Word Repetition in the Qur’an: Translating Form or Meaning?

J. King Saud Univ. , Vol. 19, Lang. & Transl. , pp. 17-34, capital of Saudi Arabia (A. H. 1427/2006) forge repeating in the Quran Translating Form or meat? Ahmed Ali aid Professor, Department of side of meat, Faculty of terminologys and Translation, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia (Received 13/10/1426 A. H. judge for publication, 04/04/1427 A. H. ) Abstract. al-Quran repeat is a sustain that exists in only speechs, and coiffes varied designs, blandishmental, emphatic, or otherwise.A problematic issue arises when a deracination is try of restate says in a channelise schoolbookbook. The dilemma is that owe to the dissimilar bearings of expression and tools procurable to every quarrel, what fits i manner of speaking may prove absurd in a nonher. When dealing with the interpreting of tell newsworthinesss in a blessed textual matter, this proves to be overmuch more(prenominal)(prenominal) problematic. This report deals with this specific a rgona as far as repeat dustup in the sacred Quran argon concerned.The launch up paper argues that individu whatsoevery ingeminate word in the Quranic text serves a particular purpose which may be totally defeated, and, possibly, the whole message distorted if the translating program fails to render repetition in the equivalent way. This, by no esteems, take roots the repetition conundrum. However, to put it in simple terms, the voice could, in an prove to keep open the accuracy and faithfulness, and at the same date, maintain the flow of the displacement, turn mathematical function of foot n 1nesss to draw the attention of the proveer/critic to the actual choice of run-in of the buffer.In this way, the translator minimizes the motion of, at least, the get up of the original on the transformation. The subject matter is (hopefully) preserved, and at that placeby, the proof subscriber/critic and well-nigh importantly the countr, is satisfied by ne ws report for all the words in the text involved. Introduction The problems in translating a text from wizard language to another atomic number 18 legion. For example, it is quite viridity to find western critics referring to what they claim to be incoherence, inconsistency or lack of harmony in the Quranic style (c. f.Hyde Park Christian Fellowship 1 and Gh geniusim 2). much(prenominal) views ignore the tier that Ahmed Ali * it is twain inconceivable and impossible to judge oneness language according to the rules of another * what might be considered elegant style, or legitimate form, or appropriate function in one language is not necessarily looked upon the same way in another * dissimilar languages very often express the same thing differently, necessitating different phraseology in expression in translation * in that respect is no unblemished synonymy or exact equivalence amidst languages in translation. there will always be a translation loss of different per centage points as a contri excepte of not only lingual, plainly a kindred cultural postal serviceors. Therefore, no translation fundament be the original, regular when the translation may turn aroundm to be better than the original. The inherently problematic nature of translation is further complicated when the principal text, as is the case with the Holy Quran, is considered to be a sacred one, containing the inspiration for a finish way of life.In such a case, accuracy in translation becomes a ghostly and moral duty, not scarcely a linguistic or logistical exercise. Since it would be impossible here to dispute the mazyities encountered by unconditioned translators in the field of translating the Quran, this paper foc lend oneselfs on one small but not inconsiderable aspect encountered in the sacred text, that is, the issue of repetition. The Quran Muslims believe that the religion preached in Arabia by go forr Muhammad ( pause be upon him) to be Allahs (Gods) final revealing to humanity.For Islamics, the Quran, which is Allahs words revealed to humankind, supplements and completes the earlier revelations on which all theistic religions are built and corrects the human interference and misinterpretations that corrupted and corrupt those earlier revelations. The whole of the Quran is arranged into 114 suwar (singular surah) of unequal size, though a consistent thread of centre of revelation from Allah runs through them all. Each surah, which means degree or step, consists f a number of verse divisions, which are called ayat (singular ayah) which are usually determined by the rhythm and cadence in the Arabic text. or so clock, an ayah, marrow a sign, contains many sentences. roundtimes, a sentence is divided by a break in an ayah but, usually, there is a pause in meaning at the end. The ayah is the true unit of the Quran, since it is a verse of revelation as a sign of Gods wisdom and goodness, besides as much as Gods beautiful handiwork in the material creation or His dealings in record are signs to us (Ali 3, p. 3). The Quran, and so, is the Holy Writ, sent d declare to us, as surah al-Nahl reveals ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? explaining all things, a guide, a mercy, and glad tidings to Muslim (Quran 1689). Word repetition in the Quran Translating Form or signification? The Quran exists in its original language, i. e. , Arabic.Muslim scholars unanimously agree that the Quran is only the Quran when it is in Arabic, in its original choice of words as revealed to prophesier Muhammad (peace be upon him). Cook 4, p. 94 refers to Ibn Hizam (d. 1064), a scholar of Muslim Spain, who stated laconically that NonArabic isnt Arabic, so its not the Quran. This is derived from the fact that there are eleven references in ten Quranic suwar Al-Laithy 5, p. 46 confirming scarcely this notion. By way of example, surah Fussilat states ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? And if We had sent this as a Quran in a foreign language (other than Arabic), they would contract said Why are not its ayat explained (in our language)? What (A book) not in Arabic and (the Messenger) an Arab. (Quran 4144). As Ali 3, p. xi, in his forego to the first edition of his translation of the Holy Quran, states, it is the duty of every Muslim man, woman or child to read the Quran and understand it according to his own capacity. For non-Arabic Muslims, this poses something of a problem. As Cook 4, p. 8 points out, Arabic is not just the original language of the Quran (as ancient Hebrew was the original language of the Torah) it is the language of the Quran. Therefore, public lecture about translating the Quran, is problematic. The question that needs to be posed is Is the Quran as a sacred text translatable? On the one hand, the view of the untranslatability of sacred texts is championed by Stieners comments (in Ali 6, p. 174) on the troubles encountered when translatin g the word of God. He states in his warm-up to Translating Religious Texts 6, p. xiii Here we flounder in deep waters.If a text is revealed, if its initial encoding is then transferred into a mundane and fallible sign-system, that of unsanctified and post-Adamic speech, to what equity-functions, to what correspondent faithfulness can any translation aspire? On the other hand, what do we call the swell-known translations of Ali 3, Pickthal 7. Arberry 8, Asad 9 and others? It is the view of the present spring that if an original text exists in another language, this second crossroad is a translation. The translation of any text is a means of rewriting the meaning/message of the original text using a fundament language.Yet, any translation of any text, no matter how immaculate and scholarly, can never be the original, and will always be imperfect and subject to error. Therefore, the Quran is translatable, even though the translation might be laden with short culminations and ina ccuracies, and can serve as no more than an introduction to nonArabic speaking audience, Muslims and non-Muslims a comparable. For the Muslim, anything other than the Arabic original will always be merely an interpretation, an attempt at conveying the message of the Quran, and will always be an approximation of the original. Ahmed Abdel-Fattah M. AliThe fact is, though, that conveying the message of the Quran has become imperative in the light of orbiculate interest for a variety of reasons in Islam and in the beliefs and practices of Muslims. As Muslims and Islamic affairs rise more and more to prominence in globe-wide politics, the need to access the contents and meaning of the Quran, specifically through the intermediate of position, becomes more pressing. It is how this Holy Writ should be learnd that forms the basis of this paper. Orignal and Translated Text As any translator knows, translating from a kickoff language to a indicate language presents a minefield of co mplications.In his discussion of issues related to the Soviet shoal of translation, Lauren G. Leighton 10, p. 17 asserts that few Soviet translators would agree with the dogmatic literalist Vladimir Nabokovs assertion that one should dismiss the conventional notion that a translation should read smoothly, and should not clayey like a translation. Indeed, swans Leighton, Nabokov asserts that any translation that does not sound like a translation is bound to be inexact upon inspection. Nabokovs assertion here justifiably raises the hailing questions What are the criteria that produce a translation sounding like a translation?How does a translation, sounding like a translation, sound? There essential, by implication, be accepted blows in the translation itself that makes it sound like one. Does this mean, for example, complete adherence to the linguistic rules of the ascendent language, even at the expense of some(prenominal) the style and the linguistic integrity of the mas ter foreland language? such an pedigree raises more questions than answers be bring on how a translation should sound is not defined. Whether a translation should sound like a translation or not, does not mean that bad translations are admissible.In other words, a corporealized text should read well and with no clumsiness of style caused by the interference of, for instance, the linguistic rules of the target (or second) language. Still, the majority of the translations of the meaning of the Quran actually do sound like translations. The main reason for this is the inevitable impact of the Quranic form on the target language. The division of the Quran into ayat the translators stool attempt to adhere to the source texts wording the importance of the source text the attempts to follow the Arabic style n the translation the existence of terms that are untranslatable without detailed footnoting these are but a few reasons wherefore many Quranic translations sound like translatio ns or do not sound natural. This is a difficult problem to tackle. While the aim of translators should be to present the given text in the appropriate style and to conform to the linguistic demands Word Repetition in the Quran Translating Form or Meaning? of the target language, in many cases they might find themselves in a situation where the impact of the source language displays itself glaringly with sometimes unacceptable merely unavoidable results.Translating Repetition Repetition, as an element of rhetoric, is an important distinctive of Arabic texts (both ancient and modern), as it is in European discourse (Connor 11). It would not be apposite in a paper on translation to discuss how and why repetition functions as a rhetorical dodge in Arabic discourse, and the reader should refer to the noteworthy contribution of Al-Jubouri 12 in this look in the Swales and Mustafa study English for Specific Purposes in the Arab World. Suffice it to theorise that repetition plays a vital role, specifically in the context of attempts to translate the Quran accurately.In the succeeding sections, a brief attempt will be do to locate the relative incidence of repetition in non-Quranic sources merely to show that repetition is a deeply rooted feature in the Arabic discourse. The section after that will discuss repetition in the Quran, freehanded two examples, and then attempt to outline the problems that translating these presents. Repetition in Non-Quranic Sources Examples This dissonance in the midst of the source and the target languages refers most particularly (though not uniquely) to the incidence of repetition(1) in Arabic. As an ? ? ? ? Arabic literary critic once wrote A man may say to another ? Hurry up, says (3) hurry up, and to an archer ? Shoot, shoot. (2) A famous, yet anonymous, poem ? ? ? How many favors save you had (upon us) how many, how many and how many (favors take in you had) and how many and another says (1) For more details about Repetition, see Holes 13, pp. 269-74 Nasif 14, p. 21 Ibn Qutaybah 15, p. 10 Ibn Faris 16, pp. 177-8 Al-Jubouri 12, pp. 99-117 Koch 17 and Tytler 18. According to Al-Mulla 19, p. 232 quoted from Al-Maydani, pp. 9-108 on Ibn Qayyim, pp. 159-167 Ibn Qayyim identifies three types of Repetition in the Quran Repetition with similarity of meaning e. g. Q7419-20. Repetition with difference of meaning e. g. Q37. Repetition of meaning with different wording e. g. Q5568. (2) Ibn Qutaybah 15, p. 183 and Abu Hilal 20, p. 193. (3) Abu Hilal 20, p. 193 the poet is not shitd. This line is besides appoint in Al-Murtada, Amali al-Murtada (1954), Vol. 1, p. 84. is, however, missing from this line in Ibn Qutaybah 15, p. 183, and Ibn ? ? Faris 16, p. 177. (4) Ahmed Abdel-Fattah M. Ali ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Why do you not meet a bun in the oven the masses of (the tribe of) Kindah, when they ran away from the battlefield, where, where (did they run away to)? wh ere the underlined words are restate successively. Muhalhal besides ingeminate the following more than twenty times in one of his poems (5) ? ? It was not fair of (the tribe of) Kulayb to ( consent done) Al-Harith ibn Abbad successively repeated, with big(p) effect, the half-line (6) ? ? ? Make (you two) close to me Mar grab Al-Naamah (the name of the place where his beloved one strikes). The to a higher place are sundry examples of repetition commonly used in non-Quranic sources. The reservoir believes, however, that the repetition employed in these and similar instances are merely rhetorical devices. As such, they are not much different in twist, emotional state and meaning as that used in European prosody or poetry. Repetition in the Quran Two Examples The Quran, being in Arabic, is no riddance to the need for the correct citation and elaboration of the repetitions as linguistic features during translation.However, the Quran, as has been pointed ou t, is a sacred text, and as such, take ups more than just This line is ascribed to Abid ibn Al-Abras Al-Asadi according to Ibn Qutaybah 21, p. 224. The next line is ? ? ? ? ? ? The line is to a fault found in Abu Hilal 20, p. 194, and in Al-Baqillani 22, p. 160, without the name of the poet, (or Al-Baqillani 22, pp. 136-7). However, the poet is named again in Ibn Qutaybah 15, p. 143 but not in p. 83, where the following line by Auf ibn Al-khari is quoted ? ? ? ? ? ? ? This latter line is also found in Ibn Faris 16, p. 194, where we have instead and the poets name ? is not mentioned, opus Baqillani 22, p. 160 quotes it as . ? ? (5) Abu Hilal 20, p. 194. (6) Abu Hilal 20, p. 194. (4) Word Repetition in the Quran Translating Form or Meaning? literary critique of its form and usages repetition included.This is because those very forms and usages are inner in, and an essential part of, the sacred message that Muslims believe is the original, un adulterated and incorruptible Word of God. They therefore invite, not mere literary critique, but metaphysical reflection. Let us cite two examples Example one The arising ayat of surah Iqra read ? (? )? ?)? ( ? ? ? ? ? Read in the name of your entitle who created (1) Created Man of a blood-clot (2) (Q961-2) In this example, the word (created) is repeated twice and while Read in the ? ame of your Lord who created Man of a blood-clot would read smoothly in English without the reader feeling that something more is needed to make the sentence sound like good English, the result is that the translator has omitted part of the original text. Whether such carelessness affects the meaning or not, it does not alter the fact that the translation did not cater for an item in the original. One might conjecture, therefore, that, in the knowledge of translation, even if the meaning does not suffer as a result of such omission, all texts are words put in concert and translator s must not forget that they translate on the basis of these words. newfangledmark 23, pp. 36-37 states Many translators say you should never translate words. You translate sentences or ideas or messages. I telephone they are fooling themselves. The SL source language text consists of words. That is all that is there, on the page. Finally, all you have is words to translate, and you have to study for each of them somewhere in your TL target language text, sometimes by designedly not translating them , or by compensating for them, because if translated frigidness you inevitably over-translate them. In the example from Surah Iqra cited above, Q961 ends with the word , ? and does not require a complement unlike create which requires an object. Also, Q962, due to the Arabic structure and rules of grammar is a ? complete and meaningful sentence. Yet, if we compare this to English, we find that it goes against the rules of English to run short a sentence in the way ayah 2 has been translated, i. e. Created Man of a blood-clot. While the fail ?( ubject) position can be filled in Arabic with no other pronoun but He, seven options are available in English to involve from (i. e. I, you, he, Ahmed Abdel-Fattah M. Ali she, it, we and they). Considering the context of Q961-2, the translator will have to relate the two ayat together in his translation in format to make sense. The significant difference in Arabic is that each ayah can also stand on its own, separately, as complete and meaningful in itself. The Quranic text indicates that the Lord created that is, He created all things, known and unknown, tangible and intangible, perceptible and invisible.This sense is conveyed in ayah 1. The vision of the power of creation is then narrowed, in ayah 2, to one specific item, where we are told what He created thus, He created mankind. In the Arabic, it is clear that what we have here is a movement in focus among creation in general, and creation in particular. The translated text, without the repetition, reads Read in the name of your Lord who created man of a blood-clot. This makes the ayat lose the important mark of generality. It loses, too, the dimension of specificity.Furthermore, the Quranic text clearly indicates parallel rhetorical movements -between generality and particularity on the one hand, and between basic and complex on the other. But, these rhetorical movements have metaphysical implications. As has been shown above, the text your Lord who created shows the power of the Lord in His creation of all things. The text Created man is a movement to the particular, exhibit the power of the Lord in His creation of specific things. At the same time, we must be aware that humankind one of a military of Allahs creations is itself a composite of complex organisms, mechanisms and systems.The uniqueness of humankind (its generality) rests not only in being one of many, but, at the same time, the ethoxyethane of creatio n (its specificity). Similarly, reference to the blood-clot indicates the basic-to-complex shift. Blood is a basic gene in the functioning of the human organism, but is also a complex component in itself. The blood-clot referred to is merely a speck on the lining of the womb, represent by the word , which, apart from meaning blood-clot also carries the meaning of leech-like, interruption and/or clinging (c. f. Ibrahim 24, p. 6 and Al-Rehaili 25, p. 1). Yet, in spite of being so basic a component, and so basic a stage of development, it still comprises all the elements of the complex human embryo. The dynamic between the poles of general-to-specific and the complex-to-basic, is reinforced in the Arabic text by the repetition, that is, the repetition of the word created ? . The repetition acts as a catalyst whereby the two movements are activated. The Arabic reader, learning the original, is immediately aware of the synonymy. The nonArabic speaker, reading a translation where the repetition has been left out, is not.Word Repetition in the Quran Translating Form or Meaning? Therefore, the string of complexities in meaning having occurred with the use of a repeated word that ties all the involved strings together is lost. Also, the word created ? ends (in the Arabic) with a syllable that rhymes with the last word in ayah 2. As a result, a rhythmic effect is created it possesses a poetic beat at short intervals emerging from a powerful, intense and meaning-laded pattern. ? This shows clearly the importance of tell the word ith regard to meaning and rhythm. The translator might not be able to achieve such an effect in the translation because of the target language rules of grammar and the difference in assonance the sound gap between the source language and the target language. The wording of the Quran is deliberate and every word serves a purpose. Therefore, it is justifiable to say that if a word is repeated in the original it should, if possible , be repeated in the translation, unless of course the context dictates a different rendering for the repeated word.Unlike other texts (be they sacred or not), when it comes to translating the Holy Quran, every word must be catered for. The translator has to account for each and every word in the original text, in profit to considering their meaning in context. Example two Another example, of the literally hundreds to choose from, that can be cited is in Surah Yusuf, which relates the story of Prophet Joseph, may peace be upon him, who says ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? I precept eleven planets and the sun and the moon I byword them prostrating themselves to me(7) (Quran 124) (7) Many translations, such as most of the ones used in this work render as star not planet (see Pickthall 7) perhaps the translators have been influenced by Genesis 379 where Prophet Joseph told his brothers and aim about his dream the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made bowk not to me. However, in the Arabic translation of the Bible, the verse refers to the word ? which is the same as in the Quran.One wonders where the translator of this Biblical verse into English, assuming the justness of the Arabic, got the word star from? Genesis 379 in Arabic reads . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? c. f. 26. On the other hand, Al-Nuwayri 27, pp. 38-9 & pp. 61-70 talks about and quotes lines of Arabic poetry where the word kawkab is used to refer to both planets and stars. The Quran uses the word kawkab to refer to a gleam body as in Q676, Q2435.See also, the plural form kawakib in Q376 and Q822. Ahmed Abdel-Fattah M. Ali The verb ? ( saw) is repeated twice in the Arabic as well as in the translation, although the translation could have done without such repetition. It would have still made perfect sense if the translation had been I saw eleven planets, the sun and the moon prostrating themselves to me. (8) We have already said that the wording of the Quran is deliberate every word serves a purpose and deformation of the texts original meaning can occur if the repetition in not adequately catered for in the translation.The above should not be see as a defence of literal translation (see the discussion on Nabokov above) for all kinds of text. Still, it cannot be denied that literal translation can sometimes be a most effective form of translation, therefore its value for certain texts the Quran in particular should not be devalued. However, if adopting such a manner results in inaccuracy, or deviation from the original sense and intent of the source language text, it should be abandoned. Baker 28, p. puts it like this text is a meaning unit, not a form unit, but meaning is realized through form and without understanding the meanings of individual forms one cannot interpret the meaning of the text as a whole. Translating words and phrases out of context is certainly a futile exercise, but it is equally unhelpfu l to expect a educatee to appreciate translation decisions made at the level of text without a reasonable understanding of how the lower levels, the individual words, phrases, and grammatical structures, control and bring about the overall meaning of the text. After quoting and analyzing many Arabic texts, Johnstone 29, p. 177 concludes An arguer presents truths by making them present in discourse by repeating them, paraphrasing them, image them, calling attention to them with external particles. Argumentation by presentation has its climb in the history of Arab society Arabic ancestry is structured by the notion that it is the presentation of an idea the linguistic forms and the very words that are used to describe it that is persuasive, not the logical structure of proof which Westerners see behind the words. The present author challenges Johnstones assertion that Arabic resorts to linguistic forms rather than logical structure of proof in the science of persuasion. Su ch an assertion ignores the fact that it is impossible to prove the truth of anything by merely presenting it as a rhetorical structure like repetition, paraphrase and so forth. Linguistic features of this kind are merely elements of style and discourse, not elements of deductive or inductive argument. Linguistic devices for the purposes of persuasion are (8) It is clear that the connector ? waw (? ) is also repeated which is one of the features of ? ? Arabic. For details about the uses and functions of the waw, see Holes 13, pp. 217-20. Word Repetition in the Quran Translating Form or Meaning? used in every language (which, essentially, is what the art of rhetoric is all about). Rhetoric, however, can never substitute for proof neither in English nor Arabic What Johnstones argument does do, however, is to shed light on the importance of repetition in Arabic and that, as a feature, it is deeply rooted in the language itself. The example in surah Yusuf cited above provides a relevant dimension to this argument.It is soundless that Prophet Joseph (peace be upon him), saw what he believed was real in a dream although he did not say this himself. This is understood from his ? ? fathers answer not to tell his brothers about his dream (your dream) (Q125). The repetition of (I saw) indicates that there was not the least doubt in the dreamers mind that what he saw was real it was at least a bit more than just a normal dream. He, of course, could not prove that he saw what he claimed, owing to the very nature of dreams. Therefore, he resorted to that feature in the language that gave his argument the confirmation it needed and that was repeating the name word (I saw). In this ayah, the reason Prophet Joseph repeated the verb was not to conduct his listeners, but to emphasize that, what he saw, was true. This example shows recourse to a feature of the language when concrete proof cannot be provided. The proof of the veracity of what Prophet Joseph s aw lay, not in his linguistic presentation of simply express it again and again (as claimed by Johnstone 29, p. 155), but in the physical coming true of his claim his dream near the end of the narrative.There is no doubt in the mind of the Arabic-speaking reader of the Quran that the repetitive nature of Prophet Josephs language is verbally precursive to, and predictive of, an actual event doom to occur by the virtue of Gods divine will. This is not, as Johnstone 29 would have us believe, mere linguistic form in baffle to persuade or convince, devoid of logical proof. The Prophets convictions, exclamatory by repetition, serve as testimony to his faith, and to his submission (Islam) to his God. His visions cited by repeated words, confirm his prophethood.The repetition here is no mere rhetorical device it serves, instead, to confirm the Divine Hand behind the Prophets visions and what afterwards occurred. The rational argumentation for the actuality and the veracity of the ev ents is unsaid, rather than explicit and is vested in the repetition. Translating this implicit rational argumentation is not easy. Of course, in cases where explicit rational argumentation (logical proof) is needed, we find that repetition becomes a means that communicates the truth and supports the proof. Ample examples can be found in Surah al-Naml. ?) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?) ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ahmed Abdel-Fattah M. Ali ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?) ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?) ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?) ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ( ) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ( ) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Say Praise be to Allah, and Peace on His servants whom He has chosen (for His Message). (Who) is better?Allah or the ill-advised gods they associate (with Him)? (59) Or, who has created the heavens and the earth, and who sends you down rain from the sky? Yea, with it We cause to grow well-planted orchards full of beauty and delight it is not in your power to cause the growth of the trees in them. (Can there be another) god besides Allah? Nay, they are a people who swerve from justice. (60) Or, who has made the earth firm to live in made rivers in its midst set thereon mountains immovable, and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (Can there be another) god besides Allah? Nay, most of them know not. 61) Or, who listens to the (soul) distressed when it calls on Him, and who relieves its suffering, and makes you (mankind) inheritors of the earth? (Can there be another) god besides Allah? Little it is that ye anxiety (62) Or, who guides you through the depths of darkness on land and sea, and who sends the winds as heralds of glad tidings, passage before His mercy? (Can there be another) god besides Allah? mettlesome is Allah above what they associate with Him (63) Or, who originates Creation, then repeats it, and who gives you sustenance from heaven and earth? (Can there be another) god besides Allah?Say, Bring forth your evidence, if ye are state the truth (64) Say None in the heavens or on earth, except Allah, knows what is hidden nor can they perceive when they shall be embossed up (for Judgment). (65) (Q2759-65) Word Repetition in the Quran Translating Form or Meaning? in general speaking, one of the functions of repetition in Arabic is to give force to the point made, and to add emphasis to the argument in most cases, the repeated words are not redundant nor do they affect the style in a way that makes it gauche or clumsy. Consider, for example, the different ranslations for Surah al-Rahman where the word almizan (balance) is repeated three times. (9) The English translations, do, to the English ear, have a tiresome, repetitive lineament which is absent in the Arabic )? ( ?)? ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (? ) ? ? (Q557-9) From Khan & Helali 30 7. And the heaven He has raised high, and He has set up the balance. 8. In order that you may not transgress (due) balance. 9.And observe the weight with equity and do not make the balance deficient. From Ali 3 7. And the firmament has He raised high, and He has set up the balance (of justice). 8. In order that ye may not transgress (due) balance. 9. So establish weight with justice and fall not short in the balance. We can see from such examples that the original (source) language text does have a clear impact on the translation. This impact, especially when dealing with religious and sacred texts, is inescapable. It shows further how important the form is what considerable influence form exercises on translated text and what effect form has w hen translated. is repeated 31 times, Q3020-25 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? where is repeated six times in six successive ayat. See also Q54 15, 17, 22, 32, 40 and 5 ? , Q691-3 , Q7419-20 , Q7534-3 , Q7615-16 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? , Q8217-18 ? , Q955-6 ? , Q1011-3 , Q1023 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? , Q109, etc. ? ? ? ? (9) Other examples are also found in Q55 where Ahmed Abdel-Fattah M. Ali Conclusion The most difficult problem to resolve in translating Holy Writ is, certainly for Muslims, a moral one. This paper has focused on the debate of whether or not to translate repeated words which appear in the Arabic Quran into the target language. It has been shown that if translators choose to deliberately ignore the repeated words, they have actually failed to cater for all the words and, thereby, all the meanings in the original.It is of secondary importance whether the translator may be justified or not for not translating repeated (or unrepeated) words a s long as the meaning is not affected. This is because every word in the Quran (repeated as well as unrepeated) serves a purpose and if translators fail to see this, it is not for them to decide that the reader, too, will not see what they have failed to translate. (10) This brings one to the opinion that what the translator of the Quran should do is opt for the straight translation. This does not interdict the fact that translators might labor in vain.They might be real sincere in preserving the stylistic features of the original text, hoping always to maintain, as trump out they can, the stylistic beauty of the repetition they find there. Yet, there is always the chance that those very labors might be doomed to failure owing to the differences between the source and target language systems of meaning-making and functioning. (11) (10) (11) This is explained clearly in the Arabic construction ? ? ?. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? The following examples are meant to shed some more light on this point.According to Nasif 14, p. 22, Sibawayh says The Arabs say ? and ? . The former is used when ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? something good happens and as a result one praises Allah, while the latter is used when one expresses how he is. In his own words . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? By way of example, Dickins 31 also suggests comparing ? ? with ? ? ? . He says Clearly, these two are distinct in Arabic, and in some contexts it might be possible in ? ? English to translate ? ? ? ? ? as This man is indeed great. In many contexts, however, ? both ? ? ? and ? ? ? ? ? would have to be translated as This man is great ? ? (etc. ) the very real difference between the two sentences simply cannot be relayed in English. Word Repetition in the Quran Translating Form or Meaning? ? some(prenominal) sincere attempts have been made in the past to minimize the effect of these differences, which result in un natural sounding translations of the Quran. However, the result is always at the expense of something else. Arberry 8, p. x, for example, compares the Quranic translations prior to his own, saying In making the present attempt to improve on the performance of many of my predecessors, and to produce something which might be accepted as echoing however faintly the sublime rhetoric of the Arabic volume, I have been at pains to study the involved and richly varied rhythms hich apart from the message itself constitute the Korans undeniable claim to rank amongst the greatest literary masterpieces of mankind. This very characteristic feature has been almost totally ignored by previous translators it is therefore not surprising that what they have wrought sounds dull and flat indeed in comparison with the splendidly decorated original. I have striven to conspire rhythmic patterns and sequence-groupings in correspondence with what the Arabic presents, paragraphing the grouped sequ ences as they search to form original units of revelation. As is clear from his comments above (as well as in many other places in the introduction to his translation of the Quran), much has been lost in previous translations and even his own attempt is but a faint echo of the sublime rhetoric of the Arabic Koran. The question of what to do about translating repetition becomes consequent on recognizing the limitations of translating (or not translating) repetition in the Quran. Gaining a better understanding of the Arabic language definitely diminishes such misperceptions of incoherence.Since Arabic is spoken by approximately one billion people, Muslims can hope for a greater awareness of Arabic as a religious, cultural and social force on the planet on the part of non-Arabic and/or non-Muslim countries. Where Arabic recognized as the knowledge base language it is, the study thereof could conceivably be introduced throughout the respective(a) tiers of education in the rest of the world, and through that, attune non-Arabic speakers throughout the world to the differences and uniqueness inherent in the language.This would aid readers of the Quran believers or otherwise to make the necessary mindshift from the rhetoric and discourse of their mother tongue to the translated text. In his The Quran A New Interpretation, Colin Turner says When one considers the complexities involved in translating a work such as the playscript, one often wonders whether it might not be easier for the whole English-speaking world to learn Arabic in order to read the al-Quran than for one translator to bring the Quran to the whole of the English-speaking world.As far-fetched as this option might sound, it is the one favoured by most Muslim scholars, whose opinion it is that the Quran is only the Quran if it is in Arabic and that however much it is translated, and into however many languages, the product which emerges on the other side can never be anything more than one mans humb le and, it goes without saying, fallible interpretation. (Turner & Bahbudi 32, p. xiii) In the meantime, until Arabic becomes more widely studied, the answer to the conundrum of how to translate repetition extant in the Quran must be a simple one.The translator could, in an attempt to maintain the accuracy and faithfulness, and at the same time maintain the flow of the translation, make use of footnotes to draw the attention of the reader/critic to the actual wording of the original. In this way, the translator Ahmed Abdel-Fattah M. Ali minimizes the effect of, at least, the form of the original on the translation. The meaning is (hopefully) preserved, and thereby, the reader/critic and most importantly the believer, is satisfied by accounting for all the words in the text involved. References 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Hyde Park Christian Fellowship. Downloaded 5th June, 2002 from the cyberspace at http//debate. org. uk Ghoneim, M. Some Answers to the Claimed Grammat ical Errors in the Holy Quran. Downloaded 5th June, 2002 from the Internet at http//www. angelfire. com/mo/Alborhaan/Gram. html Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Meaning of the Holy Quran Revised Translation And Commentary. Maryland Amana Corporation, 1992. Cook, M. The Koran. Oxford UK Oxford University Press, 2000. Al-Laithy, Ahmed Abdle-Fattah. What Everyone Should bop about the Quran.Abha, Saudi Arabia Sarawat Printing House, 2002. Ali, Ahmed Abdel-Fattah Muhammad. Measuring and Weighing Terms in the Quran Their Meaning with Reference to Six English Translations. PhD Thesis (unpublished), Durham University, 1998. Pickthall, Mohammad Marmaduke. The Meaning of the Glorious Koran. New York New American Liberary, n. d. Arberry, Arthur J. The Koran Interpreted. Oxford Oxford University Press, 1991. Asad, Muhammad. The Message of the Quran. PA Noblebook, 1980. Leighton, Lauren G. Two Worlds, One Art Literary Translation in Russia and America.Dekalb Federal Illinois University Press, 1991. Co nnor, U. Contrastive Rhetoric Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-language Writing. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press, 1997. Al-Jubouri, Adnan J. R. The Role of Repetition in Arabic Argumentative Discourse. In J. Swales and H. Mustafa (Eds. ), English for Specific Purposes in the Arab World. Language Studies, Aston University, 1984. Holes, Clive. Modern Arabic Structures, Functions and Varieties. London & New York Longman, 1995. K K K K K Koch, B. J. Repetition in Cohesion and Persuasion in Arabic. PhD Thesis, 1981. K K K K 16 17 18 19 20 K Tytler, Alexander Fraser. endeavor on the Principles of Translation. London J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd. , 1907. Al-Mulla, S. A. The Question of the Translatability of the Quran with Particular Reference to Some English Versions. PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow, 1989. K W K ? K K Word Repetition in the Quran Translating Form or Meaning? 21 K K K ? ? ? ? ?K 22 K K K ?K KE F?K K K K K 23 24 25 26 27 Newmark, Peter. A textbook of Transl ation. Exeter Prentice Hall International, Ltd. , 1988. Ibrahim, I. A. A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam. second ed. , 3rd printing, Houston, Texas, USA Darussalam Publishers & Distributers, 1997. Al-Rehaili, Abdullah M. This Is the Truth Newly Discovered Scientific Facts Revealed in the Quran & Authentic Hadeeth. 2nd ed. , Makkah, Saudi Arabia Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, 1998.Baytallah. http//www. baytallah. com/bible/genesis31-40. htm. Downloaded 6th June, 2002 from the Internet at http//www. baytallah. com K K K 28 29 30 31 32 Baker, Mona. In Other terminology A Coursebook on Translation. London Routledge, 1992. Johnstone, Barbara. Repetition in Arabic Discourse, Paradigms, Syntagms, and the ecology of Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1991. Khan, Muhammad Muhsin and Al-Helali, Muhammad Taqi-ud-din.Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Quran in the English Language A Summarized Version of Al-Tabari, Al-Qurt ubi and Ibn Kathir with Comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari Summarized in One Volume. Riyadh Dar-us-Salam, 1994. Dickins, James. (personal communication), middle(a) for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, Durham University, April 1998. Turner, Colin (translator) and Bahbudi, Muhammad Baqir. The Quran A New Interpretation. 1st ed. , Surrey Curzon Press, 1997. ? ? K Ahmed Abdel-Fattah M. Ali ? E L L L L F K K ? ? K ?