Translating the Qur'an: A Question for Bill Walsh
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
May 20, 2011 at 11:54pm
Bill, yesterday a Turkish friend who speaks good, colloquial English--self-taught, mostly from television--asked me for my recommendation about which version of the Qur'an I'd recommend in English translation. He said he was tired of endlessly being told "That's what the Qur'an says"--he wanted to read it for himself. (Interestingly, he never has, and I gather this is true of quite a number of Turks.)
What translation would you recommend for accuracy, first, and for accessibility to an advanced but non-native reader of English? The Pickthall translation would be a bit too hard, I think.
What about critical commentary?
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: Translating the Qur'an: A Question for Bill Walsh
Hmm, I think N.J. Dawood’s version that’s available from Penguin is good.
The A.J. Arberry version is also pretty widely quoted in scholarly works.
Mar '11
Re: Translating the Qur'an: A Question for Bill Walsh
Yep, the Penguin version is supposed to be the best.
You have to remember, though, that it can't be translated. It's spiritual power lies in it's original words - translate it, and you miss the whole point. Kinda like Rumi and Hafez.
As for critical commentary, I really like Robert Spencer.
May '10
Re: Translating the Qur'an: A Question for Bill Walsh
Never read it, but I always roll my eyes when people focus too much on the violent bits. The Bible has violent bits too. It's a younger religion by several centuries, that still has actual Theocracies, hence explaining the bloody borders.
Interesting to know who's read the Bible. Not sure I've read all of it. There's probably a poll out there, but polls lie on matters like this.
Oct '10
Re: Translating the Qur'an: A Question for Bill Walsh
There isn't a Turkish translation? How terribly peculiar.
Feb '11
Re: Translating the Qur'an: A Question for Bill Walsh
Any opinion on the one by M A S Abdel Haleem? That’s the one I have. It’s readable, and published by Oxford World Classics of Oxford University Press.
Re: Translating the Qur'an: A Question for Bill Walsh
Sure there are. But he thought an English one might be better.
Re: Translating the Qur'an: A Question for Bill Walsh
David Williamson: Yep, the Penguin version is supposed to be the best.
You have to remember, though, that it can't be translated. It's spiritual power lies in it's original words - translate it, and you miss the whole point. Kinda like Rumi and Hafez.
Well, if you don't read Arabic and want to have some idea what it says, you're obviously better off reading a good translation than trusting to "What everyone says it says."
May '11
Re: Translating the Qur'an: A Question for Bill Walsh
I thought that the act of translating it alone was against the Muslim faith? :)
I have an Indian friend who is a Bohras Muslim was a bit surprised that there were English translations, as he had learned Arabic so he could read the Koran, not just be told what was written in it.
I've read the bible, but I've never really studied it, two very different things.
Oct '10
Re: Translating the Qur'an: A Question for Bill Walsh
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Sure there are. But he thought an English one might be better. · May 21 at 5:42am
You reply without the slightest hint of irony. I'm impressed.
Jan '11
Re: Translating the Qur'an: A Question for Bill Walsh
I like the Arberry translation, but let me make another, somewhat off-the-wall suggestion? There is a dated and probably not terribly accurate translation by J.M. Rodwell which organizes the chapters in the order in which they were supposed to have been revealed to Muhammed. (It's free for Kindle.) I found it very interesting to read through the Koran in this version, particularly after I'd been reading some scholarly books debating the very existence of Muhammed and arguing that the Koran was pieced together from bits of Syro-Aramaic liturgies.
Reading the suras in this sequence, I got a very strong sense of an individual voice speaking (and frothing at the mouth). It also seemed to me that the sequence of "revelations" followed a common trajectory for a religious cult leader. It begins with exhortations to belief and assertions of commonality with Jews and Christians, moves on to defensiveness about his lack of miracles and the bits of the Torah that he got wrong, and towards the end (when the cult is powerful and successful) revelations that unbelievers can and should be killed and that God says The Leader can have any woman he wants.
Mar '11
Re: Translating the Qur'an: A Question for Bill Walsh
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Well, if you don't read Arabic and want to have some idea what it says, you're obviously better off reading a good translation than trusting to "What everyone says it says."
I have gotten into many discussions about this, concerning Hafez - people have told me that you have to learn Farsi to understand him, and even then you won't get it unless you were brought up in the culture. After reading many English translations, I have to reluctantly agree - I will never get Hafez.
Similarly, converts to Islam are strongly advised to learn Arabic. The traditional way of reading the Koran is to memorize the whole thing, and recite it, out loud, by heart (btw, this is the meaning of Hafez's name - memorizer of the Koran - he did). I don't know what proportion of those who do this understand the words - probably very few.
But, again, if you are trying to find any meaning in the words, you are missing the whole point.
As to comparing the Bible and Koran, there are huge differences. Again I defer to Robert Spencer, who has discussed this at great length - it takes more than 200 words :-)
Edited on May 21, 2011 at 11:06amMar '11
Re: Translating the Qur'an: A Question for Bill Walsh
Margaret Ball:
Reading the suras in this sequence, I got a very strong sense of an individual voice speaking (and frothing at the mouth). It also seemed to me that the sequence of "revelations" followed a common trajectory for a religious cult leader.
Thanks for the suggestion, Margaret - as it is free, I will check it out :-)
That sounds like a fair description - I don't want to make it sound like Robert Spencer is the only expert on this (he is just the one I have read the most, and have respect for), but he has described very clearly the concept of Abrogation, where the later verses in time annul the earlier verses in time (as Maragaret points out, not related to the position of verses in the text). The later ones in time are the violent ones, unfortunately.
This point, which is crucial, is often glossed over by people trying to maintain that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the Bible also has violent verses (of course, the Bible goes from violence to peace, not the other way round).
Update: I had a quick look - I'd stay with Penguin or Arberry.
Edited on May 21, 2011 at 2:16pmRe: Translating the Qur'an: A Question for Bill Walsh
AngloCon
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Sure there are. But he thought an English one might be better. · May 21 at 5:42am
You reply without the slightest hint of irony. I'm impressed. · May 21 at 8:35am
Odd, it didn't occur to me there was an irony in it--too deep into Turkish culture, I guess, to realize this might need some explaining. The background is that there was no full Turkish translation at all until the late 1930s, when one was brought out on Ataturk's orders. Recent versions (since the 1980s) have challenged the State's version of Islam, to great controversy. The various translations are extremely different; you can find one to support pretty much any interpretation of Islam you favor. This article is a good summary of the situation. So I guess he's looking for one that isn't quite so much about contemporary Turkish politics and more about what it actually says.
Jun '10
Re: Translating the Qur'an: A Question for Bill Walsh
Very interesting discussion. Thanks, Claire. (And Bill and Margaret et al).