The History and Acceptance of Qur’an Translations

The translation of the Arabic Qur’an into the languages of the world has received the broad acceptance of Muslim scholars since the middle of the last century, though the practice of translating the whole Qur’an extends back to the sixteenth century or earlier.

The original missionary goals were replaced by academic research and the efforts of Muslims to clarify the teachings of their faith, not only for non-Muslims, but also for new generations of believers of foreign tongues.

Translation is a particular method of explaining the Quranic text and can serve as a succinct way of expressing the meanings of its words and sentences.

Qur’an Versus Translations: Fundamental Distinctions

For a number of pertinent reasons, Muslims make a fundamental distinction between the Qur’an – revealed verbatim in Arabic as a divine challenge – and translations, human renderings of its meanings into other languages.

Any product of the human mind is subject not only to the possibility of error but also the capacity for difference of opinion. Translation of any complex and highly literary text must necessarily be a difficult task, and one in which expert opinions can diverge at various points.

Challenges in Translating the Qur’an

After recognising the particularities of interpreting and translating a divine text (too many to expand on here), the role of choice in the work of a translator is a reality that must also be appreciated.

The translator may have to select exactly which text to translate (in this case, between the canonical readings, qirā’āt).

On the level of vocabulary, a single word may have multiple meanings, more than one of which may be possible in a particular context. Indeed, it is possible that both meanings are intended, but that no single word in the target language will carry them both.

There is also the challenge of observing the subtle distinctions between near-synonyms, e.g., the various words conveying senses of “fear,” even in a single verse.

Challenges in Translating the Qur’an

On the phrasal and sentence level, the translator must decide which grammatical interpretation (iʿrāb) to follow. While the recent Qur’anic Corpus project is performing a valuable service in presenting the concept of grammatical parsing more widely, what may not be obvious from it is the scope for diversity of opinion on this matter, as can be readily seen by consulting the books of iʿrāb and tafsīr.

The translator also needs to address the referents of pronouns when they are ambiguous (e.g., between “he,” “He,” and “it”), and how to incorporate punctuation such as sentence divisions and speech marks. Furthermore, stylistic choices such as rendering idioms and ensuring the text flows smoothly in the target language are crucial.

Categories and Analysis of Translation Differences

Differences in existing translations of the Qur’an fall within the following categories:

  • Vocabulary: lexical meanings and subtle distinctions
  • Grammar and sentence structure
  • Pronouns, etc.
  • Stylistic choices
  • Multiple readings (qirā’āt) – rarely.[2]

What follows is an analysis of translations of selected verses from the beginning of Sūrat al-Baqarah. The method involves grouping translations that are substantially identical (except for style) and identifying the causes of divergence.

The Role of Interpretation in Translation Diversity

This analysis focuses on a finite group of translations currently available on Quran.com. It is possible that translators tended to align with each other’s interpretations or were influenced by shared sources. Greater diversity might emerge if translators relied more on the books of iʿrāb and tafsīr, which often present obscure interpretations alongside the more evident.

 

Translation Choices and Divergences in Qur’an Study

As such, what follows is designed to illustrate choice and divergence in translation and enable the reader to appreciate what is involved in the task. It is not intended to be an exhaustive treatment but contains hints for further study. A subsequent project may be to do the same for the rest of the Qur’an, as well as to look at a greater number of actual translations, and indeed possible translations that were not selected by anyone before. It should also be noted that it is outside our present scope to discuss whether some mistakes were made by the translators, or which of their approaches is best in each case.

Translation Study: Sūrat al-Baqarah (2:1–20)

2:2 ذَٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ

  • Sahih International: This is the Book
  • Muhsin Khan: This is the Book
  • Yusuf Ali: This is the Book
  • Pickthall: This is the Scripture
  • Ghali: That is the Book
  • Shakir: This Book

Causes of divergence:

  1. Whether to render literally the demonstrative pronoun usually reserved for distant things (“that”) or consider the distance here as indicating greatness of “this” book.
  2. Whether to interpret the two words as being a complete nominal sentence (thus with “is”), or together as the subject (“This book”) which is then followed by the predicate.
  3. Choice between the general “book” and the more contextual “scripture.”

2:2 لا رَيْبَ فِيهِ

  • Sahih International: about which there is no doubt
  • Ghali: there is no suspicion about it
  • Muhsin Khan: whereof there is no doubt
  • Pickthall: whereof there is no doubt
  • Shakir: there is no doubt in it
  • Yusuf Ali: This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt

2:2 هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ

  • Yusuf Ali: in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah
  • Sahih International: a guidance for those conscious of Allah
  • Ghali: a guidance to the pious
  • Pickthall: a guidance unto those who ward off (evil)
  • Shakir: a guide to those who guard (against evil)
  • Muhsin Khan: a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqun

Causes of divergence:

  1. Different approaches to rendering the concept of taqwā, including retaining the Arabic term.
  2. Choosing between the literal “guidance” (verbal noun) or a more contextual “guide” (active participle).
  3. The different sentence structure used by Yusuf Ali, as explained previously.

2:3 الَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْغَيْبِ وَيُقِيمُونَ الصَّلاةَ

  • Sahih International: Who believe in the unseen, establish prayer…
  • Pickthall: Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship…
  • Yusuf Ali: Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer…
  • Shakir: Those who believe in the unseen and keep up prayer…
  • Ghali: Who believe in the Unseen, and keep up the prayer…
  • Muhsin Khan: Who believe in the Ghaib and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat)…

Cause of divergence:

  1. Rendering certain Arabic terms as they are. For instance, Ghaib and As-Salat are often retained in Muhsin Khan’s translation.

2:5 أُولَٰئِكَ عَلَىٰ هُدًى مِّن رَّبِّهِمْ

  • Sahih International: Those are upon [right] guidance from their Lord
  • Muhsin Khan: They are on (true) guidance from their Lord
  • Yusuf Ali: They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord
  • Ghali: Those are upon guidance from their Lord
  • Shakir: These are on a right course from their Lord
  • Pickthall: These depend on guidance from their Lord

Causes of divergence:

  1. Renderings of the word hudā, with Shakir perhaps being influenced by its being indefinite here.
  2. Interpretations of the metaphor of being “upon” guidance. Pickthall has seemingly understood that a word was left unmentioned, perhaps one that ought to have been placed in parentheses.

2:5 وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

  • Sahih International: and it is those who are the successful
  • Muhsin Khan: and they are the successful
  • Pickthall: These are the successful
  • Ghali: and those are they who are the prosperers
  • Yusuf Ali: and it is these who will prosper
  • Shakir: and these it is that shall be successful

 

2:6 لا يُؤْمِنُونَ

  • Sahih International: they will not believe
  • Muhsin Khan: they will not believe
  • Yusuf Ali: they will not believe
  • Shakir: …will not believe
  • Pickthall: they believe not
  • Ghali: they do not believe

Cause of divergence:
Reading the imperfect verb as indicating the present or the future.

2:8 وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَن يَقُولُ آمَنَّا بِاللهِ وَبِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ

  • Sahih International: And of the people are some who say, “We believe in Allah and the Last Day.”
  • Yusuf Ali: Of the people there are some who say: “We believe in Allah and the Last Day.”
  • Shakir: And there are some people who say: We believe in Allah and the last day.
  • Muhsin Khan: And of mankind, there are some (hypocrites) who say: “We believe in Allah and the Last Day.”
  • Pickthall: And of mankind are some who say: We believe in Allah and the Last Day.
  • Ghali: And of mankind (there) are some who say, “We have believed in Allah and in the Last Day.”

Causes of divergence:

  1. Whether to consider al-nās as referring to a specific group of people or all mankind, a distinction significant in certain other verses.
  2. Approaches to the past-tense verb “believed,” often rendered in the present to suit the meaning.

2:10 وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ بِمَا كَانُوا يَكْذِبُونَ

  • Sahih International: and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie.
  • Muhsin Khan: A painful torment is theirs because they used to tell lies.
  • Pickthall: A painful doom is theirs because they lie.
  • Shakir: and they shall have a painful chastisement because they lied.
  • Ghali: and for them is a painful torment for (that) they used to lie.
  • Yusuf Ali: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).

Cause of divergence:
Taking the verb to apply to the act of lying or as a mode of behavior, which is the opposite of being true (i.e., sincere).

2:11 قَالُوا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ

  • Sahih International: they say, “We are but reformers.”
  • Muhsin Khan: they say: “We are only peacemakers.”
  • Pickthall: they say: We are peacemakers only.
  • Yusuf Ali: they say: “Why, we only want to make peace!”
  • Shakir: they say: We are but peace-makers.
  • Ghali: they say, “Surely we are only doers of righteousness” (i.e., reformers, peacemakers).

Meanings of the Term Iṣlāḥ

2:12 أَلا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ الْمُفْسِدُونَ وَلَٰكِن لا يَشْعُرُونَ

  • Sahih International: Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not.
  • Muhsin Khan: Verily! They are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive not.
  • Yusuf Ali: Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.
  • Shakir: Now surely they themselves are the mischief-makers, but they do not perceive.
  • Ghali: Verily, they, (only) they, are surely the corruptors, but they are not aware.
  • Pickthall: Are not they indeed the mischief-makers? But they perceive not.

Cause of divergence:
The interpretation of the opening particle as being interrogative (its origin) rather than emphatic. This also affects the following verse where it reads, “Are not they indeed the foolish?”

2:15 اللَّهُ يَسْتَهْزِئُ بِهِمْ

  • Sahih International: [But] Allah mocks them…
  • Muhsin Khan: Allah mocks at them…
  • Pickthall: Allah (Himself) doth mock them…
  • Ghali: Allah mocks them…
  • Shakir: Allah shall pay them back their mockery…
  • Yusuf Ali: Allah will throw back their mockery on them…

Cause of divergence:
Whether the verb is taken as describing a direct action in the present or as an expression of God’s punishment upon the hypocrites. The choice reflects an interpretation that matches their mockery with divine justice.

2:17 وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لَّا يُبْصِرُونَ

  • Sahih International: and left them in darkness [so] they could not see.
  • Muhsin Khan: and left them in darkness. (So) they could not see.
  • Pickthall: and leaveth them in darkness, where they cannot see.
  • Yusuf Ali: and left them in utter darkness. So they could not see.
  • Shakir: and left them in utter darkness– they do not see.
  • Ghali: and left them in darkness(es) (where) they do not behold (anything).

Cause of divergence:
How translators treated the plural form of “darkness”: ignoring it, emphasizing it (“utter”), or rendering it literally (“darknesses”), introducing a novel term in English.

2:19 أَوْ كَصَيِّبٍ مِّنَ السَّمَاءِ

  • Sahih International: Or [it is] like a rainstorm from the sky.
  • Muhsin Khan: Or like a rainstorm from the sky.
  • Pickthall: Or like a rainstorm from the sky.
  • Yusuf Ali: Or (another similitude) is that of a rain-laden cloud from the sky.
  • Ghali: Or as a cloudburst from the heaven.
  • Shakir: Or like abundant rain from the cloud.

Cause of divergence:
Understanding the terms ṣayyib and their contextual relation, leading to differences such as “rainstorm,” “cloudburst,” or “rain-laden cloud.”

2:20 وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللهُ لَذَهَبَ بِسَمْعِهِمْ وَأَبْصَارِهِمْ

  • Sahih International: And if Allah had willed, He could have taken away their hearing and their sight.
  • Muhsin Khan: And if Allah willed, He could have taken away their hearing and their sight.
  • Pickthall: If Allah willed, He could destroy their hearing and their sight.
  • Yusuf Ali: And if Allah willed, He could take away their faculty of hearing and seeing.
  • Shakir: and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have taken away their hearing and their sight.
  • Ghali: and if Allah had so decided, He would indeed have gone away with (i.e., taken away) their hearing and their beholdings (Literally: eyesights).

Causes of divergence:

  1. Interpretation of the transitive construction dhahaba bihi (e.g., “take away” vs. “destroy”).
  2. Attempting to express the plural nature of abṣār (sight) in contrast to the singular samʿ (hearing).

 

To be continued (God willing)…