ABDALHAQQ and AISHA BEWLEY, The Noble Qur'an: A New Rendering of its Meaning in English. Madinah Press, London 1999. Pp. ix + 651 hardback. Price: £20.00. ISBN: 1-874216-36-3.
Translations of the Qur'an from Arabic into English have a long history, in spite of the fact that many Muslim scholars have maintained the opinion that the Qur'an, as the very Word of Allah, is fundamentally untranslatable. The earliest English version appeared in 1657, Sale's authoritative translation of 1734 preceded the prolific nineteenth century with Rodwell's (1861), Palmer's (1880), and Wherry's (1882- 86) versions, before Bell (1937-39) and Arberry (1955) created the most frequently used and referred to translations of the twentieth century. All that these translations have in common is that they were produced by non-Muslims who either regarded the Qur'an at best as a historical document or as a significant example of the literary production in seventh century Hijazi-culture. For many Muslim critics these translations lack - in the words of Muhammad Asad - 'an ear spontaneously attuned to the intent underlying the acoustic symbolism of its words and sentences'. Non-Muslim translators with their text-oriented interest may produce accurate renderings through a scrupulous study of the Arabic language, but their versions will always miss out a specific spiritual dimension of the text. A common criticism of orientalist translations of the Qur'an was, then, that they did not convey the religious spirit which is engraved in divine revelation. 'Unless the translator is able to reproduce within himself the conceptual symbolism of the language in question - that is, unless he hears it "sing" in his ear in all its naturalness and immediacy - his translation will convey no more than the outer shell of the literary matter to which his work is devoted, and will miss, to a higher or lesser degree, the inner meaning of the original: and the greater the depth of the original, the farther must such a translation deviate from its spirit'. (Asad 1980, iii). However, since these translations were produced for a mainly non-Muslim (more or less academic) audience, the missing 'inner meaning of the original' has hardly been noticed. Consequently, only few Muslim scholars, mainly Western converts to Islam, have tried to write a more satisfying Qur'anic text in the English language (Yusuf Ali 1899; Pickthall 1930; Bausani 1956; Dawood 1956; Akbar 1978; Asad 1980; Irving 1985; Turner 1997). Over the last couple of years, however, the reverse process can be observed. While there is not a single new translation by a non-Muslim writer existent, the growing field of 'new renderings' of the Qur'an in English is led exclusively by Muslim scholars. By the end of next year at least five new English versions of the Qur'an will be available (e.g. by M. Sarwa Shaikh; M. M. Al-Akili; Hussein Abdul-Raof; M. ÔAli Habib Shakir; Jamal al-Nisa Bint Rafai.)
Abdelhaqq and Aisha Bewley's 'new rendering of its meaning in English' - which is the subtitle of their translation of the 'Noble Qur'an - was published in 1999 and has perhaps the, potential of setting new standards in this discipline. First of all, the translation process is explained as a direct result of not only reading but – as demanded above – of hearing the original text. The result has grown out of more than two decades of continuous contact with the Qur'an as a living guidance' and of 'almost twenty-five years of regular daily recitation and reference'. The authors' aim is to produce a rendering of the Arabic text so that the English 'is not a hindrance of directly transmitting [its] meaning'. It should come through 'with little linguistic interface as possible'. (iii) Consequently, the authors have, omitted everything that could interrupt or distract the reading, or better reciting process. Unlike in older translations, explanatory notes or alternative, renderings (usually inserted in brackets) are excluded from the text. The indication of difficult passages through interpolations or footnotes is completely avoided in favour of a straightforward translation Only a few footnotes are added, mostly for the purpose of giving a short definition of termini technici or the asbab al-nuzul. Abdelhaqq and Aisha Bewley avoid mentioning lengthy discussion or any dissent in the tafsir-literature, the reader is given only given the translators' opinion. The lay-out of the pages clearly supports the aim of providing a visually pleasant text which can now be used for oral presentations (rather than philological erudition). Designed in the page-centred form as in editing poems, the verses are set according to the rhythm of oral recitation. Punctuation by comma or full stop reflects the qira'at-rules of the tajwid-recitation. For sura 55 (al-Rahman), the editors even use two different typefaces to emphasize the liturgical nature of the chapter: while the text of the sura is in regular type, the 31-times repeated formula, So which of your Lord's blessings do you both then deny? appears in italics so that the lay-out indeed reflects the changing rhythm of text and refrain (In its function as the introductory formula at the beginning of each chapter, Basmala is in italics throughout the whole text – except of course for sura 9). Similarly, shorter and longer sequences of speech are distinguished through the use of different degrees of indentation. Verses which seem to have a common thematic thread are grouped together as paragraphs which suggest variant reading speeds. While e.g. sura 91 with its 15 verses is arranged as two paragraphs and should be read in two intervals (1-10; 11-15), the five verses of sura 111 are grouped into four paragraphs and should be read with the subsequent stress on each unit.
What makes this 'new rendering' a particular new reading experience is not only the fact that the Bewleys translated the Qur'an on the basis of Warsh's qira'at, instead of the more common reading of Hafs, a decision that gave the translators the chance to change the rendering and numbering of the verses. It is also remarkable that a considerable amount of words are left untranslated. The intention was to have certain 'key terms' only in their Arabic transliteration (e.g. not 'unbelievers', but kafirun; not idolators, but mushrikun, etc.), in order to avoid misleading connotations if translated in English. A specific glossary at the end of the book then explains the meaning of these terms. This decision saved the translators from the often very awkward task of either paraphrasing Qur'anic concepts with long glosses and even whole sentences (like Asad's constant rendering of kafir as 'one who denies the truth') or to coin new words in the target language (see e.g. A. v. Denffer's 'Mitgötergebender' for mushrik in his German translation). On the other hand, to leave these key terms untranslated does not necessarily guarantee hermeneutical innocence, as some terms in Arabic have already gone into our common usage of English language and cannot anymore be locked away against all sorts of connotations, e.g. the terms kufr, jihad, or fatwa. One may argue that the introduction of more untranslated words into English would even accelerate that process Epistemologically it is doubtful whether a translation can ever achieve what Abdelhaqq and Aisha Bewley are aiming at: 'to allow the meaning of the original, as far as possible, to come straight through' (iii). A definition of Qur'anic terms in an appended glossary might help to control the connotative process, but the translators are not immune to the manipulation of the 'original' meaning by explanations that were defined at specific periods of Islamic legal history (e.g. in their definition of 'zakat' in the Qur'an as 'an obligatory wealth tax paid on certain forms of wealth: gold and silver, stable crops É etc.').
On the whole, this 'new rendering' is not meant to be read by philological enthusiasts (who will certainly prefer Asad's extensive etymological and grammatical commentaries alongside his translation), neither by students of Arabic (the Arabic text is not included for comparison as in Yusuf Ali's work), nor by someone who wants to use it for historical-critical analysis (the suras are not assigned as Meccan or Medinan, no cross references are available). However, those who want to familiarize themselves with the content of the Qur'an and do not want to be put off by an antiquated language (e.g. thou and thee is consistently replaced by you and your) and tedious exegetical footnotes (totally omitted), this is the ideal translation to start with. Also, for those who do not only want to read the Qur'an but want to live with it, this 'new rendering' with its editorial stress on the oral nature of its original form can serve as a perfect guide. For those who prefer the original Arabic and the translated English side by side they can now use the paperback bilingual edition of Ahmed Ali's translation which was first published in 1984 in Pakistan and in 1988 in the United States. The translator
revised his translations three times and finalized it in 1994. The new edition is the ninth paperback printing and comprises all revisions made until 1994.
ANDREAS CHRISTMANN
UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
From Journal of Semitic Studies