Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00.

© Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

Islamic religious terms in English – translation

vs. transliteration in Ezzeddin Ibrahim and
The International Journal for
Denys Johnson-Davies’ translation of An-
Translation & Interpreting
Research
Nawawī’s Forty Ḥadīths
trans-int.org

Sameh Hassan
Suez Canal University, Egypt
[email protected]

DOI: 10.12807/ti.108201.2016.a08

Abstract: This article examines the problem of translation versus transliteration of Islamic
Religious Terms (IRTs) into English. The main objective of the article is to semantically
investigate translation versus transliteration of IRTs in English as lexical items that include
names of Allah, names of prophets and their companions, names of sacred places, and
terms related to the pillars and rituals of Islam so as to determine situations where either of
the two techniques should be applied. Hence, the article discusses the use of translation
versus transliteration in Ezzeddin Ibrahim and Denys Johnson-Davies’ translation of An-
Nawawī’s Forty Ḥadīths (2002) as an example of an Islamic religious discourse in English
where the conflict between the two techniques is apparent. Based on the discussion and
analysis of some examples of IRTs from the selected translation, I conclude the article by
pointing out that translation of IRTs into English is only appropriate when words of the
source language (SL) and words of the target language (TL) are cross-culturally
equivalent, having the same referents and connotations in both languages, while
transliteration is recommended for all other IRT situations in which SL and TL words are
partially-equivalent or non-equivalent.

Keywords: translation, transliteration, Islamic religious terms, equivalence, non-

equivalence, culture-specific terms

1. Introduction

Over a long period of time, academic researchers in the field of translation studies
have posed questions on certain issues related to the translation of sacred and
religious texts, which Douglas Robinson (2000, p. 103-107) summarizes as
follows: Can or should religious texts be translated? How, when, for whom, and
with what safeguards or controls should religious texts be translated? Is a
translated religious text still sacred, or is it a mere ‘copy’ of the sacred text? The
result is that two approaches toward the translation of religious texts can be
distinguished: untranslatability and translatability. As Ali Yunis Aldahesh (2014)
notes:

Scholars are of two different standpoints as to translatability/untranslatability of texts

from a given source language into any target language. While some of them (e.g.,
Von Humboldt, Quine, Virginia Woolf, among others) insist that translation is
ultimately impossible, others (e.g., Newmark) believe that everything is translatable
and can be translated either directly or indirectly into a target language. (p. 25).

Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 117

Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

Aldahesh argues that the latter standpoint, i.e. translatability, seems to be

more reasonable than the former one, i.e. untranslatability “due to the expansion
in the concept of translation, and the many strategies that a translator can resort to
when confronted with a linguistic and/or cultural gap between two languages”
(2014, p. 26).
According to the first standpoint, i.e. untranslatability, a religious sacred text,
or the source text (ST) in translation terms, represents what is divine, whereas the
translated text, or the target text (TT), represents what is human. Since it is
impossible for the word of the human to be equal to that of the Divine, it would be
impossible to translate religious texts. A quite distinctive opinion related to
untranslatability is provided by the German language philosopher Walter
Benjamin, who argues that a “sacred text is untranslatable (…) precisely because
the meaning and the letter cannot be dissociated” (Derrida, 1985, p. 103).
Conversely, the second standpoint, i.e. translatability, makes it clear that it is
necessary for all humans to understand religious texts, and this need is served by
translating the form and content of the ST as faithfully as possible into the target
language. The translatability approach involves a number of strategies which
revolve around two main approaches to equivalence. The first approach seeks to
achieve “formal equivalence” which “focuses attention on the message itself, in
both form and content. In such a translation one is concerned with such
correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to
concept” (Nida, 1964b, p. 156). The second approach is influenced by what
Eugene Nida (1964a, p. 159) describes as “dynamic equivalence” which means
that “[t]he relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the
same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message.” That
is to say, the translator aims to translate the text into the level of linguistic aptitude
common to the receptor’s language.
A judicious balancing of translation approaches and choice of strategies is
not merely an academic question: as stated by Khaleel Mohammed (2005, p. 58),
“[s]ince fewer than 20 percent of Muslims speak Arabic, this means that most
Muslims study the text only in translation.” The continuous growth of Muslim
communities in English-speaking countries has been accompanied by increased
demand for authoritative English versions of religious texts such as the Qur’ān
and Ḥadīth. In this context, the rendering of Islamic religious terms (IRTs) into
English also acquires special significance. In this article, IRTs are lexical items
that include names of Allah (Al-Raḥmān 1, Al-Raḥīm, etc.), names of the prophets
(Muḥammad, Nūḥ, Mūsā, etc.) and their companions (Abū Bakr, ʻAlī, Abū
Hurayrah, etc.), names of sacred places (Makkah, Madīnah, etc.), and terms
related to the pillars of Islam (shahādah, ṣalāh, zakāh, etc.), fiqh and sacred texts
(Qur’ān and Ḥadīths).
The Qur’ān and Ḥadīths are considered the two primary sources of sharī‘ah
(i.e. moral and religious laws) in Islam. The Qur’ān, the main religious text of
Islam, is the word of Allah, and Ḥadīths are the sayings and statements of Prophet
Muḥammad that are regarded as important tools for understanding the Qur’ān.
With regard to Islamic religious texts, and the Qur’ān and Ḥadīths in particular,
translators ought to take into consideration certain textual qualities and
constraints. In Muslim belief and tradition, the sacred or central religious texts are
protected by Allah from any tampering or interpolation by any human, including

1
The transliteration system used in this article is the ALA-LC (1997) Romanization for
Arabic. In their translation, Ibrāhīm and Johnson-Davies followed the transliteration
system of the Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd edition, 1960–2005).
Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 118
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

translators. Allah has promised to protect the Holy Book, (9 ‫﴿إِﻧﱠﺎ ﻧَﺤْ ﻦُ ﻧَ ﱠﺰ ْﻟﻨَﺎ اﻟ ﱢﺬ ْﻛ َﺮ )اﻟﺤﺠﺮ‬
﴾ َ‫ َوإِﻧﱠﺎ ﻟَﮫُ ﻟَ َﺤﺎﻓِﻈُﻮن‬, which Al-Hilali and Khan (1999) translate as, “Verily, We, It is We
Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur’ān) and surely, We will guard it
(from corruption)” (Al-Ḥijr, 9), and to punish those who dare to change His
words,(79 ‫ﷲ﴾ )اﻟﺒﻘﺮة‬ ‫َﺎب ﺑِﺄ َ ْﯾ ِﺪﯾ ِﮭ ْﻢ ﺛُ ﱠﻢ ﯾَﻘُﻮﻟُﻮنَ ھَ َﺬا ِﻣ ْﻦ ِﻋ ْﻨ ِﺪ ﱠ‬
َ ‫“ ﴿ﻓَ َﻮ ْﯾ ٌﻞ ﻟِﻠﱠ ِﺬﯾﻦَ ﯾَ ْﻜﺘُﺒُﻮنَ ْاﻟ ِﻜﺘ‬Then woe to
those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, ‘This is from
Allah’” (Al-Hilali & Khan, 1999, Al-Baqarah, 79). A similar warning is made by
Prophet Muḥammad to those who might dare change the meaning of his
statements or narrate a ḥadīth knowing it to be false. The Prophet said, ‫ﻲ‬ ‫ب َﻋﻠَ ﱠ‬َ ‫) َﻣ ْﻦ َﻛ َﺬ‬
(‫ﺎر‬ ‫ﱠ‬ ‫ﻨ‬‫اﻟ‬ َ‫ﻦ‬‫ﻣ‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ﺪ‬
َ ‫ﻌ‬‫ﻘ‬ْ
ِ ُ َ َ َ َ‫ﻣ‬ ْ
‫ﱠأ‬‫ﻮ‬ ‫ﺒ‬َ ‫ﺘ‬‫ﯿ‬‫ﻠ‬ْ َ ‫ﻓ‬ ‫ًا‬
‫ﺪ‬ ‫ﻤ‬‫ﻌ‬ َ
‫ُ َﱢ‬ ‫ﺘ‬‫ﻣ‬
ِ , which Muhsin Khan (1996) translates as “Do not tell a lie
against me for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely
enter the Hell-fire” [1:106-O.B.] (Summarized Ṣaḥīḥ Al-Bukhāri, Chapter 28,
Ḥadīth 90).
Another unique quality of religious texts in Islam is that their Arabic nature is
highly stressed. The Qur’ān, for example, uses a heightened form of Arabic that is
unlike any other Arabic text in its manner and use of language ‫﴿إِﻧﱠﺎ أَﻧﺰ َْﻟﻨَﺎهُ ﻗُﺮْ آﻧًﺎ َﻋ َﺮﺑِﯿًّﺎ‬
(2 ‫“ ﻟﱠ َﻌﻠﱠ ُﻜ ْﻢ ﺗَ ْﻌﻘِﻠُﻮن﴾ )ﯾﻮﺳﻒ‬Verily, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’ān in order
that you may understand” (Al-Hilali & Khan, 1999, Yūsūf, 2). This point is
emphasized by Mahmoud Ayoub (1997, p. xi), who maintains that because the
Qur’ān stresses its Arabic nature, Muslim scholars believe that any translation
cannot be more than an approximate interpretation, intended only as a tool for the
study and understanding of the original Arabic text. Similarly, Ahmed Abdel
Fattah M. Ali (2006, p.19) states that “The Qur’ān exists in its original language,
i.e. Arabic. Muslim scholars unanimously agree that the Qur’ān is only the Qur’ān
when it is in Arabic, in its original wording as revealed to Prophet Muḥammad
(peace be upon him)”. Indeed, this notion of the Arabic nature of the Qur’ān is
confirmed throughout the Qur’ān. The Arabic nature of the Prophet’s Ḥadīths is
also emphasised, (4 ‫“ ) َو َﻣﺎ أَرْ َﺳ ْﻠﻨَﺎ ِﻣﻦ ﱠرﺳُﻮ ٍل إِﻻﱠ ﺑِﻠِ َﺴﺎ ِن ﻗَﻮْ ِﻣ ِﮫ ﻟِﯿُﺒَﯿﱢﻦَ ﻟَﮭُ ْﻢ( )إﺑﺮاھﯿﻢ‬And We sent
not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might
make (the Message) clear for them” (Al-Hilali & Khan, 1999, Ibrāhīm, 4).
Consequently, this view holds that proper understanding of Qur’ān and Ḥadīths is
not possible without suitable knowledge of the Arabic language.
Therefore, the main objective of this article is to semantically investigate
translation versus transliteration of these Islamic terms in English so as to
determine situations where translation or transliteration becomes the appropriate
strategy. To achieve its purpose, this article examines the use of translation versus
transliteration in An-Nawawī’s Forty Ḥadīths (2002), translated by Ezzeddin
Ibrahim and Denys Johnson-Davies.

2. Theoretical background

As a field of study, translation is the process of interpretation of the meaning of a

source text written in a source language and subsequent production of an
equivalent target text written in a target language. Translation is defined as “an
inter-linguistic transfer procedure, comprising the interpretation of a source text
and the production of a target text with the intent of establishing a relation of
equivalence between the two texts” (Delisle, Lee-Jahnke & Cormier, 1999, p.
188). The concept of “equivalence” introduced in the above definition is
explained by the cited authors as a “relation of identity established by a translator
between two translation units whose discourse function is identical or almost

Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 119

Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

identical in their respective languages” (1999, p. 137). Juan C. Sager (1994, p.

142) defines the concept of equivalence in translation as, “It is generally
recognized that the relationship of a source and a target text is one of cognitive,
pragmatic and linguistic equivalences”. However, there are certain translation
situations in which there is no “equivalence at word level” between SL and TL, as
used by Mona Baker (1992, p. 12) in her book In Other Words. Baker refers
mainly to the lexical meaning of the word, which may be thought of as “the
specific value it has in a particular linguistic system and the ‘personality’ it
acquires through usage within that system”. Translation of sacred and religious
texts is one of these occasions in which non-equivalence at word level may occur.
Non-equivalence at word level, as Baker (1992, p. 20) states, means that “[t]he
target language has no direct equivalent for a word which occurs in the source
text”.

Transliteration as a translation strategy

When simple equivalence is not available, the translator must call upon more
elaborate techniques or translation strategies, which may be understood as the set
of rules or principles used to reach the goals determined by the translating
situation. Hans Peter Krings (1986, p. 175) defines translation strategy as “the
translator’s potentially conscious plans for solving concrete translation problems
in the framework of a concrete translation task”. Transliteration is one type of
translation strategy. Wright and Budin (1997, p. 257) define transliteration as “an
operation whereby the characters of an alphabetic writing system are represented
by characters from another alphabetic writing system”. Some scholars such as
John Napier note that both translation and transliteration share common
underlying processes although the former represents free interpretation and the
latter represents literal interpretation. Napier (2002) defines translation as “the
process by which concepts and meanings are translated from one language into
another, by incorporating cultural norms and values; assumed knowledge about
these values, and the search for linguistic and cultural equivalents”. Conversely,
transliteration is defined as “literal interpretation” (p. 28). Napier’s definitions of
both translation and transliteration make it clear that in translation – being a “free
interpretation” – the translator closely follows the patterns of the target language
whereas in transliteration – being a “literal interpretation” – the translator closely
follows the patterns of the source language.
However, transliteration has certain disadvantages that have led some
translators and researchers in translation studies to advocate translation rather than
transliteration of religious terms. For example, transliterated IRTs may suggest a
pronunciation in English which is different from the pronunciation of the Arabic
original. The pronunciation of the transliterated words ‘Abd Allāh (‫ )ﻋﺒﺪ ﷲ‬and
Isrā’ (‫ )إﺳﺮاء‬in English is different from their pronunciation in Arabic in which
they are pronounced with initial ‘ayn (‫ )ع‬/ʕ/ in ‘Abd Allāh and final hamzah (‫ )ء‬/ʔ/
in Isrā’. This problem stems from the absence of phonetic equivalences in
English:

Ideally, one would hope for a one-to-one mapping of the graphemes, though this is
not possible in Arabic-English transliteration due to the absence of consonantal
equivalences in one of the two languages. The problem is compounded by the fact
that short vowels are not represented by letters in Arabic but by vocalization
diacritics, which are rarely used except in the Qur’ān. (Kharusi & Salman, 2011, p.
3).

Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 120

Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

Yet, the absence of phonetic equivalences in one of the two languages can be
addressed by the use of special symbols, diacritics, and combinations of letters to
change the sound value of the letter to which they are added, and thus compensate
for the absence of phonetic equivalences between SL and TL combinations of
letters (e.g. using the combination gh /ɣ/ to stand for the Arabic letter ghayn (‫)غ‬,
or using ṣ /sˤ/ to represent the Arabic letter ṣād (‫)ص‬.
Another problem in the transliteration of IRTs is that the transliterated form
may give a sense of the exotic and of cultural difference. Commenting on M. A. S.
Abdel Haleem’s The Qur’ān, A New Translation, Khaleel Mohammed (2005)
recommends translation rather transliteration:

The translator renders the Arabic Allah as God, an astute choice, since the question
of why many Muslims refuse to use the word God as a functional translation has
created the misconception for many that Muslims worship a different deity than the
Judeo-Christian creator. (p. 67).

Similarly, Ahmed Abdel Azim ElShiekh and Mona Ahmed Saleh (2011, p.
146) note that:

The use of transliterated religious terms rather than translations reflects some kind of
an exclusive attitude rather than an inclusive one on part of the language user. In
other words, it originates from as well as displays a high estimation of the
transliterated Islamic concepts at the expense of their counterparts in other religions..

ElShiekh and Saleh (2011) assume that the use of transliteration rather than
translation of IRTs may reflect an anti-others attitude, whereas translated IRTs are
probably more favourable in discourses that advocate dialogue with the religious
other: “[i]t turns out to be the better option for Muslims writing in English about
Islamic religious concepts to resort to translation rather than transliteration.” (p.
146). However, this argument focuses only on the perception of non-Muslim
readers of Islamic religious texts in English, which might be negative for reasons
other than the insistence on transliterating IRTs and ignores other advantages that
the transliteration of IRTs may yield.
One such advantage is that transliteration is more appropriate with IRTs that
have no direct equivalents in the TL. Also, transliteration strategy allows back-
translation, so that readers, translators and researchers can easily reconvert the
transliterated IRT from English into Arabic. For instance, reconverting
transliterated words such as Allāh, zakāh, ṣalāh, and ḥajj back into Arabic as ‫ﷲ‬,
‫اﻟﺰﻛﺎة‬, ‫ اﻟﺼﻼة‬and ‫ اﻟﺤﺞ‬is much easier than reconverting translated words such as
god, alms, prayer, and pilgrimage, which might be rendered as ‫إﻟﮫ‬, ‫ﺻﺪﻗﺔ‬, ‫ دﻋﺎء‬and
‫ رﺣﻠﺔ إﻟﻰ ﻣﻜﺎن ﻣﻘﺪس‬respectively.
It is important to note that none of the aforementioned English words (God,
alms, prayer, and pilgrimage) actually convey the true religious connotations of
the Arabic words. Translating ṣalāh as prayer is not precise enough, as prayer can
indicate several different ways of relating to Allāh; personal prayer or supplication
is called du‘ā’ (literally supplication) in Islamic usage. Translating zakāh as alms
will not confirm the distinction between zakāh as an obligatory act of worship and
ṣadaqah as a voluntary act of giving alms. Also, translating ḥajj as pilgrimage
does not necessarily refer to journeying to Mecca during the month of Dhū Al-
Ḥijjah to perform religious duties. Also, if we accept the word pilgrimage,
regardless of its wide range of connotations, as an equivalent to ḥajj, then what is
the word that will be used to stand for to the same journey to Mecca, performed

Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 121

Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

by Muslims, which can be undertaken at any time of the year (i.e. ‘umrah)? Even
if the translator uses both words God and god in English to mark the distinction
between Allāh (‫ )ﷲ‬and ilāh (‫)إﻟﮫ‬, this will not be possible in a language such as
German where all nouns are capitalized, and in this case the German word Gott
will be used to refer to both Allāh (‫ )ﷲ‬and ilāh (‫)إﻟﮫ‬. Another advantage of
transliteration is that the transliterated form looks more like an English word since
it is written using the alphabetical system of English. Therefore, many translators
may choose to transliterate words and thus create new words in English, instead of
using existing English words with partially equivalent meanings.

3. Research questions and method

Throughout this article I will attempt to semantically investigate translation versus

transliteration of IRTs in English in Ezzeddin Ibrahim and Denys Johnson-
Davies’ translation of An-Nawawī’s Forty Ḥadīths. The main focus will be on key
lexical items that include names of Allah, names of prophets and their
companions, names of sacred places, and terms related to the pillars and rituals of
Islam so as to determine situations where either of the two techniques should be
applied. Some of the major questions that the article attempts to answer are: How
well do Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies manage to translate IRTs into English in
their translation of An-Nawawī’s Forty Ḥadīths? In what ways are IRTs unique
lexical items? When should the translator use translation or transliteration in
translating IRTs into English? Are there any translation situations in which
transliteration of IRTs is a must?
In order to find answers to the aforementioned questions, I will make use of
key concepts and ideas from the field of semantics to analyse examples of IRTs in
Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies’ translation of An-Nawawī’s Forty Ḥadīths. With its
focus on the study of meaning, changes in the signification of words and theories
of denotation, connotation and ambiguity, semantics proves itself an essential
approach to explore problems of understanding and word selection in the process
of translating IRTs into English. In the discussion of examples of IRTs in Ibrahim
and Johnson-Davies’ translation of An-Nawawī’s Forty Ḥadīths, a three-level
analysis is attempted. First, the denotational and connotational meanings of
selected IRTs are illustrated. According to Xiuguo Zhang, “The meaning of a
word has two aspects: denotation and connotation. Denotation is the specific,
direct, and literal meaning of a word. Connotation is the associative or suggestive
meaning of a word” (2005, p. 53). Second, the meanings of the selected IRTs are
sought in relation to their contexts in the Qur’ān and Prophet Muḥammad’s
Ḥadīth. Finally, attempts are made to provide alternative or appropriate English
translations of some IRTs which might convey complexity and ambiguity.

4. Results & discussion

An-Nawawī’s Forty Ḥadīths is a small but popular book in which Al-Nawawī

gathered forty-two of the sayings of Prophet Muḥammad, which together form an
explanation of the most important aspects of Islam. What is significant about the
selected translation of An-Nawawī’s Forty Ḥadīths by Ezzeddin Ibrahim and
Denys Johnson-Davies is that it is made by two persons whose cultural and
academic backgrounds complement each other. Ibrahim is a Professor of Arabic

Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 122

Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

Table 1. IRTs in An-Nawawī’s Forty Ḥadīths and their Arabic counterparts

Ḥadīth
ST Word TT Word Strategy Used
No.
‫ﷲ‬ Allāh 1 Transliteration
‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪ‬ Muḥammad 2 Transliteration
‫ﻋﻤﺮ‬ ‘Umar 2 Transliteration
‫اﻹﺳﻼم‬ Islam 2 loan word
‫ﻧﺒﻲ‬ Prophet 2 Translation
‫رﺳﻮل‬ Messenger 2 Translation
‫اﻟﺰﻛﺎة‬ zakāt 2 Transliteration
‫اﻟﺼﻼة‬ prayer 2 Translation
‫اﻟﺤﺞ‬ pilgrimage 2 Translation
‫اﻟﺒﯿﺖ اﻟﺤﺮام‬ the House 2 Translation
‫اﻻﯾﻤﺎن‬ imān 2 Transliteration
‫اﻟﯿﻮم اﻵﺧﺮ‬ Last Day 2 Translation
‫اﻻﺣﺴﺎن‬ iḥsān 2 Transliteration
‫اﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ‬ the Hour 2 Translation
‫ﺟﺒﺮﯾﻞ‬ Gabriel 2 Translation
‫رﻣﻀﺎن‬ Ramadan 3 loan word
‫اﻟﺠﻨﺔ‬ Paradise 4 Translation
‫اﻟﻨﺎر‬ Hell-fire 4 Translation
‫اﻟﺮزق‬ means of livelihood 4 Translation
‫ﻋﺎﺋﺸﺔ‬ ‘A’isha 5 Transliteration
‫اﻟﻨﺼﯿﺤﺔ‬ sincerity 7 Translation
‫أﺑﻮ ھﺮﯾﺮة‬ Abū Huraira 9 Transliteration
‫آﯾﺔ‬ verse 10 Translation
‫ﺳﻮرة‬ chapter 10 Translation
‫اﻻﺣﺴﺎن‬ proficiency 17 Translation
‫اﻟﺴﯿﺌﺔ‬ bad deed 18 Translation
‫اﻟﺤﺴﻨﺔ‬ good deed 19 Translation
‫اﻟﺤﻼل‬ lawful 22 Translation
‫اﻟﺤﺮام‬ forbidden 22 Translation
Al-ḥamdu lillāh [Praise Transliteration &
‫اﻟﺤﻤﺪ ہﻠﻟ‬ 23
be to Allah] Translation
Subḥāna’llāh [How far
Transliteration&
‫ﺳﺒﺤﺎن ﷲ‬ is Allah from every 23
Translation
imperfection]
‫اﻟﺼﺪﻗﺔ‬ charity 23 Translation
‫اﻟﺼﺒﺮ‬ patience 23 Translation
‫اﻟﺠﻦ‬ Jinn 24 loan word
‫اﻟﺼﺤﺎﺑﺔ‬ Companions 25 Translation
‫ﺗﺴﺒﯿﺤﺔ‬ tasbīḥa 25 Transliteration
‫ﺗﻜﺒﯿﺮة‬ takbīra 25 Transliteration
‫ﺗﺤﻤﯿﺪة‬ taḥmīda 25 Transliteration
‫ﺗﮭﻠﯿﻠﺔ‬ tahlīla 25 Transliteration
‫أﺟﺮ‬ reward 25 Translation
‫وزر‬ sin 25 Translation
‫اﻟﺒﺮ‬ righteousness 27 Translation
‫اﻟﺴﻨﺔ‬ sunna 28 Transliteration
‫اﻟﺨﻠﻔﺎء اﻟﺮاﺷﺪﯾﻦ‬ Rashidite Caliphs 28 Translation
‫ﺑﺪﻋﺔ‬ innovation 28 Translation
‫اﻟﺠﮭﺎد‬ Jihād 29 Transliteration
‫اﻟﻔﺮاﺋﺾ‬ religious duties 30 Translation
‫ﻣﻨﻜﺮ‬ evil action 34 Translation
‫اﻟﺘﻘﻮى‬ piety 35 Translation
‫ﻛﺮﺑﺔ‬ grief 36 Translation
‫اﻟﻨﻮاﻓﻞ‬ supererogatory works 38 Translation

Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 123

Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

literature, and is active in Islamic scholarship, and Johnson-Davies is an eminent

Arabic-English literary translator. Table 1 above contains examples of IRTs in
Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies’ translation of An-Nawawī’s Forty Ḥadīths, their
Arabic counterparts, and the strategy used by the translators for each term.
Immediately following the table, some pertinent observations on these examples
are given.

Observation 1
The translators chose to translate IRTs in English where they have identified TL
words that can adequately function as cross-cultural equivalents for SL words, or
loan words from the SL with the same meaning in the TL. In either case, the
translators consider that the SL and TL words have sufficiently similar referents
and connotations in both cultures as to justify translating rather than transliterating
the following IRTs:

Table 2. Translated IRTs in An-Nawawī’s Forty Ḥadīths

ST Word TT Word TT Word Type

‫اﻹﺳﻼم‬ Islam loan word
‫ﻧﺒﻲ‬ Prophet cross-cultural equivalent
‫رﺳﻮل‬ Messenger cross-cultural equivalent
‫اﻟﯿﻮم اﻵﺧﺮ‬ Last Day cross-cultural equivalent
‫اﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ‬ the Hour cross-cultural equivalent
‫ﺟﺒﺮﯾﻞ‬ Gabriel cross-cultural equivalent
‫رﻣﻀﺎن‬ Ramadān loan word
‫اﻟﺠﻨﺔ‬ Paradise cross-cultural equivalent
means of
‫اﻟﺮزق‬ partially-equivalent
livelihood
‫اﻟﻨﺼﯿﺤﺔ‬ sincerity partially-equivalent
‫آﯾﺔ‬ verse non-equivalent
‫ﺳﻮرة‬ chapter non-equivalent
‫اﻻﺣﺴﺎن‬ proficiency partially-equivalent
‫اﻟﺴﯿﺌﺔ‬ bad deed cross-cultural equivalent
‫اﻟﺤﺴﻨﺔ‬ good deed cross-cultural equivalent
‫اﻟﺤﻼل‬ lawful partially-equivalent
‫اﻟﺤﺮام‬ forbidden partially-equivalent
‫اﻟﺼﺪﻗﺔ‬ charity cross-cultural equivalent
‫اﻟﺼﺒﺮ‬ patience partially-equivalent
‫اﻟﺠﻦ‬ Jinn loan word
‫اﻟﺼﺤﺎﺑﺔ‬ Companions cross-cultural equivalent
‫أﺟﺮ‬ reward cross-cultural equivalent
‫وزر‬ sin cross-cultural equivalent
‫اﻟﺒﺮ‬ righteousness cross-cultural equivalent
‫اﻟﺨﻠﻔﺎء اﻟﺮاﺷﺪﯾﻦ‬ Rashidite Caliphs loan word
‫ﺑﺪﻋﺔ‬ innovation non-equivalent
‫اﻟﻔﺮاﺋﺾ‬ religious duties cross-cultural equivalent
‫ﻣﻨﻜﺮ‬ evil action partially-equivalent
‫اﻟﺘﻘﻮى‬ piety cross-cultural equivalent
‫ﻛﺮﺑﺔ‬ grief cross-cultural equivalent
supererogatory
‫اﻟﻨﻮاﻓﻞ‬ cross-cultural equivalent
works

However, the assumption that SL and TL words given in Table 2 have the
same referents and connotations is not accurate. Even loan words, adopted without
translation, sometimes carry additional cultural connotations in the TL culture that
they do not have in the SL culture. Also, there are some words in Table 2 that are
taken to be cross-culturally equivalent even though they are not. For example, the
Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 124
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

SL word bid‘ah (‫ )ﺑﺪﻋﺔ‬and the TL word innovation are considered equivalent. Yet,
in contrast to the English term innovation which refers to worldly matters that are
generally acceptable and encouraged as long as they do not violate sharī‘ah, the
Arabic word bid‘ah (‫ )ﺑﺪﻋﺔ‬carries a negative connotation in Islamic religious
contexts as it entails anything not specifically performed or confirmed by the
Prophet. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah (2006) explains the connotations the word bid‘ah
can have:

Bid‘a could take on various shades of meaning. When used without qualifying
adjectives, it tended to be condemnatory, as, for example, in the statement, “bid‘a
must be avoided.” Nevertheless, bid‘a was not always something bad. In certain
contexts, especially when qualified by adjectives, bid‘a could cover a wide range of
meanings from what was praiseworthy to what was completely wrong. (p. 2).

The SL word rizq (‫ )رزق‬is translated as means of livelihood, although the

Arabic word has shades of meaning that go beyond the pragmatic meaning of the
TL word as material wealth or income to encompass all forms of Allah's
blessings. Similarly, the word naṣīḥah (‫ )اﻟﻨﺼﯿﺤﺔ‬is translated into sincerity
although the SL word and the TL word are partially equivalent. The words verse
and chapter are used as equivalent to āyah (‫ )آﯾﺔ‬and sūrah (‫ )ﺳﻮرة‬respectively.
However, the use of the word verse, a synonym for poetry, in this religious
context to refer to the statements (āyāt) of the Qur’ān, contradicts the Qur’ān, ( ‫ﯾﺲ‬
ٌ ْ‫“ ) َو َﻣﺎ َﻋﻠﱠ ْﻤﻨَﺎهُ اﻟ ﱢﺸ ْﻌ َﺮ َو َﻣﺎ ﯾَ ْﻨﺒَ ِﻐﻲ ﻟَﮫُ إِ ْن ھُ َﻮ إِﻻ ِذ ْﻛ ٌﺮ َوﻗُﺮ‬And We have not taught him
ٌ ِ‫آن ُﻣﺒ‬
69) (‫ﯿﻦ‬
(Muhammad) poetry, nor is it suitable for him. This is only a Reminder and a
plain Qur’ān” (Al-Hilali and Khan, 1999, Yā-Sīn, 69). Also, the word chapter,
which describes part or a division of a narrative or a story, should not be used as
equivalent to sura, which has already become an English word since the
seventeenth century as given in Collins English Dictionary (2015). If the word
sura is already accepted in English, then it is logical to use its partner term āyah
instead of verse.
The words lawful and forbidden are used by the translators as equivalents to
the Arabic words ḥalāl (‫ )ﺣﻼل‬and ḥarām (‫ )ﺣﺮام‬respectively, even though they are
not. The attempt to translate ḥalāl (‫ )ﺣﻼل‬and ḥarām (‫ )ﺣﺮام‬using partially-
equivalent TL words, i.e. lawful and forbidden would inevitably result in a
problem of generalization because the TL word will have a wider meaning than
SL word. In Islamic culture, concepts of ḥalāl (‫ )ﺣﻼل‬and ḥarām (‫ )ﺣﺮام‬have to do
basically with what is permitted or not permitted by Allah. In English, the word
lawful could refer to what is allowed by Allah or by human laws. In this case, the
loan word halal, a term designating any object or an action which is permissible
according to Islamic law, is more appropriate. Similarly, the word forbidden could
refer to what is not permitted or allowed by Allah or by human laws. The problem
here has to do with the degree of permission or prohibition expressed by the
words ḥalāl (‫ )ﺣﻼل‬and ḥarām (‫)ﺣﺮام‬.
In translating the word ṣabr (‫ )ﺻﺒﺮ‬into patience, there is a problem of
particularization. Patience is defined in the Oxford Dictionary of English as “The
capacity to accept or tolerate delay, problems, or suffering without becoming
annoyed or anxious” (Stevenson, 2010, p. 1302), and in Merriam-Webster’s
Online Dictionary (2015) as “able to remain calm and not become annoyed when
waiting for a long time or when dealing with problems or difficult people” or
“done in a careful way over a long period of time without hurrying”. However, in
Islamic culture, ṣabr (‫ )ﺻﺒﺮ‬implies patience, forbearance, perseverance,
determination, fortitude, constancy and steadfastness. Ṣabr assumes different

Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 125

Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

dimensions in Islam depending on the intended meaning in each case. In Sūrat Al-
Kahf, ṣabr implies the perseverance, steadfastness and constancy that Muslims
must demonstrate in fulfilling their duties of establishing Islam in their own lives,
(28 ‫ﻚ َﻣ َﻊ اﻟﱠ ِﺬﯾﻦَ ﯾَ ْﺪ ُﻋﻮنَ َرﺑﱠﮭُ ْﻢ ﺑِ ْﺎﻟ َﻐﺪَا ِة َو ْاﻟ َﻌ ِﺸ ﱢﻲ ﯾ ُِﺮﯾ ُﺪونَ َوﺟْ ﮭَﮫ ُ( )اﻟﻜﮭﻒ‬ َ ‫“ ) َواﺻْ ﺒِﺮْ ﻧَ ْﻔ َﺴ‬And keep
yourself (O Muhammad) patiently with those who call on their Lord (i.e. your
companions who remember their Lord with glorification, praising in prayers, etc.,
and other righteous deeds) morning and afternoon, seeking His Face” (Al-Hilali &
Khan, 1999, Al-Kahf, 28). The concept of ṣabr is also in jihād, (250 ‫َوﻟَ ﱠﻤﺎ ( )اﻟﺒﻘﺮة‬
َ‫ﱢﺖ أَ ْﻗﺪَا َﻣﻨَﺎ َواﻧﺼُﺮْ ﻧَﺎ َﻋﻠَﻰ ْاﻟﻘَﻮْ ِم ْاﻟ َﻜﺎﻓِ ِﺮﯾﻦ‬ َ ‫“ )ﺑَ َﺮ ُزوا ﻟِ َﺠﺎﻟُﻮتَ َو ُﺟﻨُﻮ ِد ِه ﻗَﺎﻟُﻮا َرﺑﱠﻨَﺎ أَ ْﻓ ِﺮ ْغ َﻋﻠَ ْﯿﻨَﺎ‬And
ْ ‫ﺻ ْﺒﺮًا َوﺛَﺒ‬
when they advanced to meet Jālūt (Goliath) and his forces, they invoked: ‘Our
Lord! Pour forth on us patience, and set firm our feet and make us victorious over
the disbelieving people’” (Al-Hilali & Khan, 1999, Al-Baqarah, 250).
As shown in these examples, the word ṣabr is semantically complex, i.e. it
expresses a complex set of meanings depending upon its context, with the result
that the translator may find it difficult to identify the intended meaning and choose
the right equivalent each time the word is used. Therefore, it would be appropriate
for the translator to retain the Arabic original term when it appears in its basic
form (ṣabr ‫ )ﺻﺒﺮ‬in the Arabic text and to translate its derivations ṣābir (‫)ﺻﺎﺑﺮ‬,
ṣabūr (‫)ﺻﺒﻮر‬, ṣābirīn (‫)ﺻﺎﺑﺮﯾﻦ‬, into suitable TL words as explanations of the
intended meaning of ṣabr in ST. In Ḥadīth no. 23, the word ṣabr (‫ )ﺻﺒﺮ‬is used in
its basic form to give a general meaning. Also, concepts of ṣabr, riḋā’, tawakkūl,
rajā’, khawf are of special religious significance in Islam because they are ‘ibadāt
qūlūb (worships of the heart).
Translating the word munkar (‫)ﻣﻨﻜﺮ‬, meaning denounced, as evil action to
refer to what is immoral, cruel or very unpleasant, creates a problem in the degree
of prohibition expressed in the TL. In Islamic culture, munkar (‫ )ﻣﻨﻜﺮ‬is a noun that
includes everything that is looked upon as bad by Islam; if an action or statement
goes against the morals and laws of Islam, it is munkar. Hence, the definition of
munkar (‫ )ﻣﻨﻜﺮ‬is based not on the customs and traditions of people, but rather on
Islam as revealed by Allah and on the definitions in ḥalāl and ḥarām and other
rules. If ‘evil action’ is simply defined as the opposite of ‘good action’, the
meaning will be entirely dependent on what counts as ‘evil’ or ‘not good.’ In other
words, the definition of an ‘evil action’ would require a definition of other
associated terms, which will vary according to the definer’s personal and cultural
perspective. Therefore, the TL words ‘evil action’ seem to lack the overriding
religious sense of prohibition embedded in the word munkar (‫)ﻣﻨﻜﺮ‬.
Words such as good deed, bad deed, sin, charity, piety, religious duties, and
supererogatory works are aptly used by the translators because they are used with
religious connotations in TL. Other words such as Prophet, Messenger, Last Day,
the Hour, Gabriel, Paradise, and Hell are acceptable in translation only when they
are used as common theological concepts in the so-called Abrahamic religions or,
to use the Islamic religious term, in Millat Ibrāhīm (i.e. Islamic Monotheism)
having the same references and connotations as in Islam, or else the use of the
transliterated word, with a note or footnote, is recommended. It is important to
note that such words are capitalized when they are used as proper nouns or
epithets referring to unique entities. The word Prophet, for example, is capitalized
when it is used to refer to Prophet Muḥammad.

Observation 2
The translators chose to transliterate IRTs which have no equivalents in TL,
giving explanatory notes only to some of them. These IRTs include proper nouns

Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 126

Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

(personal and place names) and culture-specific terms (CSTs). Proper nouns are
“names of a particular person, place or thing” and are spelled “with a capital
letter” (Richards et al., 1985, p. 68). However, transliteration of proper nouns
should not be limited to names of Arabic origin but should also include names
such as Mūsā for Moses, Ḥawwā’ for Eve, ‘Īsā for Jesus, and Ibrāhīm for
Abraham. Similarly, culture-specific terms are transliterated by the translators.
Harvey (2003, p. 2) defines CSTs as the terms which “refer to concepts,
institutions and personnel which are specific to the SL culture”. Thus, CSTs are
lexical items in the ST that have no equivalents in the TT because, to use Baker’s
words, “they express a concept which is totally unknown in the target culture”
(1992, p. 21). In our case the translators use italics to distinguish CSTs from other
words within the text. Table 3 includes some examples of the IRTs that are
transliterated (with footnotes) because there are no available TL equivalents or
because they are proper nouns and culture-specific terms:

Table 3. Transliterated IRTs in An-Nawawī’s Forty Ḥadīths

ST Word TT Word TT Word Type

‫ﷲ‬ Allah Proper Noun
‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪ‬ Muḥammad Proper Noun
‫ﻋﻤﺮ‬ ‘Umar Proper Noun
‫اﻟﺰﻛﺎة‬ zakāt CST
‫اﻻﯾﻤﺎن‬ imān CST
‫اﻻﺣﺴﺎن‬ iḥsān CST
‫ﻋﺎﺋﺸﺔ‬ ‘A’isha Proper Noun
‫أﺑﻮ ھﺮﯾﺮة‬ Abū Huraira Proper Noun
‫ﺗﺴﺒﯿﺤﺔ‬ tasbīḥa CST
‫ﺗﻜﺒﯿﺮة‬ takbīra CST
‫ﺗﺤﻤﯿﺪة‬ taḥmīda CST
‫ﺗﮭﻠﯿﻠﺔ‬ tahlīla CST
‫اﻟﺴﻨﺔ‬ sunna CST
‫اﻟﺠﮭﺎد‬ jihād CST

ElShiekh and Saleh (2011, p. 144) argue that “In the case of translating ‘‫’ﷲ‬
[Allāh] into English there is hardly any need for transliteration. The concept of
‘‫ ’ﷲ‬is neither lacking in the target language culture in our case, nor even
fundamentally different”. However, this is the entry given by the Encyclopaedia
Britannica for the word Allāh, “Allah, Arabic Allāh (“God”), the one and only
God in Islam (…). Allāh is the standard Arabic word for God and is used by Arab
Christians as well as by Muslims”. Although the word “Allāh” is used by Arab
Christians as well as by Muslims as the Encyclopaedia Britannica suggests, Yoel
Natan (2006, p. 594) argues that “Though Arab Christians spoke the Arabic
language and they used the appellation Allah, meaning the “God,” they clearly
were Trinitarian (…). When Christians used the title Allah, they had “The God” of
the Bible in mind”. If the word Allah entailed different meanings for Arab
Christians and Muslims who spoke the same language and lived in the same
region, then the argument that the meaning of Allah in Arabic is not
fundamentally different from “God” in English is not valid. In their translation,
Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies (2002, p. 11) use the transliterated word Allah (‫)ﷲ‬,
clarifying that “[o]n the question of whether to translate Allah as God or retain the
word in its Arabic form, we decided on the word Allah because it is in general use
amongst Muslims (…). Were it not for this consideration the word Allah would
have been rendered as God”. However, it is necessary to retain the word in its
Arabic form to maintain its Islamic conception. In translating lā ilāha ila Allāh ( ‫ﻻ‬
Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 127
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

‫ )إﻟﮫ إﻻ ﷲ‬into there is no god but Allāh in Ḥadīth no.2, the Islamic conception of
tawḥīd (monotheism) is maintained by using god for ilāh (‫ )إﻟﮫ‬and the
transliterated form Allāh for (‫)ﷲ‬. In contexts where lā ilāha ila Allāh (‫ )ﻻ إﻟﮫ إﻻ ﷲ‬is
used as one of the Islamic adhkār (tahlīla), transliteration of the word ilāh (‫)إﻟﮫ‬
would help the average English-speaking reader to know that it is one of the
formal recitations of Islam and the emphasis is therefore on its phonetic form. .

Observation 3
The problem of translation versus transliteration of IRTs appears in words of SL
and TL that have similar referents and different connotations or senses. As Miles
(2003, p. 137) argues, “[i]n the case of all words having the identical referent, if
the sameness of referent cannot be determined just on the basis of their
connotations, on the basis of word meanings alone, then their connotations or
senses are different, even though their referents are the same”. So, we cannot infer
sameness of connotations from sameness of reference. The attempt to translate
this type of words using partially-equivalent TL words would inevitably result in
either particularization or generalization. The following figure, created by the
researcher, sheds light on the relationship between (Non)-equivalence and
translation/transliteration:

Figure 1: The relationship between (non)-equivalence & translation/

transliteration

As shown in Figure 1, the problem of translation versus transliteration arises

in the translation of partially-equivalent SL and TL words. In the translation of
An-Nawawī’s Forty Ḥadīths, Ezzeddin Ibrahim and Denys Johnson-Davies chose
to translate some SL words into partially-equivalent TL words rather than to
transliterate them. Examples of these words include: prayer (‫)اﻟﺼﻼة‬, pilgrimage
(‫)اﻟﺤﺞ‬, and the House (‫)اﻟﺒﯿﺖ اﻟﺤﺮام‬. Yet, the translators should have followed the
same strategy they used with IRTs that have no equivalents in TL, i.e.
transliteration (ṣalāh ‫اﻟﺼﻼة‬, ḥajj ‫اﻟﺤﺞ‬, and Al-Masjid Al-Ḥarām ‫ )اﻟﺒﯿﺖ اﻟﺤﺮام‬because
partial-equivalents in the TL for the original religious term lack the religious
aspect of the original terms. It should be noted here that the word Al-Bayt (‫ )اﻟﺒﯿﺖ‬in
Ḥadīth No.2 refers to Ka‘bah or Al-Masjid Al-Ḥarām as both words are used
ْ ‫ﻚﺷ‬
interchangeably: (149 ‫َﻄﺮ ْاﻟ َﻤ ْﺴ ِﺠ ِﺪ اﻟْ َﺤ َﺮ ِام﴾ )اﻟﺒﻘﺮة‬ َ َ‫“ ﴿ﻓَ َﻮ ﱢل َوﺟْ ﮭ‬And from wheresoever
you start forth (for prayers), turn your face in the direction of Al-Masjid-Al-
Harām” (Al-Hilali & Khan, 1999, Al-Baqarah, 149), ﴾‫ﺎس َوأَ ْﻣﻨﺎ‬ ِ ‫﴿ َوإِ ْذ َﺟ َﻌ ْﻠﻨَﺎ ْاﻟﺒَﯿْﺖَ َﻣﺜَﺎﺑَﺔً ﻟﱢﻠﻨﱠ‬
(125 ‫“ )اﻟﺒﻘﺮة‬And (remember) when We made the House (the Ka‘bah at Makkah) a
place of resort for mankind and a place of safety” (Al-Hilali & Khan, 1999, Al-
Baqarah, 125).
Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 128
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

In the words prayer, pilgrimage, and the House, there is a problem of

generalization because these TL words have wider meanings than the SL words.
First, the word prayer in English indicates duʿāʾ or invocation, a common
definition of ṣalāh in Arabic as in (103 ‫ﺻﻼﺗَﻚَ َﺳ َﻜ ٌﻦ ﻟَﮭُ ْﻢ( )اﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ‬
َ ‫“ )إِ ﱠن‬Your invocations
are a source of security for them” (Al-Hilali & Khan, 1999, At-Taubah, 103),
rather than a mandatory form of physical, mental and spiritual worship; second,
the word pilgrimage, meaning a journey to a place which is considered special,
and which one visits to show respect, does not necessarily mean the annual
Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca; and finally, using the House for the Ka‘bah or Al-
Masjid Al-Ḥarām lacks the specificity of the Arabic, since house (generally, a
dwelling or base for a particular activity), when capitalized can signify any
number of eminent institutions such as the Stock Exchange, the Parliament, etc..
To address the problem of particularization, the translators used both translation
and transliteration to render the meaning of the Arabic word iḥsān (‫ )اﻹﺣﺴﺎن‬into
English. In Ḥadīth no.2, the word iḥsān (‫ )اﻹﺣﺴﺎن‬is transliterated to mean
excellence in worship of Allah, whereas in Ḥadīth no.17, the same word is
translated into the English word proficiency to mean excellence in all things.

Observation 4
The translators chose to use both translation and transliteration with words such as
“Al-ḥamdu lillāh [Praise be to Allah]” and “Subḥāna’llāh [How far is Allah from
every imperfection]” (Ibrahim & Johnson-Davies 2002, Ḥadīth no.23, p. 78).
They present the transliterated word first followed by its TL explanation in
parentheses. However, in these examples transliteration is a must whereas
translation is optional. The transliterated words Al-ḥamdu lillāh and Subḥāna’llāh
belong to a group of IRTs and phrases in Islam, i.e. adhkār, that, as per many
Muslim scholars’ point of view, must be learned and pronounced by Muslims in
their original language, i.e. Arabic. In this case, translation alone is not acceptable.
This point is made clear in the Prophet’s Ḥadīth narrated by Al-Barā’ bin ‘Āzib:

The Prophet said to me, “Whenever you go to bed perform ablution like that for the
Ṣalāt (prayer), lie or your right side and say: Allāhumma inni aslamtu wajhī ilaika,
wa fauwaḍtu ’amrī ilaika, wa alja’tu ẓahrī ilaika raghbatan wa rahbatan ilaika. La
Malja’ wa lā manja minka illā ilaika. Allāhumma āmantu bikitābikal-ladhī anzalta
wa bi na-bīyikal-ladhī arsalta, [O Allāh! I surrender to You and entrust all my affairs
to You and depend upon You for Your Blessings both with hope and fear of You.
There is no fleeing from You, and there is no place of protection and safety except
with You O Allah! I believe in Your Book (the Qur’ān) which You have revealed
and in Your Prophet (Muḥammad) whom You have sent]. Then if you die on that
very night, you will die with faith (i.e. or the religion of Islām). Let the aforesaid
words be your last utterance (before sleep).” I repeated it before the Prophet and
when I reached “Allāhumma āmantu bikitābikal-ladhī anzalta (O Allāh I believe in
Your Book which You have revealed).” I said, “Wa Rasūlika (and Your
Messenger).” The Prophet said, “No, (but say): Wa nabiyikal-ladhī arsalta (Your
Prophet whom You have sent), instead.” [1:247-O.B.] (Khan, 1996, Summarized
Ṣaḥīḥ Al-Bukhāri, Chapter 59, Ḥadīth 184)

The Prophet’s insistence on the use of wa-nabiyyika and not wa-rasūlika

indicates that adhkār are based on tawqīf (i.e. sticking to what the religious texts
state) and therefore should be recited as they are in Arabic. In this regard, Imām
Al-Shāfi῾ī makes it clear that there are certain IRTs and Islamic phrases (such as:
tasbīḥah, takbīrah, taḥmidah, tahlīlah, tashahhud) that must be learned and

Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 129

Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

pronounced by Muslims in Arabic. In this case translation is not allowed, and

transliteration becomes the appropriate strategy:

It is obligatory upon every Muslim to learn the Arabic tongue to the utmost of his
ability in order [to be able] to profess through it that – there is none worthy of
worship other than Allāh, and Muḥammad is His servant and Messenger – and to
recite in [the Arabic tongue] the Book of Allah, and to speak in mentioning what is
incumbent him – the takbīr [of ṣalāh] and what [other matters] are commanded, the
tasbīḥ, the tashahhud and others. (Al-Shāfi῾ī, 820/1961, p. 93)

Hence, the translator can, in an attempt to maintain accuracy and readability

together, make use of footnotes to draw the attention of the reader to the meanings
of the transliterated IRTs. Once explained, the transliterated IRT can then be used
on its own. This method is advocated by Newman (1988, p. 91) who suggests
using the transliterated SL name, adding a detailed explanation, for instance, a
footnote.

5. Conclusions

Based on the analysis of some examples of IRTs in the translation of An-Nawawī's

Forty Ḥadīths by Ezzeddin Ibrahim and Denys Johnson-Davies, many points can
be established in relation to the problem of translation versus transliteration of
IRTs into English:

1. With its emphasis on accuracy and readability, Ibrahim and Johnson-

Davies’ translation of An-Nawawī's Forty Ḥadīths proves very helpful
for English-speakers to understand the meanings and context of the
Ḥadīths of Prophet Muḥammad.
2. In their work, Ibrahim and Johnson-Davies chose to translate some SL
words into partially-equivalent TL words rather than to transliterate
them such as innovation (‫)ﺑﺪﻋﺔ‬, lawful (‫)ﺣﻼل‬, forbidden (‫)ﺣﺮام‬, patience
(‫)ﺻﺒﺮ‬, evil action (‫)ﻣﻨﻜﺮ‬, prayer (‫)اﻟﺼﻼة‬, pilgrimage (‫)اﻟﺤﺞ‬, and the House
(‫)اﻟﺒﯿﺖ اﻟﺤﺮام‬. However, I have argued that the translators should have
followed the same strategy they used with IRTs that have no equivalents
in TL, i.e. transliteration (with footnotes) so as to maintain accuracy as
well as readability of the translation.
3. Translation of IRTs in English is only appropriate when SL and TL
words have the same referents and same connotations in SL and TL
cultures.
4. Transliteration is more appropriate for all IRTs such as proper nouns and
culture-specific terms without equivalents in the TL. It is recommended
here for the translator to use the transliterated SL word, adding, for
instance, an explanatory note or a footnote.
5. To maintain accuracy in translation situations of partially-equivalent SL
and TL words having the same referents and different connotations,
transliteration of IRTs is more appropriate than translation, with
corresponding explanations to be given in a footnote. Transliteration in
this case will protect the IRT from any tampering or interpolation if
transferred between languages other than the original, and the
transliterated form will be absorbed into the lexicons of these languages
over a period of time that will vary with the dynamics of each.
Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 130
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

6. There are certain IRTs and phrases (adhkār such as: tasbīḥah, takbīrah,
taḥmīdah, tahlīlah, tashahhud) that must be learned and pronounced by
Muslims in Arabic. In this case transliteration is a must.
7. Transliteration, and not translation, of IRTs can enhance familiarity with
Arabic which might be helpful, as a start, for English-speaking Muslims
who are willing to learn Arabic.
8. Based on the unique qualities of Islamic religious texts, the Qur’ān and
Ḥadīths in particular, it becomes clear that a translation of Islamic
religious texts into a language other than Arabic would require
translators possessed of certain qualities, not least being mastery of the
Arabic language, strong grounding in Islam, understanding of context
(historical, religious, political, and cultural), and mastery of the TL.

References

Abd-Allah, U.F. (2006). Innovation and creativity in Islam. The Nawawī Foundation. Burr
Ridge Parkway.
Aldahesh, A.Y. (2014). (Un)Translatability of the Qur’ān: A Theoretical perspective.
International Journal of Linguistics, 6 (6), 23-45.
Al-Hilali, M.T.D. & Khan, M.M. (1999). Translation of the meanings of the Noble Qur’an
in the English language. Madinah: King Fahd Complex for the printing of the Holy
Qur’an.
Ali, A.A.F. M. (2006). Word repetition in the Qur’ān – Translating form or meaning?
Language and Translation 19, 17–34. Retrieved from http://digital.library.ksu.edu
Al-Shāfi῾ī, M.I. (1961). Al-Shāfi῾ī 's Risālah: Treatise on the foundations of Islamic
jurisprudence. Majid Khadduri (Trans.). Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society. (Original
work written in 820AD).
Ayoub, M. (1997). The awesome news. Hiawatha, Iowa: Cedar Graphics.
Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A coursebook on translation. London and New York:
Routledge.
Collins English Dictionary (2015). Retrieved July 3, 2015, from
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sura
Delisle, J., Jahnke-Lee H., & Cormier, M.C. (1999). Translation terminology.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Derrida, J. (1985). The ear of the Other: Otobiography, transference, translation: Texts
and discussions with Jacques Derrida. Christie V. McDonald (Trans.). New York:
Schocken Books.
ElShiekh, A.A.A. & Saleh, M.A. (2011). Translation versus transliteration of religious
terms in contemporary Islamic discourse in Western communities. International
Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 141-147.
Harvey, M. (2003). A beginner’s course in legal translation: the case of culture-bound
terms. Retrieved April 3, 2007 from http://www.tradulex.org/Actes2000/harvey.pdf
Ibrahim, E., & Johnson-Davies, D. (2002). An-Nawawī’s forty hadīths. Cairo: Dar El
Shorouk.
Khan, M.M. (1996). The translation of the meanings of summarized Ṣaḥīḥ Al-Bukhāri.
Houston: Dar-us-Salam Publications.
Kharusi, N. S., & Salman, A. (2011). The English transliteration of place names in Oman.
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 1(3) Sept., 1-27.
Krings, H.P. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German
learners of French. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and
intercultural communication (pp. 263-75). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (2015). Retrieved July 7, 2015, from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patient

Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 131

Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.501318535927468. on 06/27/2024 01:48 AM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research ,

Miles, M. (2003). Inroads: Paths in ancient and modern Western philosophy. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Mohammed, K. (2005). Assessing English translations of the Qur’ān. Middle East
Quarterly, pp. 58-71.
Napier, J. (2002). Sign language interpreting: Linguistic coping strategies.
Gloucestershire: Douglas McLean.
Natan, Y. (2006). Moon-o-Theism: Religion of a War and Moon God Prophet. Vol. I,
CreateSpace.
Newmark, P. (1988). Approaches to translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
Nida, E. A. (1964 a). Towards a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nida, E.A. (1964 b). Principles of correspondence. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation
studies reader (pp. 126-140). London: Routledge.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J. T. & Platt, H. (1985). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics.
UK: Longman.
Robinson, D. (2000). Sacred texts. In P. France (Ed.), The Oxford guide to literature in
translation (pp. 103-107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sager, J. C. (1994). Language Engineering and Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Stevenson, A. (2010) (Ed.), Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wright, S.E. & Budin G. (1997). Handbook of terminology management. Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Zhang, X. (2005). English rhetoric. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.

Translation & Interpreting Vol 8 No 1 (2016) 132