Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Saqer A. Almarri
Binghamton University
salmarr1@binghamton.edu
1 Introduction
The meanings of the Qur’an is a critical concern among Muslim theologians and
translators. The most dominant method of reading the Qur’an is reading it within the
context of the Hadith [or Prophetic Traditions]. Most groups within the Islamic tradition
During the last century, various groups established an interpretive tradition of the
Qur’an through the rejection of the Hadith as an authoritative source for context. Some of
these groups, which often refer to themselves as Qur’an-Alone Muslims, or Qur’anists,
consider this corpus to be inauthentic or malicious, while others consider them to be
undivine therefore unworthy of spiritual use. Aisha Musa describes four of the major
theologians who articulate this view1. The rejection of the Hadith corpus pushes the
1
Musa 2010: 1213.
1
Qur’anist groups to require a new interpretive framework for the Qur’an. This allowed the
Qur’anist theologians to reformulate the relationship between the Qur’an and the Arabic
In order to examine the results of a different interpretive framework, I engage in a
close reading of a Qur’anic passage from two Qur’an translations produced by Qur’anist
Muslim theologians who formulated a theology of Islam that is based on the Qur’an while
The two theologians are Rashad Khalifa and Edip Yüksel2. Rashad Khalifa in 1982
published a short book titled Qur’an, Hadith, and Islam where he articulated his anti-Hadith
theology. He produced a translation of the Qur’an based in this theological interpretive
Edip Yüksel, on the other hand, developed his Qur’an-alone theology after becoming
acquainted with Rashad Khalifa’s theology4. While similar on many issues in theology,
Yüksel does differ significantly from Khalifa’s views on certain issues, including the issue of
2
Khalifa established the United Submitters International group, Yüksel took over after Khalifa’s murder in
1990 by a Glen Cusford Francis.
3
Khalifa 1989/2001: xxi, Khalifa writes in the introduction that the final draft was completed on Ramadan
26, 1409, or May 2, 1989.
4
Musa 2010: 18.
2
language5. Yüksel produced the translation in 2007 in collaboration with Layth Saleh
Before I discuss the translated passages in Rashad Khalifa’s translation and Edip
Yüksel’s translation, I would like to first briefly describe the history of Qur’an translations
and the history that surrounds them within the Islamic tradition.
with the development of Islamic theologies. This developed specifically through the
articulation of the doctrine of i‘jaz al-Qur’an [often translated as the inimitability of the
Qur’an] and interpretations of verses where the Qur’an insists on its Arabicness. The notion
of i‘jaz of the Qur’an has informed the most common theological treatment of Qur’an
translations. This doctrine views the Qur’anic rhetorical style as miraculous and proof of its
divine origin, and therefore any form of reproduction of the Qur’an becomes a theological
impossibility.
The untranslatability of the Qur’an becomes tangled into this doctrine. Travis Zadeh,
in The Vernacular Qur’an, traces this entanglement between translation and i‘jaz7, where he
suggests that Ibn Faris’s discussion on the impermissibility of using translation to perform
5
Musa 2010: 19; Musa describes the difference between Khalifa’s understanding of salat as simply a
continuation of Abrahamic worship practices, whereas Yüksel understands salat as described in the
Qur’an thus differing in frequency, etc.
6
Yüksel, e
t alia . 2007.
7
Zadeh 2012: 197; 243245.
3
salat [ritual prayer] was based on the impossibility of translating the inimitable quality of
the Qur’an8.
The practice of translating the Qur’an was largely a tool to provide non-Arabic
speakers in the larger Muslim communities with some access to the Qur’an. However in the
early twentieth century, Muslim theologians considered translations closely9, and Fred
Leemhuis shows how theologians distinguished between two forms of translation: tarjama
[pure translation] and tarjamat al-ma‘ani [translation of meanings]10. The first form, a pure
therefore not be an authentic reproduction of the content and its i‘jaz. However, the second
form, the translation of meanings, was possible. This was because it was the understanding
of the Qur’an that was to be rendered in another language, rather than the exact content
While it was far more common to find translations of Qur’anic commentaries12, that
did not mean there was no active production of Qur’an translations within the Muslims
communities. Travis Zadeh observes that translating the Qur’an into Persian, for example,
8
Zadeh 2012: 197; this discussion was in Ibn Faris’s alSahibi fi fiqh allugha al‘arabiyya.
9
These theologians include Muhammad Rashid Rida, Muhammad Mustafa alMaraghi, Mahmud Shaltut,
and this discussion of translations was largely a reaction to the Turkish government’s decision to translate
the Qur’an into Turkish.
10
Leemhuis 2006: 155156. Other scholars such as Travis Zadeh and Stephan Wild have discussed this
in separate chapters in the S.R. Burge edited book published in 2015, T he Meaning of the Word:
Lexicology and Qur’anic Exegesis .
11
Hare 2014: 532533. Tom Hare writes of the impossibility of authentic translation in various religious
traditions including the Islamic tradition, Hare writes that the Jewish Bible, certain portions of Hindu and
Buddhist texts are also untranslatable.
12
Bobzin 2006: 341.
4
was often an exegetical activity undertaken by translators13. However it became common
practice among Qur’an translators translating into English to avoid taking on an
independent exegetical approach. Instead translators such as Abdullah Yusuf Ali and
Muhammad Asad translated the Qur’an into English while referring to already established
exegetical works such as those of Tabari, Zamakhshari, Razi, Ibn Kathir, the Jalalayn, and the
Since Qur’anist theology is based on a foundation that discards Hadith, it followed
that all theological literature and reasoning influenced by Hadith, including the
understanding of the Qur’anic language and its translation, becomes discarded as well.
I will first go over the passage of surah 41 ayah [verse] 4415 as translated by Rashad
Khalifa:
“If we made it a non-Arabic Quran they would have said, “Why did it
come down in that language?” Whether it is Arabic or non-Arabic, say,
This section of the surah was subtitled as: “Language is Irrelevant”17. The section
subtitle guides the reader into a particular interpretation, however it becomes paradoxical
when juxtaposed with other verses that insists on the Qur’an as Arabic, such as the third
13
Zadeh 2012: 245.
14
Iqbal 2000: 109110.
15
ْ ُﻗ ۗ ﻭ َﻋ َﺭ ِﺑﻲﱞ َ ﺃَﺃَﻋْ َﺟﻣِﻲﱞ ۖﻪ ُ ﺁ َﻳﺎ ُﺗ ﺕ
َ ﻟِﻠﱠﺫ ُﻭ َ ﻫ ﻝ
Q41 Fussilat:44 in Arabic: “ﻭﺷِ َﻔﺎ ٌء َ ُﻫ ًﺩﻯ ﺁ َﻣ ُﻧﻭﺍ ِﻳﻥ َ َﻟ ْﻭ ﻟﱠ َﻘﺎﻟُﻭﺍ ﺃَﻋْ َﺟ ِﻣ ًّﻳﺎ ﻗُﺭْ ﺁ ًﻧﺎ ُﻩ ﺟ َﻌ ْﻠ َﻧﺎ
ﻓُ ﱢ ﻻ
ْ ﺻ َﻠ َ ْ”ﻭ َﻟﻭ
َ
16
Khalifa 1989/2001: Q41:44.
17
Khalifa 1989/2001: Q41:4454.
5
ayah18 of surah 4319. For this passage, Khalifa comments on the “efficiency” of Arabic20, and in
an appendix, he attempts to demonstrate the linguistic “efficiency” of Arabic by describing
Edip Yüksel, on the other hand, has a different translation for the same verse (surah
41 ayah 44):
“They would have said, ‘If only its signs were made clear!’ Non-Arabic
and Arabic, say, ‘For those who acknowledge, it is a guide and
healing…”22.
“The Primary Language of the Qur’an is Universal”23. This shifts the understanding of the
The prompt in the two translations differ as well. In Khalifa’s translation we have,
“why did it come down in that language” and in Yüksel’s translation we have, “if only its
signs were made clear!”. The difference between the two translations highlights a
detachment from Arabic, where rather than the language of the Qur’an being a particular
This interpretive shift allows for a different explanation of Arabic, and Yüksel in an
18
Q43 AzZukhruf:3 in Arabic: “ﻭﻥ َ ﻗُﺭْ ﺁ ًﻧﺎ ُﻩ ﺟ َﻌ ْﻠ َﻧﺎ
َ ُ َﺗﻌْ ِﻘﻠ ﻡ ْ ﻟﱠ َﻌﻠﱠ ُﻛ ﻋ َﺭ ِﺑ ًّﻳﺎ َ ”ﺇِ ﱠﻧﺎ
19
Khalifa 1989/2001: Q43:3, “We have rendered it an Arabic Quran, that you may understand”. Yüksel
2007: Q43:3, “We have made it into an Arabic compilation, perhaps you may understand” .
20
Khalifa 1989/2001: Q43:3, Q43:3 footnote.
21
Khalifa 1989/2001: 417; Appendix 4 titled “Why was the Quran revealed in Arabic” argues that Arabic is
the “most efficient language in the world” by offering brief discussion of the dual number in Arabic as well
as the nature of grammatical gender in Arabic.
22
Yüksel 2007: Q41:44.
23
Yüksel 2007: Q41:44.
6
endnote to the third ayah of surah 4324 offers a unique reading of the word ‘arabiyy:
“The root of ARaBy (Arabic) is ARB, and also means ‘excellent’ or
jinns, the eloquence of the language of the Arabic Quran does not
necessarily come from its being in the Arabic language, but its Arabic
This is a unique explanation26 of the word, which sets the foundation for a different
approach to translating the Qur’an. No longer is the Qur’an’s perfection associated with the
Arabic language, and therefore translations of the Qur’an are no longer considered a
missionary necessity but rather an absolute necessity. Yüksel explains in the endnote of
surah 41 ayah 44, that the Qur’an “should be translated” and believers “will get the clear
divine message”27.
Yüksel furthers the detachment of the Qur’an from the Arabic language through a
rejection of the “literary miracle”, that is, i‘jaz28. In the rejection, Yüksel suggests that the
notion of i‘jaz was a notion that stems from Hadith and as a result must be rejected. This
rejection, therefore, allows for the translation of the Qur’an to be seen as a
theologically-acceptable equivalent.
24
Yüksel 2007: Q43:3, “We have made it into an Arabic compilation, perhaps you may understand.”
25
Yüksel 2007: Q43:3 endnote.
26
This is a limited argument in relation to the possible meanings of the root ‘RB. Muhit alMuhit (p.586),
for example, does indicate that “a ‘raba kalamahu ” means “he perfected his speech, clarified it, and did not
fail in the i ‘rab ”. There are other possibilities for the meaning of ‘RB, refer back to Abdulla Galadari in a
forthcoming work.
27
Yüksel 2007: Q41:44 endnote.
28
Yüksel 2007: Q49:1 endnote.
7
Yüksel’s endnote for ayah 44 of surah 41 states that despite the inevitability of flaws in
translation, the Qur’an’s message remains clear and the readers will be receptive to its
Both Yüksel’s translation and Khalifa’s translation of the Qur’an are functionally
retranslations. They were both produced as a different interpretation of the translated text
Qur’an that rejects the Hadith, allowing this particular school to view translations as
theologically-equivalent to, rather than theologically-deficient from, the original. This is a
radically different reading of the Qur’anic text compared to mainstream Islamic groups.
By theologically-equivalent, I mean that this is similar to Theo Hermans
understanding of equivalence, where the Book of Mormon in English and the Septuagint in
Greek are viewed as equivalent to their originals by exhibiting an “equality in value and
can only occur under the grounds of language being irrelevant (as in Khalifa’s case), and on
5 Conclusion
29
Yüksel 2007: Q41:44 endnote.
30
Venuti 2013: 96108 describes the characteristics of retranslations.
31
Hermans 2007:17.
8
In conclusion, I have demonstrated how a variant interpretation of the language of
I have explored how Rashad Khalifa and Edip Yüksel’s approaches to the Qur’anic
language allowed for a different treatment of translations. I conclude here with a question
that requires further exploration, since Khalifa and Yüksel’s theologies reformulate or
discard Qur’anic i‘jaz respectively and this resulted in a significant difference to what
translating the Qur’an means, how do other groups within the Qur’an-alone movement
engage with the Qur’anic language, and more specifically how do they engage with the
9
6 Bibliography
Bobzin, Hartmut. 2006. “Translations of the Qur’ān.” In Encyclopedia of the Qur’ān, edited by Jane
Dammen McAuliffe, 5:340–58. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
Hare, Tom. 2014. “Translation and the Sacred: Translating Scripture.” In A Companion to
Translation Studies., edited by Sandra Bermann and Catherine Porter, First Edition., 531–42.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Hermans, Theo. 2007. The Conference of the Tongues. Manchester, UK ; Kinderhook, NY: St. Jerome
Pub.
Iqbal, Muzaffar. 2000. “‘Abdullah Yūsuf ‘Alī & Muhammad Asad: Two Approaches to the English
Translation of the Qur’an.” Journal of Qur’anic Studies 2 (1): 107–23.
doi:10.3366/jqs.2000.2.1.107.
Khalifa, Rashad, ed. 2001. Quran: The Final Testament: Authorized English Version, with the Arabic Text.
Rev. ed. 3. Fremont, CA: Universal Unity.
Leemhuis, Fred. 2006. “From Palm Leaves to the Internet.” In The Cambridge Companion to the
Qur’ān, edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, 145–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Musa, Aisha Y. 2010. “The Qur’anists.” Religion Compass 4 (1): 12–21.
doi:10.1111/j.1749-8171.2009.00189.x.
Venuti, Lawrence. 2013. Translation Changes Everything: Theory and Practice. London ; New York:
Routledge.
Yüksel, Edip, Layth Saleh al-Shaiban, and Martha Schulte-Nafeh, eds. 2007. Quran: A Reformist
Translation. United States of America: Brainbow Press.
Zadeh, Travis E. 2012. The Vernacular Qur’an: Translation and the Rise of Persian Exegesis. Qur’anic
Studies Series 7. Oxford : London: Oxford University Press ; The Institute of Ismaili Studies.
10