passes the following judgement on Sales work on the
basis of his thorough, critical analysis: Sale reproduced all the faults
and mistakes of Marracci [the Latin translator of the Quran in 1698]
in his translation and flotes; and as the intention was to overthrow the
Quran, Sale spared no means to distort its meaning. The distortion
was done in a number of ways, mainly, a) paraphrasing; b) deliberate
mistranslation and also mistranslation due to i) omission of words or
expressions in the text from the meaning; ii) lack of understanding of
the correct meaning of some Arabic expressions, iii) the use of

Christian theological terms and concepts, iv) and interpolation of

words and expressions extraneous to the text and c) faulty notes and
comments. The whole work is replete with these faults.3 Regrettably,
despite these serious defects in both the conception and execution of
Sales translation, it had phenomenal reception in the West. Its more
than 160 editions make it as the most popular and oft-printed English
translation in both the UK and US. Its 67 American editions have set
a record in publication history. Almost every library in the West has
its copy on the shelf. Only after 1950s has its popularity declined, as it
was replaced by N.J. Dawoods and A.J. Arberrys translations
brought out by the leading Western publishers Penguin and Oxford
University Press respectively. Sales English translation was rendered
into sorne European languages, for example, by Theodere Arnold into
German in 1746, by Kalmkov into Russian in 1792 and by Litza in
Bulgarian in 1902. In sum. Sale appears as a Christian missionary,
polemicist and Orientalist in the light of his pronouncements on
Islam, the Prophet and the Quran. His avowed aim was to expose the
imposture of the Prophet, the forgeries of the Quran and to
attack [Islami with success in order to attain the glory of its
overthrow.
REFERENCES
1. George Sale, To the Reader in The Koran. London, J. Wilcox,
1734, iv. 2. Ghulam Sarwar, A Review of the Previous Translations
of the Holy Quran, in his Translation of the HoyQuran, Karachi,
Pakistan, National Book Foundation, 1973, xi, xii, xv and xvii. 3. M.
Mohar Mi, The Quran and the Orienta/isis, Norwich, IJK, Jamiyat
Ihyaa Minhaj al-Sunnah, 2004, 332.
Publication details of the first edition: London, J. Wilcox, 1734,
187+508 pages Number of Editions: Around 170 Other Reviews: o
Swan, George Review on Sales The Koran Muslim World 20:2
(April 1930), 208. o Shellabear, G. W. Is Sales Koran Reliable?

Muslim World 21 (1931), 126-142. o Sarwar, Ghulam A Review of

the Previous Translations of the Holy Quran in his Translation of the
Ho/y Quran Karachi, Pakistan National Book Foundation, 1973. viixxii.

Arberry, A. J. The Koran Interpreted .

(1955)
Since its publication in 1955, the renowned British Orientalist,
Arthur J. Arberrys translation of the Quran, The Koran Interpreted
has enjoyed immense popularity. It has been reprinted around 30
times. Its handy World Classic edition brought out by the Oxford
University Press is available in almost every Western library and
bookstore. The wide acclaim this translation has won may be
attributed, in large measure, to Arherrys impeccable credentials as a
scholar of Arabic and Islamic Studies. Arberry (1905-1969), had
served as Head, Department of Classics, Cairo University, Egypt and
later as Professor of Arabic and Persian at the Universities of London
and Cambridge. During his stay in Egypt, the gained thorough
familiarity with Muslim culture, including literature. Illustrative of it
are his excellent translations of dozens of Arabic, Persian and Urdu
literary masterpieces. However, what makes him stand out above
other Orientalists, both his predecessors and cntemporarieS, is that his
works are free, to a great extent, from the errors of perspective
common among other Orientalists. For example in a sharp contrast to
other Orientalist English translators of the Quran, ranging from
Alexander Ross (1649) to Richard Bell (1937), in the Preface to his
translation, he, at least, faithfully records the Muslim belief about the
divine origin of the Quran. Moreover, unlike others, he does not harp
on the so-called sources of the Quran or it being the product of the
prophets mind. On the contrary, he is seen severely criticizing his

predecessors, namely, Ross, Sale, Rodwell and Bell for the lack of
scholarly impartiality in their approach to the Quran. He illustrates, in
particular, how Bell, as a representative of Higher Criticism, threw
himself with brisk enthusiasm into the task of demolishing the
Koran. Far from others who see little merit in the form or contents of
the Quran, he pays glowing homage to the rhetorical and rhythmical
patterns which are the glory and sublimity of the Koran.4 Yet these
valuable elements should not blind one to some serious incongruities
in his work which appear all the more odd in view of his enviable
command over Arabic. There are instances of omission and
mistranslation too, to which we would revert later in this piece. First,
bet us begin with some inexplicable and intriguing aspects of his
work: o His thirty-one pages long Preface does not say a word about
the contents or message of the Quran. Although he produced this
work specifically for the Western, non-Muslim readers, it never
occurs to him to introduce the Quran to them. Being new to the Quran
his target readership needed all the more some guidance on the
subject matter, themes and impact of the Quran. This gap appears
more marked because his work does not have even a single
explanatory note. It consists only of the translation of the text and a
short Index, bereft of any background material on the Quranic
personalities, allusions, and historical events. Without any
commentary or authorial notes, a translation alone cannot and does
not advance the understanding of the Quran, especially of those
studying it for the first time. o Equally hard to justify is his use of
archaic, outdated expressions of the King James Bible in a work
published in 1955. His readers must have found these expressions
mostly incomprehensible. The preponderance of such obsolete words
comes out sharply in the following instances: Thee only we serve; to
Thee alone we pray for SUCCOUr Guide us on the straight path, The
path of those who Thou hast blessed, Not of those against whom Thou
art wrathful, Nor of those who are astray. Here is another passage
littered with unintelligible words: My Lord, hast Thou willed Thou

wou/dst have destroyed them before, and me. Wilt Thou destroy us
for what the foolish ones Of us have done? It is only T4y trial
whereby Thou kaaest astray whom Thou wilt, and uidest Whom
Thou wilt. Thou ad our Protector. o Nowhere in his work has Arberry
mentioned the Arabic Surah titles; these appear only in their English
version. At places, he employs highly unusual ones: Surah 30 al-Rum
as The Greeks Surah 07 al-Araf as the Battlement Surah 35 Fatir as
the Angels Surah 25 al-Furqan as Salvation Surah 56 al-Waqiah at
The Terror Both the Surahs 23 and 40, al-Muminun and al-Mumin
respectively are assigned the same title The Believers o As already
indicated, Arberrys works is without any explanatory notes. As a
result, one gets no idea about his mindset regarding things Quranic.
Only the Index to his work provides some clues about his approach
which is, in several instances, flawed. The Quran relates at length
Prophet Abrahams quest for truth, stating how he discarded one after
another such objects of nature as the sun, the moon and stars as
unworthy of the Lordship. In the Index, however, this episode is
branded as Abrahams conversion. This description does not do
justice to the import of the Quran. According to the Quran, after
mans creation. Allah directed the angels to prostrate before him.
Arberry refers to it under the misleading heading, Adam worshipped
by the angels.8 Quranic scholars have tried, down the ages, to
identify the historicity of Dhu al-Qarnayn. There is divergence of
opinion among them about his true identity, as they cite different
personalities in this context, ranging from 1) Alexander the Great to
(2) a pre-historic king contemporary with Prophet Abraham (peace
and blessings be upon him) bearing the identical name of Alexander,
(3) a king of Persia, Ram and (4) a pre-historic Himyarite king from
Yemen. However, Arberry arbitrarily equates Dhu al Qarnayn with
Alexander the Great9 It is recorded in Surah al-Ahqaf that Allah made
some jinn listen to the Quran. Arberry, however, places this incident
under the index heading Jinn listen to Muhammad.OO) This readily
brings to mind the Orientalist stance about the Prophets authorship of

the Quran. o Another glaring incongruity is Arberrys work is his

inappropriate use of the peculiarity Christian thlogica1 terminology.
In his Preface he cites the Quranic passage on the birth of Prphet
Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) while calling it as the
passage on the Nativity of Our Lord1. In a similar vein is his claim
about the distinguishing feature of his translation: If, set out like this,
the Koranic treatment of his most sacred theme seems to recall,
however, distantly and however faintly, some medieval Christian
carol, the resemblance is surely not fortuitous; but I make bold to
claim that the point escapes notice in any other kind of translation
(12). As already stated, this work is not free from instances of
omission and mistranslation either. Following are the examples in
which Arberry, for reasons best known to him, fails to render certain
Quranic words in his translation, as a result of which it has turned
faulty. 1. Ah Imran 3:43: The Quranic phrase maa/-rakiyin is left
out: Mary, be obedient to thy Lord, prostrating and bowing before
Him. (Arberrys incorrect version)3 Mary, be obedient to your Lord,
prostrating and bo with those who bow. (correct) 2. al-Dhariyat 54:
The Quranic expression amra is left Out: By the swift scatterers and
the burden bearers and the smooth runners and the partitioners.
(incorrecO4 By the swift scatterers and the burden bearers and the
smooth runners and the partitioners by command. . (Correct). 3. alMumtahanah 60:12: The Quranic expression fabaayuhunna is left out:
O Prophet, when believing women came to thee, swearing fealty to
thee upon the terms that they will not associate with God anything,
and will not steal, neither commit adultery, nor slay their children, nor
bring a calumny, they forge between their hands and their feet, nor
disobey thee in ought honourable, as Gods forgiveness for them. God
is A11forgiVifl8, All-Compassionate. (incorrect) (15). O Prophet,
when believing woman come to you, swearing fealty to you upon the
terms that they will not associate with God anything, and will not
steal, neither commit adultery, nor slay their children, nor bring a
calumny, they forge between their hands and their feet, nor disobey

you in ought honourable the,, accept their a/giance, as Gods

forgiveness for them. God is All-Forgiving, Mi-Compassionate.
(correct) Instances of mistranslation too, are not uncommon in
Arberrys work. Illustrative of it are the following: o A1Tawbah 9:64
The hyprocrites are afraid, lest a Surah should be sent down against
them, telling thee what is in their hearts (incorrect)6 The
hypocrites are afraid, lest a Surah should be sent down about them,
showing them what is in their hearts. (correct) o Al-Anfal 8:59 And
thou are not to suppose that they who disbelieve me have outstripped
Me; they cannot frustrate My Will. (incorrect)17 And let not those
who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip. They cannot frustrate
(Allahs purpose). (correct) o Al-Furqan 25:62: And it is He Who
made the night and day a succession for whom He desires to
remember or He desires to be thankful. (incorrect)8 And it is He
Who made the night and day a uccession for him who desires to
remember or desires to be thankful. (correct) o A1-Sajadah, 32:23
Indeed We gave Moses the Book, so be not in doubt concerning the
encounter with him. (incorrect) (19) Indeed We gave Moses the
Book, so be not in doubt of his receiving its (correct) o A1-Tawbah
9:70: Has there not corne to you the tidings of those who were before
jou? (incorrect)2 Has there not come to you the tidings of those
wflo were before them? (correct) o All Imran 3:115: And whatever
good jou do,jou shall not be denied the just reward of it.
(incorrecO21 And whatever good they do they shall not be denieci
the just reward of it. (correct) o A1-Shuara 26:108: So serve you
God, and obey you me (incorrect22 . So fear God, and obey me.
(correct) o al-Waqiah 56:11 Those are they brought nigh Throne.
(incorrect)23 Those are they brought nigh. (correct) o al-Waqiah
56:88: Then if he be of those brought nigh the Throne. (incorrect
)(24) Then if he is of those brought nigh. (correct) o al-Nisa 4:157:
And for their saying, We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, the
Messenger of God yet they did not slay him, nor crucified him,
only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance

concerning him are surely in doubt regarding him they have no

knowledge of him, except the following of surmise. (incorrect)2
And for their saying, We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, the
Messenger of God yet they did not slay him, nor crucified him,
but it appears so unto them. Those who are at variance concerning it
are surely in doubt regarding it; they have no knowledge of it, except
the following of surmise. (correct) o Yunus 10:88: Moses said: our
Lord, Thou hast given Pharaoh and his council adornment and
possessions this present life. Our Lord, let them go asirqyfrom Tbj
wqy. (incorrect26 Moses said: our Lord, You have given to Pharaoh
and his council adornment and possessions in this present life and so,
Our lord, they mislead (men) from Your way. (correct) o Hud 11:30:
:0 My people, who would help me against God, if I drive jou away?
Will you not remember? (incorrect)27 O My people, who would hip
me against God, if I drive them away? Will you not take heed?
(correct) o Hud 11:46: Said He, Noah! He is not of thy family; it is
a deed not righteous. Do not ask Me that whereof thou hast no
knowledge. (incorrect)(28) As is evident from above examples,
Arberrys mistranslation often twists the intended meaning of some
Quranic verses. In view of his enviable mastery over Arabic language,
these mistakes appear not only unpardonable but also inexplicable.
Another irksome feature of Arberrys work is his too literal
translation of certain Quranic expressions. Granted the English
equivalents employed by him may be etymologically or literally
sound; nonetheless, they leave an odd impression On the mind of an
average reader who may not necessarily appreciate the etymological
background of the English equivale chosen by Arberry. As is evident
from the following examples of this type, Arberrys translation in
these instances, far from advancing ones understanding of the Quran,
makes the import of the Quran somewhat incomprehensible and
beWilders the readers: S.No. Surah No. Verse Quranic Arberrys No.
Expre- choice choice sslon 1. al-Hijr 15 53 aIim Cunning Wise 2. alDhariyat 51 28 aIim Cunning Wise 3. aI-Anhiya 21 72 Nafila In

superfluity Grandson or additional gift 4. Fatir 35 34 Shakur Allthankful All-Appreciative 5. Al-Shura 42 23 Shakur Mi-thankful AllAppreciative 6. Al-Taghabun 64 17 Shakur All-thankful AllAppreciative 7. Al-Baqarah 2 158 Shakr All-thankful All-Responsive
8. Al-Araf 7 157 al-nabi Prophet of common folk al-ummi or The
unlettered Prophet 9. Al-Araf 7 158 al-nabi Prophet of common folk
al-ummi or The unlettered Prophet In his brilliant analysis,
Muhammad Mohar Mi provides many more instances of Arberrys a)
employment of Christian theological terms that distort the meaning of
the Quran, b) distortion of the meaning, c) mistakes owing to his
failure to understand the Quranic expressions, d) additions to or
omissions from the original, and e) mistakes on account of his
carelessness. Only some of these are recounted below: (a) Equally
purposeful is his translation of the first part of qyab 14:27 as God
confirms those who believe with the firm word. The clear meaning
Ofyuthabbitu is he establishes or makes firm. The term
confirmation has a very well known sense in Christian theology
signifying the rite by which people are admitted to full communion
in many Christian churches, to confirm means to put through a
ceremony to admit to fiji! religious communion. Again, a very
significant twist is given in translating the initial clause of 16:102, as
Say: The Holy Spirit sent it down from thy Lord. (The term nih a/quas is another name for the angel Jibril and he is meant here. But
Arberry gives a double twist here. Fie capitalizes [the Holy Spirit] ...
so as to make it conform to the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit,
and he translates nana/a as sent down, though it also means
brought down and which is the sense here, especially as the phrase
from your Lord follows it. . (b) The clause in 2:58 is translated as:
and say, Unburdening; We will forgive your transgressions. ...
Arberry translates the expression biteab as Unhurdening, writing it
with a capital letter and putting a semicolon after it. This makes the
sense unintelligibl, violates the grammatical from of its being a
conditional clause and makes the clause We will forgive you appear

as an independent statement rather than the onclusion of the

conditional clause. . (c) He fails to grasp the meaning Of the idiom
anjadin in the last clause of ajab 9:29 and translates it as: out of
hand; while the correct meaning of the idiom is in submission.
Again he misunderstands the idiomatic clause at tue beginning of 21
:64farajau i/a anfsibim, and translates it as: So they returned one to
another, which is confusing and unintelligible. The plain meaning of
the expression is that they reflected. (d) Often an additional clause
is added in the translation though it is not in the original. A gross
instance of this is his translation of 11:25. (e) Sometimes words are
carelessly read and hence translated wrongly. Thus he translates the
last clause of the qyab 30:2 2 inna fi dbalika la-ajatil /il alimin, as
surely in that are signs for all living beings. Clearly he takes the
word alimin, which is the accusative form of alimu,, meaning men
of knowledge, as a/ami;!, meaning all beingsP Besides these,
inaccurate and remote meanings are given for well known words
giving distorted or derogatory senses. Thus ajr(reward, recompense)
is more often translated as wage; aI-bath (resurrection) is translated
as uprising which word is susceptible of quite a different meaning
than resurrection; mithqa/a dharrah (the weight of an atom) is
translated as the weight of an ant ajarni (a non-Arab) is translated
as a barbarian; mursalin (Messengers) is translated as Envoys;
tuftanuna (you are tried/tested) is translated as you are being
proved; and so on. To sum up, Arberrys translation, rich in stylistic
qualities and sympathetic in its stance on Islam, is superior to other
translations of the Quran rendered by Orientalists. Nonetheless, in
view of the above criticism it should be used cautiously.
REFERENCES
1. Of Arberrys spate of translations the following deserve mention in
particular: Arabic: Attars Tadhkirat a/-Au/jya, Al-Niffaris Mawaqjf
and Mukhatabat, Ibn al-Farids Mjstica/ Poems; The Seven Odes; AlSarrajs Kitab al-L uma, Al Mutanabbis Poems. Persian: Translations

of the poems of Ru mi, Hafiz and Umar Khayyam. Urdu: Poetical

works of Iqbal. 2. Aj. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, London,
George Allen and Unwin, 1980. 2 Volumes. 1,25. All subsequent
references are to this edition. 3. Ibid., 2, 10. 4. Ibid., 1, 25. 5. Ibid., 1,
29. 6. Ibid., 1, 189. 7. Ibid., 2, 364. 8. Ibid., 2, 364. 9. Ibid., 2, 364. lo.
Ibid., 2, 364. il. Ibid., 1, 21. 12. Ibid., 1, 27. 13. Ibid., 1, 79. 14. Ibid.,
2, 237. 15. Ibid., 2, 273. 16. Ibid., 1, 214. 17. Ibid., 1, 204. 18. Ibid., 2,
61. 19. Ibid., 2, 119. 20. Ibid., 1, 215. 21. Ibid., 1, 88. 22. Ibid., 2, 69.
23. Ibid., 2, 254. 24. Ibid., 2, 257. 25. Ibid., 1, 123. 26. Ibid., 1, 235.
27. Ibid., 1, 242. 28. Ibid., 1, 244. 29. Muhammad Mohar Ah, The
Quan and the Orienta/ists, Ipswich, UK, Jamiyat Ihyyaa Minhaaj alSunnah, 2004, pp. 345, 347, 348, 349 and 350-351.
Publication details of the first edition: London, Allen and Unwin,
1955, 2 Volumes, Vol 1: 350 pages and Vol. 2: 367 pages.
Number of Editions: 30 Other Reviews: o M. Mohar Mi, The
,Quran and the Orienta/jEts, Ipswich, UK, 2004, 343- 354. o A.L.
Tibawi, Review on The Koran Interpreted, Is/amQuartcrly
(January 1957), 8. o Alfred Guillaume, Review on The Koran
Interpreted, Muslim World, 47:3 (July 1957), 248-249. o M.
Ruthven, Review on Arbenys The Koran, Middle East Journal 228,
(June 1984), 19.