Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ross did not know Arabic and relied completely on tht French
translation by Andrew Du Ryer... He translated word for word from
the French.0 Owing to his total unfamiliarity with Arabic and Islamic
(extS. Ross does not cite even a single Muslim source in his notes on
the Quran. Worse, he attributes to Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him) such statements which he never made. tintil the publication
of George Sales translation in 1734, i.e. for more than a century,
however, this extremely defective translation served as the main
source of the study of the Quran and Islam in English.
Notwithstanding its markedly polemical tenor, it stands out as the first
English translation, which paved the way for the study of the Quran in
England on a wider scale in the years to corne. Though it was eclipsed
by Sales translation, it was reprinted at regular intervals in the US in
the nineteenth century. Since 1948, however, it has not been reissued. Rosss work is a telling example of all the characteristics of an
Orientalist writing on Islam sheer hostility and bigotry towards all
things Islamic which Muslims regard as sacred; polemical/missionary
motive behind the writing; shockingly Insufficient knowledge of
Islamic texts and serving the sole objective of misguiding and
prejudicing readers against Islam. The narrowness of Rosss stance is
betrayed by his labelling Islam as a Turkish religion. His audacity
in having translated the Quran without possessing any knowledge of
Arabic is Outrageous.
REFERENCES
1. Heruy Stubbe, AnAaouniof the RAie md Progress of Mahometan
As,, uith the Lije of Ma/jomet, ed. Hafiz Mahmud Khan Shirani.
Lahore, Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1954-1959. 2. George Sale. The
Koran. London, Fredreick Warne, 1734. vii. 3. Nahil Matar,
Alexander Ross and the First English Translation of the Quran,
Muslim W&88:1 (January 1998), 82 and 85. Publication details of
the first edition: LOndo, 1649. &O3 pages
called
the
Alcoran
of
George Sale, the son of a London merchant, studied law and Arabic.
In view of his mastery over Arabic, the Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge (SPCK), London, selected him as a member of
the team entrusted with the job of producing the Arabic translation of
the New Testament for promoting Christianity among the Arabicspeaking people. Prompted by his own interest in the Quran and by
his close association with the SPCK, Sale decided to undertake the
English translation of the Qui-an. He was aware of the deficiencies in
the European translations of the Quran. However, his main motive
behind his venture was polemical, as is evident from his own
statement of intent: imagine it almost needless either to make an
apology for publishing the following translation, or to go about to
prove it as a work of use as well as curiosity.., it is absolutely
necessaty to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair
translations which have appeared, have entertained too favorable an
opinion of the original, and also to enable us effecnially to expose the
imposture... For the Koran being so manifest a forgery! The
Protestants alone are able to attack the Koran with success, and for
them, I think Providence has reserved the glory of its overthrow. Not
content with even this, he offers detailed instructions to Christian
missionaries as to how they should COflvCit Muslims to Christian
faith. Unlike his predecessor in the field, Alexander Ross, Sale was
conversant with both the Arabic language and tajuir corpus. Yet his
translation suffers from every conceivable type of defect
omissions, mistranslations and interpolation of extraneous material
into the body of the translation. In his brilliant critique, Ghulam
Sarwar identifies numerous instances of the unpardonable liberties
taken by Sale: just as Sale distorts the meaning of the Holy Quran by
substitution of O Men of Mecca for the general expression O men
or O mankind in the same he puts in (y. 143, ch. 2) You O
predecessors, namely, Ross, Sale, Rodwell and Bell for the lack of
scholarly impartiality in their approach to the Quran. He illustrates, in
particular, how Bell, as a representative of Higher Criticism, threw
himself with brisk enthusiasm into the task of demolishing the
Koran. Far from others who see little merit in the form or contents of
the Quran, he pays glowing homage to the rhetorical and rhythmical
patterns which are the glory and sublimity of the Koran.4 Yet these
valuable elements should not blind one to some serious incongruities
in his work which appear all the more odd in view of his enviable
command over Arabic. There are instances of omission and
mistranslation too, to which we would revert later in this piece. First,
bet us begin with some inexplicable and intriguing aspects of his
work: o His thirty-one pages long Preface does not say a word about
the contents or message of the Quran. Although he produced this
work specifically for the Western, non-Muslim readers, it never
occurs to him to introduce the Quran to them. Being new to the Quran
his target readership needed all the more some guidance on the
subject matter, themes and impact of the Quran. This gap appears
more marked because his work does not have even a single
explanatory note. It consists only of the translation of the text and a
short Index, bereft of any background material on the Quranic
personalities, allusions, and historical events. Without any
commentary or authorial notes, a translation alone cannot and does
not advance the understanding of the Quran, especially of those
studying it for the first time. o Equally hard to justify is his use of
archaic, outdated expressions of the King James Bible in a work
published in 1955. His readers must have found these expressions
mostly incomprehensible. The preponderance of such obsolete words
comes out sharply in the following instances: Thee only we serve; to
Thee alone we pray for SUCCOUr Guide us on the straight path, The
path of those who Thou hast blessed, Not of those against whom Thou
art wrathful, Nor of those who are astray. Here is another passage
littered with unintelligible words: My Lord, hast Thou willed Thou
wou/dst have destroyed them before, and me. Wilt Thou destroy us
for what the foolish ones Of us have done? It is only T4y trial
whereby Thou kaaest astray whom Thou wilt, and uidest Whom
Thou wilt. Thou ad our Protector. o Nowhere in his work has Arberry
mentioned the Arabic Surah titles; these appear only in their English
version. At places, he employs highly unusual ones: Surah 30 al-Rum
as The Greeks Surah 07 al-Araf as the Battlement Surah 35 Fatir as
the Angels Surah 25 al-Furqan as Salvation Surah 56 al-Waqiah at
The Terror Both the Surahs 23 and 40, al-Muminun and al-Mumin
respectively are assigned the same title The Believers o As already
indicated, Arberrys works is without any explanatory notes. As a
result, one gets no idea about his mindset regarding things Quranic.
Only the Index to his work provides some clues about his approach
which is, in several instances, flawed. The Quran relates at length
Prophet Abrahams quest for truth, stating how he discarded one after
another such objects of nature as the sun, the moon and stars as
unworthy of the Lordship. In the Index, however, this episode is
branded as Abrahams conversion. This description does not do
justice to the import of the Quran. According to the Quran, after
mans creation. Allah directed the angels to prostrate before him.
Arberry refers to it under the misleading heading, Adam worshipped
by the angels.8 Quranic scholars have tried, down the ages, to
identify the historicity of Dhu al-Qarnayn. There is divergence of
opinion among them about his true identity, as they cite different
personalities in this context, ranging from 1) Alexander the Great to
(2) a pre-historic king contemporary with Prophet Abraham (peace
and blessings be upon him) bearing the identical name of Alexander,
(3) a king of Persia, Ram and (4) a pre-historic Himyarite king from
Yemen. However, Arberry arbitrarily equates Dhu al Qarnayn with
Alexander the Great9 It is recorded in Surah al-Ahqaf that Allah made
some jinn listen to the Quran. Arberry, however, places this incident
under the index heading Jinn listen to Muhammad.OO) This readily
brings to mind the Orientalist stance about the Prophets authorship of
superfluity Grandson or additional gift 4. Fatir 35 34 Shakur Allthankful All-Appreciative 5. Al-Shura 42 23 Shakur Mi-thankful AllAppreciative 6. Al-Taghabun 64 17 Shakur All-thankful AllAppreciative 7. Al-Baqarah 2 158 Shakr All-thankful All-Responsive
8. Al-Araf 7 157 al-nabi Prophet of common folk al-ummi or The
unlettered Prophet 9. Al-Araf 7 158 al-nabi Prophet of common folk
al-ummi or The unlettered Prophet In his brilliant analysis,
Muhammad Mohar Mi provides many more instances of Arberrys a)
employment of Christian theological terms that distort the meaning of
the Quran, b) distortion of the meaning, c) mistakes owing to his
failure to understand the Quranic expressions, d) additions to or
omissions from the original, and e) mistakes on account of his
carelessness. Only some of these are recounted below: (a) Equally
purposeful is his translation of the first part of qyab 14:27 as God
confirms those who believe with the firm word. The clear meaning
Ofyuthabbitu is he establishes or makes firm. The term
confirmation has a very well known sense in Christian theology
signifying the rite by which people are admitted to full communion
in many Christian churches, to confirm means to put through a
ceremony to admit to fiji! religious communion. Again, a very
significant twist is given in translating the initial clause of 16:102, as
Say: The Holy Spirit sent it down from thy Lord. (The term nih a/quas is another name for the angel Jibril and he is meant here. But
Arberry gives a double twist here. Fie capitalizes [the Holy Spirit] ...
so as to make it conform to the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit,
and he translates nana/a as sent down, though it also means
brought down and which is the sense here, especially as the phrase
from your Lord follows it. . (b) The clause in 2:58 is translated as:
and say, Unburdening; We will forgive your transgressions. ...
Arberry translates the expression biteab as Unhurdening, writing it
with a capital letter and putting a semicolon after it. This makes the
sense unintelligibl, violates the grammatical from of its being a
conditional clause and makes the clause We will forgive you appear