See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233624248

Translating the invisible in the Qur'an

Article  in  Babel · June 2008

DOI: 10.1075/babel.54.1.02kha

CITATIONS READS

20 1,868

2 authors:

Aladdin Al-Kharabsheh Bakri Al-Azzam

Kuwait University Hashemite University
23 PUBLICATIONS   65 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   57 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Translation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aladdin Al-Kharabsheh on 14 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from Babel, Vol. 54:1.

© 2008. All rights reserved.
This electronic file may not be altered in any way.
The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to
be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible
to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute.
For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the
publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).
Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com
 Translating the invisible
Invisible inin
thethe
Qur’an
Qur’an

Aladdin Al-­
Al-K
Kharabsheh
harabsheh and Bakri Al-­
Al-A
Azzam
zzam
The Hashemite University
University, Jordan

1. Introduction

The term invisible in this paper refers to any Qur’an-specific, semantically invisible
lexical element (henceforth SILE) that ostensively, has a visible meaning, normally
mistakingly taken to be the intended one, while at the same time, has another in-
visible meaning that acts as the intended meaning, but which is extricably bound
up to go unnoticed and unrecognized in the act of any customary reading of the text
and context in which it emerges. Such invisibility can generally be accounted for by
the fact that the Qur’an represents a unique, religious document, inimitable in all
its different lexical and textual layers (for more details on the matchlessness of the
Qur’an, cf. al-Rāzī 2000: vols. 1 and 2). The difficulty associated with this type of
lexical construction is that it is very familiar to most translators and readers who,
subsequently and spontaneously, are prone to rule out the possibility of envisag-
ing a second invisible meaning, which requires exerting conscious effort, such as
taking a scrutinizing look at the relevant text and context (cf. Gutt 2000: 76–77),
or consulting one of the chief Muslim exegeses. Surveying the available literature,
it was found that an SILE represents an inimitable linguistic phenomenon that has
been never been explored in the Qur’an-oriented translation studies.
In this exploratory study, a Qur’anic SILE tends to have two meanings: a sur-
face meaning (i.e. visible meaning), and a second deeper meaning (i.e. invisible
meaning). The latter, which is the main focus of this study, is normally either con-
tradictory or opposite to the first one; indeed the invisible meaning constitutes the
meaning intended by the scriptural-theological context, and therefore, constitutes
our point of departure in translation. It should be pointed out that other technical
terms could be used conveniently to describe this unique phenomenon. It is a pos-
sibility, for instance, that one may suggest the syntactic label embedded or the prag-
matic label unembodied. However, choice has rested with the label invisible, mainly
because such contextually and/or pragmatically embedded meanings go unnotice-
able, i.e., they can betray the reader’s inferencing (i.e. figuring out).
The persistent high Muslim view of the Qur’an rests on the belief that God’s
word is not just in the message communicated, but is basically and powerfully
Babel 54: 1 (2008), 1–18.  doi 10.1075/babel.54.1.02kha  issn 0521–9744
e-issn 1569–9668  © Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel
2 Aladdin Al-­Kharabsheh and Bakri Al-­Azzam

present in the very form in which it was originally given (cf. Al-Baqillani 1985: 48
and Al-Jurjani 1981: 40–41). Thus, the Qur’an, unlike the Bible in Christian un-
derstanding, can only exist in its original language. It follows also that this Arabic
Qur’an has been translated, and the available translations convey the main mean-
ings of the Qur’an but can never be considered the actual Qur’an; the meaning
cannot be understood fully by non-Arabic speakers, but can, however, be under-
stood sufficiently (cf. al-Ghazālī 1932: 13; al-Shāfi‘ī 1961: 88–109). To a limited ex-
tent, thus, translations can shed light only on the meanings of the Qur’an. Indeed,
the gulf between the original and the translation is an important reason why Mus-
lims must recite the Qur’an only in Arabic for the required daily prayers (cf. Ibn
Qutaiba 1954: 16 and Abdelali 2004)
Accordingly, it could be argued that SILEs do seem to present insurmountable
translation hurdles, which make the translation of the Qur’an a perennial topic of
debate. This point is accentuated by the view that canonical texts generally require
re-translating every couple of generations (cf. Lewis 1998). Qur’anic translations
should, therefore, be occasionally reviewed and assessed as to ensure effective ren-
derings for particularly complex and beguiling words and phrases. Hence, SILEs
appear to be translated properly, but if we look more closely into the faithfulness
of such translations, we get a quite different picture, especially if these translations
are cross-referenced with leading Muslim authoritative commentaries, which are
supposed to reveal all shades of meaning.
In light of all of this, this paper substantiates the orthodox Muslim view that
the Qur’an is “translation-resistant” (Abdul-Raof 1999: 45; Al-Bundaq 1983: 49). It
also lends further support to the notion that “translation loss is an inevitable con-
sequence of the fact that languages and cultures are different” (Dickins et al. 2002:
25; Barnwell 1983: 20). Based on this view, the purpose of this caveat lector paper is
twofold. First, the paper attempts to prove the inevitable occurrence of translation
loss in the act of rendering SILEs. Second, it seeks to investigate the texts and con-
texts where these cases occur in order to pinpoint the invisible meaning through
providing a theologically precise and ironclad explanation of the meanings of such
cases, so that a rigorous grounding in Islamic theology is not necessary for non-
native speakers of Arabic. As part of a larger context, adequate rendering of SILEs
may partly assist recreate the experience of reading the Arabic original for non-
native readers through a true transposition into English of the beauty and pro-
foundity of these SILEs and the psycho-spiritual reaction they engender.
To achieve the objectives of this study, and for spatial limitations, restriction
is made to three official translations, produced at different times. These are: Ali’s
(1983) The Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary; The Presidency’s (1992)
The Holy Qur’an: English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary; and Pick-
thall’s (2002) The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an: Explanatory Translation. Though

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
 Translating the invisible in the Qur’an 3
Translating the invisible in the Qur’an 3

thall’s (2002) The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an: Explanatory Translation. Though
each subsequent translation tends to improve upon its predecessors (as is often the
case with successive translations), not a single translation appears to have resolved
the translation of SILEs once and for all. This does not imply that the translators
are incompetent, but rather suggests that they were unaware of the existence of
these SILEs, which requires the consultation of famous, commendable exegeses.
To gain more insights into these unnoticeable meanings, three chief Muslim exe-
geses were selected as to be the yardstick against which the invisible meaning will
be identified, and the adequacy of the proposed renderings of the SILEs chosen for
this study will be assessed and judged. These exegeses (or commentaries) are: Ibn
Kathir 1997 (Tafseer Al-Qur’an Al-Kareem); Al-Sabuni 2001 (Safwat Al-Tafaseer);
and Al-Zamakhshari 2005 (Al-Kashshaf ).

Visible meaning
2. SILEs in the Qur’an: Visible Meaning invisible
vs.vs. Invisible Meaning
meaning

First of all, it should be made clear right from the beginning that we are not
here discussing invisible meaning vs. visible meaning in the sense given in the
functional-theoretic approach
approach proposed
proposedbybyHouse House(1981:(1981: 249–250
249–250 andand 2001);
2001); ra-
rather,
ther, wewearearediscussing
discussingthe
thetwo
twoconcepts
conceptsgenerally
generallyininsupport
supportof of the
the view
view that re-
ligious ideas are more complex than normal thoughts in the sense that they may
sometimes deal apparently with with objective
objective external
externalrealities;
realities;and,
and sometimes,
sometimes with
man’s inner
a man's inner states.
states. A
A proof that countenances such a view is that hundreds of
commentaries on
interpreters have written commentaries on the
the Qur’an
Qur’an during
duringits itsfourteen
fourteencentur-
centu-
ries
ies ofofexistence,
existence,andandnone
nonehas
hasclaimed
claimedto to understand
understand all all of
of its various aspects and
meanings.
Two types of meaning can be recognized in the Qur’an: visible meaning and
invisible meaning. The visible meaning is that meaning which any reasonably intel-
ligent reader is expected to capture; the invisible meaning, however, is that mean-
ing accessible to those who are more “sharp-eyed” (France 1981: 241), or better
instructed in it, owing to the fact the such a meaning is purposefully designed to
slip capturing. Hence, the inner meaning (i.e. (i.e. the
the invisible)
invisible),which
whichisispsychologic-
psychologi-
calor
al orspiritual
spiritual,isisalways
alwaysthe
thetrue
trueone
one,whereas
whereasthe theouter
outer meaning
meaning (i.e. (i.e. the visible)
acts as a cloak for preserving it from exposure to most translators and readers. In-
deed, what a reader
reader could
could grasp
grasp in
in the
the Qur’an
Qur’anwill willvary
varyaccording
accordingtotohis/herhis/herexe-
ex-
getical
egeticalbackground,
background as as the
the Qur’an
Qur’an is rich in potentially semantically-complicated
nuances (cf. al-Rafi‘i 1945: 282). A Qur’anic passage should often be viewed as be-
ing layered, and and the
theQur’an
Qur’anisislike
likean
anorganism
organismhaving havingallallofof
itsits parts
parts interlinked.
interlinked. It
It seems
seems safesafe to claim
to claim thatthat
therethere
are aare
few,a iffew,
any,ifArabic-
any, Arabic-
speaking speaking
readersreaders
who wouldwho
would
naturallynaturally derive
derive this this complicated
complicated deeper meaning
deeper meaning from thefrom originalthetexts,
original texts,
let alone
let alone English-speaking readers from the available English translations.

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
4 Aladdin Al-­Kharabsheh and Bakri Al-­Azzam

Thus, behind the visible structure is the invisible structure, the intended mean-
ing. It is this invisible meaning that serves as the base for translation into another
language. Likewise, the idiomatic approaches presume that a text should have ‘vis-
ible structures’, which are syntactic, lexical, morphological and phonological, and
should also have an ‘invisible structure’ which consists of propositions, and other
elements indicative of speech acts and interpropositional links.
The relationship between the ‘visible structure’ and the ‘invisible structure’ is
indeed not as straightforward as one might think. It is essentially these complica-
tions that make translation so difficult. Typically, language allows for ‘skewing’ be-
tween the ‘visible structure’ and the ‘invisible structure’. For instance, there can be
‘skewing’ between the grammatical form of a language and its illocutionary force.
For instance, in a chilling weather, a person who feels cold sitting in a hall might
say “It is freezing”, as to yield the semantic illocutionary force of request (request-
ing anyone near the window to close it), but the syntactic form is that of a sentence
which would normally be used to express a declarative sentence about weather. In
all the examples to be quoted in this study, such ‘skewing’ serves to provide psy-
chological, emotive and fine nuances of meaning and serves as the platform for
translation. Another problem that can be encountered in Qur’anic discourse, and
which is attributable to the difference between the ‘visible structure’ and the ‘invis-
ible structure, is that the ‘implicit information’ or ‘invisible meaning’ normally has
no linguistic form, but is considered part of the total communication intended or
assumed by the Creator.
It is clear, therefore, that the translator needs to take into careful consideration
the presence of implicit information in the original, so that it may be used explic-
itly when it is needed in the RL [receptor language] version. Implicit information
will sometimes need to be made explicit in the Qur’an, since it is not shared by the
receptor language audience. Accordingly, it can be said that interpretation must
have a deep respect for the significance of every word and phrase in the religious
discourse, and it is the translator’s job to dig deep within the text to find what God
means. Therefore, when something does not make sense in a Qur’anic text, it is
the reader who does not understand it; the reader’s knowledge and understanding
of the word and/or text that is inadequate. As a corollary, the resulting translations
may well obscure the original meanings of such divine texts (cf. Nida and Taber
1969: 12; Nida 1964: 159)

3. Discussion

For the sake of analysis and economicality, we will be using the following Roman
numerals to stand for the three translations; that is, I, II, and III stand for Pick-

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
 Translating the invisible in the Qur’an 5

thall’s translation (2002), Ali’s (1983), and the Presidency’s (1992), respectively.
The running configuration here will be as follows: the original Arabic text is pro-
vided first, which includes only one SILE being highlighted by underlining; then,
followed by its three translations in the order explained above, and finally a dis-
cussion is presented.

Œxî „˜cVo> Œhgi> nTî ÒÑ}`VÑ ÑîÍÛ oD qZÑ|gVÑ Ñî”Íî Ž> Ô|›Sû àÛûÑ ; oZ rfeL €bj ‹dV ìÍ Vî
54 :10 €jy /ìfe_y ù
I. And if each soul that does wrong had all that is in the earth it would seek to
ransom itself therewith; and they will feel remorse within them, when they see
the doom. But it has been judged between them fairly and they are not wronged.
(2002: 185).
II. Every soul that hath sinned, if it possessed all that is on earth, would fain give
it in ransom: they would declare (their) repentance when they see the penalty: but
the judgment between them will be with justice, and no wrong will be done unto
them (1983: 498–499).
III. Every soul that hath sinned, if it possessed all that is on earth, would fain give it
in ransom: they would declare (their) repentance when they see the chastisement:
but the judgment between them will be with justice, and no wrong will be done
unto them (1992: 564).

The Arabic SILE Ñî”Í to conceal or to hide is semantically complex, hatching in

a context that does not give enough clues to figure out its invisible meaning. At
first blush, readers of the text, particularly those who do not possess linguistic
competence and full understanding, will go for the visible meaning as the intend-
ed one. There is nothing final about a semantic change: a word may acquire a new
sense or scores of new senses without losing its original meaning (cf. Ullmann
1972: 195). The verb ”Í to conceal is a case in point here. Situations may make it
indispensable that someone behaves abnormally and unexpectedly, which is the
case of the unbelievers who openly declare repentance as a source of shame and
ignomity. Given exactly the contrasting meaning does not necessarily mean that
”Í to conceal has in its very sense two contradictory meanings, nor does it have
many distinct though not contrasting ones; it is the eloquence of the Qur’an which
forces it to behave in such a fashion.
Difficult to be captured by those relatively incompetent in the Qur’anic stylis-
tics, one may opt for the visible meaning, i.e., the daily used and the directly un-
derstood by ordinary people (cf. Ibn Kathir 1997, v.2, 944; Al-Sabuni 2001, v.1,
546). This is a fact that might have led Pickthall (2002: 185) to translate Ñî”Í into
will feel with a description of the case including the lexical element remorse. Feel
in this translation is no more than an equivalence of secrecy or concealment, which,

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
6 Aladdin Al-­Kharabsheh and Bakri Al-­Azzam

in turn, does not convey the invisible meaning declare in the original text (cf. Al-
Zamakhshari 2005: 466).
Conversely, aware enough of the meanings that an SILE may drive at, Ali
(498–499) and the Presidency (1992: 564) properly relayed the meaning of Ñî”Í ÷
as declare into English. The choice has not haphazardly been arrived at or justi-
fied; the translators could have consulted exegetes’ commentaries of the Qur’an,
or could have rested heavily on the pertinent theological context. Basically, qZÑ|j
remorse has the implications of secrecy and bitter regret of wrongdoings or word-
ings. And since it can be naturally hidden, the use of Ñî”Í to conceal must be re-
dundant unless rhetorically used, which is the case in the relevant verse under dis-
cussion. Another similar example that can illustrate the reverse meaning, where
Ñî”Í
÷ functions similarly, is

3 :21 Ëoi™jûÑ /ìîX™? Œ›jÍî ~ž˜VÑ ì?k›SÍ ŒdeœZ Q> ùÑ Ñ}x ‹x яfeL y}VÑ ïgVÑ Ñî”Íî Œ*eT qixù

which Ali (1983: 822) literally translates as: “Their hearts toying as with trifles.
The wrong-doers conceal their private counsels, (saying), ‘Is this (one) more than
a man like yourselves? Will ye go to witchcraft with your eyes open?’”

y}VÑ oZÍî Œ*Û Z ‰#Ñ ŽjÑ ìfe`iS яgZÍ y}VÑ oZkS ohTS 6S q•`> oZ ćœZ җy ìÍ ‘ž›˜y ù ĂÑ ìÏ
26 :2 Ó~c™VÑ /OcIobVÑ ùÏ Ž> ‹]y oZî ÑFœU Ž> ‹]y ćœZ Ñ}* ĂÑ ÙÑÛÍ ÑÚoZ ìVciS Ñî~bU

I. Lo! Allah disdains not to coin the similitude even of a gnat or what is above it.
Those who believe know that it is the truth from their Lord; but those who disbe-
lieve say: what does Allah wish (to teach) by such a similitude? He misleads many
thereby, and He guides many thereby; and He misleads thereby only miscreants
(2002: 8).
II. God disdains not to use the similitude of things, lowest as well as highest. Those
who believe know that it is the truth from their Lord; but those who reject Faith
say: “what means God by this similitude?” by it He causes many to stray, and many
He leads into the right path; but He causes not to stray, except those who forsake
(the path) (1983: 22).
III. Allah disdains not to use the similitude of things even of a gnat as well as an-
ything above it. Those who believe know that it is the truth from their Lord; but
those who reject Faith say: “what means God by this similitude?” by it He causes
many to stray, and many He leads into the right path; but He causes not to stray,
except those who forsake (1992: 13–14).

In Arabic, the SILE adverb èS above, in the verse above, is problematic translation-
wise. An interpretation against a slightly wrong context will not only be erroneous,

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
 Translating the invisible in the Qur’an 7

but also misleading. The overall context of the verse can give a further enlight-
ment of the pragmatic meaning, which might contradict with the visible, surface
meaning. The small two-winged fly is lowly and mean that made it appropriate to
be given a similitude with. Had the pragmatic or the intended meaning of èS not
been ìîÙ below or beyond, it would not have been opted for the parable; had it also
not been so, a seemingly imbalance would have taken place in the stylistic struc-
ture and implications of the verse. In order to convey the meaning reliably and
informatively, translators should give more care to the religious text-in-context.
Though not always infallible or inerrant, only competent linguist-translators, and,
to a greater extent, those enjoying a linguistic sense of the Arabic religious text,
can capture the meaning that lurks below the surface level. And since consult-
ing the context might not be enough to achieve this goal, translators of such a text
should refer to commentaries of the Qur’an that can explain such an extraordinary
and strange phenomenon.
Based on this discussion and in reference to the three translations, one can
argue that none of the translations has successfully conveyed the invisible mean-
ing of èS above, being ìîÙ below in the verse (cf. Al-Zamakhshari 2005: 64 and Al-
Sabuni 2001, v.1, 36). Pickthall (2002: 8) rendered it literally as above, which totally
contrasts with what is actually intended, i.e. ìîÙ below. Ali (1983: 22) rendered the
adverb èS above paraphrasingly as lowest as well as highest, which again not only
failed to convey the invisible meaning, but also resulted in a semantic confusion.
Being vague as such could have misled the translators, and thus misguided them
to produce proper translations. The Presidency’s translation (1992: 13–14), which
is the same literal translation as Pickthall’s, is close to the Qur’anic interpretation
of Ibn Kathir (1997, v.1, 68), for example.

249 :2 Ó~c™VÑ /y~>o\VÑ †Z ĂÑî ĂÑ ìÚm> ÓFœU qÿS r™eR qeieT qÿS Z ŒU ĂÑ ÑceZ ŒºÍ ìg_y y}VÑ êoT

I. But those who knew that they would meet Allah exclaimed: how many a little
company has overcome a mighty host by Allah’s leave! And Allah is with the stead-
fast (2002: 37).
II. But those who were convinced that they must God, said: “how oft, by God’s
will, hath
a small force vanquished a big one? God is with those who steadfastly persevere.”
(1983: 100).
III. But those who were convinced that they must Allah, said: “how oft, by Allah’s
will, hath a small force vanquished a big one? Allah is with those who steadfastly
persevere” (1992: 111).

The Arabic SILE ÷ L to think shows a state of mind in forming opinions and com-

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
8 Aladdin Al-­Kharabsheh and Bakri Al-­Azzam

ing to conclusions. Opinion, in this regard, is not final and clear-cut as it requires
negotiation, and is an ebb and flow process. Being otherwise, readers of a text or
listeners of a speech should be a ware enough of the total discourse to determine
its invisible meaning. If the context at the sentence or verse level is not enough
for the translator as a reader to extract the invisible meaning, s/he ought to go for
an outer and other linguistic contexts. In other words, the translator should not
give up delving deep as a result of the existence of confusing meanings of such an
SILE. This situation of the translator can be viewed in rendering ìg_y to think in
the above verse into English. In translating it as knew, Pickthall (2002: 37) pro-
duced an approximate equivalence. The meaning achieved lies between its visible
and invisible meanings in generally and peculiarly envisaged contexts. Pickthall
(Ibid.:37) does not provide any illuminatory information to dispel any material
that can give hint to the erroneous and matted meaning of ìg_y to think as the or-
dinary and habitually used one (cf. Ibn Kathir1997, v.1, 296).
Ali (1983: 100) and the Presidency (1992: 111) also partially failed to transfer
the corresponding meaning of ìg_y to think into English. In the two translations,
were convinced does not show the extraordinary belief that the Muslim believers
have gained (cf. Al-Sabuni 2001, v.1, 296; Al-Zamakhshari 2005: 143). This belief
became an integral part to the believers’ faith and hence indisputable. Generally,
and based on the three translations, it seems that the context has been fully mar-
ginalized in rendering ìg_y to think into English as completely certain, thus de-
throning it from its prominent and easily figured out meaning.

V êoT ŽZoTkS ƒcgy ìÍ |y~y ÑÛÑ|A ohiS Ñ|AS o«bi]y ìÍ Ñ>kS ohexÍ 6`^›IÍ qy~T ‹xÍ oi?Í ÑÚÑ ›B oce^joS
77 :18 ˆhdVÑ /.Ñ~AÍ ŽieM Ô}Ÿ›V rÿJ
I. So the two journeyed on till, when they came unto the folk of a certain town-
ship, they asked its folks for food, but they refused to make them guests. And they
found therein a wall upon the point of falling into ruin, and he repaired it. (Moses)
said: If you had wished, you could have taken payment for it (2002: 271).
II. Then they proceed: until, when they came to the inhabitants of a town, they
asked them for food, but they refused them hospitality. They found there a wall
on the point of falling down, but he set it up straight. (Moses) said: “If thou hadst
wished, surely thou couldest have exacted some recompense for it (1983: 751).
III. Then they proceed: until, when they came to the inhabitants of a town, they
asked them for food, but they refused them hospitality. They found there a wall
on the point of falling down, but he set it up straight. (Moses) said: “If thou hadst
wished, surely thou couldest have exacted some recompense for it. (1992: 751).

The Arabic verbs |y~y indeed want and ŠJy on the point of are contradictory with
regard to certainty. While ŠJy on the point has implications of uncertainty, |y~y

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
 Translating the invisible in the Qur’an 9

indeed want indicates dogmatization and cutting off. Sometimes, a meaning of

a word is greatly context-based and thus semantically idiosyncratic. The context of
the verse in question is a determinant factor in favouring on the point of as a coun-
terpart for |y~y indeed want to describe the dilapidated wall (cf. Ibn Kathir 1997, v.3
1265; Al-Sabuni 2001, v.2, 188; Al-Zamakhshari 2005: 626). Thus, the translators
of the text found it easy to determine on the proper meaning, i.e., upon the point of,
owing to its scriptural dominance. Being so, and different from other cases select-
ed in this study, the three translations have safely managed to transfer the mean-
ing to English (cf. Pickthall 2002: 271; Ali 1983: 751; and the Presidency 1992: 842).

/ .o™\R qgibI ‹U }Cky ŠeZ ŒxËÑÛî ìoUî oh™iMÍ ìÍ ÔÙÛkS ~ž™VÑ ; ìef`y OUo˜D rjodS qgib˜VÑ oZÍ
79 :18 ˆhdVÑ
I. As for the ship, it belonged to some poor people working on the water, and
I wished to mar it, for there was a king behind them who is taking every ship by
force (2002: 271).
II. “As for the boat, it belonged to certain men in dire want: they plied on the wa-
ter: I but wished to render it unserviceable, for there was after them a certain King
who seized on every boat by force (1983: 751–752).
III. “As for the boat, it belonged to certain men in dire want: they plied on the wa-
ter: I but wished to render it unserviceable, for there was after them a certain King
who seized on every boat by force (1992: 843).

The Arabic adverb ËÑÛî behind or after is misleading in the verse. It is entirely mis-
taken to think that this confusion does not pose translation problems. Since near-
est sentential structural elements do not assist in specifying the invisible or the run
behind meaning and cannot bring about meaning exactness, translators as readers,
should envisage the SILE’s broader context, i.e., they have to start from where the
theme starts or relates.
The story begins when Khidr and Moses were in the boat that the former scut-
tled. It was in its way to the king who used to forcefully seize everything on eve-
ry boat, after it is being loaded and charged with goods. Based on this, the boat
can be taken to be on its way to the king, and this can uncover the meaning of the
word residing behind its surface level, which forms the confluence of the disput-
ing meanings. As such being the case, translators should exert all possible efforts
to extract the should-be rendered meaning in the receptive language. The adverb
ËÑÛî behind or after in the verse does not seem to have received enough attention,
and is thus mishandled in the three translations (cf. Pickthall’s 2002: 271 as behind
and Ali’s 1983: 751–752 and the Presidency’s 1992: 843 as after). The adverb ËÑÛî ,
ostensively behind or after, is elusive and problematic, not only to translators who
might not be native-speakers of Arabic, but also to Arabic native speakers and

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
10 Aladdin Al-­Kharabsheh and Bakri Al-­Azzam

some exegetes who fail to disclose its plot (cf. Ibn Khathir, v.3 1266); i.e., it is cam-
ouflaged in the sense that its actual (invisible) meaning is difficult to be spotted
as ëoZÍ in front of (cf. Al-Sabuni 2001, v.2, 188; Al-Zamakhshari 2005: 548). On the
other hand, some exegetes could seize the near and the far contextual opportunity,
thus interpreting ËÑÛî as in front of (cf. Al-Sabuni 2001, v.2, 188; Al-Zamakhshari
2005: 548).

ohgZ яedS o*gA r™Aî ÑÚmS çÑÊ ohieM ĂÑ ŒIÑ Ñî~UÚoS FC ohiS ŒdV ĂÑ ~þo`J Z ŒdV oxoge`A ì|™VÑî
36 :22 t#Ñ/ ìî~d[? Œde`V ŒdV oxoj~ŸI ŠV}U H ÷ `DÑî †jocVÑ Ñf`KÍî
I. And the camels! We have appointed them among the ceremonies of Allah.
Therein you have much good. So mention the name of Allah over them when that
are drawn up in lines. Then when their flanks fall (dead), eat thereof and feed the
beggar and the suppliant. Thus have We made them subject unto you, that you may
give thanks (2002: 310).
II. The sacrificial camels We have made for you as among the Symbols from God:
in them is (much) good for you: then pronounce the name of God over them as
they line up (for sacrifice): when they are down on their sides (after slaughter), eat
ye thereof, and feed such as (beg not but) live in contentment and such as beg with
due humility: thus have we made animals subject to you, that ye may be grateful
(1983: 860–861).
III. The sacrificial camels We have made for you as among the signs from Allah:
in them is (much) good for you: then pronounce the name of Allah over them as
they line up (for sacrifice): when they are down on their sides (after slaughter), eat
ye thereof, and feed such as (beg not but) live in contentment and such as beg with
due humility: thus have we made animals subject to you, that ye may be grateful
etc. (1992: 960–961).

In Islamic law, needy people, even non-Muslims living in the Muslim communi-
ty, are worth being fed or paid to from the property of rich Muslims. Given this,
the rich and those satisfied with what they have are not included in this ‘giving’.
A word sometimes can show formidable resilience in changing its meaning, which
is evident in the way it expresses something other than or opposite to the com-
mon sense or the truth-conditional semantics of such a word. Hence, when a giv-
en SILE illustrates and conveys a noticeable function or purpose, it is not likely to
offer any problem to the audience. It may, however, raise a problem for readers
when it does not stand for the allegedly expected meaning. In the verse under dis-
cussion, †jocVÑ the completely satisfied is semantically two-sided. At first glance, an
ordinary reader may easily comprehend its visible meaning, which falls short of
providing the contextually intended meaning. At this juncture, it should be point-
ed out that Qur’anic texts often bear stylistic, rhetorical and semantic properties

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
 Translating the invisible in the Qur’an 11

that can never be properly treasured and preserved in translation without a solid
linguistic proficiency in the relevant SL and TL, and a profound knowledge of the
complexities of Qur’anic Arabic and its semantics.
As far as the translations are involved, Pickthall (2002: 310) rendered †jocVÑ as
beggar which largely covers the invisible meaning. The context itself can be a teller
as satisfied people are not to be sustained with food. However, a translation loss is
incurred due to the incongruence between the two languages; the Qur’anic Arabic
is rhetorical, eloquent and indirectly conveys the meaning, while the English text
declines to convey such a meaning invisibly or explicitly in translation. That is the
English translations should explicitate in order to retain the meaning, while Ara-
bic does the opposite. This exposure of the invisible meaning is in itself a transla-
tion loss in the sense that its aestheticity in Arabic entails being kept half ‘buried’.
The other two translations (Ali 1983: 860 and the Presidency 1992: 960–961)
rendered †jocVÑ paraphrasingly and comparatively; their translations not only pro-
vided beg not but live in contentment for †jocVÑ, but also compared it with another
word that figures in the same verse, i.e. H ÷ `DÑ to beg with due humility. Though such
renderings show the invisible intended meaning, they do not highlight any rhet-
oric use of the word †jocVÑ . In other words, there is an inevitable and unavoidable
semantic loss that the translator may not be able to redress. Due to these com-
plications, a full explanation on the part of the translator is required to convey
most of the meaning. To illustrate, one corresponding translation such as con-
tent or satisfied can be enough for rendering the surface meaning, but should be
supplemented by extended explanation to display the invisible meanings such as
needy, indigent, and poverty-stricken among others (cf. Al-Sabuni 2001, v.2, 272;
Al-Zamakhshari2005: 696).

54 :55 2~VÑ /ìÑÙ O›g"Ñ gAî èG›IÑ Z ohgþo^> Þ~S EM Oÿd›Z

I. Reclining upon couches lined with silk brocade, the fruit of both gardens near
to hand (2002: 536).
II. They will recline on carpets, whose inner linings will be of rich brocade: the fruit
of the Gardens will be near (and easy of reach) (1983: 1480).
III. They will recline on carpets, whose inner linings will be of rich brocade: the
fruit of the Gardens will be near (and easy of reach) (1983: 1480) (992: 1668).

The lexical elements inner and outer are semantically opposite. This can create
a translation problem as a certain word may have two contrasting senses. It be-
comes more complicated when a lexical element does not convey its ordinary
meaning that is likely to be captured by lay people. The SILE ohgþo^> linings or inners
in the above verse is an illustrative example of lexical elements that unexpected-
ly convey meanings other than what one might expect from a first reading. This

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
12 Aladdin Al-­Kharabsheh and Bakri Al-­Azzam

somewhat ignored or haphazardly would-be-thought or misplaced use is quite

functional, and should not be interpreted otherwise. Sound interpretation of a text
can warrant an adequate transfer of this invisible meaning into the target language.
ohgþo^> linings or inners is problematic by virtue of the fact that it could be analyzed,
interpreted and comprehended in more than one way. The religious text in hand
does not have solecism as the strange use of its words is deliberate which repre-
sents a Qur’anic linguistic feature that is ‘immune’ to imitation in a text other than
the Qur’an. Pickthall (2002: 536) translated ohgþo^> as lined with silk brocade. This
rendition fails to grasp the invisible meaning. The fact that such an SILE is some-
what opaque hindered the translator from attaining the intended meaning, outer
covers or linings. Ali (1983: 1480) and the Presidency (1992: 1668) similarly ren-
dered ohgþo^> as inner linings. This rendering seems to have failed to hark back to the
invisible meaning that is distinct from the normally relayed one.
According to its pragmatic-theological context, the invisible (intended) mean-
ing of ohgþo^> its linings is, however, ox~xяL its outer covers, which is rhetorical in the
sense that God intentionally wants to express the luxury of the outer by means
of using a lexical element expressing the luxury of the inner (cf. Ibn Kathir 1997,
v.4 2020).

Z ùÑ ‘gZ ŽjmS Žf`^y 4 Zî ‘gZ

÷ €ieS ŽgZ Ò¡ fS ~hg> Œdie›™Z ĂÑ ìÑ êoT ُg"o> ԏVoK ‹\S 6eS
249 :2 Ó~c™VÑ / ŒhgZ ‹ieT ùÑ ŽgZ я>QS ÒQS í|i> qS~R çHRÑ
I. And when Saul set out with the army, he said: Lo! Allah will try you by (the
ordeal of ) a river. Whosoever therefore drinks thereof he is not of me, and who-
ever tastes it not he is of me, save him who takes (thereof) in the hollow of his hand
(Pickthall 2002: 37).
II. When Tālūt set forth with armies, he said: “God will test you at the stream; if
any drinks of its water, he goes not with my army: only those who tastes not of it
go with him. A mere sip out of the hand is excused.” But they drank of it, except
a few (Ali 1983: 99–100).
III. When Tālūt set forth with armies, he said: “Allah will test you at the stream; if
any drinks of its water, he goes not with my army: only those who tastes not of it
go with him. A mere sip out of the hand is excused.” But they drank of it, except
a few (Presidency 1992: 111).

The two Arabic lexical elements Ò¡ and Œ`K respectively to drink and to eat are
semantically contradictory to each other. According to Collins Cobuild English
Dictionary (1999: 508 & 524), drinking is taking liquids into the mouth and swal-
lowing it, while eating is to put something into your mouth, chew it, and swal-
low it. Based on this semantic difference, the two lexical items cannot be used
interchangeably; they cannot replace each other in any context, except when used

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
 Translating the invisible in the Qur’an 13

functionally, ironically, or rhetorically, so to speak. In the verse above, the army of

Tālūt are tested at the water of the river. This relevant extralinguistic locative con-
text is helpful in arriving at the invisible meaning.
Prior to the interpretation of any SILE, context should be taken into serious
account as to gain more insightful clues. It is assumed that “the semantic prop-
erties of a lexical item are fully reflected in appropriate aspects of the relations it
contracts with actual and potential contexts” (Cruse 1986: 1). Thus, and based on
this discussion, Žf`^y to eat in the verse carries the meaning of eating or devouring,
which does not apply to water since eat does not collocate with liquids. Moreover,
the utterance ÒQS í|i> qS~R çHRÑ Z ùÑ which comes later after Žf`^y to eat clearly in-
dicates that the latter means Ž>Qy to drink it (cf. Al-Sabuni 2001, v.1, 140). Pickthall
(2002: 37), Ali (1983: 99–100) and the Presidency (1992: 111) collectively yielded
tastes it for Žf`^y, which is the equivalence of ŽT}y ( cf. Al-Zamakhshari 2005: 143).
This states the fact that what is tried of the water is very little. Such a rendition,
thus, may be based upon a shallow understanding of the text, where Žf`^y to eat it
could have been rhetorically used to avoid repetition of Ò¡, for example, in the
Qur’anic text.

15 :20 ŽK / `˜? 6> €bj ‹U V ohibCÍ ÙoUÍ qi?Ì qMo˜VÑ ìÑ

I. Lo! The Hour is surely coming. But I almost keep it hidden, that every soul may
be rewarded for that which it strives ( to achieve) (2002: 285).
II. “Verily the Hour is coming—I have almost kept it hidden—for every soul to re-
ceive its reward by the measure of its Endeavour. (1983: 792–793).
III. “Verily the Hour is coming—my design is to keep it hidden for every soul to
receive its reward by the measure of its Endeavour (1992: 881–882).

The verb ÙoU almost refers to something that is on the brink or on the verge of its
current state or position. The Hour of the Hereafter is kept hidden from man’s
knowledge. The change of the case or the state of the Hour is conceived from the
linguistic knowledge of the text. The contextual state of qMo˜VÑ the Hour, being qi?Ì
coming implies that it is about to take place after the long time of concealment.
More specifically, the following clause `˜? 6> €bj ‹U V that every soul is re-
warded for which it has strived, which constitutes part of its wider scriptural con-
text strongly reveals that the meaning of ohibCÑ to hide it is ox~hLÑ to reveal it.
Owing to the fact that the text is semantically demanding, necessitating extra
mental processing, translators should put more effort into interpreting any given
SILE. Hence, the surrounding context plays a major role in delimiting the right
meaning. Besides, the consultation of Qur’anic commentaries requires no fur-
ther emphasis here. Pickthall (2002: 285), Ali (1983: 792–793) and the Presidency
(1992: 881–882) aggregately produced almost keep it hidden for ohibCÍ ÙoUÍ, recours-

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
14 Aladdin Al-­Kharabsheh and Bakri Al-­Azzam

ing in that to the meaning of ÙoUÍ as hardly hidden or with souls stressed hidden
(cf. Ibn Kathir 1997, v.3 1313; Al-Sabuni 2001, v.2, 218). This translational under-
achievement or semantic loss might be ascribed to an unawareness of the invis-
ible meaning, on the one hand, and the ‘hegemony’ of the visible meaning, on the
other. Obviously, a living religious document such as the Qur’an, lands translators
and readers alike with the enormous task of digging out such pragmatically invis-
ible sense, as intended by its theological context. The lexical element ox~hLÑ to re-
veal (cf. Al-Zamakhshari 2005: 652) that is opposite to ohibCÑin the context can be
grasped from a thorough consideration of text-in-context.

4. Conclusion

In closing, it can be claimed that SILEs are incessantly prone to pose transla-
tion difficulties and hurdles to translators and readers of the Qur’an. Only well-
trained translators who have philological and theological background can ef-
fectively translate a Qur’anic discourse. However, if such linguistic-exegetical
background is somewhat insufficient, the results they achieve are likely to be
unsatisfactory and misrepresenting. This study has attempted to show that SI-
LEs are problematic and elusive in translation in the sense that they, prima facie,
seem to have one meaning, i.e. the visible one, while they are virtually found to
entertain an overriding, unthinkable meaning, i.e. an invisible one that is adher-
ent to such lexical elements and is hardly being taken notice of.
It is hoped that this timely study has succeeded in sensitizing translators and
readers to a peculiar, uncommon, linguistic phenomenon that happens to enter-
tain little currency and frequency in Arabic, and happens to have received scant
attention in Qur’anic translation. One reason that may account for the difficulty
of translating SILEs is that average readers are unaware of the existence of the in-
visible meaning alongside the ordinary one. This explains why the translations
concerned have often unconsciously peripheralized such ‘bonus’ meaning. Lack
of theological and philological background knowledge is also found to add to
the confusion that is likely to figure in the minds of translators who, sometimes,
seem prone not to engage themselves in a careful or leisurely reading, which,
in turn, not only scratches the surface but also warrant deriving other layered
meanings.
Investigating a set of SILEs against their proper scriptural–theological texts
and contexts showed the high processing efforts needed in digging up and grasp-
ing the overall layered meaning. As a corollary, many semantic nuances and idi-
osyncrasies of these SILEs were either partially conveyed over to the target lan-
guage, bringing about distortion, or totally dropped out, a fact that hints to the

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
 Translating the invisible in the Qur’an 15

ineluctable occurrence of semantic loss in Qur’anic translation. A chief aesthetic

aspect of these SILEs in Arabic lies in their invisibility, and once stripped out of
this feature, they immediately lose such invisible semantic power in translation.
Indeed, this state of affairs ought not to be ascribed to translators only, but also
to the nature of the religious discourse, which is remarkably free from any aber-
rations from an Islamic theological perspective. The study has also shown that
context plays a key role in pinpointing the invisible meaning. The fact that SILEs
have such meanings, which normally pass by unnoticeably, entails that transla-
tors have to seek full comprehension of the text on the basis of its broader con-
text. Sound interpretation and adequate translation of any given SILE hinge not
only on text knowledge alone, nor on extra-knowledge, but also on the combina-
tion of both, i.e. on its textual-scriptural context.

References

Abdelali, A. 2004. “Localization in Modern Standard Arabic”. Journal of The American Society for
Information Science and Technology. Vol 55, Issue 1. pp. 23–28.
Abdul-Raof, H. 1999. “Untranslatability of Semantically Oriented Qur’anic Syntax.” OFF-
SHOOT: A Journal of Translation and Comparative Studies. Vol. II, No. 2, pp.39–46.
Ali, A. 1983. The Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary. Amana Corp: Brentwood, Mary-
land, USA. xvi + 1862 pp.
al-Baqillani, Abu Bakr, M. 1985. I‘jazA l-Qur’an. Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyya. 328 pp.
Barnwell, K. 1983. “Towards Acceptable Translations”. Notes on Translation Vol. 95, pp. 19–25.
al-Bundaq, Muḥammad Saliḥ 1983. Al-Mustashriqun wa Tarjamat Al-Qur’an Al-Karim, Beirut:
Dar Al-’Afaq Al-Jadida. 238 pp.
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 310 pp.
France, R. 1981. “The Formulae-Quotations of Matthew 2 and the Problem of Communication.”
New Testament Studies Vol. 27, pp. 233–251.
al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid 1932. Ijam al-‘Awam ‘an ‘Ilm al-Kalam. Cairo: Idarat Aṭ-ṭiba‘a al-
Muniriyya. 142 pp.
Gutt, E. 2000. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Manchester & Boston: St.
Jerome Publishing:. xi + 271 pp.
House, J. 1981. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.
344 pp.
House, J. 1981. 2001. “Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social
Evaluation”. Meta, Vol. XLVI, No. 2, pp. 243–257.
Ibn Kathir, A. 1997. Tafsir Al-Qur’an Al-Azim. First Edition. Al-Maktaba Al-Asriyya: Beirut.
Vol. I 583 pp., vol. II 1165 pp., vol. III 1790 pp., vol. IV 2392 pp.
Ibn Qutaiba, Abu Muḥammad 1954. Ta’wil Mushkil al-Qur’an. (ed.) by Saqr Ahmed. Cairo: Dar
Iḥya’ ul-Kutub l-‘Arabiyya. 705 pp.
al-Jurjani, ‘Abd al-Qahir ‘Abd al-Rahman. 1981. Dala’il Al-’I‘jaz. Beirut: Dar-Al-Ma‘rifa. 363 pp.
Lewis, F. 1998. “Translating the Hidden Words”, by Diana Malouf. An extended review. In:
Baha'i Studies Review 8. London: Association for Bahá’í Studies. pp. 1–16.

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
16 Aladdin Al-­Kharabsheh and Bakri Al-­Azzam

Nida, E. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Proce-
dures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill. x + 331 pp.
Nida, E., and Taber C. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill. 220 pp.
Pickthall, M. 2002. The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an: Explanatory Translation. Revised edi-
tion. Beltsville, Maryland: Amana Publications. xxxiv + 709 pp.
Presidency 1992. The Holy Qur’an: English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary. Re-
vised and edited by the Presidency of Islamic Researchers, IFTA, Call and Guidance. The
Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy
Qur’an: Al-Madinah Al-Munawarah, Saudi Arabia. x + 2082 pp.
Sinclair, John, et al. 1999. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary. London: HarperCollins. xxxix +
1951
al-Rafi‘i, M. Sadiq 1945. I‘jaz Al-Qur’an wa l-Balagha Al-Nabawiyya. Cairo: Matba‘at al-Istiqama.
334 pp.
al-Razi, M. Fakhr al-Din 2000. Mafatiḥ l-Ghaib. Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub l- ‘Ilmiyya. Vol. I 267 pp.,
vol. II 239 pp.
al-Sabuni, M. 2001. Safwat Al-Tafasir. First edition. Beirut: Dar Al-Jil. Vol. I 568 pp., vol. II
558 pp., vol. III 624 pp.
al-Shafi‘i, Muḥammad 1961. Islamic Jurisprudence: Shafi‘i Risala, trans. by Majid Khadduri. Bal-
timore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 587 pp.
Ullmann, S. 1972. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.
278 pp.
al-Zamakhshari, A. 2005. Al-Kashshaf. Beirut: Dar Al-Ma’rifa. 1233 pp.

Abstract

This study investigates the translation of semantically invisible lexical elements (SILEs), which
constitute a Qur’anic-specific, linguistic phenomenon that has never been addressed in Arabic-
English translation studies. An SILE is defined here as any Quranic-lexical element that, osten-
sively, has a visible meaning, normally mistakingly taken to be the intended one, and another
invisible meaning that acts as the intended meaning, and which is extricably bound up to skip
recognition in the act of any customary reading of the text and context in which it figures.
To prove that SILEs present insurmountable translational hurdles, this paper analyzes some
of the problems and difficulties associated with rendering a number of SILE instances taken
from the Qur’an. The examples of the study were taken from three selected official transla-
tions of the Qur’an, namely, Ali’s (1983) The Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary; The
Presidency’s (1992) The Holy Qur’an: English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary;
and Pickthall’s (2002) The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an: Explanatory Translation. The three
translations of each SILE were semantically compared and contrasted in reference to three chief
Muslim exegeses, viz. Ibn Kathir’s (1997) Tafseer Al-Qur’an Al-Kareem; Al-Sabuni’s (2001) Saf-
wat Al-Tafaseer; and Al-Zamakhshari’s (2005) Al-Kashshaf. Alongside investigating the relevant
texts and contexts of the selected SILEs, the three exegeses were also used as the point of depar-
ture in the detection and identification of the invisible meaning, and evaluation of the three se-
lected translations.
The study shows that SILEs are translationally problematic and elusive in the sense that
they incessantly trigger an inevitable translation loss. Besides, translating these cases requires

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
 Translating the invisible in the Qur’an 17

possessing a working linguistic-exegetical background, without which the results would be un-
satisfactory and misrepresenting. Finally, sound interpretation and proper rendering of any
given SILE hinge not only on its textual context or broader context (the scriptural-theological
context), but also on the combination of both. Peripheralizing this combination revealed that
many semantic nuances and idiosyncrasies of the selected SILEs were either partially conveyed,
or totally dropped out. Failure to grasp the invisible meaning in the selected translations was
also accounted for.

Résumé

Cette étude examine la traduction des éléments lexicaux sémantiquement invisibles (ELSIs), qui
constituent un phénomène linguistique spécifique au Coran qui n’a jamais été traité dans la
traductologie arabo-anglaise. Un ELSI est défini ici comme tout élément lexical coranique qui
a, ostensiblement, une signification visible, habituellement considérée à tort comme voulue, et
une autre signification invisible qui fait office de signification voulue et qui est inextricablement
destinée à ne pas être reconnue pendant une lecture habituelle du texte et du contexte dans le-
quel il figure.
Afin de prouver que les ELSIs présentent des obstacles insurmontables en traduction, cet ar-
ticle analyse certains problèmes et difficultés associés à la traduction d’un certain nombre d’EL-
SIs, tirés du Coran. Aux fins de l’étude, trois traductions officielles du Coran ont été sélection-
nées, à savoir The Holy Qur’an : Translation and Commentary d’Ali (1983), The Holy Qur’an :
English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary de la Présidence (1992) et The meaning of
the glorious Qur’an : explanatory Translation de Pickthall (2002). Les trois traductions de cha-
que ELSI ont été comparées sémantiquement et opposées en référence à trois principales exé-
gèses musulmanes, notamment Tafseer Al-Qur’an Al-Kareem d’Ibn Kahtir (1997), Safwat Al-
Tafaseer d’Al-Sabuni (2001) et Al-Kashshaf d’Al-Zamakhshari (2005). Outre l’examen des textes
et contextes pertinents des ELSIs sélectionnés, les trois exégèses ont aussi été utilisées comme
point de départ de la détection et de l’identification de la signification invisible, et de l’évaluation
des trois traductions sélectionnées.
L’étude a montré que les ELSIs sont problématiques et élusifs en traduction, en ce sens qu’ils
provoquent sans cesse une inévitable perte de traduction. De plus, la traduction de ces cas né-
cessite une formation linguistique-exégétique sans laquelle les résultats sont insatisfaisants et
déformants. Enfin, une bonne interprétation et une traduction correcte de tout ELSI ne por-
te pas seulement sur son contexte textuel ou sur un contexte plus large (le contexte biblique et
théologique) mais également sur une combinaison des deux. La périphéralisation de cette com-
binaison a révélé que de nombreuses nuances sémantiques et particularités des ELSIs sélection-
nés étaient soit transmises partiellement, soit complètement supprimées. L’incapacité de saisir
la signification invisible dans les traductions sélectionnées a également été expliquée

About the authors

Dr. Al-Kharabsheh is an assistant professor of Translation. He obtained his B.A. in English
language and literature from Yarmouk University, Jordan (1996), his M. A. in Translation from
Yarmouk University (1999), and his PhD in Translation from The University of Salford, UK
(2003). He has taught Translation, English Linguistics and Arabic Grammar in the UK for

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
18 Aladdin Al-­Kharabsheh and Bakri Al-­Azzam

three years (2000–2003). Al-Kharabsheh has been teaching Translation, Interpreting, and
English linguistics at the English Department at The Hashemite University, Jordan since 2003.
Al-Kharabsheh's main research interests include translation and interpreting, comparative and
contrastive linguistics, lexical semantics, pragmatic semantics, and corpus-based translation
studies. His recent publication (2005) is entitled "The Interpretation of Terminological Con-
structions: The Case of Technico-Scientific Nominal Compounds" Journal of Language and Lin-
guistics, Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 161–182.
Address: The English Department, The Hashemite University, P. O. Box 330186, Zarqa 13133,
Jordan.
Email: alakh74@hu.edu.jo/alakh22@yahoo.com
Dr. Al-Azzam is an assistant professor of Translation. He obtained his B.A in English Lan-
guage and Literature from Yarmouk University, Jordan (1991), his MA in Translation from Yar-
mouk University, Jordan (1998), and his PhD in Translation from the University of Durham, UK
(2005). He worked as a full-time lecturer of English at Jordan University of Science and Tech-
nology (1999–2002), a lecturer of Arabic at Durham University, UK (2003–2005), and a lecturer
of Arabic at the Centre for Lifelong Learning at the University of Sunderland, UK (2004–2005).
Presently, he is teaching at the Department of English at the Hashemite University, Jordan. He
is mainly interested in religious translation, literary translation, cultural issues in translation,
interpretation, and semantics.
Address: The English Department, The Hashemite University, P. O. Box 330186, Zarqa 13133,
Jordan.
Email: bakri_h2004@yahoo.com

TRADUIRE
TRADUIRE TRADUIRE

Revue de la Société Française des Traducteurs

TRADUIRE, revue trimestrielle, réunit des articles d’auteurs de tous hori-

zons – praticiens, théoriciens, terminologues, donneurs d’ouvrage, gens
de lettres – dans des numéros tantôt thématiques, tantôt hétérogènes.
Outre les articles de fond, interviews, enquêtes et autres tribunes,
TRADUIRE rend compte des différentes manifestations telles que col-
loques, ateliers, Journée mondiale de la traduction, organisées par la
Société Française des Traducteurs et par d’autres instances, ainsi que
des publications – revues, dictionnaires, ouvrages traductologiques – in-
téressant les traducteurs aussi bien au titre immédiat de leur pratique
quotidienne que comme horizon de réflexion.
Abonnement (4 numéros par an): € 58 TTC pour la France (tarif 2007)
Autres pays: contacter le sécretariat.
TRADUIRE / Société Française des Traducteurs
S.F.T. certex, 22, Rue de la Pépinière – 75008 Paris – France
Téléphone: +33 1 42 93 99 96 – Télécopie: +33 1 45 22 33 55
Courriel: secretariat@sft.fr

© 2008. Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel

All rights reserved
View publication stats