Orientalism

The main purpose of this paper is to verify the applicability of ╒ad┘th source criticism for detecting textual additions made by reliable narrators. We attempt in this paper to apply this methodology to date the addition of the word tur┐b to the tradition of ╓udhayfah, on the permissibility of using clean soil for performing tayammum (dry ablution), who is responsible for adding it and to see whether we are to regard it as a part of the original statement of the Prophet or not. 

This paper provides an assessment of translation of Hadith discourse in light of Venuti's (1995) strategies of 'domestication' versus 'foreiginization'. It aims at testing the applicability and adequacy of using such strategies by various translators of the six canonical books of hadith, based on the assumption that opting for either 'domestication' or 'foreignization' is left to the discretion of the translator according to specific factors such as the background of his readership, the goal of the target text and the message of the source text.

with respect to its syntactic, semantic, lexical, and rhetorical features? The samples discussed in this study pose challenges for a translator of any religious text, particularly Arabic religious texts. 1. Ṣahīḥ al-Bukhārī and its Translations 1.1. Introductory Remarks on Ṣahīḥ al-Bukhārī Discounting all repetitions, Bukhārī contains 2602 Prophetic traditions. It is divided into 106 books and a total of 3450 chapters. Each chapter bears a heading that is descriptive of its contents. It seems that al-Bukhārī usually took a portion of the ḥadīth for the chapter headings, however, the numerous headings make the work somewhat difficult to use. He used less exacting criteria for the traditions 3 that he used as headings for some of his chapters, and in a corroborative manner for the principal ones. In such cases, "he often omits all or part of the isnād, and in certain cases relies on weak authorities" (Siddiqi, 1993:57). Readers of Ṣahīḥ with deep insight will realize that the author compiled his book, not merely as an anthology of accounts, but also as a rich fountain of knowledge covering all areas of the Islamic religion. "Apparently he used the tarājim (chapter headings) as a convenient and relevant space for expounding his own views, or the opinions of others that he supported and wanted to advocate" (Abdul-Rauf, 16). Khan does not provide English translations for many of Bukhārī's titles (vol. 6:412, 413). In some cases, he does not fully translate the titles, though they bear significance to the book. The way he translates tarājim indicates that Khan is not aware of their significance or the methodology Bukhārī adopted in his selection of words and quotations. Bukhārī's Ṣahīḥ is not simply a collection of authentic ḥadiths; rather, it is also a classic work of fiqh. For this reason, al-Bukhārī does not record the entire ḥadīth each time he mentions it. It was his practice (though not in every case) to record only that portion of the ḥadīth relevant to the chapter. Thus, he repeats many ḥadīths throughout his work. It is imperative that the translator compare all the repetitions and consider the jurisprudential impact of mentioning them in particular places in order to fully understand their meanings. Some of the crucial inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Khan's translation of Bukhārī' were a natural outcome the translator being unaware of this fact. Bukhārī himself entitled his work Al-Jāmi' al-Ṣahīḥ al-Musnad al-Mukhtaṣar min Ḥadīthi Rasūl Allah wa Sunanihi wa Ayyāmih. This is indicative of Bukhārī's methodology and approach. The word al-Jāmi' 33 I will use the term 'tradition' as synonym to ḥ adīth.